The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials--the rightness of the endeavor, and what should rightly be done now. From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. "The people who say there'll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?" His foreign policy: "Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders." After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on....
Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.
Share
15 comments:
It is now clear that Dr. Paul cannot be lightly dismissed, and no amount of childish laughter can change that fact.
He speaks like a statesman and not like a mere politician.
If it wasn't for your blogs and a few other websites, I wouldn't have the slightest idea who Ron Paul is. Mainstream media completely ignores the 'low profile' candidates - they are lucky to get a mention.
I have never been able to fathom the notion popular among self-labelled paleos and some libertarians that nations must act strictly in their own self-interest.
I thought it was a horrifically shameful thing to have abandoned Vietnamese and Cambodians to their fate and then to sit back and watch the boat people spill out in their millions and the savage and unrivalled massacres of up to a quarter of the population of the Khmer under the communists there. That was a stain on our nations honor which seems almost unexpiatable.
I'm not impressed with the idea that we should abandon the Iraqis and come home. Whatever one's ideas about the propriety of the original intervention that seems to me, well, wicked, not to put too fine a point on it.
If Ron Paul said, "Let's see if there is a bloodbath and commit to reengage in case there is," I might respect him. As it is, I cannot see anything statesmanlike ih his rhetoric at all. It seems quite clear that he doesn't really care one way or the other.
I'd vote for him against a Democrat since he is pro-life, though I'd hold my nose while doing it. I won't vote for Giuliani for the same reason I would vote for Paul, though his foreign policy seems much more sensible. I'm happy to hope that Fred Thompson, a real conservative in the Reagan tradition--neither paleo nor neo--, seems now to have a chance at the nomination.
Even democrats I know respect Peggy Noonan's opinions.
"I have never been able to fathom the notion popular among self-labelled paleos and some libertarians that nations must act strictly in their own self-interest."
Neither have I. This idea appears to be American radical individualism applied to the nation-state.
"I thought it was a horrifically shameful thing to have abandoned Vietnamese and Cambodians to their fate and then to sit back and watch the boat people spill out in their millions ... etc."
Again, I wholeheartedly agree.
Libertarianism is an affront to common sense. I find it very hard to take and almost as repulsive as liberalism.
That said, I watched the clips (thanks, Joshua) and saw someone who looked to me like a man of character and principle - a true statesman, perhaps - holding his own in a den of vipers. I was quite moved by it and am now looking at the man in a different light. We shall see ...
Thank you, Mr. Culbreath! I certainly could not have expressed it any better.
I have never been able to fathom the notion popular among self-labelled paleos and some libertarians that nations must act strictly in their own self-interest.
If this means by this that everything is justifiable, so long as it is in the interest of one's country, then I do not know of any paleo or libertarian who holds to this. What paleos do maintain is that in the order of love, one's country comes before other countrise--paleos do not subscribe to the liberal notion that one must be impartial to all and treat the claims of everyone equally.
"What paleos do maintain is that in the order of love, one's country comes before other countries--paleos do not subscribe to the liberal notion that one must be impartial to all and treat the claims of everyone equally."
I have no problem with this. But the order of love is hierarchical: it is not a categorical exclusion of that which does not come first. Some paleos and libertarians have turned "America first" into "America only".
"Thank you, Mr. Culbreath! I certainly could not have expressed it any better."
Oh I'm quite sure you could, wordsmithing not being my trade, but I thank you for the encouragement!
It is interesting how much latent hopefulness we all have, isn't it? Politics seems completely out of reach today, to the point where most of us have all but given up, and yet we still hope. When a candidate comes along who seems, at least, to put principle before politics, to be unafraid of the evil men in front of him, to be a genuine thinker, to possess a high degree of personal goodness, it is hard to resist getting behind such a candidate with enthusiasm ...
Oh, thank you very much. Actually, my dear husband is the true "wordsmith" of the family. I just have more time to write than he does!
Yes, an intelligent man of deep conviction, one who has opinions outside the party line, is a breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, we appear to be stuck with Mr Giuliani on the ticket, if not as President, then, as VP. What effect would this have on a conservative nominee for president? One wonders.
Yes, it is heartening that one-half of the room gave Mr Paul a rousing ovation. However, shall that translate into support at the primaries and on the convention floor?
As for countries acting only in their self-interest, look at the summer of 1914. That war was in no one's interest, yet, it occurred. Self-interest is only one of the factors in choosing to go to war. Sometimes, one keeps one's word, even if it is not on one's "self-interest". Honour sometimes does trump cupidity.
Vara
I have no problem with this. But the order of love is hierarchical: it is not a categorical exclusion of that which does not come first. Some paleos and libertarians have turned "America first" into "America only".
I agree with this--I don't know of any prominent paleos would disagree. Everyone of good agrees that no harm should be done to others; the question here I suppose is what sort of help can be given to others, if at all?
"I have never been able to fathom the notion popular among self-labelled paleos and some libertarians that nations must act strictly in their own self-interest."
Yeah, but are you sure that this is what Congressman Paul was advocating. I got the feeling that his position was more of the Washingtonian "avoid permenant alliances and foreign entanglements."
For those of you who believe that removing American troops from Iraq will come about with a change of parties allow me to disuade you from that. I am not trying to demean but it isn't going to happen. This war will go on until my granchildren have grandchildren. The Democrats know this, the Republicans know this, and so does Ron Paul.
Muslims think in generations, we think in sound bites.
The war will not be over until Muslim mothers will learn to love their children more than they hate us.
de Brantigny
Post a Comment