The Rick Perry for President campaign has posted on its web page a copy of part of the Libertarian Party News from March/April 1987. That page of the newsletter is Ron Paul’s letter of resignation from the Republican Party. Paul’s letter is somewhat critical of President Ronald Reagan.
At the Republican presidential debate of September 7, Paul had criticized Perry for having been a supporter of Al Gore for President in 1988, and Paul also held himself out as an early supporter of Ronald Reagan for President. Nothing in Paul’s 1987 resignation letter directly contradicts anything Paul said in the debate. But Perry is trying to show that Paul has not always been an unabashed supporter of all of Ronald Reagan’s policies.
What and when?
@15
There is a big case.
George
@14
No it was considerably more dramatic. It had to do with Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, etc., and appeared in his Congressional Newsletter.
George
The Ronald Reagan that run in 1980 would not have support all of what Reagan did in the latter years of his presidency either.
I believe George Phillies means that he thinks that Ron Paul supports a government establishment of religion. I think that’s a big stretch, however. Again, I recommend http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/yellow-journalism-at-its-worst.html on issues related to that. I don’t think there is any case to be made that Dr. Paul is bad in any way on freedom of the press, assembly, speech or petition rights.
@12
George, what has Ron said about the 1st Amendment? I can’t recall him ever discussing it.
Mind you, a Republican party that splits three or four ways would be excellent news.
@10 Person recently had a really impressive list of serious deregulation changes — concrete changes — to build small business. They were in radical contrast to Republican deregulation changes that have no content.
I believe you can argue Perry has concluded, correctly, that as his other conservative opponents fold Romney will get almost none of their votes, and therefore Romney is not going anywhere. Paul, however, will probably not fold at all, and will collect his share of those votes, including if it goes down to a 2-man a stack of the Romney votes.
Paul’s position on the first amendment is particularly disturbing.
I hereby announce I’m available as an LP Presidential candidate.
At my age I guarantee I’ll do little, much less anything to expand government abuses.
So what? Paul continually shoots himself in the foot with his shaky grasp of Libertarianism and use of “constitutional” arguments. Unfortunately his cracker-barrel religious and states-first conservatism is identified with Libertarianism.
I like the man, worked to get him involved in the LP but his answer on airline deregulation and air traffic control about the market being OK “in theory” is not doing any Libertarians of any party any favors, especially since he had a zinger response pointing to the quasi-private system in Canada ( http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/canadas-private-atc-wins-award/ ) and the many benefits of airline deregulation such as prices and lower accidents Libertarians helped bring about and praised by people on both sides of the aisle (let alone going from there into a wholesale argument).
Anyone has an off day, I’m one long senior moment most days, but he does this time and again. He doesn’t understand the materials of Libertarianism today, and was pretty shaky back when as an LP candidate. He’s great on the attack but short on policy. I fear he’s getting up (or down) there with Barr saying market regulation is a just feature of government and we should execute mothers suspected of abortion (e.g. spontaneous abortions) as Libertarian positions.
He’s a great gadfly but gets off-message continually. That’s assuming he has one besides the economy is screwed and bring the troops home. Not a bad message, it always gets the best applause, so stick with it, IMHO.
In his defense I’ll allow the other candidates were soon in worse trouble off their favorite themes or just sounded like maniacs. But please no more Paul self-goals. Back to bed.
Hadn’t seen that. Interesting.
I think Perry takes Paul as more of a threat than he does Romney. I figure IPR readers have seen reports of Perry confronting Paul during a commerical in the GOP debates.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/sep/9/during-debate-commercial-gov-perry-tried-intimidat/
I first read abt the attempt to intimidate Paul in the Guardian.
So the stuff Perry’s campaign has posted trying to discredit Paul makes it seem all the more like Perry sees his real threat as Paul.
And I’m not keen on many of Paul’s economics etc, but the way he stood up to Perry, I have to admire that.
To me, it would seem worse for Perry to so alienate Paul and his supporters that Paul actually does a John Anderson and takes a third party or independent route, post-primary season.
http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/09/governor-perry-attempts-to-smear-ron.html
It may also be ‘shooting back’ considering what is already appearing as negative material on various internet sites about Perry.
Executes the innocent
Executed the retarded man with the mind of a seven year old
Agreed with comments #1-4
Additionally it would be interesting to see the views of the “Reagan Libertarian” regarding the contents of Ron Paul’s letter.
Kudos to Rick Perry for helping spread Ron Paul’s ideas 🙂
I don’t think this tactic will harm Dr. Paul. It’s not nearly as serious to the right as forcing Gardisil on girls, campaigning for Al Gore, and him immigrations policies. It makes Rick Perry look childish in his bringing this up.
Too bad Dr. Paul didn’t write a similar letter after 4 or 6 years of G.W. Bush and a Congress of elephants.
They call this “punching down” and it’s a mistake on the part of the Perry campaign.
We can hope that Gary Johnson reads Ron Paul’s letter of resignation from the Republican Party, and sees the sense of it.