Home » News » Ronulan Alert!

Ronulan Alert!

From the please-go-away category:

The McCain campaign, acting through the Republican National Committee, has been negotiating with Rep. Ron Paul to win his support and acquire the names of his sympathizers among the 4,607 delegates and alternates at the Republican National Convention, according to a senior aide to the Texas congressman.

Mr. Paul has refused to endorse Mr. McCain, and Mr. McCain’s operatives have refused to let him address the Republican National Convention.

As a result, Mr. Paul decided to hold a rally of his own Tuesday billed as the “Campaign for Liberty.

Paul and his disciples continue to miss the point, and it’s the reason they continue to be irrelevant (but quite entertaining, and could be responsible for an increase in popcorn sales). By this time in the election season the choices have been made — either Obama or McCain will be President. You don’t get to choose what you want — the choice becomes picking the best (or least objectionable, if you will) of the two. Which better represents your values?

Real change comes before the primaries. If you want a different tone and different candidates, get involved now for 2012 . Huckabee and Romney each have PAC’s (as well as many others), get involved to influence conservative directions. Or you could just write in Ron Paul, being blissfully ignorant in “the revolution”, and ignore the fact it counts as much as writing in Mickey Mouse (zero). Sorry, guys, wake up to reality — the Republicrats don’t really care about your fringe movement.

The Ronulans are woefully misguided and blissfully ignorant of how politics work. You’ve got to work within the system to make a difference (hint: it takes more than a blimp, although they’ve got no shortage of hot air). To work for 2012, you need to begin now, and work with the national parties. Just being a minority fringe movement will never accomplish anything, as the other 98% of the population just considers it a nuisance, like swatting at a persistent fly. Paul’s disciples believing in the revolution need to wake up to reality — the revolution isn’t over, there never was one.

Ron Paul and his disciples will (generally) never support McCain — as we’ve pointed out before (see Libertarians for Obama), Libertarians (like Paul) are liberal on social policy (legalize drugs, prostitution, and so on), and liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, anti-Israel, and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, eliminate the Federal Reserve, etc).

A minority of Libertarians want to return to conservative principles, others just use the Libertarians in an attempt to legalize drugs and prostitution, become isolationist, and anti-Israel. The fringes represented by the Libertarian party will always exist, and will always be rejected by 99% of society — the Libertarian party is useless if your goal is to actually change the tone.

However, the saner points of Paul’s fiscal policy have some merit — so what is better, working to move the parties toward fiscal responsibility, splitting off to your own rally, or encouraging the election of tax-and-spend? That all depends on your goal — false feelings about the movement and it’s success, or actually getting something done (hint: Paul and his disciples will accomplish nothing).

If Libertarians desire to actually move the political discourse, they’d be wise to abandon the hero-worship of their leader and philosophy, join the main political parties (as noted, Libertarians can fit either the Republican or Democratic party, depending on social/foreign policy or economic policy) and work for change within the system. Or if they desire to tilt at windmills and fly the blimp, they’ve already got a perfect arrangement to do so (and no shortage of hot air), while resigning themselves to nothing more than the answer to a trivial pursuit question (“What minor candidate held his own convention in the presidential race of 2008”).

The question is, what is the real goal?

Libertarians are hybrids with liberal foreign and social policy, mixed with conservative fiscal policy. It’s an error to believe Libertarians are conservative — if Libertarians emphasized foreign/social policy over fiscal policy, they’d fit right in with the most extreme far-left of the Democratic party. Libertarians are not conservative, and any attempt to appeal to them on a conservative basis is doomed to failure, simply because they’re not conservative, and don’t hold conservative values. Thus if McCain attempts to appeal to Paul’s disciples based on conservative principles, he’ll fail.

That’s the key to understanding Libertarians — they’re a mix of fiscal conservatives, social legalize-all-the-drugs liberals, and foreign policy isolationist anti-military anti-Israel liberals. As such, Libertarians are at home with either Democrats or Republicans, depending on what area they emphasize at the moment.

It’s likely Libertarians will support Obama over McCain. Not all will, but if the polls are correct, Libertarians generally agree with Obama’s far-left liberal views over conservative ones.

Of course, all this makes sense when you realize Libertarians aren’t conservative and don’t hold conservative values, they’re fiscally-conservative liberals who otherwise align much more comfortably with the Kucinich wing of the Democratic party — sharing the same goals, but for different reasons.



  1. Jew says:

    It’s hard to work within the party when the party won’t let you participate at the party convention. And why does McCain get to control the convention? Does the presumptive nominee automatically become the supreme dictator of the Republican party? Seriously, I’m asking. I don’t know how this stuff works. I know the party would want to give McCain a lot of input into the convention, but I assumed there was a party chairman or someone who is the ultimate authority.

  2. If both parties actually wanted to reconcile, Ron Paul would first endorse McCain, encouraging his people to support McCain as the best choice (which should have occurred already). McCain would then give Paul a speaking position at the convention. But don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen as Paul seems quite happy going his own way against the party, and mainstream Republicans view Paul as an embarrassment and freak show and would like him to disappear.

    But the issue really is the convention is *way* too late to do anything. If you recall conventions of 15-20 years ago, something actually happened – discussion of platform, etc. Today’s conventions are little more than 4 day infomercials (and that gives infomercials a bad name). At this point, it makes little difference if Paul is included or not, all the important stuff has been decided. Real change begins *before* the primary.

    Paul can fly the blimp all he wants, hold whatever alternative convention he wants — and accomplish nothing. The point is to become involved considerably earlier in the process — by convention time everything is already set in stone. Too many people wait far too long to become involved – begin now for 2012. Don’t wait.

    As to who gets to control the convention, I’ve actually read some of the party’s convention documents (hard as they are to follow – they’re the worst of legalize), and don’t recall anything about who is actually in charge (surprise, surprise). Based on past practice, I think the political parties basically yield to whatever the candidate wants as it’s his “show”. There are rules regarding how the vote occurs and so on, but as to who gets to speak, and on what, and the overall theme, I think the parties more or less bow to the candidate’s wishes.

    The exception (as always) are the Clintons, who usually get what they want no matter what.

    PS. What do you think of Palin?

  3. Jew says:

    I like Palin. She’s a bit under-experienced, but that’s OK for the VP job. Her track record of rooting out corruption is refreshing. I’d consider voting Palin for President. Adding her to the ticket isn’t enough to convince me to vote for McCain though.

  4. RobinHood says:

    It would be better if Sarah Palin was VP for a more robust (sorry if it offends but read as ‘younger’) President.

    I have confidence she could be a good VP, but with a 72 year old President who faces the very real possiblity of dying half way through his term (of natural causes of course) I think she could be very dangerous. If she could have a full term as VP to observe how things are done and why she may indeed THEN make a very good president (say in 2012 for instance). But with McCain she faces the very real possiblity of becoming President by default and before she is ready. This may actually hurt her place in history as she will be judged on the performance she gives with very little regard for ‘if she was ready for it’

  5. Actually militarism is neither conservative or liberal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: