The Other McCain

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

Among the Paulistas in New Hampshire

Posted on | January 9, 2012 | 57 Comments

HOLLIS, N.H.
The Only Man Who Can Save American Liberty™ — as he is regarded by his famously fanatical supporters — appeared today at the Lawrence Barn here, and I was pleased to discover that one of Lisa Graas‘s Twitter friends, “TradiCatholic,” was among the Paulistas in attendance. And I explained to her that, unlike some other conservatives in the blogosphere, I have sought to avoid the “urge to purge” attitude toward Ron Paul’s supporters.

We ought to distinguish, I believe, between the sincere, serious and well-meaning Paulistas, who will gladly close ranks with conservatives in opposition to Obama’s liberal agenda, and the relatively small number of insane hate-filled monsters who infest the dark corners of the Internet.

The scene inside the Lawrence Barn. This was an “invitation only” event that was originally planned for someone’s living room, but which outgrew the venue and had to be moved to a public facility. Among those on hand to support Ron Paul was this homeschooling family:

One of the highlights of the event for me was the performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” by these home-schooled girls:

Let those who wish to banish the Paulistas from the “Big Tent” explain: How is it in the interests of the conservative movement and/or the Republican Party to tell young people like this that their support and influence — their commitment, their energy, their enthusiasm — are unwelcome within our ranks? Here is Ron Paul being introduced at the Lawrence Barn:

Here is Paul answering a supporter’s question about the American “empire” during his appearance in Hollis:

Now, you may disagree with the congressman about these matters, and that’s OK. And certainly the vast majority of Republican voters (more than 80 percent, according to the Iowa caucus results) do not support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. But why do so many conservatives go beyond mere opposition to Paul, and engage in demonization of him and his supporters?

Here is a brief interview with Dr. Lee Button of the National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies, a New Hampshire home-schooling leader:

Perhaps I am exceptionally sensitive to the need for conservatives to include Paulistas in their ranks because I am an ex-Democrat. Unlike so many of my peers in conservative New Media, I was born and raised a Democrat and did not wise up to that inherited folly until I was in my 30s. Whatever errors of ideology or rhetoric you may attribute to Ron Paul’s supporters, I doubt many of them were ever so foolish as I was in 1984, when I voted for Walter Mondale.

Mea culpa. Mea magna culpa.

Therefore, my conservative friends, let us be civil and reasonable, and seek common ground with those of Ron Paul’s supporters who are also civil and reasonable, striving together to form a common front among those patriotic Americans who seek an end to the dreadful misrule of the Obama administration. And really, how can you not love this kind of enthusiasm for liberty?

This Paulista apparently drove all the way from Pennsylvania.


Comments

57 Responses to “Among the Paulistas in New Hampshire”

  1. GAHCindy
    January 9th, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

    I wouldn’t say he’s the only man who can save liberty. In fact, I doubt anybody can do that now. I will say that he seems to be the only man running who is remotely interested in saving liberty.

  2. Mike Tuggle
    January 9th, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

    “But why do so many conservatives go beyond mere opposition to Paul, and engage in demonization of him and his supporters?”

    Because there are those who believe “conservatism” means big government and perpetual war. Paul is more of a libertarian than a conservative, but his message that DC’s wars have been detrimental to freedom – “indefinite detention,” anyone? – is one genuine conservatives can support.

  3. ThePaganTemple
    January 9th, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

    What hurts Paul as far as his supporters goes isn’t so much that he has supporters among the 9/11 Truthers, Stormfront and the Klan. Those people are American citizens and they have a right to vote just like anybody else. Where the problem comes in is when he not only doesn’t openly disavow them for their odious beliefs, but it seems he goes out of his way to openly court their support. And of course, their contributions.

  4. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    January 9th, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

    With all of those home schoolers supporting him, we now have conclusive evidence that something ain’t right with that Paul guy.

  5. Anonymous
    January 9th, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

    Is that Clint’s van?

  6. Mike Rogers
    January 9th, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

    There, you have hit the nail on the head.
    As Stacy says, there’s nothing wrong with youthful enthusiasm in support of a candidate. There’s also nothing wrong with a certain level of idealism, indeed, the reason why the young tend toward socialism (aside from traitorous teachers) is that fairness and compassion sound so reasonable, until you actually learn that Socialism kills.
    The problem with Paul supporters is that there are a percentage, who tend to be the most vocal percentage, who are anti-war, borderline anti-American, 9/11 truthers, and yes, socialists. They haven’t figured out that constitutional libertarianism is the polar opposite of Socialism.
    Those supporters are entitled to their views, but the good doctor should clearly differentiate his views from theirs, as well as reminding those youngsters that shouting down and heckling opposing views or candidates does not advance his cause.
    Where I think that Ron Paul gets onto thin ice himself is that he has embraced such views, and then tried to claim that it wasn’t actually himself saying the words. Such as, cutting video ads for “The Ron Paul Newsletter” but denying any responsibility for content, or calling Santorum corrupt, then claiming he was just relaying somebody else’s words. Puhleze. Dishonest is as dishonest does, and THAT is the problem.
    But, let us postulate the doctor’s good intentions, and let us imagine that any other candidate gets the nod. There are the sensible pragmatic conservative/libertarian types who will support the nominee, reluctantly, as better for our constitutional republic than Obama, and there are the other kind, who will either revert to being Obama youth, or vote third party, and achieve the same result.

  7. The Wondering Jew
    January 9th, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

    Stacy, re: your comment about the homeschoolers featured at the Paul rally:

    “Let those who wish to banish the Paulistas from the “Big Tent” explain:
    How is it in the interests of the conservative movement and/or the
    Republican Party to tell young people like this that their support and
    influence — their commitment, their energy, their enthusiasm — are
    unwelcome within our ranks”

    Stacy, I wish I could frame that quote and put it on my office wall. That’s exactly the issue with a lot of us.  I have no problem with voters who prefer other candidates.  I have a big problem with people trying to kick myself, and a lot of other good conservatives, out of the big tent, despite the fact that we share a large issue overlap and believe that we are supporting the most conservative candidate.  If people don’t like the behavior of some Paulistas consider the way they, and their candidate have been treated in return– l0ng before 2008.

    In Iowa, Paul took 48% of the votes of those under 30%, and he won a plurality of the votes from those 30-39.   Overall, he was the winner of the Iowa caucuses is only the votes of those under 50 are considered.  If others in the “conservative” movement want to take almost half of their young voters and tell them that their support and their candidate isn’t valued, rather than accepting them as allies and attempting to educate them where you differ– well don’t expect that you will have much of a party at all in a few decades.

  8. Anonymous
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

    I don’t think non-Ron fans want to “kick out” Ron’s supporters.  However, I’ve heard plenty of squawking from the Paul camp that they’d rather he run third party than endorse a GOP nominee.  And Paul has been pretty cagey about the third-party thing thus far.

    How exactly do you “kick out” those who are more than ready to leave on their own?

  9. Eric Dondero
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:03 pm

    Easy Stacy.  There’s a block of voters out there, mostly in the northeast, but also in California, males, sports guys, tough-as-nails, most work as firemen, police officers, but also blue collar types, you find them all over New England, who are not really with us on economic issues, sort of social conservatives but they do like their beer, anti-immigrant, but most importantly stridently pro-military.  These are the guys you saw right after 9/11.  The ones on the covers of Newsweek and Time.  They’re Rudy Giuliani types.  They could go for Romney, maybe Santorum. 

    But if the GOP goes non-intervenion (read girlie-man) on foreign policy, it will completely turn off this block of voters.  I’d gladly trade the Ron Paulists for these real man patriot gus in a heartbeat. The more Ron Paulish we go, the less chance we have with the pro-military, strong on defense Reagan type blue collar male voters.

  10. Garym
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

    Exactly. Every Paulnut I know or have talked to will not vote for another candidate even after Paul loses his ass in the primaries. Trying to talk them down from the ledge has been fruitless.

  11. AngelaTC
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

    When it looked like Paul might win Iowa, the internet was full of neoconservatives who swore they would vote for Obama over Paul, because they are entirely committed to the empirical foreign policy at the expense of all other issues. —shrugs-

    I can promise you you’ve heard nothing from Paul’s official camp about a third party run.  What you’ve heard is the liberal media stirring up crap by asking him the question over and over.      They did this last time too. If history is any indicator, Paul will continue to participate in the primaries long past the time he should have dropped out, if for no other reason to continue to remind people that the America we were promised won’t exist until we manage to convince people that we need to redefine our perceptions of what the federal government is supposed to do.

    I think that Paul is probably only seeking enough delegates to get a speaking gig at the convention, and have a few of his planks possibly added to the platform.

  12. Zilla of the Resistance
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:51 pm

    My problem with Ron Paul supporters is that, with the exception of very few, they have been incredibly nasty to me (and pretty much very other non-Paul supporter I know) and have even gone so far as to try to get the popular right minded page that I run at facebook shut down for no other reason than that I do not share their “America is evil and it’s our own fault that muslims kill innocent people for islam” world view.  They scream and howl about freedom and rights, but one particular right, the right to free speech, is something they feel should only apply to themselves and people who agree with them.
    Paulbots start out sounding all reasonable as if they honestly want to have an intelligent discussion with you, but it does not take long at all for them to quickly devolve to the level of discourse seen with Code Pink, islamic supremacists, and #occupoopers, at which point they scream “RAAAAACIST!”, “you hate brown people” (something they say even to black people and other non-whites), “homophobe!” (even if you have never ever said anything anti-gay and don’t personally give a rat’s ass whether or not people are gay), and of course, “neocon!” (which is retarded because by definition a neocon is someone who was formerly liberal and is not conservative and I have been politically conservative for my entire life) and “warmonger!”
    And let us not forget how the Paulbots SWARM whenever the batshit crazy signal goes out that somebody, somewhere, has said something unflattering about their dear leader. They then spam troll comments threads all over the internet with lengthy copy/paste (or memorized) talking points issued forth from wherever their central command. They will use the most vulgar words to curse out people who won’t drink their koolaid but if anyone dares respond to them in kind, they are quick with the “flag” or “report as abuse” buttons and file complaints with the webmasters/hosts of whatever site it happens to be that the swarm has descended upon.
    The small fraction of Paul supporters that I have come across who are not insane and hostile claim that their lunatic brethren are but a small portion of their ranks, but every encounter I have had with Ron Paul fans is completely opposite of that claim, as it is with pretty much every person I know who has had the misfortune to try to have a conversation with Ron Paul supporters. His supporters do more damage to him than even his craziest rants or newsletters with his name on them and signed by him which he didn’t write or know about ever possibly could. 

  13. Anonymous
    January 9th, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

    “There’s a block of voters out there, mostly in the northeast, but also in California, males, sports guys, tough-as-nails, most work as firemen, police officers, but also blue collar types, you find them all over New England, who are not really with us on economic issues, sort of social conservatives but they do like their beer, anti-immigrant, but most importantly stridently pro-military.”

    Yup.

    They’re called “Democrats.”

  14. William_Teach
    January 9th, 2012 @ 8:36 pm

    “his famously fanatical supporters”

    Nope. When it comes to the NHL, and especially the NJ Devils, I’m a fanatical supporter. Paulians are about 10 steps above fanatical. Perhaps rabid? Raving? Bat guano insane braindead morons? Yeah, I like that last one.

  15. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 8:36 pm

    Any person who believes that it would be fine for Iran to have a nuclear bomb is not interested in saving liberty.

    Please view the video of  Rick Santorum’s appearance at the San Fernando Valley Republicans. His view of American exceptionalism is inspiring.

  16. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

    Alot of good people have been misled because critical thinking isn’t taught in school, home or institutional.

  17. Pathfinder's wife
    January 9th, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

    Non-interventionism is being a girly-man?

    I know plenty of people in the military…very intimately; they are hardly “girly-men”. I would say even the women are far more heroic than these chest thumpers you’re describing …none of them are turned off by non-interventionism (after all, they are the ones who have been shot at for the past 10 years, 10+ years really).  None would consider that “anti-military” — in fact, they might consider it a bit of a welcome relief (the “pro-military” folks back home don’t seem to be too concerned about getting them shot at).

    Those sort of “pro-military” supporters turn my gut…unless they or someone they love has been in and deployed, they have absolutely NO RIGHT to say ANYTHING like what you just said.

    Now…if THEY would like to join up (rather than be macho guys back home) THEN I MIGHT listen to this “girlie man” stuff, but until then, well, you know.

    And I damn well would not be influenced to vote the way people like that would want to vote (especially not when it came to the handling of the troops — which they don’t seem to mind getting shot at, as long as they can sit and watch…like a football game).  In fact, if those are the sort of people the GOP wants to court, count me and those I know and love out (I may have to relay this to my kids and their mates; I’m sure they’d be interested to know of this perspective).

  18. Pathfinder's wife
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

    and let me add:

    5 generations of my family have taken the oath, I have taken the oath, many of my friends took the oath — and that oath was to protect and defend the Constitution, nowhere did it state to play world cop or spread democracy or win hearts and minds, and especially not be the home team for the folks back home to cheer on every weekend.

    And this has become a sticking point for me in regards to what many in the GOP seem to consider “foreign policy”.

  19. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

    So this becomes “don’t criticize Ron or his supporters”, but it’s fine to attack the other candidates. The supporters never learn to critically scrutinize Ron Paul’s positions and, lack the curiosity to find out why others are so opposed. If they do come to realize the danger that his positions present, they would rather be stuck in the falsehoods than honor the truth. The young supporters never learn a valuable lesson of defending their positions, because non-Paulistas are just mean “poopy heads” who can’t see Ron’s light. Can’t educate or discuss with Paulistas like that.

    We had Paulistas try to take over the Republican Party of Los Angeles. It was deceitful and ugly. Just saying.

  20. Guest
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

    If Paul runs third-party, there needs to be neither mercy nor forgiveness.

  21. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

    Exactly. Everyone knows that he simply isn’t a Republican with some libertarian views, he is a Libertarian with some Republican views. Paul hides in the party because he knows the Liberatarian Party doesn’t get elected. He engages in political blackmail by threatening to go third-party, but again, probably won’t because of non-electability. Dishonest.

    Earlier, I stated that the Paulistas made deceitful and ugly attempt to take over the Republican Party of Los Angeles. I failed to finish by saying that when the attempt failed they organized a party that was made to look like the official organization. It caused alot of confusion. Now tell me why I should trust Paulies?

  22. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

    Angela, I am not a neoconservative. I would never vote for Obama, nor Paul. But foreign policy is of paramount importance, and Ron Paul’s views/ideas are dangerous. If you think that we are e

    Paul did indeed talk about going third-party. However, he probably won’t because thirders don’t get elected. There might be some economic planks added, as he has good ideas on some of those, but I doubt it.

    Paul knows he won’t get the nod, but carries on garnering donors. Hmmm, what to do with all that money after the race is run…

  23. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

    Eric, where do we make the trade? I want to help.

    Oh, and one point. No one is anti-immigrant. Anti-illegal immigration, yes. If there is no respect for the law at the border then why would there be respect for any other law.

  24. Cz82mak
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:53 pm

    “and that oath was to protect and defend the Constitution, nowhere did it
    state to play world cop or spread democracy or win hearts and minds”

    This. Why exactly does the anti-Paul crowd want to continue to squander the lives of our service men and women on protracted wars with no clear objectives? All in the name of defense.

    If we’re going to be big world tough guys, then get in, kick ass, absolutely & without remorse, & get out.

    The whole damn government is doing it wrong.

  25. DeborahL
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

    Don’t sound like Democrats to me, and I was one. Thank God I got out!

  26. richard mcenroe
    January 9th, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

    Because people who hang around with neonazis and other antisemites don’t need to be demonized, just uwrapped.

  27. richard mcenroe
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

    They went beyond that.  When they couldn’t take over RPLAC by ballot, they just declared themselves the “real” RPLAC and started issuing statements in the GOP’s name.  Had to go to court to get it stopped.

    Plus the Paulie who threw the Hitler salute during the Pledge was just a charmer.

  28. Pathfinder's wife
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

    So I take it you’re cool with the idea of being all ooorah at home, in front of your tv while sending more people into battle zones under ridiculous ROEs with material that’s wearing out (because we have to cut back our spending, because we are broke) in order to “spread democracy” or whatever the heck it is we are now actually doing?
    Ok, gotcha.

    And to Zilla: I do understand the necessity of meeting this Islamic threat head on…but we have not, nor are we really doing that.  Quite honestly, I could care less about spreading democracy or winning their hearts or any of the rest of it (what it comes down to is I really can’t care as much for anyone else as I do for Americans; I feel badly for Christians and Jews in Islamic countries, but in the end they aren’t my concern — maybe charitable groups can get them out, but the military should not intervene for them, that isn’t their job).  This may be where you and I differ (I differ from many Paul supporters in regards to strict non-interventionism, but there are some valid points to it, same as the anti-jihadist stance — perhaps it’s somewhere inbetween the two), but perhaps there is some common ground.

    Hopefully at some point everyone can quit with the name calling and recriminations and find a workable compromise.

  29. Cz82mak
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

    Stacy, thanks for trying to bring some decency to the presidential selection process.

    Here’s my observations on the topic of this post…

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter and I silently lurk on alot of conservative blogs. I have to say, for all the talk about paulbots & ronulans being crazy & unreasonable, I have seen very little bad behavior from Paul supporters. On the other hand, those who rant against Paul are consistently over the top with their hyperbole against Paul & his supporters.

    Just look at the posts, here, preceding mine. Any crazy Paul talk? How’s the tone from the anti-paul squad? Pretty despicable. That’s pretty much the same tone ratio I’ve observed across the conservative blog-o-sphere. A strange hypocrisy. It’s like crazy people calling me crazy! 😉

    Anyways, that’s for you NH coverage.

    Rock On!

  30. Cz82mak
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:16 pm

    herpderp,…last lne should read:

    Anyways, thanks for your NH coverage.

  31. Anonymous
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:41 pm

    A candidate who believes beating OZero is top priority would NOT be wasting delegate votes, and possibly throwing the nomination (to Romney), in the name of a “message.” Yet that’s exactly what you say Paul is going to do.

    Paul is out to deliver his “message,” no matter how much damage he causes in the process. Yeah, that’s someone I’d really trust. Geez.

  32. Anonymous
    January 9th, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

    Exactly. They behave like a bunch of high-schoolers, stuffing the ballot box for Class President.

  33. Rightklik
    January 9th, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

    In opposing war, Ron Paul embraces Iran. He and his followers miss the irony of that stance.

    That moves me from the “tolerate Ron” column to the “oppose Ron” column. 

  34. The Wondering Jew
    January 10th, 2012 @ 12:01 am

    Anyone whose “Conservatism” only consists of worrying about what their own simplistic views of what a two-bit mullahocracy might do with a nuclear bomb should go back crying to their mommy and not sit there pretending to be a strong conservative.  That’s not an objection to real conservatives whose views like Jim DeMint whose views on Iran I might not share– it’s a an objection to a large number of “conservatives” for whom abortion on demand, big government and the nanny state are really no problem at all.  but dissent on the national security state gets you kicked out of the Republican party. 

  35. Adjoran
    January 10th, 2012 @ 12:43 am

    I’m not for purging anyone.  The “non-fanatic” Paul supporters are certainly welcome.  Most of them are under the false impression the ideas he spouts on fiscal policy are his own, but they are not.  And his foreign policy is clearly insane and so is Paul himself.  Had those isolationist policies been in place from after  WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today?  Without our foreign bases and troops manning them, our alliances and yes, our clandestine ops, WHO would have stopped the Soviets from rolling over Europe and the Middle East?

    As others have mentioned, the fanatics aren’t Republicans, will not support any nominee besides Paul, and don’t even WANT to be Republicans.  They believe stuffing internet polls is a good use of their time.  They aren’t the cute home-schooled girls in your vid.

  36. Pathfinder's wife
    January 10th, 2012 @ 1:05 am

    Adjoran — who else in this presidential race is spouting Paul’s fiscal policy?  Calvin Coolidge is dead, and not coming back.  Please, tell me who else here and now today?

    As for the Soviets rolling over Europe…well, knowing the condition the USSR was in, I strongly doubt it (their infrastructure was truly in atrocious shape).  Economics beat the Soviets; our military was useful for a time shortly after the end of WWII, but the only way it directly effected the Soviets was in causing them to compete in a military buildup their infrastructure could not support; they went broke from the inside out through military overextension (does this sound a bit familiar?). 

  37. Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » My last pre-election speech sample, Paul and Santorum in Nashua and Hollis » Datechguy's Blog
    January 10th, 2012 @ 1:22 am

    […] McCain has a lot more on Paul as he got to the event ahead of me and had a better spot to shot from, also if you want great NH […]

  38. Jimmie
    January 10th, 2012 @ 4:22 am

    Let those who wish to banish the Paulistas from the “Big Tent” explain:
    How is it in the interests of the conservative movement and/or the
    Republican Party to tell young people like this that their support and
    influence — their commitment, their energy, their enthusiasm — are
    unwelcome within our ranks?

    Let us tell them that they follow a hypocritical crank who brings home hundreds of thousands of dollars in pork while piously voting against the spending bill he knows will pass.

    Let us tell them that they follow a man who made a fortune of rank racism and anti-Semitism, who gladly accepted money from the repugnant Stormfront group and who still refuses to end his association with them.

    Let us tell them that they follow a man who blames this nation for 9/11, who is the darling of the utterly repulsive Truther Alex Jones, and who continues to believe the dangerous fable that if we bring all our soldiers home and speak happiness to the world, we would know lasting peace.

    And if they persist in following him, as many have, though they know all these things, then I am perfectly willing to banish them. I have no place in my tent for the likes of them.

  39. Vincent Harris
    January 10th, 2012 @ 7:48 am

    A large chunck of American Evangelical Christians don’t believe in nation building at the point of a sword or claiming superiority of western culture and values as a sane and honorable political strategy. I am of the view that Ron Paul’s non-intervenionist foreign policy and struggle for civil liberties is consistent with his Christian faith. Intervenionist foreign policy is rooted in the french revolution and obviously not something neocalvinists that have read Kuyper or Groen should approve of.

  40. ThePaganTemple
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:16 am

    Question-What do you call the one Paultard who gives a Nazi salute in a room full of Paultards.

    Answer-An honest man.

  41. ThePaganTemple
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:22 am

    I think I’m going to go out on a limb here and risk the wrath of about half the commenters here by just pointing out that just because somebody home-schools their children, it doesn’t automatically mean they are good people, or for that matter, sane.

    In fact, I’m going to go even further out on a limb and probably saw it off while I’m sitting on it by declaring that, as an avid supporter of home-schooling in principle, I kind of resent the implication of this post that Paultard home-schoolers might be typical of home-schoolers in general.

  42. ThePaganTemple
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:32 am

    By the way, what kind of idiot defaces a perfectly good automobile by spray-painting anything across the back of it? Especially one good enough to make a drive from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire. Is this another example of a sane, well-meaning Paul supporter we should be careful not to offend?

  43. Pathfinder's wife
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:32 am

    That’s all well and good, but who do you have to put up as the canidate for them to follow in his place?

    The GOP pretty much caused this situation themselves — look at the canidates and policies they’ve been supporting since Reagan (the last president, imho, who really understood how to use our military by the by).

  44. Pathfinder's wife
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:35 am

    Many homeschoolers have become “Paultards” as you put it because he comes out and actively supports them — all of them.

    This is one of those things that might be a key to regaining some GOP traction…but is likely to be written off…foolishly.

  45. Mike Tuggle
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:55 am

    Oops! I must’ve posted on Little Green Footballs by mistake.

  46. Mike Tuggle
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:57 am

    Right. Demanding the government respect the constraints of the Constitution makes you a nazi.

    I hear Charles Johnson is taking applications.

  47. Tennwriter
    January 10th, 2012 @ 10:41 am

    I heard Santorum had agreed to much of Paul’s fiscal plans, but the source had no details.

    Are you saying that at no time during the seventy year Cold War that the Sovs were in danger of coming right through the Fulda Gap?  Because most of the Army guys I’ve heard from thought the mighty Red Army tanks would roll right over the top of them, and I heard some say that the likely response would have to be nuclear.

    I have to totally disagree with you.  Adjoran is right.

    If you’re arguing for a more Jacksonian war policy than a Wilsonian one, then I can agree, but ….

  48. Tennwriter
    January 10th, 2012 @ 10:44 am

    Um….liberty and freedom of conscience are NOT superior to tyranny and forced worship?  WHaaaaat?

  49. Pathfinder's wife
    January 10th, 2012 @ 11:00 am

    Directly after WWII there was some possiblity, but even then it was not a definite (I think Stalin would have very much liked to give that impression, if anything to help out int’l. comm. operatives in the west and to help conserve Soviet image).

    As for our military folks — well, we certainly were trained to believe that the mighty Red Army would roll over us all…but having been to Russia prior to the collapse I would have to say our fears were to an extent unfounded.  Their whole system was in terrible shape — imho, Reagan played on this very well (while hiding the fact that our own military wasn’t in great shape either by the time he took the reins — at least that is what my husband and I saw, back in the day).

    And I am indeed urging a more Jacksonian war fighting ideology.  However, we do have to keep in mind that men and materiel wear out; we have been using our military quite a lot lately, eventually something will give (and yet most of the GOP seems to be very gung ho to engage even more, just as bad as Obama…and GOP supporters seem to be quite fine with this; I wonder if they would be so very supportive if a draft were called and they found out what it was like to be a member of the  less than 1%…or a family member of the same).

  50. Pathfinder's wife
    January 10th, 2012 @ 11:51 am

    They are not Americans…our only concern (as a political entity) should be Americans; if other people choose to live with tyranny and forced worship…well, at some point you have to say “can’t save them all”.  Washington’s address sums up a good route for us to take: be an example for others, be ready to defend ourselves both internally and externally, but don’t get entangled in their messes.

    Sometimes Paul goes off this mark by not correctly assessing how to be ready to defend…but the rest of the GOP has bought the progressive line in regards to exporting politico-social ideology — and how well has that worked for us?