For much of the 2008 campaign, Texas lawmaker and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his supporters served as a thorn in the side—or a punching bag—for the mainstream GOP establishment.
Yet today, the six men vying to run the Republican National Committee praised the grassroots enthusiasm Paul tapped into during his campaign—and discussed how they would like to capture that enthusiasm to expand the party’s appeal.
Ms. Davis then gives examples of how each candidate for RNC chairman was directly or indirectly cordial to Dr. Paul's ideas and "his foot soldiers."
She ends her post with this fair description and a solid quote from Congressman Paul:
As for Paul, he spent Monday doing what he does best—railing against federal intervention and regulation of the free market during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the alleged $50 billion Ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff.
“It’s not the fault of the individuals at the [Securites and Exchange Commission]. They have an impossible job and they have to pretend they’re doing something to feel relevant, the same way we do here, in the Congress. We have to feel relevant in this,” Paul said, “Instead of saying what we need is the market to work, we need to get rid of the bad policies, the monetary system, and this mountains of debt. We say, well, we’re relevant because we’re going to hire more bureaucrats and we’re going to appropriate more money that we don’t have and we’re going to solve all our problems.”
Is Ms. Davis on to something? Are we seeing positive signs from the would-be heads of the RNC? What do you think the candidates for RNC chairman would say to the above quote from Dr. Paul?
Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run. The same is not true on the foreign policy front. Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I've often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.
Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.
Posted by Andrew Ward on 01/05/09 Last updated 01/05/09
The RNC Chairman debate, moderated by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, is online at C-SPAN.org here.
What are your thoughts thus far on the debate? Has any candidate in particular impressed you? Are the candidates paying enough attention to the importance of adhering to Constitutional principles?
Update: An interesting online poll "Choose your Chairman" can be found here.
Update2: The question we highlighted here was asked by Grover at the debate.
Thanks to Mr. Norquist for the various plugs and for mentioning Campaign for Liberty even when it was not part of the original question. And we agree with him: the Federal Reserve is "completely annoying."
The Benton County Daily Record recently caught up with two Ron Paul supporters in Arkansas to see how they have stayed involved in politics since Congressman Paul's presidential campaign ended.
The first interviewee, Michelle Blaty, recently became District 10 Justice of the Peace for the Benton County Quorum Court. Our thanks goes out to Ricky Hanna, the second one interviewed, for taking the opportunity to plug Campaign for Liberty. :-)
Still, given their enthusiasm and organizing ability, and their political success, one has to wonder how Paul supporters at the meeting that night are adjusting to the post-2008 political landscape, what they are doing now and what they might do in the future. That is, one has to wonder whatever happened to the intense, eager, fervent Paul supporters.
Jones could not be reached for comment for this story.
But two other Paul supporters who were also at the Jan. 22 straw-poll meeting - Michelle Blaty, of Bella Vista, and Ricky Hanna, who now lives in Lonoke but lived in Fayetteville during Ron Paul's presidential campaign - both expect to remain active in the political process in the future.
What would the Israeli-Arab conflict mean if the U.S. had a non-interventionist foreign policy? Well, it would not necessarily mean much to the well-being of the United States, says Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit and author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. In a new article at Antiwar.com, Scheuer explains how the American elite, "addicted to intervention," has put the United States in a position where Israel's actions are understandably seen as being approved by U.S. policy. Because of the special relationship between America and Israel, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has only reinforced the perception that the United States and Israel call the shots, that U.S. allies in the Arab world are puppets, and that Muslim lives are devalued by our government. The invasion has only guaranteed disruption to a potential peace process and reinvigorated Hamas, according to Scheuer.
Eric Margolis discusses the two narratives being told about the Gaza invasion in his own article at LewRockwell.com. "In the Israeli and North American press version" of the story, Isreal is retaliating, fully within its rights, against Hamas terrorists for firing rockets and killing innocent Israeli civilians. Margolis agrees such terrorism is a crime, but he says "so, too, is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which is an egregious violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions." The invasion also has important political implications, both in Israel and in America. In Isreael, the leaders of the Labour and Kadima parties are trying to prove themselves tougher than Likud. Here at home the Obama administration will take power with many Labor Party–friendly Middle East advisers and the Muslim world blaming America for the violence in Gaza. And of course, the attacks will also likely "torpedo the current Saudi-sponsored peace plan, which had been backed by all members of the Arab league."
If America had a non-interventionist foreign policy, the impact on the United States by such horrendous conflicts abroad would be minimized. We as individual Americans could disagree among each other about those conflicts, or choose not to care about them at all. As it is, even our political processes become interlinked with politics abroad, and when American treasure and diplomacy are seen behind other nations' acts of belligerence, the United States becomes a target for resentment and even terrorism. This makes it all the more important to see foreign wars with a bit of nuance and an effort at balance, but it is not always easy. It might not always be possible to be objective. All the more reason we should return to our Founding Fathers' policy of peace, honest friendship and free trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
[The full article here is shown on the Michigan page, and is linked here to possibly give other state coordinators some ideas for organizing their states --Adam]
The Michigan membership of the Campaign For Liberty seeks to adopt a project for meaningful political change in Michigan. We will select a project at a meeting on Sunday, January 18, 2009. The goal is to select a project that:
Has well-defined goals and a carefully thought-out plan of action
Has a purpose that will inspire large numbers to join the cause, and diverse groups to support it
Has a tangible, measurable goal, for the project itself and as a contribution to a larger long-term goal
Will create strong working relationships for us with other organizations
Develops a stronger, better organized Campaign For Liberty through effort toward the cause
Posted by Andrew Ward on 01/03/09 Last updated 01/03/09
Help remind the national Republican Party Leadership of the success of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign in front of a national television audience on C-SPAN.
Click the REGISTER icon, give your e-mail and zip code (this does NOT appear to put you on a mailing list)
Then LOGIN and VOTE for QUESTION #59 which is ...
“In light of the success of the Ron Paul presidential campaign attracting large numbers of young activists to the conservative cause, what specifically will you do to ensure they become Republicans?” Joe Seehusen
To find the question, you can SORT by vote total and it should be in the top 10 questions, or you can SORT by QUESTION NUMBER (#59).
BE sure to click on the UP ARROW and watch the vote total grow !
On January 5, 2009 at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Americans for Tax Reform, will hold a debate among the announced candidates for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC).
C-SPAN is scheduled to cover it. There will be hundreds of “inside the beltway” conservative and Republican activists in the live audience
Questions will be drawn from an an online poll of questions. The questions with the most votes are likely the ones going to be asked.
This question is currently ranked number 6, out of a field of over 400 questions. We are currently 68 votes out of first place and only 19 votes out of second place.
A few votes will likely make a difference in the outcome, so please share with our Ron Paul friends and ask them to vote.
Posted by Deb Wells on 01/02/09 Last updated 01/02/09
Whew! What a busy 3 months we've had in 2008. It's encouraging to see so many coordinators come on board and to see so many precinct leaders step up to take back their neighborhoods! Before we know it, we'll blanket the country (and a few of our non-U.S. countries, too) with precinct leaders armed with the knowledge and tools they'll need to make a huge difference in the outcome of our future. We've received a lot of great suggestions from our members this year. Thank you for helping us help YOU be successful!
We have some great things in store for you in 2009, but first here are highlights from 2008:
There are 1,349 Precinct Leaders in place and working for freedom! If you haven't done so yet, sign up and protect your neighborhood. Our Precinct Leaders will be the best-prepared, most well-trained, most knowledgeable folks around. Membership dues help pay for the very best, most up-to-date voter data on the market. Two or more Precinct Leaders in each neighborhood will ensure success!
Early on, State Coordinators agreed that a goal of 10,000 Precinct Leaders in the U.S. by September 2009 was achievable. Each state's goal was calculated based on number of precincts and percent of total population.
Successes:The states of Iowa and Vermont are the ones to watch - Iowa increased their number of Precinct Leaders by a full 45% in just 3 months and Vermont increased their number by 43% in less than 2 months! What's the secret? Ask the state coordinators - I'm sure they'll be happy to share!
There are 7 states that have already met over 30% of goal in just 3 months:
Iowa - 54% (goal: 100 precinct leaders)
Vermont - 52.17% (goal: 23 precinct leaders)
Montana - 44.12% (goal: 34 precinct leaders)
Washington - 40.65% (goal: 214 precinct leaders)
Idaho - 39.22% (goal: 51 precinct leaders)
North Dakota - 37.50% (goal: 24 precinct leaders)
Minnesota - 30.81% (goal: 172 precint leaders)
In addition, the following states have reached 20% or more of goal: Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska.
A HUGE congratulations go to all of you! At this rate, you're sure to exceed your goals.
Thirty-six Interim State Coordinators have been appointed, and they've appointed interim Coordinators in 144 congressional districts and 161 counties! This is nothing short of amazing.
Successes: Several state, district and county planning meetings have been held and have seen great attendance and success. As an example, one district had 27 attendees at their first meeting last week (during the holidays and with freezing temperatures).
The message of liberty is alive and well!
Over the past few months, I've occasionally received a message asking "What is the point of the Campaign for Liberty?" Here is my response:
The point of the Campaign for Liberty is to get our activists in one place where we can work together on strategies that will truly make an impact. Precinct Leaders our are most precious members. They are the key for making an impact in every neighborhood across the U.S. The Precinct Leader attends local and political meetings, they wake up their neighbors (or let them sleep if they don't "get it"), watch their local government activities, call out their infractions, rally their neighbors and literally protect their own backyard.
When each Precinct Leader takes responsibility for their neighborhood, pretty soon we'll be able to look across our country and celebrate many small wins, and as we develop cross-state strategies, we'll witness big wins as well. We'll be able to more easily elect liberty-minded candidates to work together on freedom issues that affect us all.
In 2009, we'll offer many more tools to all of our members - from regional conferences to focused strategies and issues, from Special Events days to an exclusive forum for our Precinct Leaders. Watch for upcoming announcements regarding these tools and more, and keep an eye out for some great surprises, too!
Once again, thank you for allowing us to serve you in 2008. We look forward to a much brighter liberty-minded 2009.
As a co-founder of The Heritage Foundation, the late Paul Weyrich (1942-2008) was an influential and prominent figure in the modern conservative movement. Written in 2006, Weyrich's call for a truly conservative foreign policy still rings true today:
"In 1951, one of America's true conservatives, Senator Robert A. Taft, published a book titled A Foreign Policy for Americans. I think what Senator Taft wrote then applies to our own time as well.
In discussing the purposes of American foreign policy, he said:
'There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world. They rightly point out that the United States is so powerful today that we should assume a moral leadership in the world . . . The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. . . In their hearts they want to force on these foreign peoples through the use of American money and even, perhaps, American arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles and the force of its persuasion. I do not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in any preventive war . . . I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people."
Like the Founding Fathers, Senator Taft valued liberty here at home above "superpower" status abroad. The Founding Fathers understood that these two are in tension. To preserve liberty here at home, we need a weak federal government, because a strong federal government is the greatest potential threat to our liberties. The division of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is intended to make decisions and actions by the federal government difficult. But playing the great power game abroad demands the opposite. It demands a strong federal government that can make decisions, including of peace or war, quickly and easily. To a large degree, that is the kind of federal government we now have.
But should we? In my view, the next conservatism needs to take a hard look at our foreign policy from exactly this perspective. Do we now have a foreign policy that requires a federal government, and particularly an executive branch, so strong that it is a danger to our liberties? If we do, then we have a fundamental contradiction at the heart of our foreign policy. Why? Because the most basic purpose of our foreign policy should be to preserve our liberties. As Senator Taft understood, this touches on the most sensitive foreign policy question: to what degree should America be active in the world? Since his time, the whole Washington Establishment, the New Class, has come to condemn his position, which I think is the real conservative position, as "isolationism." But the word is a lie. America was never isolated from the rest of the world."
To promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS Feed
