The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Lisa Graas Takes on the Paulistas

Posted on | September 6, 2010 | 105 Comments

Lisa Graas was the founder of PalinTwibe, a Twitter feed that supports Sarah Palin, but resigned after Palin endorsed Rand Paul. (Graas supported Christian conservative candidate Bill Johnson in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary.)

Her stance made Lisa a target of Ron Paul’s supporters, whose online fury is legendary. And she has now published “A Blogger’s Guide to the Paulastinian Masturbatorium,” a glimpse inside Liberty Forest, a.k.a., Ron Paul Forums, a site she describes as “the online staging ground for Paul supporters to organize and become like gum in the hair for any blogger who may disagree with them.”

It has been my policy as a blogger not to offend the supporters of Ron Paul. While some have called them “Paulbots” or “Paultards,” I’ve always used the term “Paulista.” This borrowing from Spanish — e.g., Sandinista — is apt, I think, and is an adaptation dating back to the 1980s, when many conservatives (who opposed Daniel Ortega’s Marxist regime in Nicaragua) referred to themselves jocularly as “Reaganistas.”

Long before Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign I admired his principled stance against Big Government, which earned him the sobriquet “Doctor No” for his many votes against measures he considered unconstitutional. If there were 218 Ron Pauls in the House of Representatives, we certainly wouldn’t be in the deficit-ridden mess we’re in now, although (as some would say) we might be in a completely different mess.

The Paulistas’ devotion to limited government, their critique of the Federal Reserve, and even their skepticism toward U.S. foreign policy strike me as valuable assets to the conservative coalition. While one might disagree with any one or more of their arguments, the Paulistas offer an ideological critique of Bush-era Republican policy — which certainly deserves criticism.

Bushism and ‘Brand Damage’

Steve Sailer has notably described the philosophy of Bushism as “Invade the World, Invite the World, In Debt to the World” — foreign wars, open borders and deficit spending. Justify any of Bush 43’s policies however you will, you cannot say their short-term popularity (i.e., the GOP electoral successes of 2002-04) led to Karl Rove’s dream of a “Permanent Republican Majority.”

Bush’s talk of “compassionate conservatism,” of being a bipartisan “uniter not a divider” who could bring about “a new tone in Washington,” turned out to be a roadmap for unprincipled compromises with liberalism. From the atavistic atrocity known as No Child Left Behind to the abomination of Medicare Part D to the wrongheaded TARP bailout of 2008, George W. Bush spent eight years telling Americans that enacting expensive Big Government measures was “conservative.” If you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it and so, to this day, you’ll find Republican useful idiots like Fred Barnes who defend the very worst acts of Bush’s tenure as “conservative” or, at least, necessary.

Bad policy is generally bad politics, too, and the disastrous elections of 2006-08 — which gave us Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and President Obama — should rightly be seen not as an endorsement of liberalism, but rather as a negative referendum on Bushism. If conservatives are to have any hope of correcting the GOP “brand damage” problem, the correction must begin with honest criticism of the failures of Bushism.

Despite all the cleverness of those “Miss Me Yet?” billboards, a reliable majority of Americans will not vote for conservative Republicans if they believe that this means a return to the self-contradicting incoherence of Bush-era Republicanism.

We do not need a “New Conservatism,” but we definitely need a Real Conservatism.

Our Very Foreign Policy

As critics of Bushism, then, the Paulista insurgents are certainly part of a long-needed reasssessment of what conservatism means and what core principles the Republican Party should stand for, including foreign policy. 

While I am myself generally hawkish — at times savagely so — I am also opposed to the nonsensical drivel of “nation-building,” which amounts to a universalist ideology wherein America has a divine mandate to remake the world in our own image. The slightest acquaintance with the realities of Afghanistan and Iraq should dissuade us from this error. We have neither the money nor the manpower to turn Kabul into Cleveland or Baghdad into Boston, and even if we did have sufficient resources to accomplish such ambitious schemes, I doubt the wisdom of doing so.

To borrow a phrase from an old buddy of mine, those neocons who dream of converting the Middle East into Western bourgeois democracies — Iraq as a Mesopotamian replica of Minnesota, Afghanistan as an egalitarian society that would warm the cockles of Melissa McEwan’s feminist heart — are guilty of advocating “diversity through homogenization.”

To be told that thousands of American soldiers died to bring the blessing of women’s suffrage to these countries . . . well, I’ll defer to Ann Coulter, who has argued that the 19th Amendment was a tragic error.

The Framers of the Constitution declared their intent to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” and conservatives ought to give full weight to their use of first-person possessive pronouns in this regard. The preservation of our own liberty ought to be every American’s first concern, and we should consider that we may jeopardize this hard-won legacy if we undertake grandiose projects to impose liberty on other nations. I’m not generally fond of John Quincy Adams, but he was certainly correct in declaring that Americans “are the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own.”

Four Critiques of ‘Empire’

Lisa Graas notes the contempt of Paulistas for the “American Empire,” and I think in this regard it is helpful to distinguish between (a) anti-imperialism, (b) isolationism, (c) pacificism, and (d) anti-Americanism.

Anti-imperialism has a long and honorable history in American culture. The Founders, being well-read in the history of Rome and Greece — it is worth mentioning that Gibbon’s classic Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in 1776 — and warned strongly against the danger that the Republic they established might suffer the fate of those ancient civilizations. The key event in the downfall of Athens, narrated by Thucydides in the History of the Peloponnesian War, was the ill-advised Syracuse expedition of 415 B.C., which Nicias rightly opposed and Alcibiades wrongly advocated. As for Rome, its constant warfare and extensive conquests brought to power military leaders who, seeking popular support for their selfish ambitions, subverted the patrician authority of the Senate and granted citizenship to barbarians whose allegiances were ultimately not fully Roman.

Most intelligent people who are usually described as “isolationists” consider that term a pejorative misnomer. They insist that they are not nativist Know-Nothings opposed to any U.S. involvement in world affairs. Rather, they say, their concern is for the maintenance of American sovereignty and independence, and a skepticism toward the universalist nostrums of globalism. This attitude also has deep roots in American culture, as the Founders warned against standing armies and “foreign entanglements.” Some would say that advances in transportation and communication have rendered a Pat Buchanan-style “America First” posture obsolete, but within the conservative Big Tent, it is helpful to have these voices of caution to warn us against an unthinking embrace of Wilsonian overreach and oxomoronic delusions of “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Those who see George W. Bush as a latter-day LBJ — whose Great Society was critiqued by Murray Rothbard as a guns-and-butter scam he called the “Welfare-Warfare State” — ought not be dismissed lightly.

Of pacifism, we may say that it is pure folly. The United States is too big, too rich, too powerful and too vulnerable to be Sweden. “World peace” is a secularist fantasy, and America’s peace rests upon only thing: Our enemies’ belief that we’ll blast the everlasting crap out of anybody who dares attack us or our allies. This is where my bloodthirsty Jacksonian streak comes out. As much as I love peace, I believe that our willingness to wage hard and ruthless war against our enemies is ultimately the only security of our peace. On the evening of 9/11, as I watched newscast videos of jihad-happy Arabs dancing in the streets of Cairo and Gaza, fond thoughts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki danced in my own mind. Advocates of “human rights” should be glad that I didn’t have my finger on the nuclear button at that moment, just as they should be glad I wasn’t in charge of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. My objection is not that waterboarding is cruel, but that it is so much less efficient than a 9-mm.

And so, of the four distinct schools of hostility to “American Empire,” we finally come to (d) anti-Americanism, for which I have even less tolerance than I do for sincere pacifism. The pacifist is a fool, whereas those who espouse anti-Americanism have  internalized an enemy ideology, usually rooted in half-digested crypto-Marxism.

Anti-Americanism: Its Roots and Fruits

“America the Evil” is an idea which has both domestic and foreign varieties, of course. One may find the domestic variety at least as early as the more disgruntled New England Federalists of the early 1800s who, having been purged from federal office during the 24-year ascendancy of the Virginia Dynasty (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) conceived a spiteful hatred in their hearts that echoes to this day. Everytime you hear some elitist snob put down the American people as ignorant hicks — whether it’s Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter With Kansas or David Brooks in his New York Times column — you’re observing a remnant of the attitudes pioneered by those haughty Puritans of the early 19th-century.

Then as now, the elitists dressed up their snobbery in moralistic drag, portraying their opponents as the prey of demagogues, and pretending that their own scruples had nothing to do with hurt feelings and thwarted self-interest. You can trace a direct line of historic succession from the Hartford Convention of 1814 to the “peace” movements of the 1960s and on to the MoveOn.org/Code Pink nonsense of our own era. The elite will support war if it serves their domestic political purposes — that is, when it enhances their own status and results in “jobs for the boys” in their own particular party. This is why liberals celebrate World War II as “The Good War,” which was fought by FDR and enhanced the prestige of liberalism, whereas liberals denounce the Vietnam war and re-write history to disguise the fact that it was “escalated” by a liberal Democrat and ended by a Republican.

Let us grant the sincerity of those fools who actually believe the “peace” rhetoric of Democrats. Insofar as Democrats are the party of anti-Americanism (and they most certainly are), they are consistent in opposing only those wars which arguably advance American interests. This is the ironclad logic by which Bill Clinton could bug out of Somalia, invade Haiti on behalf of the Aristide regime, and send U.S. bombers to wage war for the independence of Kosovo. It would have been in U.S. interest to hang tough after the Battle of Mogadishu, to stay out of Haitian politics, and leave the mess in the Balkans to our European “allies” (the scare-quotes necessitated by the dubious fidelity or value of any alliance with, inter alia, France).

In war as in peace, liberalism is always 100% wrong and the fact that many prominent Democrats were, in 2002-03, even more hawkish toward Iraq than the neocons ought to have been our first clue that the mission to Mesopotamia would have an unhappy denouement for the GOP.

Pro-war Democrats of 2002-03 evidently imagined, as did many Republicans, that the conquest of Iraq would be a quick-and-easy affair like the Kuwait war of 1991, and therefore wanted to put themselves on what seemed the popular side of the issue. As night follows day, however, these Democrats predictably were the first to cry “quagmire” when the going got tough and, by 2004, were denouncing “Bush’s war” as if it hadn’t originally been their war, too.

“Bush lied, people died” was and still is a deceitful mantra, but as political rhetoric it has the virtue of simplicity, whereas the arguments against it are (prepare to cringe) nuanced.

The Young Paulistas

Republicans have lost, at least temporarily, the under-30 vote because GOP policy during the Bush years was so unpopular on college campuses. Granted, Reagan was also unpopular on campus, but Reagan’s policies had the merit of being right, so much more right than liberal policies of the 1980s that when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, Democrats were forced into an embarrassed silence about their decades-long advocacy of appeasement toward the Soviet empire. If there is to be any similar happy-ending payoff for Bushism, we haven’t seen it yet.

The GOP’s “brand damage” problem is worst among the under-30s, and this is an important consideration in dealing with the Paulistas because, for the past two or three years, Ron Paul has been the only gravitational force holding many young people within the conservative orbit. I first witnessed this in fall 2007, when I covered a Ron Paul rally at the Boulevard Woodgrill in Arlington, Va. The room was packed and full of energy and at least two-thirds of the attendees were under 30.

Young and old, the Ron Paul campaign inspired enthusiasm from people who otherwise had become in recent years indifferent to the fortunes of the GOP. Given the dire plight of the Republican Party since 2006, to treat potential allies as enemies (as Jane Norton did in Colorado and Sue Lowden did in Nevada) is political folly.

At the same time, however, the intransigent fanaticism of the most hardcore Paulistas — and the indisputably obnoxious attitude of many of Paul’s online activists — makes it problematic to fit them within the Big Tent. I think an attitude of principled allegiance is possible, but there seems to be no mutually acceptable authority to broker such an allegiance by laying down the rules of engagement. If the Paulistas and other Republicans are constantly warring against each other in the most hateful terms, this only benefits Democrats.

Yet the GOP Establishment is too arrogant to try to seek constructive engagement with the Paulistas, while the Paulistas are often guilty of behavior that can only be described as self-marginalization.

Lisa Graas’s description of the “Paulastinian Masturbatorium” is worth reading. While it will likely serve in the short term only to make her a target of further abuse, it ought to inspire thoughtful Republicans to think deeply about how to mend the breach and begin building a genuinely principled conservatism that can unite a broad coalition on the Right.

Category: Conservatism 101, Kentucky, Ron Paul

Comments

105 Responses to “Lisa Graas Takes on the Paulistas”

  1. Pat
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

    Good post… linked!

  2. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

    No surprise than the day following the totalling of the KIA by a socialistic suicide deer, Stacy has dark thoughts.

    I also support the fiscal conservatism of the Paulistinians, Pauliban, Paulinestias, etc. (you can do this all day). Yes they are nuts and way too myopic on how the world works. But they think it is wrong to spend someone else’s money and they support individuals and freedom and I respect that. I can live with nuts like that.

  3. If you have ever wondered why I dislike Sarah Palin and Ron Paul | Political Byline
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

    […] you have ever wondered why I dislike Sarah Palin and Ron Paul By Patrick, on September 6th, 2010 Here is something to read to help you […]

  4. Pat
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

    Good post… linked!

  5. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

    No surprise than the day following the totalling of the KIA by a socialistic suicide deer, Stacy has dark thoughts.

    I also support the fiscal conservatism of the Paulistinians, Pauliban, Paulinestias, etc. (you can do this all day). Yes they are nuts and way too myopic on how the world works. But they think it is wrong to spend someone else’s money and they support individuals and freedom and I respect that. I can live with nuts like that.

  6. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    As for Rome, its constant warfare and extensive conquests brought to power military leaders who — seeking popular support for their selfish ambitions — overthrew the patrician authority of the Senate and granted citizenship to barbarians whose allegiances were ultimately not fully Roman.

    With all due respect, no. Expanding Roman civilization and citizenship was the smart move. Fully Roman? The lazy mobs of the slums of the Eternal City? Or the Romanized citizens of the greater empire, who got the grain to market and kept the economy going?

    And don’t forget the reliance on slavery. It was those Roman slaves who joined the barbarians when they were outside the gates.

  7. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

    As for Rome, its constant warfare and extensive conquests brought to power military leaders who — seeking popular support for their selfish ambitions — overthrew the patrician authority of the Senate and granted citizenship to barbarians whose allegiances were ultimately not fully Roman.

    With all due respect, no. Expanding Roman civilization and citizenship was the smart move. Fully Roman? The lazy mobs of the slums of the Eternal City? Or the Romanized citizens of the greater empire, who got the grain to market and kept the economy going?

    And don’t forget the reliance on slavery. It was those Roman slaves who joined the barbarians when they were outside the gates.

  8. smitty
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

    Stacy,
    What a fantastic outing. I thought Gibbon had written 100 years or so later, in the Progressive era proper. Clearly, I’ve not read Gibbon.
    Also, as a blogger in these very (web) pages, I had my face ripped off by a Paulista for describing Ron Paul’s foreign policy as “Neo-Isolationist”, which he insisted was “Non-Interventionist” (fine), and then proceeded to accuse me of “spreading lies” (no’ so fine).
    One stands ever-ready to be educated on the multitude of areas where one’s knowledge is thin, but insulting my integrity like that earns a cup of disdain.
    You hear me, Ron Paul fans? Ratcheting it down a notch or five would really help your cause.

  9. smitty
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

    Stacy,
    What a fantastic outing. I thought Gibbon had written 100 years or so later, in the Progressive era proper. Clearly, I’ve not read Gibbon.
    Also, as a blogger in these very (web) pages, I had my face ripped off by a Paulista for describing Ron Paul’s foreign policy as “Neo-Isolationist”, which he insisted was “Non-Interventionist” (fine), and then proceeded to accuse me of “spreading lies” (no’ so fine).
    One stands ever-ready to be educated on the multitude of areas where one’s knowledge is thin, but insulting my integrity like that earns a cup of disdain.
    You hear me, Ron Paul fans? Ratcheting it down a notch or five would really help your cause.

  10. Live Free Or Die
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

    “We do not need a ‘New Conservatism’, but we definitely need a REAL Conservatism.”

    That about sums up my feelings exactly.

  11. Live Free Or Die
    September 6th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

    “We do not need a ‘New Conservatism’, but we definitely need a REAL Conservatism.”

    That about sums up my feelings exactly.

  12. Jeff Weimer
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

    Stacy,

    Smitty’s ancedote is a great example of why I call them “Paulnuts”. It’s not their beliefs – I would defend to the death their right to believe them – it’s their behavior that has earned that sobriquet and what deserves scorn and derision. That the scorn and derision extends to their policy ideas is their own damn fault.

  13. Jeff Weimer
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

    Stacy,

    Smitty’s ancedote is a great example of why I call them “Paulnuts”. It’s not their beliefs – I would defend to the death their right to believe them – it’s their behavior that has earned that sobriquet and what deserves scorn and derision. That the scorn and derision extends to their policy ideas is their own damn fault.

  14. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

    Thanks, Stacy. As I’ve noted, I’m an Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Catholic social conservative. I will never ever ever vote for one of these candidates, or anyone who is for gay marriage or abortion, but you certainly have a right to your opinion.

  15. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

    Thanks, Stacy. As I’ve noted, I’m an Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Catholic social conservative. I will never ever ever vote for one of these candidates, or anyone who is for gay marriage or abortion, but you certainly have a right to your opinion.

  16. Adobe Walls
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

    Is it actually possible to “define what a Libertarian is”? Or is it only possible to compile a list of how many different kinds there are and perhaps describe a few policies, that most of them share?
    Rome fell because the promiscuous use of slaves allowed the Noble Rich to take the land from their middle class, enriching themselves but turning the formerly productive into the “State Dependent Mob”. Ring a bell? Of course this is a gross oversimplification as it takes volumes to explain or even describe Rome and it’s fall.

  17. Adobe Walls
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

    Is it actually possible to “define what a Libertarian is”? Or is it only possible to compile a list of how many different kinds there are and perhaps describe a few policies, that most of them share?
    Rome fell because the promiscuous use of slaves allowed the Noble Rich to take the land from their middle class, enriching themselves but turning the formerly productive into the “State Dependent Mob”. Ring a bell? Of course this is a gross oversimplification as it takes volumes to explain or even describe Rome and it’s fall.

  18. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

    Well Ron Paul is pro life Lisa. All I can say is the perfect candidate is hard to find. But I agree, Paul supporters can be poor players.

    I do not have to support Ron Paul. He has zero chance as a national politican and is well suited for a quirky congressional district.

    But I do know the GOP needs to get fiscally conservative. That is job number one right now. As for the social issues, let’s leave them to the states to resolve.

  19. Joe
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

    Well Ron Paul is pro life Lisa. All I can say is the perfect candidate is hard to find. But I agree, Paul supporters can be poor players.

    I do not have to support Ron Paul. He has zero chance as a national politican and is well suited for a quirky congressional district.

    But I do know the GOP needs to get fiscally conservative. That is job number one right now. As for the social issues, let’s leave them to the states to resolve.

  20. Bob Belvedere
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:50 pm

    -Well done, Stacy. Your analysis of the groups, including the Paulistas, was dead, solid, perfect.

    -Good luck to anyone trying to broker the alliance. I had my head whacked pretty violently by the libertarians when I tried to make the case for an alliance – twice.

    -You are quite correct about the New England Federalists, but it must be stated for the record that John Adams was not one of these. In fact, he was shunned and subverted by his fellow New Englanders for his refusal to go along with them. He and other Federalists like John Marshall never countenanced the snooty behavior and disloyalty of men like those who formed the Essex Junto. The Federalists have gotten a bad rap because the Jeffersonians have been able to tie all Federalists in with those horrid ones you describe. I think it not an exaggeration to say that the Paulistas would have fit right in with the more radical Jeffersonians.

    -The Paulistas are their own worst enemies. They make the same mistake most ideologue libertarians do: they refuse to accept that politics is the art of the possible and not the realm of fantasy.

  21. Bob Belvedere
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

    -Well done, Stacy. Your analysis of the groups, including the Paulistas, was dead, solid, perfect.

    -Good luck to anyone trying to broker the alliance. I had my head whacked pretty violently by the libertarians when I tried to make the case for an alliance – twice.

    -You are quite correct about the New England Federalists, but it must be stated for the record that John Adams was not one of these. In fact, he was shunned and subverted by his fellow New Englanders for his refusal to go along with them. He and other Federalists like John Marshall never countenanced the snooty behavior and disloyalty of men like those who formed the Essex Junto. The Federalists have gotten a bad rap because the Jeffersonians have been able to tie all Federalists in with those horrid ones you describe. I think it not an exaggeration to say that the Paulistas would have fit right in with the more radical Jeffersonians.

    -The Paulistas are their own worst enemies. They make the same mistake most ideologue libertarians do: they refuse to accept that politics is the art of the possible and not the realm of fantasy.

  22. Kentucky Colonel
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

    Lisa Graas is a poo-poo head. She picked a fight with the Paulbots and they fought back. She got pissed because Palin endorsed Rand Paul over Johnson and acted like a two year-old. She’s a loser.

  23. Kentucky Colonel
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm

    Lisa Graas is a poo-poo head. She picked a fight with the Paulbots and they fought back. She got pissed because Palin endorsed Rand Paul over Johnson and acted like a two year-old. She’s a loser.

  24. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm

    I want to say that I have a lot of respect for Kentucky’s Libertarian Party and their leadership. I would hate for anyone to lump them in with Liberty Forest because that wouldn’t be fair.

  25. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

    I want to say that I have a lot of respect for Kentucky’s Libertarian Party and their leadership. I would hate for anyone to lump them in with Liberty Forest because that wouldn’t be fair.

  26. Elizabeth
    September 7th, 2010 @ 12:36 am

    Actually, Edward Gibbon’s work has been superceded in recent years, particularly by Peter Brown’s “The World of Late Anitquity”.

    As for the question of war, I’m always amazed at the leftists who scream blue murder at Iraq and Afghanistan, but get aroused at the thought of bombing Serbia, invading Darfur or basically colonising Rwanda or Sierra Leone. (As well as conveniently ignoring things like Haiti, Somalia and Yemen.) Frankly, their only problem with Iraq is that a “conservative” did it.

  27. Elizabeth
    September 6th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

    Actually, Edward Gibbon’s work has been superceded in recent years, particularly by Peter Brown’s “The World of Late Anitquity”.

    As for the question of war, I’m always amazed at the leftists who scream blue murder at Iraq and Afghanistan, but get aroused at the thought of bombing Serbia, invading Darfur or basically colonising Rwanda or Sierra Leone. (As well as conveniently ignoring things like Haiti, Somalia and Yemen.) Frankly, their only problem with Iraq is that a “conservative” did it.

  28. Traditional Conservative
    September 7th, 2010 @ 12:41 am

    “Lisa Graas is a poo-poo head. She picked a fight with the Paulbots and they fought back. She got pissed because Palin endorsed Rand Paul over Johnson and acted like a two year-old. She’s a loser.”

    She also continues to lie about Ron and Rand’s position on abortion, which is pro life. She continues to insist that anybody who wants abortion to be banned at the state level is somehow “pro choice.” By her standard of what makes someone pro life, the pro life movement probably consists of about 10% of the American people.

  29. Traditional Conservative
    September 6th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

    “Lisa Graas is a poo-poo head. She picked a fight with the Paulbots and they fought back. She got pissed because Palin endorsed Rand Paul over Johnson and acted like a two year-old. She’s a loser.”

    She also continues to lie about Ron and Rand’s position on abortion, which is pro life. She continues to insist that anybody who wants abortion to be banned at the state level is somehow “pro choice.” By her standard of what makes someone pro life, the pro life movement probably consists of about 10% of the American people.

  30. Reverb
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:01 am

    Lisa,

    You need to come clean about the obviously made-up “threats” from us Paulbots/tards/istas. If anything like that happened, I challenge you to publish it, and inform the police–as anyone in their right mind would have done.

    Acting as if you’re just some poor victim is not becoming of a conservative. We sure as heck mocked you (and with good reason), but we never threatened you.

  31. Reverb
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

    Lisa,

    You need to come clean about the obviously made-up “threats” from us Paulbots/tards/istas. If anything like that happened, I challenge you to publish it, and inform the police–as anyone in their right mind would have done.

    Acting as if you’re just some poor victim is not becoming of a conservative. We sure as heck mocked you (and with good reason), but we never threatened you.

  32. nathan hale
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:09 am

    So, the Paulista position is we shouldn’t have intervened in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless we destroyed those countries entirely (Scheur and Giraldi, his foreign policy advisors seem to argue this)he was opposed to US operations even
    back during the REagan administration, this ahistorical view of Lincoln expressed by Judge
    Napolitano, in a CPAC speech, is particularly
    worrying

  33. nathan hale
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

    So, the Paulista position is we shouldn’t have intervened in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless we destroyed those countries entirely (Scheur and Giraldi, his foreign policy advisors seem to argue this)he was opposed to US operations even
    back during the REagan administration, this ahistorical view of Lincoln expressed by Judge
    Napolitano, in a CPAC speech, is particularly
    worrying

  34. jefferson101
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:18 am

    I saw a comment somewhere the other day that went something like this (And I paraphrase, because I can’t find it to link and quote.)

    “Until the Libertarians learn to talk to the Conservative Movement like they are adults, and not children to be corrected and lectured to, the Libertarians will remain a marginal and marginalized party.”

    I’d add to that my own observation that until the Libertarians quit treating us as if we’re as stupid as the Leftists think we are, they are not going to get anywhere. I went through a (Large L) Libertarian phase in my youth, and am still a “small l libertarian” in a lot of areas.

    Be that as it may. The being lectured at, talked down to, and blimped over has about worn me out.

    If they can give the farging legalization of Pot and open borders a rest for a while, we might can talk. But they can’t stop thumping those tubs, among others.

    If we can start smaller, and I see it working, I may be down with larger measures. But the only thing I see coming of their programs overall is that we have as big a mess as we do now. It’d be different problems instead of the same old same old, but there wouldn’t be any fewer.

  35. jefferson101
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

    I saw a comment somewhere the other day that went something like this (And I paraphrase, because I can’t find it to link and quote.)

    “Until the Libertarians learn to talk to the Conservative Movement like they are adults, and not children to be corrected and lectured to, the Libertarians will remain a marginal and marginalized party.”

    I’d add to that my own observation that until the Libertarians quit treating us as if we’re as stupid as the Leftists think we are, they are not going to get anywhere. I went through a (Large L) Libertarian phase in my youth, and am still a “small l libertarian” in a lot of areas.

    Be that as it may. The being lectured at, talked down to, and blimped over has about worn me out.

    If they can give the farging legalization of Pot and open borders a rest for a while, we might can talk. But they can’t stop thumping those tubs, among others.

    If we can start smaller, and I see it working, I may be down with larger measures. But the only thing I see coming of their programs overall is that we have as big a mess as we do now. It’d be different problems instead of the same old same old, but there wouldn’t be any fewer.

  36. Jeff B.
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:27 am

    Robert, I appreciated this. Thank you for not making generalizations against anyone who supports Ron Paul.

  37. Jeff B.
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

    Robert, I appreciated this. Thank you for not making generalizations against anyone who supports Ron Paul.

  38. Steve
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:31 am

    Graas can dish it out, as evidenced by her goofy blog post today, but she can’t take it. Boo hoo.

  39. Steve
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

    Graas can dish it out, as evidenced by her goofy blog post today, but she can’t take it. Boo hoo.

  40. Crimefyter
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:53 am

    Reverb,
    There was a “poster” or “commenter” that went by the name “Lordindra3”. Some of his comments regarding Lisa did contain content that gave her reason to be fearful. She did make the necessary notifications. Just for the record.

  41. Crimefyter
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

    Reverb,
    There was a “poster” or “commenter” that went by the name “Lordindra3”. Some of his comments regarding Lisa did contain content that gave her reason to be fearful. She did make the necessary notifications. Just for the record.

  42. Lisa Graas
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:58 am

    Desperate.

    http://dailypaul.com/node/143998

  43. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

    Desperate.

    http://dailypaul.com/node/143998

  44. Lisa Graas
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:59 am

    Thanks, Crimefyter. There were others, too.

  45. AngelaTC
    September 7th, 2010 @ 1:59 am

    Smitty, if you want to understand Ron Paul’s foreign policy position, might I suggest reading his book “A Foreign Policy Of Freedom.” I’d love to discuss the potential flaws of his foreign policy, but usually such conversations end up with people insisting his policy is something different than what it is. He isn’t a dove.

    You also might want to add Michael Scheuer’s non-intervention.com to your reading list. He’s the ex-head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, and most Paulistas believe what he says to be true. He isn’t a dove either.

    New York Times best selling author Thomas E Woods is also awesome when it comes to articulating the message.

    For the record, I don’t agree with any of the people above on every issue. But there is a lot of common ground there,especially with those of us who actually do want to win elections.

    (But if you want a little salve for that wound, might I suggest watching “For Liberty – How Ron Paul Watered The Withered Tree Of Liberty on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s . It isn’t so much about about Ron Paul as it is, about his supporters, and it’s an inspiring movie. )

  46. Lisa Graas
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

    Thanks, Crimefyter. There were others, too.

  47. AngelaTC
    September 6th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

    Smitty, if you want to understand Ron Paul’s foreign policy position, might I suggest reading his book “A Foreign Policy Of Freedom.” I’d love to discuss the potential flaws of his foreign policy, but usually such conversations end up with people insisting his policy is something different than what it is. He isn’t a dove.

    You also might want to add Michael Scheuer’s non-intervention.com to your reading list. He’s the ex-head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, and most Paulistas believe what he says to be true. He isn’t a dove either.

    New York Times best selling author Thomas E Woods is also awesome when it comes to articulating the message.

    For the record, I don’t agree with any of the people above on every issue. But there is a lot of common ground there,especially with those of us who actually do want to win elections.

    (But if you want a little salve for that wound, might I suggest watching “For Liberty – How Ron Paul Watered The Withered Tree Of Liberty on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s . It isn’t so much about about Ron Paul as it is, about his supporters, and it’s an inspiring movie. )

  48. Paulista
    September 7th, 2010 @ 2:05 am

    You can tell we are taking over politics. Listen to all of you people complain we are too tough on you. lol

    Paulistas are right. Get with the program folks !

  49. Paulista
    September 6th, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

    You can tell we are taking over politics. Listen to all of you people complain we are too tough on you. lol

    Paulistas are right. Get with the program folks !

  50. unseen
    September 7th, 2010 @ 2:09 am

    Well its a good thing that Palin is already thinking of how to mend the breach. Out of all national leaders Palin is the only one trying to bring the small libertian vote back to the GOP. Most of Palin’s hardcore detractors in the GOP/independent group fall in two groups are Ron Paul supporters and Bush supporters because they see that Palin has a chance to destory Ron Paul and co-opt his message. (at least the non crazy parts of his message). and they see she is also a Reagan peace through strength and a fiscal conservative which will co-opt the Bush strengths.

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin