Monday, January 9, 2012

Ron Paul and Independents: Should the GOP Be More Like Ron Paul to Attract Independents?

Ron Paul is, by far, the GOP candidate who most closely agrees with me on domestic ECONOMIC policy. The GOP as a wholle, INCLUDING TGHE TEA PARTY, has "cut" NOTHING from spending, and has done nothing but INCREASE the debt. Ron Paul says he would cut--actually cut--ONE TRILLION DOLLARS from our spending in ONE YEAR. I believe him--or at least that he wwou,d TRY. I don't believe ANYONE else, although I am impressed enough with Santorum to vote for him. I cant support Pau for the nomination, because, like Santorum, I am more of a consrvative than I am an ISOLATIONIST LIBERTARIAN (the best description of Pual), . Like, Paul, I am primarily a LIBERTARIAN myself on economic matters, and I have libertarian leanings on any numbber of things (including illegal drugs, but I just can't convince myself that having legal, RECREATIONAL drugs is a good idea (talking cocaine,m heroin adnd even marijuana). Nope, I just can't support Paul for the GOP nomination, although I could support him in the general election (if the gets that far--impossible in terms of the GOP nommination)>

What is the point here? The point is that Ron Paul supposedly got the votes of 5 out of 7 people who called themselves "independents" in the Iowa GOP votte (according to those turly EVIL exit polls--as all polls are EVIL things that divide us and suppress real debatge). Does this mean that the GOP needs to nominate somone like RON PAUL to appeal to independents? This is the kind of box you paint yourself into when you are a 'journalist" (as a group, The Stupidest People on Earth, in a tie with Wall Street/financil people like Ben Bernanke and the people of Goldman Sachs and CNBC).

Say what? I thought "independents" just want us to "all get along", and HATE EXTREMISTS. How can you reconcile this "conventional wisdom" with the FACT that so many "independents" support Ron Paul, and the fact that I AM AN INDEPENDNET. I am certaliny not a member of the GOP. I refused to support John McCain, and have promised NOT to support Mitt Romney (in the general election--not just thenomination processs). You can't gt more "independent" tahn I am. True, I call myself a "conservative, but I am at least as much an independent maverick like Ron Paul as I am an orthodox conservative. I am an AGNOSIIC, for God's sake (pun intended).

This is the point. There is NO SUCH GROUP as "independents". Those are jsut people who cannot presently identify themselves with any political party. That does not mean they have ANYTHING else in common. As this blog has stated, Ron Paul is the only person I have ever even heard of wh would dismantle MORFE of the Federal Government FASTER than I would. I would not even abolish the Federal Reserve (I don't think, although Bernanke has gone a long way toward making me reconsider Paul's view on this, and I would certainly rein in the Federal Reserve in a major way). So Paul is MORE EXTREME than I am on domestic policy, and CNN (or the unfair and unbalanced network) would consider ME extreme on my ideas of "conservative" domestic policy. Waht CNN wants to do, of course, is say that Paul attracts "independents" because of his ANTI-WAR positions (more isolationist than truly "anti-war", although th Paul policies would have the same effect in places like Afghanistan, Iran, etc.).

There is NO EVIDENCE taht Ron Paul appels to "independents" only because of his position on pullin gback our military presence around the globe. I, myself, believe he has a pont as war as TOO MANY military bases overseas, and TOO MUCH counterproductive "foreign aid" we can no longer afford. But, to the extent I support Paul (more han I support most GOP politicians), I do so DESPITE his foreign policy and htings like "legalizing' cocaine, heroin and marijuana.

So what is it that "independents" admrie about Ron Pal? First, this is a trick question. Again, there is NO SUCH GROUP AS INDEPENDENTS with a COOMMON set of ideas, principles and goals. But it is an IDIOCY to mistake "independents" for MODERATE LEFTISTS (as CNN, MSNBC and the GOP establishment do, in a clear case of PROJECTION). For MSNBC, as a matter of fact, and for at least some at CNN, "independents" are FAR LEFTISTS. To an extent this is even correct. Are not people who have LEFT the Democratic Party on the LEFT the same as ME leaving the GOP on what I would call the RIGHT?

This is why Mitt Romney is really a pretty WEAK candidate, as are all GOP establishment candidates who deliberately apppeal to "moderates" and BRIBERY. What people LIKE about Ron Paul, even as they disagree with him on many specifics, is that he has PRINCIPLES. And MANY of those principles not only make a lot of sense, but are UNIQUE. No one else really has them. Yep. I am talking aobut SPENDING, the DEBT, DEFICITS, the SIZE of the FederalGovernment, and all of those similar things that GOP politicians SAY they believe in (and DOIN'T). Those GOP politicians have ONE goal: getting elected. People LIKE the idea that Ron Paul is not like that. People are ready to ABANDON Mitt Romney at any excuse. If Romney wins the Presidency, as he may, it will be because President Obama DEFEATED HIMSELF, and Romney did not "rock the boat". Ro;mney, like Barack Obama, can sometimes talk a good game. He doesn't mean it. Ron Paul does mean it. Make no mistake: CNN, MSNBC, the mainstream media in general, the GOP establishment, and the unfari and unbalanced network do NOT want a candidate that "appeals" to independents in THAT WAY. They want a candidate who can DECEIVE independents because the media thinks that independents HAVE NO PRINCIPLES> I think that is wrong. Many independents maynot KNOW what principles they believe in, or be LOOKING for leaders to convince them what principles they believe in, but that is NOT the same as thinking that independents want politicina s with NO PRINCIIPLES>

Ronalld Reagan proved this to be the case, and the GOP promptly forgot the lesson. Ron Paul shows that you can CONVINCE independents that your PRINCIPLES are RIGHT. What you can't do is get any enduring loyalty from independents by BRIBING them, or just convincing them that you are "less dangerous" than the other guys. I am not kidding., CNN wants America to be LIKE THEM, but America is not "like them". Thus, "independents" are supposed to "dislike' social issues, and yet it is the mainstream media that makes such a BIG DEAL about social issues. As this blog has pointed ut, the real position of our "elite" here is that "social issues' are SO IMPORTANT that we sould SELL OUT our country rather than take hte "wrong" position on "social issu". Thhese dishoenst hypocritges actually tgreat "social issues" as MORE IMPORTANT than almost anyobdy else. They jsut insist that you have THEIR position on "social issues", or otherwise label yourself as an unintelligent HICK. Do you understand why I consider theese peole (media people like those on CNN) EVIL people spreading EVIL? I hopse so. That has probably been the main mission of this blog.

No, I don't think "independents" reject the conservative positoin on "social issues",. Again, it is a matter of LEADEERSHI. If you start wit the the idea that you can DECEIVE an d BRIBE people, and don't understnad your own supposed positon on "social issues", then you are NOT gong to convince independents.. President Obama and the Democrats were willing, and are still willing, to SHUT DOWN the entire government just to keep GOVERNMENT FUNDING (which we cannot afford, adn cannot justify) for PLANNED PARENTHOOD (not to mention the Corporation for Public Broadcasing). And the GOP cannot even make the CASE against this STUPIDTY (and even immorality, if the Democrats were actually to shut down the government because of their EXTREME positions on "social issues"). No, I have no more confidence in the ordinary GOP politican on social issues than I do on economic issues. There is a REASON I am an INDEPENDENT>

Do you think I ma;y just have KILLED the word "indeppendnet" as the "key" to election? No, I am not talking about how I have jsut exposed the fact that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, because there is NO SUCH GROUP. I mean that I have now officialy "come out of the closet" as an "independnet", just as I was forced by leftists to come out of the closet as one of the leading FEMINISS of our time. Have you noticed that the word "FEMNIST" seems to have been in extreme decline ever since I was forced out of the closet? I ask you. Do CNNN, and even real "independents" out there, want to be ASSOCIATE WITH ME< UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY? Think about it. In a political science class in 1964, with a professor who thought this pablum that passes for thought today as well, the professor wanted me to explain the INDEPENDENT approach to politics. Even then, at 18, I realized that this is ABSURD--the idea that there is really some "independent" approach to politcs beyond tghe fact that you just can't find a political party you like. The profeessor had a GOP pont of view, a Democrat pont of view, and I REFUSED to give the "independent" point of view because I said THEN that I was a Republican (at 18). Well, I COULD give the "independent" pont of view NOW, as the GO{P has LEFT me. But that does nto change the fact that there is no such ting as an "independent" GROUP representing some sort of voting "bloc".

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, by the way, that professor wanted me to give the "independnet" pont of view because I was obviously the smartest person in the class, and the professor tought I had a similar thinking process to himself. I did not. And no, my views on PRINCIPLES have not changed since I was 18. That is why Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley attracted me (despite the patrician Buckley, while I have always been a little bit of an anti-establishment rebel, even while reidculuing the LEFTIST rebels (remember the HIPPIES, and FREE LOVE--actually, to our vast detriment, I think the "fee love' movement pretty well triumphed). Somebody ought to do a doctoral disseration: "The difference between the Hippie movement of the late sixties and early seventies and the "Occcupy Wall Street" movement of today". No, by the way, I ahve NOT changed principles as far as being an agnostic, as I have been that since at least the age of TWELVE--although I was raised Presbyterian without apparent harm, unless you want to blame the porr Presbyterian Church for creating me as the person I am today.

No comments: