"They hate us 'cause we're free"

[furface]

LOL, does anybody really believe that anymore? I didn't watch the debate last night, but I hear RP challenged this idea. I thought that idea was put to rest along with things like "separate but equal," "divine right of monarchs," and "Dred Scott is MY PROPERTY!"

Sorry to to say this guys, but about 30% of all Americans will believe anything you tell them as long as it makes America look wonderful and the rest of the world look bad. Unfortunately for RP, that 30% of America is about 60% of the Republican party. It's gonna be an uphill battle.

 

[jimvkruse]

Hopefully Paul can get the 30% of the GOP that's antiwar and the other idiots can divide up the other 70% enough so that Paul pulls the upset. How horrible would it be though if Paul won the GOP nomination and then lost in the general election to Hillary. I can see it now. The way people are nowadays, they don't want freedom and the ability to solve their own problems, they want the government to bribe them for their vote with ridiculous programs that never work, and they want the gov't to treat them like children.

 

[Gee]

LOL, does anybody really believe that anymore?

I don't personally know anyone who believes it, or ever believed it, but the media seems to think its a popular opinion.

Does anyone know of a single person who believes our freedoms were the major cause of the 9/11 attacks?

 

[MsDoodahs]

I personally know three.

 

[cujothekitten]

It's such a small minority that thinks that.

 

[furface]

My impression is that it's not a small minority that thinks it. Even if it is a small minority, it's people that are kind of at the heart of the Republican party.

For instance my mother-in-law was staying at my house the last couple of days. She had a flier from her local Republican Party. It was full of patriotic American stuff, basically "my country right or wrong." I talked to her about the issue, and she categorically rejects the idea that terrorism against America has anything to do with American policies.

Another example is the head of my local Republican Party sends out an email blog every week that is full of stuff like how "liberal traitors have surrendered to the enemy"

This is the heart of the Republican Party. I think it's up to people like you and me to become activists and change that. It could mean motivating more reasonable Republican voters. It could mean recruiting other people to become Republicans. It could mean lots of things.

 

[NMCB3]

I have personally never met anyone who believes that, but there must be quite a few around judging from the debate rhetoric.

 

[Melchior]

I don't personally know anyone who believes it, or ever believed it, but the media seems to think its a popular opinion.

Does anyone know of a single person who believes our freedoms were the major cause of the 9/11 attacks?

My uncle, all the neocon pundits, and lots of left-liberals who use it as a strawman.

Sometimes the opposition makes things up or perpetuates concepts that their opponents "supposedly" believe or say.

I don't doubt it's a Republican invention though.

 

[Melchior]

I think the whole win vs lose/surrender rhetoric is bullshit.

The Iraq war isn't really a war anymore, Saddam is dead, the party is overthrown and the new government has already been installed by the U.S. The U.S. controls the region. At this point what constitutes as "surrender?"

 

[Horace]

How horrible would it be though if Paul won the GOP nomination and then lost in the general election to Hillary.

I believe that if any libertarian-leaning candidate were to win the GOP nomination, he or she would win the general in a walk. The GOP would have some incentive to support their nominee, obviously -- not only just to get the "R" in power, but pragmatically speaking, if an insurgency campaign ever won the nomination, the only way they would have won it would be to make a boatload of promises to the special interests. Unromantic, but true.

At the same time, a centrist libertarian would win back the '94 moderates who care about the deficit and want to limit entitlements. A GOP libertarian is thus a winner (and would have the double effect of redeeming the GOP and turning it back into a fiscally conservative party that respected property rights and personal privacy).

Dem libertarians, OTOH, are in an impossible position. They have to fight all the Grievance Groups within their own party just to get nominated, and then they have to fight being demonized as anti-troops, anti-Christian, pro-drugs, blah blah blah by whatever ham-fisted brownshirt the right would put up in the general. A Rovian would have a field day running against a libertarian -- just whip up all the emotional charges and play the militarist fear card.