Ron Paul and Delusions of Conservatism

Last night, Mitt “The Legacy” Romney won the Republican Primary in his home state of New Hampshire solidly, but still got only 38% of the vote.  His closest challenger was Ron Paul, who garnered 24%.

Paul’s Campaign Chair, Jesse Benton, then proceeded to issue the following statement (You had better sit down for this one.):

Ron Paul tonight scored an historic second-place victory in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary. Below please find comments from National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton:

“Ron Paul tonight had an incredibly strong second-place finish in New Hampshire and has stunned the national media and political establishment.

“When added to Paul’s top-tier showing in Iowa, it’s clear he is the sole Republican candidate who can take on and defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

“The race is becoming more clearly a two-man race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the candidate of authentic change. That means there is only one true conservative choice.

“Ron Paul has won more votes in Iowa and New Hampshire than any candidate but Mitt Romney.

“Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have been shown in national polls to be the only two candidates who can defeat Barack Obama.

“And Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two candidates who can run a full, national campaign, competing in state after state over the coming weeks and months. Ron Paul’s fundraising numbers — over $13 million this quarter — also prove he will be able to compete with Mitt Romney. No other candidate can do all of these things.

“Ron Paul is clearly the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney as the campaign goes forward.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.

“Ron Paul has the boldest plan to cut spending, a dedication to protecting life, and a lifelong dedication to the Constitution and limited government. He also has the necessary support to campaign nationwide against Mitt Romney.

“Our campaign is already planning ahead for South Carolina, Florida, and beyond. Soon Ron Paul will head to South Carolina to begin a feverish round of campaigning.

“Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul. And he is ready to fight.

“See you on the campaign trail.”

Cheeky, huh?  You don’t know the half of it.  

“But…but…” the Paulnuts interject, “he embraces the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers!”

Even if he does… it does not take our enemies years to travel the ocean to attack us anymore.  He lived through 9/11/01.  Is his memory that short?

Per Michael Filozof at americanthinker.com:

It’s often believed that if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons capability, they’d nuke Israel.  I’m not so sure of that.  An Iran-Israel nuclear war would be a textbook example of Mutual Assured Destruction.  The doctrine of MAD requires a credible second-strike capability by the target country, and Israel would be certain to retaliate.

But the Iranians would have many options to maximize their leverage without resorting to an all-out nuclear exchange.  The greater concern should be that the Iranians would use nuclear blackmail to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and embargo 40% of the world’s oil supply.  Oil could spike to $400 or $500 per barrel overnight, crippling the global economy and turning the West into scene from a Mad Max movie.

If the Iranians were to create a nuclear blockade by threatening to use nuclear arms against any American vessel attempting to transit the Strait, would the threat of American nuclear retaliation be credible?  Of course not.  The U.S. did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Numerous presidents have publicly stated the desire for nuclear disarmament and ultimately a nuclear-free world.  President Obama even declassified the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. now possesses.  If the Iranians can be 100% certain of anything, it is that the U.S. will not use its nuclear arsenal against them, especially if they threaten to detonate, but do not actually detonate, a nuclear weapon in the Strait.  Since deterrence theory requires a credible threat of retaliation, and U.S. threats are hollow, deterrence will not work, and the Iranians will have a free hand to strangle the world’s oil supply.

The other problem with Paul’s foreign policy is his assumption that we oughtn’t “interfere” around the globe, especially without congressional declarations of war.  But we’ve been doing exactly that to protect American interests since the country was founded.  President Jefferson, the paradigmatic states’-rights, small-government, libertarian president, prosecuted the First Barbary War against — no surprise – Islamic pirates in the Mediterranean, and did so without a formal declaration of war by Congress.  (According to Paul’s theory of foreign policy, maybe American ships shouldn’t have been sailing in the Mediterranean in the first place.)

Paul is a libertarian who believes in the power of free markets.  But he must be naïve to think that a nuclear Iran would want a global free market for oil.  If the Iranians had nuclear weapons, they’d surely succeed in cornering the global market by closing the Strait.  So, oddly enough, a preemptive intervention to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb would enhance free-market libertarian principles, not violate them.

Now, I could write a novel about what an absolute whackjob this septuagenarian, perennial also-ran is,  or I could offer this mini-rant I published recently, as my reply to all of the obnoxious Paulnuts out there in genera,l and last night’s official statement from the Paul Campaign, specifically, which strains credulity:

Reality Check: Ron Paul is a old man, who has run for President several times. He is this generation’s Pat Paulsen (look him up). He is anti-semitic, pro-Iranian, and is a cranky, old isolationist nutjob, whom one would expect to find in a corner somewhere, with his underwear on top of his head, babbling , “I like cheese!” If he was the genius you idiots claim that he is, he would have won the presidency by now.

Loosen up your tin foil hat, Dr. Paul. It’s shaping your head into a point.

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Ron Paul and Delusions of Conservatism

  1. CJ FREEDOM says:

    How about we skip the artificial scenario and and lay it on the line. A “preemptive intervention” is nothing more than begging those lunatics for our very survival. How about we start drilling our own freakin’ oil…and tell all of them to pound salt. Just because you have a wild imagination about what RP would do…does not make it so. I suppose you prefer Newt or Mitt to handle the heavy work….send in the troops, get a few more soldiers killed and come back huffing and puffing that we “took care of them!!”

    I barely read your stuff anymore…and this is why: You can’t talk it out…you attack. Why? Are you that much happier with the prospect of having another Global Elitist in the White House? Obviously the GOP isn’t working in our best interest…never have…never will. They will probably jam Mitt down our throats….no matter what. And when nothing changes….don’t wonder why.

    Also….Jefferson did not “prosecuted the First Barbary War”

  2. CJ FREEDOM says:

    I added a link…but……whatever….just go to Wikipedia…first Barbary War…..that will explain it.

  3. Dana Pearson says:

    I am no fan of Ron Paul. He is too doctrinaire.

    It is unfortunate that the US is paying so much attention to Iran and not enough to Syria. It is far easier for us to do something about Syria.

    The biggest threat to what is left of US prosperity, is the Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum obsession with Iran. We have at least 1,000 troops in each of these countries that are very close to Iran: Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Afghanistan (and maybe even still Iraq). The Iranians should feel threatened.

    The Iranian regime is a fascist tyranny. Nevertheless, it is none of our business. There is no way in hell we are going to turn Iran into something like a representative democracy. Whoever, is in charge in Iran is going to want to sell us their oil. It is time for us Yankees to get the heck out of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

    It might make us feel good in the short term to bomb Iran, but in the longer term it will lead to a terrible cost in lives, money and resentment. We should work with other countries (Brazil, Turkey) to diplomatically wind down and destress our war of words with Iran.

    On top of everything else, Russia would feel directly threatened by a US war with Iran. Policing the Persian Gulf is not our responsibility — in this case it would be better to work in combination with countries closer to and more impacted by Iran: Russia, Germany, France, England and even China.

    I am no isolationist (for one thing I do think we should work with willing Arab countries to bring regime change to Syria — and I think that our participation in the Libyan revolutions was on the whole mainly to the good). However, we should pick and choose our battles — the Persian Gulf does have a helluva lot of oil — but it would still be sold (even if Satan himself ran Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran). On top of that if all the oil in the Persian Gulf magically disappeared, the world would go on — even with dramatically higher oil prices, major adjustments would be made, but life would go on.

    Finally, I’m not sure what is good for our ally in the region. War with Iran is not necessarilly in the long run interest of Israel. But we need to put the US interest ahead of the interest of any other country (including Israel).

  4. Gene Hoyas says:

    On top of that if all the oil in the Persian Gulf magically disappeared, the world would go on — even with dramatically higher oil prices, major adjustments would be made, but life would go on.

    You forget that many nations outside the Middle East are suppliers of petroleum. That list includes the United States, which presently sits on even more petroleum than exists under the wretched sands of the ME.

    On top of everything else, Russia would feel directly threatened by a US war with Iran.

    They aren’t nearly the threat they used to be when there was a Soviet Union. Putin would bluster and rattle his sabre but otherwise would do nothing more: their military is a joke and our nuclear arsenal still has Russia targeted.

    The Iranian regime is a fascist tyranny. Nevertheless, it is none of our business. There is no way in hell we are going to turn Iran into something like a representative democracy.

    More narrowly speaking, Iran is a theocracy governed by fanatical “Twelfer” Mohammedans anxious to trigger the appearance of the Twelfth Imam…the so-called “Mahdi.” Hence their obsession with obtaining – and eventually deploying – nuclear weapons.

    Sorry, Dana, but Iran represents the greater threat. As for any attempt at nation-building: screw that. Were it up to me, I’d simply nuke the bastards: five multi-megaton warheads directed at Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Tabriz and Karaj would send close to 20 million Mohammedans to their much-desired tete-a-tete with Mohammed. Needless to say, this little surprise would give the world of Islam considerable pause with regard to their desire for a world caliphate.

    But that sweet little fantasy will never happen, Dana. Instead, the Star & Crescent will one day flutter all across what was once the land of the free and the home of the brave. And all this because “sensible” people reject what I just proposed as “hateful, inflammatory and genocidal.”

    It might make us feel good in the short term to bomb Iran, but in the longer term it will lead to a terrible cost in lives, money and resentment.

    Their lives. Their money. Their resentment. At this point in history, who cares? Seriously, Dana: who freaking cares?

  5. Dana Pearson says:

    Gene,

    In some ways my heart is with you but not my head. But you definitely make me laugh.

    At least let all the Sunni countries: Saudis, Kuwaitis, Omanis and so on get some skin in the game. France seems to be concerned about the Iranian threat — let’s follow their lead. And what is up with Russia? They are closer to Iran, and yet do not seem as threatened by Iran as they are of us.

    I’ve generally been a pessimist, but compared to you I’m an optimist — I really don’t think that the Muslim religion will overtake the earth, don’t know for sure. In the end God is in control.

    –Dana