PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on the fall of the GOP



Gat0r
11-24-2008, 09:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.

In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.

Most Republicans endorsed this view in order to achieve victories at the polls. Limiting government power and size with less spending and a balanced budget as the goal used to be a "traditional" Republican value. This is what Goldwater and Reagan talked about. That is what the Contract with America stood for.

The opportunity finally came in 2000 to do something about the cancerous growth of government. This clear message led to the Republican success at the polls.

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

But what the Republican leadership didn't realize was that ALL spending is a tax on middle-class Americans through price inflation and that eventually the inevitable consequence is paying for the extravagance with a financial crisis.

Party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected. The only solution for this is for Republicans to once again reassess their core beliefs and show how the country (not the party) can be put back on the right track. The problem, though, is regaining credibility.

After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that's what must be done.

Otherwise, Republicans can only mimic Democrats and hope for an isolated victory here and there. And that's just more of the same that brought on the disintegration of the party.

Since the new alignment of political power offers no real change, we will remain on the same track without even a pretense of slowing the growth of government. With the new administration we can expect things to go from bad to worse.

Opportunity abounds for anyone who can present the case for common sense in fiscal affairs, for protection of civil liberties here at home, and avoiding the senseless foreign entanglements which have bogged us down for decades and contributed so significantly to our fiscal and budgetary crisis.

During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.

But it might just take a new crop of leaders to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. It certainly won't be done overnight. It took a long time to come out of the wilderness after 40 years of Democratic rule for the Republican Party to take charge. Today though, time moves more quickly. Opportunities will arise. The one thing for certain is that in the next four years we will not see the Republic restored. Instead the need for it will be greater than ever.

The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power's sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.

In the past two years, I found that when the young people heard the message of liberty, they overwhelmingly responded favorably, fully realizing the failure of the status quo and the need to once again endorse a system of self reliance, personal responsibility, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy while rejecting the cradle-to-grave nanny state all based on the rule of law and the Constitution.

To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care -- and especially those who understand the stakes involved -- have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.

Hellfish
11-24-2008, 10:24 PM
As always, an excellent article from him.

ren0312
11-24-2008, 10:49 PM
As always, an excellent article from him.

If you really want to follow the spirit of the constitution in its original, late 18th century form, then that means that the federal government had no power to abolish slavery in the Southern States, stop them from seceding, or force integration onto the South in the 1960's, because those acts will violate state's rights, since the Founding Fathers intended the federal government to have very limited powers in internal state affairs.

Hellfish
11-24-2008, 10:49 PM
I didn't vote to give up slavery.

2Sheds_Jackson
11-24-2008, 10:52 PM
Hasn't Paul been reading all the articles in the media? The way for the Republicans to get back in power is to be even more like Democrats. Insisting on restraint and self-sufficiency is just mean and is a political dead-end. People demand more government, more control, more spending/bailouts/handouts.

Gat0r
11-25-2008, 12:06 AM
Unfortunatly 2sheds that has been the case for so long, we're taught in school that FDR and the New Deal got us out of the depression, which is totally absurd. Now we are heading down that path on a larger scale. It seems as though most Americans are getting tired of the bailouts but our opinion doesnt matter to the creeps in D.C. they'll get it one way or another. I think there is still a chance for society to lean back towards the ideas Dr. Paul has suggested once the situation here deteriorates, and it will with the path thats being taken. It will be long road to convince people of big goverments lying deceitful nature because there has been such a reliance on the federal goverment sugar daddy.

iLikeFlickerstick
11-25-2008, 01:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9d008PaW-E

Umbro2914
11-25-2008, 04:54 PM
Hasn't Paul been reading all the articles in the media? The way for the Republicans to get back in power is to be even more like Democrats. Insisting on restraint and self-sufficiency is just mean and is a political dead-end. People demand more government, more control, more spending/bailouts/handouts.

Thats because the media tells the people that the gov need to bail everything out... if the people were clearly presented Paul's viewpoint, It is my belief that many more would become supporters of him.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 05:16 PM
Thats because the media tells the people that the gov need to bail everything out... if the people were clearly presented Paul's viewpoint, It is my belief that many more would become supporters of him.
Not a Chance in hell would I be a Paul supporter, Cant stand Aimee Allen screechings, or the moonbats he attracts. But hey he's got the right to run.

Will938
11-25-2008, 05:36 PM
Not a Chance in hell would I be a Paul supporter, Cant stand Aimee Allen screechings, or the moonbats he attracts. But hey he's got the right to run.

You don't support him because you hate some of his other supporters?

Wat.

JKD
11-25-2008, 05:37 PM
During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world


Good read. His bullet points here sort of remind me of the sorts of things Bush campaigned on in 2000...too bad he went the exact opposite way once elected.

The treatment Paul received during the campaign really underscored how far the GOP has drifted from what it once, and in many cases still pretends to, stand for. He was the candidate most in favor of fiscal responsibility, limited government, humble foreign policy, and all the other things he mentions and the reaction from most Republicans was flat out venomous. The man just doesn't fit in with this 21st century borrow-and-spend, big government, War Inc. GOP.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 05:51 PM
You don't support him because you hate some of his other supporters?

Wat.Think what you want, I cant stand Paul, I cant stand His Moonbat Supporters (that doesnt mean all his supporters before you start that tangent either) I have that right, if I so Choose, dont I? :roll:

nagant_m44
11-25-2008, 05:52 PM
Think what you want, I cant stand Paul, I cant stand His Moonbat Supporters (that doesnt mean all his supporters before you start that tangent either) I have that right, if I so Choose, dont I? :roll:


^^^who cares.

put on more candidates like McCain and Palin, see how many elections you win.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 05:54 PM
^^^who cares.

put on more candidates like McCain and Palin, see how many elections you win.
Dont be all Butthurt because I dont adore Paul, This isnt Soviet Russia, I can like who I please for Political Office

nagant_m44
11-25-2008, 06:00 PM
Dont be all Butthurt because I dont adore Paul, This isnt Soviet Russia, I can like who I please for Political Office

as i said, who cares.

Will938
11-25-2008, 06:20 PM
Think what you want, I cant stand Paul, I cant stand His Moonbat Supporters (that doesnt mean all his supporters before you start that tangent either) I have that right, if I so Choose, dont I? :roll:

You said you couldn't support Paul, then said you can't stand screechings/moonbats that support him. It just looked like you disliked him because of his supporters, which everyone can agree is a pretty ridiculous position and worthy of being poked fun at. If you wanted to clarify and explain in a logical manner why you dislike him you have the right to do that. If you wish not to do that, and instead talk about rights/freedom/rolling eyes/cheeseburgers then you can do that too.

RECON DOC
11-25-2008, 06:25 PM
If you really want to follow the spirit of the constitution in its original, late 18th century form, then that means that the federal government had no power to abolish slavery in the Southern States, stop them from seceding, or force integration onto the South in the 1960's, because those acts will violate state's rights, since the Founding Fathers intended the federal government to have very limited powers in internal state affairs.

The Federal government has not only a right to do those, but an obligation to. It's in the Constitution,
The Forefathers knew from the beginning that it would have to end. They were dealing with Human beings that deserved the same rights and oportunities as every other American. It was uncomfortably ignored because of the fact that slavery was already heavily intrenched in the colonies and a lot of the boys making up the rules were slave owners. Many of them knew It could not last.

Thomas Jefferson: "But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale and self preservation is in the other."

They were afraid because they knew what they were doing was criminal and that it had to come to an end.

The 14th amendment settled it after the Civil War.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

iLikeFlickerstick
11-25-2008, 06:48 PM
Well for me, the bottom line is this.

Ron Paul is by far one of the most educated Congressmen when it comes to the monetary system, financial institutions, and U.S. economic history. This is why people from all sides shut up and listen when he talks about it. In fact, I've noticed that his political enemies, like big bankers and other movers and shakers give him a lot more respect than he gets from mediocre politicians and showboat pundits. And this is because they understand that Ron Paul knows the issue perhaps more than they do.

Everything else he stands for follows the constitution strictly. And I think that is where people begin to shy away from him, because it is clear that America is experiencing a national security crisis, and people are naturally striving for better security. Which is incompatible with a traditional view of the constitution.

Gat0r
11-26-2008, 01:10 AM
Dont be all Butthurt because I dont adore Paul, This isnt Soviet Russia, I can like who I please for Political Office

I'm an avid Paul supporter but dont have a problem with people disagreeing with him, so what, not everybody has the same beliefs, but every group is liable to have a few "moonbats" your candidate is no different in that regard. You showed such a knee-jerk distaste for him in your posts, it would be interesting to hear why, rather than short uninformative remarks.