Classic Liberal Blog

It matters not whether you believe a guy like Ron Paul is "presidential." What matters is that his principles and philosophy are based firmly in the roots of conservatism, and in the heritage of our great nation.

Unfortunately, it takes TWO elements to win an election for the conservative movement, or as I prefer to call it, the cause of Constitutional liberty.

1. Ability to articulate the timeless principles
2. A marketable personality who comes across well on TV.

Conservatives all quote Reagan, and he deserves to be quoted. But were it not for his skills as a speaker and TV personality, honed and refined over some 35 years as an actor, TV host and corporate spokesman for General Electric, he would not have been elected Governor of California, and would not have become a contender for President, and nobody would be quoting him today.

I used to think personality didn't matter, but I've come to believe it does. In Obama's case, personality and TV skills was the whole package. He certainly would not have been elected if all the voters knew what his agenda was.

Ron Paul gets sympathetic treatment from lefties like the interviewer in that video because the left sees him as
1. Not quite sane
2. A disruptive influence in the GOP and thus helpful to the Democrats
3. Too far out of "the mainstream" to ever be a serious contender for President, or even for Senator from Texas, and therefore no threat to the liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I agree with these perceptions, I'm saying these are the perceptions of the lefties and they act on those perceptions. So, a lefty can conduct friendly, non-hostile interview like the one in the video with plenty of smiling and laughing, because the lefty sees no possible harm to the leftist agenda. And, there's the possibility of making mischief within the GOP as a bonus.

In the interview Paul uses some of the same deceptive techniques as the left. For example, thousands of construction contracts have been issued in Iraq. Inevetibly, some of them will go sour, especially in a war zone. Sometimes corruption is to blame, but often there are other reasons that don't lead to the conclusion that someone deliberately squandered taxpayer funds or committed fraud. But Paul speaks of contracts for "rebuilding bridges that don't rebuild the bridges" as if that were typical, that all contracts went sour and all contractors were corrupt. This is a leftist technique. smear everyone involved with the sins of a few.

It is not an illegitimate use of American troops and treasure to liberate a nation like Iraq, and then help it re-boot as a functional democracy. The Japan example should be all we need to understand the enormous benefits to America in improved national security and decreased military threat from abroad.

Maybe Iraq was the wrong place for this strategy, maybe not. History will tell. But the strategy itself is Constitutional and proved effective, and preferable to fighting off attacks on the homeland, which would be the long term result from disengaging from the world and refusing to fight "foreign wars."

A deliberate US strategy of engaging enemies abroad was first articulated in the 1890s and has served us well ever since. As awful as foreign wars are, they certainly not worse than fighting invaders on the beaches of Santa Monica, or terrorists in setting bombs in football stadiums and shopping malls and churches.

I don't get too caught up in the Right-Left paradigm. I believe there's only forward to liberty and prosperity, or backward to socialism and government intervention.

Americans are not very "conservative". It's why government always seems to grow under any and every administration that's ever existed. Ronald Reagan certainly didn't downsize the Federal Government, and George W. Bush, as you pointed out, did his fair share of damage. The People tend to follow whatever gets them the most "stuff", and government recognizes this fact. It's why the Federal Budget is chuck full of over 9,000 earmarks. My complaint isn't necessarily with the spending as those earmarks account for only 1% of the total federal budget, but rather it's about principle. Those 9,000 earmarks represent the fact that our Congressmen and women use their position to buy off constituents or campaign contributors. How can a system really last if that's how it's supposed to operate? Why even tolerate a system as such in the first place, let alone continue it?

A perfect example of why Americans are not "conservative" is with the bailouts. I'm rather astonished at how Americans are finally standing up and speaking out, but unfortunately it's for the wrong reasons and wrong motivation. Americans aren't upset at the fact that we're bailing out companies--they're more upset that they themselves aren't getting a bailout. Essentially, many people are just jealous and selfish that they aren't getting their "fair share". You can see people holding up signs or wearing t-shirts at these protests saying, "Where's my bailout?" Why do we need to bail anyone out, let alone everyone?

I also don't quite understand American logic. The backlash against the first TARP money--$350 billion of the $700 billion that was appropriate--was immense. More than 9 out of 10 Americans opposed it vehemently. Who votes for it? Barack Obama. What's Barack Obama's approval rating? Currently around 70%. So 90% of Americans were not just upset about this legislation, but furious by actually crashing Congressional office servers with emails and tying up phone lines with feedback, yet 70% of the country supports Barack Obama even though he voted for it.

What's more? In the 2008 election cycle, Congress had an 8% approval rating--eight percent. Single digit support, the lowest in American history. What happens? We re-elected 89% of Congress. 92% of Americans did not support Congress, yet 9 out of 10 Congressmen were re-elected. We have bigger problems in this country than we think, and most of it is with the people.

I apologize for double posting, but I found this comical.

http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5790067135/m/95810811/r/61810771#61810771

Query: John, the Recovering Republican, do you ever post anything different? Lol.

I suspect that if you distilled the disillusionment of most conservatives - or even moderates - with the Republican Party wrt economic matters it would be twofold: 1) their drift to a corporatist orientation. Big business vs small business, 2) failing to fight to the last drop of blood on taxes.