How Ron Paul Will Change the GOP in 2012

[bobbyw24]

The dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul.

The libertarian upstart isn’t just stirring controversy; he’s threatening to expose profound divisions within the GOP. Peter Beinart on how Paul will change the Republican Party in 2012.

We haven’t even said goodbye to 2011, but I want to be first in line with my person of the year prediction for 2012: Ron Paul. I don’t think Paul is going to win the presidency, or even win the Republican nomination. But he’s going to come close enough to change the GOP forever.
Click here to find out more!

Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They’re wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20th Century was, and they’ll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It’s said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/26/peter-beinart-how-ron-paul-will-change-the-gop-in-2012.html#comments

[bobbyw24]

We need people to comment on this one at TDB

[Kharan]

Thanks for posting this. Tweeted it out as well.

[bluesc]

He will change it by becoming its nominee.

[bobbyw24]

Thanks for posting this. Tweeted it out as well.

Not a bad piece from this liberal site--much better than what we get from rightist neo-con sites

[CaptUSA]

If the GOP keeps Ron Paul from becoming the nominee, there will be irreparable damage done to the party. If they didn't support him for any other reason, this should make them wake up. If they thought the Tea Party of 2010 threatened their seats, the outcry from this would forever dismantle the party. It would split into at least two pieces and it will never be brought back together. They successfully co-opted and diminished the 2010 Tea Party, but the people will not be fooled twice.

2012 will spell the end of the GOP if Paul is not their nominee. That should scare the hell out of them, but they shouldn't be blaming Paul. They should simply be looking in the mirror - because they caused it to happen. Ron Paul is merely the catalyst that is exposing the game. It will end one way or another. It's their choice.

Either it can end through destruction of the party, or it can end with the GOP taking credit for fixing the mess and they can usher in a new generation of liberty. The establishment would like it to end in destruction, but there just may be enough wisdom left in the people to understand that the gig is up.

[mosquitobite]

If the GOP keeps Ron Paul from becoming the nominee, there will be irreparable damage done to the party. If they didn't support him for any other reason, this should make them wake up. If they thought the Tea Party of 2010 threatened their seats, the outcry from this would forever dismantle the party. It would split into at least two pieces and it will never be brought back together. They successfully co-opted and diminished the 2010 Tea Party, but the people will not be fooled twice.

2012 will spell the end of the GOP if Paul is not their nominee. That should scare the hell out of them, but they shouldn't be blaming Paul. They should simply be looking in the mirror - because they caused it to happen. Ron Paul is merely the catalyst that is exposing the game. It will end one way or another. It's their choice.

Either it can end through destruction of the party, or it can end with the GOP taking credit for fixing the mess and they can usher in a new generation of liberty. The establishment would like it to end in destruction, but there just may be enough wisdom left in the people to understand that the gig is up.

This is what I have been preaching!

If they nominate Mitt Romney they will DESTROY their own party. The tea party wants cuts - real cuts. And Romney will NOT cut, he'll be Bush 3. He won't work to repeal Obamacare - which is the big outcry I hear about why we must defeat Obama. Literally - through their quest for ONE OFFICE - they will destroy their own party for decades, if not more.

Thing is, with the NDAA thing just signed, I'm not sure they care. All they need is one more disaster to implement their plans. :(

[mosquitobite]

This was written in 2005:
A Libertarian President? Don’t Laugh! (http://heartland.org/policy-documents/june-2005-libertarian-president-dont-laugh)

[bobbyw24]

This was written in 2005:
A Libertarian President? Don’t Laugh! (http://heartland.org/policy-documents/june-2005-libertarian-president-dont-laugh)

By 2012, the Republican Party will split because once their Democrat foes have divided, there is no reason for cultural conservatives and libertarians to stay in the same party. Freed from the burden of defending government intervention in the name of religious values, the new Libertarian Party also will attract former Democrats and even some Progressives (the smart ones).

Hundreds of thousands, and then millions, of people will want to join a new Libertarian Party. Hundreds of elected officials and professional campaign managers and thousands of donors will switch to the new Libertarian Party.

And in 2016, the new Libertarian Party candidate will win the presidential election. Why? Because in a four-way race, only the new Libertarian Party will express values that unite, rather than divide, the American people: individual liberty, equality under the law, free enterprise, and lower taxes.

It is precisely because libertarians don’t steal from one group to give to another that it will emerge as the consensus party in an increasingly polarized and heterogenous society. While the other parties divide to conquer, only libertarians win by uniting voters. In a four-way race, its strategy will be the superior one.

[CTRattlesnake]

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/26/peter-beinart-how-ron-paul-will-change-the-gop-in-2012.html#comments


Non-interventionaist foreign policy dates back to George Washington and the ideals he laid out in his farewell speech. Coolidge simply strengthen these ideas after wilson destroyed them

[freedom-maniac]

According to a November CBS News poll, as many Republicans said the U.S. should decrease its troop presence in Afghanistan as said America should increase it or keep it the same. In the same survey, only 22 percent of Republicans called Iran’s nuclear program “a threat that requires military action now” compared to more than fifty percent who said it “can be contained with diplomacy.” Almost three-quarters of Republicans said the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies.

That's HIGHLY encouraging. Wasn't the logic that Dr. Paul couldn't win the nomination because of his foreign policy?

[mosquitobite]

By 2012, the Republican Party will split because once their Democrat foes have divided, there is no reason for cultural conservatives and libertarians to stay in the same party. Freed from the burden of defending government intervention in the name of religious values, the new Libertarian Party also will attract former Democrats and even some Progressives (the smart ones).

Hundreds of thousands, and then millions, of people will want to join a new Libertarian Party. Hundreds of elected officials and professional campaign managers and thousands of donors will switch to the new Libertarian Party.

And in 2016, the new Libertarian Party candidate will win the presidential election. Why? Because in a four-way race, only the new Libertarian Party will express values that unite, rather than divide, the American people: individual liberty, equality under the law, free enterprise, and lower taxes.

It is precisely because libertarians don’t steal from one group to give to another that it will emerge as the consensus party in an increasingly polarized and heterogenous society. While the other parties divide to conquer, only libertarians win by uniting voters. In a four-way race, its strategy will be the superior one.

The problem is that democrats haven't really split.

Although, I wonder about their intelligence considering that Obama has pretty much failed them on every promise he made. Gitmo, wars, etc. This is why I ask "where is the anti-war left? Are they only anti-war when a Republican is President?"

[Cap]

The problem is that democrats haven't really split.

Although, I wonder about their intelligence considering that Obama has pretty much failed them on every promise he made. Gitmo, wars, etc. This is why I ask "where is the anti-war left? Are they only anti-war when a Republican is President?"Without a national draft in place, then nobody really needs to have skin in the game. If there was a draft in place, Ron's position would even be more popular.

[Krugerrand]

If the GOP keeps Ron Paul from becoming the nominee, there will be irreparable damage done to the party. If they didn't support him for any other reason, this should make them wake up. If they thought the Tea Party of 2010 threatened their seats, the outcry from this would forever dismantle the party. It would split into at least two pieces and it will never be brought back together. They successfully co-opted and diminished the 2010 Tea Party, but the people will not be fooled twice.

2012 will spell the end of the GOP if Paul is not their nominee. That should scare the hell out of them, but they shouldn't be blaming Paul. They should simply be looking in the mirror - because they caused it to happen. Ron Paul is merely the catalyst that is exposing the game. It will end one way or another. It's their choice.

Either it can end through destruction of the party, or it can end with the GOP taking credit for fixing the mess and they can usher in a new generation of liberty. The establishment would like it to end in destruction, but there just may be enough wisdom left in the people to understand that the gig is up.

It should be interesting to see what changes happen at the convention when it's controlled by Ron Paul delegates ... even if they end up having to vote for somebody else. They'll still be controlling the show and the platform and the future of the party.

[bobbyw24]

It should be interesting to see what changes happen at the convention when it's controlled by Ron Paul delegates ... even if they end up having to vote for somebody else. They'll still be controlling the show and the platform and the future of the party.

How will this happen?

[Krugerrand]

How will this happen?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340667-Fill-out-this-opinion-poll-for-the-campaign!-Takes-2-minutes-VERY-IMPORTANT!!!

[bobbyw24]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340667-Fill-out-this-opinion-poll-for-the-campaign!-Takes-2-minutes-VERY-IMPORTANT!!!

Oh that's right=--I heard similar stuff in 2008

[Krugerrand]

Oh that's right=--I heard similar stuff in 2008
I'd like to think that we're in a a better place now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDBp1OrCwI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

[bobbyw24]

Yep--we were in a better place a few days ago any way.

How many delegates does it take to assert power?

How many can he win if he wins only 1 state?

[William R]

bump