October
25th 2007
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2008 & Ron Paul
I find this essay very odd. Weyrich is sizing up the candidates. He says Paul has some “strange” ideas. He says Romney has the most grassroots support. I don’t get it.
Weyrich has been becoming more paleo in recent years. He has always been one of the better of the beltway conservatives. What views of Ron Paul does he think are “strange?” The gold standard? Getting rid of the Fed and the IRS? Of course Weyrich has been around long enough to know that these positions were once conservative boilerplate. Weyrich owes Ron Paul and his supporters an explanation.
Andrew T. on 25 Oct 2007 at 8:05 pm #
From LewRockwell.com blog:
Hello, Mr. Weyrich? Where have you been the last 10 months? Do you never read the news or surf the internet? The only reason Romney has any money is that he’s loaded. Meanwhile, there’s this guy named Ron Paul who has tremendous grassroots support, is all over the internet, and just raised $5 million in a single quarter, putting him easily above the Huckster, who you claim is top-tier material.
Oh, that’s right: Ron Paul has “strange” ideas, you say. You know, really wacko stuff like a humble foreign policy and reduced taxes, spending, and regulation–the same platform, at least on those issues, on which George W. Bush ran in 2000 (though Paul means it and Bush didn’t). And then there’s his crazy notion that the federal government ought to abide by the Constitution. What kind of nut could believe that nonsense?
And somebody please explain Weyrich’s comment: “Because he is a Libertarian he has enough money to stay around for a time.” To my knowledge libertarians have generally not been flush with campaign cash.
Weyrich says, “His overall showing is the major surprise of the political season,” yet somehow that doesn’t prove he has grassroots support on the order of . . . what’s the name of that governor from the Kennedy state again?
Maybe that arthritis in the hips to which Weyrich refers at the start of the column has worked its way up to his brain.
C Bowen on 25 Oct 2007 at 8:52 pm #
Weyrich is a shill for the railroad lobby and after he was “busted” lining up Eastern Euro fascists for the Bush I Administration, he was cut loose to obscurity.
I think many paleo’s felt sorry for him, but nobody cares about his opinion save nationalists who liked to speak at paleo-conferences, cared nothing about the other issues like war and immigration, who required some sort of cover.
Let’s say, he could read the direction of the wind a little bit better than the folks at the American Conservative Union–still fighting and winning the battle for smaller government don’tcha know?– and I guess that is worth something.
roho on 25 Oct 2007 at 9:02 pm #
So Libertarians are like a money magnet?…………………..illogical.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2007 at 9:28 pm #
I would love to have Gore elected! If the GOP can’t nominate someone decent, I would love to be a Gore man.
I guess libertarians have a base from which Paul can draw support.
Could Paul get on TV like Ross Perot and explain the proposed changes he could push for from the Presidency? Voters don’t understand how it could be done. Paul has put an extraordinary amount on the plates of average Americans to digest. They can’t digest it I think without a massive campaign of clear explanations.
Does Weyrich have an email address to which we may politely request which stances of Paul’s are strange?
Weaver on 25 Oct 2007 at 10:03 pm #
Wikipedia says
Can Ron Paul gain more money as he spends it in such ads? Paul’s picking up a lot of money, and there’s a strong anti-war sentiment. I suspect there is a great mass of Americans on the edge of supporting Paul. All they need is a little push in the form of an explanation.
Also from wikipedia:
Filmer on 25 Oct 2007 at 10:05 pm #
“I would love to have Gore elected! If the GOP can’t nominate someone decent, I would love to be a Gore man.”
Ok Weaver, you are going to have to explain yourself. I would probably rather be governed by Gore than Hillary, at least the old Gore who in 88 ran as a “conservative” Democrat. But that is like chosing between being boiled in water vs. oil.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2007 at 10:06 pm #
I’ve been told Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes is a good book on the various segments of American society.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2007 at 10:33 pm #
Filmer,
Gore comes across as prudent and decent – someone raised in a liberal culture but still with a firm rooting in reality. He doesn’t play politics as strongly as do others; Gore is no demogogue. Gore takes popular stances and follows the wind, but I don’t think he would attempt to socially engineer as would Mrs. Clinton or the GOP alternative.
Opposes the PATRIOT Act.
Supported lyric labels on music.
Is critical of big business, and would throw up environmental and human rights barriers to trade. Gore would destroy much of the globalism that Clinton and the two Bushes have created.
Gore used to oppose immigration… I know this has changed though.
—
Anyway, I think Gore is less conniving than Mrs. Clinton, and a Democratic president would be far preferred to a Republican one.
I guess I spoke without thinking. The Gore I really would like to support is the old conservative Gore… I guess I’ve come to dream that the Gore who served in the Senate 1977-1985 1985-1993 and received an A- from numbersusa would have not allowed in these massive waves of immigrants or declared war on Iraq, though I know he’s since come out in favor of it. Since I’ve nothing else to grasp at, I hope he continue to walk the conservative walk even if talking the liberal talk.
Things would have been so much better had Gore won in 2000…
Immigration does harm the US environment though; I can at least hope someone wanting to save the environment would act more responsibly than one wishing to push globalism like the GOP and Democratic alternatives.
Weaver on 25 Oct 2007 at 10:53 pm #
Consider this:
Hilary is probably more of a war mongeror. Hilary is probably more in favor of international trade. Big business is largely the reason for the push for immigration, and Gore doesn’t seem to be siding at all with big business.
Gore would likely bring some of our troops home and restore US moral leadership in the world, which may or may not be a good thing. Gore would likely restore US industry somewhat.
Gore would call for more spending and taxes, and the budget and economy would falter. The people would call for less and force congress to do just this. They might mistakenly call for free trade as well… but hopefully they’ll be blaming foreign immigrants and corporations.
Gore would likely not push for amnesty; I suspect he’d honestly attempt to regulate the border.
Playing it sneaky is a political strength, and I don’t see this ability in Gore. I do however see it in every other “major candidate” alternative. Gore would be a weak king, and an easy one to rebel against.
And again, maybe I’m just talking gibberish. Would love to hear others’ thoughts.
C Bowen on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:05 pm #
roho,
Odd comment, but FYI, there are paleoconservative institutions, like Chronicles, paleolibertarian outlets, like LRC.com; there are fusionist efforts like AmConMag. There are wildcards like American Renaissance.
The only reason Weyrich got a second life was William Lind in LRC.com and how does he repay the kindness?
He is finished.
Andrew T. on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:20 pm #
Weaver,
You are quite the Reagan Democrat…
Andrew T. on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:25 pm #
Weaver,
I always wonder…why do so many paleos find a basis to support ultra-leftists like Ralph Nader? It just…NEVER…MAKES SENSE!
Bede on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:41 pm #
Weaver,
I think after riding shotgun through 8 years of Clinton globalization, this Gore no longer exists.
Lindy's Revenge on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:46 pm #
Sam Francis felt Weyrich, though well-intentioned, helped open the door for the neocons when he created a New Right with no intellectual base. The managerial role of the intellectual base was open to anyone, and the vanancy was filled by those who were not really conservative or right-wing at all. That is not to say Weyrich is a neocon. He is a conservative who believes in defending the culture, but does not really have a vison for how to go about doing it, and was too late in realizing how little the neocons care about the culture.
Lindy's Revenge on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:48 pm #
That’s “vacancy,” not “vanancy.” But what are intellectual leaders of political movements if not vain?
ERIC on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:53 pm #
Gore vs. Hillary.
Both evil.
Gore would be so anti-business when it comes to the environment that he would put restrictions on business for environmental reasons to the point that businesses go broke.
I’m all for cracking down on corupt businesses, but I’m not for putting the environment ahead of business, not to mention I don’t believe we have an environmental problem.
And don’t kid yourself, Gore would side with the illegal immigrant lobby, he’s a Democrat and all Democrats see those illegals as automatic votes, yes Gore is power hungry just like the rest of them.
I wouldn’t say Weaver is a Reagan Democrat, but I will let him speak for himself.
But for me, as a right-wing populist/white nationalist/bible believing conservative/reactionist, I have more in common with Reagan Democrats than Neoconservatives.
I think when it comes to the overall picture of doing what’s best for the WHITE middle class, white nationalists like myself are pretty much on the same page as Reagan Democrats.
But, Reagan Democrats are for labor unions, environmental policies, and don’t mind taxes raised if it goes to a good cause, just to mention a few things I disagree with them about.
ERIC on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:58 pm #
By the way, a member of Tancredo’s campaign is scheduled to be on the political cesspool tonight at 7 pm central time.
Here is a direct link to listen.
http://americacast.ezstream.com/play/index.cfm?id=70101&from=brd
Lindy's Revenge on 26 Oct 2007 at 12:29 am #
I think we do have environmental problems, as did my moniker namesake, but the modern welfare state and foreign aid are a huge part of problem because they just encourage corrupt corporations to thrive and populations that cause the most pollution and destruction of the natural world to propagate more. Big government globalism as a solution to environmental problems is like smoking as a cure for cancer.
Andrew T. on 26 Oct 2007 at 1:02 am #
On sustainability related to the environment, trust me, it is in lock. Every logging company is jumping aboard for sustainable cutting practices because they have been proven as a superior way to manage the company’s land and a genuine investment in the future. The federal government actually pollutes more than all chemical and oil companies put together, but not a single bureaucrat can be charged for land damage because of sovereign immunity. Educated people will continue to make increasingly more rational uses of their finite land and resources into the future. As people become more acutely learned in the ways that their activities might affect the larger environmental picture, they will most certainly adapt their practices accordingly.
Jeff on 26 Oct 2007 at 4:46 am #
You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here’s a link:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow
Jeff
Weaver on 26 Oct 2007 at 8:10 am #
Gore Videos
Gore says “Get the troops home” and “the PATRIOT Act is unjust“.
If all else fails, Gore could be preferred to all but the noble 3 of the GOP. Socialised health care would ruin US healthcare, but all of the candidates save the noble 3 seem to want it.
Republicans can really unite to oppose a big spending Democratic President.
None but the noble 3 would undo Roe.
My Environmentalism
I’m uncertain as to whether global warming is significantly man made, but I am certain that we can’t do much to stop it if it is. My environmentalism is focused on local sprawl, local pollution, organic farming (often produced by small, local farms – I oppose subsidies though), and nature reserves. I also like to hunt birds and fish a bit, and I find factory farms immoral.
I don’t like that a local nuclear plant is built on a fault line, I support a new coal plant being built nearby, and I don’t like that the Barnwell nuclear waste dumb is located on a river above Augusta, GA. Mexico should do the job South Carolina doesn’t want to: it should receive the waste.
Patroon on 26 Oct 2007 at 2:41 pm #
Weyrich doesn’t support Paul because within the Beltway Conservative Establishment it is not considered a sane thing to do. He may very well sympathize with him on some issues but Weyrich and the Beltways cons have always been more concerned with their “status” rather than doing what’s right.
Filmer on 26 Oct 2007 at 3:34 pm #
My main point was that Weyrich is no dummy. He has been around conservative politics his whole life. Surely he knows that all of Ron Paul’s stances consistently flow from his underlying philosophy. His positions are entirely predictable and logical based on his paleolibertarian leanings. So how could his positions be “strange” as in odd or eclectic or inconsistent or whatever? Maybe the unnuanced dichotomous thinking sheep that make op much of the “conservative movement” might find Paul’s positions strange because they differ from the GOP/Hannity/Rush talking points, but Weyrich knows better. I see this as an intentional diss.
Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am. I always try and give Weyrich more of the benefit of the doubt than I do most of the beltway “conservative” clowns.
Andrew T. on 26 Oct 2007 at 7:44 pm #
I don’t think the beltway conservatives find Paul’s Constitutional views as strange as they find his band of followers — even though we all get along, the truly truly limited-government right-wingers on the same order as Paul himself are actually well outnumbered by hordes of internet-savvy moderate liberal Republicans, rowdy independents, and modal libertarians.
Obviously, Dr. Paul can use all the followers he can get, but the fact that so many of his supporters are so non-traditional makes Paul LOOK a lot like a protest candidate just there to shake things up, and it must understandably turn off many non-paleo conservatives of the GOP.