Andrew Malcolm was displaying some wishful thinking on his blog, or perhaps channeling his inner Paulnut, when he wrote this piece which implies that Paul’s cult of Communist/Libertarian/Pacifist/Minute Men would be embarrassing anyone but themselves at the R.N.C. convention with an attempt to hijack the G.O.P. and turn it into a less coherent version of the Libertarian Party:
But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people the forces of Rep. Ron Paul and his libertarian-minded GOP backers are collecting delegates at the local level and planning a revolt against Sen. John McCain at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September
Paul’s presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.
But what’s been largely overlooked is Paul’s candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party’s most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today’s expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.
Nevermind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face….
…potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.
Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who’ve each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.
On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.
Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP’s presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).
Paul did reasonably well in one state where if it was two person race he still would have been trounced, in other primaries his best showing is to average 7% (including Libertarians and “independents” who registered to vote for him) and he and his cult are going to embarrass the G.O.P. establishment?
It’s they who should be embarrassed, not given more credit than they deserve. Alan Keyes has run a much more successful campaign to challenge Republicans to examine their values and he did it without getting the morons from Digg to donate all their money to him. What Ron Paul has done is cobbled together a coalition of fringe groups from all parts of the political spectrum, including neo-Nazis and Anarchists, and milked those suckers for all they’re worth.
Malcolm goes on to lay out the movie villain-like aspirations Paul has for his army of pot-smoking web nerds:
They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who’s running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.
Who wouldn’t want a party controlled by rape loving racists, sex tourists, gangs of stalkers, Communists pretending to be Libertarians, Islamists pretending to be Libertarians and of course Andrew Sullivan.
At Hot Air Allahpundit puts the Ron Paul “revolution” in focus for those duped by the small but vocal Paulites:
One look at the delegate count should make the scope of the nascent revolution clear. Paul has won all of 26 delegates. Even if he wangled a few dozen more through manipulations in caucus states like Nevada, at best he’ll come up with 100 delegates in a 2,200-delegate convention. That’s not a revolution, it’s a lunatic fringe.
Hey, if you’re a Libertarian that’s fine. Vote Libertarian. But Ron Paul has hooked you marks into helping him with his doomed plan to seize control of the G.O.P. and become the Conservative version of Lyndon Larouche.
Paul will never convince Republicans that Isolationism and rolling back the military will make us safe. Isolationism didn’t keep us safe from a militarized Japan in WW II and it won’t keep us safe from Militarized communist and Islamist regimes who are even now dreaming of rolling their tanks into Times Square. And thankfully the “revolution” will never convince Republicans or the rest of America that our best defense is to rely on fighting spirit of effeminate, immature drug abusers, sorry I meant Libertarians, to turn back the tide of an invading army.
7% of people on the right (and it this case that number includes people so far left they just seem to be on the right) agree with Paul’s fevered fantasy of a new revolution. I think I speak for the other 93% when I say count us out.
I think you’ll see a growing movement in Libertarianism in the coming years – Especially if McCain wins the presidency. Paul never had a chance, and was shunned by the MSM and party loyalists (much like yourself). However, his supporters, as crazy as you think they are, made him relevant.
I thought the article by Andrew Malcolm was pretty good. It shows what Paul supporters are trying to achieve at the republican convention – Influence. If Paul could get a speaking spot, his message might not resonate then and there, but it sure would sound good after the economy goes to hell, socialism spreads and endless fear is pimped even more. Libertarian-leaning candidates will see a growing support base, and a growing coalition in congress.
The hope is Paul is a catalyst, to show people that there’s a different direction than government socialism. You can deride his supporters as a lunatic fringe, but that’s how all movements start.
Maybe this is just a pipe dream, and people will be happy to continue giving up their freedoms and income to an insatiable government for the devil’s trade of security against scary terrorists. The hope is people will remember Paul’s words during this campaign, experience what massive government does to a country, and votes with these things in mind.
But many of his supporters ARE socialists. Don’t you get that? Communitarian White supremacists, Islamists, conspiracy theorists most believe in some sort of Marxist economic theory at the minimum.
If Paul wanted to run as a Libertarian he should run as a Libertarian. But he won’t because he knows many of his supporters are not Libertarians. Isolationism is being promoted by Socialists. “Cutting government spending” i.e. more Clinton like neutering of our military is a Socialist ideal. And most importantly splitting the G.O.P. and allowing Obama to become president with a leftist House and Senate is what the Socialists in this country want.
When the Dems take it all stock the supreme court with Judges who will help overturn the 2nd Amendment, when they raise taxes on the “rich” which will include people making as low as $50,000 a year and they turn the A.T.F. loose on the nation 90s style what’s Paul and his merry band of followers going to do? When Islamberg’s Muslim army pours out of their compound and tries to pull a Hezbollah are you going to trust your fellow Digg protesters to turn them back? When Chavez supported troops arrive to annex Aztlan with the Brown Berets will you still be claiming leaving the world alone will make us safer?
Really. I want to know, what’s your plan in ’09? Do you really think a Democrat run America will be freer than now?
I can agree that Paul has some socialist supporters who have locked onto his Libertarian message for the sole reason that they would be left alone to practice what they want. If they want to support him, that’s their prerogative, but it’s not what he stands for.
I think a point you must concede to me is that Paul is not changing his positions based on his supporters. He has always been extremely consistent in his voting record, and working the guilt by association angle based on certain support groups doesn’t add up. His positions represent Republican ideals, which lean Libertarian in theory. While he might not follow the paramount Republican value of the day – party loyalty – he has a home in the GOP, and a good amount of supporters who consistently re-elect him.
Paul’s support from Libertarian-leaning Republicans (me included), stems from an inability to distinguish between the two main parties. They believe they’ve been betrayed by the GOP, and thus credibility has been lost. Adrift in cynicism, Paul did attract people with a message that made sense – one that addressed the causes of our problems and not the symptoms. I learned a lot from Paul during the campaign, and I’m guessing so did the guerrilla delegates at the GOP national convention. They want to help expose the whole of the GOP and the nation to that message. I wholeheartedly support them in the effort.
I also don’t understand how you can say cutting the size and scope of government is a socialist policy. Doing so would cut military spending yes, especially if we drastically reduced our world military presence, but is that socialism? Not if you look at socialist countries of the past or present. The Soviets worked tirelessly expanding their military might through arms and empire building. North Korea has a standing military of 1 million, and nuclear weapons. Chavez is buying massive amounts of military technology from around the world, and threatening neighbors with invasion. The fact is that military might is a main tenant of repressive regimes (socialists), it is used to ‘influence’ the world, but more importantly their own citizens. Maintaining and accumulating power is the paramount goal of a tyrant, and the instrument of doing so is an oppressive military. If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.
After writing that last paragraph, it occurred to me that there might be disconnect when it comes to defining socialism. I can understand how you believe that socialism’s ideals are those of a non-violent utopia of shared labor and reward. I would agree with you on this, however, from a realistic standpoint, socialism has only ever progressed to the stage of, as Marx called it, ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hilter, etc. have all occupied this role and have been corrupted by the power they wield. Therefore, socialism, communism, fascism, etc, are in the end, the same thing: totalitarianism. Government making the choices for the individual under threat of violence.
Socialism is simply the vehicle in which totalitarianism is foisted on us, so it becomes the enemy of all freedom-loving people. Trotsky believed that capitalist societies would be brought to socialism through the ‘Permanent Revolution’. Paul supporters see that happening – individuals giving up their rights everyday to the specter of terrorism, global warming, economic collapse, and so forth.
You may call Paul-supporters paranoid, but this is what they are seeing happen in this country, and it is by far the number one issue they are voting on. Paul acknowledges this, and lays out solutions, the other candidates acknowledge the symptoms of this, and their solutions boils down to: more government.
The power elite don’t care about conservative/libertarian principles – they care about power. What Bush/Clinton/Bush have done is consolidate power to the government is massive and wide-spread – do you honestly think McCain will be any different than Clinton/Obama when it comes to the ‘Permanent Revolution’. You use the ATF as an example of Clinton’s socialist policies – under Bush, the ATF has tripled in size. Every peice of constitution-shredding legislation put forth by Clinton has been built upon by Bush. Do you know how hard it is for me to buy a gun? Even harder to get a concealed carry permit. Do you honestly think McCain cares about this?
Lastly, I would trust Paul supporters implicitly if there was a homeland invasion or a martial law crackdown by an over-zealous government. These people understand why we have the 2nd-amendment, and have not been made absolutely dependent on a nanny-state government full of talking-heads and party loyalists. The people who would fight back against an oppressor, foreign or domestic, are the exact type of people who support Ron Paul.
Sorry about the wall o’ text.
Sorry, I quit reading after the title. How can I take you serious when you refer to people as belonging to a cult simply because they share the same beliefs?
Well Ian cutting government isn’t bad but cutting our military is a Socialist goal. Look, Marxism is dedicated to destroying the “empire” and in this country many “anti-war” and “progressive” groups have ties to violent groups who are actively seeking to overthrow the government. Code Pink sent $600,000 to Iraqi insurgents and Cindy Sheehan stole money from the Crawford Peace house which has never been found, but it disappeared just before she went on her trip to Cuba.
The goal of many people who want to dismantle our military is to weaken us and prepare for action here. There’s a new Soviet Bloc forming right on our southern border, there’s a Jihadist push to form a caliphate by the end of this century and Russia is preparing to invade former soviet republics and form reform the USSR. The fantasy of America being defended by pot smoking tax protesters in “V” masks is just that, a fantasy.
If America proves itself weak in the next few years, we will be invaded. We’re already fighting a losing battle in our border towns against the Sineola Cartel who are basically toppling the Mexican government right now. Iranian advisors and Russian arms dealers are already gearing up Venezuela, Bolivia and El Salvador for a World War and if you think we can avoid it by following non-interventionist strategies then you’ve not read the history of World War II.
You talk about the revolution Trotsky envisioned; well it’s not going to be lead by Bush/McCain and the Patriot act. It’ll be the R.C.P, World Worker’s Party and the host of violent communist groups whose front groups endorse Paul’s policies because a smaller military and police force will mean these thousands strong groups can achieve the violent revolution they want.
If we cut our military, all those socialist countries will be willing to send their troops here and link up with some of your “V” masked compatriots to destroy our way of life. It is naivety to think that radical Libertarianism can keep a world full of those bent on conquest at bay.
And being half Black, as soon as you guys didn’t disown the neo-Nazis supporting you it told me that I wouldn’t be safe in the fantasy world you envision, but that’s a different issue.
Badmedia: If you quit reading after the title, why post a comment at all?
The cult is a reference to Larouche’s followers, who would wonder around bothering people who they thought bad mouthed their dear leader even if they didn’t know exactly what the person actually said.
Sound familiar?