Some thoughts on Iraq, the GOP, and Ron Paul

[Borodog]

It seems to me that the GOP apparatus appears on the surface to be making an obvious and collosal mistake. Twice in the 20th century, opposing party candidates have been elected to get America out of unpopular wars, namely Korea and Viet Nam, and it can be argued that an important part of GWB's victory in 2000 was his platform of a "humble foreign policy", with "no nation building."

The Iraq war is nothing if not unpopular, with almost 3/4 of Americans (and growing) opposing it in some fashion. If the war continues the way it is going now, the 2008 Presidential election will be the 2006 congressional election writ large for any Republican candidate . . . with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

I believe this one single issue will AUTOMATICALLY doom ANY Republican candidate EXCEPT Paul, simply from the numbers. The issue is one of the most important in the electorate, and it is incredibly lopsided.

Couple this with the fact that Paul is DEAD ON with every other issue that the GOP claims to be for: small government, low taxes, individual liberties, state's right, pro 2nd Ammendment, secure the borders, pro life, and on and on and on.

The GOP would appear to be making a collosal mistake; they are essentially saying that the Iraq issue is more important than every other issue combined, and by doing everything possible to marginalize Dr. Paul, they are guaranteeing the loss of the presidency in 2008. Hence, they will lose on EVERY front, INCLUDING IRAQ ANYWAY. Although part of their calculus must be the fact that whatever Democrat wins the presidency will not end the war anyway.

The point is, that if the GOP wants a shot at maintaining the presidency, they should be kissing Ron Paul's feet, as he is their only chance in hell.

So the question has to be asked, why does the GOP want to marginalize Paul? The answer can only be what people like myself have said for years: the stated goals of the GOP are not its actual goals. The GOP is not interested in shrinking government. The GOP is not interested in protecting individual liberties. The GOP is not interested in lowering taxes, except perhaps cosmetically. The GOP is essentially not interested in the Constitution at all. Rather, they are interested in expnding if they can, but at least protecting at all costs, their political power. Therein lies the solution to the conundrum.

Most importantly, I believe, is that the GOP is entirely made up by people who benefit massively from the banking system (as is the Democratic Party, of course), which Dr. Paul is vehemently against. I believe that the exposure of the real structure and workings of the banking system to the public is seen as a far greater danger to the power of those in the GOP than is the mere loss of the presidency; hence they are throwing Dr. Paul, and any hope of retaining the presidency under the Democratic bus.

[NickMPK]

You're just wrong that Ron Paul represents Republican party principles on smaller government and taxes. Most Republicans want a slightly smaller government. And that's what all of the GOP candidates are campaigning for except Paul. But most Republicans are much closer to Democrats (who want a slightly larger government) than they are to Paul on this issue.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with the current size of government being a 50, most Republicans are a 45 and most Democrats are a 55. If Ron Paul is a 10, who do you think most Republicans will vote for between him and a Democrat?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

You're just wrong that Ron Paul represents Republican party principles on smaller government and taxes. Most Republicans want a slightly smaller government. And that's what all of the GOP candidates are campaigning for except Paul. But most Republicans are much closer to Democrats (who want a slightly larger government) than they are to Paul on this issue.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with the current size of government being a 50, most Republicans are a 45 and most Democrats are a 55. If Ron Paul is a 10, who do you think most Republicans will vote for between him and a Democrat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't talk to many actual Republicans, do you?

Give them that exact hypothetical: current government is a 50. How much government do you think is correct? The VAST majority of everyday Republicans will answer much closer to 10 than 45.

[Borodog]

In fact:

If you are NOT a Republican/Conservative PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POLL. No democrats, no anarchists, pretty please with sugar on top.

[j555]

I agree with you that Ron Paul is a lot more conservative than all of the Republican frontrunners. But the current Republican Party seems to have been taken over by the neocons and that's unfortunate because they will lose in '08, and I hope they do if it means the party will get back to what it used to be. Ron Paul probably won't win the nomination but his message getting out there is also important to get the Republican party back on track. You would figure that someone who votes for the least amount of spending, the least amount of taxes, is pro life, anti nation building, against amnesty and for secure borders, pro 2nd amendment would be a shoe in for the nomination of the GOP, but as of now they'd rather support candidates who advocate exactly the opposite of some of these things.

[Farfenugen]

Republicans don't want a smaller government. They want less taxes and less social welfare programs. They believe this is what constitutes smaller government.

However they would rather turn around and spend that same money, if not more, on the war on drugs, the military, border security, subsidies for corporations, etc.

That is not small government that is big government repackaged.

Ron Paul does not represent the current Republican Party views but one can hope he strikes a chord with a lot of disenchanted Republicans.

[bobman0330]

IMO, it's virtually a certainty that the majority of US troops will be out of Iraq by April '08. By the time the actual election rolls around, I think the war is going to be much less of an issue than it was last year.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I think we should make a distinction between the Republican Party, which at the moment really just wants to go on about entitlements and nickle and dime poor people who are dependent on the government, and the republican base that wants to lower taxes and government spending across the board.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it's virtually a certainty that the majority of US troops will be out of Iraq by April '08. By the time the actual election rolls around, I think the war is going to be much less of an issue than it was last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the other part of the OP that I considered including but didn't. I have a hunch (I have been wrong before on things like this; witness the internet gambling ban) that the push for this will begin in September, with the Petraeus report, which will begin to spin things as "greatly improved", "moving in the right direction", "the Iraqis are standing up, so we can begin to stand down", etc. I.e., the Bush administration will begin to position and spin itself to be able to declare victory and start drawing down, well in advance of the election.

It remains to be seen whether or not this will be seen by the public as "ending the war", as it is very unlikely that we will not still have ~100,000 troops on the ground. Also, the Democratic-friendly media will fight this spin tooth and nail.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it's virtually a certainty that the majority of US troops will be out of Iraq by April '08. By the time the actual election rolls around, I think the war is going to be much less of an issue than it was last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the other part of the OP that I considered including but didn't. I have a hunch (I have been wrong before on things like this; witness the internet gambling ban) that the push for this will begin in September, with the Petraeus report, which will begin to spin things as "greatly improved", "moving in the right direction", "the Iraqis are standing up, so we can begin to stand down", etc. I.e., the Bush administration will begin to position and spin itself to be able to declare victory and start drawing down, well in advance of the election.

It remains to be seen whether or not this will be seen by the public as "ending the war", as it is very unlikely that we will not still have ~100,000 troops on the ground. Also, the Democratic-friendly media will fight this spin tooth and nail.

[/ QUOTE ]

We disagree a bit about the extent of the reductions, but it's not that important. What's significant is that the GOP makes its mea culpa in September. Whether the spin works or not, people will have forgotten about it a year later. There are some really important issues, e.g., health care and protectionism, in this election that are going to do a lot to rally the Republican base and make them forget about Iraq, so long as US troops stop getting killed on a regular basis. This is one of the drawbacks of a primary cycle that starts 18 months before the election: the issues that are most important now are not the ones that the election will be decided over.

So, it makes sense to me that the establishment doesn't think it needs RP that much. Plus, I don't like him, so it makes even more sense!