T Nation

CNN Editorial: Ron Paul - Future of GOP

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

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

? Limited government power

? A balanced budget

? Personal liberty

? Strict adherence to the Constitution

? Sound money

? A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

? No nation-building and no policing the world

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

This was a good article…Maybe I should have paid more attention when he was running, because he was right on the money.

I voted for him.
Hopefully he’s back in '12.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Remember when he was the kook? Then, we had the Republican nominee vote for the bailout. A Republican nominee…

Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.[/quote]

No, Republicans couldn’t handle his attacks on the Iraq War and interventionism in general.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.

No, Republicans couldn’t handle his attacks on the Iraq War and interventionism in general.[/quote]

It was his desire to cut and run that cost him the election. That was what gave him such popularity among the stoned-off-their-asses college crowd.

That and his desire to go back to the gold standard.

If he would drop the Buchanan-like isolationism bullshit, and get off his bullshit about wanting to go back to the gold standard - he would be the perfect conservative.

I have said this many times.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
snipeout wrote:

If he would drop the Buchanan-like isolationism bullshit, and get off his bullshit about wanting to go back to the gold standard - he would be the perfect conservative.

[/quote]

Obama and Mccain were the isolationists,… not Paul.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.

No, Republicans couldn’t handle his attacks on the Iraq War and interventionism in general.

It was his desire to cut and run that cost him the election. That was what gave him such popularity among the stoned-off-their-asses college crowd.

That and his desire to go back to the gold standard.

If he would drop the Buchanan-like isolationism bullshit, and get off his bullshit about wanting to go back to the gold standard - he would be the perfect conservative.

I have said this many times. [/quote]

Isolationism is a canard. There is no true isolationist in politics that I can think of. Non-interventionism is a very different thing.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
I voted for him.
Hopefully he’s back in '12.

Keep in mind that he’ll be 77 in 2012. [/quote]

Ya. Same age as Mccain.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Isolationism is a canard. There is no true isolationist in politics that I can think of. Non-interventionism is a very different thing.[/quote]

Tomato/tomAHto. Point being, if he didn’t sound like douchebag Buchanan wrt foreign policy, he would be taken much more seriously.

If he didn’t want to destroy the world economy by going back to the gold standard, he would be taken more seriously.

In retrospect, we got a ‘cut/run’ administration anyway and even if RP (as Pres) pushed the Gold Standard, it wouldn’t happen anyway.

The other 95% of the time he’s right on would have been worth the gamble.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.

No, Republicans couldn’t handle his attacks on the Iraq War and interventionism in general.

It was his desire to cut and run that cost him the election. That was what gave him such popularity among the stoned-off-their-asses college crowd.

That and his desire to go back to the gold standard.

If he would drop the Buchanan-like isolationism bullshit, and get off his bullshit about wanting to go back to the gold standard - he would be the perfect conservative.

I have said this many times. [/quote]

If he would drop the gold standard he would drop the core of his economic beliefs.

If you would understand why he is for the gold standard you´d be for it to.

As it happens the Mises Institute held a conference on the gold standard:

http://mises.org:88/Gold08_Woodshttp://mises.org:88/Gold08_Napolitano

http://mises.org:88/Gold08_Woods

http://mises.org:88/Gold08_Thornton

http://mises.org:88/Gold08_Klein

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Damn shame that a fiscal conservative was so isolated in this primary. If people were that scared by his gold standard comment that is just insane.

No, Republicans couldn’t handle his attacks on the Iraq War and interventionism in general.

It was his desire to cut and run that cost him the election. That was what gave him such popularity among the stoned-off-their-asses college crowd.

That and his desire to go back to the gold standard.

If he would drop the Buchanan-like isolationism bullshit, and get off his bullshit about wanting to go back to the gold standard - he would be the perfect conservative.

I have said this many times.

Spot on Rainjack.
[/quote]

Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

How?

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Isolationism is a canard. There is no true isolationist in politics that I can think of. Non-interventionism is a very different thing.

Tomato/tomAHto. Point being, if he didn’t sound like douchebag Buchanan wrt foreign policy, he would be taken much more seriously.

If he didn’t want to destroy the world economy by going back to the gold standard, he would be taken more seriously.

[/quote]

I would have voted for Paul if it weren’t for his stance on these issues.

I actually voted for Duncan Hunter in the primaries, personally, I think that with the right running mate, he could have won the election.

I hope Hunter runs again. I don’t think Paul will be back in 2012.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In retrospect, we got a ‘cut/run’ administration anyway and even if RP (as Pres) pushed the Gold Standard, it wouldn’t happen anyway.

The other 95% of the time he’s right on would have been worth the gamble.[/quote]

Ja, he was right on all the other predictions but he, von Mises and von Hajek somehow got this one wrong.

Fiat money is not at the core of the Austrian Business Cycle theory or anything…