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”

unseen
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

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.
Traditional Conservative
September 7th, 2010 @ 2:44 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.”

How is Palin a fiscal conservative when she wants to continue to spend trillions of dollars on nation building overseas? Conservatives have traditionally been opposed to nation building, and Palin supports it. Her “peace through strength” pledge is more like “peace through endless war and nation building.” Reagan always believed in deterrence, not the idea of permanent war. I don’t see how anybody can call Palin a libertarian. I would still reluctantly vote for her over Obama simply because the Supreme Court issue is so important to me, but she’s still terrible on foreign policy.
Traditional Conservative
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

“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.”

How is Palin a fiscal conservative when she wants to continue to spend trillions of dollars on nation building overseas? Conservatives have traditionally been opposed to nation building, and Palin supports it. Her “peace through strength” pledge is more like “peace through endless war and nation building.” Reagan always believed in deterrence, not the idea of permanent war. I don’t see how anybody can call Palin a libertarian. I would still reluctantly vote for her over Obama simply because the Supreme Court issue is so important to me, but she’s still terrible on foreign policy.
Mactopple
September 7th, 2010 @ 2:58 am

Rand Paul is Sarah-Palin-endorsed as well as James-Dobson-endorsed, etc,etc.

He’s a genuine Conservative.
Mactopple
September 6th, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

Rand Paul is Sarah-Palin-endorsed as well as James-Dobson-endorsed, etc,etc.

He’s a genuine Conservative.
AngelaTC
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:04 am

Since I can’t figure out how to get a trackback around here,

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2010/09/stacy-mccain-is-currently-the-sexist-man-alive.html
AngelaTC
September 6th, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

Since I can’t figure out how to get a trackback around here,

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2010/09/stacy-mccain-is-currently-the-sexist-man-alive.html
specs
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:33 am

The liberty forest members aren’t one big hive mind, there are many issues where we disagree and have long big drawn out debates on the subjects. And anybody is welcome there to toss ideas and philosophies around.
specs
September 6th, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

The liberty forest members aren’t one big hive mind, there are many issues where we disagree and have long big drawn out debates on the subjects. And anybody is welcome there to toss ideas and philosophies around.
Brock
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:21 am

I would first apologize to Lisa for any threats made to her by Paul supporters. I think what must be understood here, possibly, is that there are a lot of young people amongst the ranks who haven’t figured out how to behave like adults yet.

What Lisa fails to point out is that a lot of the negative behavior at Liberty Forest is frowned upon by a good portion of the members. If one reads enough they will also quickly see that some people’s remarks are largely ignored, because obviously some are just trolling on the site trying to create havoc.

In all honesty though, while there may be need for an apology towards Lisa for behavior of a minority over at Liberty Forest, there certainly is a need for Lisa to apologize for all of her lies and slanders towards the Paul’s.

Lisa, you do not own the Pro-Life movement, and Ron Paul has been one of the few people to actually try and bring legislation to the house floor to put an end to abortions.

It’s time for you to be a responsible adult and apologize.
Brock
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:21 am

I would first apologize to Lisa for any threats made to her by Paul supporters. I think what must be understood here, possibly, is that there are a lot of young people amongst the ranks who haven’t figured out how to behave like adults yet.

What Lisa fails to point out is that a lot of the negative behavior at Liberty Forest is frowned upon by a good portion of the members. If one reads enough they will also quickly see that some people’s remarks are largely ignored, because obviously some are just trolling on the site trying to create havoc.

In all honesty though, while there may be need for an apology towards Lisa for behavior of a minority over at Liberty Forest, there certainly is a need for Lisa to apologize for all of her lies and slanders towards the Paul’s.

Lisa, you do not own the Pro-Life movement, and Ron Paul has been one of the few people to actually try and bring legislation to the house floor to put an end to abortions.

It’s time for you to be a responsible adult and apologize.
nathan hale
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:26 am

Scheuer, even though he has defended the rendition and other measures against AQ, thinks
it can be appeased by jettisoning Israel and India, to the Islamists, Giraldi, another Paul
advisor, who has dabbled in 9/11 denialism, by bringing up the Israeli art students is another
eclectic character. So far, is not turning out to be a chip off the old bloc in that regard.

As for Reagan, his focus was more in Central America, but also in Western Europe, where the likes of Biden opposed the Pershing Missiles,
and there was always the likely of a nuclear
conflict over a Warsaw Pact incursion
nathan hale
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:26 am

Scheuer, even though he has defended the rendition and other measures against AQ, thinks
it can be appeased by jettisoning Israel and India, to the Islamists, Giraldi, another Paul
advisor, who has dabbled in 9/11 denialism, by bringing up the Israeli art students is another
eclectic character. So far, is not turning out to be a chip off the old bloc in that regard.

As for Reagan, his focus was more in Central America, but also in Western Europe, where the likes of Biden opposed the Pershing Missiles,
and there was always the likely of a nuclear
conflict over a Warsaw Pact incursion
Wondering Jew
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:27 am

Stacy:

As a 2008 hard-core Paulista (though one who certainly acknowledges Paul’s flaws) and a regular reader of this forum, I salute you for an excellent analysis.

Indeed, there were many like me in 2008 who were so offended by Bush Republicanism and the establishment’s embrace of it that we were completely alienated from Republican politics. Ron Paul singlehandedly brought me to conservative politics and since then I have supported many Republican candidates who have embraced large parts of Paul’s message, including pretty much all of our “Tea Party” candidates for Senate.

And while it is certainly true that many Paulistas could be immature or unhinged in their online discussions, it strikes me as far less excusable that these outsiders (often young) were treated so viciously by older establishment Republicans who held the levers of power. I saw this happen firsthand on many occasions.

Well, I care about Paul’s message and policy ideas, not Ron Paul is a cult figure. If Republicans today want to embrace the same things they spit on two or three years ago when we were offering them up, that’s great– I’ll let bygones be bygones.

As for Lisa, I have not yet read her “dissertation” except to observe that her strategy of bitterly opposing Rand Paul, seems to me to be the opposite of Stacy’s well-noted suggestion about keeping Paulistas in the tent. In fact, I was involved in Rand’s grassroots, and one of the the main reason for doing so is that Rand is a far more mainstream figure than Ron, both substantively and stylistically. Those interested in healing the breach between the vast majority of Paulistas and the mainstream Republicans could not do anything more important than getting Rand elected to the Senate, which will cure many Paulistas frustrations with the Republican establishment and allow a far more practical and mainstream version of Ron Paul’s ideas to enter into the conservative mainstream through his son Rand. The fact that Lisa has pursued to opposite strategy would seem to suggest a defect in her vision for the conservative coalition.

I’d further add that, as a frequenter of Ron Paul forums at many times in the past, I can say that cherry-picking observations from it is not a serious analysis of the Ron Paul movement. The vast majority of Paulistas don’t post on the forums and those that do tend to be the more wild-eyed ones that understandably irritate others. An analysis of Paulsitas based on Ron Paul forums is more in the mode of propaganda than a serious examination.

That having been said, there are large numbers of Ron Paul Forums members who are mainstream and willing to work to grow a conservative coalition with the rest of the Republican party.

I believe it is in the conservative coalitions interest to embrace these many mainstream Paulistas and work in alliance with them, rather than declaring war on them as Lisa Graas is inclined to do.
Wondering Jew
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Stacy:

As a 2008 hard-core Paulista (though one who certainly acknowledges Paul’s flaws) and a regular reader of this forum, I salute you for an excellent analysis.

Indeed, there were many like me in 2008 who were so offended by Bush Republicanism and the establishment’s embrace of it that we were completely alienated from Republican politics. Ron Paul singlehandedly brought me to conservative politics and since then I have supported many Republican candidates who have embraced large parts of Paul’s message, including pretty much all of our “Tea Party” candidates for Senate.

And while it is certainly true that many Paulistas could be immature or unhinged in their online discussions, it strikes me as far less excusable that these outsiders (often young) were treated so viciously by older establishment Republicans who held the levers of power. I saw this happen firsthand on many occasions.

Well, I care about Paul’s message and policy ideas, not Ron Paul is a cult figure. If Republicans today want to embrace the same things they spit on two or three years ago when we were offering them up, that’s great– I’ll let bygones be bygones.

As for Lisa, I have not yet read her “dissertation” except to observe that her strategy of bitterly opposing Rand Paul, seems to me to be the opposite of Stacy’s well-noted suggestion about keeping Paulistas in the tent. In fact, I was involved in Rand’s grassroots, and one of the the main reason for doing so is that Rand is a far more mainstream figure than Ron, both substantively and stylistically. Those interested in healing the breach between the vast majority of Paulistas and the mainstream Republicans could not do anything more important than getting Rand elected to the Senate, which will cure many Paulistas frustrations with the Republican establishment and allow a far more practical and mainstream version of Ron Paul’s ideas to enter into the conservative mainstream through his son Rand. The fact that Lisa has pursued to opposite strategy would seem to suggest a defect in her vision for the conservative coalition.

I’d further add that, as a frequenter of Ron Paul forums at many times in the past, I can say that cherry-picking observations from it is not a serious analysis of the Ron Paul movement. The vast majority of Paulistas don’t post on the forums and those that do tend to be the more wild-eyed ones that understandably irritate others. An analysis of Paulsitas based on Ron Paul forums is more in the mode of propaganda than a serious examination.

That having been said, there are large numbers of Ron Paul Forums members who are mainstream and willing to work to grow a conservative coalition with the rest of the Republican party.

I believe it is in the conservative coalitions interest to embrace these many mainstream Paulistas and work in alliance with them, rather than declaring war on them as Lisa Graas is inclined to do.
qq
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:00 am

A question from a political newbie, and no offense meant: Where exactly do Ron Paul supporters stand on foreign policy with regards to America’s allies? Is the idea of alliance with other nations generally frowned upon? What happens when our trading partners get attacked?

Once again, I’m not trying to be quarrelsome, I’m just curious.
qq
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:00 am

A question from a political newbie, and no offense meant: Where exactly do Ron Paul supporters stand on foreign policy with regards to America’s allies? Is the idea of alliance with other nations generally frowned upon? What happens when our trading partners get attacked?

Once again, I’m not trying to be quarrelsome, I’m just curious.
Estragon
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:16 am

qq ~ Ron Paul and Libertarians reject the idea of “allies” and insist we should have no foreign involvements and no troops stationed on foreign soil unless we are directly attacked by another nation, in which case we would defend ourselves as needed before again retreating to isolationism. It is worth noting that this policy, had it been in place after WWII, would have resulted in Soviet conquest of the entire world. Libertarians are idiots.

~~~~~~~

It should also be noted that without the “compassionate conservative” stance and being a “uniter not divider” along with specific big-government policies including NCLB and the Medicare Prescription coverage, Bush could not have been elected.

Now, I invite anyone to tell me with a straight face that a President Gore would have better served America. I rest my case.
Estragon
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:16 am

qq ~ Ron Paul and Libertarians reject the idea of “allies” and insist we should have no foreign involvements and no troops stationed on foreign soil unless we are directly attacked by another nation, in which case we would defend ourselves as needed before again retreating to isolationism. It is worth noting that this policy, had it been in place after WWII, would have resulted in Soviet conquest of the entire world. Libertarians are idiots.

~~~~~~~

It should also be noted that without the “compassionate conservative” stance and being a “uniter not divider” along with specific big-government policies including NCLB and the Medicare Prescription coverage, Bush could not have been elected.

Now, I invite anyone to tell me with a straight face that a President Gore would have better served America. I rest my case.
AngelaTC
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:28 am

qq, I’d encourage you to read the post I made up there to Smitty.

Nobody explains Ron Paul’s positions as well as Ron Paul does. (At least, when he writes – he tends to fail miserably when he speaks.)

That’s why I prefer to ask people to read his thoughts rather than attempt to define them. You may not agree with his conclusions, but unless you also follow him along the historical and intellectual path that got him to those conclusions, those conclusions are too easily distorted and misstated by those with other agendas.
AngelaTC
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:28 am

qq, I’d encourage you to read the post I made up there to Smitty.

Nobody explains Ron Paul’s positions as well as Ron Paul does. (At least, when he writes – he tends to fail miserably when he speaks.)

That’s why I prefer to ask people to read his thoughts rather than attempt to define them. You may not agree with his conclusions, but unless you also follow him along the historical and intellectual path that got him to those conclusions, those conclusions are too easily distorted and misstated by those with other agendas.
Firelight
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:29 am

Lisa Graas is a one issue person. I have seen her on other websites claiming she can’t “trust” Palin on the abortion issue because of some endorsements.

Really?? Seriously?? Palin? She can’t trust Palin to be Pro-life? What a joke Graas is, Palin delivered and nurtures a child that 70% of women would abort. She is in the fire, she lives and breathes pro-life everyday. She doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk.

Graas dishes it and can’t take it. I am not a Paul supporter and I do think they marginalize themselves by their behavior BUT both Pauls are Pro-life and for Graas to claim otherwise is dishonest.
Firelight
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:29 am

Lisa Graas is a one issue person. I have seen her on other websites claiming she can’t “trust” Palin on the abortion issue because of some endorsements.

Really?? Seriously?? Palin? She can’t trust Palin to be Pro-life? What a joke Graas is, Palin delivered and nurtures a child that 70% of women would abort. She is in the fire, she lives and breathes pro-life everyday. She doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk.

Graas dishes it and can’t take it. I am not a Paul supporter and I do think they marginalize themselves by their behavior BUT both Pauls are Pro-life and for Graas to claim otherwise is dishonest.
Wondering Jew
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:47 am

Firelight– I would echo this– Would have made the same point myself except I didn’t want my Pro-Paul sympathies being used to accuse me of bias on this point.

You are right on Graas’ characterization of Palin– and ditto the Pauls. Ron Paul has written two books entirely dedicated Pro-Life issues–. Rand Paul is also Pro-Life. It’s legitimate to ask them how, given their views on federalism they might put these beliefs in practice vs. the strategies of some other Republicans, but to suggest that the Pauls are not passionately pro-life– especially when this issue is very central to them, is simply a lie.
Wondering Jew
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:47 am

Firelight– I would echo this– Would have made the same point myself except I didn’t want my Pro-Paul sympathies being used to accuse me of bias on this point.

You are right on Graas’ characterization of Palin– and ditto the Pauls. Ron Paul has written two books entirely dedicated Pro-Life issues–. Rand Paul is also Pro-Life. It’s legitimate to ask them how, given their views on federalism they might put these beliefs in practice vs. the strategies of some other Republicans, but to suggest that the Pauls are not passionately pro-life– especially when this issue is very central to them, is simply a lie.
Thomas L. Knapp
September 7th, 2010 @ 5:54 am

Manuel Noriega’s regime was in Panama, not Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Marxist regime was headed by Daniel Ortega.
Thomas L. Knapp
September 7th, 2010 @ 1:54 am

Manuel Noriega’s regime was in Panama, not Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Marxist regime was headed by Daniel Ortega.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 7th, 2010 @ 6:00 am

The Nicaraguan Marxist regime was headed by Daniel Ortega.

Thanks, fixed it. Sorry for the stupid error. I blame it on PTDS (Post-Traumatic Deer Syndrome).
Robert Stacy McCain
September 7th, 2010 @ 2:00 am

The Nicaraguan Marxist regime was headed by Daniel Ortega.

Thanks, fixed it. Sorry for the stupid error. I blame it on PTDS (Post-Traumatic Deer Syndrome).
The thing about the Paulistas « Blog de KingShamus
September 7th, 2010 @ 7:04 am

[…] by KingShamus on September 7, 2010 The Other McCain has a great piece over at his site that touches on everybody’s favorite warm and cuddly politician, Ron […]
Bob Belvedere
September 7th, 2010 @ 11:59 am

I blame it on PTDS (Post-Traumatic Deer Syndrome).

Jesus, if you find yourself feeling like you want to shoot a Mutual Of Omaha office or Jim Hanna, get help immediately!
Bob Belvedere
September 7th, 2010 @ 7:59 am

I blame it on PTDS (Post-Traumatic Deer Syndrome).

Jesus, if you find yourself feeling like you want to shoot a Mutual Of Omaha office or Jim Hanna, get help immediately!
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

Ann Coulter wasn’t arguing against the Nineteenth Amendment. What I’m seeing is that she’s advising the GOP that if they want to get votes from women, they have to be socially conservative.

She wrote: “Whatever the reason, the issues that resonate with the largest chunk of conservative women are the moral issues, not fiscal issues. And, unlike the ‘Lifetime TV’ poll respondents, these women won’t forget to vote.”
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 8:30 am

Ann Coulter wasn’t arguing against the Nineteenth Amendment. What I’m seeing is that she’s advising the GOP that if they want to get votes from women, they have to be socially conservative.

She wrote: “Whatever the reason, the issues that resonate with the largest chunk of conservative women are the moral issues, not fiscal issues. And, unlike the ‘Lifetime TV’ poll respondents, these women won’t forget to vote.”
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

Firelight, I don’t consider what I’ve been through to be anything comparable to what I’ve “dished out”. I have never threatened anyone physically, for instance. Also, I explain here what my issue is.

http://www.lisagraas.com/2010/09/i-must-have-read-some-of-that-negative.html

Governor Mike Huckabee recently came out in support of the Fourteenth Amendment. Good for him. That’s what a real Republican would do. The rest are RINOs in my book. You many define RINO differently than I do. I define it as someone who will defend the platform. The Fourteenth Amendment is a key part of the pro-life plank in our platform. Before Palin endorsed Rand Paul, she was saying in virtually ever speech and interview that we need to support the planks in the platform. After that endorsement, I haven’t heard that from you. You may like to follow along with the warm fuzzies, but I want red meat. That meat for me, as a pro-lifer, is the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 8:35 am

Firelight, I don’t consider what I’ve been through to be anything comparable to what I’ve “dished out”. I have never threatened anyone physically, for instance. Also, I explain here what my issue is.

http://www.lisagraas.com/2010/09/i-must-have-read-some-of-that-negative.html

Governor Mike Huckabee recently came out in support of the Fourteenth Amendment. Good for him. That’s what a real Republican would do. The rest are RINOs in my book. You many define RINO differently than I do. I define it as someone who will defend the platform. The Fourteenth Amendment is a key part of the pro-life plank in our platform. Before Palin endorsed Rand Paul, she was saying in virtually ever speech and interview that we need to support the planks in the platform. After that endorsement, I haven’t heard that from you. You may like to follow along with the warm fuzzies, but I want red meat. That meat for me, as a pro-lifer, is the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Correction: I define a real Republican as someone who will defend the platform and a RINO as someone who does not defend the platform.
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 8:36 am

Correction: I define a real Republican as someone who will defend the platform and a RINO as someone who does not defend the platform.
Count Vikula
September 7th, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Nicely stated, Stacy.
Count Vikula
September 7th, 2010 @ 10:31 am

Nicely stated, Stacy.
Josh Painter
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

“Paulistas?” No, they are “Ronulans”…

Ronulan: “A race distantly descended from the LaRoucheans and contrastingly cunning and opportunistic.”

– JP
Josh Painter
September 7th, 2010 @ 11:25 am

“Paulistas?” No, they are “Ronulans”…

Ronulan: “A race distantly descended from the LaRoucheans and contrastingly cunning and opportunistic.”

– JP
Freedom, Baby means a Nation d
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

I know nothing Rand Paul since he has never held office however I do know Ron Paul is one of Big Government Democrat’s Best Friend in Washington DC:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/survey-of-dem%E2%80%99s-most-loved-republicans-a-guide-on-who-to-fire/

“The Hill marks these congressmen as those that Democrats like most:

* Judy Biggert (Ill.)
* Bob Inglis (S.C.)
* Walter Jones (N.C.)
* Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
* John McHugh (N.Y.)
* John Mica (Fla.)
* Ron Paul (Texas)
* Lee Terry (Neb.)
* Fred Upton (Mich.)
* Bill Young (Fla.)

There is only one reason why Democrats would love these folks: it’s because they are reliable votes against their own party.”
Freedom, Baby means a Nation defended
September 7th, 2010 @ 11:55 am

I know nothing Rand Paul since he has never held office however I do know Ron Paul is one of Big Government Democrat’s Best Friend in Washington DC:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/survey-of-dem%E2%80%99s-most-loved-republicans-a-guide-on-who-to-fire/

“The Hill marks these congressmen as those that Democrats like most:

* Judy Biggert (Ill.)
* Bob Inglis (S.C.)
* Walter Jones (N.C.)
* Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
* John McHugh (N.Y.)
* John Mica (Fla.)
* Ron Paul (Texas)
* Lee Terry (Neb.)
* Fred Upton (Mich.)
* Bill Young (Fla.)

There is only one reason why Democrats would love these folks: it’s because they are reliable votes against their own party.”
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Hi, Josh. 🙂
Lisa Graas
September 7th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

Hi, Josh. 🙂
AngelaTC
September 7th, 2010 @ 7:33 pm

Actually, Freedom, the Democrats like him because of his foreign policy position.

His voting record indicates that he votes against spending, and a quick glance indicates he was usually voting against both Republicans and Democrats when he voted against his party, which kind of blows your theory right out of the realm of reality.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/against-party/
AngelaTC
September 7th, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

Actually, Freedom, the Democrats like him because of his foreign policy position.

His voting record indicates that he votes against spending, and a quick glance indicates he was usually voting against both Republicans and Democrats when he voted against his party, which kind of blows your theory right out of the realm of reality.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/against-party/
Freedom, Baby means a Nation d
September 7th, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

“which kind of blows your theory right out of the realm of reality.”

Darling, it is not my theory rather is Democrats on the Hill letting America know who are their friends in Washington DC.

I do realize Ron Paul LOVES doing dirty dealings with dictators because the personal profit margin is greater unfortunately only 10% of the American population (US Military) are paying with their blood so that Ron Paul and his greedy self-serving pigs can enjoy their personal profits.

At this point the self-serving Politics of Walletism is so sickening that I say let us do what Paul and Obama want-bring the troops from around the world home so that the enemies of Freedom can come our land and ‘reign their peace’ all over Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, LA and ending Washington DC and surrounding areas.

Let the enemy come to our land and spread their ‘peace’, that will shut-up Ron Paul’s 9/11 Truthers once and for all.
Freedom, Baby means a Nation defended
September 7th, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

“which kind of blows your theory right out of the realm of reality.”

Darling, it is not my theory rather is Democrats on the Hill letting America know who are their friends in Washington DC.

I do realize Ron Paul LOVES doing dirty dealings with dictators because the personal profit margin is greater unfortunately only 10% of the American population (US Military) are paying with their blood so that Ron Paul and his greedy self-serving pigs can enjoy their personal profits.

At this point the self-serving Politics of Walletism is so sickening that I say let us do what Paul and Obama want-bring the troops from around the world home so that the enemies of Freedom can come our land and ‘reign their peace’ all over Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, LA and ending Washington DC and surrounding areas.

Let the enemy come to our land and spread their ‘peace’, that will shut-up Ron Paul’s 9/11 Truthers once and for all.