Republicans Should Listen to Ron Paul

May 15, 2007

To many of you, Congressman Ron Paul’s performance in tonight’s debate may have sounded nutty. That’s understandable: the G.O.P. establishment went out of their way to smear him. But he was the only true conservative in the debate, in the sense that he was conservative in the classical sense.

First of all, he advocated a strict non-interventionist foreign policy. He pointed out that a Republican president ended the Vietnam war. A Republican ended the Korean War. A non-interventionist foreign policy is a very conservative concept, he reminded us, and that the founding fathers cautioned against foreign interventionism and entangling alliances.

Second of all, he brought up one of the classic conservative causes: abolishing the Federal department of education. He also talked about abolishing the IRS and the Department of Homeland security. Conservatives used to love talking like this during the Clinton years- that is until Republicans actually won a majority in Congress and then won back the White House.

On illegal immigration, he was opposed to amnesty and was a strong advocate of border security.

As for his views about 09/11, Rudy Gulliani pounced at the chance to distort them. Simply put, Paul stated that our meddling in the middle east provoked the 09/11 attacks. Congressman Paul did not deny that it was a tragedy. Nor did he suggest that the 09/11 victims were in any way deserving of death. He simply stated a reality of foreign policy, that when a country gets involved in foreign conflicts, (even if its for the right reasons) that they run the risk of inciting hatred and violence against our people.

He did not in any way imply that Americans deserved what they got. He simply observed that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Even some conservatives have said that we have U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Holy land, and this provoked Muslim wrath against us. Paul claims that this is one reason that they attacked America on 09/11. Murderers always have a motive: pondering the nature of those motives does not make one a leftist or a traitor.

But the big-government, pro-amnesty Republicans used Paul’s observation as an excuse to attempt to destroy him. And it looks as though they may well succeed.

Congressman Paul is very much outside the present dogma of the Republican party- a dogma that enjoys a whopping 28% support for the American people. 72% of the American people are against the current direction of the Republican party. Paul’s strong showing in tonight’s presidential debate may be a sure sign that Republican primary voters see the writing on the wall; if they don’t nominate someone who is essentially the “anti-Bush,” Hillary will be our next president.

By Chad E. Rogers

Editor’s update: Ron Paul at the Reagan Library

Watch the entire debate online

Have the daily content of Louisiana Conservative delivered to your email. Subscribe below.

Enter your email address:Delivered by FeedBurner

21 comments
Sandra
Sandra

Ron Paul is absolutely correct! We keep policing the world simply because we have the biggest stick all thewhile committing the same offences. This administration sounds like a child that cries when it gets "hit Back". A lot of posters here saying that self examination is a defeatest mentality have NEVER ventured from beyond these borders. People like that seem to have the same problem in all aspects of life (regret and remorse = weakness, we all know the type). Quit acting like the US is king of the mountain. God can tip the king over or cause the mountain to crumble. What arrogance.

Dove
Dove

Guiliani's reaction to Ron Paul's correct interpretation of causality in regards to the United State's meddling policy of the last century is proof positive that people are all too willing to blind themselves to reality. The rabbit hole goes so much deeper than most people will ever wish to investigate. All too many all too willing to sit back, pay taxes, borrow more credit, and grind grind grind until death. There IS a better way to live. It isn't that difficult. When The Government stops telling us how to wipe our bum bums and creating Unlawful acts out of completely natural human behavior, we'll at least have a Chance to figure this out for ourselves. Ron Paul's Main Message: Liberty First. After that, when someone dies or someone is hurt or someone attacks us or something else makes Chicken Little start for Main Street, we can spend more time consoling those who believe Big Gov would have prevented it with a mountain of statistics that show far less issues in a society free of a Police State. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in musty room ripe with the opulent effluvium of stale flatulence.

Jamie
Jamie

If anyone thinks that our policies in the Mid East in no way contributed to the 9-11 attacks then they are living with their head in the sand. I think the present state of terrorism is great evidence of how, at the very least, excessive intervention can completely backfire. Most of the time our country has involved itself in foreign entanglements we have made matters worse. This doesn't mean we should never get involved; it means that we need to be much more cautious what we get involved in. The pendulum has swung so far in the other direction regarding our involvement in foreign politics that we need a re-emphasis or to re-look at the wisdom inherent in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Maybe we'll never go back to a pure non-interventionist policy of the Old Right but we could use more (a lot more) of Ron Paul type leaders in our politics today to swing the pendulum back in the other direction.

Andrew
Andrew

Re: WWII and isolationism. The difference between WWII and the current situation is that we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war against us; we did initially declare war against Germany. And why didn't we have a more open policy with regards to Jewish, Gypsy, and other refugees from the Nazi regime? Re: WWI. We had no business being in that war; it was not our concern. And before someone cites the Lusitania and the Zimmerman letter to Mexico it should be pointed out that the British were carrying munitions on a passenger ship, which is using human shields to carry out a military objective. And the Zimmerman letter was a stupid initiative by the Germans in reaction to Wilson's clearly perceptible shift away from neutrality. If we had stayed out WWI, which clearly did not have the moral imperative of WWII, then perhaps the 30s and 40s would have turned out differently. Foreign policy can have unintended consequences; that's all he was saying. There is a difference between concern about unintended consequences and political paralysis, but the debate is necessary.

Chaddo
Chaddo

fabulinus: I'm sick and tired of everyone drinking the "Joe Lieberaman" cool aid! What crap! It only reiforces my point that the G.O.P. is now a SINGLE ISSUE PARTY! It is defined by war and war only- NOT LESS GOVERNMENT! No, the Democrats didn't live Lieberman behind. He is a bona fide leftist on taxes, judges, education... no the Dems DID NOT leave him behind on all of the issues that are MOST IMPORTANT to conservatives in the 20th century!!! WHAT CRAP!

fabulinus
fabulinus

Respectfully, Ron Paul is a moonbat of the highest order. Perhaps in the same way the Democratic Party left Lieberman behind, the Republicans have left Ron Paul behind. Ron Paul will not be missed.

Nick
Nick

Chad: I agree with you that Paul had many excellent points in regards to social and economic issues. He did, in fact, say he would eliminate the income tax, as he talked of immediately eliminating the IRS. He also spoke of eliminating cradle to the grave entitlements. I believe he is spot on that the President should have made Congress go through an up or down vote to delare war on Iraq, rather than simply passing the buck along. That way, those who now oppose the war wouldn't be able to weasle away from their previous decisions if they themselves had voted FOR declaration of war. Plus, I believe such a delcaration would have forced our politicians to be more together in the war rather than using the current unfortunate mess for political gain. I like alot of what Congressman Paul has to say, however, that statement by him did cause me to lose respect for him, and I had alot of it before last night.

Dantheman
Dantheman

Will: Who ever said anything about the idealism of us ultimately "defeating evil" for ever or "saving the world"? That's precisely the point ... "there will always be evil" (until a point in time I know will come and America is not the savior). But, there are times when one must confront evil before it's on your doorstep and even if it may not reach your doorstep. The questions is where, when, for what and how. By the way, that's the first time I've heard that "we had our act together" as we entered WWII. As one responded to me above "have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor?" We were good, strong and decisive but, to a great degree, did not have our act together; oodles of mistakes were made and if Hitler had heeded his general's advise, it could have gone the other way. What many of you and Ron Paul fail to realize is that the Islamic fascists (the leadership and sponsors) simply use the argument that it's because we're over there that they hate us and attack us. The hate us and attack us for a whole host of reasons. Bottom line is that it may not even be a matter of why they hate us. It's all about power. If we weren't over there, they still offer up many other "reasons" for hating and attacking us and for fighting to establish ar Califate. This Califate is within their reach, at least in the middle east, especially if we abandon the area. If that happens, I hope you'll enjoy the oil and gas prices and the devastation it will bring to our economy. It's unfortunate that we are so dependent, but that's the real world.

Dantheman
Dantheman

Chaddo: Even if Ron Paul was nominated, I don't think he could ever win in a general election so we're back to Hillary being our next president. Let's say 67%, on the high end, disapprove, even with the non-stop media complicit attacks (that 72% is bogus). Did you ever stop to think that a good part of that 67% are those who disapprove of Bush for any number of "conservative" reasons. These will never vote for Hillary. How many points in that 67% would these represent? Who knows. Probably at least 10% and perhaps as high as 15%. So we're back to about 50% and Bush isn't running. As far as the Iraq war, most want a "change", but a "change" of strategy to win. They don't want to loose. The next nominee will not be Bush. At least any of the others have a fighting chance. I don't think Ron Paul does and it may not have much to do with his positions. This is an unfortunate reality in our elections. I know many conservatives, libertarians and "purists" may not vote if their ideal candidate isn't nominated. The net effect of that results in president Hillary. It might make one feel good for a while, but could result in disaster for our country (ie. Judges, taxes, regulations, education, even more spending etc etc.). This is the real world and it's not perfect. I wish I didn't have to vote for the lessor of two evils. I hate it, but one MUST do so at times.

Will
Will

There’s nothing conservative about not recognizing evil....It’s all silly idealism, not true conservatism. There is evil in the world and to think you can just sit back, build a wall and hope for the best is foolish. --------------------------- You're more an idealist than you realize...and tear-assing around the world is in no way 'true conservativism'. America cannot save the world; it cannot defeat evil. The Founders realized this and understood that taking care of ourselves is going to be hard enough. Our non-interventionist roots are there to protect us, from others as much as ourselves. If we go around trying to police the world and save lives, this country cannot last. Attentions are turned from internal problems to external problems; treasure is spent and potentially lost on a failed investment; we become Kaiser Wilhelm and his mire of alliances. Sure, we can save some foreign lives, but we stand to lose everything for ourselves. We have the best army in the world, but a few wolves can take down any lion. Ask Napoleon if you don't believe me. War is a vital tool of any foreign policy, but as we look out for our interests around the world, where does it end? We have far too many problems within our own borders to worry about the outside world. That non-interventionist attitude is precisely what made us able to win World War II in the first place. We had our act together. Now we're being pulled in a hundred different directions...trying to save the world.

Chaddo
Chaddo

Dantheman: I'm not asking you to believe and/or agree with me, but do remember what I say. You say that Ron Paul's "isolationism" is a "deal breaker." Depending on what poll you look at, as many as 72% of the American people see George Bush as a "deal breaker." I don't want Hillary to be our next president but that's where we are headed unless the G.O.P. finds a RADICAL new direction. Ever wonder why Fred Thompson still hasn't made it official? There's a very real chance that the presidential race is already the Democrats' to lose. Is that because our president is an "isolationist?"

Dantheman
Dantheman

Chaddo and Nick: I know the history of WWII, dudes. Interesting how you are unable to read and understand that I was not attempting to detail the historical time-line of events in WWII. It was about intervention vs. non-intervention. I'll be kind and simply say you must have had a mental lapse and forgotten what the discussion was about. Pearl Harbor or not; at what point would someone like Ron Paul have decided it was time to intervene or get involved? Based on what I've heard, perhaps not until something like a "German / Japanese D-DAY" was launched on both of our shores. Look, I'm sure Ron Paul is a fine person who holds many solid conservative positions, but this isolationist position he holds is a deal breaker.

Chaddo
Chaddo

Nick I understand that Paul's statements are controversial, but I think they are being used to obscure some important facts. Paul talked about some things that conservatives haven't talked about since Bush won. He talked about getting rid of the income tax (I think) and getting rid of the department of education. He talked about our national sovereignty. These were once core conservative values. He was the ONLY one to raise questions about what the role of government should be in our lives. Yet the ONLY thing any of the establishment republicans want to talk about is the war. In essence, the G.O.P. has become a SINGLE ISSUE party. Single issues parties don't win, in this man's opinion.

Nick
Nick

"If Ron Paul were president back in WWII, we’d all be speaking German or Japanese. There’s nothing conservative about not coming to the aid of those who need it. There’s nothing conservative about not recognizing evil. I guess Ron Paul thinks the slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany was horrible, but would not have gotten involved." Umm...have you ever read a real history book? We didn't enter into WWII because of Hitler. Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? That said, I lost alot of repsect for Paul when he said that America brought 9/11 upon itself.

Chaddo
Chaddo

"I guess Ron Paul thinks the slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany was horrible, but would not have gotten involved. " Here's a history lesson, dude. That was AMERICA'S position until Germany declared war on the United States. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, then on December 11, Hitler declared war in the United States.

Dantheman
Dantheman

If Ron Paul were president back in WWII, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese. There's nothing conservative about not coming to the aid of those who need it. There's nothing conservative about not recognizing evil. I guess Ron Paul thinks the slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany was horrible, but would not have gotten involved. He would have thought it "interventionist" to get involved. I guess he would be ok with us getting completely out of the middle east and sit back and watch Israel be devoured. He lives in a dream world. I assume he was against the 1ST PHASE OF THE GULF WAR (I say 1ST PHASE because we forget the current Iraq "war" is a continuation of this). He would have been ok with Saddam having Kuwait and then moving into Saudi Arabia and eventually controlling most or all of the oil in the middle east. He would have been able to basically set oil prices, control the flow and cause economies to collapse on a whim. But nooo ... we shouldn't intervene according to Ron Paul. It's all silly idealism, not true conservatism. There is evil in the world and to think you can just sit back, build a wall and hope for the best is foolish. By the way, not that it matters that much, but this 28% is bogus. Most of the reliable polls have it moving between 33% and 43%. Not great, but much higher than 28% and higher than congress. To think that 72% want us to loose in Iraq, like most dems do for political gain, is absurd. Most want a change, but a change in strategy to WIN!!! History will record that the democratic party (& main stream media) were all on-board and gun-ho when things were going good and it was popular. Then it started getting difficult and the intelligence, that had been accepted by most in this country and internationally, appeared to be wrong. Popular support began to drop. From that point on most democrats and the liberal media didn't simply question or doubt, they actively set out to undermine the war effort. All to gain a political advantage. Hence the tide began to turn and hence the low approval ratings. It's pretty hard to fight any war under these conditions even if mistakes weren't made.

gregdn
gregdn

"Political and economic isolationism as promoted by Libertarians like Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan are no longer realistic approaches in today’s world. " Bull. What Ron Paul was trying to explain in last night's debate was that our military presence in the ME was one of the catalysts for Al Qaeda's attack on the U.S. Securing our borders while practising more 'MYOB' in our foreign policy would keep us safe at a fraction of the cost (in blood and treasure) we're paying now.

Chaddo
Chaddo

First of all, the stuff about "foreign entanglements" that you are so dismissive of are core ideals set down by the founding fathers. In my view, they are sacrosanct. As for your view that "the threats posed by Islamofascism against the rest of the world cannot be simply ignored," I say they can't be ignored from AMERICA's standpoint. I won't speak for the rest of the world. Simply put, to keep America safe we must crack down on illegal immigration. This is something that Ron Paul wants to do, and most of the other candidates do not. They cannot attack us unless we let them come in.

Jack
Jack

Political and economic isolationism as promoted by Libertarians like Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan are no longer realistic approaches in today's world. All we have to do is look at 1917 and 1941 to see that while we may try to remain isolated from "foreign entanglements", the world will bring conflict to our door. Today's world is far too complicated and dependent on international trade for the U.S. to think that it can be an island unto itself, and the threats posed by Islamofascism against the rest of the world cannot be simply ignored. Whatever caused the rise of Jihadism is too late to change today, and pretending that we can change it by withdrawing into a shell hoping to ignore it is irresponsible wishful thinking.

Chaddo
Chaddo

When Bush's approval ratings were around 60%, (as reported by the mainstream media) what was that exactly? Dogma?

Cheryl Melancon Melody
Cheryl Melancon Melody

"Congressman Paul is very much outside the present dogma of the Republican party- a dogma that enjoys a whopping 28% support for the American people. 72% of the American people are against the current direction of the Republican party. Paul’s strong showing in tonight’s presidential debate may be a sure sign that Republican primary voters see the writing on the wall; if they don’t nominate someone who is essentially the “anti-Bush,” Hillary will be our next president." Buying into the Mainsteam Media dogma that most people don't support Bush, ignorance repeats itself. Ron Paul is a fool and Rudy called him on it like a true man, who has a true grasp of who the enemy is. Foreign intervention for a struggling democracy is not the same for the only Democratic superpower in the world. The task is ours and only the brave and honest can see that and act to preserve what our founding fathers gave us.

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box