Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Paul's weak stance on Islamism leads WA Caucus voter to Santorum

TX Cong. doesn't see "extreme Islam is a threat"

The Spokesman-Review, "GOP turn out in force for local caucuses":
A couple hundred people from 20 voting precincts attended caucuses at the Corbin center.

Many who showed up were first-time caucus participants who learned that picking a presidential nominee is much more complicated in a caucus than in a normal election.
Continuing:
Kelly Landin participated with her awake, yet patient, 10-month-old daughter, Katie Landin, on her lap. She voiced her support for Santorum.

“My big concern about Ron Paul is his foreign policies,” said Landin, a stay-at-home mom of five. “I don’t think he realizes that extreme Islam is a real threat and we have to fight back.”

10 comments:

jgeleff said...

And Santorum still came in third. Utterly amazing.

Eric Dondero said...

Not the point.

Why is Ron Paul so goddamned pig-headed when it comes to Islamism?

Big Islam is just a big a threat to liberty as Big Government.

Chuck said...

Because in his heart of hearts, poor old Ron Paul is just an aged hippie. He's a reactionary on most issues. Even when he's right, it's by accident.

DC Treybil said...

Big Islam is just a big a threat to liberty as Big Government.

There is a mechanic in my town who says, "A live spark plug wire won't hurt you, but it can make you hurt yourself."

In another post made today, someone commented about the "(un)intended consequences" of the auto company bailouts being worse than the original problem. Whatever the actual level of threat posed by radical Islam in our dear and fabulously wealthy country, an improper response can make things worse - MUCH worse.

I'm thinking back to 2007. Obama wasn't even on anybody's radar. Here he is.

Consider the 14th amendment's "equal protection" provision. Laws or policies aimed at one group under a friendly administration can be turned on another group, either by the same administration or a later one.

I see religiously-neutral boundaries in the constitution that can let this play out in a way that leaves currently-observed liberty-related values intact. Those are in my book.

Better to let the people assert their will at the grassroots level upward as described in Paine's "Common Sense" and Hamilton's FP 78. Absent that, exhortations by political candidates (bad enough) or laws (shudder) are more likely to make things worse.

DC Treybil

ajnock1976 said...

Ron believes in an traditional American foreign policy which means non-interventionism.

Non-interventionism is the application of libertarianism to foreign policy.

Ron Paul follows the pro-Americanism of non-interventionism that guided US foreign policy from Washington thru Grover Cleveland.

Then McKinley broke to go whore for empire. It's been downhill ever since.

And happy news Ron was second in WS AND now beats Gingrich in delegates.

yours for liberty

Alan Turin

Chuck said...

...and he's not going to win a damn thing, thank God.

ajnock1976 said...

...except delegates, influence in the GOP, achieving what Eric never could...a permanent libertarian caucus in the GOP.

Sarah Palin pointed out that marginalizing us would achieve defeat.

yours for liberty

Alan Turin

jgeleff said...

"...except delegates, influence in the GOP, achieving what Eric never could...a permanent libertarian caucus in the GOP."

That's called putting somebody in their place.

jgeleff said...

Not putting Eric in his place. Putting Fuck, I mean, Chuck, Mr. Personality Plus, in his place.

Mr. Mcgranor said...

Statesman Paul, go ahead and call the Mohammedan opposed to globalism -- brother/sister. I do.