Neocon for Ron Paul

[Rangeley]

When the presidential race started to get going earlier this year, I first read of Ron Paul when I stumbled across an article on antiwar.com stating that quite a few people of anti-war leanings were excited that a true anti-war candidate would be making a run for the Republican primary. I didn't think much about it - he wasn't being mentioned elsewhere as being a legitimate contender so I did not really look further.

But I saw my first "actual" glimpse of him, if seeing someone on television constitutes one, in the debate where he stated that the reason we were attacked on 9-11 was not because we are free, but because of our foreign policy. I was quite familiar with this idea, being a believer in it myself. It was because of this that when Giuliani responded essentially conflating this statement as saying that we "invited" the attacks, I was completely turned off. Ron Paul responded to this dodge effectively - even mentioning Mossadegh and 1953, a topic which few others would ever mention.

While I was very glad that a politician would be honest about these controversial topics, I did not agree with his conclusion - that interventionism is bad overall. I simply felt that there could be good interventionism, and bad interventionism. This disagreement kept me from outright supporting Ron Paul, even as I began to look into more and more of his writings and more and more youtube videos either of him or by supporters. On issues like health care, the economy, abortion, torture, and civil liberties, I found myself agreeing completely. And whats more, his character caught me as truly genuine - the sort of guy that was not putting on an acting show for votes, but was simply being himself and expressing his views.

When November rolled around, I was pretty stunned at the amount of money he raised on November 5th, and it was about that time that I decided that even though I disagreed with him on foreign policy (and his views on drugs,) I would support Ron Paul for president. I still support the Iraq war, but I am no longer someone who I suppose you could describe as a one issue voter. I look forward to voting for him in February when the Maine Caucus occurs. Mainers are notoriously independent minded in elections, so I think he has a pretty good chance here much like in New Hampshire. Sadly a win here wont pack quite the punch as it would in our neighbor to the west, but it would be a win nonetheless.

[angrydragon]

Welcome aboard.

[trispear]

I don't think you are a Neo-con:) I think even Goldwater was a interventionist on some levels.

Neo-cons tend to be one-issue voters; as in they would throw out all "their" conservative values to vote Hillary over Paul becaues she supports the war (in reality) and he doesn't.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Welcome to the forums Rangeley! I am so happy that you have decided to support Ron Paul even though you disagree with him on the Iraq war. You are a true patriot and champion of liberty!

[aravoth]

When the presidential race started to get going earlier this year, I first read of Ron Paul when I stumbled across an article on antiwar.com stating that quite a few people of anti-war leanings were excited that a true anti-war candidate would be making a run for the Republican primary. I didn't think much about it - he wasn't being mentioned elsewhere as being a legitimate contender so I did not really look further.

But I saw my first "actual" glimpse of him, if seeing someone on television constitutes one, in the debate where he stated that the reason we were attacked on 9-11 was not because we are free, but because of our foreign policy. I was quite familiar with this idea, being a believer in it myself. It was because of this that when Giuliani responded essentially conflating this statement as saying that we "invited" the attacks, I was completely turned off. Ron Paul responded to this dodge effectively - even mentioning Mossadegh and 1953, a topic which few others would ever mention.

While I was very glad that a politician would be honest about these controversial topics, I did not agree with his conclusion - that interventionism is bad overall. I simply felt that there could be good interventionism, and bad interventionism. This disagreement kept me from outright supporting Ron Paul, even as I began to look into more and more of his writings and more and more youtube videos either of him or by supporters. On issues like health care, the economy, abortion, torture, and civil liberties, I found myself agreeing completely. And whats more, his character caught me as truly genuine - the sort of guy that was not putting on an acting show for votes, but was simply being himself and expressing his views.

When November rolled around, I was pretty stunned at the amount of money he raised on November 5th, and it was about that time that I decided that even though I disagreed with him on foreign policy (and his views on drugs,) I would support Ron Paul for president. I still support the Iraq war, but I am no longer someone who I suppose you could describe as a one issue voter. I look forward to voting for him in February when the Maine Caucus occurs. Mainers are notoriously independent minded in elections, so I think he has a pretty good chance here much like in New Hampshire. Sadly a win here wont pack quite the punch as it would in our neighbor to the west, but it would be a win nonetheless.

Welcome to the forums! Any questions feel free to ask. Just remember the folks here are from all backgrounds, and political persuasions. And a lot of what they say you will vehemently disagree with. Just try to keep a level head, and always remember we're all fighting for the same cause. Just fair warning, as a recovering Neo-con myself I can tell you I've had to bite my tounge....hard, a few times. But we're all good people here. And we're all glad to have you here.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't think you are a Neo-con:) I think even Goldwater was a interventionist on some levels.

Neo-cons tend to be one-issue voters; as in they would throw out all "their" conservative values to vote Hillary over Paul becaues she supports the war (in reality) and he doesn't.

yeah, wanting to nuke Vietnam and all. what a shame. Only if he was anti-war.. he would've won. A socialist got it instead.

[xexkxex]

Welcome, pull up a chair and I'll put the kettle on.

The tea should be ready soon. :)

[Rangeley]

I don't think you are a Neo-con:) I think even Goldwater was a interventionist on some levels.

Neo-cons tend to be one-issue voters; as in they would throw out all "their" conservative values to vote Hillary over Paul becaues she supports the war (in reality) and he doesn't.
I think that really depends on what definition you are using - the basic definition of neocon is a conservative who is also interventionist. This comes with just about as much variation as conservatism itself.

As far as Clinton supporting the war goes, I cant really say that I know where she personally stands, but her position would be the most harmful of the three positions out there. The way I see it, there are only really two defendable positions: try to win the war and give the soldiers all tools necessary to win, or if you believe it cannot be won, withdraw all troops as soon as possible. Clinton is trying to take a middle ground where there is none - she would have troops stay in harms way, without the tools necessary to win it. This is essentially leaving Americans in harms way with their hands tied behind their back.

That isn't so much a position in support of the war, as it is one by a politician trying to get elected President.

[Goldwater Conservative]

You can be a hawk without being a neo-con. When I use the term neo-con, I'm describing those one-issue people who insist on what is effectively an American empire with bases and fleets in every timezone and a willingness (some would say eagerness) to use that force to shape the world to a very specific vision.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

[Chester Copperpot]

When the presidential race started to get going earlier this year, I first read of Ron Paul when I stumbled across an article on antiwar.com stating that quite a few people of anti-war leanings were excited that a true anti-war candidate would be making a run for the Republican primary. I didn't think much about it - he wasn't being mentioned elsewhere as being a legitimate contender so I did not really look further.

But I saw my first "actual" glimpse of him, if seeing someone on television constitutes one, in the debate where he stated that the reason we were attacked on 9-11 was not because we are free, but because of our foreign policy. I was quite familiar with this idea, being a believer in it myself. It was because of this that when Giuliani responded essentially conflating this statement as saying that we "invited" the attacks, I was completely turned off. Ron Paul responded to this dodge effectively - even mentioning Mossadegh and 1953, a topic which few others would ever mention.

While I was very glad that a politician would be honest about these controversial topics, I did not agree with his conclusion - that interventionism is bad overall. I simply felt that there could be good interventionism, and bad interventionism. This disagreement kept me from outright supporting Ron Paul, even as I began to look into more and more of his writings and more and more youtube videos either of him or by supporters. On issues like health care, the economy, abortion, torture, and civil liberties, I found myself agreeing completely. And whats more, his character caught me as truly genuine - the sort of guy that was not putting on an acting show for votes, but was simply being himself and expressing his views.

When November rolled around, I was pretty stunned at the amount of money he raised on November 5th, and it was about that time that I decided that even though I disagreed with him on foreign policy (and his views on drugs,) I would support Ron Paul for president. I still support the Iraq war, but I am no longer someone who I suppose you could describe as a one issue voter. I look forward to voting for him in February when the Maine Caucus occurs. Mainers are notoriously independent minded in elections, so I think he has a pretty good chance here much like in New Hampshire. Sadly a win here wont pack quite the punch as it would in our neighbor to the west, but it would be a win nonetheless.


Welcome aboard Rangely... Very uplifting post. It is nice to see somebody with your viewpoints come around to Dr. Paul. It gives me hope about converting the rest of the GOP base...

[Paulitician]

Neo-con to me means you have an imperialistic foreign policy, are a social conservative, but practically a fiscal liberal. Neo-cons don't support Ron Paul. As you've said yourself, there is good interventionism and bad interventionism. To neo-cons there is only one type of interventionism, that's the former and there is no exception. Ron Paul is a staunch non-interventionist, but he said if the people through their congress ever want to intervene in other's affairs, he'd be fine with it, because ultimately it's their money, it's their will, and collectively, the American people aren't stupid (they sure can be duped, but they don't dupe themselves... most of the time). I'd say the people are actually quite conservative and humble when it comes to these big national issues.

Say, what do you consider to be victory in Iraq?

[axiomata]

Welcome aboard. Glad to have you.

I think there are a lot of potential supporters such as yourself that aren't (yet) convinced that all government interventionism is bad policy, even if it is for a good purpose.

To those, like you, I say that it is good to remember that Paul is running for President, and a constitutional one at that, not a dictator. He will not single-handedly be able to end all government intervention, it is just not going to happen. What will happen though is that the intervention that is left will be only the "good" kind. So he really is an ideal president for you.

[Dequeant]

Welcome aboard, leave your opinions at the door since according to the mainstream media, you don't exist. You are now part of a spambot created by 10 or so hackers to use the internet to make Ron Paul look popular. Yea, that whole Nov 5th thing......you weren't supposed to see that so please forget it.

-The Powers That Be

[trispear]

Whatever the casely Rangely, welcome to the board. I am curious how other members view the accuracy of this quote from wikipedia:

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

Neoconservative policies

Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions"[9]. These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[9]

2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[9]

3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[9]

4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[9]

5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[9]

[angelatc]

Welcome Rangely. Long time Republican here, but found my heart broken time and time again by their new-found habits of growing government, and managing the economy in such a healthy manner. I saw the same debate you did, started Googling Ron Paul, and slowly came to realize that he's right about everything. I don't agree with him on some social issues, but I do agree with him in that the Constitution should mandate Federal involvement in those areas if we as a nation decide those matters should fall under the National umbrella.

[user]

With so many Republicans being neocons, and so much of the GOP base voting for them, neocons have taken over the label "conservative" just as progressives/socialists took over "liberal" in the last century.

I hope we've all noticed that neocons call themselves conservatives. Rangeley, you are a rare exception. Welcome to the Revolution!

[Rangeley]

Neo-con to me means you have an imperialistic foreign policy, are a social conservative, but practically a fiscal liberal. Neo-cons don't support Ron Paul. As you've said yourself, there is good interventionism and bad interventionism. To neo-cons there is only one type of interventionism, that's the former and there is no exception. Ron Paul is a staunch non-interventionist, but he said if the people through their congress ever want to intervene in other's affairs, he'd be fine with it, because ultimately it's their money, it's their will, and collectively, the American people aren't stupid (they sure can be duped, but they don't dupe themselves... most of the time). I'd say the people are actually quite conservative and humble when it comes to these big national issues.

Say, what do you consider to be victory in Iraq?
There are certainly neocons who feel that way, but I disagree with the premise that neocon in and of itself means someone who supports an imperialist foreign policy, or doesn't care about fiscal conservative or what have you. Thats really the problem with political labels, they mean different things to different people, and ultimately they don't quite do anyone justice. This was really one of the reasons I named the topic the way I did; people can be supportive of things such as the Iraq war, and still be concerned about fiscal responsibility, or the steady deterioration of civil liberties.

As far as what a victory in Iraq would be, an ultimate victory in Iraq would be ending the insurgency and civil war - essentially, having a stable, democratic Iraq. I believe we have a role to play in the Iraq war, and that is to help train Iraqi forces so that eventually they can take over security in the country entirely. Until they can do so, we would help maintain security with joint operations with their forces. "Victory" for us is to play our role through to its completion, at which point our troop presence would no longer be necessary. The ultimate victory is something that only the Iraqis themselves can achieve.

[Cowlesy]

Welcome to the board!!!

[mosquitobite]

Welcome aboard, leave your opinions at the door since according to the mainstream media, you don't exist. You are now part of a spambot created by 10 or so hackers to use the internet to make Ron Paul look popular. Yea, that whole Nov 5th thing......you weren't supposed to see that so please forget it.

-The Powers That Be

LOL! I love it!