28 March 2010

Will The SRLC Be Hijacked Like CPAC?

If what I'm seeing in my inbox and on Facebook is any indication, there is a concerted push by Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul's equivalent to Obama's Organize for America, to gain his fringe crusade more mainstream legitimacy by packing the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, April 8-11 - and repeat what happened at the CPAC conference. Why else would Campaign for Liberty be selling the $120 tickets to SRLC to their members for $30?

There seems to be a lot of attempts to hijack conservative political movements these days...

UPDATE 30MAR10: Packing the straw poll is apparently what they are trying to do, and they will likely do it. Watch that victory to be trumpeted by the C4L folks and the conspiracy theory crowd as proving Paul and his ideas are viable and mainstream. And watch the The Left / Mainstream Media use it to paint the GOP - again - as a a bunch of loopy paranoids on the fringe. The battle in 2010 is for the hearts and minds of mainstream Republicans and independents. And they are turned off by Paul.


Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is as conservative as they come. He would hardly be 'hijacking' the movement if he gave his student supporters a way to afford to show up. After all, there are no entrance fees to the real election. I find it funny that when Mitt Romney BUSSES people to an event it is noted as 'an organizational edge' and a positive, but this is not.

.....CLIFFORD said...

Ron Paul is a conservative the same way barack Obama is a moderate. Paul is an isolationist, and given to advocating, or at the least abetting, conspiracy theories such as 911 Truth, Birtherism, and New World Order paranoia. Such ideas are poison in the general body politic - just ask Medina (a C4L operative), after her campaign in Texas crashed because she wouldn't disavow 911 Truth and Birtherism.

Paul believes in many of the same thing I do - limited government, a return to constitutional principals of Federalism, individual Rights. It it his unrealistic notions of how to get there, his strident isolationism, and his buying into many loopy theories that turn me off. Auditing the Fed is already happens, and yes, steel loses its bearing capacity when heated.

The other thing I find troubling about Paul is the messianic fervor and almost blind devotion with which Paul's supporters hang on his every word. Paul can do no wrong. That, frankly, scares me. We already have a leader on the Left like that in the White House. The solution to Obama isn't to replace him with the same thing from the Right.

Paul is not serious option to carry the GOP message. I mean, not if you want to win back the Congress and the White House.

And another thing: Why is it that EVERY (and I do mean every) Ron Paul devotee who comments here at RSR is always named "Anonymous'? What? Do you guys not have the stones to put your own name to what you write? I do.

James H said...

THis is what I said at my site:

I guess what I find interesting in this is that seems to be a lot of money to be invested and I am not sure the purpose is for workshops. I suppose as is often the case there will be some Straw poll and perhaps the Paul folks want to win it. It just seems like a incredible amount of money to invest in order to win a straw poll this early in the game at a conference in NOLA

mike m said...


As a Libertarian (capital L), and a Yankee, I have little interest in SRLC. I do not mean to troll your blog, but I feel I must defend Dr. Paul.

First, there is a big difference between isolationism, and non-interventionism. Ron Paul believes in free trade (NAFTA is NOT free trade), and that our government should not be involved in the inner workings of any sovereign nation.

When it comes to economics, RP is as conservative as they come. He subscribes to an economic theory that existed long before the Keynesian Theory of "central planning". It is the Austrian School (Ludwig von Mises). Even conservative inflation hawk economists like Milton Friedman believe in central planning, therefore, carry the Keynesian flag. Central planning of the economy is the cornerstone of Socialism/Statism. If auditing the Fed already happens, then answer me one question. Who got the money? BoA? JPM? Half a trillion dollars in loans went to foreign central banks. Which individual foreign banks got the money? Any audit which does not include the recipients' names and amounts they received is incomplete. Austrians believe in "sound", commodity based currency, where every dollar is backed 100% by gold and/or silver, not this money by fiat crap we have now. For more on how our banking system works, here is a brief documentary (42 min.) prodeuced by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, GA.

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

For more on the evils of intentional monetary inflation by manipulation of the fiat currency supply (in layman's terms), here is a free download (160 pgs).

An Inflation Primer [.pdf]

The big difference between RP and the GOP, in a word, is war. War is the ultimate expansion of government. Especially, unconstitutional wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, wars against the American people, such as the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and The Cold War, to mention a few. The Patriot Act is an abomination against the American people, and their freedom and liberty. No other single Act of Congress has stripped more rights away from Americans than the Patriot Act. Here's what Fox News Freedom Watch host Judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about the Patriot Act:

Why The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional

So, you see, you are right that RP is NOT a serious option to carry the GOP message, because the GOP is not serious about freedom. The GOP is just another branch of the same Big Government Party as the Democrats.

.....CLIFFORD said...

Mike M:

Trolls do not try to reason an argument for their positions; so no, you're not a troll, and for that you deserve a response.

Up front, I know who von Mises and Hayek are. I read them both 30 years ago. Read John Hospers, too.

I toyed with Big 'L' Libertarianism once, but I grew tired of the miopic focus of the Party being perfecting an ideology in the abstract, without any serious attempt to connect it to the reality of the average voter.

Answering a voter's concern over his lack of garbage pick-up with a treatise on individual responsability and the proper role of government, does NOT answer the voters concern. That voter will (and did) vote elsewhere. Yes, I have seen that exact example happen.

The Libertarian Party has had 40-plus years to build a movement out of what is - without argument - the basic ideals of the American voter: Government that governs best governs least, and you should be free to do what you want as long as you don't hurt or hinder others. Yet, they still languish in the .05% - 3% fringe of the vote count.

The problem here isn't the message, it's the people, including Paul, carrying it. If the Libertarian Party were viable, then why is Ron Paul in the GOP? If he thought he could get elected to the Congress from TX-14 as a Libertarian Party candidate, don't you think he would do it?

Look, after these last few years I have lost respect for the GOP. Reagan (who the "true" Libertarians loathed in the 80's) bequeathed to them a conservative coalition which self-interested party types squandered. But the current GOP are the only viable alternative, and they are - unlike the Democrats - listening to those who want to stop our slide toward socialism. The GOP can be turned round and still win the game. The Libertarian Party is, after 40 years, still waiting for the opportnunity to make the perfect pass.

The 2010 and 2012 elections may be the most pivotal in our lifetime, and maybe for America in the 21st century. Like 'em or not, the GOP is the best shot we got to stop Obamaism. We need 51% solutions, not 3% solutions. Does that mean I am willing to compromise and battle it out to move the ball toward the goal of freedom, instead of waiting while we perfect the one perfect play? Yes, I am. The former is a serious way forward toward winning the game; the latter, is not. Right now, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

And I believe, along with a vast majority of Americans, that killing terrorists waging war on America IS legitimate self-defense. Doing otherwise is sticking our head in the sand - in other words, isolationism - and a deriliction of government's first duty: protect it's Citizens from force. And besides, killing terrorists over there saves us a lot of mess and paperwork here. Works for me and a lot of otherwise (small 'L') libertarian Americans.

Thank you again, Mike M, for your response, and for actually signing a name to it.

John S said...


Just found your rant and felt compelled to reply.

There is a tremendous difference between isolationism and non interventionism. A traditional conservative is marked by moderation or caution in his actions, whereas a neoconservative is not. A Democratic president has been responsible for our entry into every major war in the past century. The sad fact is that the Republican party has been hijacked by the neoconservatives and the result is no real difference in policy after the elections take place. The result of both a Republican or Democratic presidency is more debt spending on both domestic and foreign policy. Certainly, our national debt is blossoming under Obama's presidency, but it did double with an increase of over 5 trillon under Bush's rule. Whether a traditional Republican or Democrat is elected, please do not fool yourself into thinking that anything is going to change.

The real problem is that our entire monetary policy is systemically flawed, and we are just starting to see the end result of that policy. The fact is that over 90% of what we consider money is created as debt in bank loans. This money supply has been created as the principal of loans in the fractional reserve system of banking. The flaw exists in that what is repaid from you and me is pricipal + interest, with the interest portion never being created in the money supply of the original loan. The only way to repay both the principal + interest is by the creation of more and more and more debt. At this moment, we are increasing our National debt much faster than ever before to offset the deflating consumer and commercial debt to keep the asset bubble inflated. If the debt/asset bubble deflates, then so does the money supply and that leads to the next Great Depression. If the government/fed continues to inflate by printing/spending money with no regard, then we are looking at a completely debased currency not too far down the road. Either scenario yields complete economic chaos for America.

Ron Paul has support from people that understand that there is no real difference between the policies of the Republican or Democratic political parties, and that America is on an unsustainable course. We understand that the status quo is not an option, and that substantial change must take place. A Ron Paul Presidency offers this change.


.....CLIFFORD said...


You saw my rant and raised me a diatribe. So let me raise you a fill-blown snark, and call:

If there is, as you say, no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats, then why is Rep. Paul (R-TX), a... Republican? I would think that an honest and ethical politician of the reputed stature of Rep. Paul (R-TX) would have the stones to practice what he preaches, reject both parties, and run on his principles in a third party (or as an independent). Why doesn't Rep. Paul (R-TX) do that?

Oh, yeah.... now I remember. He learned his lesson:

Republican Party candidates get elected. Libertarian Party candidates... don't. So much for principles.

John S said...


That is my argument. Ron Paul is an actual Republican and most mof the others are just posers. He does reject both the neoconservatives and democrats and runs as a true conservative Republican. Sorry if what you think the definition of conservative Republican is wrong.....but it is wrong!


.....CLIFFORD said...

No, John, Ron Paul is the poser. Republicans are not isolationists (and yes, head-in-the-sand "non-intervention" is isolationism); Republicans don't believe in 911 Truth and New World Order conspiracy theories; Republicans believe in a strong defense, not say America is the villian, and should retreat from the world on some neive idea that people will be friends with us if we don't threaten them. Republicans believe that there are people who want to kill Americans not because of some policy dispute, but because they want America, and Americans, destroyed; Republicans believe we should kill them there rather than wait until they get here.

And y'all... don't.

John S said...

Again, sorry if you feel threatened while sitting in front of your computer in Iowa or wherever it is you are. Chill out man....nobody is trying to kill you!

.....CLIFFORD said...

I have more to fear from people who have proclaimed they want me dead - as an American and a Christian - on the orders of their God, than I do from the supposed agendas of 18th-century French banking interests and their relationship with the Fedeal Reserve!

FWIW, I'm in Louisiana. And this weekend I will have the great pleasure of voting for anyone but Ron Paul in the SRLC straw poll. Yes, I will likely lose, since Paul is stacking the deck through discounted tickets for Paulists - and C4L is now giving them away..

traumerei said...

Ron Paul is running with the Republicans because we've got a plurality voting system. In such as system, to borrow your phrase, "the perfect is the enemy of the good"; running with a third party for the sake of ideological perfection is a bad thing.