Without a doubt Rep. Paul’s has the most loyal and enthusiastic following of any of the candidates.  As of now, he can draw a crowd like none of the others can.. It will be interesting to see how much the loyalty of his following will translate into a boost in his percentage of the vote over and above what the mainline polls predict. He is a champion of the internet as well as the constitution, but do too many voters still take their cue from the media and political establishment? He inspires a devotion and reverence in people that could start a steamroll. If the public could listen to Ron Paul unfiltered, he would stand as good a chance as any Republican of winning the presidency.  However, if he does start to get a substantial percentage in the primaries, the bought media will then unload on him with both barrels. Up to now, good liberals that they are, they have been satisfied with mostly ignoring him because they like the spectacle of Dr. Paul contradicting the other Republicans in debates.  I doubt if Ron Paul or any on his staff would take much solace in Hillary beating Giuliani. Rupert Murdoch is befriending Hillary and no doubt the neocons hope that Hillary will prove her mettle as the first female president by bombarding Iran.

I have never written in a candidate before.  I plan to do so in the upcoming election this November.  Ron Paul has said many times that he is not going to run as a third party candidate.  One thing I know for sure is that his supporters will not vote for anyone else.  If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination he will draw so much support in the election that the Republicans will realize that they gave the presidency to Hillary.  They will blame Ron Paul and his supporters but they only have themselves to blame for blindly following the neo-cons.

If Ron doesn’t win in 2008 I will immediately start working on his 2012 campaign.

Mr. Gottfried holds that only “true believers” think Dr. Paul can get the
Republican nomination. He believes that the neo-cons have the nomination sewn up.

That means he has given into despair, and has given up the fight to smash the neo-cons in the primaries. Such despair is poison and must be crushed and broken.

And to his statement that “many of Paul’s followers would accept as the lesser of two evils” a Hillary Clinton White House? Those “many” are not as many as he believes.

God forgive you of such despair, sir.

To my mind, the depth and strength of dissatisfaction with the status quo neocons on the left and the right is woefully underestimated and largely split (and evidenced) between and by the rise of the Obama and Ron Paul camps. None of the currently anointed front runners in either party can sustain their positions over the long haul as long these two men are in the race.

Tiny factual quibble, Mr. Gottfried: Paul is Baptist.

Other than that, loved the article.

Re:  “The older members of this group have fought and lost wars against the neocons that were professionally costly; what they now want more than anything else is...revenge.”

Professor Gottfried, with all due respect to you - and my respect for your scholarship and evidently honourable character is considerable - I’m not entirely at ease with the proposition of using the political process of a liberal democracy as a means of achieving personal revenge for personal losses or personal offenses.

I don’t think that’s QUITE what you intended to mean, but please be aware that from employing the rhetoric of “revenge” in the context of the political process of the state, it’s just another short step to employing the powers of the state for purposes of personal vendettas, as happened during the French Revolution.
And we should never cease to remind ourselves, and others, that (as Sir Kenneth Clark said) the worst mistake of the French revolutionaries was to believe that they were “virtuous.”

Just a reminder - and we can never remind ourselves of this too much - that the condition of Original Sin means there is a slippery slope from justifiable grievances, to justifiable condemnations of people (like the neocons) who abuse political power, then to less justifiable
use of the rhetoric of political “virtue”, then to the deadly dangerous rhetoric of political revenge, and then to political terror.

On that note, Mr Moore’s comment included the rhetoric of “smash” and “poison” and “must be crushed” - which might be fair (but not wise) rhetoric to use in response to the neocons, but such rhetorical employment of the language of violence was, after all, the seed of the political terror of revolutionary France and Russia, and Mao’s Red Guards.

If one believes in Original Sin, then one ought to avoid employing the rhetoric of political revenge and violence, even in metaphorical ways, because the nature of Man is to rationalise escalations from rhetoric into flesh and blood action.  A great mind can find ways to rationalise and justify all kinds of atrocities, and you, Professor Gottfried, as a wise and incomparably learned critic of the superstition of “progress” and “revolution”, you of all people understand that historical condition of Man, better than most of us.

Mr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he has no interest in running a third party campaign.  Just yesterday he rebuffed the Libertarian Party in its attempt to get him to run as a libertarian if he does not win the Republican nomination.
Mr. Paul is running for his congressional seat simultaneously with his presidential run. 
There are many days yet until the conventions and things can change; but given his record, I accept him at his word that he has no intent and no interest in mounting a third party campaign for the Presidency.
So it is in the best interests of all who would see the neo-cons relegated to the dustbin of history to get behind Mr Paul in his campaign for the Republican nomination and further to elect him President of the USA.  Otherwise you will have a continuation of the neo-con kill and spend country for the foreseeable future.

Pat Robertson lost any credibility he might have had by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure some of Robertson’s ‘flock’ must be wondering, “What..?”

So, Rudy has the nomination wrapped up, does he? Do they plan to steal the primary elections by hacking the new electronic voting machines?

I am an avid Ron Paul supporter, he has been my Congressional hero since I found out about him in 1984. I used to contribute to the Republican Party, but got fed up with all their candidates turning RINO once elected to office.

I do not consider Hillary to be the lesser of two evils, frankly I don’t see much difference between her and Rudy.

“To my mind, the depth and strength of dissatisfaction with the status quo neocons on the left and the right is woefully underestimated and largely split” - LibertysLegacy nailed it. Many, many Americans are fed up with all the dishonesty and downright treason perpetrated by our elected officials. Ron Paul inspires people because he has a solid record of integrity and doing the right thing. We need many, many more like him.

PS, just a marginal note to Professor Gottfried, about a pattern I’ve observed in his posts here, and again I say this with deferential humility and considerable respect for Professor Gottfried, acknowledging that he is a more accomplished scholar (and probably more of a real Gentleman) than I will ever be.  But…

...well, Professor Gottfried, when you say (as you did in your most recent blog-post here) that your career was “wrecked” by the neocons, well I just wonder, aren’t you being a BIT ungenerous to your colleagues at Elizabethtown College?

I mean, yes I’ve noticed that you often express great respect for Elizabethtown College.  But then in the next breath you say your career was “wrecked” - and then I think, “by what?  By losing the (very dubious) “prestige” of being a Professor at a major DC university, and then going instead to Elizabethtown College, in one of the most beautiful areas in all America?  (Remember, I’m a Pennsylvanian, from the old countryside of Montgomery County, very close to and similar to where John Lukacs lives - and remember, he, one of the greatest historians of our age, spent
the main and best part of his career at a small liberal arts college, Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia - and that was a place where he was (probably) MORE able to maintain his professional independence and integrity, than if he had gotten tenure at Harvard (GW Bush’s MBA alma mater), a place which does not deserve Lukacs!  OR YOU!

Professor Gottfried, I tend to think you actually got a PROMOTION when you moved to Elizabethtown College!  And isn’t the company there more agreeable, and more honest, than the company at Harvard or any DC Behemoth University?

Just a reminder, that when you write about your career being “wrecked”, well, maybe that’s not QUITE the best term for a guy to use, who is enjoying the peculiar, rare privilege of being a Professor at Elizabethtown College.

And then, there’s another simple truth to remember:  If someone loves Honour more than ephemeral prestige, the no one can ever “wreck” his career - because, isn’t a path of honour and integrity the only kind of career that matters in the long run?

Just reminding you of that, perhaps a BIT impertinently, but I hope you will welcome my thoughts, which I have proffered to you with great personal respect and considerable admiration.

‘Pat Robertson lost any credibility he might have had by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure some of Robertson’s ‘flock’ must be wondering, “What..?”’
Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I’ve always considered the followers of Pat Robertson to be idiots, and I suspect most (perhaps even all of them) of his supporters are the kind of morons that would whoop for Giuliani because ‘he’s tough on terrorism’.

“...on the Internet, a medium that the neocons and their talking partners do not effectively control.”

You may mean the ONLY medium that the neocons do not control.

Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell, and John Hagee have always been owned lock stock and barrel by the Israeli Lobby.It was brilliant of The Lobby to coopt this gang of demogogs and charletons.

I understand that Ron Paul drew loud boos from the Cuban-American dominated audience at the Univision debate when he proposed establishment of normal diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba and refused to join the other GOP candidates in denouncing Venezuela’s Chavez as a tyrant.  It’s a rare, almost extinct species of politician in a democracy who will tell voters what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear and not change his views to suit his audience.  By contrast, the Huckster, previously an advocate of restoring relations with Cuba, came out in favor of continuing the embargo.

A couple of days ago, I ran into a group of Ron Paul demonstrators in my town, the first partisans I’ve seen of any candidate.  Admittedly, I only live about 25 miles from the southern end of Dr. Paul’s congressional district.  These supporters directed me to the local Ron Paul meet-up website, so I will get to participate in the campaign beyond just sending money.  As a reactionary, I’ve always had a strong streak of “romance of the lost cause” in my make-up and this is the most romantic lost cause I’ve seen in decades.

just based on my own interpretation of polling being done by myself on behalf of the Ron Paul NH campaign, here’s what I see:

3:2:2:1
Paul:Romney:McCain:Guilianni

And, lol, I highly doubt Ron Paul supporters would ever see HRC as any kind of acceptable alternative.

Albert Einstein was a lowly patent clerk when he devised theories that some Nobel laureates rejected as late as the 1930s.  Paul Gottfried taught at Elizabethtown College, where he wrote books that some colleagues at top tier universities vehemently rejected.

I’m admiring of Ron Paul and his enthusiastic supporters. But I’m not so optimistic about Ron Paul’s campaign. While I’m a total independent, I can’t vote for Ron Paul anyway, because I’m a registered Democrat anyway as Maryland is a virtual one-party Democrat machine, and it’s more important to me to influence the direction of the Democrat Party here then vote for Ron Paul’s ill-fated campaign.

First of all, the rule of thumb for a third party candidate is (or ought to be) between 15 and 20% as a minimum in the polls. If you can’t get at least 15%, the whole effort has the effect of just marginalizing your politics. For further proof of this: see Ralph Nader 2000 and 2004.

Secondly, Ron Paul’s politics just might be marginal in fact, given the nonsense he spouts about economic issues…especially returning to the Gold Standard.  Hey---Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for his defense of the Fed and the monetary system. The gold standard is a non-issue even among the “free market” establishment.  Spouting all this “libertarian” nonsense about getting rid of Social Security or the Homeland Security Office just sound like ranting and raving of a madman to too many potential “conservative” voters.

Third, I can’t agree that Hillary as president would be the lesser of 2 evils necessarily. When given the choice between Guiliani, that might be true, but for my mind, Romney would be a whole lot better then Hillary. Gees, at least Romney has a track record for being an effective CEO, unlike the perpetual failure Bush2, whose entire business career was one string of failures after another. While Romney is mouthing the neo-con platitudes about foreign policy, but so far I note only “realists” in his foreign policy advisor list. Also, I do agree with Pat Buchanan that Romney’s recent statement on religion was an solid step in proving that he will be at least moderate on the social issues that conservatives believe in.

The best fallback position for Ron Paul’s supporters is a moderate at the top of the Republican ticket. And a start working for a divided government with opposite parties holding the White House and the Congress.  But this is dangerous talk that Hillary would be the “lesser of 2 evils”, especially if the Democrats continue to hold the Congress, which is very likely.

Something strange and wonderful is happening.  People don’t think Ron Paul has a shot, but his supporters are all active as individuals - they WILL go to the caucuses.

Yes they do show up for Ron Paul, but have you noticed they regularly show up and OUTNUMBER JulieAnnie supporters when he goes somewhere for his campaign?

The power of liberty and the free market and individual, entrepreneurial, creative solutions is underestimated.  While the supporters of the other candidates will be waiting for marching orders, the Paul supporters will have overrun their positions.

Watch Iowa.  Going out on a cold, dark (sunset is around 4:30pm), night to spend 3 hours listening to drivel instead of watching the Orange Bowl is going to require some passion.  Huckabee’s supporters might have some, but it is draining as his record (like restrictions on homeschooling) comes into the open.

Don’t be fooled into thinking some large number of Americans want Ron Paul as president.

They don’t.

They want communism and war, either Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani.

America is not a “noble country”, and Americans are not a “noble people”.

America is an extension of Cromwell’s England, and the people that populate this country have been Reconstructed into perfect citizen Roundheads.

Rudy, Huckabee, and Robertson greatly benefit from what historian Mark Noll calls the “scandal of the evangelical mind,” the failure of American evangelicals to contribute to (or even think about) the war of ideas in America within the last 40 years.  The anti-intellectualism of the waning Protestant majority has provided thoughtless support to a dubiously justified war.  I can only pray that my fellow Protestant, Dr. Paul, will tap into a so far hidden constituency of self-reflective Protestants who will reject the neocon factions in the GOP. Without a change of heart among American Protestants, I doubt that any real change can emerge in US politics.

I can’t see Paul running third-party if he can’t pick up the GOP nomination.  If he can’t defeat Rudy or Romney now - he wouldn’t have a chance if HRC/Obama has a real shot of taking out the GOP.

Besides, RP is still a Republican, and from his rhetoric he wants to save the GOP as a viable entity as well as the Constitution. 

At this point, RP is polling low - but its still early.  Once we hit January, then we will know where the candidates truly stand.

the question at the youtube debate regarding corn subsidies was a great example of the lameness of the front runners.  Who knows what the definition of conservatism is these days, but that was the definition of lame.  they and everyone else knew they were full of it.

Some of us sympathetic to Rep. Paul’s campaign would be aghast if he’d ram through the Gold Standard, and think it’s highly unlikely that Congress would go along with any such proposal.  What is likely, however, is that his talk of “sound money” would prompt the Fed to take its duty regulating derivatives much more seriously, a development that would have greatly benefited shareholders in Citigroup.

I concur, however, that Romney is the best of the mainstream candidates.

Say not the struggle nought availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not nor faileth,
And as things have been, things remain;
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers--
And, but for you, possess the field.

Thanks for the kind words for Paul! But I hope you will join us ‘true believers’ and actually try to help him gain the nomination, rather than merely indulge in premature schadenfreude at the neocon’s defeat.

The Paleoconservative movement is now dead. It probably died with Sam Francis.  Paleoconservatism was (lets use past tense) the victim of the old tactic “divide and conquer”.  Here are the fault lines that divide the now dead body of Paleoconservatism:

1. an odd grouping of Serbian Nationalists, Traditionalists Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and Dispensationalists, who, though they profess to hate each other, have coalesced with each other and have allied themselves de facto with their mutually proclaimed enemy, the Neocons, all over one issue: That the rollback, if not the destruction, of Islam is the supreme issue, overriding any other, if not excluding any other.  Two columnists on this website, allied with the Rockford Institute, might be the representatives of this view.

2. one writebacker, most likely using several names, a Racialist nationalist, for whom the supremacy of the “White” race is the overriding issue. He may be only an agent provocateur.

3. a few writebackers, Judeophobes and Antisemites, for whom the destruction of Jews is the overriding issue.  They may also be flying a false flag.  I pray Mr. Sarto deletes most of these writebackers’ remarks.

4. one writebacker, a British nationalist for whom the Anglican Establishment and the ties of the old British Empire are the overriding issues, or important issues.

5. one writebacker, a Puritan, for whom the discrediting of the Catholic Church is the overriding issue.  He represents the emerging movement of Neocalvinism

6. one writebacker, an Ultra of the Charles X stamp and a arch-traditionalist Catholic, for whom the destruction of Vatican II and the enthronement of the Carlist pretender are the overriding issues, or at least very important issues.

7.  several older columnists, veterans of the wars in the 80s and 90s, and a large number of Paleocons, for whom the destruction of the Neocons is the overriding issue, and support Ron Paul only to the extent that he is Anti-Neocon. The very word “Paleocon” suggest their antipathy. This group is so eager to raze the Neocon city that they would even support the Cultural Marxists and their candidate Nurse Ratched just to defeat the Neocons.

8. a number of Paleocons gladly in coalition with “The Old Right” of Bob Taft, with Paleolibertarians, Neolibertarians, Jeffersonians, and Neoconfederates – and thus eagerly support Ron Paul.  They see Neoconservatives as the immediate opponent, the Cultural Marxists as the ultimate opponent.  They have no nationalist tie to another country.  They are indifferent to Islam.  They equally loath Rudy and Nurse Ratched, and will never support either or wish for the success of either. The withdraw of this group has been going on slowly since the Paleolibs split from the John Randolph Clubs. 

Such a bunch—divided by competing sectarian, nationalist, and individual interestes—can hardly be call a unified movement anymore.  All the while, Real Conservatism – Burkean Conservatism, what one would have wished to be the foundation of Real Conservatism – is either misrepresented or is dismissed as a “liberal”. 

To the extent that the Ron Paul movement, a libertarian movement, killed off Paleoconservatism is worth discussing.  (Ron Paul himself is alien to ## 1-7 )

Readers should note that I am not faultfinding.  I am only stating what I perceive to be facts, facts which I believe warrant the claim of my first sentence.

Wow, John Ball managed to miss the spirit of the professor’s “revenge” against those by whom he has been “professionally waterboarded”, but he is right about Elizabethtown and it’s environs.  Maybe it’s the Amish influence…
And Roy Moore doesn’t understand Bushido.

Ditto, Paul, on the clouding over of neocon skies.  Their ship is sinking.  There are only 2 kinds of Republicans, now: neocons and paleocons.

“Paleoconservatism was (lets use past tense) the victim of the old tactic “divide and conquer”. 

A harsh judgement from a man with a sterling reputation as a bridge-builder such as you, Sid.  The sad fact is that you are correct.  Correct about Paleo-conservatism being dead that is and wrong to the point of blindness about most anything else. See ya around the “New Venusian Age” ,Chunky.

Mr Cundiff you wrote: “1. an odd grouping of Serbian Nationalists, Traditionalists Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and Dispensationalists, who, though they profess to hate each other, have coalesced with each other and have allied themselves de facto with their mutually proclaimed enemy, the Neocons, all over one issue: That the rollback, if not the destruction, of Islam is the supreme issue, overriding any other, if not excluding any other. Two columnists on this website, allied with the Rockford Institute, might be the representatives of this view.”

Actually a very dangerous group is Serbian Nationalists, they will cause more problems for the USA with their land grab of kosovo. These Serbian Nationalists are playing both sides of the fence the USA & the Russians. Either one of these powers who first supports the land garb of Kosovo the Serbian Nationalists will attach themselves to. I’m betting the Russian. Just yesterday “Russia to demand UN annul any Kosovo independence”: Interfax
Serbian Nationalists should be considered a security risk in this country.  Heads up on the UN vote on Kosovo independence to take place December 19th. Why devote Roman Catholic would every side with this bunch is beyond me.

<<Why devote Roman Catholic would every side with this bunch is beyond me.>>

Because we know authentic Tradition when we see it.

The Vatican and Moscow will continue to draw closer as Washington City and Revolution become more and more similar.

@Joe Pop

Good points, Popster.  Paul’s support of the gold standard is especially off the mark.  Our money should be backed by all goods and services, not by one commodity (or two) which will ultimately be monopolized by the same usurers who monopolize our money today.  The critical point is that our money should not be created out of debt as it is today under the usurious fractional-reserve banking system, but should be injected into circulation interest-free at its very inception, contingent on maintaining a stable price level.  The “Bankers” control power by buying and selling government debt (an IOU to ourselves, how absurd!) and thereby manipulating the money supply, interest rates, foreign exchange rates, the flow of capital, and the direction of trade – enabling them to siphon off wealth and manipulate power on a global scale.  They create our Money out of Debt – that’s their Idol, their source of power, the way they enslave us. The Economist/Financier (the modern day Pharisee) will fight to the death to save their parasitic system.  For without it, they revert to being the ugly midgets they really are.  As Christ said in his confrontation with the Bankers:  “Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.” …. “Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold.” “…for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Note:  The current fractional-reserve banking system grew out of the gold standard – i.e., the old goldsmiths lending money collateralized by a gold deposit (reserve), then lending against the same deposit over and over again, under the statistical assumption that not more than, say 10%, of the gold would be withdrawn at any one time.  The “goldsmiths” (Pharisees, Priesthood, Economist-Financier) have simply refined the system to make it easier to manipulate power on a massive scale.  Under their parasitic system, Money is a MEDIUM OF POWER, not merely a medium of exchange or store of value, as the High Priesthood of Economists would like us artless yokels to believe.

Top down change doesn’t work. We have people
making 30,000, 50,000 a year who don’t want
things to change and who don’t read ROCKWELL.
change must occur from the bottom up, and I
expect any change that does happen will only
happen in 20-50 years. The reaganites must
die before change. I hope the RP supporters
don’t accept high-paying jobs down the road
and forget the principles that they laid down
in 2007.

<<Our money should be backed by all goods and services>>

How do you store all goods and services in a vault?

THAT is the job of banks, to store stuff in vaults.

Gold is a commonly agreed upon representation of all goods and services that can be stored in a vault by a bank.

An ounce of gold represents some amount of goods and services, and a bank note represents an ounce of gold.

THAT is the gold standard, boiled down.  Currency is a natural product of civilization, and it is not to be manufactured out of thin air, something a gold standard prevents - mining gold is hard work.  It is quite possible that instead of gold, oil could be used, but it makes banking much more difficult, as barrels of oil are much more difficult to store in vaults than bars and coins of gold.  Besides, all those Arabs prefer gold over oil anyway, so what’s the point?

I predict as a 50+ year observer of politics that Ron Paul will come in second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire.Romney and the Huckster are killing each other and Dr.Paul will take the prize and from there the sky is the limit.He has the best message by far,the most money coming in, the greatest number of enthusiastic supporters in a very disheartened field and a great bunch of campaign adds that are just getting started in the early primary states. A Rudee nomination with Huckabee as V.P. nomination will guarentee the destruction of the Republican party.I also believe it will be Obama for the Democrats.

I disagree with Mr. Moore, above.

To anticipate a defeat of Ron Paul is not to indulge in despair. Despair is the loss of the theological virtue of hope—which cannot be sundered from faith (nor from charity).

“Put not your faith in Princes” is not a call to despair. Nor is the anticipation that a cad, a liar, a traitor, or an inveterate warmonger might win an election. There’s nothing there for God to forgive (except, oremus, fallacious powers of prediction).

Secular hope, Secular faith, secular charity are all heretical monstrosities. Our hope is in the Name of the Lord. All the rest shall pass away.

A scene from a small business center in rural but nonetheless generally Blue and formerly Taft Republican southern New England:

A 65 something woman at the Print desk wearing a Ron Paul Button

Me walking by her and remarking “Hey a Paul supporter” to which a middle aged man walking by remarks, “Nuthin wrong with that” .

To which the young 20ish woman working the desk says “Yea, he’s the only one telling the truth”
and I say “Back to Basics” and then, several other people in the place say “Thats Right”.

I do believe we could have had a spontaneous Ron Paul meeting right then and there. I have seen several Paul lawn signs and bumper stickers around here. His supporters support him and his stances, as opposed to holding one’s nose while supporting one’s candidate as an instrument of defiance against an opponent.

But, Mr. Gottfried is correct in doubting the ability of Paul to get elected in this media besotted country and after that, the ability of the industrial-suckled American to wean themselves from the Nanny State in order to function within the type of country Paul reminds us we once had. It is illuminating that this impromptu Paul Meet-up happened in a local self-service “Business Center”.

As to Mr. Friedman and his Nobel Prize, so what, Tulips were once currency in Amsterdam and it took a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread in late Weimar Germany. To say the Gold Standard is dead is a safe enough claim in this Land o Conventional Wisdom but to look at the Sub-Prime Mortgage debacle is to get a perfect illustration of why Mr. Friedman’s Nobel had a weak spot. The Fractional Reserve Banking of our Federal Reserve System may not invent these occasional Wall Street lapses into Bunko but it sure provides a great incubator for them. We must love the regular whipsawed beating we get

In the end, we will not need any “revenge” on these Neo-con reprobates because the special hell they are leading this former Republic into will punish them soon enough. Unfortunately, we’ll all suffer but perhaps a proper diversion will be hunting down these floor flushers who will attempt to escape to their villas in Provence at first sign of trouble.  We’ve become so inured to everyday ironies that we actually countenance the naming of crypto-Royalists as neo-conservatives. It is like calling Hannibal Lecter a Neo-Cannibal instead of simply a murderous sociopath. Not that I think all neo-cons are sociopaths, they’re simply murderous, some suggesting murder for the broader good and welfare.

The above repeatedly voiced opinion that “paleoconservatism” is dead, is way off the mark. Just look at the enthusiasm of the mainly young supporters of Ron Paul. It is a clear indication that the ideas have merit and a future. One may quibble if Ron Paul represents “true paleoconservatism”, but I certainly don’t see any active politician today closer to that term in its traditional sense.
However, as much as that term may be close to the heart of us older folks, it is certainly not appealing to young people; yet they still come, because the like the underlying philosophy. As my son told me, “Paleoconservatism” conveys the image of something dead, stuffy and out of a museum.
Maybe it is time to find a new label. One only has to look at the successful appropriation of the once honorable label of “liberal” by socialists, which they rode to respectability and electoral success before the average voter caught on, to see the importance of labels.
Let’s keep the ideas and give them a new name that appeals to the next generation.
Any suggestions?

I like Paul, I believe in many of the same political-
philosophical-economic tenets as he does, but I’m troubled
by his appearance at the latest Hispanic-pandering debate
hosted by a citizen of aforeign country. Check out
VDARE.COM and Alan Wall’s take on the whole nauseating
theater of the absurd candidates and weep.

I believe it was Herr Doktor Gottfried that invented the term “paleoconservative”, tounge in cheek at the time, I’m sure, as a counter to the coined term “neoconservative”.

As to Mr Cundiff’s remark that paleoconservatism died with Sam Francis, I must disagree - it is quite alive, as Herr Doktor Gottfried is still alive, and he is quite the living embodiment of “paleoconservatism”.  Now, is Herr Doktor Gottfried at all “viable” in America?  Of course not!  America is thoroughly liberal, with no hints of conservatism in it, and has been since [at least] 1865.

As I’ve mentioned before, there can not be a “conservative revolution”.  The “Ron Paul Revolution” is liberal, and if it were allowed to succeed in becoming a dominant force in American politics (which doesn’t necessarily mean Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination), it would be it’s most liberal components that would be accepted and promoted - anti-drug prohibition, free trade, etc.  That is, today’s standard of libertarianism.

I support Dr Paul’s candidacy, I just have no faith in the American public - America was born of liberalism, it was reborn of liberalism, and it is of liberalism today.  Conservatism has no place in American politics and political thought, it never has, and it never will have.  Conservatives are a defeated, marginalized bunch in America, and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than wait for America to crumble the same way it’s deformed twin, the USSR, crumbled.

VIVA LE REACTION!

@ Andrew Capp

It would be !Viva la reacción! or Vive la réaction!

Readers again are reminded that in my first writeback I am not passing evaluative judgement but rather attempting to survey a scene, to assert facts, and to draw a factual conclusion. 

As to Taylor’s remark about bridges: I’d gladly build bridges among ##4 and 6-8 of my first writeback, for all have some element of the truth.  I’d be the first to burn any bridges with #2 & 3.  Indeed, burning the bridge and showing the door to racialist nationalists and Judeophobes as been the purport of many writebacks out of my keyboard.  As for the Neo-Calvinism of #5, were its proponents willing to agree to disagree on points of theology, to live and let live, and then to work for common goals, I’d build the first bridge.  As for the position #1, much of which might appear to be taken from both Mark Steyn and Rev. Hagee and then given a Balkan twist, the issue of Islam is not, for me, a debate yet over, a debate often short on facts and long on the cries of a scare-mongers.  Let’s see the evidence.

And it’s the New Venetian Age.

oops, mixing Spanish and French again...I should throw in some German and Dutch for good measure…

The Sidster’s hero Sarkozy is talking from the same cue cards as our very own Sidster.  The only problem for the Sidster is that Sarkozy likes to vacation in New England.  Now, the Sidster is opposed to all forms of “hate” and “bigotry and prejudice” and “racism.” But on the other hand, hating those damn evil Gringos and Yankees and Wasps, well, that is another matter entirely.  It’s OK to hate them because it’s “justified” in the Sidster’s world. 

Sarkozy, in Algeria, calls French colonialism ‘profoundly unjust’
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8573646

The Associated Press
Monday, December 3, 2007
ALGIERS: The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said Monday that France’s colonial system was “profoundly unjust,” in a step toward ending decades of rancor between France and Algeria, once the crown jewel among French colonies.

“Yes, the colonial system was profoundly unjust, contrary to the three founding words of our republic: liberty, equality, fraternity,” he said at the start of a three-day state visit to Algeria.

The visit comes with tensions running high. France has refused for years to apologize for brutality during the colonial era. And an Algerian government minister said that Sarkozy won the presidential elections last spring because he was backed by a “Jewish lobby.”

Sarkozy responded Monday with an appeal for both France and Algeria to fight “all forms of racism.”
“There is nothing that more closely resembles anti-Semitism than Islamophobia,” he said. “Both have the same face: that of stupidness and hate.”

I believe that Ron Paul has a better chance than I once di. Partly because I am a recovering “Neocon”!......As a simple minded Southerner, politics were quite simple prior to Ronald Reagan: GOP-The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!......As for the DEMS-They will always get you in a war!......But, Reagan changed things and even dedicated AFLCIO UNION WORKERS became Reagan voters. He was different, and many conservatives of the South HATES the corruption of both parties, and the arrogant approach to war!(Just go shopping and enjoy your life and we neocons will handle this war business!).......Unbelievable!...For those of us that have been placing in the graves, our relatives that fought in WWII. Like myself, many can see know way that Hillary could actually screw things up worse, and revenge is a reality, because their is no honor in an enemy that chose that path through betrayal and lies!.........And the GOP(Gutted Our Principles) is a party of betrayal! At least the wacky, nutty, liberals of the Democratic Party are consistantlly wacky!.............So I agree with the writer....Revenge will be at play!

you will have a continuation of the neo-con kill and spend country for the foreseeable future.

I really don’t belong in this debate because, on the American political spectrum, I’m a “leftist” (although on the European one, I’d be a “Christian Democrat” or a “wet Tory"), but I really can’t figure out why all the “conservatives” here believe that the Democrats are going to be stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton and then lose to a Huckabee or a Giuliani. They won’t: they’re as tired of polarized, dynastic politics as the more sensible, more libertarian and moderate Republicans are. They’re going to nominate Obama and then they’re probably going to sweep to so overwhelming a victory as to force the Republican party back to its small-government roots. And that’s probably the only thing that’ll cure the Republicans of “neo-conservatism.”

<<They’re going to nominate Obama and then they’re probably going to sweep to so overwhelming a victory...>>

No.

Southern Whites will not vote for a Blackman.  And, without the Southern White Vote, you don’t win the presidency.  Southern Whites will vote for even Giuliani before they would Obama.  They would vote for Giuliani before Hillary Rodham-Clinton.  They would vote for a White Southern Democrat instead of Giuliani, someone along the lines of Zell Miller or Sam Nunn or Jim Folsom, Jr, or Phil Bredesen.  Those men could not win the Democratic nomination these days.  The [national] Democratic party is more sunk than even the [national] Republican party, as impossible as that seems.

It’s a r3VOLution!
Much to the surprise of the Bush league, it turns out that the body politic has a gag-reflex.

Andrew Capp wrote: Southern Whites will not vote for a Blackman.  And, without the Southern White Vote, you don’t win the presidency.  Southern Whites will vote for even Giuliani before they would Obama.  They would vote for Giuliani before Hillary Rodham-Clinton.  They would vote for a White Southern Democrat instead of Giuliani, someone along the lines of Zell Miller or Sam Nunn or Jim Folsom, Jr, or Phil Bredesen.  Those men could not win the Democratic nomination these days.  The [national] Democratic party is more sunk than even the [national] Republican party, as impossible as that seems.”

It’s not only the Southern Whites, it’s all working class, middle income whites…Obama or Hillary will be the ultimate expression of McGovern era “identity politics”, and will lose. But this voting block is being slowly undermined by the adoption of “libertarian” economics, ie, the politics of “finance capitalism” and plutocracy. 

For those of us old enough to remember when it was communism we were fighting are appalled that is unrestrained finance capitalism that is leading the charge to destroy our WASP culture…Obama is awash in Wall Street money.

As for “digbydolben“, he’s all screwed up calling himself a “leftist” and then celebrating the “libertarianism” of the Democrat Party represented by Hillary/Clinton…you can take all the libertarians and the leftists and throw them in the same garbage dump as far as I am concerned…both are based on Godless materialism and are mirror images of each other, extremist utopianism combined with plutocratic elitism.

For all practical purposes, the “neo-cons” are the real libertarians, believing in the “free market” defined by finance capitalism and Wall Street, and the WTF/IMF/FED/World Bank, which is really the only “free market” that mainstream “libertarianism” talks about.
In that regard, the war to neutralize the Middle East is a war to protect these institutions of finance capitalism. This is not only a war for oil, a war to protect Israel, it’s a world to protect international finance capitalism.

Ron Paul and his “libertarian” supporters have fallen off the deep end and are so far out of the practical politics of the country, that’s they might as well be conducting his campaign from a flying saucer.

Andrew Capp wrote: “THAT is the gold standard, boiled down.  Currency is a natural product of civilization, and it is not to be manufactured out of thin air, something a gold standard prevents - mining gold is hard work.”

Look, gold didn’t grow with the economy, and it’s entire history was a series of depressions, followed by bubble booms, followed by busts.

With tragic consequenses. Look Friedman got the Noble for poroving that depressions were caused by contractions in the money supply, gold included.

Ron Paul and all you so-called “libertarians” are out of this wolrd when you rant on about the gold standard. We don’t need to crucify the nation on a cross of gold again to prove that the gold standard is a utopian fantasy, as is the “free makret”.

Joe Populist, the money supply was contracted by the Federal reserve.First it inflated like crazy in the 1920’s and then it deflated in the 1930’s.Plus the Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930. All the inflation that Roosevelt put in place didn’t end the depression, untill ww2 came along.The Fed has always been a way for the banks to bail themselves out and screw the general public.The honest workingman is far better off with a sound stable currency, as we had before ,1914.

Joe Populist, you are ignorant of economic history, which is an excusable fault, as the VAST VAST majority of the population are ignorant of it.

The supply of gold doesn’t “contract”, it has been more or less static for millennium - for example, the California gold rush added something like 1% to the total weight of gold in the world that had been mined at the time, and once that gold was extracted, there was no putting it back in the ground to somehow “contract” the supply.

To have a gold standard or not is simply not an issue of importance to many and that certainly includes Ron Paul and his supporters.  The advantage of the gold standard is that it’s an objective outside check on having the money supply depend on the whims of the Fed and the politicians and bankers who control it.  But Ron Paul’s popularity lies in the hope of his supporters to end the war, conquest, police state terror regime which the US has evolved into.  Return to the gold standard isn’t even a secondary issue with the Paulites, tertiary at most.

Some brief replies to those mentioning my name in earlier posts:(Note: I am typing this before I go to bed for the night, so they will be brief replies due to necessity.)

To Mr. Ball: I hold that you are wrong in thinking my rhetoric was “unwise”. For I believe that it is needed to awaken a lazy and apathetic public to action. And that an absolute pacifism is of the Devil. At least, that is the impression that I received from your response.

If that is not the case, then I thank you in advance for correcting that false impression.

To Miss Lurker: I renounce Bushido, for I am not a samurai. I am an ordinary man of the dying West, fighting to stay alive and sane against my country’s government, big business, big banks, widespread moral corruption and the enemy within Holy Mother Church.

To Mr. Manion: I disagree with your disagreement. In these evil days, merely “trusting in the Lord” is both not enough and not good enough. To my mind, it smacks of the heresy of Quietism. And I am convinced that Our Savior will punish us with His Divine Wrath if we don’t act.

I now head off to the Land of Nod, to quote that old nursery rhyme, and then to work afterwards. Good night and God speed to all.

If the GOP nominates a neo-con like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson, or a liberal-who-opposes-abortion like Huckabee, then they deserve to lose, and if voting for Ron Paul on an independent ticket come November of 2008 is one avenue left open to me in order to help ensure they do lose, then I will take it with enthusiasm.  Men & women of the American right should see to it that it is impossible for the Republican Party to win so long as it nominates candidates who’s only claim to fame is that they are, perhaps, somewhat less unpalatable than Hillary Clinton.

Re: Ron Paul and Gold standard

I just want to point out that Ron Paul is clearly on record acknowledging the problems of the 19th century gold standard and does NOT want to go back to that standard (where the government interfered in the market and fixed the ratio of gold to silver). He is against fiat currency and
wants to make gold and silver legal tender in accordance with the constitution. He refers to this as the “new gold standard.”

You can watch and hear him explaining his position clearly here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c)

Here is his answer on the “gold standard” in a interview:

http://columbiatribune.com/2007/Jun/20070615News009.asp?f=1

There is a good case for Dr. Paul paying spoiler to Guiliani and running third party, but the problem with this scenario is that Huckabee looks like the main frontrunner right now. Barring an unexpected meltdown, Huckabee is going to win Iowa, do well in New Hampshire, win in South Carolina, and take the entire bible belt South for starters. Huckabee is also getting tons of media coverage (generally favorable) and he has the powerful evangelical faction of the Religious Right in his pocket (so much for Pat Robertson’s Guiliani endorsement). Guiliani, on the other hand, is dropping like a stone in the polls and defending himself again in his latest corruption scandal. I don’t see Ron Paul giving his formal support to Huckabee because of support for war and big government, but I don’t see him playing spoiler either. He will probably focus on building RP revolution within the Republican Party (which may be potentially a voting bloc as big as the Religious Right). Moreover, Ron Paul in face of all the chaos of Republican race is steadily climbing in the polls (the MSM have steadfastly refused to acknowledge this trend), and contributions and volunteers (off line and online) continue to pour in. Given the positive trends and high intensity of Dr. Paul’s support and the general chaos of the race, he could engineer a major upset in Iowa or New Hampshire.

M.Nucci, if Ron Paul doesn’t win in 2008, there won’t be 2012 campaign for him.  He’s 72 years old and this is a one-shot deal.  I will concede, however, that continuing his run as independent, assuming he fails to get the GOP nomination, is a distinct possibility despite Dr. Paul’s regular dismissals of the idea.  Obviously, his focus right now is to win the nomination so he doesn’t want to discuss a “Plan B”, but I’m convinced that it would be very difficult for him to let down his legions of devoted supporters by refusing to continue his candidacy if that doesn’t happen.

I generally agree with Dr. Gottfried’s take on the matters of the day, but I don’t understand why he is so pessimistic on Ron Paul’s chances at this point in the race. The MSM and the GOP establishment are against us, but their power is more limited these days than Dr. Gottfried is giving them credit for as people use the Internet and wise up to what is going on. Moreover, only Dr. Paul has rock solid support (once you get on the Ron Paul Revolution bandwagon you don’t get off). For the rest of the candidates, their support is mushy and fleeting. Even Huckabee, the current MSM frontrunner, can’t raise a dime from his supporters. 2.3 million to date from the would-be nominee of the religious right (evangelical faction). Ron Paul revolution could raise that much in afternoon. And here is a secret about Huckabee: the only reason he is getting the support of the Religious Right (evangelical faction) is because, supposedly unlike Mitt Romney, he doesn’t believe Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Sid Cundiff has some very interesting comments above discussing the history and effective demise (in his view) of paleoconservatism. The problem with paleoconservatism seems to be it always saw itself on the political margins. It was never ready for prime time.In fact, it never desired prime time. The American Conservative I would say has dispensed with “paleoconservatism” mostly distasteful (and politically problematic)elements such as racialism and kept the edginess that made it interesting in the first place. Ron Paul Revolution is allied to what is today labeled (though perhaps, as Cundiff asserts, this is incorrect) as “paleoconservatism”, but there are definitely differences in vision and a somewhat different intellectual foundation. What Ron Paul and company are building is movement to embrace all of America and to support peace and liberty as preeminent values. We actually have a decent chance to accomplish this if we show foresight and keep working our tails off to build the movement.

An excellent commentary by Daniel Larison, which should serve as a good final word on this post.

http://larison.org/2007/12/12/gerson-is-not-lord-shaftesbury-and-other-shocking-revelations/

Gerson Is Not Lord Shaftesbury, And Other Shocking Revelations
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 in politics, ideology by Daniel Larison

This history is directly relevant to modern debates. In some conservative quarters we are seeing the return of Burkeanism — or at least a narrow version of it. These supposed Burkeans dismiss the promotion of democracy and human rights as “ideological,” the protection of human life and dignity as “theological,” and compassionate conservatism as a modern heresy.

But the compassionate conservatism of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury is just as old as Burke, and more suited to an American setting. American conservatives, after all, are called upon to conserve a liberal ideal — that all men are created equal. A conservatism that does not accommodate the “ideology” of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. will seem foreign to most Americans. A concern for the rights of the poor and vulnerable is not simply “theological”; it is a measure of our humanity. And skepticism in this noble cause is not sophistication; it seems more like exhaustion and cynicism. ~Michael Gerson

But neo-Jacobinism, which is what Gerson is implicitly defending, is ideological in the worst way.  The promotion of “democracy and human rights” that relies on coercion and interference in the affairs of other nations is not simply ideologically driven, but divorced from basic precepts of justice.  One marvels at Gerson’s claim to represent the cause that supports the “protection of human life and dignity,” when it was he who lent his pen and his words to the unleashing of a living hell upon the people of Iraq.  The insight of Burke was not simply that change must be gradual and in keeping with the customs of a people, but that revolutionary change, change wrought by violence, the very kind of change Gerson has himself promoted, is inherently desructive of social order, morality and the welfare of the people in whose name it is being done.  Burkeans are as concerned with the practical means for pursuing the Good as they are with the high-minded intention to do good.

Why Wilberforce and Shaftesbury are more suited to an American setting, Gerson never explains, but just asserts.  Conservatives are actually called on to conserve a constitutional tradition and a system of ordered liberty; you could fill a small room with the books and treatises that explain why conservatives, yes, American conservatives, are not dedicated to preserving the idea contained in that most infelicitous of phrases.  What is striking about this article is how Gerson wraps up the actual practice of ”compassionate conservatism” of the last six years in the legacy of men such as Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, as if what the “compassionate conservatives” have done in government can be compared with the kinds of work they did.  The thinking seems to be: they valued human dignity and we, the compassionate conservatives, also claim to value human dignity, so they must be our forerunners, and we can appropriate their achievements for our cause.  Shaftesbury combated the exploitation of child labour and the inhumane treatment of the insane.  “Compassionate conservatism” in practice has meant zealous support for the importation of cheap, exploited labour and an apparent indifference to the human trafficking that goes on across our borders.–in the name of Christian charity and brotherhood no less!  Wilberforce worked tirelessly to turn the power of the British state against the slave trade, which led to the employment of the British Navy in eliminating this trade.  “Compassionate conservatism” in practice has meant aggressive warfare, the ruination of whole nations and the displacement of millions of people from their homes.  Because Wilberforce and Shaftesbury actually acted compassionately, Gerson believes he can tie “compassionate conservatism” to their legacy, yet where they were gradualists and men who respected laws of man and God “compassionate conservatives” have been radicals with a rather more mixed record

“Huckabee seems unable to express his opinion on any hot social issue without going on about slavery and the supposed racist intention of some pro-choice liberals.”

Spend time on conservative talk boards or listening to conservative talk radio.  This is common “conservative” rhetoric today, and extends far beyond the abortion issue - it’s a tribute to the dominance of PC in public debate.  You’d be hard pressed to find any top Republican who doesn’t use this sort of language, certainly Bush does all the time, “bigotry of soft expectations”, etc.

I will be voting for Ron Paul, no doubt about it.  If the
various Republican straw polls that he has won or placed in,
as well as the numerous donations he has received during this
last quarter are indications of a successful campaign, then it should be apparent that he will do well in the state
primaries and caucuses.  I see nothing but victory for him
all the way to the White House.  If he doesn’t win then it
means the hell we are living in will continue and get
worse.  God bless his efforts and ours for helping him.

In case it has skipped notice, Dr. Paul has a steel backbone.  30 years and he has never pandered to anyone.  I do not expect him to pander to the wishes ( if they might even be the wishes ) of his online revolution; should he not achieve the republican party nomination.
Did you not watch him in Iowa refusing to pander to the “ethanol green farmers”, did you not see his failure to pander to the cuban audience in the last debate vis a vis Chavez and Castro, did you not notice his failure to placate with soft words the black audience at the Tavis Smiley debate. Have you absolutely no idea of why he has earned many times over the sobriguet Dr. No?  Will Dr. Paul be the next president of the USA? I am working to make it so, may succeed may fail, but I have not worked for any political candidate since I was a 17 year old working for Goldwater.
Now if you are fearful of looking foolish in the eyes of the MSM or your confreres or your water-cooler buds, I can understand that.  Go your merry way and chat most cosmopolitanly amongst your fellows; and in the privacy of the booth, vote for some interchangeable warmongering Wormwood: a hillary or a mitt, a rudy or a barack, a huck or an edwards --- you will not be missed.  And if there is a God, and you get to the final interview, I trust that he will forgive your fear of passion and your inability to live up to the example He set.
Once we were called upon to offer up our lives, our wealth, and our sacred honour, now we are only called upon to spend a few minutes voting for a fine and decent and honourable man and you cravens quibble.

Joe Populist:

“While Romney is mouthing the neo-con platitudes about foreign policy, but so far I note only ‘realists’ in his foreign policy advisor list.”

Cofer “flies on the eyeballs” Black, Vice Chairman of the mercenary outfit Blackwater USA, is a barking moonbat and a thug.  Cofer is where Romney gets his “double Guantanamo” drivel from.

Hillary.  Obama.  Rudy McRomney.  The Huckster.  An exercise that amounts to choosing between shit or crap.  Might as well throw a dart.

...and Ron Paul has a blimp.  Now he has air superiority (along with idea superiority). Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

More good news from Concord, as Ron Paul supporters arrive from all over the country, the offices of the other candidates appear moribund in comparison to Ron Paul’s HQ. I think victory here is in the works.

Andrew Capp: Joe Populist, you are ignorant of economic history, which is an excusable fault, as the VAST VAST Andrew Capp: Joe Populist, you are ignorant of economic history, which is an excusable fault, as the VAST VAST majority of the population are ignorant of it….The supply of gold doesn’t “contract”, it has been more or less static for millennium…once that gold was extracted, there was no putting it back in the ground to somehow “contract” the supply.”

Look, you’re the one with his ideology tightly twisted around his neck…the problems that gold as a medium of exchange have been plainly documented…by none other then Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, the “Austrians” have been sounded discredited except by a cliché of crazies like you and the Ron Paul crowd. Gold is a great store of value, but just plain fails as a medium of exchange.  You’ve got it mixed up and calling me ignorant of economics is as hilarious as Guiliani dressing up as a women and calling himself “tough on terrorism”. 

Gold does not grow with the economy, and results in deflations and the 19teenth century was one depression after another, as a result.  The truth is that the nonsense about “fiat money” grew up after the Civil War, when the bankers and finance capitalists demanded the gold standard instead of greenbacks, as deflation increased the value of their debt holdings.  This still holds today, deflation benefits debt holders, inflation benefits debtors.

Given that you are no finance capitalist, your devotion to the gold standard MUST be based on ignorance.

Kirk sed: “Cofer “flies on the eyeballs” Black, Vice Chairman of the mercenary outfit Blackwater USA, is a barking moonbat and a thug.  Cofer is where Romney gets his “double Guantanamo” drivel from.”

I’ve not heard that Cofer is a intimate of the Romney inner circle or in any way a foreign policy advisor in the way that Poddy is running Guiliani’s foreign policy.

As best I can see, Romney is firmly entrenched on the “realist” side.

The best PRACTICAL outcome for the Paulettes is Guiliani losing. He’s teh angel of death, and Poddy is the anti-Christ.

Please advise me.  I am a registered Democrat. I am nauseated that the sane candidates who could actually govern effectively (Richardson and Dodd) have been marginalized in favor of hyped-up copy about celebrities Hillary and Obama.  The numbers are against The Sane Wing in the Democratic race, obviously. I support Ron Paul’s presidency. Failing that, I wish to be part of Ron Paul’s revolution.  My question: should I cast my vote for my Dem guy Richardson, or should I switch parties simply to support Ron Paul in the primary, because he is running as a Republican?  While I have problems with Hillary and Obama, I find the Republicans running for president other than Dr Paul to be laughable at best, and unlikely or unwilling to reverse the Bush disaster, I will vote for the Democratic candidate.  Besides Dr Paul, the only person who would get me to cross party lines would be Senator Hagel.  With few exceptions, I think both political parties have lost their way, and are just haphazardly held together by their respective wacko interests groups.  It is my dearest hope that each party would retake their proud and authentically patriotic traditions from the wackos who are holding them both hostage.  Enough! So—which is more effective—staying Dem and voting for Richardson D-Sane), or switching solely to support Dr Paul in the Repub primary, to scare all the bastards in both parties that Americans are thinking revolution?

Lars, you can switch to “Independent” and score two blows, one by leaving the Dem party and 2 by voting for Dr Paul.  It’s a nice message to the Dems who have, like me, failed you.

Lars sez: “My question: should I cast my vote for my Dem guy Richardson, or should I switch parties simply to support Ron Paul in the primary, because he is running as a Republican?”

I’m in the same boat. I’m really an independent, but I live in a state that is so controlled by a Democrat machine, that registering independent (in Maryland that means registered “non-affiliated”), and you can’t vote in the primaries. Since the Democrat primary is actually the REAL election, not the general primary (because the Maryland Republican Party is so weak), if you register “non-affiliated”, you’ve choose NO vote at all.

In my mind, it’s more important to influence the Democrat Party at this time, then fool around with the Ron Paul “revolution” which is as marginal in the GOP primaries right now as Dennis Kuchinch in the Democrat Primary.

On the other hand, it’s paramount that Guiliani LOSE the Republican nomination as it is for Hillary to LOSE the Democrat.

It’s a terrible choice we are confronted with, but I’m going with cheering on Ron Paul, contributing to his campaign, but staying registered Democrat through the primary, and voting against Hillary!

You might be interested in joining the emerging “Right Democrats” an good link is:
http://www.rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/

Roy F. Moore - my point was mundane: that metaphore is only useful if not taken literally, however, your statement,

“...for I am not a samurai. I am an ordinary man of the dying West, fighting to stay alive and sane against my country’s government, big business, big banks, widespread moral corruption and the enemy within Holy Mother Church”,

reinforces my original statement.  Ordinary men do not fight anything.  I guess I should have spoken of existentialism, which seems like Bushido for those of us without belief, metaphorical Samurai, (without the creepy bits like Hari-Kiri). I have no idea what Professor Gottfried’s (or Taki’s) highest motivation might be.  I admire their warrior spirits and skills, and am thankful that someone’s god obviously guides them.

Joe Populist, calling Neo-Cons the “real libertarians” is like calling a transvestite, no matter how good looking and talented, “a real woman”.

If they were as “Free Market” as you suggest, they would get real jobs, doing real things instead of infesting government like a bad case of chiggers through the Think Tanks and Media. They may work with free market forces.....as if multinational corporations were “free market” ......but they are simply the grease on the wheels of government, standard bearers for this crypto fascist “Compassionate Conservative” regime we have....the Greek Chorus for certain Counter-revolutionary elements that have a habit of popping up during our War is the health of the State lapses into Industrialist Bulimia.  Neo-Con Libertarians...whee doggies that’s a hoot....as if “neo-conservative “ aint counterintuitive enough already.

<<as if “neo-conservative “ aint counterintuitive enough
already>>

My thoughts exactly.

How is one both “new” and “conservative”?

The term “neoconservative” is all too Orwellian.

As anyone can see from reading this blog
Ron Paul is a no-compromise candidate
with no-compromise supporters.
FREEDOM is NO compromise and any
“lesser” of 2 evils is still a foul
stinking pollution that cannot be lived
with or tolerated.
If Ron Paul is not on the Presidential
ballot then I will write him in.
I would NEVER vote for any other candidate.

Clinton/Obama would be preferred to a Republican (other than the noble 3) I’d think. So, hopefully Paul will run third party if he loses the primary, though he’s said he won’t.

I’ll be voting Paul, though I still prefer Tancredo.

Dirk Sabin sed: “Neo-Con Libertarians...whee doggies that’s a hoot....as if “neo-conservative “ aint counterintuitive enough already.”

Alan Greenspan & Neuter Gingrich & Dick Armey are “libertarians”…the Ron Paul “Revolution” are the deluded few who actually believe all that “freedom” garbage…

I’m not doubting the sincerity of the Paulettes, I’m just pointing out their naiveté…

The war in Iraq is after all, about protecting globalization and “free markets”…how can we have a “free market” if the Mideast Oil is held captive by fundamentalist Islam?

In reality, the result of “libertarian” ideas has been merely to prove that Marx and Lenin were right about capitalism all along. It is all about looting the property of others and giving more it to those who have the most military power, on behalf of the few.

@Joe Populist

Mr un-Populist, how old are you?
From your comments I’m guessing 10 or 13 maybe?
I think you should stick to websites like
Barney or Mr.Kangaroo and leave the adult sites
to grown-ups.

If you think that Paul supporters would vote for Hillary than you have never been to the Ron Paul Forums.

I suggest you go there and read them.  None of them will be voting for Hillary Police State Clinton.  Period.

Joe Populist asserted that Alan Greenspan, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey are Libertarians. If being an Ayn Rand groupie satisfies the definition “libertarian” then perhaps Greenspan is one but he seems to have amply demonstrated his credibility as a Big Government , Big Debt Champion and so is not likely anywhere near libertarian in sentiment. If he were actually libertarian, he would not have felt so compelled to use the english language like it was a coagulant, useful in scabbing over all reasonable meaning from the constant flow of blood from the Abattoir that were his Gothic perorations into the Bunko Op. we charmingly refer to as the Federal Reserve . Newt...? Newt is simply another in a very long line of Authoritarian Reprobaticans, the type that use the word “contract” in everything they do to signal a kind of pro-business , anti-government sentiment but in reality, are adepts at squeezing every last nickel they can out of the Federal Sow....between running Haunted Houses to keep the public on edge.  Armey?  he’s a tad quixotic.

Personally, I don’t think Ron Paul has got a chance at getting elected for a variety of reasons and if he were elected, the populace is woefully unprepared for what his philosophy means and furthermore, the President cannot possibly advance the change we need despite the bully pulpit because there is no will in Congress and too much money at stake on K Street.

Still though, I support him because he is the only candidate that is attempting to refocus on the hazards of the Security State and, it goes without saying that having him in the Republican mix during the debates gives new meaning to the word hypocrisy . Without him in the mix, the Security State would be getting an even bigger pass than it already is.

We have not had a real debate for decades and his presence forces it, if only a little bit but it would seem to me, the genie is out of the bottle and that alone is worth giving Mr. Paul all the support he needs.

We had a foot of snow last night and it looks like a bad storm is brewing for Sunday’s Boston Tea Party.  We’ll be there as the price to freedom is never too high.

Mr. Capp said:

“[Americans] want communism and war, either Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani…

America is thoroughly liberal, with no hints of conservatism in it, and has been since [at least] 1865.

I support Dr Paul’s candidacy, I just have no faith in the American public - America was born of liberalism, it was reborn of liberalism, and it is of liberalism today.  Conservatism has no place in American politics and political thought, it never has, and it never will have.  Conservatives are a defeated, marginalized bunch in America, and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than wait for America to crumble the same way it’s deformed twin, the USSR, crumbled.”

Truer words were never spoken. Somebody (it may have been William S. Lind) once said that in 1914 - the first year of the war that destroyed the western civilization - America represented the international left. By 1918 and the end of the war, it represented the international right. It wasn’t America which had changed all that much (although Wilsonisnism did scar America forever) - it was the world which had shifted around it. If America seems conservative to modern Europeans, it is only from the vantage point of their terribly fallen state.

America is implacably liberal, and expresses its deep-seated dislike and distrust of foreigners and foreign customs as a drive to make people in other places just like them. And armed with Hollywood and television, they have been largely successful. Find a country where the women don’t wear blue jeans (women wearing pants being would have been considered unthinkable perversion most places a century ago), and where the teenagers don’t listen to rap or rock. Every time I go back to Japan, it is less and less like Japan. This pains me, but it is the only thing that can make Americans comfortable with the world and tolerant of foreigners - those foreigners adopting America’s “self-evidently superior” liberalism and culturally Marxist culture.

The Muslim world resists. And watch the mad drive of America’s “conservatives” to react by doing anything they can to destroy the religious and traditional foundations of the Muslim world. Look at the fever they have about exporting the likes of feminism and “gay rights” to the Muslim world - things that they called evil not long ago (but never really believed were). Witness how quickly opposition to women in the military evaporated amongst America’s “conservatives” once those women were indispensable in the export by force of the Trotskyist world democratic revolution they hold so dear.

What a bunch of phoniness. That America may be somewhat more moderately liberal than modern Europe means nothing. Real conservatives of just a century past - from Spanish Carlists to proper Victorian ladies - would blanch at the thought that what America stands for today might be called “conservatism”.

But I remain proudly Carlist - searching for a proper Victorian lady who I’m sure I’ll never find…

Mr. Capp said:

“Conservatism has no place in American politics and political thought, it never has, and it never will have.  Conservatives are a defeated, marginalized bunch in America, and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than wait for America to crumble the same way it’s deformed twin, the USSR, crumbled.”

If you believe so, sir, then we might as well literally kill ourselves and go to Hell for eternity, for the Devil has won and we shall never see Heaven after we die.

God forbid it!

Nergol nails it.  Don’t think I can disagree with anything in his last post.

“So, Rudy has the nomination wrapped up, does he? Do they plan to steal the primary elections by hacking the new electronic voting machines? “

Yes, of course they do.  That’s what the electronic voting machines are all about.

“force the Republican party back to its small-government roots.”

A party can never be forced back to roots it never had.  The GOP has always been a party of mercantilist plunder, which requires a strong central government unbound by law or tradition.

Trying to restore the GOP to any imagined past glory is like trying to polish a turd with a warm bar of milk chocolate.

Dirk Sabin sez: “Joe Populist asserted that Alan Greenspan, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey are Libertarians. If being an Ayn Rand groupie satisfies the definition “libertarian” then perhaps Greenspan is one but he seems to have amply demonstrated his credibility as a Big Government , Big Debt Champion and so is not likely anywhere near libertarian in sentiment.”

Ayn Rand was the foremost “libertarian” theorist of the Twentieth Century. Her novels are just behind the Bible in popularity I’ve heard. Her ideas infest the world like a cancer.

I must admit that as a youngster, I fell under the bewitching power of the rhetoric of “freedom”. When to all those meetings of the Society for Individual Liberty…read Von Mises and Ayn Rand. But in retrospect, it was an ideology of adolescent males, all rant and rave, and utopianism, but it’s practical application is a defense of plutocracy. It is, as I’ve said before, the mirror image of Marxist-Leninism.

Ayn Rand herself, her personal life was more then anything proof that “libertarianism” is a sickness, and the policies of Alan Greenspan more proof that “libertarianism” is about giving more to those who have the most.

As a consequence, we have a America that resembles the Marxist-Leninist model of “ Imperialism as the highest stage of Capitalism”…with the US military domination of the Mideast Oil to defend the system of international finance capitalism---the IMF/World Bank/Fed.

While I don’t doubt the sincerity of the “true believers” among the Ron Paul supporters, all I can say is: Grow Up, you’re an adult now, and it’s time to face the facts that the result is far different from what the utopian fantasy, in much the same way as the Soviet Union or Maoist China were from the ideal “communist” society.

Ed Roberts sed: “A party can never be forced back to roots it never had.  The GOP has always been a party of mercantilist plunder, which requires a strong central government unbound by law or tradition.”

I disagree. Nixon was a man of the middle class, and his brand of Republican Party was far different then the “I’ve got mine, so screw everyone else” mindset of most modern Republicans.

The party has changed as conservativism has changed.

Mr. Moore said;

“If you believe so, sir, then we might as well literally kill ourselves and go to Hell for eternity, for the Devil has won and we shall never see Heaven after we die.”

You seem to be implying that the state of one’s soul is connected inexorably to that state of the nation in which one lives. What terrible blasphemy that is! After all, if it were true, not even St. Paul - Roman citizen that he was - would have a chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven! Not to mention the Catholic martyrs of the Vendee, the Catholics of Communist-era Poland, the Christians of modern-day China - all of whom kept their faith and their souls intact despite the governments under which they lived, rather than because of it.

Yes, there are societies that make it relatively easier or harder to live life as a good Christian, and the ones that make it easier should be supported and encouraged. But to say that the status of one’s soul is dependent upon or connected in any way to the state of the government under which one lives is to render unto Caesar that which is God’s.

“You seem to be implying that the state of one’s soul is connected inexorably to that state of the nation in which one lives. What terrible blasphemy that is!”

I do not imply that in any way, shape or form, sir.

5k0yal71c http://www.1006466.com/951261.html ansv3l5n9