If Rand Paul is now a "neocon", so is Pat Buchanan

[heavenlyboy34]

Make what I am saying to be silly and roll your eyes all you want but you will see... The neocons were born out of the far-far left and this is how they took control of the republican party.

Beware, not only are the socialists coming, they have married into the family.

Iran sanctions for a liberty candidate!

LOL

Neocons are Trotskyites, not far-leftists.(RP would tell you this himself if you asked him) The classical left is where the philosophy of liberty sprang from. Unfortunate that the great tradition of liberalism has been terminally tarnished by associating liberalism with a variety of "left" statism.

 

[anaconda]

Buchanan is anti-establishment.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Neocons are Trotskyites, not far-leftists.(RP would tell you this himself if you asked him) The classical left is where the philosophy of liberty sprang from. Unfortunate that the great tradition of liberalism has been terminally tarnished by associating liberalism with a variety of "left" statism.

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

...from RP's Neoconned speech on the house floor:

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

I am sorry, I do not mean to be negative but this shit quickly comes full circle. We are watching it happen. Before you know it everyone is arguing about what the message is or what the message means or how do we spread the message most effectively. Look how quickly it has happened, first we advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy, then all of a sudden we are excusing one of our own for a vote in favor of sanctions, and now an out right endorsement of a candidate who isn't in anyone's wild imagination even a conservative. Then the revelation that the foremost neocon strategist is good friends with Rand Paul since his campaign and is part of the RP campaign? All this and the convention hasn't even happened yet.

I feel like I am on another planet...

The message is freedom and liberty, it is really straightforward, and that can only have one definition. IMHO

 

[Karsten]

Hell, even Rothbard supported Buchanan and Bush against Clinton. Was Rothbard a neocon??

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush

LOL check this out: "Last but certainly not least: The President is about to reconcile with Pat Buchanan. At last, Bush has shown some smarts, and perhaps even a spark of a sense of justice. After a vicious and despicable smear campaign by Rich Bond, William Bennett, Dan Quayle et al., the Bush people--while of course not apologizing--are at least implicitly repudiating their own smears by rolling out the welcome mat for Buchanan."

I'm surprised to hear Rothbard endorsed Bush of all people at one time. Then again, prior to the Ron Paul campaign in '07 I had never heard of Rothbard. None of my Libertarian (Party) friends ever mentioned him.

 

[ProIndividual]

Buchanan is anti-establishment.

Except on social issues, and border issues, and protectionism issues (trade).

He's a paleoconservative, therefore halfway establishment.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not really sure what good an endorsement in this situation does; it's like endorsing the last candidate standing. Seemed wholly unnecessary and detrimental to Rand's credibility.

He could have just kept his mouth shut and I'm sure no one would have cared, especially if Romney loses. Do you think people still run around angry at politicians who might not have endorsed McCain in 2008? McCain was a failure. Romney will be a failure, w/ or w/o Rand's endorsement.

So, again, I don't really see what was to be gained by this endorsement.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not really sure what good an endorsement in this situation does; it's like endorsing the last candidate standing. Seemed wholly unnecessary and detrimental to Rand's credibility.

He could have just kept his mouth shut and I'm sure no one would have cared, especially if Romney loses. Do you think people still run around angry at politicians who might not have endorsed McCain in 2008? McCain was a failure. Romney will be a failure, w/ or w/o Rand's endorsement.

So, again, I don't really see what was to be gained by this endorsement.

Mainly, I think it was so that our movement would not be blamed for Romney losing to Obama. Because just like we are looking for someone to hang because Ron Paul is likely not going to win, so will the Republican faithful when their candidate doesn't win.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Neocons are Trotskyites, not far-leftists.(RP would tell you this himself if you asked him) The classical left is where the philosophy of liberty sprang from. Unfortunate that the great tradition of liberalism has been terminally tarnished by associating liberalism with a variety of "left" statism.

You are really twisting terms here, hb. If far left is total government control and far right is anarchy, then yes, Trotskyites are far left and classical liberalism is to the right of center. The Founders, that we most like in this movement, were classical liberals and they most certainly were not for big government.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Except on social issues, and border issues, and protectionism issues (trade).

He's a paleoconservative, therefore halfway establishment.

Only in the eyes of an anarchist.

I don't agree with Buchanan on everything; nor do I Ron Paul. Buchanan is pretty damned good and if he has sold out, he sure has done a piss poor job of it.

 

[Cowlesy]

Pat has always been a neocon turncoat! LOL

Oh man, I love those old Buchanan barn-burner speeches.

"Poll-tested mush!!!!"

 

[Cardinal Red]

Pat Buchanan always endorsed the GOP nominee. He never sold out.

Rand Paul endorsed the nominee. He hasn't sold out.

Some of you need to learn to think.

If you are going to be apart of a party, you cannot completely disregard their nominees IF you want to be successful with in the parties. I want to be successful.

Any claims of this "sellout" nonsense is complete BS sensationalism, the type of rabid self cannibalism that makes everybody think Ron Paul and his supporters are nuts.

+1000

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hell, even Rothbard supported Buchanan and Bush against Clinton. Was Rothbard a neocon??

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush

Wow.....I certainly didn't remember that....

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Lol... maybe because he went 3rd party? You know... where all the people who never make any damn difference go.

Yup, we've seen how that movie ends how many times now?

 

[Brett85]

Hell, even Rothbard supported Buchanan and Bush against Clinton. Was Rothbard a neocon??

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush

Lol. Even Rothbard was far more pragmatic than most Ron Paul supporters today. Rothbard's endorsement of Bush would earn him the label of "turncoat" and "sellout" by the hardcore people in the liberty movement today.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Mainly, I think it was so that our movement would not be blamed for Romney losing to Obama. Because just like we are looking for someone to hang because Ron Paul is likely not going to win, so will the Republican faithful when their candidate doesn't win.

I'm not so sure. I can't recall them blaming us for McCain's loss in 08, but, even if they did, our movement grew during the last 4 years, so, again, I'm not sure what is to be gained by supporting the nominee when we could probably gain just as much by standing alone on principle.

But, this is why i stopped caring what the GOP thinks of us:

If something bad happens, we will be blamed.

If something good happens, we will get no credit.

If nothing happens, we will be forgotten.

I'm pretty sure the old guard is going to keep viewing us as that nutty relative who people speak to at family gatherings just to be polite, regardless of what we do or say. Therefore, I say it's best to just keep doing our own thing and not really care what the increasingly-irrelevant and self-discrediting people think of us.

 

[Brett85]

Except on social issues, and border issues, and protectionism issues (trade).

He's a paleoconservative, therefore halfway establishment.

Many of us here are paleo-conservatives, and support Ron Paul because we reject today's neo-conservatives in the GOP. Not all of Ron's supporters are hardcore libertarians.

 

[matt0611]

Pat Buchanan always endorsed the GOP nominee. He never sold out.

Rand Paul endorsed the nominee. He hasn't sold out.

Some of you need to learn to think.

If you are going to be apart of a party, you cannot completely disregard their nominees IF you want to be successful with in the parties. I want to be successful.

Any claims of this "sellout" nonsense is complete BS sensationalism, the type of rabid self cannibalism that makes everybody think Ron Paul and his supporters are nuts.

I agree. I'm getting really sick of all the weak-minded short-sighted people around here screaming "sell-out" and all of this nonsense. You people disgust me.

 

[Origanalist]

Can't we all just get along............?

 

[Origanalist]

Many of us here are paleo-conservatives, and support Ron Paul because we reject today's neo-conservatives in the GOP. Not all of Ron's supporters are hardcore libertarians.

This movement for smaller government includes a lot of people who identify themselves in different terms but all want smaller government. If we can't manage to quit eating our own, we lose, they win.

 

[Spoa]

I want to associate myself with the original post and praise all others who have supported the OP. If our liberty movement is to survive, we must stop eating with our own. I have been disgusted by a bunch of purists and perfectionists whose philosophy is Ron Paul, themselves, or nobody.

I also loved the fact that has not been disputed by the purists: Rothbard, a leading Libertarian economist, endorsed George H.W. Bush for president. So I suppose Rothbard is a neo-con also by the purists standards.

Ron Paul endorsed SOPA Author Lamar Smith...I suppose Ron Paul is a neo-con also by the purists standards.

The truth is, endorsements are political games that when all is said and done...don't really matter.

Endorsements are nothing more than activities that result in nice press releases. Look at the person's record...that's what really matters. I stand with Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and anybody who agrees with me at least 80% of the time.