Ron Paul Is the Tin Cup Of Conservatism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. The Republicans are down to four candidates, none of whom has achieved launch velocity. Each has flaws or at least warts that turn off substantial segments of the party.

    Romney lacks authenticity, doesn't connect on an emotional level and has a history of flip-flops.

    Gingrich is the other extreme, all emotion, love him or hate him.

    Santorum is George Bush in a sweater vest, a big government, pro illegal immigration, neo-con moralist.

    Then there is Ron Paul. The perfect conservative in both public and private life. A guy nearly everyone in the party admires on some level. The big but however is his foreign policy, which strikes many as naive. Obviously, the neo-cons, the Israel firsters and the military-industrial complex view him as anathema. He threatens their world view. Worse yet, what if he was proved correct? Then who is going to buy those weapon systems?

    Paul however has allowed himself to be demonized by these groups and marginalized. In practice, there would be little difference in his foreign policy and that of any other candidate, except maybe Santorum. Paul should have been emphasizing that and trying to minimize differences. Instead, he sharpened them and exaggerated them. Why? Was it some kind of misguided ego trip or just the continuation of a life of putting principle above expediency?

    I'm reasonably sure it is the latter, but like Tin Cup, sometimes that gets in the way of achieving a larger, more important goal.
  2. Brass


    That was a pretty good post, AAA. Upped your Omega-3s, have you? :D
  3. pspr


    So, having lost on Backmann are you now saying you are a stong Ron Paul supporter?
  4. I liked Bachmann, although I never formally endorsed her. I admire her tenacity and dedication to principle. I didn't like her attacks on Paul over iran, but they had a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm not at all sure who is right, and neither is anyone else. Time will tell.

    Of the remaining candidates, I would support any one of them over Obama. I think as a country we are on the edge of a precipice however, and only Paul is prescribing the radical changes we need to reverse course.
  5. Brass


    Except that she didn't have a clue, and parroted stuff that didn't make sense, be it "vaccine retardation" or the supposed cost of Obama's official visit to the East. She was entirely out of her depth.

    As for Paul, he will never win because he just won't rein it in. If some of his policy positions weren't well in the middle of kookdom, he'd be a contender.
  6. pspr


    I couldn't agree more except I don't think I can live with Paul's foreign policy in the primaries. It's just too radical. But I would vote for him vs Obama should the tide turn.

    I believe Pauls views would change some after sitting down with national policy advisors and he is presented with some facts he either is not privy to or has ignored so far.
  7. kut2k2


    I agree with you that Paul is a conservative. Maybe if he owned up to that fact and stopped disingenuously referring to himself as a "libertarian", more people on your side would take him seriously. :D
  8. Wallet


    Spot on.

    Unless the countries direction dramatically changes in this next election, we will have slipped past the point of no return. The Tea Party love em or hate em was just the tip of what's needed to advert disaster..... I'm not talking about the right winged view expressed by them, more it's the outrage over of the realization that the Government is devouring itself and everyone with it. We can't sustain the current level of big government expense or intrusion, let alone trying to increase it.

    Who ever wins this election will see themselves with a mandate of the people, if Obama wins reelection his party will once again try to hammer their wealth realignment and social services expansion, we can't pay for it now..... end result is Default.

    If Romney, Santorium or Newt gets the nod, Obamacare will be probably be repealed to some extent but neither of those three want to dramatically decrease the size of Government, which is absolutely necessary to avoid disaster, anything short of that is "Can Kicking" again end result is Default only slower.

    If Paul would win, I can't see him getting any support in congress to make the necessary changes as big business and special interests are firmly entrenched on both sides.

    Paul's our only shot at turning this thing around but it only starts with everyone demanding change., not the hopium we encountered four years ago, but the outrage that came when government dismissed the will of the people for that of wallstreet and their own personal gain.

    The Tea Party?, we need The Expresso Party, One hundred times as strong, either you change or we Expresso your ass out of Washington.

    It's time to end the games, problem is both sides have played the game too long, there's no credibility ......... except one.
  9. rew


    So acting like a normal country is too radical? Paul wants us to have Switzerland's foreign policy and I'd say that they're in far less danger from terrorists or invaders than we are.
  10. pspr


    I think there would be a huge void in world order if the U.S. just pulled out of everywhere and came home. We would certainly see the world ignite into war in many places and eventually spread to engulf us. No doubt, nuclear weapons would proliferate and be used by many.
    #10     Feb 8, 2012