Patterico's Pontifications

It’s not really an “either/or.”

gwjd (032bef) — 2/12/2011 @ 7:49 pm

The American Street knows they have been lied to.
both of our corrupt political parties
all of our corrupt controlled media

This ain’t no party
This ain’t no disco
This ain’t no fooling around

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi (7c465e) — 2/12/2011 @ 7:53 pm

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Allen West got a rousing ovation from the CPAC crowd for a much different speech than one that would have been given by the straw poll winner. He spoke of moral courage, steadfast defense against enemies, and a big ovation when he pledged that he would never allow America to abandon Israel to the extent within his power. The reception of West’s traditional conservative speech exposed the unrepresentative nature of the straw poll.

I think the Paul people simply go to great lengths to win that poll.

DRJ (fdd243) — 2/12/2011 @ 7:57 pm

If it quacks like a duck… My vote in your straw poll is for “idiots.”

Simon Kenton (a0b742) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:01 pm

Yes, is the proper answer, then again he had psycho Osama groupie Michael Scheur (there’s a difference between understanding him, and agreeing with him) as an advisor.

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:02 pm

It’s a bit of both I think, but I think the best translation of the Paul votes is ‘none of the above’. And since as it stands right now we have a pretty weak and unappealing slate, 2 years out, that’s not all that surprising.

Skip (9b88fa) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:09 pm

Says Simon Kenton, who supports Boy Barcky and Joe freaking Biden.

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:16 pm

My personal opinion is that in addition to managing to once again be over-represented at CPAC, the Ronulans “freeped” the poll.

Colonel West’s message resonates more with rank-and-file conservatives, and many Americans I suspect, that Congressman Paul…

Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:22 pm

Patterico:

What’s the point of two joke threads?

Ag80 (7a9f97) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:27 pm

It has been said by many who have attended CPAC in the past that the straw poll is held just before many of the speakers and listeners get there so the voters who come early (Paulians)seem to hold a preponderance of votes each year. (freeped I believe one commenter said.) But as was stated emphatically and eloquently by Donald Trump (to the best of my recollection, pardon if not precisely regurgitated): “Ron Paul will never win an election for President.”

LeonidasOfSparta (c9c010) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:33 pm

They’re on the other side and idiots.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:37 pm

Mr. Trump’s stating that “Ron Paul will never win an election for President” is proof, positive and indisputable, of two propositions:

1. Even Mr. Trump is capable of saying something sensible on occasion, and

2. Mr. Trump has no sense of irony whatsoever.

gwjd (032bef) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:40 pm

Agree with DRJ @ comment #3. Which means the actually informative question is: Who came in second in the straw poll?

Robin Munn (cd9337) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:43 pm

The top ten:

Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) — 30%

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — 23%

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson — 6%

Gov. Chris Christie (R., N.J.) — 6%

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — 5%

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty — 4%

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) — 4%

Gov. Mitch Daniels (R., Ind.) — 4%

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin — 3%

Former business executive Herman Cain — 2%

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:48 pm

Perhaps because we do have a pretty weak and unappealing slate right now, the Ron Paul win takes on more meaning:

Grover Norquist told NRO: “If you are running for president, you need to be able to connect with the activists,” he says. “This is a measure of how connected you are to activists, especially the young activists. Some people talk about the money primary — this is the activist primary.

He expands on this by noting that as Paul supporters increase on the right the result could be a shake up the 2012 race, especially on issues championed by Paul, like monetary policy. No one pulls in young people like Ron Paul. Sort of like Obama, once upon a time…

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:56 pm

Most of Ron Paul’s supporters (I’m not one of them) are well aware of his positions. The bunch at LewRockwell.com are his core backers. They claim to be “against the warfare state,” which everyone but them supposedly supports.

DN (322684) — 2/12/2011 @ 8:59 pm

Ag80 wins the thread.

I think we can disagree on foreign policy. It’s the overt racism and crazed anti-homosexual rants that trouble me. Yes, I know it was a while ago, but crazy is still crazy.

I don’t think Christie will run this round but he might in 2016. My favorite candidate, Daniels, is probably unelectable in a Republican primary. That leaves, um, ah…. crap.

–JRM

JRM (cd0a37) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:03 pm

CPAC is clearly not representative (but, then, neither is Iowa, so go figure – not like I make the rules).

But at least in noise level, the Paulite-wackos are displacing the religious snarfling, it seems, and Randy is getting his press. At least, nobody outside of his sad little donor pool takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore. I think we may be a bit of a realignment going on. Slow, as we see it, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Lew Rockwell wing of the libartarians got their day in the sun soon.

Jamie (886d4d) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:06 pm

Dana – Nor Luap might be able to pull in a solid 2% of the vote. He’s got the young druggies and the loony libertarians. He’s a flat out embarrassment.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:08 pm

I don’t disagree, daley, but at this point in time, I think there are plenty of average Americans so frustrated with the business as usual GOP, the economy and the increase in government that they may give him a second look.

I think, too, that this time might be different because the last time he ran the Tea Party had not fully emerged to become what it is today: an influential and powerful political group that has made it’s presence known on the national stage. It’s not hard to see where he might possibly pull in a lot of Tea Party members, especially on fiscal matters.

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:22 pm

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin — 3%

I think that alone should suggest that the straw poll is not a reliable indicator. Only one out of 33 conservatives think she would be the best candidate? And is Romney that attractive to conservatives?

But Paul and his following are not idiots or fools or ignorant. Don’t you understand why isolationism had a long history among conservatives, and was in fact the default conservative position up until WWII? An assertive foreign policy that depends in large part on having troops stationed around the world and handing out bales of cash to third world countries, is usually conducive to large government and never conducive to small government.

kishnevi (14ed7d) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:25 pm

Dana,

Sure, that why they are elecing Republicans in droves because they are tired of the business as usual republicans

makes sense….

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:30 pm

Tea Party People… the delusionals

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:31 pm

On the upside, Huckabee didn’t place in the Top Ten, so there’s some hope yet. Huckabee had commented last year that CPAC has become increasingly libertarian and less Republican over the years and that’s why he skipped the event.

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:33 pm

At last year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, the Ron Paul people arrived only for the very last day of the conference, many arriving only hours or even minutes before the registration cut-off fo eligibility to vote in the straw poll.

Ron Paul wins of straw polls are utterly meaningless, the result of his supporters (legitimate) efforts to stuff the ballot box. They do NOT, ever, reflect the sentiment of the bulk of the average attendees of the conference.

PatHMV (299e25) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:44 pm

CPAC was never a conservative event, it was more about commerce than causes

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:45 pm

PAtHMV

Many of Pauls supporters are also paid, he has a professional cadre of money raisers and Pacs spreadout over texas, Debra Medina is a Paul employee, they try to hide their activities through quasi educational Pacs as well.

Paul is also in poor health, this maybe his last hurrah – also – there is talk about redistricting him out of a seat – very strong talk

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:48 pm

“Don’t you understand why isolationism had a long history among conservatives, and was in fact the default conservative position up until WWII?”

kishnevi – Haven’t you noticed the position has changed since WWII, especially since liberals keep screwing up our foreign policy?

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:53 pm

Ugh.

Anyway, I refuse to spent time worrying about Ron Paul’s nutsquad. But it’s worth noting that he’s not the only candidate whose supporters spend money and other efforts to rig straw poll support.

Those who note Palin has electability problems should also note Romney has electability problems.

I loved Daniels’s speech, but I fear that his realistic nature, where he doesn’t promise more than he can deliver, makes him unable to compete at this level. In other words, we get the government we deserve.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/12/2011 @ 9:59 pm

Dustin, you are right about Daniels. He was straight forward saying the things that need to be said but most fear saying lest it be too much of a downer.

Here is the transcript of his speech.

The second worst outcome I can imagine for next year would be to lose to the current president and subject the nation to what might be a fatal last dose of statism. The worst would be to win the election and then prove ourselves incapable of turning the ship of state before it went on the rocks, with us at the helm.

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/12/2011 @ 10:13 pm

In principle, Paul is right. Becoming the world’s policeman is bad for America, promotes big government, and makes enemies out of people who’d have nothing against us if only we stuck to our own knitting. As Kishinevi says, this was the default conservative position until the 1950s. The problem is that the world has become a dangerous place, and ignoring it can bite us on the arse.

If you’d told me on 10-Sep-2001 that Ron Paul would make a serious bid for president and that I would not support him I’d have called you crazy. But 11-Sep-2001 happened, and we can’t pretend it didn’t. If Paul were to become president I believe he would turn the USA into a paradise — five minutes before the Arabs blasted us to Paradise.

I think the job of president should be split into two, with the president in charge of foreign policy, defense, and related fields, and a prime minister responsible for purely domestic policy. If that were to happen, I’d have no problem supporting Ron Paul for PM.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/12/2011 @ 11:46 pm

I believe the overall position of Paul and the others is a “strict libertariansm” position — Based on the notion that the only military action a nation may take is strictly defensive — it can defend itself when attacked, but cannot do anything to prevent that attack in the first place, if it’s violent. It is also strongly, if not fanatically isolationist — that the USA has no business in foreign locales which are not fully and utterly mutually agreeable to the populace “in charge” at that location.

1) It’s a demonstration of the fact that there is no idea, no notion, no concept conceivable by the mind of man — not love nor honor, duty nor compassion, kindness nor patience, that some lamebrained idiot cannot take and run straight off the edge of the earth with it.

This is not a world of absolutes. God may know absolutes, but mankind is not thus encumbered. Take any idea you want to — ANY IDEA AT ALL — and I can identify for you a situation, likely pathologically constructed to violate it, in which violating that precept or notion is The Correct Action For A Rational Individual. If Gödel’s incompleteness theorems say it is impossible to construct a mathematical entity which is not inherently self-contradicting, then it is impossible for ANY construct of man to be otherwise.

So, as a philosophical and social concept, “libertarianism”, along with everything else, MUST have its exceptions.

2) The general concept behind libertariansm in this instance is isolationism — “leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone”. Fair enough, on some levels, and desirable in general and to some measure to pretty much everyone… “Don’t Tread On Me”.

However: The sheer, outright dunderheadedness behind this idea is so blatant it’s dumbfounding that people fail to grasp its flawed nature. It literally ranks up there with the lefty faith in the potential of communism and marxism for just how incredibly naive and/or stupid one must be to actually adhere to it.

“It worked for all of the 1800s” — yes, it did, for an America with little worth stealing and two giant moats on either side making that even more so. Add to that a certain amount of “big brother” protection from the British Empire and it’s not a question of how it worked, but how it could have failed to. Guess what? The moats, the big brother, and “the lack of anything worth stealing”? Not there any longer. Got that?
*NOT*
*THERE*.
America, not the UK, is now The Top Dog — and even if we were the absolute BESTEST TOP DOG possible, generous to a fault, kind and considerate to a level that would shame a Smurf, there would still be people and groups out there who would want to attack us, to take us down, just because we’re Top Dog. There are, and will always be, those who would seek to count coup against us. Someone who wants to, if they cannot be at the “top of the heap”, to at least succeed in striking a blow against those who ARE at the top of the heap.

Q.E.D. — the notion of “leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone” is simply patently ludicrous.

They’ll “leave us alone” if we beat the snot out of them if they even give us the impression that they’re thinking of hitting us.

There is a reason even Gandhi needed a bodyguard. If you have power, if you have influence, there are those who would seek to abuse that.

IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/13/2011 @ 1:26 am

it wouldn’t surprise me if the Lew Rockwell wing of the libertarians got their day in the sun soon.

Oh, I do hope not. I read something Rockwell wrote, some blathering piece a while back (what… oh, ca. 2004 or 5?) about the “illegal Iraqi War” in which he claimed there was no support among the Iraqis.

, I wrote him and cited then-recent polls of the Iraqi people which said they generally supported our presence there at the time, recognizing it as a “necessary evil” after Saddam’s fall to keep order. He fired back a denial that claimed the polls were taken under duress, that the pollsters were surrounded by armed guards scaring the “pollees” into saying exactly what was supposed to be said, yadayadayada.

Nothing to substantially back the claim that the polls were invalid, just a presumption that the people being polled could not possibly have answered “correctly” — read: How he thought they should answer…

The tone and attitude of his reply made it clear that he was as “reasonable” as any froth-at-the-mouth Berkley leftist on the subject. I really haven’t paid much attention to him ever since.

As long as he sticks to economics, he appears rational and sensible. Once you segue into foreign policy issues there’s no reason in the man.

IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/13/2011 @ 1:42 am

EricPWJohnson… the delusionalistest.

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/13/2011 @ 1:46 am

I have a hard time taking seriously any group of libertarians who think that the proper solution to the trade deficit is to increase government intervention and through it limit consumer choice and international competition.

The correct answer to the problem would be “reduce or eliminate all regulations that are not evenly applied to all companies (either foreign or domestic), allowing for a level field of play, then let a Free Market decide which companies fail and which ones do not.”

The notion that we should somehow protect American companies who can’t produce a good product I want to buy is how we got the bailout of automakers.

Also the idea that it is somehow a good idea to, instead of competing in a global market with 6-someodd billion customers, self-limit ourselves to 330-someodd million customers is economic retardation.

And the fact that Ronulans like to throw around the “Blood for oil” meme doesn’t win them any points either. I mean, did you guts know that we’re just takin’ all of Iraq’s oil? Like, all of it?

There is no reasoning with these people, because they positions involve now use of it in the first place.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 2:34 am

SP

Nope just a realist grounded. the Teap Party lost the Senate and is screwing with purity over reality

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:12 am

I have a hard time taking seriously any group of libertarians who think that the proper solution to the trade deficit is to increase government intervention and through it limit consumer choice and international competition.

The correct answer to the problem would be “reduce or eliminate all regulations that are not evenly applied to all companies (either foreign or domestic), allowing for a level field of play, then let a Free Market decide which companies fail and which ones do not.”

The notion that we should somehow protect American companies who can’t produce a good product I want to buy is how we got the bailout of automakers.

Also the idea that it is somehow a good idea to, instead of competing in a global market with 6-someodd billion customers, self-limit ourselves to 330-someodd million customers is economic ret@rd@tion.

And the fact that Ronulans like to throw around the “Blood for oil” meme doesn’t win them any points either. I mean, did you guts know that we’re just takin’ all of Iraq’s oil? Like, all of it?

There is no reasoning with these people, because they positions involve now use of it in the first place

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:13 am

Nope just a realist grounded. the Teap Party lost the Senate and is screwing with purity over reality

Actually, mathematically, Tea-Party backed candidates did better than non-backed candidates.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:14 am

Huckabee had commented last year that CPAC has become increasingly libertarian and less Republican over the years

Well, he wasn’t wrong…

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:53 am

And it isn’t a bad thing. Libertarianism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that Republicans are losing out is not, by definition, a bad sign.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 4:00 am

@ Scott Jacobs:

Libertarianism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

I strongly doubt it.

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 4:14 am

From John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog:

Pay no attention to the straw poll–the Paul-bots make a point of turning out their students, most of whom will come around as they get older, and balloting was closed before prospective candidates like Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour had even appeared before the group.

The dominant impressions had nothing to do with the merits of individual candidates: the tremendous vigor and energy we are seeing in the conservative movement; the influx of a new generation of freedom-loving, highly talented youngsters; and a pervasive sense of confidence and good humor. We’ve had three-day periods when we’ve laughed more, but not many.

Paul isn’t a serious player. Too bad he allows his followers to distort the process.

Attila (d1cb89) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:20 am

Scott

Time will tell, but poli sci’s will disagree whether the TPS actually had an impact or not that was separate from th Republican Party as many were and are organized exclusively by Republicans – so what is it – over energized Republicans? Purer Republicans? Strong Independents?

I dont think the broad media brush sweeps as well – in the East where Republicans needs moderates to get elected – getting a majority of registered republicans in a wave to work out the Castles is not reallyvthe thundering schievement that many are touting.

But with the passage of time – the real story may come out but in this emotionally charged environment any meaningful analysis is going to be swallowed in the fire

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:24 am

BTW

Serious fighting is being reported – apparently Democracy means something different to different factions in Egypt…

So says Al Jazeera

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:26 am

If you watch Ron Paul’s speech from CPAC, he does a good job promoting his isolationist stance and ending foreign aid.

“Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.”

And he has a good bit on why people are going to be angry with us when we keep propping up dictators who happen to be our expedient allies. Iran wouldn’t be a problem if we hadn’t propped up the Shah. And Iraq wouldn’t be a problem if we hadn’t propped up Saddam. And Afghanistan and Al Qaeda wouldn’t be a problem if we hadn’t poured money into the Mujaheddin. et cetera, ad nauseum.

It’s short term thinkers who don’t see more past the next presidential election that are the fools that keep perpetuating this continuing delusion that we can be the world’s policeman.

Xmas (f72f61) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:28 am

Xmas,

Where is exactly are we the world’s policemen?

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:32 am

Xmas

Please explain, what is a world policeman, where do we spend money doing that, and how does that foster any resentment towards America.

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:33 am

Actually, Mossadeq would likely have been fallen to the Tudeh and become a Soviet satellite, by them, Fletcher Knebel, predicted that would have been the generational war, not Vietnam, in ‘Seven Days in May’ certain officials did support Nasser and the Baathists, respectively, who promptly turned to the Soviets for support. The French having staked Saddam more heavily, than we ever did.

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:40 am

Paul isn’t a serious player. Too bad he allows his followers to distort the process.

How else would the whack-a-doodle remain even remotely relevant?

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:45 am

Comment by Xmas — 2/13/2011 @ 5:28 am

Oh God damnit…

Looks like we need to spray for Ronulans again…

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 5:47 am

Where is exactly are we the world’s policemen?

where do we spend money doing that, and how does that foster any resentment towards America.

No time for a list (it would be long), but let’s start with South Korea.

Old Coot (a0cebb) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:26 am

Old Coot – exactly what police duties do our troops in S. Korea perform and how is it different in cost if they are stationed lets say in Hawaii, or in R.O.K subsidized housing?

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:30 am

I refuse to apologize for taking part in an effort to keep a brutal, corrupt, homicidal regime from taking over a democratically elected one.

I realize a lot of people don’t mind the idea of leaving places to get overrun, and it’s people slaughtered or oppressed (see: Vietnam), but I have a problem with that.

While libertarianism eschews violence as a form of coercion, the realists among us see a huge difference in using force to prevent violent coercion.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:30 am

Scott,

When was the last time a Libertarian got elected (Ron doesnt count he runs as a republican)

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:34 am

EPWJ: I responded to your inquiries, but I’m not going to play 20 Questions with you. How about your explanation about why we spend an enormous amount of money stationing troops in South Korea, Germany, etc.?

Old Coot (a0cebb) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:36 am

We have about 30,000 in S Korea, I suppose Germany
really serves as a staging area for other operations, you want to suggest a better location,
Egypt maybe

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:40 am

This is one of epwj’s meme loops, teabaggers cost Team R the Senate. Add that into Scozzafava is a true conservative, Palin hates big oil, Breitbart to be indicted any day now.

prowler (0d2ffc) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:05 am

Oops, damn cookies from Friday.

When the MFM covers this, they never note that the results are so far outside of the mainstream of hundreds of other polls so as to make them laughable. The MFM and redundant Left likes to cover Nor Laup, they like to make conservatives out to be crazy.

Oh, and that oplontis clown thinks conservatives and libertarians are mutually exclusive because it has a clownish cartoon caricature of actual conservatives that it likes to argue against.

JD (109425) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:10 am

So are the CPAC Paul supporters idiots, or just utterly ignorant about this fool’s positions?

Excuse me? The idiots are the people who think we’re going to be able to stop Iran from getting nukes, other than by nuking Iran first.

Alan (3a776a) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:17 am

Excuse me? The idiots are the people who think we’re going to be able to stop Iran from getting nukes, other than by nuking Iran first.

So what does that make the people who think we should do absolutely nothing?

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:26 am

Seriously . . . the Tea Party ‘lost’ the Senate? Ya know, the Live Preview feature is there so that you can review your comment for signs of lunacy BEFORE you click the Submit button.

Icy Texan (5e635f) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:27 am

So . . . were they drawing straws? or munching on them?

Icy Texan (5e635f) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:29 am

Icy,

Tea Party Losers Del, Col, Nev, cost us Was, Cal, and Possibly Conn

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:30 am

They are idiots. And they are not all Tea Party people either. There were idiots supporting Paul long before there was a Tea Party.

Terrye (007c3b) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:33 am

Excuse me? The idiots are the people who think we’re going to be able to stop Iran from getting nukes, other than by nuking Iran first.

Comment by Alan — 2/13/2011 @ 7:17 am

Oh, but Ron Paul does not even care if they get nukes…he is too busy worrying about the Jews to care about what those poor misunderstood mullahs might be up to. After all, according to him 9/11 was just blowback.

Terrye (007c3b) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:35 am

Cost Team R CA, WA, and CT? Really? Prove it. Good Allah.

JD (d56362) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:40 am

We’re gonna lose again in 2012, aren’t we?

kansas (1fc602) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:48 am

Yup.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:49 am

I swear epwj must eat peyote buttons and tabs of acid for breakfast.

JD (306f5d) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:50 am

Patterico might be interested to know that one of the leading writers Rockwellian writers, William Anderson, continually attacks prosecutors in columns and on his blog. Anderson has written that innocent people are often deliberately framed in the courts and that Nifong, of Duke lacrosse hoax, is not untypical.

Anderson (whom I do NOT agree with) thinks the better lawyers don’t become prosecutors because the pay is not high. He has written that judges are mainly ex-prosecutors and actively assist the prosecution during trials. Most juries believe what prosecutors say and convict the innocent, according to Anderson.

One of the leading gurus for Rockwell’s branch of libertarianism, the late Murray Rothbard, believed that criminals should be sued in civil court, rather than prosecuted and sent to prison.

Anderson is a big admirer of Ron Paul, who is something of a catch-all for this kind of thinking.

DN (322684) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:51 am

I believe the overall position of Paul and the others is a “strict libertariansm” position — Based on the notion that the only military action a nation may take is strictly defensive — it can defend itself when attacked, but cannot do anything to prevent that attack in the first place, if it’s violent.

This is not true. Libertarians, even the most dogmatic Rothbardian ones, accept preemptive strikes as legitimate. The essence of libertarianism is that the only acceptable reason for the use of force or fraud is in defense of ones self or others. Thus an individual may use force not only to preempt a strike against himself, but also to preempt one against some defenseless person to whose rescue he chooses to come. But when it comes to governments it’s a bit more complicated.

The USA government projects force only by means of taxes forcibly extracted from its people; it’s legitimate to use taxes to fund the defense of the USA, because if we’re not defended then the taxpayers will at least lose all their property, and quite possibly their lives. But using taxes to defend Kuwait or South Vietnam, or to liberate Iraq, etc., is much like welfare; taking money from one person and using it entirely for another person’s benefit, without the first person’s consent. The proper libertarian way to achieve these goals would be to set up a fund and raise donations for the purpose.

In theory this makes sense. But when faced with enemies bent on world domination, if we wait until we’re in danger they’ll have the resources of the rest of the world behind them. We fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them here. And the Ron Pauls of the world don’t recognise that.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:04 am

Romney/Palin in 2012!

ropelight (176452) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:05 am

I have a hard time taking seriously any group of libertarians who think that the proper solution to the trade deficit is to increase government intervention and through it limit consumer choice and international competition.

Huh? Who says that?! Protectionism is the very opposite of libertarianism. Free trade was the original issue on which liberalism, now called libertarianism, was founded.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:06 am

Huh? Who says that?! Protectionism is the very opposite of libertarianism. Free trade was the original issue on which liberalism, now called libertarianism, was founded.

You don’t pay attention to Ron Paul, or his supporters.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:10 am

______________________________________

the Middle East is none of our business, and declares he wouldn’t do much about Iranian nukes.

Although they’re naive — if not also foolish — I can deal with isolationists on the right. It’s many of the ones on the left who drive me crazy. The ones who grumble about the US being involved in Iraq or Korea, but who also make a big stink about America not giving enough assistance or foreign aid to some country in the Third World. Or believe we also need to keep the UN as happy and well funded as possible.

I know isolationism was fashionable in the US after World War I, but Pearl Harbor in 1941 showed the folly of America playing the role of the 3 monkeys: “See no evil, say no evil, hear no evil.” I wasn’t aware that mindset was pervasive on the right from that time forward (1940s, 1950s), particularly once the Soviets and, to a lesser degree, Red China started looming over the world.

As for Ron Paul in particular, he ain’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of getting to the White House. He or anyone else who screws up the effort — and necessity — of getting the current guy out of the Oval Office in 2012 will deserve a lifetime in purgatory.

Mark (411533) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:11 am

So, um, why do we care what they say at CPAC? they are the outermost fringe.

For instance, the vast majority of republicans wouldn’t cut off aid to isreal. nor do they blame things like that for 9-11.

Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:15 am

I believe the overall position of Paul and the others is a “strict libertariansm” position — Based on the notion that the only military action a nation may take is strictly defensive — it can defend itself when attacked, but cannot do anything to prevent that attack in the first place, if it’s violent.

This is not true.

No, that is exactly what Ron Paul and his supporters believe. They don’t even think we should have a standing army.

Because, you know, it’s just so easy to train people in the use of modern weapons of war.

And, frankly, f**k you. If you think it was pointless fighting to keep North Korea out of South Korea, just take a look on a satellite image at night. South Korea has a thriving economy, the North is a complete wasteland. You think that’s a f**king accident?

When we pulled out of Vietnam, the north overran the south and proceeded to slaughter millions.

Every country we’ve “invaded” and been allowed to win in, we’ve left a far, far better country than when we got there.

God, we’re such a**holes.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:21 am

How can you lose something that you were NOT in control of in the first place, dorkus emeritus?

Icy Texan (6c3bf2) — 2/13/2011 @ 8:24 am

JD

Seems like alot of pundits of all types saying the Tea Party Cost us the Senate

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=tea+Party+cost+us+the+senate&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7SMSN_en___QA373&safe=active&sout=1

EricPWJohnson (472e73) — 2/13/2011 @ 9:12 am

Right Spencer Bacchus, who oppose the reforms that might have prevented this crisis in the first place,
with Fannie and Freddie

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 9:15 am

JD, in typical rational and courteous mode, wrote:

“Oh, and that oplontis clown thinks conservatives and libertarians are mutually exclusive because it has a clownish cartoon caricature of actual conservatives that it likes to argue against.”

If conservatism to you means only small government, small takes and the right to own guns, then I grant you it’s not antagonistic to libertarianism – actually, it’s libertarianism plain and simple.
There is also a social side to conservatism, however, and I don’t see how it can be reconciled with libertarianism as the latter stands for almost everything that social conservatism rejects.

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 9:55 am

I don’t tend to be civil to lying douchenozzles. You want to portray all conservatives based on your cartoonish caricature of fringe social conservatives.

Note how your position has gone from strongly doubt it to admitting that conservatism and libertarianism can mutually coexist.

JD (306f5d) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:03 am

You want to portray all conservatives based on your cartoonish caricature of fringe social conservatives.

What caricature? I only said that conservatism also has a social side, and that it cannot be easily reconciled with libertarianism. Are you telling me that defence of traditional marriage and family or opposition to abortion are of concern only to fringe people?

“Note how your position has gone from strongly doubt it to admitting that conservatism and libertarianism can mutually coexist.”

Note in return my caveat: a certain brand of conservatism may coexist with libertarianism insofar as it’s, more or less, the same thing.

P.S: I have my issues with what passes today for conservatism, but libertarians to me are just liberals who don’t want to pay taxes.

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:21 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplontis

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:26 am

Now that’s a powerful argument…

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:27 am

One probably wouldn’t need so many laws, if the major mediating institutions, church, family, et al,
were intact, but they have suffered serious attrition, and the same forces that push for more
government, demand more erosion of same.

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:34 am

Epwj hearts scozzafava, the true conservative, and apparently wishes to seek the approval of the talking heads.

“Oplontis” – that was not your original position. You only added a caveat once you got called out. Regardless, you have shown a history of bad faith here, so I find it highly amusing you get the vapors and call from civility when you get called out.

The idea that nanny state liberalism and libertarian would coexist is truly laughable.

JD (d48c3b) — 2/13/2011 @ 10:54 am

“The idea that nanny state liberalism and libertarian would coexist is truly laughable.”

The only thing in liberalism that libertarians oppose is the nanny state and everything smacking of government intervention; they are in agreement with liberals on virtually everything else.

Says Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute:

“Liberals and libertarians already share considerable common ground, if they could just see past their differences to recognize it. Both generally support a more open immigration policy. Both reject the religious right’s homophobia and blastocystophilia. Both are open to rethinking the country’s draconian drug policies. Both seek to protect the United States from terrorism without gratuitous encroachments on civil liberties or extensions of executive power. And underlying all these policy positions is a shared philosophical commitment to individual autonomy as a core political value.”

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:06 am

The only thing in liberalism that libertarians oppose is the nanny state and everything smacking of government intervention; they are in agreement with liberals on virtually everything else.

Considering that Liberals see Govt intervention as the solution to EVERYTHING, I find it unlikely that libertarians would ever agree with them on anything.

As I’ve said, gay marriage/civil unions are a state issue. While libertarians (and everyone else) split on the issue, libertarians are united in the belief that the Federal Govt. shouldn’t have a say in the matter.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:15 am

FU, oplontis. HOhophobes! Sexist! Racist! You are a caricature of a poorly written parody. How are individual autonomy and the leftist nanny state compatible?

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:34 am

While we are at it, how many names have you been banned under?

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:35 am

JD,

Go read the Brink Lindsey article I’ve linked to. He (and the Cato Institute, where the article is posted) obviously think bridges can be built. I know, I know, reading is difficult, more difficult than throwing insults, but I know you can do it.

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:46 am

I read what you quoted, and forgive me if I don’t care to read about how conservatives are sexist racist hohophobes against immigrants. FU. As i said, you are a caricature of a parody, and have proven your bad faith basically every time you drop your turdlets in the comments.

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:53 am

Is it worse to be uncivil, or dishonest? Apparently “oplontis” thinks being uncivil is worse than being a dishonest condescending prlck.

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:56 am

Libertarians:
Always ready to make the perfect the enemy of the good!

AD-RtR/OS! (3e01c9) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:57 am

…and, since most Libertarians abhor Conservatives, what are they doing (other than creating a ruckus for Their Great Leader) at a Conservative Political Action Conference, anyway?

AD-RtR/OS! (3e01c9) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:59 am

‘A travesty of two mockeries of a sham’

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 12:14 pm

The only thing in liberalism that libertarians oppose is the nanny state and everything smacking of government intervention; they are in agreement with liberals on virtually everything else.

That’s a rather ironic statement. Instead of illustrating the common ground between liberals and libertarians, it instead reveals how far apart they are: the very heart of modern liberalism is a nanny state and government intervention. It’s a win-win based on the assumption that the citizenry needs both in tall order to survive. Its benefit to the government is citizenry dependency and allegiance (which is even more ironic since this is the same government they attempt to resist).

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/13/2011 @ 12:51 pm

“I read what you quoted, and forgive me if I don’t care to read about how conservatives are sexist racist hohophobes against immigrants. FU. As i said, you are a caricature of a parody, and have proven your bad faith basically every time you drop your turdlets in the comments.”

Mind you, quoting is not endorsing. I quoted Lindsey not because I agree with him regarding conservatives, but because he is a representative libertarian arguing for bridges to be built between libertarians and liberals on the basis of their shared values. I think conservatives are badly mistaken in thinking libertarians are natural and sound allies; all that “alliance” has brought thus far is the libertarian hijacking of the conservative movement, with no observable reciprocity. You conservatives clearly play the cuckhold in that story, and you seem to like it.

Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/13/2011 @ 2:10 pm

So what does that make the people who think we should do absolutely nothing?

There are three alternatives in this debate.

(1) Wipe Iran off the globe.

(2) Do something else.

(3) Do absolutely nothing.

Whoever prefers option (2) is stupid, because option (2) will not prevent Iran from getting nukes.

Whoever prefers option (3) at least has the intelligence to realize the futility of option (2).

Alan (3a776a) — 2/13/2011 @ 2:21 pm

Eric,

The list really is too long. Why do we have bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea? Why did we have troops in Saudi Arabia between Gulf War I and II? What the heck happened in Somalia? Beruit? Kosovo?

Why do we give Colombia billions of dollars in aid every year?

We are the world’s policeman. We protect our allies, and try to be a force for what we believe is good and right. We intervene is world affairs in the name of peace and protecting the innocent. We spend more money on the military than the next 10 countries combined.

So, our pro-intervention host likes calling isolationists fools. I’m just turning the tables and pointing out the interventionists are often foolishly short sighted. Intervention has consequences and is ALWAYS a long term commitment. Yet, a few years later, we have a new President with a new plan and new priorities and we let our commitments lapse. Intervention turns to morass (North Korea) or morally repugnant inattention (post Soviet invasion Afghanistan).

Xmas (f72f61) — 2/13/2011 @ 2:42 pm

Well, we have a base in Germany as a relic of the Cold War, when it looked like maybe the USSR was going to try and take over Europe. Today it serves as a major medical facility, having proven it’s worth countless times helping to provide a “close” place to perform major surgeries on troops injured in the Middle East.

We’re in Korea because that war never actually ended, and our departure would make it possible for the Norks to barrel across the DMZ and take over South Korea.

We’re in Japan largely as a first-responder to the Norks.

The foreign aid? No defense. I’m in favor of cutting pretty much every penny.

Why did we act in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo?

I guess I shouldn’t be shocked by your questioning of those.

I mean, since when have you folks had a problem with a little ethnic cleansing?

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:17 pm

By a show of hands, how many think it is really sweet how much faux concern “oplontis” has for conservatives and libertarians?

JD (d4bbf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:31 pm

JD – I think it is also marvelous of kishnevi to point out that conservative have departed from pre-World War II positions and that maintaining a strong defensive posture is not necessarily consistent with small government.

I love unnecessary glaring statements of the obvious.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/13/2011 @ 3:50 pm

Wow Scott…that’s a pretty cheap trick trying to paint me as racist and anti-Semitic.

Good job arguing your point there. Oh…you argued my point. We have military bases in Germany to serve as a staging point for forays into Middle East. We are still stuck in Korea after 60 years. We tried in Somalia simply left it behind to fester. Bonsia and Kosovo…well, things settled down there, but we pushed our NATO allies to take care of things there.

So, what’s that, one interventionist success story. Good for you, your global policing strategy is a success! So, what’s your plan for Iran and it’s nukes, Mr. Successful in Bosnia? How do you decouple the carrot of foreign aid and the stick of military intervention? How do you wash the blood of the innocents killed by dictators we support and the bombs we drop from your hands?

So, a growing group of people are questioning our current global strategy of flinging cruise missiles around the globe and giving billions of dollars to thuggish governments. We think that sort of thing makes us look bad. But apparently, you’re okay with that, because it may help a Republican get elected. Good for you.

Xmas (f72f61) — 2/13/2011 @ 4:05 pm

Xmas @105 – Nothing in your comment is recognizable as a rational response to Scott’s comment. Congratulations on passing progressivism or libertarianism 101!

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/13/2011 @ 4:23 pm

Every country we’ve “invaded” and been allowed to win in, we’ve left a far, far better country than when we got there.

That’s not the point. The question we need to think of is not whether Korea/Iraq/Aghanistan better off because of what we did there, but whether the United States is better off because of what we did there. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying we are not better off–just that you’re using the wrong criterion. So you need not dash off a long response proving that we are. I’ll take it as proven that we are better off.)

I love unnecessary glaring statements of the obvious.
I’m glad that the linkage between big government and strong military is obvious to you, but apparently it isn’t obvious to many of the people in the conservative movement. To have a memory of the time when most conservatives were isolationist, you need to be 70 or 75–which means that the vast majority of people today think of conservatism as implying a strong, assertive military.

The conservative rejection of isolationism was in response to the Soviet Union and the monolithic threat of communism; now that those are history, is it not time to at least consider that adopting, at the least, a less aggressive foreign policy, is more in line with conservative ideals.
(Not to mention what oncoming budget crunches might mean to defense spending.)

Comment by Dana — 2/13/2011 @ 12:51 pm
You probably need to think of liberals as meaning social liberals when talking about any alliance between liberals and libertarians.

The conservative movement is really two movements working together: social conservatives, who focus on ‘family values’ and think in terms of government enforcing morality, and for whom the economic issues are a lower priority; and classical economic liberals, who want low taxes, low regulation, and more free markets, and for whom the social issues are a lower priority. (There are of course plenty of people who can, depending on the context, be assigned to either camp, but at any given moment one set of issues will predominate.) From the point of view of libertarians, social conservatives are advocating a nanny state as much as any leftist does. The war on Sudafed, for instance, is a good example of the nanny state acting for a socially conservative goal.

kishnevi (b40a74) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:25 pm

We have military bases in Germany to serve as a staging point for forays into Middle East.

Um, no, that’s not why there are bases in Germany. They may be used for that lately, but if you think that’s the reason the bases are there in the first place, you need to brush up on your world history from 1945-1989.

Some chump (e84e27) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:27 pm

Left to their own devices, The South would join the North, Afghanistan would return to the Taliban, Iraq
would be at least in part an Islamic Emirate, tell us how that would be a good thing

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:44 pm

On topic, from Patterico’s sidebar:
http://blogsforvictory.com/2011/02/13/yaf-purges-ron-paul/

And apparently written by someone to whom the relationship among strong military, aggressive foreign policy, and big government is not as obvious as it is to daley.

kishnevi (b40a74) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:45 pm

“is it not time to at least consider that adopting, at the least, a less aggressive foreign policy, is more in line with conservative ideals.”

kishnevi – I also appreciate the efforts of nonconservatives to define conservative ideals. With the U.S. a much more global power than it was pre-World War II, militarily and economically, and the decline of former world powers, now is certainly not the time to take an isolationist stance. Most conservatives see the obvious need for a strong international presence and completely consistent with maintaining free markets.

Please list the conservatives you view as seeing a minimization of our international commitments necessary going forward.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:46 pm

kishnevi – The YAF purging Nor Luap is a perfect example of why he is not considered a conservative or a serious thinker on the right. He is an embarrassment.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:49 pm

tell us how that would be a good thing

I’m not saying those would be good things. I’m saying that the question we should be asking is not, is it a good thing for them? but, is it a good thing for us? I’m not disagreeing with the answer so much as I’m disagreeing with the way the answer was reached.

Scott’s initial comment asked the first question, which is why I intervened. And to be fair to him, he did give an answer to the second question a little later.

kishnevi (b40a74) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:51 pm

Please list the conservatives you view as seeing a minimization of our international commitments necessary going forward.

I don’t know of any who would not be better defined as libertarian instead of (modern) conservative.

Most conservatives see the obvious need for a strong international presence and completely consistent with maintaining free markets.

The need is not as obvious as it seems to you. In fact, i think it’s not a need at all. And whose free markets are we talking about? Here in the US? I disagree with you there. Free markets abroad? It’s a nice thing to have, but is that something our government should be doing (especially since it’s a form of government subsidizing American businesses who want to compete in those markets)? It’s like many other things that would be nice but which government has no business doing.

kishnevi (b40a74) — 2/13/2011 @ 6:59 pm

We have some examples of what happens with defense
retrenchment, the peace dividend or redirection as it were under Clinton, gave AQ an opening. Previously Carter created a vaccuum which was filled
by Khomeini’s regime and the Sandinistas, and a crisis in Central America. We came to support the Saudis and the Tikriti mob, in a reaction to the former, and the Salvadoran and Guatemalan regimes
in the latter.

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/13/2011 @ 7:02 pm

“The need is not as obvious as it seems to you.”

kishnevi – Which explains your inability to list any conservatives espousing such positions. Thank you again for explaining conservative ideals.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/13/2011 @ 9:27 pm

#74, Scott Jacobs wrote:

You don’t pay attention to Ron Paul, or his supporters.

Really? I think I’ve paid a reasonable amount of attention, though not an obsessive amount, and I can’t think of a single instance of his supporting protectionism, or saying anything nice about it. How about you come up with a f’rinstance, instead of flinging random accusations?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:15 pm

Left to their own devices, The South would join the North, Afghanistan would return to the Taliban, Iraq would be at least in part an Islamic Emirate, tell us how that would be a good thing

Who on earth has suggested it would be a good thing? Certainly not Dr Paul. But what has that got to do with it? Are you saying that just because somewhere in the world there is some good to be done, the US government should expend US taxpayers’ money to do it?!

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:18 pm

Who on earth has suggested it would be a good thing? Certainly not Dr Paul.

Advocating the removal of all those US forces suggests that you are, at the very least, ok with the idea of the Norks overrunning SoKo, the Taliban taking control again of Afghanistan, etc.

At best, you are ok with it happening. At worst, you approve.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/13/2011 @ 11:38 pm

Actually, mathematically, Tea-Party backed candidates did better than non-backed candidates.

Scott, you’re speaking about “the delusionalistest” in terms of realism. Don’t be daft, man!

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/14/2011 @ 2:01 am

Daley,

He insinuated I was okay with ethnic cleansing and that I was anti-Semitic. My retort was to say he’s okay with dropping US bombs on babies and supporting murderous thugs.

Scott,

The Taliban wouldn’t have been a problem if we hadn’t poured billions into the Mujaheddin and then left Afghanistan to it’s own devices after the Soviets were pushed out.

I’d argue that the Wahhabi-influenced al Qaeda movement wouldn’t be a problem now if we’d let Iraqi tanks roll into Mecca in the 90s. The preachers of that philosophy would have been disemboweled by Iraqi intelligence officers and the money that backs al Qaeda would have been sitting in the basement of one of Saddam’s palaces. But we had to butt in and protect our “friends” in Saudi Arabia from our former “friend” Saddam Hussein. Then over the intervening years, some crazy guy got to use the fact that the US had female troops in the holiest of Muslim countries as a recruiting tool.

But hey, George H. W. Bush almost got re-elected by showing how strong a leader the was. And if Iraq is anything like Germany or Japan or South Korea, we’ll have troops there for another 50 years…at least.

You all keep arguing short term political gains from interventionist policies, even the lefty “peace advocates” are really just hammering Republican presidents over same sort of acts done by presidents of both parties. The isolationist are arguing that your policies are really 100 year long commitments, and the acts we do now have consequences 10, 20, 50 years down the road. But go ahead, and keep mocking us as if we are the naive ones.

Xmas (f72f61) — 2/14/2011 @ 4:35 am

No time for a list (it would be long), but let’s start with South Korea.

First off, try a “short version” of your list. Go on, I need a good laugh.

Second off — uhhh, in WHAT sense does this

1) classify as “wrong”
2) “foster resentment against us…”? In SoKo? Are you insane? With China backing NoKo, they’d be wishing they could eat dogfood in very short order, and they know it.

About 5-10 years ago, there were “anti-American protest demonstrations” in SoKo. If this is your justification for that ludicrous claim, then explain one thing: When we appeared to be taking them seriously, and making noise about getting out — why did the protests SUDDENLY and completely disappear?

“What, you tawt we wuz SERYUS about ‘dat? No, no, iz joking only joking!! Ha ha we make big joke wit yu Amerkans!! We having fun, yu kno? Big party, silly noises! ha ha ha we kid, we kid….”

Sorry, most of the peoples we protect, like SoKo, don’t like needing our help — but you can damned sure bet that they KNOW they need our help.

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/14/2011 @ 5:04 am

We spend more money on the military than the next 10 countries combined.

So does Bill friggin’ Gates. I’m sure he spends LOTS of money on security personnel of all sorts.

You know why? Same reason WE do. We’re rich. people out there would like to F*** with us, regardless of anything we’ve done to them, for them, or to or for someone they know.

I’ll bet you any amount of money at pretty much ANY odds that I can find someone who would kill Bill Gates for no other reason than that he’s rich and they are not.

A percentage of the human population will ALWAYS prefer to tear down someone else if they can’t see how to build themselves up.

They’d rather see equality of misery than inequality of happiness.

And THAT is why we need to spend a fair amount of money on our military — and it’s actually far, far less of our GDP than many of these nations which you hold up as “paragons of military virtue” by sheer dint of them “spending less” than we do.

THE USA IS 25% of the world economy. We create ONE FOURTH of the world’s wealth each and every year.

We are only one twentieth of the population, but we generate more wealth than the next five nations combined.

Several of those “next 10 nations” of which you speak spend on hell of a lot more of their nation’s wealth on their military, as a percentage of what they actually produce. And THAT is rather blatantly a far more important number than the raw amount spent. Because THAT is money that the people of that nation cannot spend on making their own lives better.

Too much of the world is still in that feudal mode where they believe it is easier to steal it than to make it.

Hell, too many Americans are in that mode — most of them postmodern liberal twits like Chomsky — they cannot grasp that we have EARNED our wealth and position, unlike all our predecessors on the World’s stage, by MAKING the majority of our wealth from scratch, not by STEALING it from other nations.

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/14/2011 @ 5:27 am

120) that’s a possible argument, the problem was that General Intelligence and the ISI still pitched
in with half of the funds, for their favored groups,
so they still might well have succeeded, just on a longer term, As for the latter point, there would
likely have been a significant supply disruption
and short term price shock with that.

narciso (c8ccf1) — 2/14/2011 @ 6:15 am

“I’d argue that the Wahhabi-influenced al Qaeda movement wouldn’t be a problem now if we’d let Iraqi tanks roll into Mecca in the 90s.”

XMAS – I’d argue they wouldn’t be a problem now if Roosevelt had not struck crappy deals with Stalin in the 1940s, so put your short-term in your squeak hole and blow.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/14/2011 @ 12:14 pm

NRO is holding their own CPAC poll. 14,000+ votes so far:

Michele Bachman 3 %

Haley Barbour 3 %

Herman Cain 5 %

Chris Christie 19 %

Mitch Daniels 23 %

Newt Gingrich 4 %

Mike Huckabee 3 %

Jon Huntsman 0 %

Gary Johnson 1 %

Sarah Palin 12 %

Ron Paul 11 %

Tim Pawlenty 4 %

Mitt Romney 8 %

Rick Santorum 3 %

John Thune 2 %

Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/14/2011 @ 5:38 pm

In fairness to Xmas, other than making Hosni Mubarak snf hisd ilk billionaires what has out vaunted Middle East policy wrought? And that goes for almost all our foreign aid plans. On the day in the very near future we pack up and leave Iraq and Afghanistan our impact on those countries will equal that of a fart in a hurricane.After deposing the Taliban and Saddam, we should’ve left, spare getting OBL’s head on a stick. Couldn’t care less how those countries ruled themselves or if they are democracies. Trying to impose democracy on Islamic cultures is like teaching a pig to sing. We should’ve taught them how to drink beer and watch football; might have been more successful. At a loss why any American should bleed for any of it. And as to out bases in Korea, Germany and Japan, I can look out my window and see Hondas, Hyundais(including my wife’s), BMWs, Mercedes and Hondas. We are broke. We can no longer afford to be the world police. And I’d note since the day Reagan went home the same pols of both parties who insist these gunboat uses of our troops as God’s Love We Deliver With Guns have done less than nothing to enforce our borders.

Readily admit Paul and his supporters are out there. But undeclared wars without end are not conservative. It’s draining our Treasury and killing our troops for nothing.

Bugg (4e0dda) — 2/14/2011 @ 7:09 pm

Thank you again for explaining conservative ideals.

You do realize that modern American foreign policy is essentially Wilsonian progressive ideas put into practice?

Having a strong military that is able to defend our country does require us to have troops in Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and intervening in various “trouble spots”.

Aggressive foreign policy was needed to defend against the monolith of Soviet communism, but there is no more monolith,and therefore there is no more need for aggressive foreign policy.

At best, you are ok with it happening. At worst, you approve.

Again, the wrong question. The only question we should be asking is, is it good for the United States?

South Korea ruled by Kim and Son would be bad for the South Koreans, certainly. But it would not necessarily be bad for the United States.

kishnevi (d785be) — 2/14/2011 @ 8:54 pm

“You do realize that modern American foreign policy is essentially Wilsonian progressive ideas put into practice?”

kishnevi – Hooray for the League of Nations? I don’t think so.

“Aggressive foreign policy was needed to defend against the monolith of Soviet communism, but there is no more monolith,and therefore there is no more need for aggressive foreign policy.”

You already floated this red herring. It turned belly up. You yourself admitted you were worried about the Chinese. Make up your mind.

daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/14/2011 @ 10:23 pm

Jib-Jab surfaces in order to . . . well, to jibber jabber.

Icy Texan (780c03) — 2/14/2011 @ 10:26 pm

Jab, why do you post falsehoods?

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/14/2011 @ 10:38 pm

2/12/2011

CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul, Again

131 Responses to “CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul, Again”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out