ron paul tells what is wrong with the republican party

[typem4me]

warning, its more than two

sentences

! so you republicans might have a hard time

with it

. lol

 

(CNN) -- The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.

In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.

 

 

Most Republicans endorsed this view in order to achieve victories at the polls. Limiting government power and size with less spending and a balanced budget as the goal used to be a "traditional" Republican value. This is what Goldwater and Reagan talked about. That is what the Contract with America stood for.

The opportunity finally came in 2000 to do something about the cancerous growth of government. This clear message led to the Republican success at the polls.

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

But what the Republican leadership didn't realize was that ALL spending is a tax on middle-class Americans through price inflation and that eventually the inevitable consequence is paying for the extravagance with a financial crisis.

Party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected. The only solution for this is for Republicans to once again reassess their core beliefs and show how the country (not the party) can be put back on the right track. The problem, though, is regaining credibility.

After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that's what must be done.

Otherwise, Republicans can only mimic Democrats and hope for an isolated victory here and there. And that's just more of the same that brought on the disintegration of the party.

Since the new alignment of political power offers no real change, we will remain on the same track without even a pretense of slowing the growth of government. With the new administration we can expect things to go from bad to worse.

Opportunity abounds for anyone who can present the case for common sense in fiscal affairs, for protection of civil liberties here at home, and avoiding the senseless foreign entanglements which have bogged us down for decades and contributed so significantly to our fiscal and budgetary crisis.

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

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

"¢ Limited government power

"¢ A balanced budget

"¢ Personal liberty

"¢ Strict adherence to the Constitution

"¢ Sound money

"¢ A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

"¢ No nation-building and no policing the world

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

I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.

But it might just take a new crop of leaders to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. It certainly won't be done overnight. It took a long time to come out of the wilderness after 40 years of Democratic rule for the Republican Party to take charge. Today though, time moves more quickly. Opportunities will arise. The one thing for certain is that in the next four years we will not see the Republic restored. Instead the need for it will be greater than ever.

The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power's sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.

In the past two years, I found that when the young people heard the message of liberty, they overwhelmingly responded favorably, fully realizing the failure of the status quo and the need to once again endorse a system of self reliance, personal responsibility, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy while rejecting the cradle-to-grave nanny state all based on the rule of law and the Constitution.

To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care -- and especially those who understand the stakes involved -- have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.

[jmjftw]

Bubbye GOP

[Plugged]

oh it must be nice to be blissfully ignorant jmjftw

[Slacker]

Bubbye GOP

 

 

Uh, did you miss his slam on the new administration? If so, enjoy, "Since the new alignment of political power offers no real change, we will remain on the same track without even a pretense of slowing the growth of government. With the new administration we can expect things to go from bad to worse."

[Skitter]

All life is an illusion

[Jonesy]

Ron Paul nailed it

 

he only left out the groupthink that caused any conservative who actually questioned or protested that conservative values were being ignored by the Republicans to be labeled an enemy of the party or a liberal. that corrosive group mentality exacerbated the problem and lead directly to the spectacular azz whooping of the GOP we are witnessing. the party needs to cull out these weak minded buffoons to ever be relevant again.

[fishsticking]

Jonesy, just curious, how about listing 5 things that you think a CONSERVATIVE politicians needs to do or stand for and then list just one or two politicians from Massachusetts that you have voted for that embody these beliefs. Besides Romney

[Jonesy]

Jonesy, just curious, how about listing 5 things that you think a CONSERVATIVE politicians needs to do or stand for and then list just one or two politicians from Massachusetts that you have voted for that embody these beliefs. Besides Romney

 

 

ahh a trick question but I can answer...look up st. rep. Scott Brown ®

[fishsticking]

ahh a trick question but I can answer...look up st. rep. Scott Brown ®

 

 

 

Not sure when you voted for this guy, but he is a State Senator, not a State Representative ............. what are are your pillars that make this guy a true Conservative, so I have a basis to judge if he is or is not a conservative based on your beliefs.

 

I have no such beliefs, I just vote against the Democrat Majority in our State every time I get a chance to. I have also not voted for the Republican candidate for Governor (last election) or McCain in this year's election. They all seem to suck now.

[hispls]

how about listing 5 things that you think a CONSERVATIVE politicians needs to do or stand for

 

 

From the original article...total of 7 things that I used to consider "conservative" when I supported GOP.

 

"¢ Limited government power

"¢ A balanced budget

"¢ Personal liberty

"¢ Strict adherence to the Constitution

"¢ Sound money

"¢ A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

"¢ No nation-building and no policing the world

 

Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any politician who stands for any of this that'll get any media attention.

[Soundfisher]

From the original article...total of 7 things that I used to consider "conservative" when I supported GOP.

 

"¢ Limited government power

"¢ A balanced budget

"¢ Personal liberty

"¢ Strict adherence to the Constitution

"¢ Sound money

"¢ A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

"¢ No nation-building and no policing the world

 

Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any politician who stands for any of this that'll get any media attention.

 

Ron Paul (Bob Barr's another) stand for it...but you are right, they won't get the media attention they deserve. Conservative principles are a rather easy sell...which makes it even more hilarious there isn't a Pub out there that can do it (or believe in it).

[Knight771]

Can't disagree with most of the positions put forth, but having Ron Paul (who got what? 1% if that) tell us how to win is kinda, like dumb.

[Gmofftarki]

Can't disagree with most of the positions put forth, but having Ron Paul (who got what? 1% if that) tell us how to win is kinda, like dumb.

 

 

Ron Paul wasn't taken seriously by either the GOP or the media.

 

If anyone should be in a position to be compassionate to those that weren't in the media's favor, it's us.

 

I happen to agree with Ron Paul on most issues other than foreign affairs, but I'm a little-L libertarian, so I guess that's not surprising.

[Punk Freud]

Can't disagree with most of the positions put forth, but having Ron Paul (who got what? 1% if that) tell us how to win is kinda, like dumb.

 

What kind of mixed up message is this?

besides a great example of why the right-wing got it's azz kicked.

Can't disagree with most of the positions put forth

Ok, you agree with his premise.

However, the party does not...

who got what? 1% if that

too bad there's no conservatives to vote for Ron.

having Ron Paul tell us how to win is kinda, like dumb.

People agree his positions are reasonable "conservative" values.

But that's NOT a winning message?

You agree with his premise but he's got no support

 

You guys are H O P E L E S S

[Soundfisher]

What kind of mixed up message is this?

besides a great example of why the right-wing got it's azz kicked.

Can't disagree with most of the positions put forth

Ok, you agree with his premise.

However, the party does not...

who got what? 1% if that

too bad there's no conservatives to vote for Ron.

having Ron Paul tell us how to win is kinda, like dumb.

People agree his positions are reasonable "conservative" values.

But that's NOT a winning message?

You agree with his premise but he's got no support

 

You guys are H O P E L E S S

 

Probably the 1st post I agree with PF.

 

Paul put forth a very reasonable conservative platform. In general, the Pubs who don't like Paul don't like him because of his foreign policy stance. Tell me why his foreign policy stance is so bad?

 

In my opinion, if you wanted true conservatism, you were a million times better off with Paul versus that limp wristed, corrupt McCain.

 

As Punk stated, the Pubs are effing hopeless (and I'm embarrassed to say I was once registered a Pub).