Ron Paul Republicans

Now that Ron Paul is essentially out of the presidential race, what will happen to the moment? One sentiment I've seen repeatedly is that Ron Paul supporters will leave the Republican Party and do something else - the libertarians, some other 3rd party, or just withdrawing from politics entirely.

I hope, instead, that most will stay with the Republican Party. This "Revolution" has created the potential for a Ron Paul faction within the GOP. If it's only 5% of the party, that's not huge but it can be meaningful. But if we do it right then maybe we can build the faction to maybe 25%, and that can not only be meaningful but in many cases controlling.

Please understand that I'm not a big fan of political parties, and I'm not alone. George Washington's farewell address was quite critical of partisanship as well, going on for several paragraphs. Consistent with those concerns, I am not suggesting that Ron Paul supporters become "rah-rah" Republicans who blindly support the GOP candidate in every race. A good Republican can work within the party to promote the kind of candidates he supports, and then vote for someone outside the party in the general election - and the same goes for Democrats.

Especially now where the establishment of the Republican Party has strayed so far from its moorings (as Ron Paul frequently points out), a Republican voting for "other" is perfectly sensible. Republicans used to be against big government. Under the current President Bush, and especially when Republicans controlled Congress, spending went through the roof. A Ron Paul faction within the GOP can push for small government, lower spending, and so on. This is true not only in presidential elections, but at every level of government.

I understand dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. I have dabbled myself in the Libertarian Party. In the end, the third party or independent route is less likely to accomplish meaningful change. If we want to restore small government, respect for the Constitution, and avoid foolish wars like the current one in Iraq, our best odds of doing so are by building a Ron Paul wing of the GOP.

Something wrong with liberals and Democrats (Republicans too)

Paul Krugman wrote a column in the New York Times on May 28th that stands out as something that bothers me about liberals and Democrats, though I have similar gripes about conservatives and Republicans.

In his op-ed piece (which non-subscribers can read at the Free Democracy blog), Krugman thoroughly criticizes President Bush for the war in Iraq. He goes further and attacks the three principal GOP candidates for statements they have made about 9/11, Osama, and Iraq.

I agree wholeheartedly with Krugman's criticisms of Bush, Giuliani, Romney and McCain. What irks me is his failure to hold Democrats responsible for going along with the war. In other columns he has been somewhat critical of Hillary for not admitting error in voting for the war. He seems positive about John Edwards for admitting he was wrong.

All of the most prominent leading Democrats share responsibility for the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for it. Why do so many liberals and Democrats turn a blind eye to this? Why do they get off the hook just because they're Democrats? Even our local congressman, Michael McNulty, voted for the war. He continued to support the war for a long time. Local Democrats and the local media completely excused this.

Most striking is how liberals like Krugman ignore Republicans who opposed the war from the beginning. I take this personally in that I ran for Congress opposing the war against a Democrat (McNulty) who persistently supported the war, yet there was absolutely no support for me from liberals, and no criticism of him for his position from them or the media.

And in the current presidential race, there is a Republican who opposed the war from the beginning. Ron Paul should be the choice of everyone who opposes the war. But Krugman, who represents both liberals and the media, steadfastly ignores Ron Paul.

This behavior shows that liberals use the war as a tool for partisanship. They don't care about the war itself, but rather they care about it as a means to attack Republicans. Of course I think conservatives and Republicans do the same. That's what's refreshing about people like Ron Paul. He says what he believes, votes the way he thinks is right, and never (in my experience) makes it about labels like liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.