Comment: "Party Regulars"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Party Regulars are the Hijackers? (see in situ)

"Party Regulars"


My comment was addressed to this statement in the Washington Times article:

"Party regulars called the Paul supporters’ efforts a “hijacking.”

This suggested to me that those opposing the Paul supporters were adherents of the opposing political tendency, namely collectivism, and it was this division that I was speaking to. My own belief is that the best option for Ron Paul supporters is to take over the existing Republican party and return it to its republican roots and away from the neo-conservatism that has penetrated it over the past twenty odd years. This is the situation I was describing.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers this possibility so it makes sense for those who are presently Republican Party members to support him if they agree with his republican ideals. Of course as you say many of the opposing inclination may have recently joined the Party. Indeed there must also be those who supported Ron Paul in his 2007/8 run for the Presidency who stayed on to gain positions within the Party hierarchy.

If as you say the "party regulars", presumably those who do not support him, opposed the Ron Paul supporters simply because they do not believe they will stick around after the election to build the Party then that doesn't make much sense. Why oppose people who will not be in any position to change the Party after the election? Surely the only reason they would oppose them is because they disagree with their political philosophy and are concerned that they might take over the positions of influence in the hierarchy.

I agree with you entirely that Ron Paul is only one man and that he will need to have the support of the Congress and the People if the republican ideal is to gain any traction for the future. He has often said that this Revolution is up to the People. As the Presidential nominee he will have very broad coattails and I believe there are many who agree with him that are running for office in the Congress and in State legislatures in November and will be elected with him.

As President he will have even more influence and as he has said the present occupants of the Congress are politicians who wish to keep their seats so they will go along to get along and if the People demand change the politicians will accede to their demands. There is also the question of the power of the Constitution. This is something that I believe many Ron Paul supporters have missed even though Dr. Paul has made it clear that he will use the Constitution to effect radical change. This was in a recent press release from the campaign:

“The Plan to Restore America frees American entrepreneurs and workers from unconstitutional, job-destroying regulations. On my first day as President, I will order the federal bureaucracy to stop enforcing the unconstitutional National Health Care, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley laws. I will also impose an immediate moratorium on all new regulations."

If one extends this thinking to other existing legislation and Executive Orders, including all those dealing with the unConstitutional War on Drugs and those dealing with internal security like the Patriot Act then it is possible that Dr. Paul will effectively repeal an entire raft of regulations and laws that do not pass the test of Constitutionality. It will not be necessary to seek the approval of Congress.

There are no doubt many other legal manoeuvres along the same line that can be used to accomplish much of his platform. Of course as the Commander in Chief he has the authority to end the unConstitutional wars immediately.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)