24 Apr

Beyond Mitt… the Conservative challenge to saving America [Reader Post]

                                       

In 1990 I knew everything I needed to know about Rush Limbaugh. He was a racist. He was sexist. He was an arrogant, rich SOB who didn’t care about the poor. He was a fool who knew nothing about how the world worked. How did I know these things despite never once having listened to his program? Via the media of course. Despite having a Bachelor’s in Political Science, I paid very little attention to actual politics. As a grad student I paid cursory attention to the news and didn’t much venture beyond what I saw on ABC news.

One day while arguing about Limbaugh something of an epiphany was forced on me by my roommate. He simply asked, “Have you ever actually listened to him?” As I stammered a bit I had to admit that I had not. It dawned on me that I was speaking quite authoritatively about someone I knew so little about… Hence the epiphany. Not about the nature of Limbaugh, but rather about the notion of taking what media says about someone or something as gospel. Today I take virtually everything I hear or read with a grain of salt. When possible I compare what I’ve heard with what I know firsthand. When that’s not possible I make sure that I look to sources I trust for corroboration.

As for Limbaugh, I started listening to him and it took a while for him to grow on me. At first blush he’s rather bombastic and just a wee bit arrogant. After a while however it became clear that at the core, he is, as he puts it “Right, 99.7% of the time”. One might not always appreciate his particular brand of commentary, but, far more often than not he is spot on in terms of the point he is making.

To this day, despite having the most popular and profitable radio program in the United States, Limbaugh remains a polarizing figure. He is a convenient lightning rod for the left as they seek to mischaracterize the conservative message he promotes. And they have done a great job of disparaging conservatives. From a sexist Rush Limbaugh to the Tea Party racists to Paul Ryan seeking to throw Grandma off a cliff, the left in general and the media in particular have done a spectacular job of misrepresenting conservatives to those who are like I was twenty years ago, too busy or lazy to look at the facts.

As such I’d like to provide a little reality to the way conservatives are characterized.

Myth: Conservatives hate government and want to get rid of it.
Reality: Conservatives know you need government, just not big government. They believe that government should be small and should do only those things for which it is Constitutionally empowered. Conservatives believe that citizens, either individually, as part of a family or a community or even as owners of corporations can make better decisions than government can. This does not suggest that conservatives believe that everything works perfectly without government. They simply believe that government is a poor vehicle with which to address most problems.

Myth: Conservatives are racists.
Reality: Conservatives focus on the rule of law and individual responsibility. Conservatives generally oppose affirmative action programs not because they hate minorities, but rather they believe in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. that Americans should “Not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Conservatives don’t believe that government contracts or school admissions should be forced to reflect the specific demographic makeup of the United States any more than the NBA or NHL should be.

Myth: Conservatives don’t care about the poor.
Reality: Conservatives care greatly about the poor and needy, they just don’t think government is the solution to the myriad problems that the poor face. Indeed, in his 2007 book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” Arthur C. Brooks shows that conservatives, or people who disagree with this statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity than liberals. Conservatives don’t hate the poor, they simply don’t believe that failed government redistribution programs are the way to lift people out of poverty.
They believe that communities and churches and private organizations would do a far better job.

Myth: Conservatives love big business.
Reality: Conservatives certainly love business because they recognize that America’s capitalist system has generated more wealth and improved the condition of man more than any other economic system in the history of the world. However, conservatives are actually frequently at odds with big business because of the cozy relationships big, established businesses often nurture with politicians and bureaucrats to the disadvantage of their smaller competitors. Conservatives would rather see big companies go bankrupt so that their assets can be rationalized rather than having the government support them and distort the markets. Failure and reinvention are, after all, at the core of economic success.

Myth: Conservatives want to destroy education in the United States.
Reality: Conservatives want their children and grandchildren and friends’ children educated as much as anyone. Conservatives simply don’t want the government running the education industrial complex. They look at the skyrocketing costs, unaccountable bureaucracies and abysmal performance records in the country’s public schools and believe a free market provides a far better opportunity for students to get a good education.

There are of course many other myths the left has successfully propagated about conservatives that have manifested themselves into our political landscape. That’s a problem for conservatives in general and in particular for the kinda / sort of conservative Mittens Romney. The economic foundation of the United States is not going to be saved by simply putting Barack Obama in the unemployment line, although that is certainly a necessary first step…

Rolling back the government and unleashing the economic might of the United States is going to take a conservative Congress sufficiently motivated to make the hard choices and be willing to bear the arrows of a cornered left. And this is where the tire hits the road. Conservatives have to stop allowing the left to define what conservatism means. Rush does a great job of energizing the base, but the reality is not everyone is lucky enough to get pushed into an epiphany as I was. Not everyone will be on board with everything in the conservative agenda, but 90% agreement is better than 10%… at least then we’d still have a country to talk about.

Conservatives must make crystal clear the choices Americans face. It’s not between mending Medicare and killing Grandma. It’s not between closing the Department of Education and illiterate children. It’s not between cutting taxes and starving the homeless. It’s between the Republic and failure. Conservatives need to take a page from the dairy farmers with their Got Milk moustaches and tee shirts. Find an engaging and compelling meme to highlight the conservative message and invite Americans to understand what it means. If you get people talking about the real issues then the possibility exists to bring them over from the dark side. I wonder how James Earl Jones would look in a “got conservative” tee shirt…

About Vince

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Media, MSM Bias, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
| 968 views

108 Responses to Beyond Mitt… the Conservative challenge to saving America [Reader Post]

  1. Ivan says: 1

    So where was the vaunted “tea party”? April 15th came and went and the only TP “Protest” on the Westside was cancelled.

    I sure didn’t see any TP protests in the news. Nor have I seen any evidence in the primaries of TP involvement-espcially given who is the Republican standard bearer!

    Let’s face it; the Tea Party was a straw man of the establishment Republicans designed to capture the tremendous dissent which came from Obama’s victory and ascension to power.

    Like a fart in the wind, the Tea Party disappeared when the Republicans grabbed the House of Representatives.

    Gone. Just like that.

    Now we’re stuck with the most liberal of Republican nominees since that idiot Ford.

    Now, don’t you feel used?

    ReplyReply
  2. FedUp says: 2

    Ivan, poor misguided soul… you’ve been at the kool-aid again haven’t you? The Tea Party is still alive and well. The fact that they aren’t out banging drums and defecating on police cars is because we’re learning to channel our energy and standing for candidates who will make a difference.
    Make no mistake… there are a lot of disgruntled Republicans who are really disgusted that we are stuck with Mitt. We WILL vote for him (ABO), but we aren’t happy about it.

    If all the primaries had been held on the same day, there would be a much different outcome! Bottom line – we may be stuck with Romney, but he’s got to be a better proposition than what YOU’re stuck with.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    Michael Patrick Leahy, co-founder of The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was interviewed about the Tea Party and Mitt Romney.

    He said,

    “Absolutely, the tea party can and will support Mitt Romney in the general election, and with great energy in the door-to-door ground game.

    It’s important also to note that this is a strong sentiment at the local level — among the 3,000-plus local tea parties.

    “Though on the core values, Mitt Romney’s not as aligned with us as Michele Bachmann, he’s far superior to Barack Obama.

    Our job in the tea party movement is to cautiously but vigorously befriend Romney, while reserving the right to encourage him — continuously — to align more closely with our core values. This encouragement to align has already begun, and it will continue through and beyond election day.

    The tea party’s grassroots get-out-the-vote activities will be the deciding force of the 2012 presidential election.”

    I get Tea Party emails daily.
    We are doing the same thing as Leahy says.
    We will be getting out the vote and more before Election Day.

    ReplyReply
  4. Ivan says: 4

    @FedUp:

    Ivan, poor misguided soul… you’ve been at the kool-aid again haven’t you? The Tea Party is still alive and well.

    Right, sure, whatever you say. They are so “alive and well” that they took a few months off to allow the most liberal Republican in recent history to ascend to the candidacy.

    Just keep telling yourself that everything is going to be “okay” and who knows, maybe it will!!!

    ReplyReply
  5. Ivan says: 5

    @Nan G:

    I get Tea Party emails daily.
    We are doing the same thing as Leahy says.
    We will be getting out the vote and more before Election Day.

    What? So they can’t bother to vote in the primary, but rest assured they’ll be out voting for Romney in November?

    Some states saw record LOW turnout in the primaries. Geez, that is your idea of “working” to fix the party and nation?????
    Delusional.

    ReplyReply
  6. Bobachek says: 6

    Should have come to Madison Wisconsin Ivan if you wanted to see a Tea Party rally…Dana Loesch, Stephan Kruiser, James T Harris and others were there speaking….We only numbered a few thousand people but in a city that tries to rival Berkely California for liberal stupidity it was a nice turn out and the weather was nice enough that all of us could ride the HD’s up….

    ReplyReply
  7. Satin Doll says: 7

    Folks, Mitt Romney is a self-avowed Progressive. That means he is a national socialist. For those of you who read Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascisim, you understand EXACTLY what that means.

    The members of a political party choose who will be their candidate for the Presidentcy. It should never be up for sale. 2012 is unique in that the political whores in the Republican Party hierarchy evidently let known how much it would cost to buy the nomination.

    Voter turnout is way down due to the unlikeability of Mitt Romney and the fact he has paid off Republicans across this nation. The stench of political corruption is unbearable to the majority of conservatives. I repeat what I said above – he is a socialist, and I believe he intends to ‘rule’ autocratically if elected BECAUSE that is his personality.

    Rest assured he won’t be elected. I’ve been campaigning as a conservative Republican since 1964, and though frequently disappointed in who won the nomination, I’ve never refused to vote. Until now.

    I will never vote for a socialist, period.

    ReplyReply
  8. Ivan
    you don’t give a benefit of doubt you have ,are you so radical thinking ,
    MITT ROMNEY has some values you fail to see, you want a PRESIDENT LIKE OBAMA
    WHO STAND ONLY FOR ONE PART OF THE PEOPLE, which are the one giving him money,
    you want a pure CONSERVATIVE, WHICH COULD NOT MAKE THE TOP OF THE CANDIDATES,
    BUT YOU MIGHT GET BETTER IN LOYALTY AND DEDICATION FROM A PERSON WHO IS PROBABLY WILL BE ON TOP. HE HAS MUCH TO GIVE AMERICA, WILL AMERICA WILL GIVE MUCH HELP?
    BECAUSE HE WILL NEED EVERY HELP FROM THE GOODWILL AMERICANS, HE KNOWS WHAT HE
    WILL GET, THAT IS MANY NASTY PEOPLE OUT TO DESTROY ANYTHING HE WILL DO,
    BUT THE AMERICAN WILL BECOME BETTER AS HE WILL BRING JOBS, OIL FROM AMERICA’S WORKERS,
    SMALL BUSYNESS HIRING AGAIN, AND EXPANDING BECAUSE THEY WILL FEEL CONFIDENT,
    HE WILL BRING JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, HE WILL DEMAND CREATIVE PEOPLE TO CREATE FREE FROM AGENCIES CORRUPTION TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF THE FARMERS UNDER THE COVER OF LAWYERS AND LAWS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ACTING AS THUGS TO INTIMIDATED THE GOOD BUSYNESS OWNERS, ALL THIS AND MORE,
    GIVE HIM A BREAK, it’s going to be a breath of fresh air for all AMERICA AGAIN, AFTER CHOKING WITH THE OBAMA CROWD

    ReplyReply
  9. mossomo says: 9

    @Satin Doll:

    I will never vote for a socialist, period.

    Romney has fired people. Not very consistant with socialist tenets.

    ReplyReply
  10. Satin Doll
    are you sure which side you are,
    you talk funny,

    ReplyReply
  11. MITT ROMNEY
    A BETTER AMERICA BEGIN TONIGHT,
    CONGRATULATION MITT ROMNEY
    THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN

    ReplyReply
  12. BILL
    hi,
    you guessed it right from the very beginning,
    best to you.

    ReplyReply
  13. Wm T Sherman says: 13

    @Satin Doll:

    I’ve been campaigning as a conservative Republican since 1964

    Bull***t.

    ReplyReply
  14. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 14

    Apologetics from the Right. Why don’t you take these stale ideas to Left-wing blogs, instead of singing to the choir.

    P.S. That Gadsden Flag displayed prominently on the T-Shirt—with the “Don’t Tread On Me” slogan—was the motto of the Left-wing revolutionaries during the 1960′s war against the Fascist conservatives. What do you think of that?

    ReplyReply
  15. FedUp says: 15

    @Ivan: Just FYI… the Tea Party didn’t foist Romney on us, the Republican Establishment did that!

    ReplyReply
  16. mossomo says: 16

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    The Gadsden Flag was the motto of the Left-wing revolutionaries during the 1960′s war against the Fascist conservatives. What do you think of that?

    Let me quote Allen West: “Conservatives adhere to the ideals of individual responsibility and freedom, limited government, a free market and a strong defense. Those on the liberal left adhere to a collective ideal, directed and controlled by a centralized government to guarantee and enforce social and economic justice.

    You can call this what you wish. The esteemed scholar and author Mark Levin calls it ‘statism.’ In our lifetime, the unpalatable and pejorative brands ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ have been replaced with the more user-friendly ‘progressive’ term.”

    ReplyReply
  17. I wish the liberals get of the FARMER’S BACK, THEY ARE TRYING NOW TO STOP THE KIDS TO HELP ON THE FARM, AND AS SOMEONE MENTION THEY WILL HAVE AN EXCUSE TO HIRE MANY INSPECTORS
    to police the poor Farmers
    I think they want to put the UNIONS IN CONTROL AND BULLY THE FARMERS IN HIRING THEIR PEOPLE.
    THEY ARE CORRUPT

    ReplyReply
  18. Ivan says: 18

    @FedUp

    : @Ivan: Just FYI… the Tea Party didn’t foist Romney on us, the Republican Establishment did that!

    The “Tea Party” laid dormant like a bitch about to give birth to a litter while the “Establishment” foisted this trash upon us.

    Let’s face it, the TP was just some bull*hit fraud made up by the Republican Party for 2010.

    ReplyReply
  19. Nan G says: 19

    @Ivan:

    Right, Ivan.
    Back in 2010 polls were being conducted all the time about the Tea Party.
    Of 500 asked in one poll, only 17 even claimed to be in the Tea Party at that time, a very small minority.
    But OF THOSE who claimed to be IN the Tea Party, 40% said they were registered Democrats or Independents!
    And 28% of the total polled said they supported the ideals of the Tea Party.

    Hardly a fraud made up by the Republicans.
    Remember it was a CNBC guy who started it in 2009.

    ReplyReply
  20. Ivan says: 20

    Nan,

    Where, I ask you, is the TP? They left. They are gone, like a fart in the wind I might add.

    As soon as the Rethublicans won the House in 2010 the TP disappeared. No massive protests, hell, almost no protests to be seen.

    It disgusts me what a fraud it was.

    ReplyReply
  21. mossomo says: 21

    @Ivan:

    Ask Mia Love, Hatch or Lugar where the Tea Party is at.

    Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

    - Aristotle

    ReplyReply
  22. Greg #2 says: 22

    Wordsmith says: 11

    Ivan,

    Are there any politicians out there who you do support? You seem to bash everyone under the tent, not just on their charisma or lack thereof, but also on policy positions.
    Reply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    March 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm
    Ivan says: 12

    Yes Mr. Smith, I have stated this before. Pat Buchanan (too old now) and Tom Tancredo (not perfect, but correct on most major issues). Ditto with Duchan Hunter.

    Now I know what it means to be vociferously ignorant. Hat tip to Ivan!

    ReplyReply
  23. Nan G says: 23

    Two things:
    1.
    http://freebeacon.com/liberal-media-mock-obama-for-faux-campaign/
    Members of the liberal media are mocking Obama over his using taxpayer money to go to swing states and give campaign speeches that are indistinguishable from his speech on the taxpayers’ dimes.

    When your own liberal media is mocking you (Obama) you know you are what you ate: dog meat.

    2.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/223793-top-romney-fundraiser-donors-coming-out-of-the-woodwork

    Mitt Romney’s fundraising has skyrocketed since he became the de facto nominee, a top Romney fundraiser told The Hill Wednesday evening.

    “People are coming out of the woodwork,” said the fundraiser.

    Wondering what to do with some of that cash you might have sidelined because of Obama’s bad economic policies?
    heh!

    Romney’s schedule is very heavy on fundraising appearances the next month, and if he continues to bring in $1 million or more at most stops he could quickly close the gap with Obama in campaign money!

    Romney and the RNC have a combined fundraising goal of $800 million, according to a memo obtained by the New York Times. That figure would likely mean Romney outspends Obama — and that doesn’t factor in the Republican-aligned outside groups, which are expected to outspend their Democratic counterparts by large margins.

    ReplyReply
  24. Mossomo
    I like ARISTOTE,

    ReplyReply
  25. justme95 says: 25

    Give me 15trillion thumbs down, I don’t care, but how can anyone support Romney?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38&feature=youtu.be

    mossomo

    Romney has fired people. Not very consistant with socialist tenets.

    Capitalism creates jobs, socialism and Romney’s Bain Capital destroys jobs

    http://www.kingofbain.com/

    ReplyReply
  26. justme95
    this come from CNN, ARE YOU EXPECTING SOMETHING GOOD FROM THEM?
    they’r out to reelect OBAMA,

    ReplyReply
  27. VINCE
    WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT,
    ROMNEY WAS VETTED, wasn’t he,
    at this stage in time, what are we suppose to do,
    are we suppose to believe that fracture video in segments,
    like the media is doing on other event they are selling.

    ReplyReply
  28. justme95 says: 28

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    What comes from CNN?

    The first link is from channel4truth2012 and the second was from a group http://www.winningourfuture.com

    Please don’t make untruthful accusations.

    ReplyReply
  29. justme95
    sorry but it look like them,
    okay but what’s their point to bring this up at this time,
    it look suspicious, as a matter of fact , it stink on the purpose,
    remember NEWT GINGRICH , BROUGHT IT UP AT THE BEGINNING, AND IT VAPORIZE,
    AS NOT CONSISTENT ENOUGH TO HANG HIM,
    it look strangely like the HERMAN CAIN SET UP,
    SO ROMNEY IS RICH, AT LEAST HE’S NOT RUNNING FOR THE MONEY LIKE OBAMA AND HIS GANG,
    SO ROMNEY DID SOME BUSYNESS AND SOME PEOPLE LOSS THEIR JOB, IT HAPPEN IN BUSYNESS,
    BUSYNESS PREVIOUS OWNERS ARE GUILTY MORE, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAKER AND LOOSER
    OF JOBS,
    NEWT IS GONE, HE WAS ONE OF MY CHOICE TOO,
    WE MUST MOVE ON

    ReplyReply
  30. Jason says: 30

    The real challenge is how to save America from conservatives. Mitt Romney is the stealth answer.

    ReplyReply
  31. justme95 says: 31

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    It didn’t ‘just come out’. Came out sometime in January this year. As you quasilycorrectly state – it was Newt who put it out. It’s a shame you and many others didn’t watch it then. And I think it a bigger shame that now that Newt dropped out he has endorsed Rmoney.

    Romney, whose security policy advosr is Michael Chertoff so expansion of TSA 4th Amendment abrogating tactics and naked body scanners is assured.
    Romney, who approved of the NDAA sections that state Americans can be picked off the street for any reason the presidents comes up with.
    Romney, who won’t stop the drones from flying over America.
    Romney, who agrees American citizens can be murdered at the president’s whim.

    Seriously, the core policies of Robama/Obamney are no different – expansion of Big Government and crony capitalism.

    ReplyReply
  32. justme95 says: 32

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    NEWT IS GONE, HE WAS ONE OF MY CHOICE TOO,
    WE MUST MOVE ON

    There is another candidate still in the race who WILL make it to the RNC convention in Tampa and the only one I have supported throughout this election cycle – unfortunately, mentioning his name on this site makes people here go ballistic.

    ReplyReply
  33. justme95
    YES I like RON PAUL TOO,many things brought me to think of him,
    but at this time , is in it too late for him to gain a favorable upward position
    to challenge ROMNEY, and could RON PAUL GET OBAMA OUT, to begin with,
    it’s going to be nasty and nastyer, it will escalate because OBAMA HAS the UNION’S THUGS
    IN HIS POCKET, HE HAS THE PINK PANTHERS THUGS IN HIS POCKET, HE MEAN TROUBLE
    here we have the classy and straight forward PEOPLE telling the truth as it is,
    no lies no cover up,here are the law abiding citizens
    peaceful who know the challenges of this election are perilous, and cannot be lost , here we have the PATRIOTS who will stand for what is right, for the CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND AGAINST THE TROUBLE MAKERS

    ReplyReply
  34. justme95
    once he’s there he might be listening more to the people than OBAMA, HE KNOW THE CONSTITUTION and abide by it, this is already a plus, beside he will be kept on check if he get of line ,
    he will have the people checking him and reminding him if he get to far,away from the values of
    CONSERVATIVES HE ALREADY WORK HARD TO LET ALL KNOW HE IS A CONSERVATIVE,
    YOU SEE, OBAMA was given many chances from the tolerant PEOPLE,
    BUT MITT ROMNEY, wont get that chance, he will have to show not tell,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  35. justme95 says: 35

    Bees, I do love your persistence! :-)
    I’ll comment on a couple of the things you’ve said

    could RON PAUL GET OBAMA OUT

    Most definitely YES!
    Rassmussen poll week Apr 12: Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) edged Obama 44 to 43 in the daily tracking poll.
    while Obama and Mitt Romney are tied.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/221163-rasmussen-obama-and-romney-tied-nationally
    As a wise commentor wrote: people pick Ron Paul because they strongly support him. Romney supporters just want to get rid of Obama.

    And have you seen the number of people that go to Ron Paul rallies compared to the scant numbers for Romney?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpL6eQyXDs&feature=related
    So why doesn’t that translate into wins? Election fraud perpetrated by the GOP.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYXVaUWSiA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD6_7mdcWSA

    You can find more videos about it.

    Then someone spent a lot of time figuring out there there was algorithmic ‘vote flipping’ when they used the machines.
    http://www.coxcon.com/files/vf.pdf

    Machine voter fraud got so bad in Germany they reverted back to hand-counted paper ballots. You’re lucky in Canada they still use paper ballots for federal elections. I say paper ballots and purple fingers.

    Then you said

    HE (Romney) KNOW THE CONSTITUTION

    No he doesn’t and he admitted it during the NH debate. Watch and learn:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNIUBe9bzZY&feature=player_embedded
    (The title of the video is wrong, though, and I’m sorry whoever put up that video titled it that way)

    To me, voting for Romney would be like voting for Obama. I see no real difference between them. They both have no regard for civil liberties or the Constitution. I will not hold my nose. I will vote my conscience and sleep well at night.

    ReplyReply
  36. justme95
    wow, I can see the offset if RON PAUL WOULD WIN THE VOTES AT THE END OF ALL THIS.
    I know the crowd of RON PAUL have been consistent and hard working and purely because they agree with his policies, and did it free as oppose to ROMNEY WITH DOLLARS ON EVERYTHING HE DID,
    RON PAUL DID NOT SPEND NEARLY MUCH ON HIS CAMPAIN,and still hold on to his followers,
    it was remarkable to notice, even for a ingnorant person like me. and he has also a young crowd and probably could steel youngs who now adore OBAMA, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE GIVEN FROM PAUL CROWD,
    AS WE KNOW THE YOUNGS FOLLOW MORE THEIR GENERATION IF THEY FEEL THE ENTHOUSIAST IS THERE, MORE THAN IN THEIR LIBERAL SIDE. AND RON PAUL also benefit from a lot of MILITARIES,
    BY WORD OF MOUTH, HE HAS CAPTURE A GOOD CHUNK OF THE PEOPLE LAST VOTERS,
    WOW IF YOU SAY ,THERE IS A CHANCE FOR HIM, I SAY GOOD LUCK TO RON PAUL, HE IS THE REAL CONSERVATIVE COMPARE TO ROMNEY.
    I really thought he was too low to rise in front, but I can see the party if he make it by a turn radical of events, ONLY GOD KNOWS,AND HE SURE CAN MAKE IT FOR HIM, AT THE VERY END,
    TO COUNFOUND ALL THOSE WHO FORGOT ABOUT HIS POWER, AMERICA CAN MAKE ANYTHING HAPPEN IF THEY WANT IT, DIDN’T THEY WENT FIRST IN THE MOON?
    BEST TO YOU.

    ReplyReply
  37. Aye says: 37

    @justme95:

    No he doesn’t and he admitted it during the NH debate. Watch and learn:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNIUBe9bzZY&feature=player_embedded

    I’ve watched that clip and feel compelled to point out that you’re engaging in a completely dishonest interpretation and representation of it.

    Your point is not even remotely close to being accurate.

    ReplyReply
  38. Poppa_T says: 38

    @justme95:

    I am with you justme, there is only one person worth supporting and it’s not Mitt. It’s funny how hypocritical Republicans can get over Ron Paul. Mossomo brought up that “esteemed scholar and author Mark Levin”, I used to love listening to Mark, I loved how he would take democratic positions and clearly and concisely illustrate how the liberal agenda violated Constitutional principals. The way he used the Constitution and the founding principals to validate his positions inspired me. But when it comes to Ron Paul all that goes straight out the window and Mark reverts to liberal tactics, calling Dr. Paul a “nut” a “Loon” and those of us who support him “A-holes” and “like Marxists”.

    Most of the Republicans on here don’t support Ron Paul because they disagree with his foreign policy and I have no problem with anyone who has an honest disagreement. But be honest about the justifications behind your disagreement. Mark says that Ron’s “foreign policy is unpatriotic and it’s un-American” but he can’t cite the Constitution as a basis for his disagreement because it is not the basis. In fact Mark Levin has said that he would not vote for Ron even if he somehow managed to win the nomination because “…Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so antithetical to traditional conservative foreign policy…” after all why should we bother to follow the Constitution if it’s principals aren’t “traditional conservative policy”?

    ReplyReply
  39. Poppa_T
    HI,
    CAN YOU TELL ME WHY RON PAUL FOREIGN POLICY is not accepted by the GOPS,
    after those NON STOP WARS since WW ll is in it logic to give a breath of fresh air to the MILITARY AND THEIR LOVED ONES. AND I think that’s what RON PAUL WANT, AM I right? I HEARD HE ALSO WANT TO PURSUE THE NUCLEOR TECHNOLOGY AS A PROTECTION FOR AMERICA’S THREATS FROM THE COUNTRIES WHO HATE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT FOREIGN POLICY.
    AND HOW ABOUT GETTING GOLD THE BEST PLACE FOR HER VALUE, and what else is so interesting for the young generation enough to have them follow him and work for him so loyaly together,
    as we seen it here at FA,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  40. mossomo says: 40

    @justme95:

    Capitalism creates jobs, socialism and Romney’s Bain Capital destroys jobs

    Your idea of Capitalism is quite perverse. Henry Ford destroyed the buggy whip industry. No one suggests Ford’s a socialist. The resentment you feel is a popular sentiment against corporate raiders, I think these feelings were best characterized in the 80′s movie Wallstreet.

    ReplyReply
  41. Poppa_T says: 41

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Good afternoon Ms. Bees,
    I think someone like Mataharley or anticsrocks would be better suited to explain the GOP’s opposition to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as I believe they hold with the GOP’s position. You also might wish to review the “Ron Paul…Conservative Killer! And Just Plain Crazy” thread as much of this was discussed there.

    But basically I believe that the reason most Republicans oppose Ron Paul’s constitutional foreign policy is the same reason most liberals use when they push their socialist agendas. They don’t believe that the Constitution is an adequate set of rules for us as a Nation to live by in today’s world. As Mrs. Mata said in post #19 of the aforementioned thread “Weapons and times are different. The Constitution hasn’t changed”. So neither party is really willing to follow the Constitution when it goes against their political agendas or their personal beliefs.

    ReplyReply
  42. mossomo says: 42

    @Poppa_T:

    #38

    Are you going to discount the 90% you agree with because of the 10% you don’t?

    There is truth to what you’re saying. Coulter lost some street cred with me. But it begs the question of why did they take that route? I think underneath that question is a more divisive question of who they thought had the best odds to beat Obama in the general.

    It’s my opinion that one motivates the other. The pundits went all in for Romney which reflected in their talking points. Everyone has their biases. And their bias was motivated by best chance to win.

    I guess my conclusion is the prioritization of concerns. I don’t think it serves us to in-fight and get caught up in the symantecs of a nasty election process; I think removing Obama should be the number one concern.

    #41 – ??? You posit that Republicans don’t believe the Constitution is adequate? This you take from a belief foreign aid is unconstitutional?

    ReplyReply
  43. Poppa_T
    I’m glad you came back, you are part of our group and you have legitimated arguments
    worthy of attention, like many mentionned including MATA,
    RON PAUL WOULD BE GOOD IN CHARGE OF THE FEDS BANK, THE PEOPLE’S MONEY
    SHOULD BE UNDER HIS SKILL AND PROTECTION, THIS WOULD MAKE THE PEOPLE TRUSTING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SPENDING SPREE DONE BY NOBODY, UNDER HIS WATCHFUL EYE,
    THAT IS IF HE doesn’t make it to the PRESIDENCY.
    LIKE MOSSOMO MENTIONED, WE ARE TOGETHER WITH DIFFERENT MINDS
    FREE TO THINK ON OUR OWN, THAS IS BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATES WHO MUST HAVE ONE MIND FOR ALL, AND THAT’S WHAT PISSING THEM SO MUCH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES MIND,
    BEST TO YOU

    ReplyReply
  44. Poppa_T says: 44

    @mossomo:

    Hi Mossomo, my friend my #1 concern is not the removal of President Obama, it is the restoration of the rule of law and a return to the constitutional principals that made us the envy of the world and inspired dreams of liberty in oppressed peoples worldwide.

    You may have recently noticed that the Obama administration recently announced that the “War on Terror” is over! Hooray!!! Does this now mean that my grandkids will no longer be subjected to sexual molestation by government henchmen like this child? Does this mean that the Constitution Free Zones will be eliminated? Or that the government will stop spying on us over the internet or through our banks and phone companies? Of course not.

    Do you honestly believe that if Mitt Romney is elected president he will address these issues? Nothing will change. He will not repeal Obamacare (he inspired it!) or the Patriot act, he will not repeal the NDAA, eliminate the TSA or the DHS, he will not investigate the FED, address the looming financial crisis, enact the Fair or Flat tax. In short the only thing that will happen is that a bunch of toe the party line Republicans are going to celebrate that “they won” and that the evil Obamaman is out of office while Mitt Romney advances gun control continues unconstitutional wars and farther establishes the police/nanny state.

    And frankly Mark Levin is the biggest, most hypocritical SOB on talk radio. You cannot profess to be a staunch defender of the Constitution and a champion of “limited government” while simultaneously endorsing the completely unconstitutional big government policies (both foreign and domestic) that George W. Bush enacted and that Barack Obama continued, expanded and has used to assure the complete destruction of the Constitution and the rule of law in this Nation! Both of those Presidents have used the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to wipe their backsides with and I refuse to support a man (Mitt Romney) that will only continue those same policies or admire a man (Mark Levin) who talks out of both sides of his mouth!

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    ReplyReply
  45. Poppa_T
    WON’T YOU GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE ONE WHO WILL WIN THIS PRESIDENCY FROM THE CONSERVATIVES SIDE, LOOK HE IS ENDORSED BY GOOD CONSERVATIVES, THEY HAVE GIVEN HIM THEIR TRUST AFTER HE WENT THROUGH SO MANY VETTING ATTACKS,
    you are like so many under the nasty empowering GOVERNMENT influence AND YOU LOST FAITH
    IN THE FUTURE GOVERNMENT TO BE FAIR AND JUST FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS BEAUTIFULL AMERICA,
    GIVE AMERICA A CHANCE TO HEAL FROM THE DEEP WOUNDS YOU FEEL,
    THERE WILL BE A CHANGE FOR BETTER THIS TIME, IT MUST HAPPEN, IT IS THE LAST CHANCE AMERICANS WILL GIVE,

    ReplyReply
  46. MataHarley says: 46

    poppa t: But basically I believe that the reason most Republicans oppose Ron Paul’s constitutional foreign policy is the same reason most liberals use when they push their socialist agendas. They don’t believe that the Constitution is an adequate set of rules for us as a Nation to live by in today’s world. As Mrs. Mata said in post #19 of the aforementioned thread “Weapons and times are different. The Constitution hasn’t changed”. So neither party is really willing to follow the Constitution when it goes against their political agendas or their personal beliefs.

    You know, poppa t, if you intend to pass on my words, it might be nice if you did that accurately, and provided a link so people could read for themselves.

    If you read my comment that you deliberately mischaracterized, you will find I said nothing of the sort, in the context you attempt to portray… i.e. that I am a “living Constitution” type person.

    @Aqua, I think the argument INRE the military cuts… at least from my perspective.. is that yes, there is waste that could be cleaned up. However while the ga’zillion agencies that have become bloated and inefficient were not a founding vision, the military – including a standing army – was for protection of the nation.

    Which brings me to one more thing… since it will be inevitable that blast, or another liberal, will wander and and attempt to diss a standing army as not the intent of the founding fathers. That has caveats.

    First, the Constitution itself. As the Preamble states, one of the prime purposes of the central government was to provide for the common defence. Article II, Section 2 says that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…

    Nothing in the Constitution states the size or limitations of the standing army – only that a sufficent permanent standing army was required to provide for common defence. What was required of a standing army in the times of the Founders and Framers is a different story than what is required today, now that we are not protected by two oceans, weapons are not confined to simple musket balls and black powder rifles or cannons, and the world is intrinsically linked.

    The selective quoting of intent from the Founders tends to get on my nerves, as well as those who attempt to cast that standing army, relative to the threats of the nation, as an example of the Constitution being a “living document”. Nope… The Constitution provides for a fluctuating size and power of a mandated standing army, as it is relative to the “common defence”.

    As I’ve said, and @Michael Henkins repeats above, the military is not only a Constitutionally mandated duty of the central government, it is also linked to our economy. Indeed, as Sept 11th proved, one of the most effective weapons by the enemy is not a dirty bomb or suicide bomber. It is an economic bomb, such as shutting down the NYC financial district for a week. That’s also why a nuke exploded in the airspace over major US urban concentrations, shutting down the electrical grid, is extremely effective without having a massive death toll. Long periods of power loss in any of the nation’s four major grids can bring the US to it’s knees.

    Weapons and times are different. The Constitution hasn’t changed. The CiC and central government are charged with protecting this nation, and the size, choice of base locations and focus of a military will morph, tailoring to the technological threats in a modern world. And while there needs to be audits for wasted funds, the cuts of manpower and equipment that are implemented by Obama, and the radical fringe proposals by Ron Paul… merely to make room in an overly stretched budget for non Constitutional spending… is as anti-Constitutional as you can get.

    What I said is not that the Constitution is inadequate, because it is. The standing army, it’s size have no limitations and are what the CiC and Congress deem appropriate for the threat to the nation.

    What is inadequate is Ron Paul’s interpretation, and ill thought assessment of the size of our military as he sees it to be, were he the CiC. A “couple of good submarines” and an arsenal chock full of nukes is not adequate, save in Ron Paul’s isolationist mind.

    And speaking of Ron Paul, in that same comment, I already gave my reasoning for why I think he’s dangerous as a POTUS or CiC.

    INRE Paul and isolationist… depends upon what tangent you are discussing. He is a military and defense isolationist. He’s an isolationist for engaging in any int’l bodies (something I can sympathize with, but a complete reversal is even more damaging). He is not an isolationist when it comes to trade.

    And is he no “pure conservative”. Fringe left and fringe right tend to find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with little difference. There is no single label for Dr. Paul, any more than there is for any individual or politician. We are all varying mixtures. However if you feel the need to label Dr. Paul, fringe is the best all around description. There are portions (not all) of his fiscal policies that are good, and others that are simply absurd. But all are “fringe”.

    RP makes the TP look downright moderate.

    An appropriate veep for a Ron Paul as POTUS, with his views on foreign policy, is Dennis Kuchinich…. over my dead body and cold dead hands. Fringe.. he is fringe. A small aspect of it I like (fiscally), but very small. Would make a killer Fed Reserve Chair or Treasury Secretary tho.

    ReplyReply
  47. mossomo says: 47

    @Poppa_T

    You must know the faster Obama is removed, the faster we can “move the chains” back closer to our Constitutional principles.

    I don’t give Bush a free pass, there’s plenty to criticize – No Child Left Behind, but the magnitude of difference between Bush’s vision of gov’t and Obama’s is huge.

    You seem to deal in absolutes. Black/white. Which party is more damaging to individual liberty? Which is easier to influence to govern Constitutionally. A third party is not feasible. What are the options?

    Think about…

    “I am a libertarian with a small ‘l’ and a Republican with a capital ‘R’. And I am a Republican with a capital ‘R’ on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”
    ― Milton Friedman

    ReplyReply
  48. Ivan says: 48

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Why are you so lazy? You are the only person here who routinely is typing with the CAPS key on. Do you know, or perhaps you do but don’t care, that it is like you are yelling all the time???

    Do you know how annoying that is?

    ReplyReply
  49. IVAN
    yes, I’m sorry about it, if I dare use the cap for a word which need it, I’m doom or dumb,
    and I continue my blah blah, jolly on the CAPS, and when I go to far after I’m done ,
    I tell myself oh sh.., but I want out, my computer heat and It freak me up,
    I have to leave it close it until it cools,
    I’m better now, but still do it, but trying to loose the caps, it will come be patient as I am too,
    thank you for the reminder, keep it coming, I have a hard head,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  50. mossomo says: 50

    Yo @bees – keep your style; it’s endearing. It defines. Passion. Don’t change. Ivan has a point – yelling all caps – but you’re not very loud. I mean really. *shrug* U B U -two cents

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>