Question: What are these "roots" of the GOP to which everyone wants to return?

[cajuncocoa]

I've heard Ron Paul say this, and I've seen it repeated here as the basis for wanting to stay within the GOP ranks...to "return the Republican Party to its founding principles."

Which founding principles are we speaking of? Serious question.

Abraham Lincoln? Judge Napolitano (a man I greatly admire) has few good words for our 16th President. If you're unfamiliar with the reasons, do a Google search and, if you think he's wrong, tell me why.

How about Teddy Roosevelt, the father of Progressivism? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows exactly how Progressivism can grow the government...are these the principles to which we want to return?

Barry Goldwater? Ronald Reagan? I admire them both...but Goldwater lost in a landslide, and Reagan didn't walk the talk in the 8 years he was POTUS. Reagan made a Republican out of me, but his choice of a VP caused me to leave by 1988. I liked what Reagan had to say about small government, but he didn't deliver. Great principles, but if you never had them, you can't really "return". Even before the end of Reagan's second term, the neocons were ready to swoop in.

So what are these "founding principles" I keep hearing about? I'm serious...please enlighten me.

 

[sailingaway]

We cherry pick, but the general direction was Goldwater, even if he was more a thought leader than the winning presidential candidate. There was an entire group supporting his thoughts as part of the accepted ordinary GOP body. I honestly don't know of anyone better than Ron Paul, though.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Those of Sen. Robert Taft. He was known as "Mr. Republican" for helping to rebuild the GOP after the Great Depression and the subsequence of political dominance by democrats. He was a fierce opponent of the New Deal and against Eisenhower's expansive foreign policy leading into the cold war.

 

[TheGrinch]

The GOP may have never been really true to the ideals it professes (really both parties have been big government for quite some time), so maybe a better way to look at it is maybe not to use the word "return", but rather to follow the ideals that the party professes, which as we all know mostly relates to the idea of limited government.

So maybe there is an element of rhetoric to "returning" to something we probably haven't truly had since the Revolutionary war, but nonetheless, it's too bring the partyy back closer to the fiscal "conservatism" it claims to profess.

 

[sailingaway]

The GOP may have never been really true to the ideals it professes (really both parties have been big government for quite some time), so maybe a better way to look at it is maybe not to use the word "return", but rather to follow the ideals that the party professes, which as we all know mostly relates to the idea of limited government.

So maybe there is an element of rhetoric to "returning" to something we probably haven't truly had since the Revolutionary war, but nonetheless, it's too bring the partyy back closer to the fiscal "conservatism" it claims to profess.

Yeah, 'walk the talk' might be more accurate....

 

[cajuncocoa]

The GOP may have never been really true to the ideals it professes (really both parties have been big government for quite some time), so maybe a better way to look at it is maybe not to use the word "return", but rather to follow the ideals that the party professes, which as we all know mostly relates to the idea of limited government.

So maybe there is an element of rhetoric to "returning" to something we probably haven't truly had since the Revolutionary war, but nonetheless, it's too bring the party back closer to the fiscal "conservatism" it claims to profess.

This answer seems like a good one...the main problem I see is that the majority of elected officials and voters in the GOP don't want to go where we want to lead them. They don't seem to understand that you can't have fiscal conservatism while simultaneously starting multiple wars all over the planet. Being against these wars is seen as being against "national security."

If we want to win elections, that's a problem, because those voters are going to go somewhere else if we "take over"/represent the GOP.


After all, if they wanted us, Ron Paul would BE the nominee right now.

 

[tfurrh]

Plato.....j/k.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

If we want to win elections, that's a problem, because those voters are going to go somewhere else if we "take over"/represent the GOP.


After all, if they wanted us, Ron Paul would BE the nominee right now.

As loyalists of Ron Paul, we've been castigated for 5 years in the MSM and by the radio mafia to be "fill in the blank" in the minds of the average GOP voter. Going forward, we're just constitutional conservatives which is what right wing talk hosts typically portray themselves as. This new brand is what Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann/Cain/Tea Party supporters want to be a part of. We have the ideology on our side and it's our grassroots that will be the persuasion arm that will convert conservatives to use the Constitution as their guide, especially as both party establishments continue to disregard it. The media can only separate traditional conservatives from constitutional (re: libertarian) ones by invoking the RP name as they've tarnished it ad nauseum.

 

[Carlybee]

Regardless of it's roots, the modern day GOP couldn't be any further from limited government. I understand why Ron Paul wanted to stay in the GOP and try to change it "back". He has many years invested in Congress. And I do believe there have been some shifts thanks to him, but probably due more to his "building coalitions" than to the neocons actually believing in anything he supports. The GOP of today says one thing and does another. They want to limit government in the social welfare area but increase it in defense spending. In some areas they actually even end up supporting traditional progressive positions...such as the flip flopping on immigration. (Marco Rubio was set to introduce a similar amnesty bill before Obama beat him to the draw last week.)

The aim may be true, but the neocons are going to continue to lie, cheat and steal any semblance of liberty from any liberty gains. I will wait and see what happens at the convention but given that Rand has already caved in on some things and even Amash on his Israel vote....all I can say is we shall see. Hopefully the liberty candidates won't just get assimilated into the Borg.

I've been to neocon and tea party forums and heard how they badmouth RP people. They don't get it and they never will.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I've been to neocon and tea party forums and heard how they badmouth RP people. They don't get it and they never will.

Unless someone has an idea that will make Hannity and Beck magically "like" us, they never will.

What's more likely is that some of us will think we can win them over by endorsing their candidates (ahem, Rand?)

 

[tfurrh]

I've been to neocon and tea party forums and heard how they badmouth RP people. They don't get it and they never will.

Us Paulites need our own Ichthys.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I think everyone should know more about Goldwater. Here is a playlist documentary on YouTube. It's titled "Mr.Conservative".

Part 1...

Part 2...

Part 3...

Part 4...

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Unless someone has an idea that will make Hannity and Beck magically "like" us, they never will.

What's more likely is that some of us will think we can win them over by endorsing their candidates (ahem, Rand?)

Han and Beck magically liked Rand before he endorsed R-money. If he trashed R-money instead of endorsing, all of his pragmatism in the pursuit of pushing principle would be lost since the radio mafia would cast him into the "Ron Paul" bin, not saying he can't hold Mitt's feat to the fire in subsequent times. Like it or not, achieving success in politics requires one to walk a tightrope or beat around the bush sometimes to keep the media on its heels, especially coming from a liberty perspective. Ron built the movement and inevitably it has to be pushed forward by someone(s). All of his proteges, including Rand, are the ones to continue to be the national mouthpiece going forward. And it's up to the roots to support the efforts from the shadows. Meaning, posture the party into a more constitutional revering mindset so it's ready for when our guys are about to run it.

 

[Carlybee]

Liberty is not acquiescing to the status quo. We don't have the years it will take to "take over". How much of the message gets diluted in those years? Y'all can do as you like. I'm not negotiating with terrorists.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Liberty is not acquiescing to the status quo. We don't have the years it will take to "take over". How much of the message gets diluted in those years? Y'all can do as you like. I'm not negotiating with terrorists.

It's more like we're taming the sq in our direction. Inevitably there'll be a crash of some sort, we just need to be the ones controlling the reigns now and on the flip side.

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's more like we're taming the sq in our direction. Inevitably there'll be a crash of some sort, we just need to be the ones controlling the reigns now and on the flip side.

Do you really believe this?? Seriously?? Where is the evidence?

Why did our delegates have to sneak into GOP conventions undercover? When they were "exposed" why were there broken bones and lockouts? If we were making strides we could just go right in, out in the open, and we would be welcomed by more of them than not.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Do you really believe this?? Seriously?? Where is the evidence?

Why did our delegates have to sneak into GOP conventions undercover? When they were "exposed" why were there broken bones and lockouts? If we were making strides we could just go right in, out in the open, and we would be welcomed by more of them than not.

Poor choice of words on my part. I guess I meant taming in that in states where we have some level of party ownership, the sq has been neutralized to some extent, LA being sort of an outlier. Agreed that in other areas they aren't giving up without a scuffle but we just have to keep out-numbering them. In the process, keep winning over the hearts and minds of true conservatives that just need better guidance than what they are receiving in their 'trusted' media outlets. As our folks continue achieving leadership status, the present insiders will fade away (either through attrition or lack of enthusiasm) or become irrelevant.

 

[cajuncocoa]

OK, let me throw this out to all of the pro-GOP RP supporters: do you know what the current DNC and RNC have that 3rd parties do not?

Corporate donors.

LARGE corporate donors.

That's the main reason (as far as I can see) that it's hard for a 3rd party to gain traction in today's political climate.

These LARGE corporate donors don't just throw money at these candidates. They expect something in return.

Are we going to continue to play ball with these corporations? Or are we going to stand on the principles of liberty when it comes to government contracts, free markets, etc?

If we stand on principle, how fast do you think that money dries up for the new Liberty GOP? How fast do you think we are relegated (once again) to third party status?

That corporate money is going to go to those who will continue to do the bidding of Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. Wherever the current crop of crony corporatist establishment current-GOP types go, that's where that money will go.

Are there really only a handful of people here who see this?

 

[romancito]

... we're just constitutional conservatives which is what right wing talk hosts typically portray themselves as. This new brand is what Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann/Cain/Tea Party supporters want to be a part of. We have the ideology on our side and it's our grassroots that will be the persuasion arm that will convert conservatives to use the Constitution as their guide, ....

The problem with Dr. Paul's return to the Constitution is that he will need to define in better terms what he means by that. Because of what the Supreme Court is doing these days to the Constitution. They are not calling anything unconstitutional anymore. They just turn down laws on minuscule technicalities and confusing everybody in such a way as to prompt legislators to make even more draconian and repressive laws. Nothing really is unconstitutional anymore, only that you cannot do 1/100th. of whatever a law can accomplish.

In today's surveillance age of drones and communications interceptions and check-ups of all your four pockets there is no return to a mythical Republican roots or mythical Constitution.

What we need is a Ron Paul Party with clear guidelines for the dismantling of the Administrative branch of the Federal Government in exchange for a robust growth of the Judicial branch of the government. And that's the way I see it.

 

[Carlybee]

OK, let me throw this out to all of the pro-GOP RP supporters: do you know what the current DNC and RNC have that 3rd parties do not?

Corporate donors.

LARGE corporate donors.

That's the main reason (as far as I can see) that it's hard for a 3rd party to gain traction in today's political climate.

These LARGE corporate donors don't just throw money at these candidates. They expect something in return.

Are we going to continue to play ball with these corporations? Or are we going to stand on the principles of liberty when it comes to government contracts, free markets, etc?

If we stand on principle, how fast do you think that money dries up for the new Liberty GOP? How fast do you think we are relegated (once again) to third party status?

That corporate money is going to go to those who will continue to do the bidding of Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. Wherever the current crop of crony corporatist establishment current-GOP types go, that's where that money will go.

Are there really only a handful of people here who see this?

I owe you a +rep