Washington Times: 'Rand's camp ignoring Ron's supporters'

Badger Paul said:
If David Brat could take down Eric Cantor, why was McConnell so invulnerable?
Click to expand...

Brat ran a near-perfect campaign, but that wasn't enough to beat Cantor. Cantor also had to run a poor campaign for a Brat win. If Cantor had merely phoned it in, he would have won. Instead, Cantor seemed to go out of his way to treat his own supporters poorly. As much as I'd like to believe the Brat win was a statement about smaller government (and that my fellow Virginians are coming around), I have to acknowledge that part of that election was "throw the bum out" and "anyone but Cantor" from more moderate Republicans.
 
LibertyEagle said:
NOTE: "(nationalism, war, more war! bomb brown people!)". Yeah, you're a lefty, alright. lol. No, conservatives don't use terms like the NAP, Anti-war (as it makes them think of lefty flower people who have been useful idiots of the environmental movement, disarmament, etc.), and chickenshits who wouldn't defend their country even if we were attacked.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the rest of the drivel....I realize conservatives don't use terms like NAP, but that doesn't make me a lefty (lolololololol) It makes me a libertarian. You would think that after 8+ years on this site you'd know the difference by now, or maybe you enjoy driving away potential Rand supporters (while making sure we don't drive away any Trump supporters, for some strange reason.)
 
cajuncocoa said:
Ignoring the rest of the drivel....I realize conservatives don't use terms like NAP, but that doesn't make me a lefty (lolololololol) It makes me a libertarian. You would think that after 8+ years on this site you'd know the difference by now, or maybe you enjoy driving away potential Rand supporters (while making sure we don't drive away any Trump supporters, for some strange reason.)
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Liberty Eagle more ideologically speaking, but I'm also at a loss for how coddling Trump supporters who continually spam these forums is somehow constructive.
 
hells_unicorn said:
I tend to agree with Liberty Eagle more ideologically speaking, but I'm also at a loss for how coddling Trump supporters who continually spam these forums is somehow constructive.
Click to expand...
I recognize that the reason you agree with her on the ideological antiwar/NAP issue is because you are also a paleocon. It's difficult for many people to see that there are more than Left/Right, Blue/Red, Dem/GOP to the political spectrum. Believe me, true "Lefties" would not tolerate me based on my economic views alone.
 
cajuncocoa said:
Know why? You keep saying Ron is a conservative, and I know he's used that label himself. But Ron is more of a libertarian, whether he chose to use the label or not. It's why more libertarians gravitated toward him and walked away from Rand. It's why Ron ran under the Libertarian Party banner for POTUS in 1988. The evidence is there, even if you try to turn a blind eye to it. Ron made a valiant effort of trying to bring libertarianism to the GOP, but he wasn't talking the GOP's language (nationalism, war, more war! bomb brown people!) Rand skirted around talking their language and mostly lost the libertarians in his father's base without having impressed the Sean Hannity audience more than Ted Cruz did. I'm still here supporting Rand (to your discomfort, thanks to some other people who did a better job at convincing me than your nastiness did) but other libertarians didn't even stick around to voice their opposition like I did. Those libertarians walked away, but they weren't replaced by the conservatives that Rand hoped to gain.
Click to expand...

Rand still has the conservatives who supported Ron; plus some. It's the libertarians who ran off and you even admitted it. ;)

If you weren't so blind, you would know that true conservatism shares some libertarian principles. Which is why Reagan referred to conservatives as libertarian-conservatives. There is an interview with Reagan covered in Reason, if you want to look it up.

NOTE: By the way, history shows that it has traditionally been Republicans who ended wars; it was Democrats who started them. But, anymore, there's not really much of anything besides rhetoric that distinguishes the 2 major parties from each other.

You may also want to learn the difference between neocons and conservatives. Because they are polar opposites.
 
Last edited:
LibertyEagle said:
Rand still has the conservatives who supported Ron; plus some. It's the libertarians who ran off. ;)

If you weren't so blind, you would know that true conservatism shares some libertarian principles. Which is why Reagan referred to conservatives as libertarian-conservatives. There is an interview with Reagan covered in Reason, if you want to look it up.

NOTE: By the way, history shows that it has traditionally been Republicans who ended wars; it was Democrats who started them.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of all of that, and I have no dispute with it. However, none of it addressed anything I said in my post to you, specifically the part that said there are more than two ideologies than Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative (the comment about Dems starting wars -- except for George W. Bush of course -- doesn't serve any purpose if I'm not a Dem/Lefty)

I also acknowledge that libertarians ran off....and a lot of the reason for that is because we were told we weren't needed/wanted. Look it up. AF will vouch for this if you bring him in here.

addressing your edit: I know the difference between conservatives and neocons. I said nothing about that. Those who ARE neocons have been calling themselves "conservatives" for a long time; they identify as conservatives and that's why I used the term...if I was a traditional conservative, that would trouble me.
 
Last edited:
cajuncocoa said:
I'm aware of all of that, and I have no dispute with it. However, none of it addressed anything I said in my post to you, specifically the part that said there are more than two ideologies than Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative (the comment about Dems starting wars -- except for George W. Bush of course -- doesn't serve any purpose if I'm not a Dem/Lefty)

I also acknowledge that libertarians ran off....and a lot of the reason for that is because we were told we weren't needed/wanted. Look it up. AF will vouch for this if you bring him in here.
Click to expand...
Your vote was needed. Your help to phone bank was needed. Your help to canvass was needed. And Rand never said differently.

addressing your edit: I know the difference between conservatives and neocons. I said nothing about that. Those who ARE neocons have been calling themselves "conservatives" for a long time; they identify as conservatives and that's why I used the term...if I was a traditional conservative, that would trouble me.
Click to expand...
It did and does, but it's done. Probably have to come up with a new classification. The same was done to the original liberals; classical liberalism is nothing what liberalism is today.
 
hells_unicorn said:
I tend to agree with Liberty Eagle more ideologically speaking, but I'm also at a loss for how coddling Trump supporters who continually spam these forums is somehow constructive.
Click to expand...

I don't support that. But, it's been quite awhile since I have seen someone spamming Trump on here. They have been banned some time ago.
 
The Unz.com article mentioned above was interesting. We find out that despite Virginia being unwinnable for the Paul campaign in 2012 didn't stop Collins's favorite political guru Rothfield from charging the campaign over a million dollars for his services, money definitely not spent on trying to win there. We also find out the CFL deliberately downedplayed Paul's foreign policy views, probably to curry favor with with the party establishment and what they thought were conservative views on the subject despite the fact such view are the reason for the existence of organizations like the CFL with the money raised from people who supported said views.

Why does Ron Paul attract so many grifters as the author Phillip Garaldi asked? Because grifters hang around people who can make them money. Thus people like Rothfield or Jesse Benton, those who were toiling away in the backwaters of Conservative INC., saw in the Paul movement a truly spontaneous grassroots grouping they could take advantage of. The movement had lists of supporters they could sell or fundraise off of and get a cut of the sale or proceeds. It had candidates who they could charge to run campaigns. It was a nice racket for them.

Had Kent Snyder lived I don't believe the movement at the top would have fallen into the hands of the political class. Snyder certainly didn't run the campaign to make any money given in debt he was for his medical treatments. Whether Ron Paul was into winning or not, there's no question there was not a strategic plan to win the nomination (certainly not in 2008) but I'm sure Ron felt that if he gave his message and people like it and voted for it and he won because of it, well then bully! But he wasn't going to do much beyond that. Had the campaign, going all the way back to 2008, simply taken the money it got through its fundraising, designate official campaign already in operation around the country as "official" groups and budgeted them some money, the grassroots would be in a much strong positions than they are now. Instead, they tried to build a whole campaign infrastructure from the ground up, complete with offices with phones that didn't work and campaign managers who went to different states and simply got into divisive fights with already existing leadership. The efforts of the CFL and subsequent campaigns thereafter 2008, show that for all their belief in de-centralization and small government, the campaigns themselves were an example of the exact opposite. Maybe this was done to try and weed out all the "bad people, fringe types" Benton and I'm sure others complained about but as it turned out it was guys at the top who did the most damage of all with either their crooked methods, downplaying foreign policy or just being jerks to dedicated supporters.

Why did the campaign cozy up to Romney in 2012, especially after Iowa? Probably because they thought could get something from it in a brokered convention or even with a proper endorsement (and jobs for claque if nothing else with the party apparatus). Since neither took place, the whole thing backfired and what we have now is the result of it.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Your vote was needed. Your help to phone bank was needed. Your help to canvass was needed. And Rand never said differently.


It did and does, but it's done. Probably have to come up with a new classification. The same was done to the original liberals; classical liberalism is nothing what liberalism is today.
Click to expand...
Even you've said that you would prefer to have me far away from his campaign. But I didn't listen (as if I would), and I have done some phone banking. Will continue to do so as well. It's one of the things I enjoy doing for a campaign.

FYI, you know he has my vote. Who else would? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
cajuncocoa said:
That never described me. I'm pretty much a dead-on center libertarian, and while I'd like a LOT less government intervention, I'm not a full-blown anarchist.
Click to expand...

Likewise, and notice how we're both still supporting Rand.

...while so many of the lefties and anarchists ran away.

The lefties don't like Rand's (modest) social conservatism.

The anarchists are just hopeless idealists, not cut out for politics.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Rand still has the conservatives who supported Ron; plus some. It's the libertarians who ran off and you even admitted it. ;)

If you weren't so blind, you would know that true conservatism shares some libertarian principles. Which is why Reagan referred to conservatives as libertarian-conservatives. There is an interview with Reagan covered in Reason, if you want to look it up.

NOTE: By the way, history shows that it has traditionally been Republicans who ended wars; it was Democrats who started them. But, anymore, there's not really much of anything besides rhetoric that distinguishes the 2 major parties from each other.

You may also want to learn the difference between neocons and conservatives. Because they are polar opposites.
Click to expand...

Here's a recent episode of the The Tom Woods Show that is relevant to some of these matters. I learned some interesting things I hadn't known before - such as that the presidency of Bush the First led to Kirk's belated realization of the the amount of power and influence the neocons had gained "under the radar" (so to speak) during the Reagan administration. I knew that Kirk despised Bush (Kirk having famously declared at one point that Bush should be strung up on the White House lawn as a war criminal) - but I had just assumed Kirk had always regarded Bush et al. with a gimlet eye. I didn't know that Kirk didn't become fully aware of the neocons' infiltrations until they were fait accompli (as manifested in the first "Gulf War," for example). Apparently, Kirk was so alarmed by these developments that he was even reconciled to and "buried the hatchet" with Murray Rothbard (with whom Kirk had previously been at daggers drawn). Together, Kirk and Rothbard began working on developing a joint libertarian-and-conservative alliance against the neocons. Sadly, neither lived to see this through (Kirk died in 1994 and Rothbard the year after) and nothing came of it ...

Ep. 534 Would Conservatism's Founder Recognize Conservatism Today? The Life and Thought of Russell Kirk
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-534-...m-today-the-life-and-thought-of-russell-kirk/
The Tom Woods Show (16 November 2015)

Brad Birzer has written an outstanding biography of one of the most important figures in the history of American conservatism. We discuss Kirk’s sometimes rocky relationship with libertarianism, and his even rockier relationship with neoconservatism. Plus, key ideas, colorful personalities, and more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxR1Q63esBs
 
Last edited:
r3volution 3.0 said:
Likewise, and notice how we're both still supporting Rand.

...while so many of the lefties and anarchists ran away.

The lefties don't like Rand's (modest) social conservatism.

The anarchists are just hopeless idealists, not cut out for politics.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of us were expecting Ron on the front lines, expectations were not meant. I don't blame him either, the dude has sacrificed enough of his time that he has left on this rock. It doesn't help that the headlines always report that Ron doesn't support Rand either. That's why there is always a spill of support when Ron jumps in, I dunno the guy just makes me want to donate money I don't even have because I know what he has gone through to fight for my freedoms I enjoy sometimes being the sole no vote on the worst legislation in my lifetime.
 
nikcers said:
I think a lot of us were expecting Ron on the front lines, expectations were not meant. I don't blame him either, the dude has sacrificed enough of his time that he has left on this rock. It doesn't help that the headlines always report that Ron doesn't support Rand either. That's why there is always a spill of support when Ron jumps in, I dunno the guy just makes me want to donate money I don't even have because I know what he has gone through to fight for my freedoms I enjoy sometimes being the sole no vote on the worst legislation in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

That would please me as well.

...but it would displease most GOPers.

...and what would please me most is actually winning the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top