Did Santorum win Iowa after all?

[Fitz]

Ron Paul won't have any support in congress therefore we shouldn't elect him

How, precisely, does one effect change?


I say, it's getting a libertarian in the presidency, in conjunction with the CONTINUED fight to get them in a lot of other places as well, including congress and the senate.

To imply that we should support someone who is doing stupid things just because they can win....

well, that's the reason we're in the mess we're in, and it has to stop some time. Or not. But if the republic falls, I'm not going to be the one who helped it along by continuing to vote in statist douchebags and RINOs

[roo_ster]

I wish this were true, but when you say "all you need to do..." you ignore that fact that there's no "you" there any more in the way you seem to think.  We the People are now We the Peoples, and that was all along the agenda of the Left in America.

Agenda or not, the practical effect is the same: less trust and less social capital is the result of diversity.

I think you severely overestimate both our current divisions and our historical unity.

America has, since before it's inception, been made up of disparate groups that disagreed on most everything, and had no desire to be changed.

I disagree with the former but agree with the latter. 

For the former, the increase of diversity in the form of non-assimilated immigrants and de-assimilated minorities via multiculturalism has increased both the number of sub-cultures and the proportion of Americans who belong to a sub-culture in some way hostile to the proposition of America as a nation.

As for the latter, 600k dead in the Civil War points to some serious division. 

[TommyGunn]

Ron Paul won't have any support in congress therefore we shouldn't elect him

How, precisely, does one effect change?


I say, it's getting a libertarian in the presidency, in conjunction with the CONTINUED fight to get them in a lot of other places as well, including congress and the senate.
To imply that we should support someone who is doing stupid things just because they can win....

well, that's the reason we're in the mess we're in, and it has to stop some time. Or not. But if the republic falls, I'm not going to be the one who helped it along by continuing to vote in statist douchebags and RINOs

You touch upon the germ of a plan that might work.  Get enough like-minded people who will support Paul (or a Paul-like offspring/follower/junior type)  who will support a libertarian president.  A good plan for the future.
In '92 Ross Perot drew away enough republican voters to give us eight years of Slick Willie.  And, yes, the Perot voters also "put" Clinton in office just as though they had actually voted for him.
If something similar happens this go-'round, and thus we wind up with four more years of Obama because those who might have opposed him were drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul, they too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.

[red headed stranger]

Voting for what you believe in is not useless. I'm not going to vote for Romney, lest he think that I, or people like me, actually agree with his politics.  

Maybe the supporters of the anointed one need to think about finding points of agreement, or think about adopting at least a couple of Pauls more popular "crazy" ideas instead of just making fun of Paul supporters and/or bullying them into voting for the (R) no matter what.  

The realpolitik line of thinking is a HUGE factor that has gotten the US into its current state.  

[Fitz]

You touch upon the germ of a plan that might work.  Get enough like-minded people who will support Paul (or a Paul-like offspring/follower/junior type)  who will support a libertarian president.  A good plan for the future.
In '92 Ross Perot drew away enough republican voters to give us eight years of Slick Willie.  And, yes, the Perot voters also "put" Clinton in office just as though they had actually voted for him.
If something similar happens this go-'round, and thus we wind up with four more years of Obama because those who might have opposed him were drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul, they too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.

Well, then perhaps the "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters, instead of marginalizing them and assuring their defeat.

It's not my job to vote for a candidate to ensure he wins. It's the candidate's job to agree with me enough to earn my vote.

Call my vote useless. I refuse to sacrifice my principles for the sake of getting a "republican" in the white house.

[TommyGunn]

How do your principles feel about putting Obama back in the White House?
 
Just saying....
There are consequences.
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference.  It's a numbers game. 
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles?

[Fitz]

How do your principles feel about putting Obama back in the White House?
 
Just saying....
There are consequences.
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference.  It's a numbers game.  
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles?

If they altered their points of view to reflect growing small government sentiment in this country, sounds like the system working as intended, I'd say

If there aren't enough paul voters to make a difference, then it shouldn't matter if i vote for him.

Their responsibility to earn my vote. If Obama wins as a result, then America has spoken, I suppose

[dogmush]

That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference.  It's a numbers game. 
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles?

drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul,

they too will have put Obama in office

, just as if they'd voted for him.

Which is it? can they swing the election, or are there not enough to make a difference.

I, for one, think that with a "republican" legislature Romney is more likely to actually accomplish damage than Obama.  Mostly because the legislature will rubber stamp his statist crap where they'd fight Obama's tooth and nail.  And I think enough people agree with me to probably swing the election over to Obama.  Republicans might want to think about that when they plan their strategy.

[TommyGunn]

OK, I goofed.
There's NOT ENOUGH R.PAUL VOTERS TO PUT HIM IN OFFICE.
There may be ENOUGH POSSIBLE R. PAUL VOTERS TO HAND VICTORY TO OBAMA.

Does that re-statement help clarify the issue?

Geeesh.  Mr. Spock is probably REALLY p'o'd with me ......

[red headed stranger]

I see what you are saying. There are not enough votes to put Romney into office. Therefore, everyone else should drop their guy, and their principles, and vote for Romney.   

I expect to hear a similar line of reasoning out of the Newt camp shortly. 

There's NOT ENOUGH R.PAUL ROMNEY VOTERS TO PUT HIM IN OFFICE.
There may be ENOUGH POSSIBLE R. PAUL VOTERS Romney Voters TO HAND VICTORY TO OBAMA.

 

I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

[TommyGunn]

I see what you are saying. There are not enough votes to put Romney into office. Therefore, everyone else should drop their guy, and their principles, and vote for Romney.  

I expect to hear a similar line of reasoning out of the Newt camp shortly.  


 

I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.

What it will take for a republican victory will be a candidate who runs an aggressive campaign and articulates conservatism clearly, plainly and positively.  A candidate who is not afraid to go after Obama and his failing policies.
"In a perfect world" any candidate ought to be able to defeat Obama .... OTOH if we had a perfect world Obama would not be the president.

What does it say when one's principles put a failed leader back in office? 
This is called "making the perfect the enemy of the good."  Now if that's the type of politics you wish to indulge in, fine. 
Because you want perfect immediate change you can't vote for slightly slower imperfect change, thus resulting in utter annihilation.  It's sort of like booking passage on the "Titanic" (knowing what will happen) because you just can't stand the smelly beds in the tramp steamer which has a captain smart enough to avoid the icebergs.

[MicroBalrog]

The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.

I have addressed this issue before. I'm just going to C+P from my previous posts on this topic.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32362.msg644776#msg644776

Now, longeyes asked me to describe what he calls a Paulestinian America.

I will do this because I think this is a golden opportunity for me to clearly explain my position.

Imagine here a completely fictional universe, in which Ron Paul Or Someone Quite Like him has won the Republican Primaries. Again, this is unlikely.

Imagine that Ron Paul* is revealed the winner of the Republican primaries.

Swiftly, the liberal media commence their assault on Ron Paul*. Because Ron Paul* is known to be a generally non-corrupt politician, most of these attacks will not be on his character, but on his view. Most of the right-wing media (commentators, pundits, etc.) will probably defend Ron Paul* from these attacks, if only out of party loyalty. This will begin a national debate on what is really the main issue of our time - whether we want a welfare state or whether we want constitutionally limited government that respects individual right - a 'conservative' or 'broadly libertarian' system, if you like.

Ron Paul*, of course, will not shy away from his debate - this is why he is here, after all. To fill these shoes, a man must really believe in the notion of limited government, and be able to defend it unashamedly, in front of the cameras, come what may. The liberal media are not prepared, intellectually or culturally, to struggle with this form of flat-out attack on their values. They are prepared - indeed their entire civilization depends on - the notion that they will only contend with people who are obsessed with looking reasonable. They can fight Gingrich, they are better at fighting John McCain. With Ron Paul*, their best survival mechanism is avoidance -trying to smother the revolutionary from media access. That won't work if the revolutionary is a Presidential candidate.

In the same way, Ron Paul* would debate the Democratic Candidate. No longer would this be a fight between "raise taxes 1%" and "raise taxes 50% and eat the rich". This would be a debated between Barack Obama and someone who looks into the camera, unashamed, and says: "Abolish the graduated income tax and replace it with nothing."

This is going to be a fight. Polls suggest that about 12% of Americans are libertarians in a broad sense, but more people can be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul* with the correct marketing - party loyalty ("will you let Obama appoint judges? Ron Paul might be bad on terorrism but we can't let Obama win!"), or niche-based benefits ("Ron Paul will protect complementary medicine users from FDA intervention!" will bring many hippies over, and so will "Ron Paul will legalize marijuana").

If the campaign loses, will still shift what the political mainstream is in this country, in ways Ron Paul, the Congressman from Texas, already did.

If it wins... oh, then we are entering the interesting territory:

Paulestinian America.

Envision now President Ron Paul*. Of course, he would order American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (forget that they are already leaving),  and out of the many military bases around the world.  Perhaps it would be possible for the Pentagon to persuade him to keep some of them, but generally this will probably be the case. America's international standing will be, of course damaged in a variety of ways. There is not a doubt about  that. This is a downside, and we are all aware of it.

Here's where the real fun starts.

1. Executive orders. The actual Congressman Ron Paul promised - and indeed President Ron Paul* no doubt would - repeal dozens of Executive orders and Federal regulatons. The import bans on 'assault weapons'? Gone. The impositions on kitchen-table dealers? Gone.  In fact it is even possible to do even more  - under the Gun Control Act - to recclassify models of firearms away from the NFA and into Title I, to order the BATFE to enact a registration amnesty for NFA firearms, and so forth. This is entirely legal (to the extent BATFE is legal) and within the executive office's purview.

2. The pardon power. Thousands of innocent people are in prison for victimless crimes. From - at least - a libertarian perspective, a person in prison for a victimless crime is an innocent man in prison. If there are innocent men in prison it is a moral prime directive to set them free - and, from a Constitutional point of view it is not outside the President's authority to free all of these people at once.

3. The veto power. No, the President cannot veto everthing. But if President Ron Paul* vetoes everything he can, that would at least stop a large part of the evil acts of modern government, force Congress to compromise, and stop things like the Patriot Act, that require reauthorization.

4. The bully pulpit. A victory by President Ron Paul* would no doubt be a strong message to Congress, and a President Ron Paul* would be able to appeal to the American people (using State of the Union addresses and other opportunities) on behalf of freedom. He would not accomplish all of his goals, but he would accomplish far more, and his victory would no doubt also propel more freedom-friendly candidates into office.

In short, a President Ron Paul* can do far more than is commonly estimated, merely because he is willing to do far more than a President Cain* (much less President McCain)* would.

*Or Someone Quite Like Him

[wmenorr67]

Remember Ross Perot.  Gave Clinton the victory more than Clinton winning it.

[erictank]

To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama?  Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.

Actually I was referring to Paul's opponents in the primary run, but sure, we can include both Dear Leaders in that assessment, as well - they both deserve it.

You can vote for whatever Jackwagon you want to.  You can  "waste" your vote and vote Ron Paul. You will feel good about having done the right thing but come Wednesday morning he won't be the president elect. 

Go find one poll that allows any reasonable person to conclude R. Paul has a snowball's chance in h3ll.  And do it without whining about how "if people would just vote for who is the right person/stop voting fo the 'leesor of evils' blah blah blah."  I didn't construct the reality we live in and the fact Paul polls in single digits is not by my design, nor do I have the power to change it.

How sad that you'd (apparently) rather your vote went to "the winner", rather than the better candidate, the one more concerned with liberty and federal compliance with the Constitution.

A vote for the better candidate is *NEVER* wasted, even if that candidate doesn't come close to winning.  And people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better.  When you and people like you continue to vote for more-of-the-same, that's what you'll get.

And you lose any moral right to complain about getting it.

If R. Paul's foreign policy weren't so dangerously unrealistic I would support him, and I suspect a great many people would also. I actually do like many of his economic ideas.

What, staying out of other nations' actual internal-sovereignty issues?  How DARE the man believe in that!!! 

Who else has supported such nonsense, in our nation's history? Oh, here're a few:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (Thomas Jefferson)

"....but she {the United States} goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

- John Quincy Adams

I don't know, seems like pretty good advice to me.  TR seems to have good advice in this respect as well - "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." If attacked, we knock 'em flat.  If not, we stay out.

Why is this so hard a notion to fathom, for so many?

Do you REALLY believe if Ron Paul we're president, he could change things??
Remember one thing.  "The president proposes, the kongress disposes."  An old bromide there, meaning that, atleast in this case, President Ron Paul is going to have ....wait for it ..... wait for it.....

......


0% support in kongress.

I'd be quite happy if he spent his time writing pardons for those "convicted" of violating laws written to subsidize the War On Some Drugs, to give one example, and vetoing various unConstitutional laws passed by "Kongress"  . Let them pass said laws over his publically-stated and explained veto.

And then go home and explain their actions to their constituents.

Now he can flap his gums all he wants.  Do you really think pols like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charlie Schumer are going to give a rat's petoot of support for his programs?
And if you think the repukes will you're smoking something that should be by prescription only.  Ron Paul is only a R  by default. 
So, sorry, even should Paul become president, he ain't gonna accomplish one thing.
And don't tell me a nation of entitlement-sated sheeple are going to rise up and support Paul and force kongress to act, either.  I don't do political comedy on weekends.

As I said, you can vote for whomever you like.  Me, I shall, as always, vote the lesser of evils.  Don't like that?  Tough.  Will I sleep at night after I do it?
Better than I will if I don't .......
But, unless real conservatives take over kongress in a fell swoop, we're toast.
It's over.
Finished.

The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.


Are we all feeling all warm and fuzzy now?   
Enjoy it while you can --- ain't gonna last!!

Nope, haven't been "warm and fuzzy" for a while, in large part because of people who think that dialing the cruise control down from 120 to 110, or even all the way to 90, while maintaining a dead-on course for that looming cliff face is enough.  So, yeah, I'll "WASTE" my vote on candidates who pledge - and who've shown determination to ACT - to hit the brakes and turn the car around before we hit.

You touch upon the germ of a plan that might work.  Get enough like-minded people who will support Paul (or a Paul-like offspring/follower/junior type)  who will support a libertarian president.  A good plan for the future.
In '92 Ross Perot drew away enough republican voters to give us eight years of Slick Willie.  And, yes, the Perot voters also "put" Clinton in office just as though they had actually voted for him.
If something similar happens this go-'round, and thus we wind up with four more years of Obama because those who might have opposed him were drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul, they too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.

BULL.

*CLINTON'S* voters put Clinton in office.  Perot's voters preferred what Perot had to offer to what Bush The Elder was peddling.  That's a failure on the part of the REPUBLICANS, and no one else.

Own it.

If NewtRickRom can't persuade Paul's supporters to support him, ***HE DESERVES TO FREAKING LOSE TO OBAMA***.  And it'll be the REPUBLICANS' fault, not Paul's.

You want my vote?  YOU FREAKING EARN IT.  And you don't do that by being not QUITE as big a statist bastard as the guy on the other side of the Modern American Political Machine, the one with a (D) behind his name.  You do it by being the OPPOSITE of a statist bastard.  A tiny bit less isn't enough, not any more.  A *LOT* less might not cut it.

How do your principles feel about putting Obama back in the White House?
 
Just saying....
There are consequences.
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference.  It's a numbers game. 
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles?

If that's what enough idiots in the country vote FOR, then we as a country deserve what we get - even if we as individuals don't.  That's how our system works.

You want my vote?  You give me what *I* want.  You include me and my interests as a part of the platform.  Don't deride me as a pie-in-the-sky idealist, as pointless and irrelevant, and then demand that I vote for you.  Get >expletive deleted< bent.


ETA: It occurred to me, shortly after posting, that there's a fairly famous sci-fi quote which applies here.  "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." - Paul-Muad'dib to the Guild navigators, at his confrontation with the Emperor Shaddam IV. (Frank Herbert's Dune)
Either Paul's supporters are irrelevant, in which case Your Guy doesn't need their votes and can say what he likes without fear of losing the nomination, or Paul's supporters control enough votes to place Your Guy's chance at the nomination in doubt - in which case Your Guy had better buy, find or otherwise get a freakin' clue and start courting them, rather than badmouthing them and dismissing them as irrelevant.  Paul's supporters don't care so much whether the White House is occupied by a person with an (R) or a (D) after his name, if it's not the right (R) - that's something YOU care about.

Start acting like it, maybe?  Or do you think Your Guy can do without Paul's 15-25% of "the (R) vote" in the election, based on the votes so far? Food for thought.

You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.

What it will take for a republican victory will be a candidate who runs an aggressive campaign and articulates conservatism clearly, plainly and positively.  A candidate who is not afraid to go after Obama and his failing policies.
"In a perfect world" any candidate ought to be able to defeat Obama .... OTOH if we had a perfect world Obama would not be the president.

What does it say when one's principles put a failed leader back in office? 
This is called "making the perfect the enemy of the good."  Now if that's the type of politics you wish to indulge in, fine. 
Because you want perfect immediate change you can't vote for slightly slower imperfect change, thus resulting in utter annihilation.  It's sort of like booking passage on the "Titanic" (knowing what will happen) because you just can't stand the smelly beds in the tramp steamer which has a captain smart enough to avoid the icebergs.

That's kind of the point we're making here, Tommy - the mainstream (R) candidates (at least if they get their desired (R) Congress) are freaking statist bastards who'll do as much or more damage than Obama would with the same Congress - because they WON'T BE CALLED ON IT. The candidate you call for in that middle part there? You're agitating *AGAINST* him here, and supporting the guys who are ANYTHING BUT that.

We don't ask for perfection.  But we do demand that our elected leaders hit the brakes and turn away from the cliff, for a change.  We HAVE to get pointed in the right direction - merely letting off the gas a little isn't nearly enough anymore.

ETA: ""The perfect is the enemy of the good", you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there'd never be any good." - author L. Neil Smith, at http://www.lneilsmith.org/tactical.html.  Lots of other good stuff there, too.  Worth reading, if you're not familiar with his work.

[charby]

I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

I'm curious which group is bigger the Libertarian leaners or the Christian right?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm curious which group is bigger the Libertarian leaners or the Christian right?

Libertarianism, philosophically, has made impressive inroads among conservative Republicans. There are many more of us on board with drug legalization and other small-govt. ideas than was true several years ago. There's no reason to believe that Christians haven't been along for the ride, too.

IOW, I don't think those groups are distinct anymore, if they ever were.

[Jamisjockey]

I see what you are saying. There are not enough votes to put Romney into office. Therefore, everyone else should drop their guy, and their principles, and vote for Romney.   

I expect to hear a similar line of reasoning out of the Newt camp shortly. 


 

I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

I think the Newt  campaign might be smart/shrewd enough to find a spot for RP.  Asking him to be the treas. sec. would convince a lot of folks to hold their noses at the poll.

[wmenorr67]

I think the Newt  campaign might be smart/shrewd enough to find a spot for RP.  Asking him to be the treas. sec. would convince a lot of folks to hold their noses at the poll.

This right here.  If more candidates were to give insight as to who they would ask to hold key positions during the campaign would alleviate some voters fears.

[red headed stranger]

You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.

What it will take for a republican victory will be a candidate who runs an aggressive campaign and articulates conservatism clearly, plainly and positively.  A candidate who is not afraid to go after Obama and his failing policies.
"In a perfect world" any candidate ought to be able to defeat Obama .... OTOH if we had a perfect world Obama would not be the president.

What does it say when one's principles put a failed leader back in office? 
This is called "making the perfect the enemy of the good."  Now if that's the type of politics you wish to indulge in, fine. 
Because you want perfect immediate change you can't vote for slightly slower imperfect change, thus resulting in utter annihilation.  It's sort of like booking passage on the "Titanic" (knowing what will happen) because you just can't stand the smelly beds in the tramp steamer which has a captain smart enough to avoid the icebergs.

Thanks for completely ignoring this part of my post:

but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

[TommyGunn]

How sad that you'd (apparently) rather your vote went to "the winner", rather than the better candidate, the one more concerned with liberty and federal compliance with the Constitution.

A vote for the better candidate is *NEVER* wasted, even if that candidate doesn't come close to winning.  And people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better.  When you and people like you continue to vote for more-of-the-same, that's what you'll get.

And you lose any moral right to complain about getting it.

It is not sad at all, it's simply realistic.  The point is to vote NOT for the "best" candidate (a subjective term anyway; don't forget the Obamabots think Obama will be the best candidate) but the best candidate who has a real chance to win.
"...people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better...."  Wow.  I had no idea you were so important to the country!!!!!!
I'm not really too surprised that my ideas go over like a ton of bricks here.  Trying to point out political realities has never been popular.  What I am surprised about is that so many people here think Paul is some sort of golden pure Constitutionalist or something.  He decries all the pork spending but he has almost never missed a chance to pull that stuff himself.
You really never lose a "moral right to complain."
That is called "freedom of speech."  It's in the first amendment.
And because I may have voted for someone you dispise doesn't mean I voted for
There is an element of sanctimony there .....you may wish to check it.......

What, staying out of other nations' actual internal-sovereignty issues?  How DARE the man believe in that!!!  

Who else has supported such nonsense, in our nation's history? Oh, here're a few:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (Thomas Jefferson)

"....but she {the United States} goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

- John Quincy Adams

I don't know, seems like pretty good advice to me.  TR seems to have good advice in this respect as well - "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." If attacked, we knock 'em flat.  If not, we stay out.

Why is this so hard a notion to fathom, for so many?

What "internal soveignty" issues are you talking about?  Your "quotes from the founders" are all nice and peachy -- and represent a idealistic point of view.  We do not however live in an idealistic world.  The foudners sent the navy after the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s.  That was "going abroad in search of monsters" in my book.  We didn't even have to look too hard, we found the monsters pretty quick, too.
Ron Paul's "blame America first" foreign policies are dangerous and antithetical to a strong defense of this country.  It is really sad that after we were attacked on 9/11/01 there are still so many people who hock this cr@pola about how it's America's fault and that we have no business over there, we should just pull out and leave them alone.  That's what we were doing September 10, 2001.
I'd be in favor of pulling out if it were to free A'stan for a dozen or so well targeted nukes.  However I sincerely doubt any political leader is going to use them.

BULL.

*CLINTON'S* voters put Clinton in office.  Perot's voters preferred what Perot had to offer to what Bush The Elder was peddling.  That's a failure on the part of the REPUBLICANS, and no one else.

Own it..

Sorry.  While it is true that Clinton's voters put him in office, it's also true that Perot drew enough voters away from Bush to tip the scales.  It's people like YOU who won't "own" the fact that there are consequences to cutting the political pie into too many small pieces.  If you want a good read on it I suggest you find a copy of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, as he gives a great thesis on what happens when idealism trumps political reality and slices the pie thinly.

If NewtRickRom can't persuade Paul's supporters to support him, ***HE DESERVES TO FREAKING LOSE TO OBAMA***.  And it'll be the REPUBLICANS' fault, not Paul's.

You want my vote?  YOU FREAKING EARN IT.  And you don't do that by being not QUITE as big a statist bastard as the guy on the other side of the Modern American Political Machine, the one with a (D) behind his name.  You do it by being the OPPOSITE of a statist bastard.  A tiny bit less isn't enough, not any more.  A *LOT* less might not cut it.

So, again, you want the perfect at the exclusion of the possible, which will result in the terrible......

Obviously I am not going to make any headway here though .....so,   have fun at the election booth.

"Caesar si vivevet ad
remun da resis."

[TommyGunn]

Thanks for completely ignoring this part of my post:

but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election.  It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.

That is a matter of opinion.  We don't know, really, what is going to happen in November.  If Obama's popularity is still in the tank I think repubs may do well. 
If the repub candidate follows tradition, however, you may very well get your wish.  After he gets his "base" in the primaries, he rushes back to the center, were he will find the moderates and maybe a few libertarians as well.
Libertarianism would probably gain a bigger foothold if it would give up on drug legalization.  Many people don't like the drug war and want a change, but that doesn't mean they're lusting for drug legalization.  It turns off a LOT of people who might otherwise be more willing to come aboard.
As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition."     
Find a way to do it without losing the base.   
The ball's in your court, not mine.....

[MicroBalrog]

Libertarianism would probably gain a bigger foothold if it would give up on drug legalization.  Many people don't like the drug war and want a change, but that doesn't mean they're lusting for drug legalization.  It turns off a LOT of people who might otherwise be more willing to come aboard.

Libertarianism doesn't really have a William F. Buckley exlusionist at the helm. And thank God.

As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition."     
Find a way to do it without losing the base.   
The ball's in your court, not mine.....

Libertarians are part of the "base". And someone is already losing it.

[TommyGunn]

Libertarianism doesn't really have a William F. Buckley exlusionist at the helm. And thank God.

Libertarians are part of the "base". And someone is already losing it.

I hardly think libertarians .... atleast as expressed on this site, are part of the republican base!
As for "losing it"  .... I keep hearing stories about disaffected Obama voters ......

[erictank]

It is not sad at all, it's simply realistic.  The point is to vote NOT for the "best" candidate (a subjective term anyway; don't forget the Obamabots think Obama will be the best candidate) but the best candidate who has a real chance to win.

Umm, yeah, the whole point *IS* to vote for your own personal "best" candidate, and yes, different people will have different ideas of who's the "best candidate". Honestly, if you really feel that NewtRickRom *IS* the best candidate, my issues with your casting your vote for him (whichever one you prefer) pretty much go away.  I might disagree with your choice, but if you TRULY FEEL that your choice is the best candidate, as opposed to "the best one that has a chance to win", well, that's definitely your choice to make.

So's the other choice, come to think of it.  I just think it's a craven betrayal of the way the system is supposed to work.

"...people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better...."  Wow.  I had no idea you were so important to the country!!!!!!

Missed how I said "people ***LIKE*** me" (emphasis added, since you seem to have missed that even though you QUOTED it)? 

Individually, I'm not important at all to this country, and don't delude myself that I am.  What I believe, on the other hand, *IS* that important.

I'm not really too surprised that my ideas go over like a ton of bricks here.  Trying to point out political realities has never been popular.  What I am surprised about is that so many people here think Paul is some sort of golden pure Constitutionalist or something.  He decries all the pork spending but he has almost never missed a chance to pull that stuff himself.

Far better than anybody else in the race (at least in connection with the (R)'s or (D)'s, certainly).  Weren't you the one not too long ago telling us how we shouldn't be too wrapped up in pursuing perfection at the cost of the good?

You really never lose a "moral right to complain."

Sure you do.  Doesn't necessarily stop you from doing so anyways, but you lose the moral authority to be taken seriously.

That is called "freedom of speech."  It's in the first amendment.
And because I may have voted for someone you dispise doesn't mean I voted for
There is an element of sanctimony there .....you may wish to check it.......

Yeah, I'll get right on that, since you brought it up.

Get back to me when you've dealt with your hypocrisy, and we can compare notes.

What "internal soveignty" issues are you talking about?  

Oh, maybe the right to not have other nations poke their noses into their territory?  To develop their own nation as they see fit, as long as they don't attack others?  Face it - America's got a pretty bad record on that score.

Your "quotes from the founders" are all nice and peachy -- and represent a idealistic point of view.  We do not however live in an idealistic world.  The foudners sent the navy after the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s.  That was "going abroad in search of monsters" in my book.  We didn't even have to look too hard, we found the monsters pretty quick, too.

Oh, I was *SO* hoping you'd decide to go there, with the Barbary pirates! Thanks! 

You *ARE* aware that the Barbary pirates ATTACKED American shipping and endangered our legitimate national and commercial interests, right?  And as such, they EARNED our actions to deal with them?  They attacked, and we acted to stop their wrongful acts.  Just a *LITTLE* bit different than you seem to have imagined...

Ron Paul's "blame America first" foreign policies are dangerous and antithetical to a strong defense of this country.  It is really sad that after we were attacked on 9/11/01 there are still so many people who hock this cr@pola about how it's America's fault and that we have no business over there, we should just pull out and leave them alone.  That's what we were doing September 10, 2001.
I'd be in favor of pulling out if it were to free A'stan for a dozen or so well targeted nukes.  However I sincerely doubt any political leader is going to use them.

Because it makes so much sense to nuke a bunch of Afghan goatherds for what expat-Saudi terrorists did...

Sorry.  While it is true that Clinton's voters put him in office, it's also true that Perot drew enough voters away from Bush to tip the scales.  

And like I said, that's the fault of the REPUBLICANS, who failed to earn those peoples' votes.  Despite what the Modern American Political Machine seems to believe, neither wing of it owns *ANYONE'S* vote.  Just like every other political party, they have to EARN THEM.

It's people like YOU who won't "own" the fact that there are consequences to cutting the political pie into too many small pieces.  If you want a good read on it I suggest you find a copy of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, as he gives a great thesis on what happens when idealism trumps political reality and slices the pie thinly.

Why on EARTH should I vote for someone who promises to do everything I'm antithetically-opposed to, if a tiny bit slower than the OTHER half of the Modern American Political Machine does?  Screw them.  If they want my vote, and the vote of people like me, like other Paul supporters, like Perot's supporters - they can either adopt the more-important of the positions we want, or they can freaking well do WITHOUT our votes.

I reiterate - the Republicans need to OWN their failure to defeat Clinton - because THEY FAILED to earn the votes of enough people.  THEY failed. It's nobody's fault but theirs.

So, again, you want the perfect at the exclusion of the possible, which will result in the terrible......

Haven't been paying attention, I see.  No surprise, I suppose...

Obviously I am not going to make any headway here though .....

If you expect my willing support for statist bastards to continue running our nation into the ground?  Yeah, you're pretty much doomed to disappointment there.

so,   have fun at the election booth.

Fun?  No, probably not.  But I'll go, and vote for the candidate I believe would be best for the country.  And I'll sleep just fine as a result of sticking to principle.

"Caesar si vivevet ad remun da resis."

Nope.  I might be dead, but my corpse, even if chained to an oar, is not me.  And the other possibility is that I would *NOT* be chained to an oar.  Thanks for wishing slavery on me, though!  That might be the most honest you've been with me in the last couple of days!

You ARE aware that, with this modern Internet thing, even those of us who don't read or write Latin can easily find out what it means?

Libertarianism would probably gain a bigger foothold if it would give up on drug legalization.  Many people don't like the drug war and want a change, but that doesn't mean they're lusting for drug legalization.  It turns off a LOT of people who might otherwise be more willing to come aboard.

Cause God forbid we permit other people to do things we don't personally approve of, EVEN IF they harm no one else as a result! 

As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition."     
Find a way to do it without losing the base.   
The ball's in your court, not mine.....

You and yours are the ones who want *OUR* votes. That makes it *YOUR SIDE'S* job to build the coalition.  And you're doing a spectacularly bad job so far, as usual for the (R)'s.

[red headed stranger]

I'm curious which group is bigger the Libertarian leaners or the Christian right?

That is a good question.  I would suspect that the Christian Right is larger, but there is certainly overlap.  That overlap is where you build coalitions.  They don't have to be completely mutually exclusive.  

As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition."    
Find a way to do it without losing the base.    

The libertarians hold many views that, not too long ago, were mainstream Republican values.  So far, the non-Paul candidates are not offering a smaller federal gpvernment, they are only offering us a huge federal government growing at a slightly smaller rate than Obama's.  It would be nice if these candidates actually promise to freeze the growth of the federal budget or even actually *GASP* reduce spending.

Less military spending in places like Germany, Korea, and Japan is, overall a pretty popular idea. Yeah, it is a small part of the budget compared to entitlements, but that doesn't mean it can't be addressed.  

As for the war on (some) drugs, a promise to actually keep the DEA away from medical marijuana would be a good step in the right direction for a lot of libertarians. Opposing a huge federal police force/bureaucracy bullying states is supposed to a conservative idea.  
 
If your definition of the base cannot embrace even these simple, conservative ideas, then they are the inflexible ones that are letting "perfect get in the way of good enough."  

The ball's in your court, not mine.....

So, I suggest that the Rupublicans might want to adopt some libertarian ideas in planks of their platform, and you say:

You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.

Good job on working for "party unity."  You don't get a coalition together by just saying "do it our way or GTFO."