That word? I do not think it means, what you think it means...

 "Oh those RINOs and NEO-CONS won't do anything... we have to purge the party of these spineless unprincipled traitors"

It's kinda funny... I generally find most who use the terms neo-con or RINO, except ironically or as a joke, to be unable to define either in a meaningful way.

Much as George Orwell wrote about the term "fascism" in "Politics and the English Language",   for almost everyone using the terms, "RINO" and "NEO-CON", are just signifiers for "things and people I don't like".

Thing is... The only current Republican members of congress (both house and senate) who can fairly be called "RINO", are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Brian Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, John Katko, and Jeff VanDrew (who actually was a democrat until last year).

Everyone else, is absolutely within the "normal spread" of positions for Republicans... That includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and most of the other congresscritters (not on the RINO list above) that voted to impeach Trump.

In fact, several of those that voted for impeachment, are notably far MORE conservative than Trump... The first couple I mentioned above have lifetime ratings over 90%  from the American conservative union, and almost always vote with the party (they're available online from  http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/ )

The first major mistake many make, is in thinking that loyalty to, or agreement with, Donald Trump; is any kind of criteria for being a Republican, or a conservative... Since Trump was and is, neither of those things. Trump is an ACTUAL Republican in name only, and always has been... He was officially a democrat, until he needed to be a Republican, at which point he officially signed up to be a republican... but he never actually changed anything other than the initial beside his name. 

The second, and fundamental mistake however, is in thinking the republican party is actually conservative, or in fact has EVER been conservative, by any meaningful definition of the term (except perhaps, relative to the actual left). 

The Republican party is, and since reconstruction mostly has been, a moderate centrist party about MOST things... Generally averse to change and risk, and generally collegial in reality, regardless of the rhetoric fed to the base for fundraising purposes. 

Even Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY conservative... He talked a good game, but in reality, he was as much a "neo-con" as Bill Kristol.

Barry Goldwater was the closest thing to an actual conservative in the post war Republican party... and he was really more libertarian than conservative by modern sensibilities (though he of course considered himself to be conservative, and was mostly thought of as such in his time). Before Goldwater, you need to go back to Coolidge to get an actual conservative.... and before that... Ummm... 

.... Yeah... Look at the history... The Republican party is NOT conservative, and never really has been. 

Historically speaking, post reconstruction, the majority of the republican party, has been in the mold of Bush the elder, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover... RELATIVELY conservative compared to "progressive" leftists in the democratic party, they're still for Big Government, just not AS big as Democrats. They're still just as paternalist as Dems, only about different things in different ways. They're in favor of plenty of control, intervention, and regulation, on both social and economic issues... because everyone has their "special" cases, and those "special pleadings" add up. 

Reagan was a near literal revolution in the party, and he wasn't even actually that conservative... He was RHETORICALLY conservative, but in fact he governed as what most who identify as "conservative" today (who, mostly, are very definitely NOT conservative in any meaningful way), would call a RINO... Or if they actually knew what the term means, pretty close to a neo-con. He was a free spending, massive debt accumulating, heavily interventionist in domestic affairs, heavily interventionist in foreign affairs, massively intrusive, NON-conservative; by anything like a reasonable definition of the term. He just TALKED about being otherwise... and how that was better.

... Which it IS... but he didn't even try to actually govern that way...

In fact, the Reagan administration and Republican congressional leadership, essentially made what some might consider a "corrupt bargain" with the Democratic senate majority leader Robert Byrd (for the first and last years of his term... the Republicans had a narrow senate majority for 6 of Reagans 8 years) and Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency Tip O'neil (all but the last few months anyway); wherein the Republicans got most of THEIR spending priorities passed through congress and signed by the president, and in exchange, so did the Democrats... and both knew that was happening, so they were able to freely posture, to raise money off "fighting for their constituency", while in reality, there was always a deal to be made.

Which ACTUALLY meant that the government was doing FAR MORE than it had ever done since WW2... And not coincidentally SPENDING far more than it had since WW2, and accumulating FAR MORE DEBT than it had since WW2. 

The fact is, Goldwater and Coolidge were major outliers, and exceptions to the general run of Republican candidates and presidents... and were largely unpopular within the party because of it. 

For that matter, Reagan was also unpopular within the party, until he placated the southern religious social conservatives after his brokered convention loss in '76 (which happened in the first place, because he offended said southern religious social conservatives, in an attempt to gain broad centrist appeal, by selecting a more liberal Republican running mate, and saying a few things the leaders of that block didn't care for...   Had he not pissed off the southern faction of the leadership, Reagan would have won the nomination in '76... but probably lost the presidency).

The social conservatives have never actually been a majority in the party... Only a plurality... A little less than 40% at peak... but they're a very LOUD plurality minority... and those opposed to them are very LOUD too, about how big and bad the social conservatives are; making them seem like they were and are much more powerful and consequential than they actually are... or for that matter, much more conservative, and much more principled and consistent than they actually are. 

... But every national candidate in the Republican party has to make the southern religious social conservatives at least tolerate them, because said southern social conservatives have enough power and mass to BLOCK someone. They can't actually MAKE the king... as I said, they're less than 40%... but they can keep someone from being crowned, and no other single block is able to do so, because no other single block is more than about 25% of the party... Nor is any other single block motivated and organized enough to do so. 

But that doesn't make the party actually conservative, or actually socially conservative, at the national level (local is an entirely different story... State and local level politics are a totally different beast). 

One other thing the party has very firmly NOT been, along with "actually conservative" is POPULIST... In fact, they've GENERALLY been rather the opposite, at least when it comes to national and international issues and policies (local is a different matter entirely). 

Until Trump that is... 

Or at least the Republican party hasn't been populist since the FIRST Roosevelt... who was VERY firmly a populist progressive (Hoover wasn't a populist by nature, but he took some seemingly populist... and quite harmful... actions based on some truly epically bad advice from his cabinet and congressional caucus)... 

Actually, TR would have been a quite "progressive" democrat in the post WW2 period up through the late 60s or so, and he had a disturbing tendency towards fascism (seems to have run in the family).

Hell... TR could easily have been LBJ, or his cousin Franklin...

...He wanted strong social safety nets set up and paid for by government, with socialized pensions and healthcare. He was for strong protectionist tariffs and strongly against free trade. He was pro-union and anti-corporation to a shocking degree, and he was pro-government regulation of almost everything. Read "The New Nationalism", and it's like postwar democrats fantasy platform...

...except that TR was personally moral and ethical, unlike the thoroughly unethical, amoral, and frankly evil, racist rapist that LBJ was.

So... if you're an actual conservative or libertarian or "conservatarian", guess what... YOU are the one who is a Republican in name only.

If you're one of those who is using RINO as an insult to describe Republican party members who aren't at all conservative, you've got the perspective reversed, because THEY ARE THE PARTY; not the conservatives and libertarians, who generally VOTE republican, because they are less awful than the realistic alternatives.

... If you think about what the party actually is, as opposed to what you think it SHOULD BE... Well... RINO... isn't an insult, or at least it shouldn't be. It's kinda like that line "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer". 

NOverride

Congratulations Republicans, you have a near record majority in the house, and what appears will be 54 seats in the senate (three races were still undecided at this writing. At least one is a near certain Republican victory, one appears likely so, and one is likely a democrat Victory).

Some folks have been saying things like "Well, yeah, Obama's gonna veto everything... but hey at least we'll have a veto proof majority on some things, that a lot of Democrats support".

Don't count on it.

Minority Democratic support for some "Republican issues" was allowed before, because it didn't matter. There was no consequence to it.

I can almost guarantee you, there will not be one single override. No Democrat will be allowed by the leadership to be counted publicly supporting Republicans, against president Obama and the rest of the democratic party... at least not if an override would be successful.

Now, it's an entirely different situation. A Democratic defection will be both a PR and a political disaster. It will hurt and weaken the Democrats even more than this election already has, and crash morale even more than it already has.

Unless a Democrat will lose his seat if he doesn't vote to override a specific veto, it will NOT happen. In that case the leadership MIGHT let them vote for an override, maybe, if there is no chance of an override passing.

If the situation is dire enough, a Dem congresscritter might actually defect without clearance... but that would have to be something pretty dire, because there is just about ZERO chance any Dem who did that would ever be forgiven if the override succeeded. They'd have to switch parties.

Of course, if there's no chance of the override succeeding, most likely there won't even be an override vote (and if there really were such a chance, then Obama wouldn't veto, unless it were something the Dems absolutely could not stand for... in which case, again, there's no way it would get enough Dem support to be overridden).

Even if there is however... Do you really think there will be 12 (presuming the total is 54 as it appears it will be) senators who will lose their seats if they don't override, on any specific issue? There are quite possibly 12 Democrats total who might lose their seats if they didn't override on issues that were very important to their state... but 12 on a single issue?

Of course, they could also put doing the right thing, for the good of their state and the nation, above politics...

... Oh... sorry... can't stop laughing at that thought right now...

Defunding, Debt Limits, Shutdowns, Oh My!

Welcome to the sideshow folks...

Step right up and enjoy the posturing, rhetoric, and antics of our congressional clown crew...

Over to your right you'll see the amazing vocal endurance of Republican Senator from Texas Ted Cruz as he tosses red meat to the base...

... To be serious, there are a large group of people, who don't understand why the rest of us consider what Ted Cruz did (a 21 hour "filibuster" of a motion in relation to items within a continuing resolution for funding the federal government for the next six months), both harmful to the country, and nothing more than grandstanding.

For them, it looks like Cruz was (in the composite words of many Americans on the right):

"Taking a brave and principled stand against the funding of a bad law that will harm our country."

In reality, he was doing no such thing.

Cruz is being maligned by his own party because he was being a clown. This "filibuster" was nothing but a clown show.

It may be viscerally satisfying, but it's idiotic. It will do absolutely NOTHING for the Republicans, of for those against Obamacare, except throw red meat to the stupider side of the base.

This is underpants gnomes strategy.



Step one: "Non-filibuster a piece of already passed legislation that I can't stop by doing this... but that's OK I wasn't really trying to, really I was just trying to get media attention and attract donations from the less intelligent and aware side of my political base".

Step two: ... uh....

Step three: Electoral Victory?

"But, one brave man, standing up for what he believes in, can do amazing things. A small group of patriots can change the world, just look at the American revolution."

No, they can't. No guns involved in this one. No big foreign war distracting the occupying power. No actual fight going on among the actual fighters... just a series of bargaining and trading; while the rhetorical fight goes on among the spectators.

It may be emotionally satisfying rhetoric, but that's all it is, rhetoric.

You are not a member of the patriotic few, bravely standing up against the despotic elite, risking all for freedom.

In fact, unless you support drug legalization, getting the state out of marriage...and almost everything else... giving up legislating morality and goodness entirely... You AREN'T EVEN ON THE GOODGUYS SIDE.

You're just another guy on the badguys side, who wants the badguys to tax the tea a little differently.

Oh and as "just another guy", you actually aren't on their side at all...

You're a spectator rooting for your team from... not even the stands... from the comfort of your own home; with the game streamed lived via satellite into your living room.

"But what would you have us do? Just give up, let the Democrats run the country into the ground"

Nope... Not at all...

I'd have you stop assuming the rhetorical mantle of revolutionary patriot because it makes you feel good; and stop supporting things which reinforce that feeling, without actually DOING anything.

If you buy Ted Cruz's stunt, you are perpetuating this crap.

If you want to actually do something... ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING. Get involved with your political party on a local level. Get onto policy committees. Become a subject matter expert for the party on something you know, and use that position to help steer the party, and the politicians in the party, in the right direction.

That's actually doing something. This thing with Cruz? It's just something you can say you supported so you can feel morally vindicated while not actually doing anything.

"You'll see... Cruz was right, this is bad law and we must stop it. Cruz will be vindicated, time will tell"

Well of COURSE he's RIGHT, we all know that... it's AWFUL law... even Jon Stewart thinks it's bad law... but that doesn't mean he was doing any good... or even try to for that matter.

Vindicated how?

Sure he's increasing his own fundraising, and certainly he's right about Obama care... but to be vindicated you have to have done or said something substantive, and then been proven right later.

How has he done that?

He's hurt the Republican party badly with the center, and provided yet another target for mockery and ridicule... and to scare those who think this sort of thing is either stupid or crazy...

Yes, he's increased his own fundraising... and tripled that of everyone on the left.

This is not some brave heroic last stand. This was a foregone conclusion. Obamacare would never, under any circumstances, be defunded. This wasn't a filibuster. This wasn't moral courage.

If it was a serious attempt to stop Obamacare, fine, that would be great. Even if it were a futile attempt, if it were even structurally capable of stopping it, sure... it wasn't and isn't.

It wasn't really even a symbolic gesture.

It was pandering, to the lowest common denominator. It was Ted Cruz setting himself up to be the poster boy for the low information voters of the right.

And he knew EXACTLY what he was doing... By all accounts Cruz is a brilliant man.

"It doesn't matter if he was doomed to fail, it was the right thing to do anyway. Standing up for what's right is never wrong"

If that's what he was actually doing, I wouldn't be so irritated by this.

I'm irritated because this is what they do instead of something useful. "I supported Ted Cruz's fillibuster but those nasty democrats and RINOs passed it anyway"...

The people who believe this, don't seem to understand that what Cruz did actually hurt us. Us being those of us who really fight against government overreach, and bad law.

It gave cover to the people who wanted to do nothing anyway, it encouraged a few whackjobs to make spectacles of themselves, and it INCREASED the morale and assumed moral authority of the other side.

Do you not realize how stupid and ridiculous this makes anti-obamacare people to the middle? How hysterical it makes them appear to the other sides donors? How this is a permanent harmful soundbite/video clip?

It's idiots like this that made them able to paint Mitt Romney as an ultraconservative ultra right damn near American Taliban...

When in fact, he wasn't conservative enough for a lot of people to bother even coming out, and they just stayed home rather than vote.

This is NOT a dedicated small group of principled people fighting against government overreach... That would be excellent.

This is the Republican equivalent of a college student "sticking it to the man" by wearing Che Guevara t-shirt an shouting about oppression and justice, out in front of the admin building.

"You don't understand... Cruz is different... he's the only one of the Republicans with the guts and the principle to stand up and do something".

If he had actually done that, I would more than agree... I'd be cheering him on too.

But he didn't.

If he were actually different... I'd be 100% behind him... Hell, I think he's a good man, and in general he will probably be a good senator, though it's a bit early to tell. If nothing else, he's a LOT smarter than most Senators.

But really... other than that... he's not much different than any other professional politician.

I've read the mans bio, read some of his speeches, hell I was even on a conference call with him and Marco Rubio at some party event during the campaign last year.

Yeah, he's accomplished, and he's got a hell of a back story (great family tale), but... what is it you think makes him so special?

He's a smart guy, apparently a great legal mind, clerked for Rehnquist, editor of the Harvard law review... which are great things sure... but but I don't see what you seem to see that makes him particularly exceptional among senators. He's been a politician basically since law school; either full or part time.

He spent less than a year in private practice before going into an administration job, then less than 4 years out of the fedgov, where he ran for office twice, before going back to the fedgov.

He's a professional politician.

I think he's probably going to be a good senator (kinda hard to tell 9 months in), but I don't see anything there that says anything other than professional politician... He's a smart man and seemingly a good man... and those are great things... but he's still a professional politician, and has never been anything but a professional politician.

I mean... he actually voted... in fact the senate voted unanimously 100-0... for the motion he was supposedly filibustering... 

How can you even call it a filibuster if you're going to vote for it?

So... In the next show, we have the "Government Shutdown".

As of right now, the Republicans in congress have refused to sign any continuing appropriations bills that require the raising of the U.S. federal debt ceiling, and which fund Obamacare.

Therefore, the Republicans are trying to pull a repeat of 1996 and "shut down the government"; again to foster the illusion that they are taking a principled stand against excess spending and government waste etc... etc...

They aren't.

"Why can't they just balance the budget, instead of raising the debt ceiling again... That's not a solution, that's just making the problem worse?"

That's the question of a well meaning, intelligent person, looking at this problem from a rational perspective...

So it's completely irrelevant to anything they do in Washington of course.

First thing, the whole "Defund Obamacare" spiel is, and always has been, a sham. It's more redmeat for the base. It's not going to stop Obamacare, never was going to, never could; and even if it could, the republicans couldn't get it past the senate, or a presidential veto, or an override etc... etc...

It's just PR.

The Republicans saw what happened to Mitt Romney. They know that a large portion of the electorate doesn't think they're conservative enough and so won't bother to vote for them... This is how they're trying to address that issue. Nothing more substantive than that.

This still leaves the debt ceiling issue... and of course, incurring yet more federal debt is a bad thing. We are already at more than 105% of GDP (of course, that's far lower than most other nations, but it's still quite bad).

The debt ceiling thing is a sham too though... always has been, as is all the grandstanding surrounding it:



The Republicans can point and shout all they want, and "refuse to be a party to" etc... etc...

However, since it is quite literally impossible for any continuing appropriation to be passed that doesn't require increasing the debt ceiling... In fact, even without a continuing appropriation the debt ceiling will need to be increased (because of credit payments, entitlements, and other already legislated spending); the debt ceiling is GOING to be raised.

Either that, or an accounting trick will be used to do the same thing.

It's not a solution. It's a requirement of the circumstances.

Balancing the budget... that's a joke; given that we haven't actually PASSED a budget or OPERATED under a budget , since 1997. From 1998, the government hasn't been funded with a passed budget, it's been funded with omnibus spending and special appropropriation bills, and continuing resolutions.

In fact, since Obama was elected, we haven't even managed to pass an omnibus spending bill, and have exclusively funded the government with special appropriations and continuing resolutions.

The reality of the "debt ceiling" is, the U.S. is NOT going to default on its credit payments, under any circumstances.

In the first place, a U.S. credit default would trigger a world wide economic collapse and long term depression the likes of which have not been dreamed of outside of dystopian fiction.

So yeah... that's bad... let's not do that.

Even if that weren't true,  the politicians in this country are not going to let people miss entitlement payments... which is the whole reason why we don't have a budget in the first place...

Every politician in America knows that if they get blamed for their constituents missing a social security check, they are done... dead... never to be elected to anything, even dog catcher, again.

So, any threat not to raise the debt ceiling, or to have a true and complete government shutdown, really is just grandstanding.

Until we make serious cuts to entitlements, we are not going to have anything close to a balanced budget. No politician in this country who has actually managed to get elected and wants to be re-elected is going to EVER under any circumstances, vote to cut entitlements. Therefore we are never going to have a balanced budget again... or at least not until there is a real unavoidable crisis, where they can cover themselves by saying "we had to do it to save the country", and their opponents can only look like irresponsible liars if they try to say otherwise...

Of course, if this country weren't filled with economically and politically ignorant "citizens", then perhaps the electorate as a whole would understand that we've long past the point at which such a crisis could be avoided, and that something really needs to be done right now...

Unfortunately, what looked like it was going to be the first major group of voters working for entitlement cuts in this country, the "tea party"; was quickly overrun by a huge number of these idiots who, completely un-self aware were saying, with complete sincerity "get the government out of healthcare and welfare... but don't touch my social security and medicare".

The politicians noticed this... Particularly the smart ones... Like, say, Ted Cruz.

Take Back Your Government

Tuesday night, I spoke before the Bonner County Republican Party Central Committee (all elected county officials in Bonner county are Republicans right now), in support of a resolution (which I had a small part in writing) supporting the second amendment and:

"Strongly urging" the county commission (all commissioners are Republicans) to enact an ordnance

1. Declaring all federal firearms laws in violation of the second amendment

2. Requiring the Sheriff (also a Republican) to refuse to enforce, or allow to be enforced, and to prevent enforcement in the county; any laws abrogating, violating, or substantially limiting our natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and others.

This resolution was adopted by acclimation by the county party, and was forwarded to the Idaho state Republican party, so that they can include it (and the similar resolutions of all 44 counties in the state) in the statewide resolution of the Idaho Republican party (which will be substantially similar):

Quote:

A Resolution of the Bonner County Republican Central Committee to be known as
The Second Amendment Resolution 

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution guarantees the natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and 

WHEREAS, Only laws made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution are deemed valid, and 

WHEREAS, The State and The People of Idaho possess and retain all powers not granted to the federal government, including the powers mentioned in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, and 

WHEREAS, Bonner County being a duly recognized political subdivision of the state of Idaho, has the authority of the State of Idaho to honor Constitutional laws and disregard laws not made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution, 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Bonner County Republican Central Committee strongly urges the Bonner County Commissioners to enact the following Ordinance; following the example of the Founders and many States, Sheriff’s and local jurisdictions throughout the United States to wit: 

AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.” 

To prevent federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BONNER COUNTY DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1: The Bonner County Board of Commissioners finds that: 

A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment 

SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 

A. The Bonner County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county. 

B. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE 

A. This act takes effect upon approval by the Bonner County Board of Commissioners

We have been winning this issue on the federal issue for a number of years. With Heller and McDonald; and the great work of Alan Gura (of Gura and Posesskey), Alan Gottleib of the Second  Amendment Foundation, the NRA, JPFO, and others; we are going to keep winning this in federal courts.

But we have to do more. We have to make it clear that we will no longer accept the ratcheting violation of our rights and our liberty.

Further, the most restrictive laws, and the biggest dangers aren't at the federal level; they're state by state, and in some cases city by city. The way to win the country is to win state by state. The way to win each state, is to win county by county, and city by city. 

We need to win these issues locally. We need to take back our government. 

Obama gets a lesson in just how much delivery matters

At this point, no matter how far in the tank they may be, pretty much everyone has to acknowledge that Romney CRUSHED Obama in Oct 3rd debate.

Beyond crushed actually... Lefties are literally crying about the beating their guy took. And the thing is... They have no idea why.

Well, some do; but from the general commentariat I'm hearing a lot of "why didn't he go after him on his evil foul lies" etc... etc...

That is definitely NOT getting it.

Romney didn't win on the facts; though he certainly had those far enough in his favor. Romney won on his attitude, and his delivery.

 Obama dictated to you... Everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Everything he says is right. All of his failures are just because you didn't do what he told you to do... and all your failures are either because you didn't follow his advice, or because some big bad greedy businessman did it to you.

Romney was trying to have a conversation with you. He was asking you to listen. He was saying "look, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right... I don't care about being right, I just want to do what works".

Obama was the college professor neighbor you don't like, because he's always telling you how you're doing everything wrong, and how if you'd just follow his advice, you'd be just as good as he is at everything.

Romney was your smart, successful, nice neighbor, who coaches the baseball team, and is on the schoolboard trying to get the local high school back on track.

Obama stayed on message, hardcore, repeating his talking points to the point of irritating the entire country.

The message wasn't working.

He should have realized that talking points weren't going to work, and he should have gone extemporaneous... Though after what we've see the last four years, that may be as close to it as he gan get.

 Now, let's see how they try to spin this for Obama. Should be fun.

Ron Paul, the Republicans, and the "Hidden Support"

Cross posted from The Liberty Papers, be sure to check out the comment thread for real fun:

Ron Paul killed himself the other night. Oh he's still walking around and upright, but his political career is pretty much over except for the appeal to the fringe elements of hard core doctrinaire Libertarians... and I suspect that at this point he knows it.

Of course saying this sets of a shitstorm of indignant bull from the aforementioned folks; because Paul is the "White Knight" in their little fever dream.

Doctrinaire Libertarians always assume that:

1. They are right, without question (after all, their perfect doctrinal system says so).

2. It is so obvious and intuitive that they are right, that there must be a huge but silent majority that agree with them entirely.

Thus, their anointed representative in the Republican party MUST have huge reserves of previously unseen support, the polls are inaccurate, they aren’t measuring all the libertarians, he’s ready for a surge blah blah blah.

Ron Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hell. I agree with him on most things, but his stance on 9/11 and the war alone put him (and almost every other doctrinaire Libertarian) into the “would vote for McCain first” zone.

For anyone who knows me, that is as stinging a rebuke as I could possibly give without resorting to vulgarity; or invoking a Clinton.

The Doctrinaire Libertarians will point to polls saying "the majority of Americans don't support the war"; but really that isn't true.

Actually, the majority of the American people AREN’T against the war; they are against the stupid way we’ve been running the war, which seems calculated to lose.

What non-agressionists and isolationsists don’t seem to understand… in fact what Libertarians in general (note the large L) don’t seem to understand, is that 80% or more of the people in this country fundamentally disagree with them on the non-agression principle.

Both committed Democrats and committed Republicans, who combined make up about 80% of the population; support some type of interventionist foreign policy. The two sides simply differ on the type and circumstances of such intervention.

I’m a libertarian, not a Libertarian.

I support fundamental liberty; and the supremacy in moral principle of the liberty of the sovereign man.

I reject the non-aggression principle; because sometimes it IS necessary to initiate aggression to ensure that greater offenses against liberty do not occur.

Sometimes, interventionism IS right. Sometimes it IS moral.

Also, sometimes pragmatism is necessary in order to function in this world. Doctrinaires live in a land of theory; pragmatists live in the real world.

Doctrinaires (including Paul)will say "If we weren't over there we wouldn't be attacked"; that is quite simply a lie.

The people who attacked us, and plan to attack us still, are not motivated by reason or logic. They are motivated by a religious death cult; and a kind of zealous madness. Our foreign policy is irrelevant to their desire to kill, convert, or subjugate us all.

Not to say we haven't made foreign policy errors, many of which have in fact made the problems worse; but trying to explain the actions of madmen through logic isn’t only futile; it’s harmful.

We could have been perfect angels, and the terrorists would still be attacking us because of their pathology of a failed culture. We are the biggest symbol of everything they believe to be wrong and evil in the world; and would be even if we were completely non-interventionist.

If we abandoned Israel completely; and left the middle east entirely; they would still be trying to kill us, simply because of who we are.. and if we did that we would be declaring ourselves craven; which I sincerely hope we as a nation are not.

At that point, “why they hate us” is completely irrelevant; the only thing that matters is stopping them.

"But, you've just been tricked by the evil government and corporations into believing in this illegal immoral war"

Uhhhh no.

I haven’t been tricked into anything. I recognize that there are problems, and that Libertarians have valid points; but I believe in the core mission, even with the problems and issues

This is why the Doctrinaire Libertarians always remind me of those German marxists from the 80s...

“But, our ideas are perfect everyone would see that if only they weren't fooled by the evil government and corporations. One day, we’ll show them, they’ll see and we’ll lead them in glorious revolution”.

Alright, so let's look at exactly what about Paul (and many other Libertarians) positions I disagree with. Pauls positions are quoted here in italics":

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it."

A flat out false assertion there.

"We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."

Not quite a lie, but at best a half truth.

"And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women."

A bullshit scare tactic.

"We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home."

I believe we are doing, in principle though not currently in practice, the right thing by intervening in Iraq. Now what we need to do is win the damn war; and yes it is entirely doable if we have the political balls to do it.

"bringing the troops home" may feel good to people; but it's nothing more than that.

Let us continue...

"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price."

As I noted above, we could have been perfect angels, and they'd still be coming after us. Our foreign policy is completely irrelevant to their hatred for us or their attacks on us.

Oh and we never armed or trained either Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda; we armed and trained various Afghan mujaheddin groups against the Soviets, but Bin Laden wasn't involved with us when we were there, and this was long before the formation of Al Qaeda. The Saudi royalty provides most of the funding for Al Qaeda... and don't get me started on that one.

Anyone who thinks that changing our foreign policy will make us more secure is deluding themselves. They are diving into that same fallacy that weak kids try to appease bullys with, that abused women try to appease their abusive husbands with: "if I'm just nice to him and don't make him mad, he won't hurt me".

Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate, wspecially when it comes to economic and domestic policies; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people out there feel exactly the same way?

Funny enough, unlike the phantom Paul supporters the doctrinaires insist are really out there, just waiting for a chance to save the country from itself; those people aren’t hidden, they’re the ones campaigning for Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson… or misguidedly supporting Romney because they think that somehow he’s electable and at least better than McCain or Rudy.

I can’t stomach Paul for president AND I’M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE. I MIGHT vote for him over Hillary; but I’m more likely not to vote in such a contest.

Does this not put any lights on over anybodies heads?

The support you seem to believe is there?

It isn’t.

The agreement you seem so sure is there?

It isn’t.

The surge you seem to think he’s going to make…

Do the math.