Some Mike Huckabee Supporters Are Considering Ron Paul (INTERESTING READ)

[KramerDSP]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere, so I thought I'd start a thread on this. I came across a tweet from a Mike Huckabee supporter who has a blog. This guy, Larry Jackson, seems like a well-known Huckabee supporter (given that he is part of a Huckabee Bloggers (http://twitter.com/#!/huckbloggers) group on Twitter) and he outlines why he is strongly considering Ron Paul as his candidate for 2012.

http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed


Ron Paul for President in 2012?

I suppose this post could fall under the category of “I’ve been thinking”. Most of you will remember that I was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee in 2008 and some of you probably disagreed with that support. That’s fine, different strokes and all of that. Since the Governor is not running this time around, I have been looking at the different candidates and their positions on the issues, as well as their campaigns, and there are a few that I am able to reject without a second glance. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, as well as Michelle Bachmann. There was one other candidate that I rejected in 2008, mainly because I was supporting Mike Huckabee, but I will not be rejecting him so quickly in 2012. His name is Ron Paul. I suppose you could say I have been persuaded to give him a closer look by another Huckabee supporter, Kerry from One Mom. It would us all good to read her short post, in which she asks the simple question, Why Not Ron Paul?

The Kerry in question, from One Mom, had written this (http://onemom.com/2011/06/why-not-ron-paul/), which in turn prompted Larry Jackson to give his take above.


I freely admit that I was not a fan of Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential campaign partly because I supported Mike Huckabee, and partly because I found Ron Paul supporters to be particularly annoying with their comments here on the blog.

I also freely admit that I did not really explore more about Ron Paul than what I heard in the news or observed in debates.

There are fellow bloggers (some were Huckabee supporters) who refer to Congressman Paul as an idiot. Others are less harsh and express concern about his libertarian and isolationist view points.

Read the whole thing. I may be wrong, but something big could be happening here. It feels like two very prominent Mike Huckabee Bloggers are very strongly thinking about jumping aboard. This would basically be a merging of sorts of the Ron Paul Revolution with Huck's Army. The comments below both articles are very interesting, and show that this group isn't quite all there yet, but that we agree on a lot of things.

I think the most diplomatic of our forum posters should go over there and extend an olive branch. Anyways, wanted to share with you all, so that you could share both links with friends and family members of yours that are Huck supporters.

[Sola_Fide]

Cool.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

I supported Huckabee during the last election. I was hoping Daniels would run this time. He didn't and I switched to Cain. I am fed up with the status quo so I am supporting Paul. We need a defender of the Constitution.

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

[LibertyEagle]

I supported Huckabee during the last election. I was hoping Daniels would run this time. He didn't and I switched to Cain. I am fed up with the status quo so I am supporting Paul. We need a defender of the Constitution.

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

Since you were one of them, you would probably be a great one to talk to them.

[Sola_Fide]

I supported Huckabee during the last election. I was hoping Daniels would run this time. He didn't and I switched to Cain. I am fed up with the status quo so I am supporting Paul. We need a defender of the Constitution.

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.


I think we need to convince Huckabee supporters that foreign aid that is confiscated by taxation is unconstitutional and morally evil.

It is morally evil because

1. We are bankrupt and funding our foreign aid on a credit card that is enslaving our children to debt

2. Foreign aid props up brutal dictators and causes terrorists to rise up against our involvement

3. Foreign aid goes to fund abortions, most notably in Africa


For those reasons, Huckabee conservatives should be on our side. Not even to mention the fact that they are interpreting Scripture in an unbiblical manner in regards to the nation-state of Israel.


And as far as Ron being pro-life, just have anyone read Chapter 1 in Liberty Defined. Ron Paul is PRO LIFE. I wouldn't support him if he wasn't.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Since you were one of them, you would probably be a great one to talk to them.

I'll see what I can do.

[specsaregood]

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

US taxpayers help pay for govt subsidized abortion in Israel via our foreign aid.

[enjerth]

I supported Huckabee during the last election. I was hoping Daniels would run this time. He didn't and I switched to Cain. I am fed up with the status quo so I am supporting Paul. We need a defender of the Constitution.

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that Ron Paul isn't pro-Israel. Consider for a moment that Israel is NOT independent while they are taking US foreign aid (bribe money) as the US then dictates policy without Israel's best interest in mind.

This foreign aid is like giving someone food while you have your foot on their neck. There are even Jewish/Israeli op-ed/blogs that say as much. You don't doubt that they are pro-Israel, do you?

[Airborn]

Actually i find the hardest thing to get huck's army aboard is, many of them saying they can't fully support Ron because he "wants to legalize drugs" though I think many of them would see the light if they did the proper research. And not just buying the small bit they hear at debates and though the media..

[MJU1983]

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

He is definitely pro-life and the only politician telling the truth about Israel and all foreign aid in general.

[sailingaway]

that is cool. Frankly, I'm going to stay out of it at the moment. I thought about supporting Huckabee in the last election and put a pin in him to go back to, then ran into Ron Paul (beyond the blurbs on his web page) and never looked back. But people coming to Ron themselves are the best, and I don't want to disturb what is happening on those web pages. If they seem to have questions, I'll comment.

[sailingaway]

Actually i find the hardest thing to get huck's army aboard is, many of them saying they can't fully support Ron because he "wants to legalize drugs" though I think many of them would see the light if they did the proper research. And not just buying the small bit they hear at debates and though the media..

He wants state rights. The people on that blog already ran through that drill without us. :)

[sailingaway]

I haven't seen anything to convince me that Ron Paul isn't pro-Israel. Consider for a moment that Israel is NOT independent while they are taking US foreign aid (bribe money) as the US then dictates policy without Israel's best interest in mind.

This foreign aid is like giving someone food while you have your foot on their neck. There are even Jewish/Israeli op-ed/blogs that say as much. You don't doubt that they are pro-Israel, do you?

Ron was the only one who defended Israel's right to make its own defensive decisions when it bombed inside of Iran some time back and there was a resolution to condemn them. Ron was the only one voting against it.

If we cut foreign aid, we cut a lot more aid to Israel's enemies than to Israel.

He isn't an interventionist, but believes all countries are better to have their sovereignty respected, including the US, and including Israel.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Pat Robertson has advocated ending the drug war. On the other hand he supported Rudy(still am confused on this one) so Huck supporters might not like that.

[gerryb]

Ron was the only one who defended Israel's right to make its own defensive decisions when it bombed inside of Iran some time back and there was a resolution to condemn them. Ron was the only one voting against it.

If we cut foreign aid, we cut a lot more aid to Israel's enemies than to Israel.

He isn't an interventionist, but believes all countries are better to have their sovereignty respected, including the US, and including Israel.

Do you have that bill number?

[LibertyEagle]

Pat Robertson has really been odd the last several years.

[sailingaway]

State's rights respect state laws. Individuals are best represented as locally as possible where the individual has more direct say in policy. The further and more centralized the policy making the more captive it becomes to special interests at the expense of the will of the people, and tries to 'merge' a cookie cutter solution to everything when different communities may want different things. Ron Paul absolutely believes a state has a right to determine its own laws. However, the correlary of that is that if a state decides terminally ill patients undergoing chemotherapy can use medical marijuana with a doctor's prescription, or those in extreme pain can, to be more aware of their families and not addicted to morphine, the state should be able to decide that. If a state decides smoking marijuana should be a misdemeanor with probation and required enrollment in treatment, instead of a felony, a state can do that. Right now, terminally ill people are literally arrested by the DEA for using medical marijuana.

I don't use drugs at all, and I think that is revolting.

[RonPaul101.com]

I don't think its that much of a stretch to get Huckabee supporters to back Ron Paul. I don't support my tax dollars going towards killing, of any kind (abortion, preemptive wars, etc.,.) and Ron Paul would agree and I believe Mike Huckabee would also agree.

We're not as dissimilar as Romney or Bachmann are to a Huckabee supporter.

[Echoes]

Ron is staunchly pro-life. I, too, would not be supporting him if he wasnt.

Ron views Israel as a good friend, I've never heard him say a bad thing. He just doesnt believe in welfarism, not individual, corporate or foreign aid. Stealing tax payer money and giving it to other nations IS immoral. That's not to say Ron is against people donating privately to whatever cause they support, but it should be voluntary not by force.

[specsaregood]

Ron was the only one who defended Israel's right to make its own defensive decisions when it bombed inside of Iran some time back and there was a resolution to condemn them. Ron was the only one voting against it.

Actually it was a nuclear reactor in Iraq, not Iran. And it was during the Reagan administration and everybody including reagan was condemning Israel, except Dr. Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

[reduen]

I'll see what I can do.

Welcome by the way. Huckabee was also my choice before I looked into Ron Paul and his positions in 2007....

[sailingaway]

Actually it was a nuclear reactor in Iraq, not Iran. And it was during the Reagan administration and everybody including reagan was condemning Israel, except Dr. Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera


uh, yeah, well.... but except for that......:p

I admit that was before I started tracking those things. I just heard Ron mention it in an interview.

[KurtBoyer25L]

This is what I posted on the guy's blog --

As a conservative Ron Paul supporter from a Methodist/GOP family, I’d like to echo some of the sentiments expressed here & thank you for considering Paul for president.

No candidate is ever perfect. Ron Paul probably confuses some people at first glance. Ron Paul is a devout Christian who reads Bastiat along w/ the Bible, very anti-abortion & socially conservative but pro-States’ rights. One problem is that politicians have been abusing power & speaking in pragmatic-only voices for so long that it’s hard for the public to understand someone principled. Today, a politician is expected to use ANY means necessary, lawful or not, to push his/her personal agenda, and voters are *confused* and often fearful that a statesman should operate by principle. For instance, Gov. Huckabee’s stances on voting registration are based in the Founding Fathers’ belief that voters should be at least somewhat educated & astute. Yet, Huck was unfairly accused of being a racist because people simply assumed an agenda, not a principle, was at stake.

I’d like to address a few of the above concerns one by one. Beginning with electability. The fact is, Ron Paul has probably the *best* chance of beating Obama. That isn’t my opinion but it’s what recent polls tell us. Paul beat Obama in a head-to-head Rasmussen poll late last year. A CNN poll this May showed Ron Paul polling the best against Obama compared to *any* other GOP candidate. Probably b/c Ron scares the hell out of the liberals at CNN, they ran the same poll in June without including him! Which is why many aren’t aware of the results.

The media love to *call* Paul unelectable but in truth he enjoys surprisingly widespread appeal. Many in Paul’s fanbase are disgruntled independents who voted for Obama based on the lies he told in his campaign. Liberals may disagree w/ Ron vehemently, but they tend to *respect* him greatly. He is one politician who tells the truth and will do what he promises. Obama did not, and does not.

As a political opinion, not wishful thinking, I think Paul will have a hard time in the GOP primary if true conservatives don’t realize fast enough that he is our greatest statesman. However, if he makes it to the general he can demolish Obama. Barack is praying a moderate/greasy type like Romney runs whom he can campaign negatively against. But Ron’s biggest issues are all things Obama clearly lied about — Federal overreach, the budget, financial reform, the wars in the Middle East. Paul would level him in debates.

Ron’s foreign policy is *called* isolationist or blame-America by his opponents. But conservative voters should not let the (liberal) opponents of a candidate *define* the candidate’s views for them. If I thought Ron Paul blamed America for Islamic terrorists, I wouldn’t support him. Ron does think that our mistakes have made things worse, as Reagan himself said they did. Looking at a Paul presidency from a practical/military point of view, Reagan’s policy would be the closest historical example. We would not be involved in as many wars. BUT, when we *are* involved, the shackles would be taken off our military. It is a joke that the most powerful military in history can’t defeat small warbands of Muslim extremists carrying pipe bombs & porno tapes. NATO and the UN deserve much of the blame for shackling us with political demands for limited police-action war. As Ron Paul has said, the proper way for America to fight is “If we feel strongly, Congress should vote to declare war, and then we all get up together, and go fight, and win it, and get outta there!” It is no coincidence that in 2008, Ron Paul received more donation $ from active & veteran military personnel than all other candidates combined.

Ron Paul would also stand up strongly to the UN and NATO conspiring with Democrats to take our troops to war for their purposes without the consent of our Representatives, as Reagan would have. Lastly, Ron will not acquiesce to various Arab dictators’ cries for “foreign aid” with which to build weapons & infrastructure. Israel’s best friend is an American president who will stop funding the aims of military dictators that oppose it.

Jeff says it all w/ respect to Bin Laden.

Finally, the posters who have pointed out that Paul does NOT favor drug legalization are absolutely correct. He simply favors states & localities making those decisions, as he favors education & religious rights being decided by citizens as well. The federal govt. has failed to keep drugs & sex out of the hands of children. Perhaps Americans can do a better job through our local governments, especially if churches are allowed more influence over our lives and more freedom to work with teenagers on a local basis.

Again, anti-Ron Paul folks are trying to take advantage of the ignorance of voters, as neo-liberals & secularists have done in so many recent elections. Being against the Federal government’s bankrupt spending & overreaching policy is not to be “in favor of” so many things that we all agree as conservatives are problems. Paul simply offers stronger, wiser solutions that put Americans in charge of ourselves in a responsible way.

Thanks for reading and again for considering Ron Paul!

[rockandrollsouls]

Fact: We give more money in foreign aid to enemy, middle-eastern nations than Israel.
Fact: Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports not giving foreign aid to Israel's enemies.

Win.

[COpatriot]

"In order for a candidate to earn my support, he must swear his allegiance to another country x1,000 miles away in another hemisphere and put their interests ahead of our own even though we are facing a potential currency collapse and our troops are still getting shot at overseas." That's pretty much how I see the logic behind the Israel thing. Makes sense, right?

[Tinnuhana]

Repetitive, but: The best way I have of getting through to my evangelical/charismatic friends is to ask them where in the Old Testement Israel was ever blessed for having a military treaty with ANYONE. They were always judged for it. Christians who want us to have military treaties with Israel is putting that country at risk of being judged by G-d. If they really believe Israel is the chosen people/country, they should want us to have no arms/military treaties with her. One very pro-Israel pastor actually listened and took this angle of thought in. It could be useful in IA, given the demographic.

[1836]

This is a great post. I think a lot of Huck's supporters can come our way if we reach out to them and point out how Ron Paul is a great candidate to protect the family and keep government out of our lives, while protecting each life (even the unborn).

[1836]

An interesting comment from LD Jackson on OneMom's blog, I have highlighted an interesting part:


One thing is certain, Ron Paul always sticks to his guns. I can’t say that I have ever seen a time when he quibbles or flip-flops about a position he has taken on any particular issue. I think my biggest problem with him has to do with his delivery. His voice and his attitude seem to grate on my nerves. Is that a legitimate reason to be against him? Probably not, but it will take me some doing to get around it.

Makes you think.

[rockandrollsouls]

Absolutely. We're being told what the issue is, yet no one wants to address it. Maybe, now that a potential supporter from outside the outside that isn't already on here and for Ron has identified this sticking point, they'll actually listen.


An interesting comment from LD Jackson on OneMom's blog, I have highlighted an interesting part:



Makes you think.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

US taxpayers help pay for govt subsidized abortion in Israel via our foreign aid.

+1


Actually i find the hardest thing to get huck's army aboard is, many of them saying they can't fully support Ron because he "wants to legalize drugs" though I think many of them would see the light if they did the proper research. And not just buying the small bit they hear at debates and though the media..

This isn't the problem just with Huck supporters but many many more mainstream Republicans & that's why I've been honing in on the fact for a while now that Ron needs to cut back on the justification of drugs, prostitution, gay-marriage, etc on account of "individual liberty" & he needs to specify that because he believes in states rights, PEOPLE in each state would be able to choose if they want to ban/decriminalize these things so may be people in Red-states may ban it if they want while people in Blue-states may decriminalize them if they want & that way maximum number of people get what they want rather than shoving a federal law down everyone's throats.


Ron was the only one who defended Israel's right to make its own defensive decisions when it bombed inside of Iran some time back and there was a resolution to condemn them. Ron was the only one voting against it.

+1


Ron is staunchly pro-life. I, too, would not be supporting him if he wasnt.

Ron views Israel as a good friend, I've never heard him say a bad thing. He just doesnt believe in welfarism, not individual, corporate or foreign aid. Stealing tax payer money and giving it to other nations IS immoral. That's not to say Ron is against people donating privately to whatever cause they support, but it should be voluntary not by force.

+1


"In order for a candidate to earn my support, he must swear his allegiance to another country x1,000 miles away in another hemisphere and put their interests ahead of our own even though we are facing a potential currency collapse and our troops are still getting shot at overseas." That's pretty much how I see the logic behind the Israel thing. Makes sense, right?

That's seriously effed up, isn't it! Those types of people are just religious zealots wanting to defend Israel as a Biblical mandate or something.


Repetitive, but: The best way I have of getting through to my evangelical/charismatic friends is to ask them where in the Old Testement Israel was ever blessed for having a military treaty with ANYONE. They were always judged for it. Christians who want us to have military treaties with Israel is putting that country at risk of being judged by G-d. If they really believe Israel is the chosen people/country, they should want us to have no arms/military treaties with her. One very pro-Israel pastor actually listened and took this angle of thought in. It could be useful in IA, given the demographic.

+1

[klamath]

I actually think this is one of RP's biggist problems with women voters. My mother in law wouldn't vote for RP because he waves his arms around and acts crazy. Same thing with a long time republican friend. Very many people are basing their vote based on "how presidential the candidate appears."
Is he a leader?
An interesting comment from LD Jackson on OneMom's blog, I have highlighted an interesting part:



Makes you think.

[georgiaboy]

Couple of great reads here to bolster Ron's support among Huckabee supporters:
On religion -

Ron Paul Steals the Show at Faith and Freedom Conference (http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/RonPaul-FaithandFreedomCoalition-RalphReed-Romney/2011/06/09/id/399465)

On Israel -

Ron Paul to Obama: Stop Dictating to Israel (http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/ronpaul-barack-obama-middleeast/2011/05/20/id/397095)

Many of my friends went Huckabee in 2008, and I could understand why based on his performance at debates and his huckleberry folkstyle. He's got one slick tongue and an engaging demeanor. Like I used to be, they thought everyone on stage was basically the same philosophically and policy-wise, so for them it's more of a personality and 'presence' contest than an issues or voting record debate. After all, they're all Republicans, right?

His philosophy & platform were, and still are, of the 'compassionate [big gov't] conservative' and nationbuilding genre, not limited gov't conservative.

I agree that Huckabee supporters are great potential RP supporters, and the main reason why is just like us, they are in fact looking for a straight shooting, walk the talk conservative. With Huckabee out of the race this time, and with a few years of learning more about the good doctor, I think they could add to our r3volution in a big way. Another advantage this time around - I think they love Rand Paul. I welcome them with open arms.

[Inkblots]

If you want to convert Huckabee supporters you need to convince them that Paul is pro-life and pro-Israel.

Great point. And Ron Paul is the best candidate on both these points!

By working to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate about abortion to the states, Ron Paul's approach will allow many states with pro-life majorities to restrict or ban abortion altogether right away. While not a final solution to the tragedy of mass abortion, such an approach will allow us to start saving hundreds of thousands of live right away, and will provide concrete examples that, in the modern age, women's safety and reproductive health can be protected and unwanted children can be adopted and cared for without the need to resort to abortion. This will do massive amounts of good and will save potentially millions of lives that might be lost using the 'all or nothing' approach misguidedly pursued by many pro-life organizations, whose Human Life Amendment has been perpetually 10 years off for 30 years now. A Constitutional amendment defining human life can still be pursued, and would be supported by Ron Paul, but in the meantime by turning to federalism, pro-lifers under a Paul administration could do more good in 3 months than in all the past 30 years.

And as to Israel, Ron Paul is easily the most truly pro-Israel GOP candidate, as well. By seeking to end all foreign aid, Ron Paul would give a massive relative advantage to Israel as she seeks to defend herself. This is because the US currently gives much more foreign aid to Israel's enemies, the hostile Arab and Turkic states which surround her, than we do to Israel itself. Thus, the uniform halting of all aid will strengthen Israel's position and security in the region, and also represent a PR victory for Israel, in that it will be seen to merely be fighting to protect itself, and not for the benefit of US policies or domestic political movements. In addition, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who would truly respect and protect Israeli sovereignty. All the other candidates think the US should be able to tell Israel how and when they can defend themselves, since we give them aid. Ron Paul would never try to manipulate Israel to act against its own interests and the will of its citizens. That's something no neo-con will ever be able to state, since they view Israel as a puppet state and a tool of US foreign policy.

In short, if you want to prevent as many abortions as possible as quickly as possible, and if you want Israel to be safe, free, and independent, Ron Paul isn't just the best choice - he's the only choice!

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

I posted this:

I am a former member of Huck’s Army and now a member of the Ron Paul Revolution. I supported Mike Huckabee in 2008 because he was an honest man with good Christian values. This time I have turned to Ron Paul, a man that cares about his God and country. Obviously my main litmus test is is candidate pro-life? For some reason I was under the impression he wasn’t but I couldn’t have been farther from the truth. As a physician he delivered over 4,000 babies. Several times he would walk in on an abortion which would be stuck in his mind forever. The first time this happened it changed him and made him a staunch supporter of the Right to Life, despite the fact many of his colleagues disagree with him. He is quoted as saying: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”. In fact, in 2005 Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.

Another litmus test for my support is support for Israel. Many confuse Ron Paul’s policy of no-foreign aid with making Israel vulnerable. That assumption is absolutely wrong. Each year we give billions of aid each year to Israel, and even more to her enemies(which Mrs. Bachmann voted for, ahem). Paul is the only candidate that would stop funding Israel’s enemies. We are funding those nations that fund terrorist groups, and all of them are anti-Israel. Cutting off funding to Israel would help them, not hurt them. Their economy is so dependent on subsidies that it is stagnent. With all the abundant resources in the Holy Land the economy should be vibrant! We would be doing them a favor if we stopped sending them money. It should also be noted that Israel has nuclear weapons while her enemies do not, so they dare not attack. Furthermore, Dr. Paul would not tell Israel what to do like prior Presidents. He respects Israel’s sovereignty and their right to make military decisions.

As a social conservative, I was at first skeptical with Paul’s support for ending the drug war. However I have come to agree with his position. But we are doing more harm than good. Consider these facts:
1-The law is completely unenforceable. Middle schoolers have easy access to drugs. It is time for reevaluation.
2-We spend 44 billion as a country each year on the drug war. We would be better off getting tax revenue from the drugs. It is important to note that currently drug cartels, gangs, and middlemen are receiving billions each year. This needs to change. It only breeds thousands of death through drug violence and gang activity, including shootouts with police.
3-Throwing these poor addicted souls in jail is not a solution. These people need to be in treatment centers, not jails where they become hardened criminals! Even Pat Robertson has noted this fact. We need to focus on warning the public and treating them. Putting them in jail also hurts their job prospects tremendously. And these people are not violent criminals. Imagine incarcerating some for drinking a beer, that is what we are doing when we catch people with marijuana.

Overall, too many lives have been ruined and too much money has been lost as a result of the drug war, and we didn’t even solve the original problem without creating more.

Finally, it is important I highlight Ron Paul’s views on the seperation of church and state. (Which isn’t in the Constitution, by the way) Here is a letter he wrote in 2003:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

In fact, Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment allowing freedom of Prayer in schools.

In conclusion, I hope former Huck fans like myself support Ron Paul for president. He is clearly the best man in the job. His ideas on foreign policy and economics are completely correct. He actually predicted that because of our intervention we would see a rise in terror and we did; he also predicted the market crash.

Have a great day!

[Inkblots]

Great points, Pro-Life Libertarian. +rep

[rockandrollsouls]

Very well stated and user friendly. I could read through it easily without thinking any of it was outlandish. (Unfortunately, occasionally when some of our supporters try to convey a position of Dr. Paul we portray it in an extreme way.)

But this was excellent. Kudos and welcome!

[Echoes]

I posted this:

I am a former member of Huck’s Army and now a member of the Ron Paul Revolution. I supported Mike Huckabee in 2008 because he was an honest man with good Christian values. This time I have turned to Ron Paul, a man that cares about his God and country. Obviously my main litmus test is is candidate pro-life? For some reason I was under the impression he wasn’t but I couldn’t have been farther from the truth. As a physician he delivered over 4,000 babies. Several times he would walk in on an abortion which would be stuck in his mind forever. The first time this happened it changed him and made him a staunch supporter of the Right to Life, despite the fact many of his colleagues disagree with him. He is quoted as saying: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”. In fact, in 2005 Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.

Another litmus test for my support is support for Israel. Many confuse Ron Paul’s policy of no-foreign aid with making Israel vulnerable. That assumption is absolutely wrong. Each year we give billions of aid each year to Israel, and even more to her enemies(which Mrs. Bachmann voted for, ahem). Paul is the only candidate that would stop funding Israel’s enemies. We are funding those nations that fund terrorist groups, and all of them are anti-Israel. Cutting off funding to Israel would help them, not hurt them. Their economy is so dependent on subsidies that it is stagnent. With all the abundant resources in the Holy Land the economy should be vibrant! We would be doing them a favor if we stopped sending them money. It should also be noted that Israel has nuclear weapons while her enemies do not, so they dare not attack. Furthermore, Dr. Paul would not tell Israel what to do like prior Presidents. He respects Israel’s sovereignty and their right to make military decisions.

As a social conservative, I was at first skeptical with Paul’s support for ending the drug war. However I have come to agree with his position. But we are doing more harm than good. Consider these facts:
1-The law is completely unenforceable. Middle schoolers have easy access to drugs. It is time for reevaluation.
2-We spend 44 billion as a country each year on the drug war. We would be better off getting tax revenue from the drugs. It is important to note that currently drug cartels, gangs, and middlemen are receiving billions each year. This needs to change. It only breeds thousands of death through drug violence and gang activity, including shootouts with police.
3-Throwing these poor addicted souls in jail is not a solution. These people need to be in treatment centers, not jails where they become hardened criminals! Even Pat Robertson has noted this fact. We need to focus on warning the public and treating them. Putting them in jail also hurts their job prospects tremendously. And these people are not violent criminals. Imagine incarcerating some for drinking a beer, that is what we are doing when we catch people with marijuana.

Overall, too many lives have been ruined and too much money has been lost as a result of the drug war, and we didn’t even solve the original problem without creating more.

Finally, it is important I highlight Ron Paul’s views on the seperation of church and state. (Which isn’t in the Constitution, by the way) Here is a letter he wrote in 2003:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

In fact, Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment allowing freedom of Prayer in schools.

In conclusion, I hope former Huck fans like myself support Ron Paul for president. He is clearly the best man in the job. His ideas on foreign policy and economics are completely correct. He actually predicted that because of our intervention we would see a rise in terror and we did; he also predicted the market crash.

Have a great day!

Great work, man.

Getting former Huck supporters on board is key to winning Iowa.

[Tom in NYC]

I posted this:

I am a former member of Huck’s Army and now a member of the Ron Paul Revolution. I supported Mike Huckabee in 2008 because he was an honest man with good Christian values. This time I have turned to Ron Paul, a man that cares about his God and country. Obviously my main litmus test is is candidate pro-life? For some reason I was under the impression he wasn’t but I couldn’t have been farther from the truth. As a physician he delivered over 4,000 babies. Several times he would walk in on an abortion which would be stuck in his mind forever. The first time this happened it changed him and made him a staunch supporter of the Right to Life, despite the fact many of his colleagues disagree with him. He is quoted as saying: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”. In fact, in 2005 Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.

Another litmus test for my support is support for Israel. Many confuse Ron Paul’s policy of no-foreign aid with making Israel vulnerable. That assumption is absolutely wrong. Each year we give billions of aid each year to Israel, and even more to her enemies(which Mrs. Bachmann voted for, ahem). Paul is the only candidate that would stop funding Israel’s enemies. We are funding those nations that fund terrorist groups, and all of them are anti-Israel. Cutting off funding to Israel would help them, not hurt them. Their economy is so dependent on subsidies that it is stagnent. With all the abundant resources in the Holy Land the economy should be vibrant! We would be doing them a favor if we stopped sending them money. It should also be noted that Israel has nuclear weapons while her enemies do not, so they dare not attack. Furthermore, Dr. Paul would not tell Israel what to do like prior Presidents. He respects Israel’s sovereignty and their right to make military decisions.

As a social conservative, I was at first skeptical with Paul’s support for ending the drug war. However I have come to agree with his position. But we are doing more harm than good. Consider these facts:
1-The law is completely unenforceable. Middle schoolers have easy access to drugs. It is time for reevaluation.
2-We spend 44 billion as a country each year on the drug war. We would be better off getting tax revenue from the drugs. It is important to note that currently drug cartels, gangs, and middlemen are receiving billions each year. This needs to change. It only breeds thousands of death through drug violence and gang activity, including shootouts with police.
3-Throwing these poor addicted souls in jail is not a solution. These people need to be in treatment centers, not jails where they become hardened criminals! Even Pat Robertson has noted this fact. We need to focus on warning the public and treating them. Putting them in jail also hurts their job prospects tremendously. And these people are not violent criminals. Imagine incarcerating some for drinking a beer, that is what we are doing when we catch people with marijuana.

Overall, too many lives have been ruined and too much money has been lost as a result of the drug war, and we didn’t even solve the original problem without creating more.

Finally, it is important I highlight Ron Paul’s views on the seperation of church and state. (Which isn’t in the Constitution, by the way) Here is a letter he wrote in 2003:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

In fact, Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment allowing freedom of Prayer in schools.

In conclusion, I hope former Huck fans like myself support Ron Paul for president. He is clearly the best man in the job. His ideas on foreign policy and economics are completely correct. He actually predicted that because of our intervention we would see a rise in terror and we did; he also predicted the market crash.

Have a great day!

That's a great job right there.

That forum was full of mostly thoughtful people giving honest and genuine (if somewhat incomplete) assessments. The exact kind of folks we should be targeting, and this post, though long, is exactly the right way to do it.

[reduen]

I posted this:

I am a former member of Huck’s Army and now a member of the Ron Paul Revolution. I supported Mike Huckabee in 2008 because he was an honest man with good Christian values. This time I have turned to Ron Paul, a man that cares about his God and country. Obviously my main litmus test is is candidate pro-life? For some reason I was under the impression he wasn’t but I couldn’t have been farther from the truth. As a physician he delivered over 4,000 babies. Several times he would walk in on an abortion which would be stuck in his mind forever. The first time this happened it changed him and made him a staunch supporter of the Right to Life, despite the fact many of his colleagues disagree with him. He is quoted as saying: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”. In fact, in 2005 Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.

Another litmus test for my support is support for Israel. Many confuse Ron Paul’s policy of no-foreign aid with making Israel vulnerable. That assumption is absolutely wrong. Each year we give billions of aid each year to Israel, and even more to her enemies(which Mrs. Bachmann voted for, ahem). Paul is the only candidate that would stop funding Israel’s enemies. We are funding those nations that fund terrorist groups, and all of them are anti-Israel. Cutting off funding to Israel would help them, not hurt them. Their economy is so dependent on subsidies that it is stagnent. With all the abundant resources in the Holy Land the economy should be vibrant! We would be doing them a favor if we stopped sending them money. It should also be noted that Israel has nuclear weapons while her enemies do not, so they dare not attack. Furthermore, Dr. Paul would not tell Israel what to do like prior Presidents. He respects Israel’s sovereignty and their right to make military decisions.

As a social conservative, I was at first skeptical with Paul’s support for ending the drug war. However I have come to agree with his position. But we are doing more harm than good. Consider these facts:
1-The law is completely unenforceable. Middle schoolers have easy access to drugs. It is time for reevaluation.
2-We spend 44 billion as a country each year on the drug war. We would be better off getting tax revenue from the drugs. It is important to note that currently drug cartels, gangs, and middlemen are receiving billions each year. This needs to change. It only breeds thousands of death through drug violence and gang activity, including shootouts with police.
3-Throwing these poor addicted souls in jail is not a solution. These people need to be in treatment centers, not jails where they become hardened criminals! Even Pat Robertson has noted this fact. We need to focus on warning the public and treating them. Putting them in jail also hurts their job prospects tremendously. And these people are not violent criminals. Imagine incarcerating some for drinking a beer, that is what we are doing when we catch people with marijuana.

Overall, too many lives have been ruined and too much money has been lost as a result of the drug war, and we didn’t even solve the original problem without creating more.

Finally, it is important I highlight Ron Paul’s views on the seperation of church and state. (Which isn’t in the Constitution, by the way) Here is a letter he wrote in 2003:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

In fact, Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment allowing freedom of Prayer in schools.

In conclusion, I hope former Huck fans like myself support Ron Paul for president. He is clearly the best man in the job. His ideas on foreign policy and economics are completely correct. He actually predicted that because of our intervention we would see a rise in terror and we did; he also predicted the market crash.

Have a great day!

This is a beautiful and concise post my man. Sooo glad to have you on our team now...!

+1

[LD Jackson]

I wanted to drop in on this thread and thank everyone who has been commenting on my blog post about Ron Paul. You folks are exactly the kind of readers I like. Even if we disagree on some things, you were respectful and thoughtful in your comments, and that's what I like to see on the blog. In fact, it's what I insist on, as I refuse to allow the comments to descend into a common yelling match. Thank you for respecting that. I will try to let you know what I decide about supporting Dr. Paul.

LJ
My best friend is my wife!

[swissaustrian]

Seems like we got one converted already:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_1IOMrr_s

[tpreitzel]

I posted this:


Personally, I'd add a section illustrating the criminal effects of a federal ban on drugs, e.g. the violent crime attendant with exorbitant profits due to a black market.

[Sola_Fide]

Seems like we got one converted already:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_1IOMrr_s


Nice!

[Kregisen]

US taxpayers help pay for govt subsidized abortion in Israel via our foreign aid.

source? This would be great to share with people I know.

[tsai3904]

I wanted to drop in on this thread and thank everyone who has been commenting on my blog post about Ron Paul. You folks are exactly the kind of readers I like. Even if we disagree on some things, you were respectful and thoughtful in your comments, and that's what I like to see on the blog. In fact, it's what I insist on, as I refuse to allow the comments to descend into a common yelling match. Thank you for respecting that. I will try to let you know what I decide about supporting Dr. Paul.

LJ
My best friend is my wife!

Welcome to the forums! It's always great to hear others consider Ron Paul and are curious enough to do more research. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read The Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=pd_sim_b_1). The book opened my eyes to the philosophy of freedom and liberty. I would be happy to purchase a copy for you if you are interested.

[libertygrl]

Actually i find the hardest thing to get huck's army aboard is, many of them saying they can't fully support Ron because he "wants to legalize drugs" though I think many of them would see the light if they did the proper research. And not just buying the small bit they hear at debates and though the media..

Tell them about this group:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an international organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies. Our experience on the front lines of the “war on drugs” has led us to call for a repeal of prohibition and its replacement with a tight system of legalized regulation, which will effectively cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the current illegal market. http://www.leap.cc/

[Bruno]

Welcome, LD Jackson,, and all others who are reconsidering Ron Paul!

[LD Jackson]

Welcome to the forums! It's always great to hear others consider Ron Paul and are curious enough to do more research. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read The Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=pd_sim_b_1). The book opened my eyes to the philosophy of freedom and liberty. I would be happy to purchase a copy for you if you are interested.

Thanks for the welcome. Although I haven't made up my mind, I am definitely interested in Ron Paul, and am doing the research.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Anyone catch Beck's show on Wed? He had Paul on and seemingly tried to ambush him at the end with his question about if he supported Israel, but was seemingly put off base w/ his answer that he seemed to accept. I didn't catch his last show, though think I have it on DVR, but as I didn't see anything here, so I'm assuming an endorsement hasn't come. Did anyone see it or listen to his radio show and know if Paul has been brought up.


Huck and Beck seem a lot alike, though there are differences. I think Beck has been won over more. I'm not sure where the issue differences are between Huck and Paul, but if they can mend fences, getting on Huck's show might be just the ticket. Then again, that might backfire.

thoughts?

-t

[BlackTerrel]

I freely admit that I was not a fan of Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential campaign partly because I supported Mike Huckabee, and partly because I found Ron Paul supporters to be particularly annoying with their comments here on the blog.

I notice this comes up a lot. Does this ever come up about other candidates:

"Cain seems ok but his supporters are so annoying I can't vote for him" Or

"I like Mitt Romney but his supporters drive me nuts".

I love that we have the most enthusiastic supporters. But I also think some of the most vocal hurt us at times.

[specsaregood]

source? This would be great to share with people I know.

Here ya go:
We give them billions a year in foreign aid. Money is fungible -- which is the exact argument pro-lifers use to try to get planned parenthood defunded.

They have socialized medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Israel

And abortion is allowed (required approval though)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

So it seems that it would cover abortion.

And there are a handful of articles online that says that it does.
http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/letters/2010/01/HEALTH-CARE-Israel-the-US-and-politics/


Thanks to the generosity of benefactors like Lieberman and Nelson, the Israelis are able to provide their citizens with a generous, comprehensive, nationalized health-care plan. The Israeli plan even covers abortion services. Estimates are that nearly 20,000 legal abortions are performed in Israel every year


Money we give them for defense subsidizes their government, so they are able to afford free healthcare including abortion. Bam.

[LibertyEagle]

Dr. Paul is the logical choice for Huckabee supporters.

The majority of these people are going to be traditional conservatives (libertarian-conservatives), so if they come here, I hope we do our best to embrace them.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

This looks helpful

http://driftlessweb.com/Ron_Paul_Israel_ron_paul_presidency.gif

[BUSHLIED]

http://people-press.org/files/2011/05/2011-typology-s6-06.png

If you take a look at Huckabee, he leads all candidates for combined 1st and 2nd choice...pulling in Huckabee supporters is absolutely necessary to expand Ron's base. What issues can Ron promote that would bring them into the fold?

[falconplayer11]

Huckabee supporters are all about the moral issues. Yes, he had more beliefs than just anti-abortion/anti-gay, but that is what set him apart. Just push Ron's pro-life views and personal faith in Christ. From my own experience, a lot of Huckabee supporters aren't going to be won over with libertarian, logical arguments.

[BUSHLIED]

what is interesting about this survey is that Huckabee, despite his social conservatism, pulled 9% of the libertarian vote and 13% of libertarians liked him for second choice. This means that Ron can appeal to these libertarians that supported Huckabee, I hope Bachmann didn't pull them in as she is more like Huckabee then Paul...I think Michele may have thrown a monkey wrench in this...

[sailingaway]

How long ago were those numbers? Gingrich? Barbour? Ron is working on highlighting the parts of his record and philosophy that will appeal to a good portion of them.

[sailingaway]

what is interesting nonsense about this survey is that Huckabee, despite his social conservatism, pulled 9% of the libertarian vote and 13% of libertarians liked him for second choice. This means that Ron can appeal to these libertarians that supported Huckabee, I hope Bachmann didn't pull them in as she is more like Huckabee then Paul...I think Michele may have thrown a monkey wrench in this...

fixed it for you. Fiscally conservative, yes, not libertarian, and those should come to Ron, not Bachmann, because Bachmann cobbles pieces of Ron's economic policy with foreign spending and domestic police state spending that would forclose the spending changes needed to implement that policy. It isn't coherent.

MB is more evangelical of the more vocal evangelical sort, in terms of some cultural bonding, but Ron is deeply religious, and not all of the religious people in Iowa are more like MB than like Ron. Ron thinks faith is personal, and he lives his. When I was a child, my family taught that religion is important but personal, and you should let it shine by how you live your life and make people want what you have. I think that is a very traditional, American view, not that there isn't more than one view. Also, Ron is more like other things about Huck. Many of us looked at Huck before we looked into Ron and were hooked -- or came to Ron after Huck dropped out.

[BUSHLIED]

How long ago were those numbers? Gingrich? Barbour? Ron is working on highlighting the parts of his record and philosophy that will appeal to a good portion of them.

This was a massive survey done by PEW in FEB and March of 2011....check out this MUST read analysis here: http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

It essentially summerizes very important data points for candidates to KNOW when running...social science data like this is critical to understanding the American "schizo" electorate and voting behaviors...

[KurtBoyer25L]

what is interesting about this survey is that Huckabee, despite his social conservatism, pulled 9% of the libertarian vote and 13% of libertarians liked him for second choice. This means that Ron can appeal to these libertarians that supported Huckabee, I hope Bachmann didn't pull them in as she is more like Huckabee then Paul...I think Michele may have thrown a monkey wrench in this...

What's REALLY interesting is that Romney is getting 27% of libertarians as a first choice. Something is seriously fucked up.

[tangent4ronpaul]

:eek: More Libertarians liked Romney than like Paul :confused::confused::confused:

Who did this poll anyway?

-t

[sailingaway]

This was a massive survey done by PEW in FEB and March of 2011....check out this MUST read analysis here: http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

It essentially summerizes very important data points for candidates to KNOW when running...social science data like this is critical to understanding the American "schizo" electorate and voting behaviors...

I read it at the time and thought their sampling pool was biased, and their terminology seriously flawed, but that they did make some good general points.

That libertarian bit is nonsense, though. It is like all those polls saying 'tea partiers' prefer Romney. It is all in how you define things and in what the alternate choices are.

[swissaustrian]

Another former Huckabee supporter joining us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRgJ571kxk

[BUSHLIED]

I read it at the time and thought their sampling pool was biased, and their terminology seriously flawed, but that they did make some good general points.

That libertarian bit is nonsense, though. It is like all those polls saying 'tea partiers' prefer Romney. It is all in how you define things and in what the alternate choices are.

What if you are wrong? I've been to some Libertarian events and many of them are not supporting Paul and if fact downright nasty about it. You have all types of libertarians: beltway and urban libertarians I know aren't too keen on Paul. he "Tea-Party" does seem to be hi-jacked by staunch republicans who are opposed to Obama-care.

Sometimes I think that Ron Paul supporters are blind to political reality, fueled by idealism. With a sample size of over 3,000 there would have to be some conscious degree of active and deliberate bias on the part of the primary researcher. Yet they do make some very important points that appear to be valid, particularly about the shift and growing size of Libertarians into the GOP. Furthermore, the underlying premise of the 'typologies' is correct. Both parties are ideologically diverse with some overlap. The demographic portions are on par with what i have seen from other studies, so there seems to be some "concurrent validity." To be prudent, we should preliminarily accept these results until we have information to suggest anything different.

[BUSHLIED]

:eek: More Libertarians liked Romney than like Paul :confused::confused::confused:

Who did this poll anyway?

-t

Well, Libertarians have a lot of differences with each other. Not all "libertarians" support Paul. In fact, as a libertarian, if it weren't for the anti-war perspective of Paul or the strong civil liberties stance he takes, I would not vote for him. His perspectives on education, life, marriage, and immigration I disagree with. Those differences aren't enough for me to dismiss him but perhaps for others, they are a deal-breaker...I can care less about those issues.
Pew conducted the poll.

[LibertyEagle]

What if you are wrong? I've been to some Libertarian events and many of them are not supporting Paul and if fact downright nasty about it. You have all types of libertarians: beltway and urban libertarians I know aren't too keen on Paul. he "Tea-Party" does seem to be hi-jacked by staunch republicans who are opposed to Obama-care.

Sometimes I think that Ron Paul supporters are blind to political reality, fueled by idealism. With a sample size of over 3,000 there would have to be some conscious degree of active and deliberate bias on the part of the primary researcher. Yet they do make some very important points that appear to be valid, particularly about the shift and growing size of Libertarians into the GOP. Furthermore, the underlying premise of the 'typologies' is correct. Both parties are ideologically diverse with some overlap. The demographic portions are on par with what i have seen from other studies, so there seems to be some "concurrent validity." To be prudent, we should preliminarily accept these results until we have information to suggest anything different.

Hijacked? Hijacking means that it was taken over from someone else. When the reality is that they are the people who showed up and good for them.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, Libertarians have a lot of differences with each other. Not all "libertarians" support Paul. In fact, as a libertarian, if it weren't for the anti-war perspective of Paul or the strong civil liberties stance he takes, I would not vote for him. His perspectives on education, life, marriage, and immigration I disagree with. Those differences aren't enough for me to dismiss him but perhaps for others, they are a deal-breaker...I can care less about those issues.
Pew conducted the poll.

Ok, but Romney??? Pray tell, what aspect of Romney is even close to being libertarian?

[Revolution9]

Pat Robertson has really been odd the last several years.

Yeah. The jackass got 100K USD kitchen cabinets installed with rare african wood (my pal built them). Great to see where the collection plate ends up. Anyone who promotes Israel being a kingdom in the earthly realm is promoting a counterfeit fashioned by The Enemy.

Rev9

Rev9

[BUSHLIED]

Ok, but Romney??? Pray tell, what aspect of Romney is even close to being libertarian?

I suppose it would be the perception that he is "pro-business and anti-tax." Libertarians are by far the most educated and highest income earners of the GOP, they are the typical business class/entrepreneurs...I suppose they like that about Romney, he was a business man, he talked about his dad selling paint out of the backseat of his car etc....just a guess.

[BUSHLIED]

Hijacked? Hijacking means that it was taken over from someone else. When the reality is that they are the people who showed up and good for them.

Well, I am not criticizing them for getting upset about Obama-care and standing against it. But I don't get the sense that the "tea-party" are made of anti-war conservatives and predominately libertarian. So you have "staunch republicans" that identify as tea-party on the issue of limited government but are foreign policy hawks...so there seems to be a lack of tea-party purity. I guess that is my bias. How can someone associate with the tea-party BUT NOT be anti-war..I thought the tea-party was anti-war...u follow me?> I thought the tea-party was started by the 2008 Paul campaign and was base on those campaign platforms...but the tea-party that WE started seems to have be hi-jacked...that's what I me...

I guess there is the Ron Paul Revolution and then there is the tea-party...also the media labels Rand Paul as the Tea-Party Senator...there seems to be disconnect.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I am not criticizing them for getting upset about Obama-care and standing against it. But I don't get the sense that the "tea-party" are made of predominately libertarians as the survey suggests. So you have "staunch republicans" that identify as tea-party on the issue of limited government but are foreign policy hawks...so there seems to be a lack of tea-party purity. I guess that is my bias. How can someone associate with the tea-party BUT NOT be anti-war..I thought the tea-party was anti-war...u follow me?>

What do you mean by staunch Republican?

[BUSHLIED]

What do you mean by staunch Republican?

\Basic Description: This extremely partisan Republican group is strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are highly engaged in politics, most (72%) agree with the Tea Party, 54% regularly watch Fox News, and nearly half (47%) believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S.

Defining values: Extremely critical of the federal government and supportive of sharply limited government. Pro-business and strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Highly religious; most say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.


These are the people that I have traditionally identified as older, baby-bombers, under-educated (just plain ignorant), hot-headed, narrow-minded, religious zealots from the South...they are the people you see at CPAC dressed like they are going to Church and think Ron Paul is a nut...bible-thumper types..clinging to their "guns and god types" they watch Bill O'Reily, Rush LImbuagh, Sean Hannity...NEOCONS...they probably follow Hagee and Pat Robertson..etc...they held up signs with Obama as the Joker, birther, make charges of obama is a nazi etc...they are the people that support Is-real religiously etc...

These types bring the nascent tea-party movement that Ron started down and give us a bad name...I wish they went away...

Now obvious that is a stereotype BUT you get my drift...there is a reason why only 5% of them support Ron...

edit: I should add that I am not sure how large this group is...but because they are politically active, they are visible..and they are influential.

IF you take a general estimate of 55 million registered Republicans nationally, according to the survey this group represents about 11%, so that is about 5.5 million of these types...

[LibertyEagle]

\Basic Description: This extremely partisan Republican group is strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are highly engaged in politics, most (72%) agree with the Tea Party, 54% regularly watch Fox News, and nearly half (47%) believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S.



Ok. Well, I think you have created too large of a basket there.

The Republican party has many subgroups. The "Rockefeller Republicans" who are out and out advocates for big government. Most of these people have no problem with global government. The rather recent "Neoconservatives" who are just Trotsky-loving liberal Democrats who saw an opportunity to takeover the conservative movement and instill their warmongering to "remake the Middle East". Note: The Rockefeller Republicans and the Neoconservatives are really liberals in disguise. Finally, the REAL conservatives, the "Goldwater Conservatives" (those who didn't leave the Republican party out of horror) who have been propagandized out the kazoo by FOX news, etc. and many of whom, lost their way.

Ron Paul's platform is almost 100% aligned with Goldwater conservatism (traditional conservatism). There is a reason why Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Ron Paul in the last campaign. heh.


Defining values: Extremely critical of the federal government and supportive of sharply limited government. Pro-business and strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Highly religious; most say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.

They believe in a strong national defense. So does Ron Paul. They were led astray by the neocons to believe that it needed to be offensive. Peace through strength does not mean we need to attack people who have not attacked us. It means that if someone attacks us, or poses an immediate threat, that we have enough power to make them extremely sorry. Not a thing wrong with that.

Yes, many are Christians. As is Ron Paul.

[BUSHLIED]

Ok. Well, I think you have created too large of a basket there.

The Republican party has many subgroups. The "Rockefeller Republicans" who are out and out advocates for big government. Most of these people have no problem with global government. The rather recent "Neoconservatives" who are just Trotsky-loving liberal Democrats who saw an opportunity to takeover the conservative movement and instill their warmongering to "remake the Middle East". And finally, the REAL conservatives, the "Goldwater Conservatives" (those who didn't leave the Republican party out of horror) who have been propagandized out the kazoo by FOX news, etc. and many of whom, lost their way.

Ron Paul's platform is almost 100% aligned with Goldwater conservatism (traditional conservatism). There is a reason why Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Ron Paul in the last campaign. heh.



They believe in a strong national defense. So does Ron Paul. They were led astray by the neocons to believe that it needed to be offensive. Peace through strength does not mean we need to attack people who have not attacked us. It means that if someone attacks us, or poses an immediate threat, that we have enough power to make them extremely sorry. Not a thing wrong with that.

Yes, many are Christians. As is Ron Paul.

Yes, I am aware of these other "classifications."

If true, then how are the Neocon candidates gaining so much support? You saw the 2008 debate, they were all pandering to the Neocons...what happened to the Goldwaters?

[newyearsrevolution08]

I don't consider anyone a specific candidates supporter anymore ESPECIALLY when it is someone like huck, romney and especially mccain. A strong defense is ONE THING but to honestly believe we MUST kick the crap out of any nation that thinks differently than is is just plain childish and PITIFUL.

We are nothing more than paid bullies at this point with ZERO LEASH.

[BUSHLIED]

I don't consider anyone a specific candidates supporter anymore ESPECIALLY when it is someone like huck, romney and especially mccain. A strong defense is ONE THING but to honestly believe we MUST kick the crap out of any nation that thinks differently than is is just plain childish and PITIFUL.

We are nothing more than paid bullies at this point with ZERO LEASH.


It is also this idea of combating "Islamo-facism" and that we must bring the fight to them over there etc...to me, this is all WAR PROPAGANDA...I just don't understand how people, who are Xtians or not, actually buy into this...I don't know about you BUT we are now fighting wars in about 5-6 countries, all in the name of going after Al-Qaeda...according to a BBC documentary, they don't really exist...it is all FEAR tactics, like Ron says...the media props this up....

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, I am aware of these other "classifications."

If true, then how are the Neocon candidates gaining so much support? You saw the 2008 debate, they were all pandering to the Neocons...what happened to the Goldwaters?

I'm right here. Still supporting Ron Paul. :)

As I said, some left the Republican party. Some went to the Libertarian party (are you aware that the Libertarian party was created by disgruntled conservatives?). Some went to the Constitution party. Others became Independents. Some stayed in the Republican party and many who stayed became co-opted by neoconservatism. They didn't see it coming and didn't realize what was happening. The neocons couldn't have done it without FOX news.

Have you noticed how well Rand Paul is being received? I think the traditional conservatives are remembering their roots.

Note: I think a good many of the Huckabee supporters are traditional conservatives (libertarian-conservatives).

EDIT: One other thing. Yes, in 2008, most of the Republican candidates were pandering to the neocon-agenda. But, did you also notice that every other word out of their mouths was REAGAN? What Reagan talked was Goldwater-conservatism (traditional conservatism); what he did was another matter entirely. But, people mostly remember his talk. That is why they all called themselves conservatives and kept mentioning Reagan, while they led them down the garden path. It was just a continuation of what FOX news was telling them.

[BUSHLIED]

I'm right here. Still supporting Ron Paul. :)

As I said, some left the Republican party. Some went to the Libertarian party (are you aware that the Libertarian party was created by disgruntled conservatives?). Some went to the Constitution party. Others became Independents. Some stayed in the Republican party and many who stayed became co-opted by neoconservatism. They didn't see it coming and didn't realize what was happening. The neocons couldn't have done it without FOX news.

Have you noticed how well Rand Paul is being received? I think the traditional conservatives are remembering their roots.

Rand was very careful when articulating his foreign policy and he better filibuster that Libyan resolution sponsored by Kerry and McCain that is coming up...pull the 5 other Senators that opposed the resolution in committee and make a big deal of it...it would be nice if he chastises other GOPs for getting behind it...I wonder which way McConnell is going go on it...

[LibertyEagle]

It is also this idea of combating "Islamo-facism" and that we must bring the fight to them over there etc...to me, this is all WAR PROPAGANDA...I just don't understand how people, who are Xtians or not, actually buy into this...I don't know about you BUT we are now fighting wars in about 5-6 countries, all in the name of going after Al-Qaeda...according to a BBC documentary, they don't really exist...it is all FEAR tactics, like Ron says...the media props this up....

Sure it is. It is the neoconservative swan song. Remember the neoconservative plan to "remake the Middle East"? They capitalized on the fear after 9-11 and led conservatives astray. Whenever they started doubting, they only had to turn on FOX news and be reminded that the alternative was someone like Hillary. Then FOX started all the crap about "supporting the troops". That to support the troops meant you had to keep paying for war. How stupid is that? I support the troops. Bring them the hell home and only send them to war when our national DEFENSE is at stake.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand was very careful when articulating his foreign policy and he better filibuster that Libyan resolution sponsored by Kerry and McCain that is coming up...pull the 5 other Senators that opposed the resolution in committee and make a big deal of it...it would be nice if he chastises other GOPs for getting behind it...I wonder which way McConnell is going go on it...

Yeah, I agree. The thing now is that Conservatives realize we are broke and cannot afford this warmongering, even if they wanted it. I am hoping that will give them pause to take a deep breath and consider what we are doing and what they used to believe.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

http://people-press.org/files/2011/05/2011-typology-s6-06.png


What's REALLY interesting is that Romney is getting 27% of libertarians as a first choice. Something is seriously fucked up.


:eek: More Libertarians liked Romney than like Paul :confused::confused::confused:

Who did this poll anyway?

-t


That libertarian bit is nonsense, though. It is like all those polls saying 'tea partiers' prefer Romney. It is all in how you define things and in what the alternate choices are.

I agree the libertarian bit definitely is complete BS. No true libertarian would've any reason NOT to support Ron, no true libertarian would ever support some of these other status quo candidates when there is someone like Paul already in the race. The thing is that there are many kinds of people that wrongly label themselves as "libertarian", there are socialists like Chomsky who call themselves "libertarian socialists" (:confused:), then there are neo-connish followers of Glenn Beck who may call themselves "libertarians", etc etc so the libertarian part is totally misleading.

I just couldn't stop laughing when I saw the libertarian distribution :eek::D

[LibertyEagle]

I agree the libertarian bit definitely is complete BS. No true libertarian would've any reason NOT to support Ron, no true libertarian would ever support some of these other status quo candidates when there is someone like Paul already in the race. The thing is that there are many kinds of people that wrongly label themselves as "libertarian", there are socialists like Chomsky who call themselves "libertarian socialists" (:confused:), then there are neo-connish followers of Glenn Beck who may call themselves "libertarians", etc etc so the libertarian part is totally misleading.

I just couldn't stop laughing when I saw the libertarian distribution :eek::D

I don't think neocons would like Glenn Beck. He would only appeal to traditional conservatives.

[klamath]

Interesting discussion LE and Bushlied. The factor that isn't taken into consideration in all these different branches of the GOP and how libertarians can even think about supporting romney. Presidential leadship. Will that candidate have enough leadership abilities to get any of the agenda the voter values implimented? This is where RP is horrible weak. It is where voters cannot view RP as being president. Even RP's good friend McClintock in CA said he didn't believe RP is cut out of presidential timber. I think this is an area that RP's campaign managers need to really start working on.

[BUSHLIED]

Interesting discussion LE and Bushlied. The factor that isn't taken into consideration in all these different branches of the GOP and how libertarians can even think about supporting romney. Presidential leadship. Will that candidate have enough leadership abilities to get any of the agenda the voter values implimented. This is where RP is horrible weak. It is where cannot view RP as being president. Even RP's good friend McClintock in CA said he didn't believe RP is cut out of presidential timber. I think this is an area that RP's campaign managers need to really start working on.

I agree. I think many people don't realize how important public appearance is and it could very well be true that Romney leads with self-identified libertarians (even if they really aren't) over Ron because of this...

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting discussion LE and Bushlied. The factor that isn't taken into consideration in all these different branches of the GOP and how libertarians can even think about supporting romney. Presidential leadship. Will that candidate have enough leadership abilities to get any of the agenda the voter values implimented? This is where RP is horrible weak. It is where voters cannot view RP as being president. Even RP's good friend McClintock in CA said he didn't believe RP is cut out of presidential timber. I think this is an area that RP's campaign managers need to really start working on.

I'm thinking that Doug Wead is working on that through the articles he is writing. And you heard Dr. Paul's speech at the Faith and Freedom conference.

As far as Romney is concerned, ewww, if libertarians are supporting him, I would venture a guess that they are beltway-types.

Does anyone know who CATO appears to be supporting this go round?

[sailingaway]

Interesting discussion LE and Bushlied. The factor that isn't taken into consideration in all these different branches of the GOP and how libertarians can even think about supporting romney. Presidential leadship. Will that candidate have enough leadership abilities to get any of the agenda the voter values implimented? This is where RP is horrible weak. It is where voters cannot view RP as being president. Even RP's good friend McClintock in CA said he didn't believe RP is cut out of presidential timber. I think this is an area that RP's campaign managers need to really start working on.

I don't think Tom is his 'good friend' and I think that comment (those weren't quite the words, but I remember it) is a proof of it. Tom, at the time, saw himself in that roll someday, of course. Then he almost lost his election and needed Ron's endorsement to win it. And Ron gave it, which I think says volumes about them both. Now he sounds like a clone of Ron's half the time.

McClintock needs to work on that.

Media spins Ron, but Ron is just fine. I honestly think that other than the suit, (and it looks like he got at least one) and maybe not leaning against his podium to look down at the audience when he speaks, we don't want to change too much. If 'presidential' means plastic, there are too many of those, already. Ron stands out as a trustworthy guy. Even that Suffolk poll in NH that has him in third with Bachman slightly ahead of him, with her post debate/announcement bump, still has him tied with her for first place on who people trust most.

In THIS time, I think our best chance of getting Ron elected depends on keeping that trust and growing it. Not making him look like he is above it all.

Now, working with Doug Wead to frame concise responses to common and predictable media spin of positions, that I think would be a great idea.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I don't think neocons would like Glenn Beck. He would only appeal to traditional conservatives.

Well, I guess I've a MUCH broader range that I classify as "neo-cons"; anyone who's not very close to old-conservative/libertarian/classical-liberal/etc is a neo-con for me. I mean it's "neo-conservative" so anyone who's not "old-conservative" would be "neo-conservative but that's just how I look at it. Anyways, the point was that Beck & his followers may call themselves "libertarians" but they really are not & that's why the libertarian support on that data doesn't quite represent the true libertarian preference - which'd be Ron Paul.


Interesting discussion LE and Bushlied. The factor that isn't taken into consideration in all these different branches of the GOP and how libertarians can even think about supporting romney. Presidential leadship. Will that candidate have enough leadership abilities to get any of the agenda the voter values implimented? This is where RP is horrible weak. It is where voters cannot view RP as being president. Even RP's good friend McClintock in CA said he didn't believe RP is cut out of presidential timber. I think this is an area that RP's campaign managers need to really start working on.


I agree. I think many people don't realize how important public appearance is and it could very well be true that Romney leads with self-identified libertarians (even if they really aren't) over Ron because of this...

Well, obviously, it's no secret that Ron's orotorical skills as well as his presence isn't that great & I also believe that he definitely needs to improve on those fronts but no matter what, no true libertarian would be voting for Romney or any of these other hacks just because they "look/act presidential" so the point is that these aren't really libertarians, it's a misnomer. But again, Ron definitely needs to work on the delivery of his message to reach farther than he already has & he'll appeal to a lot of people no matter what the hell they call themselves.

[sailingaway]

What if you are wrong? I've been to some Libertarian events and many of them are not supporting Paul and if fact downright nasty about it. You have all types of libertarians: beltway and urban libertarians I know aren't too keen on Paul. he "Tea-Party" does seem to be hi-jacked by staunch republicans who are opposed to Obama-care.

Sometimes I think that Ron Paul supporters are blind to political reality, fueled by idealism. With a sample size of over 3,000 there would have to be some conscious degree of active and deliberate bias on the part of the primary researcher. Yet they do make some very important points that appear to be valid, particularly about the shift and growing size of Libertarians into the GOP. Furthermore, the underlying premise of the 'typologies' is correct. Both parties are ideologically diverse with some overlap. The demographic portions are on par with what i have seen from other studies, so there seems to be some "concurrent validity." To be prudent, we should preliminarily accept these results until we have information to suggest anything different.

There are the socially liberal libertarians who want open borders, globalism (or 'internationalism' as it is rebranding itself to be) don't value sovereignty of a nation, and are pro-abortion and such, and yeah, they look to Gary Johnson. NOT to ROMNEY and even less to Huckabee. Absolutely, they loathe Ron. There are big government liberals who call themselves libertarian for unfathomable reasons. None of them would vote for Huckabee or Romney, regardless of whether they vote for Ron. It is a flaw in the survey I am pointing out, not whether Ron 'locks up' the libertarian vote which isn't really our issue, since anyone who values the Constitution should want to elect Ron.

And to another of your points, of course the tea parties aren't all anti war. There is a split on this issue. And you know this, so I don't even get the point of that comment.

[BUSHLIED]

There are the socially liberal libertarians who want open borders, globalism (or 'internationalism' as it is rebranding itself to be) don't value sovereignty of a nation, and are pro-abortion and such, and yeah, they look to Gary Johnson. NOT to ROMNEY and even less to Huckabee. Absolutely, they loathe Ron. There are big government liberals who call themselves libertarian for unfathomable reasons. None of them would vote for Huckabee or Romney, regardless of whether they vote for Ron. It is a flaw in the survey I am pointing out, not whether Ron 'locks up' the libertarian vote which isn't really our issue, since anyone who values the Constitution should want to elect Ron.

And to another of your points, of course the tea parties aren't all anti war. There is a split on this issue. And you know this, so I don't even get the point of that comment.

Ok, there may be a flaw in the survey...I'll have to look at the political typology quiz again...

I guess I am surprised to see that the "tea-party" is not as libertarian as I thought...but then again perhaps that was too much to ask. The tea-party seems to be a "motley crew" and I am disheartened how Bachmann now gets identified as the de facto tea-party candidate...which would have expanded Paul base significantly. It may be that Ron has yet to make a direct appeal to the tea-party or that the tea-party really doesn't care about Ron and choose Bachmann such that they simply don't see Ron's ideas as tea-party...

I wonder if you interviewed people at a tea-party rally and asked them why they don't support Paul..what answer you get. Did you see the Cain supporter video, they had no idea about Cain, perhaps that illustrates the tea-partiers...average American's getting dumped by charisma without really understanding the issues...

sigh..

[Sweman]

Well, I guess I've a MUCH broader range that I classify as "neo-cons"; anyone who's not very close to old-conservative/libertarian/classical-liberal/etc is a neo-con for me.
I think that's a sloppy way to use definitions. May I ask what meaning you put into the words neo liberalism or post modernism?

[sailingaway]

Well, I guess I've a MUCH broader range that I classify as "neo-cons"; anyone who's not very close to old-conservative/libertarian/classical-liberal/etc is a neo-con for me. I mean it's "neo-conservative" so anyone who's not "old-conservative" would be "neo-conservative but that's just how I look at it. Anyways, the point was that Beck & his followers may call themselves "libertarians" but they really are not & that's why the libertarian support on that data doesn't quite represent the true libertarian preference - which'd be Ron Paul.



There are traditional conservative hawks. That is what the neocons played to to first get a toehold in the GOP when they left the Democrats. But it is in the Jim DeMint sense, not the Bill Kristol sense. It is a question of primacy in defense, not offense. They define it differently, but the worst thing is they seem almost always open to a cleverly worded pitch to their martial side through patriotism. They can be manipulated, as the (politically) religious right, to my mind, has been by people dangling solutions so monolithic and impossible to obtain that they never harvest the low hanging fruit. Take the pro-life amendment to the Constitution, for example, long before you would ever get that, you could save millions of baby lives by pushing for Ron's legislative solution to essentially overturn Roe v Wade by removing the topic from the federal court jurisdiction. And doing that would certainly not prevent getting a Constitutional amendment later. But those who would rather keep a ring in the nose of people who care about this issue, to keep them fighting, and never winning (my opinion again) say that is 'weak' and they should hold out exclusively for what may end up being pie in the sky, and in any event has been 30 years or more in the fighting, with no winning yet in sight.

That is just to say people can be manipulated using issues important to them, however. But not all hawks are neocons. Neocons are poison, using real concerns of other people to further their own power agenda.

[BUSHLIED]

What do you think of Rubio? To me, he is a neo-con? He gives me that feel, particularly how quick he was to pander to Israel. The exaggerated support for Israel, to me, is a big give away of a neo-con.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think that's a sloppy way to use definitions. May I ask what meaning you put into the words neo liberalism or post modernism?

I don't see anything sloppy about it. "Neo-con" = "neo-conservative" so anyone who's NOT "old-conservative" is "neo-conservative"; that's a pretty simple & intuitive way of looking at it.

Besides, all these labels can be misleading as they've changed & crossed paths so many times, as I've said before, even socialists like Chomsky call themselves "libertarian" so all these definitions have gotten tangled up anyway.

[sailingaway]

Many evangelicals equate the modern political unit that named itself Israel with the Biblical Israel. That is not necessarily neoconnish. The neocons are the ones who are fully aware of that and use it to manipulate those who truly believe.

I do believe that Rubio is a neocon, yes.

[sailingaway]

I don't see anything sloppy about it. "Neo-con" = "neo-conservative" so anyone who's NOT "old-conservative" is "neo-conservative"; that's a pretty simple & intuitive way of looking at it.

Besides, all these labels can be misleading as they've changed & crossed paths so many times, as I've said before, even socialists like Chomsky call themselves "libertarian" so all these definitions have gotten tangled up anyway.

It makes sense using the roots of the words, but there is a specific sociological definition of 'neoconservatism' of the type developed by Strauss, and Bill Kristol's Dad, who was a student of Strauss is considered the 'father of the neoconservatives' the way Ron is considered the Godfather of the tea parties. Neoconservatives essentially master in manipulation, happy to acknowledge and validate the passionate concerns of the masses, and use them to manipulate the masses to neoconservative ends (global influence and power for their interest groups -- all of which requires a big government). If they have passionate drives themselves, other than for power, they escape me.


Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:[20]

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:[21]

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.

William Kristol defends his father by noting that the criticism of an instrumental view of politics misses the point. When the context is a discussion of religion in the public sphere in a secular nation, religion is inevitably dealt with instrumentally. Apart from that, it should be borne in mind that the majority of neoconservatives believe in the truth, as well as the utility, of religion.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I included Bill Kristol's disclaimer.

[Sola_Fide]

Great thread!

I truly, truly think there is a natural ideological step from Huckabee to Paul. The seed of doubt just has to be planted!

[BUSHLIED]

Great thread!

I truly, truly think there is a natural ideological step from Huckabee to Paul. The seed of doubt just has to be planted!

Well the only few connections I can see is that Ron is Christian and Pro-life, and oh, the home-schooling piece...maybe the "fair-tax" but Ron would go further than that...

[LibertyEagle]

Many evangelicals equate the modern political unit that named itself Israel with the Biblical Israel. That is not necessarily neoconnish. The neocons are the ones who are fully aware of that and use it to manipulate those who truly believe.

I do believe that Rubio is a neocon, yes.

Absolutely!! Well-said.

[Sweman]

Besides, all these labels can be misleading as they've changed & crossed paths so many times, as I've said before, even socialists like Chomsky call themselves "libertarian" so all these definitions have gotten tangled up anyway.
This proves my point. I don't redefine a word just because I can (I leave that to the neo cons...).

I do wonder if you call liberals neo liberals because they came after the classical liberals?

[sailingaway]

Well the only few connections I can see is that Ron is Christian and Pro-life, and oh, the home-schooling piece...maybe the "fair-tax" but Ron would go further than that...

And Constitutionalism procedural process being necessary to value in itself, or as Ron has said: "A Constitution that can say anything you want, might as well be blank."

I personally feel Ron goes even further on those points, but there were a number of principles you don't name which made me like Huckabee at a first look, until I really looked into Ron, and never looked back.

I mean, you're sitting here saying there isn't much similarity to a group of people who looked into Huck because they liked him, some of whom even initially preferred Huck, and a few of whom might even prefer him to this day were he in the race, but he isn't. (You'd have to ask ProLife Libertarian about that...)

[Sola_Fide]

Well the only few connections I can see is that Ron is Christian and Pro-life, and oh, the home-schooling piece...maybe the "fair-tax" but Ron would go further than that...


It's not just that. It is the ideological struggle itself. It is the question of whether Christianity is expressed better in constitutionalism or neo-conservatism.

[LibertyEagle]

Well the only few connections I can see is that Ron is Christian and Pro-life, and oh, the home-schooling piece...maybe the "fair-tax" but Ron would go further than that...

-individual liberty and personal responsibility
-strong national defense <----- Although some have forgotten that offense is quite different than defense.
-personal privacy
-limited constitutional government
-state's rights <----- Although many seem to have forgotten this and have been convinced that everything needs to be done at the federal level.

These are all conservative ideals and Huckabee sang that tune.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It makes sense using the roots of the words, but there is a specific sociological definition of 'neoconservatism' of the type developed by Strauss, and Bill Kristol's Dad, who was a student of Strauss is considered the 'father of the neoconservatives' the way Ron is considered the Godfather of the tea parties. Neoconservatives essentially master in manipulation, happy to acknowledge and validate the passionate concerns of the masses, and use them to manipulate the masses to neoconservative ends (global influence and power for their interest groups -- all of which requires a big government). If they have passionate drives themselves, other than for power, they escape me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I included Bill Kristol's disclaimer.

Yeah but the question is, does everyone agree on this definition? I don't think so. I think you'll find many varying definitions from people on these forums itself about what a neocon is & what neoconservatism is. As I've said, even people like Chomsky & Beck who hold quite different views from us here call themselves libertarians, the same holds true for neo-cons, all these terms are very elusive to pigeonhole like that because not all people in a group agree on all the issues contained in an ideology so it's as difficult as pointing out on a spectrum of colors as to where EXACTLY one color ends & the other one starts. And again, I don't think everyone is even concerned about the EXACT definition, it's just a fuzzy, subjective idea or an impression of it that people go by, when it comes to associating these labels with certain ideas & certain behaviors. Well, that's how I see it anyway. So to each his own.

Anyways, this thread is about focusing on Huck supporters so let's not wander from that path.

[PaulConventionWV]

I notice this comes up a lot. Does this ever come up about other candidates:

"Cain seems ok but his supporters are so annoying I can't vote for him" Or

"I like Mitt Romney but his supporters drive me nuts".

I love that we have the most enthusiastic supporters. But I also think some of the most vocal hurt us at times.

It's something you can't prevent when people are excited, so it's futile to try.

[BUSHLIED]

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/03/iowa-poll-likely-gop-caucusgoers-are-educated-religious/

Some characteristics hold true to long-witnessed patterns on caucus night: Likely caucusgoers tend to be older, in part reflecting Iowa’s overall age profile compared to the rest of America. Median age for likely Republican caucusgoers in recent polls tended to fall in the early 50s; it’s in the mid-40s for Iowans and Americans of voting age.

And, of course, likely Iowa caucusgoers are overwhelmingly white. Whites make up 92.9 percent of Iowa’s population, according to the 2010 census.

This is the IOWA voting bloc that I am talking about: 50+ years of age, religious, educated, white males...I assume Huckabee did well among this group...anybody have a finger on the pluse of this likely caucus goer?

[PaulConventionWV]

This whole debate about labels is just silly...

[klamath]

I don't think Tom is his 'good friend' and I think that comment (those weren't quite the words, but I remember it) is a proof of it. Tom, at the time, saw himself in that roll someday, of course. Then he almost lost his election and needed Ron's endorsement to win it. And Ron gave it, which I think says volumes about them both. Now he sounds like a clone of Ron's half the time.

McClintock needs to work on that.

Media spins Ron, but Ron is just fine. I honestly think that other than the suit, (and it looks like he got at least one) and maybe not leaning against his podium to look down at the audience when he speaks, we don't want to change too much. If 'presidential' means plastic, there are too many of those, already. Ron stands out as a trustworthy guy. Even that Suffolk poll in NH that has him in third with Bachman slightly ahead of him, with her post debate/announcement bump, still has him tied with her for first place on who people trust most.

In THIS time, I think our best chance of getting Ron elected depends on keeping that trust and growing it. Not making him look like he is above it all.

Now, working with Doug Wead to frame concise responses to common and predictable media spin of positions, that I think would be a great idea.

Sorry but Tom was a talk show host in california a number of years and always had RP on and mostly agreed with him. I have personally talked to quit a number of people the told me this about RP's debate performances. He doesn't come across as presidential. This is a direct quote from someone I know who is quite a libertarian republican. At first she didn't know who RP was even though she had watched the debates in 2008. Finally after I prompted her on some of RP's debate answers she suddenly said "Oh you mean that whiney little guy that waves his arms around!" Another one is my mother in law. I have spent hours explaining RP's ideas to her and she mostly agrees but then goes right back to, "he just doesn't come across as presidential." I don't think it matters, you don't think it matters but to a large block of voters it matters VERY much. Ignoring a problem and not trying to mitigate it it not going to help RP get elected. Blaming it all on media spin is not going to make it go away either. There is a problem that CAN be worked on with good managers.

[sailingaway]

Sorry but Tom was a talk show host in california a number of years and always had RP on and mostly agreed with him.

I was not aware of that. I am familiar with Tom, but not from radio, from politics, and he isn't anywhere near as good as Ron.

I do know that a fair segment of people see Ron as unpresidential, but part of that is just age which isn't exactly going to change. And he can do some things, and I agree with some of the sound bite stuff, but I think people need to be realistic about how much retooling Ron is going to be able to do while running his subcommittee, acting as congressman and making all the campaign appearances. A dozen stock, concise and incisive statements to combat predictable spin, or to start a complex subject, I think is doable and I hope it is done. I hope they quit putting him on the campaign trail the day of the debate so he has already had a long day and isn't as charged to go as he could be, as well. But unrealistic expectations aren't going to do us any good. And on the flip side, Ron is believable and trusted, even by those who differ with him. They are listening to him. He does stand out because he is genuine. We don't want to throw that away, when he is never going to be a presidential candidate from central casting.

[reduen]

Many strict libertarians may not like Dr. Paul because he is pro life....

[Eric21ND]

Many strict libertarians may not like Dr. Paul because he is pro life....
But we can all agree to allow each and every state to decide these matters. The Constitution brings us together.

[Sola_Fide]

Many strict libertarians may not like Dr. Paul because he is pro life....

I believe that the consistent libertarian position is pro-life.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I believe that the consistent libertarian position is pro-life.

The consistent libertarian position is to leave the choice up to the individual, and personally advocate a pro-life position.

[Sola_Fide]

The consistent libertarian position is to leave the choice up to the individual, and personally advocate a pro-life position.

This ignores the babies choice. No person has a right to make a choice to put another innocent person to death. Abortion is an imposition of force on an innocent person.

The first chapter in Liberty Defined explains the position better than I could.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This ignores the babies choice. No person has a right to make a choice to put another innocent person to death. Abortion is an imposition of force on an innocent person.

The first chapter in Liberty Defined explains the position better than I could.

The chapter advocates social change, not legal change.

[ds21089]

The chapter advocates social change, not legal change.

We do need a ton of social changes, for the government has greatly influenced society in a negative way.

[sailingaway]

The chapter advocates social change, not legal change.

but Ron advocates both.

It isn't a matter of being libertarian, it depends on when you think life begins, because if life begins at conception, the baby's choice also counts. However, I don't want to derail the thread on this topic.

[White Bear Lake]

Well there are three generic political pillars for a party: economic issues, foreign policy, and social issues.

In the GOP of today, each of these issues has two common choices.

Economics: 'pro-free market' or 'pro-business/corporatist'
Foreign Policy: 'neoconservative' or 'non-interventionist'
Social Issues: 'libertarian' or 'religious right'

This would make eight possible combinations for GOP candidates:

1)Pro-business, neoconservative, religious right (Stereotypical neocon, George Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Bill O'Reilly, McCain)
2)Pro-free market, neoconservative, religious right (Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann)
3)Pro-business, neoconservative, libertarian (Mitt Romney, Huntsman, Rudy Giuliani)
4)Pro-free market, neoconservative, libertarian (Jim Demint possibly although I'm sure there are better examples)
5)Pro-business, non-interventionist, religious right (paleoconservative, Pat Buchanan)
6)Pro-free market, non-interventionist, religious right (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin)
7)Pro-business, non-interventionist, libertarian (Ayn Rand, many of the CATO and Reason type libertarians)
8)Pro-free market, non-interventionist, libertarian (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, us)

Although most people fit more or less into one of the 8 categories, not all people in a category are necessarily identical. Some stress one or two of the planks more strongly than others. Additional issues like immigration can further subdivide groups.

I know this is probably brushing with too broad of strokes but I'm going to school to be an accountant. I like to categorize and organize things. This seemed to be the easiest way to do it.

[nc4rp]

neato. Ron is the logical choice.

[LibertyEagle]

White Bear Lake, I'm thinkin' your post should be in a new thread, because it is going to generate a number of comments that will further derail this thread.

Just as a start, you have badly misused the terms neoconservative and religious right, in your categorization.