Ron Versus the Huckster

Will the Libertarians ever become Republicans?

Ron Paul is essentially Libertarian. Clearly, he has never endorsed the GOP foreign policy as Paul says that if the USA just will hunker in the bunker there will be no more Pearl Harbors and no more Nine Elevens. Sort of reminds one of Bill Clinton's foreign policy of only lifting a finger when the media insisted.And Ron Paul has enemies that are trying to stop his ideas. Among them are Chris Wallace, it seems, who just doesn't seem to understand how great Ron Paul is and who speaks with a "sneer" and asks bad questions on purpose. Yes, the media is out to get the Libertarian at the GOP debate.So what is Ron Paul to do but call people bad names. He calls the former Governor of Arkansas the "huckster." I guess that you have to make fun of peoples names when you are a Libertarian because the media made you do it.Ron Paul lost the debate on his own, however. He claimed that the only ones saying that cutting and running from Iraq would cause a bloodbath are the ones that said Iraq would be a cakewalk. Who are those people who said that Iraq would be a cakewalk? No one ever said that. There is not the name of one single person who ever said that and no reference to any quotation of a single person who ever said that.So the idea of a bloodbath, which happened in Viet Nam when we left, is dismissed by Ron Paul. Why should he care if there is a bloodbath? He is a Libertarian and the essence of Libertarianism is that the prostitutes, drug addicts, homosexuals, alcoholics, and others who are on a course of self-destruction should be allowed to continue legally while the Libertarians live in luxury, hunker in the bunker, and defend their vast property.The USA cut and run in Korea, the USA cut and run in Viet Nam. We have two strikes against us. Iraq, if Ron Paul has his way, would be strike three.Perhaps, the man whom Ron Paul smears with name-calling said it best:"We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve."

 

So what do you suggest, electing a candidate that continues with the policy we have had in Iraq for longer than WW2 with no victory in sight? If we do not learn from history, we repeat the mistakes. To get a different result, try something different.

 

How does the situation in Iraq draw upon the experience of WW II?It would seem that we would have to be totally mobilized for war in order to be on the same basis as we were in WW II, wouldn't we? As it stands today, the American people go merrily on their way almost totally unaffected by the war in Iraq.This is a very minor war. The deaths do not amount to the number of dead lost in many a single day in WW II. We had some of these same problems in Germany with some nazis fighting on in Germany long after the war was over.Ron Paul blames the media and calls people names and charges that some people said things that were never said.Ron Paul ignores the fact that there will be a bloodbath if the history of Viet Nam means anything. And Ron Paul ignores the fact that cutting and running for the third time will be strike three for the USA. Islam is banking on the fact that the USA likes to go home if the going gets difficult based upon the historical record of Korea and Viet Nam.

 

It has nothing to do with the number of deaths. It has to do with competent leadership. If we were not totally mobilized, then maybe we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place.

Since you are a student of military history, it seems to me you would realize that if you are going to fight a war, you fight to win, and have an exit strategy, OR DO NOT fight at all. This requires competent leadership, and a stategy to win. We have neither for the rest of Bush's term. A stategy of limited goals, unclear thinking, and leaders going merrily along hoping something will happen does not work.

Frankly, I do not know if Ron Paul would be any better or not, but am convinced by pet cat couldn't do any worse. Oh, and I do not need any lessons on Vietnam.

 

Won't the Libertarians desert the GOP in 2008?

What seems implied in Ron Paul's complaints about his treatment from the media and his making fun of people's names and his complaints about the phantoms of his mind who said that Iraq would be a cakewalk is that Libertarians do not care if there is a bloodbath in Iraq as long as the USA takes a strike three. More specifically to the political issue, the Libertarians seem poised to stay home on election day or return to the Libertarian Party on that day with their votes. The defeat of the GOP in November 2008 will bring about the withdrawal from the war. Perhaps Ron Paul then thinks that he can use the wealth of the Libertarian Party to grab what is left of the GOP organization in December 2008 and institute his 1930s hunker in the bunker foreign policy.Those are just my speculations of Ron Paul's political ambitions. I personally don't think that Ron Paul can change GOP foreign policy, but if he was able to take control of the Republican Party after a Democrat victory next year, it seems to me that it would be a permanent minority party and much smaller than it is now. More importantly, I disagree that Americans are much concerned about Iraq or that it is a defining issue. The American people are much more interested in having a good time and living high on the hog than they are about anything else. I disagree that the Democrats will win next year or that GOP foreign policy needs to be changed to the Democrat-Libertarian foreign policy for the GOP to win in 2008.

 

I am not a prophet, but it is almost a sure thing the Democrats will win in 2008. And why? Because of the incompetence of the Bush Administration. The Demcorats cannot win on their own ideas, they have to rely on sad Republican performance. That is why their prospects are quite good next year.

I cannot understand why you are so focused on Ron Paul. He does not have a chance at the GOP nomination, and the GOP nominee does not have a chance.

What we need is a President that really lives up to conservative and Christian ideals. Who is running that has that? I see none that have a chance, like Giluiani and Romney.

I agree with you on this point. Americans are spoiled brats that have to have their toys without earning them, a vast departure from my generation. I think this can be seen quite clearly in the recent fiasco of the people who bought houses they cannot afford, and the lenders that created the bogus mortgages that they knew they could not afford. Now, payday is here, and we are all paying for it one way or another, such as retirement accounts, all because of greed and impatience.

 

Thanks!

Thanks, Ken, for the reference about the cakewalk. Do you suppose that Ron Paul was quoting that under Secretary? The Vice President always said that it would be a long, tough war against the terrorists.Thanks, also, Saturneptune. I don't want to give you any history lessons on Viet Nam, but I am trying to discuss the issue of the consequences of a withdrawal. And I don't see what else George W. Bush could have done in Iraq that was not done. We seem to have been caught in the middle between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd but we have applied effective pressure against Iran and Syria.The GOP foreign policy is not incompetent. The GOP is expert in foreign policy. On the contrary, it is the Democrat-Libertarian foreign policy that is impractical.As for focusing on Ron Paul, Saturneptune, it is not me who is starting these threads about the Libertarian hope. I do not think that Ron Paul is a standard Christian because Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, as well as same-sex marriage. Ron Paul does not support the Reagan plank on abortion, as we all know. Nor does Ron Paul believe that any murderer should ever be executed. None of these Libertarian and Ron Paul positions are Christian in my theology.Frankly, I am for Fred Dalton Thompson, but I agree with the former Governor of Arkansas about Ron Paul:"We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve."

 

The Democrats have no foreign policy

It is the Democrats who are dominated by liberalism and the peaceniks. It is their foreign policy that is based upon a weak military.

Why is Ron Paul in this race anyway? He cannot win even the nomination. What are his goals? Does he really think that he can substitute Libertarian foreign policy for Reaganism?

 

Very true about the Democrats. Actually that is a very good definition. The Republican foreign policy should be peace through strength, and when we have to use the military, use it decisively and to win. Unfortunately, that does not exist at this point in time.

 

Although I do think the War on terror in Iraq has been conducted better since the departure of Rumsfield I believe we are playing into the terrorist hands by trying to maintain peace strictly through on the ground military action.
By keeping our forces bogged down in Iraq we will eventually bankrupt our own country. The time to leave is now and let the people of Iraq actually govern themselves without the U.S. intervention in their political affairs. Without a doubt a full blown civil war in that country will ensue once our troops are gone but these Iraqis do intend kill off each other either with our presence or without.

As for our own country we do need to get back to the basics of a more Constitutional run Republic than continuing a Government that can be bought off by the proffessional lobbyist with the most money.

 

Iraq is not lost.

We are in a minor war with an economy and a political system that is not mobilized for an all-out war. Iraq is not lost. It is better to stay and win than to cut and run as Ron Paul and the Democrats want to do. I cannot see that Ron Paul will ever find respect from the GOP.

 

The GOP Is a joke. They should give Ron Paul the nomination and let him run against Hillary. If the rest of the GOP candidates have any smarts they will save their money for the next Presidential election.

 

BTW, I don't think any of the so called frontrunners in the current GOP polls will do anything to resolve the situation in Iraq with the exception of John McCain of course.

 

Ron Paul never talks about honor.

Ron Paul never talks about honor. He has joined the Democrats in calling for us to cut and run from Iraq, more or less as we did in Korea and Viet Nam. He wants us to take a called strike three and then hunker in the bunker and hope that there will never again be a Pearl Harbor or a Nine Eleven.

Of course, once again the abandoned country will suffer a bloodbath but we have been told it is in order that we do not go bankrupt. The USA is the largest welfare state in the world in terms of money spent; we have the most expensive public school system in the world and the worst. We have been borrowing money to buy guns and the people have still been having butter on both sides of their bread. The idea that Iraq could bankrupt us is totally without foundation, and the Democrats should be ashamed for suggesting it.

We should stay in Iraq until we have victory. There is no urgency other than the political one manufactured from nothing by the Democrats and the Libertarians.

Ron Paul should stop wasting his money on his quixotic dreams of power. No one wants the Libertarian hunker in the bunker foreign policy or the Libertarian domestic policy of legalized drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage, and no federal outlawing of abortion by a right-to-life amendment as suggested by candidate and President Ronald Reagan in 1980. And no one agrees with Ron Paul that murderers should never be put to death.