|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 14:03:17 GMT -5
Hypothetical question here:
Could you support a candidate who, despite having several rather serious ideological disagreements with a particular political party, runs as a member of that party because that party has the apparatus to help him get his agenda advanced?
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 30, 2007 14:28:06 GMT -5
Hypothetical question here: Could you support a candidate who, despite having several rather serious ideological disagreements with a particular political party, runs as a member of that party because that party has the apparatus to help him get his agenda advanced? The Republicans have a myriad of candidates who fall into that category. Guiliani is socially liberal, Romney has the religion thing over his head, Tancredo waves the illegal immigration banner high while the majority of the party has acquiesced to the corporate interests favoring amnesty, and Ron Paul differs on just about everything. Frankly, if a candidate has a host of ideological disagreements with a party, and uses the party as a stepping stone to election, not only will he be frustrated in pursuing his agenda, but the electorate will suffer as well. Roy Moore, it has been calculated, would have done much better had he run as an independent. Joe Lieberman did it. Honestly, the Democrats have the only candidates who identify solidly with their party positions. I don't like the Republicans except for Paul, and he'll be marginalized by the party he clings to. I can't support the Marxist Democrat Party. I will say no. It's a zero-sum game. I'll look seriously at voting third-party.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 15:26:34 GMT -5
deo-
You nailed it.
The hypothetical I outlined above really isn't all that hypothetical it all.
It's RON PAUL.
If he were truly as 'principaled' as some here love to claim, why would he ride the coattails of a political party with which he has so many deep and profound disagreements? Would not the more 'principaled' stand be to run as a committed Third Party candidate, using the apparatus of that Party both to get elected and to advance his agenda?
Of course, the objective answer is "YES".
Instead, the "principaled' Ron Paul is perfectly willing to sublimate his core values and willingly embrace a Party ideology with which he vehemenently disagrees. Why? Because he knows that he can't get anywhere as a Libertarian.
But why style himself a Republican?
Perhaps it is because, as a very wise poster here has said on more than one occasion, better to side with a party as a member of which you have some chance of advancing your agenda than to side with a party as a member of which you have no chance of advancing your agenda.
Your point about Guiliani provokes this response:
He is a Republican. A Northeast blue-blood Republican- center-Left in many of his social viewpoints and center-right in many of his fiscal viewpoints. I'm not particularly fond, generally speaking, of these so called "moderate" Republicans (who are typically Liberal rather than Moderate) but the stakes are far too high in the next election to let comparatively monir disagreements sidetrack the efort to keep any of the Democrats out of the White House (preferably even as visitors).
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on May 30, 2007 16:54:22 GMT -5
It is not only Ron Paul. It is the nature of political parties and politics itself. Does anyone actually expect to find complete agreement with even a slim plurality of other voters?
Which of Ron Paul's core values do you consider to be sublimated?
While I disagree with his conclusions about 9/11, I do find them to be in clear contrast to other Republican candidates and resonant with traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan.
If you wish to call Ron Paul a fool then I may say Amen, but I do not think him dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 30, 2007 18:53:49 GMT -5
But what would you say to the idea that many assert that Ron Paul is what a Republican once was, not what it has become? Therefore, in his mind, perhaps he is the only true Republican and the rest are charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 19:22:46 GMT -5
It is not only Ron Paul. It is the nature of political parties and politics itself. Does anyone actually expect to find complete agreement with even a slim plurality of other voters? Which of Ron Paul's core values do you consider to be sublimated? While I disagree with his conclusions about 9/11, I do find them to be in clear contrast to other Republican candidates and resonant with traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan. If you wish to call Ron Paul a fool then I may say Amen, but I do not think him dishonest. MG- I think him the most sincere misguided human being I have ever seen. I have never called him dishonest. Frankly, I wish I could believe he was being dishonest when he spouts what he does and freely associates with who he does.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 19:48:45 GMT -5
But what would you say to the idea that many assert that Ron Paul is what a Republican once was, not what it has become? Therefore, in his mind, perhaps he is the only true Republican and the rest are charlatans. kevin- I did some reading and, honestly, I'm not sure what the historical basis for Paul's stances are. It would appear that they most closely parallel the "Constitutional Party" because of his strict adherence to what he sees as Constitutional precedent. Obviously, he has a very strong streak of Libertarianism in him, particularly as it applies to an Isolationist foreign policy. As for him possibly being a modern-day example of what a historical Republican was, no. 1954-1896 The new party was created as an act of defiance against what activists denounced as the Slave Power—the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The party founders adopted the name "Republican," echoing the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. The new party emphasized a vision of modernizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry, and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. (Wikipedia) I'm not at all sure that Paul is in favor of the Federal government moderninzing anything. I'd be very surprised if he'd go along with granting homesteads to farmers. In fact, it's much more likely that Paul would have found himself at home among the early >DEMOCRATS<: Early 1790s The Democratic Party evolved from political factions that opposed Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies in the early 1790s; these factions are known variously as the Anti-Administration “Party” and the Anti-Federalists. In the mid-1790s, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into a political party in favor of yeomen farmers, strict construction of the Constitution, and a weaker federal government. The party arose from opposition to the policies of the ruling Federalist Party, which was dominated by Hamilton. (also Wikipedia) Strict interpretation of the Constitution? Check. Weaker Federal Government? Check. Party of yeoman farmers? >shrug< What's interesting to note is just how far both Partys have strayed from the ideas upon which they were originally founded. In any case, I have found nothing to dissaude me from believing that Paul is passing himself off as a Republican because he knows, as I know, that he won't get elected as a Congressman- much less as President- as a Libertarian. He ran as a Republican in every Congressional race and his one Seante race, win or lose. Wikipedia points out that, before he ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian (and got a whopping 0.47% of the vote!), he had no affiliation with the Libertarian party. Interesting. (He did address their national convention in 2004) Wikipedia goes on the say that, when he ran for Congress in 1996- again, as a Republican- he faced a strong primary battle with a rival Republican candidate who had the backing of the Party leaders in Texas....including the Governor. Governor George W. Bush.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 31, 2007 5:14:33 GMT -5
deo- I do attempt to be the political purist, however, I am, believe it or not, a realist as well. While I make no excuses for Paul, nor do I need to, I understand fully why is styles himself a Republican. One reason is that he identifies with earlier versions of the Republican, as well as the Democrat parties. The other is that he knows full well that he stands an even lesser chance of being elected as a third party candidate. Does this really make him any less principled? Yes and no. Yes in that he should align himself with, or create if need be, a party that more closely identifies with his views. No in that the two major parties have made it all but impossible to do so and therefore running within the confines established by the power structures of said two parties is justified. He is not a true Libertarian. He is a strict Constitutionalist. And more. An anomaly, to be sure. I don't consider doing so dishonest or unprincipled because of the strictures placed on the process by the two major parties. Perhaps Paul desires to stay inside to work to change the system? I predicted very early that Fred Thompson would allow the Republican field to gel and enter the race late. Sources now say that he will do so in early July. When he does, it is my prediction, he will wipe the field clean. He brings to the table a Reaganesque comfort factor, a strong voice, an aura of confidence, and more traditional Republican principles. He would have been needed anyway to successfully carry the South for the Republicans. So..................... If he is successful, I may well cast my vote for him. I will hold my nose to escape the stench brought about by the rest of the party apparatus, but I could support him. My dreams of a successful third party candidate will be put on hold yet again, but, I agree with you that even this is much more desirable than having the Dems take the White House. So will it be Thompson or Guiliani? I say Thompson with G-man or Romney as Veep. Do the Dems pose a real threat? Not really. Obama has already let the socialist cat out of the bag, as has Hellary, with commitments to universal health care. Astonishing as it may sound, I say the only real threat from the left comes from, yes, Joe Biden. The man speaks well, and does have a good idea or two. If I had to vote for a Dem, which I cannot envision doing, it would probably be him.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 1, 2007 18:12:31 GMT -5
deo-
Nothing wrong with being a realist. I've been known to inhabit that particular realm myself.
Being a realist, you understand the crucialness of recognizing the system as it is rather than to waste time and energy bemoaning what it has become and yearning for a return to yesteryear.
Within that context, I, too, do not blame Paul for working to change the system from its current situation from within the Republican Party. It makes perfect sense to do so because, to effect any change, one must first be in a position to do so; nothing else matters.
Hence my amusement at some people here misrepresenting Paul's political political home.
Nor do I.
I just would like to see others admit that the Constitution Party isn't so far removed from Conservative Republicanism.
I spent the last couple of days up in Tennessee and Thompson was the main subject on the talk radio stations up there.
I have two concerns about Thompson at present:
1) thin legislative record. He authored no major legislation during his time in the Senate. His 'moment in the sun' if you will was as chair of the panel investigating the Clinton-Gore Campaign Contribution scandal (they taken literally millions in illegal contributions from the Red Chinese thru straw donors) and he was consistently thwarted by that Machiavellian stalwart John Glenn.
2) he consistently supported McCain-Feingold, which is (SCOTUS ruling aside) an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech (and the #2 reason why I am very reluctant to pull the lever for McCain).
It's not enough for me NOT to support him, but I need to know more.
I wish I were as sanguine as you seem to be.
Did you ever play a sport and compete against a team and the officials were from the same town/school/church as the other team?
2008 will be the political equivalent of that.
Not only will whoever the Republican nominee is have to face off against the Democrat candidate, the Republican will also face an overtly hostile Mainstream Media.
The MSM's goal is to see Hillary Rodham Clinton as our next President.
Obama had to be given additional gravitas that his record says he doesn't deserve so as to make it appear that Hillary faced a tougher opponent during the nomination process than she actually did, the result being that Hillary looks "battle-tested".
Disagreements among Republicans must be portrayed as the ideological equivalent of civil war in the party. If the MSM can convince voters that Republicans back no one with any passion and that all Democrats line up behind Hillary (sorry for the visual). Hillary comes out looking like a stronger candidate.
The MSM will also continue to pound the drum that George W. Bush is who Hillary really is running against because Bush's poll numbers, barring something fantastical, aren't going to see the north side of 30% again while he's President. The MSM will miss no opportunity to draw the correlation that Bush is the Republican Party and the Republican party is Bush. Remember: Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2006, yet the MSM tried their best to tie every single Republican running for office to Bush.
Hillary might tap Biden as a Veep because, unlike Obama, who is an empty suit, Biden does at least have a certain creativity to his ideas while at the same time showing a plausibility to them as well as a knack for specifics. Most Democrats have neither.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Jun 1, 2007 19:10:17 GMT -5
So I guess Giuliani, Romney and McCain are rightfully in the Republican Party since they believe in murdering babies, GUN CONTROL, AMNESTY AND ATTACKING COUNTRIES THAT NEVER ATTACKED US. Never mind all of that..why don't you just focus on eliminating Ron Paul you big champion of Liberty you!
WOMI you are a chump and I would be ashamed to be related to you. You promote fascist NEOCONS while attempting to discredit REAL AMERICANS LIKE RON PAUL.
If this country goes completely fascist I will volunteer to be the first one to kick your door in during the middle of the night. Don't complain if it happens because it is exactly what you promoted through all of your NEOCON TYRANTS.
[glow=red,2,300]YOU ARE A NEOCON[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 2, 2007 13:19:12 GMT -5
solomon-
STILL no idea of what the word "neocon" really means?
>sigh<
I've tried to correct your misapprehension of the meaning of the word but you've proven totally unwilling to expend even the least effort to educate yourself. Making a mistake once is one thing; making the same mistake repeatedly, despite being corrected, is quite another.
Ron Paul himself isn't a Republican, though he's smart enough to know that he can't get any traction on a national level running as whatever it is that he really is- Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Truther or whatever.
Yet in solomonworld somehow he is principaled to run as something he's not, using that party's money and resources to advance his agenda. To your jaundiced eye, that's perfectly OK.
But let McCain, Romney or Guiliani, who all have some degree of variance as regards their positions versus the 'official' Republican Party position on a given issue and they're all 'evil', 'wicked' 'neocons'.
So it's OK for Paul to run as something he isn't because you like his positions on the issues but it isn't OK for Guiliani to do so because you don't like his positions?
I hope you're comfortable with your hypocrisy. I know I wouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jun 2, 2007 16:06:09 GMT -5
Ron Paul himself isn't a Republican, though he's smart enough to know that he can't get any traction on a national level running as whatever it is that he really is- Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Truther or whatever. "Everyone in the RLC joined for their own reasons, but it can be presumed that they all would agree that in many races the GOP is the best way to go in order to actually get a libertarian elected. It can also be said that the LP runs educational campaigns, where the goal is not actually electing someone, but educating the public about the libertarian philosophy. We are interested in getting someone who holds the libertarian philosophy elected." www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Principles_+_Values.htmYou should be careful WOMI of how precise you want to define the coalition. There is no doubt that Ron Paul is and has been for limited gov't which is most often associated with a broad movement of conservatism that underwrites much of the compromises in the GOP. Ron Paul is a poor candidate for both president and party excommunication.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 2, 2007 19:56:13 GMT -5
MG- Point taken, and a good one indeed. I seem to recall a certain poster here who said a while back that the natural extension of Conservatism is Libertarianism. I also seem to remember that same poster being called all manner of perjoratives amidst claims that he had no idea what he was talking about. I'm pretty sure that poster would LOVE to have had that particular quote to back up his assertion. I'll point that out to that poster the next time I see him in the mirror..... It probably is a good thing to have someone with the agenda of a Ron Paul to act as the 'conscience' of the Republican Party. I'd be an even better thing if he didn't think his own country caused 9/11 and a better thing still if he did not associate with and encourage those who think the US perpetrated 9/11.
|
|