Sunday, May 27, 2007

Rush and Paul

I have to admit to feeling a bit hopeful about Ron Paul's chances. This is terribly irrational; but hope usually is. As anyone who actually watched the debate knows, Paul got the better half of Rudy Giuliani. This shouldn't be unexpected; Ron Paul is an intelligent and principled man while Rudy's only qualification for President is that he is so out of his league that, like Bush, he will be very easy to manipulate. As Ron Paul pointed out, Paul's supposedly controversial statements were backed by the 9/11 Commission Report. We can't blame Rudy for calling such statements "absurd" since the man is incapable of reading.

But if it wasn't a surprise to this Paul supporter that my boy would put the smackdown on Rudy, it must have been less than expected for those whose first impressions of the Congressman from Texas were formed during the recent debate. In fact, FoxNews viewers gave Paul the win in the debate with 30% of the vote. Impressive for a candidate who is supposedly unelectable.

Which brings me to El Rushbo. WND reports:

[A] caller urged Rush to throw his support behind Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, as the caller claimed Paul was the most conservative of the field of candidates.

"I don't think Congressman Paul has a snowball's chance," Limbaugh said.

"You have the power yourself to make him the Republican nominee," the caller responded.

"That is very true, and that is why I must exercise this power responsibly, not as a cheerleader," said Limbaugh, "which is why I'm not picking a name right now. I alone have the power to move the [Republican] base."

It's sad to me to see Rush fall so far. I'm not sure if he still has the power to move the Republican base. For all I know he might. But if he possesses the power and refuses to use it, shame on him. Rush knows that Rudy McRomney is unacceptable to conservatives. And he should also know that the big three are completely unelectable. I've listened to Rush enough to know that he believes in the power of conservatism--certainly he professes as much. Ron Paul is a conservative candidate. He's the most conservative candidate in the race. The obvious move, on Rush's part, is to point this out. If Rush can control the base, he can get Paul the nomination. Conservatives should ask themselves who they would rather run against Hillary, Ron Paul or one of the incarnations of Rudy McRomney. Watching Hillary squirm as Paul asks her to explain her position on the War in Iraq would be delightful.

Ron Paul doesn't have the money to stay in the race for much longer, unless he gets some serious backing, and soon. Rush could provide that backing. There's no harm in trying. If Ron Paul fades into obscurity we can still pretend to get fired up for the eventual nominee. But if Rush sits this one out we will have reached the low point in American conservatism.


Anonymous said...

Actually, Paul's support has more than quadrupled since the second debate.

Everyone of us can give something. Go to and donate 25 dollars w/ your debit or credit card. It only takes a second. Donate a little at a time so you don't notice it. 50 bucks here and there adds up quick when thousands of people are doing it.

Doom said...

Rush has power, but like all good things, sparse and timely function is the way to maintain such mechanics.

He like most conservatives would not vote for Paul, let alone help him. I think we all know (hope) CNN's "top three Republican" runners will fail, add Paul, and that leaves three conservatives and two dark horses.

It would be imprudent for Rush to act now with such a large field of candidates. Best to let political atrition pare the perspective nominees. Once one or two real conservatives remain, a word by Rush and even if trailing, the strongest conservative will probably climb to nomination. Though, to be honest, I do expect Hillary to be our next president. Still, it's fun to watch the workings. And, one can always have hope.

You remind me of stories by natives. The stories are about ambushes set for trooper patrols. The ambushes were deadly and accurate yet turned into a rout and we were slaughtered because our young braves could not be patient. Even if you are in another camp, you seem young in this way.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Once one or two real conservatives remain, a word by Rush and even if trailing, the strongest conservative will probably climb to nomination.

This seems like a very naive notion. Once Paul is gone, there are no more credible conservatives. Are you suggesting Rush is going to get behind Tancredo?

I can't wait to hear Rush complain about how there aren't any good conservatives left, and then have him talk about how we need to get behind the moderate so he can beat Hillary. I've lost major respect for Rush on this one.

Doom said...

No, Trancedo is a one-liner. That leaves Brownbeck and the other. Of course, the two dark horses have some small shares of conservative support too. But I don't think either is going to run. If neither runs and both supported a single lower tier conservative nominee, add in Rush, and it would help though I'm dubious about their intent, neither is very conservative.

And, libertarian is not conservative, it's a middle-of-the-road platform, like mushrooms to plants and animals. The split is clean, clear, and dated from the original formation of that party by the likes of it's originator, WF Buckley Jr., and a ton of other early (50's I think?) politcos and party thinkers on both sides. The split continues to this day, mostly revolving around interventionism, law and order, and a few other items. It's akin to saying the socialists, communist, and green parties are the democratic party instead of just the majority of it.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Conservatives used to oppose foreign intervention; conservatives used to oppose fiat currency; conservatives used to oppose an increase in federal government powers. Ron Paul may be a libertarian, but he's much closer to the Republican party platform of even two decades ago than are any of the front runners. And why can't we go with somebody who's a little bit too far to the right for once. It might be a nice change.

Doom said...

I don't believe even the "old right" of which you speak ever existed except for a few publishers and an Ohio senator or something, pre-WWII. After that it has been militant interventionist, anti-communist for sure, it's always been pro-business, other issues have varied.

Isolationism has been in both parties, depending on the proposed war, going back to the original federalist vs. anti-federalist spit. I was an isolationist as far a Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia et. al., not on Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea even if I have problems with how those were carried out. So, isolatinionism only shows which thread of politics you follow, not A solid affiliation to A party or even AN ideal.

As far as being conservative, again, Ron Paul doesn't fit the bill. Of course, I could be wrong, but then so are they:
and many others. It clearly defines Paul as a "moderat libertarian", which is exclusive of "right conservative".

I hate to say this, but this needs to be cleared up in my mind. AND, I only bother doing it because I actually like you quite well. Seriously, I wish I had a brother like you. When someone tells me it is raining heavily while we are standing on my lawn enjoying the sunshine, lunch, tea, and a leisurely chat, then try to tell me it is raining because it rained yesterday, and I am pretty sure it wasn't raining even then (and that having no bearing on today anyway), and the news backs up my memory of yesterday as well, that person is either deceitful and corrupt, ignorant, or not not capable of discerning truth.

If you ask, I will go away and never write here again.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

If you ask, I will go away and never write here again.

Why would I ask that? I plan on writing even if no one reads my writing simply because I like to write. That people like you and Troutsky show up to offer critiques is an excellent bonus. I care way too much for truth to give two licks if an opinion I held in my early-twenties was right or wrong so long as I continue to progress towards truth.

Isolationism has been in both parties, depending on the proposed war, going back to the original federalist vs. anti-federalist spit.

True, but only to an extent. As Paul points out, it was Democrats who got us involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc. If you get a chance, read A Republic Not an Empire by Pat Buchanan. That book completely changed my outlook on foreign policy.

It's worth noting that most of my rants end in a pessimistic conclusion that spectacular collapse is inevitable. And while I would argue that the U.S. is headed for a collapse, we may still right the ship. I think that the prospect of such is unlikely, but perhaps our generation (you are near my age I think) will return to libertarian, or at least conservative principles.

I know it's sunny now, but the longterm forecast shows torrential downpours. You've been forewarned.