What's this about the Paulites starting a new party?!

[KingOrfeo]

I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul's wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was "all over the blogosphere" (first I'd heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.

Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian -- he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 -- and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!

But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between "creditors and debtors," and was decrying the power of the "international bankers" who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative -- anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.

But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP's emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.

So, what kind of party are they talking about?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bert Notorius]

i'm having a party saturday. all the bertites will be there.

 

[dirtycarol]

i'm having a party saturday. all the bertites will be there.

There are more of you?

 

[Bert Notorius]

There are more of you?

were breeders...

 

[Disgustipated]

were breeders...

Just because you're fat doesn't mean you're pregnant.

 

[dirtycarol]

Okay, that explains it. Some families are, some aren't.

 

[KingOrfeo]

They want to re-elect Obama.

[shrug] In the sense the Naderites in 2000 wanted to elect W, I suppose.

 

[renard_ruse]

I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul's wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was "all over the blogosphere" (first I'd heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.

Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian -- he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 -- and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!

But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between "creditors and debtors," and was decrying the power of the "international bankers" who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative -- anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.

But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP's emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.

So, what kind of party are they talking about?

I didn't know the America First Party was still around. I'm going to be supporting the Constitution Party myself this year, though there are definitely things I disagree with them on.

Perhaps, the new party would be a front type party that would group together a number of smaller parties or movements into a single electoral framework. This is what the Front National did in the 1970s in France, to unite all factions and parties (or most of them) that were to the right of the Gaullists or otherwise anti-establishment. The new front could start building for a longterm breakthrough into the mainstream in ten or fifteen years perhaps.

 

[njlauren]

Paul and his supporters are not happy with the GOP power structure and the rules at the convention for speakers and also in terms of getting stuff in the GOP platform..basically he said he and his supporters have been cast aside in favor of big money interests and the like.

Paul is a weird one, he isn't really a libertarian, while he decried big government he is also anti big bank and wall street (which presumably means he would want to regulate them), he talks about going back on the gold standard as a means of 'making the currency work for the little guy', and in many ways his ideas are similar to the William Jennings Bryan part of the old democratic party, the populist/agrarian types...

The same Ron Paul who talks about getting government off our backs also supports the social conservatives in their aim to ban abortion and same sex marriage and roll back gay rights laws, which means he is no libertarian (a libertarian would argue the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage at all, and that with abortion or same sex marriage or gay rights the government has no right to tell people how to live).

Basically Paul's followers want a party that represents his views, which would be rather interesting....the tea party share some similarities, they yell and scream about wall street and big banks yet decry regulation, they holler they are lost in all the big interests and their money, yet supported the citizens united decision that basically allows elections to be bought with unlimited money......Paul likewise has a lot of contradictions to his views, so making a party around it might be difficult.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I didn't know the America First Party was still around.

Kindasorta. They have an actively-updated website, anyway.

You can read about all American third parties currently active or semi-active here.

 

[ChinaBandit]

I wish Ron Paul would just die so Gary Johnson would get more, well deserved, coverage.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They want to re-elect Obama.

Obama is the obvious choice in the heavy weight division for conservatives who vote based on a candidates record of action and not rhetoric/propaganda paid for by wall street and pushed by the news media.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul's wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was "all over the blogosphere" (first I'd heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.

Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian -- he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 -- and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!

But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between "creditors and debtors," and was decrying the power of the "international bankers" who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative -- anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.

But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP's emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.

So, what kind of party are they talking about?

Whatever it is, I'm behind it all the way.

 

[rosco rathbone]

he talks about going back on the gold standard as a means of 'making the currency work for the little guy', and in many ways his ideas are similar to the William Jennings Bryan part of the old democratic party, the populist/agrarian types...

If by "similar" you mean "opposite to", then yeah.

 

[Recidiva]

Paul is really an anarchist.

 

[kbate]

Paul is really an anarchist.

Mandatory Somalia mention.

 

[Recidiva]

Mandatory Somalia mention.

I always thought it was funny that you could pay dues to be a card-carrying Anarchist.

Ron Paul embodies this cognitive dissonance.

"Use the election system and pay me a salary so I can dismantle all of government. Thank you very much!"

 

[kbate]

I always thought it was funny that you could pay dues to be a card-carrying Anarchist.

Ron Paul embodies this cognitive dissonance.

"Use the election system and pay me a salary so I can dismantle all of government. Thank you very much!"

Can you admit that the government, FBI, Secret service, military, local, state and other federal police just might have an idea about it if he were to attempt to dismantle the government without first being elected to do so?

 

[The_Trouvere]

I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul's wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was "all over the blogosphere" (first I'd heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.

Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian -- he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 -- and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!

But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between "creditors and debtors," and was decrying the power of the "international bankers" who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative -- anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.

But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP's emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.

So, what kind of party are they talking about?

Ron Paul supporters probably overestimate the appeal of what they represent. They think a political party that clearly stood for their values and concerns would dominate the country. That is a common mistake made by ideologues who spend most of their time talking to like minded ideologues, and who avoid exposure to political messages they dislike.

Right now I would welcome any effort to pull votes away from Mitt Romney and assure the reelection of President Obama. Romney was not the first choice of the True Believers. He is too moderate and too Mormon for their more robust taste in reactionaries and right wing radicals.

 

[Recidiva]

Can you admit that the government, FBI, Secret service, military, local, state and other federal police just might have an idea about it if he were to attempt to dismantle the government without first being elected to do so?

They should, if they listen to his speeches.

I agree with him up to a point. Yes, government programs and policies are bloated and weighed down with ridiculous constraints and riders.

But please fix the constraints and riders, don't dissolve all government.

He builds an excellent argument and then does not stick the landing because his final word is not reform, but demolition.

It's as if he were saying, like Socrates "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers!"

Yes...I'm with you...

And then his answer isn't "We need better babysitters, more attention to detail, more present parenting, better education..."

but is "So fuck those kids, blow up the house and see how they like it then!"

 

[richard_daily]

Just because you're fat doesn't mean you're pregnant.

ZING!

 

[hogjack]

Paul is really an anarchist.

I don't believe in that biblical mumbo-jumbo.

But it's still a fascinating story and has contributed greatly to the pop culture and entertainment scene.

 

[Wok]

I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul's wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was "all over the blogosphere" (first I'd heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.

Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian -- he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 -- and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!

But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between "creditors and debtors," and was decrying the power of the "international bankers" who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative -- anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.

But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP's emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.

So, what kind of party are they talking about?

It is just Paulite sour grapes talking.

 

[kbate]

They should, if they listen to his speeches.

I agree with him up to a point. Yes, government programs and policies are bloated and weighed down with ridiculous constraints and riders.

But please fix the constraints and riders, don't dissolve all government.

He builds an excellent argument and then does not stick the landing because his final word is not reform, but demolition.

It's as if he were saying, like Socrates "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers!"

Yes...I'm with you...

And then his answer isn't "We need better babysitters, more attention to detail, more present parenting, better education..."

but is "So fuck those kids, blow up the house and see how they like it then!"

That is why almost everyone considers him a nutcase and why he will never be President.