Thread: What constitutes a ``real`` Republican?

That is a very good question, so, let us establish some guidelines for a real Republican and then decide which Republican Candidate fits within those guidelines.

I imagine a real Republican, as a priority, would support the enforcement of our written Constitution, especially the intentions and beliefs under which its was adopted, and would thus abide by the most fundamental rule of constitutional law!

A real Republican would therefore observe the intended separation of powers of federalism, which are summed up as follows in Federalists No. 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

In observance of federalism:

A real Republican would never have agreed to the No Child Left Behind Act because public school systems are established and financed under state constitutions, and no power has been delegated to Congress to tax and spend, nor regulate, State constitutionally authorized public school systems.

A real Republican running for the presidency would remind the people that “same sex marriageâ€

Welcome Johnwk! Glad to have ya on board.

Good article. It describes Ron Paul perfectly!

sippy wrote:

Good article. It describes Ron Paul perfectly!

I think that was the intent. There are some things in the article that I don't agree with - I'll leave it there for now though. Oh, and for the most part, I consider myself a real Republican (been one for 30 years).

Originally Posted by MW

sippy wrote:

Good article. It describes Ron Paul perfectly!

I think that was the intent. There are some things in the article that I don't agree with - I'll leave it there for now though. Oh, and for the most part, I consider myself a real Republican (been one for 30 years).

Isn't the real question: Who is a true conservative?
I consider you a real conservative MW.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

Originally Posted by MW

sippy wrote:

Good article. It describes Ron Paul perfectly!

I think that was the intent. There are some things in the article that I don't agree with - I'll leave it there for now though. Oh, and for the most part, I consider myself a real Republican (been one for 30 years).

Isn't the real question: Who is a true conservative?
I consider you a real conservative MW.

Yes, the real question is who is a true conservative.....The Republican Party did not exist until long after the fore-fathers wrote the constitution....unless one can show that Abe Lincoln and the original Republicans were more beholden to the constitution than the Democrats of that era, the constitution has little to do with what the Republican Party officially stands for, ESPECIALLY today's neoconservative Republican Party. Having said that, I would agree that MW represents a more traditional view of what a conservative is according to the constitution, especially regarding trade.

I find it odd that today's Republican party believes that unregulated trade is very "American." I even got in a tiff with a libertarian about trade one time, and he was claiming that I was un-American and a socialist for opposing free trade. If that is true, then the constituition and the founders were un-American, because they were certainly NOT free traders as the term is defined today, and the constitution explicitly states the right of the government to regulate trade through tariffs.

Some may see Ron Paul as the embodiment of the constitution and the founders. I would disagree to a point. When the trade issue was brought up at the last debate, he (and most other REPUBLICANS) argued against tariffs and protectionism. MW's man, Duncan Hunter, was the only one that stated he wanted a "mirror policy" on trade. That is, if another nation wants to impose a 35% tariff on our goods, we will respond in kind. There is nothing un-American about tariffs, and if Paul likens himself to the founders, I have no idea why he is against them. The founders not only specifically sanctified tariffs as a way to regulate trade in the constitution, they carried out that policy in their governance. And that tradition was carried on for the vast majority of this nation's history as a means of trade regulation, protecting American jobs and industry, and a huge source of government revenue. Why is Ron Paul not acting like the founders in this regard

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing un-American about tariffs and protectionism. It is very American, and very in sinc with the ideals of the founders. Anyone who says this is not American, does not know American history, nor what they are talking about. There is nothing American about free trade. It is a sham invented by neoconservatives.

loservillelabor wrote:

Isn't the real question: Who is a true conservative?
I consider you a real conservative MW.

Thanks, loservillelabor.

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

Yes, the real question is who is a true conservative.....The Republican Party did not exist until long after the fore-fathers wrote the constitution....unless one can show that Abe Lincoln and the original Republicans were more beholden to the constitution than the Democrats of that era, the constitution has little to do with what the Republican Party officially stands for, ESPECIALLY today's neoconservative Republican Party. Having said that, I would agree that MW represents a more traditional view of what a conservative is according to the constitution, especially regarding trade.

I find it odd that today's Republican party believes that unregulated trade is very "American." I even got in a tiff with a libertarian about trade one time, and he was claiming that I was un-American and a socialist for opposing free trade. If that is true, then the constituition and the founders were un-American, because they were certainly NOT free traders as the term is defined today, and the constitution explicitly states the right of the government to regulate trade through tariffs.

Some may see Ron Paul as the embodiment of the constitution and the founders. I would disagree to a point. When the trade issue was brought up at the last debate, he (and most other REPUBLICANS) argued against tariffs and protectionism. MW's man, Duncan Hunter, was the only one that stated he wanted a "mirror policy" on trade. That is, if another nation wants to impose a 35% tariff on our goods, we will respond in kind. There is nothing un-American about tariffs, and if Paul likens himself to the founders, I have no idea why he is against them. The founders not only specifically sanctified tariffs as a way to regulate trade in the constitution, they carried out that policy in their governance. And that tradition was carried on for the vast majority of this nation's history as a means of trade regulation, protecting American jobs and industry, and a huge source of government revenue. Why is Ron Paul not acting like the founders in this regard

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing un-American about tariffs and protectionism. It is very American, and very in sinc with the ideals of the founders. Anyone who says this is not American, does not know American history, nor what they are talking about. There is nothing American about free trade. It is a sham invented by neoconservatives.

Great post, Bear!

This portion is especially telling:

The founders not only specifically sanctified tariffs as a way to regulate trade in the constitution, they carried out that policy in their governance. And that tradition was carried on for the vast majority of this nation's history as a means of trade regulation, protecting American jobs and industry, and a huge source of government revenue. Why is Ron Paul not acting like the founders in this regard

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing un-American about tariffs and protectionism. It is very American, and very in sinc with the ideals of the founders.

Amen, Bear.

Did you guys see the following?

Who's Really a Real Republican?

Mitt Romney created a stir over the weekend with his assertion that he speaks for "the Republican wing of the Republican Party." His comment drew a swift rebuke from Sen. John McCain, who challenged the former Massachusetts governor's conservative credentials. But Romney may have raised a more pertinent question: Just what is the Republican wing of the Republican Party?

Also see
Candidates Spar Over Who Is a Real Republican

At that appearance, in Nevada, Mr. Romney continued his assault on the Republican credentials of another leading candidate, Rudolph W. Giuliani, for his opposition to the line-item veto when he was mayor of New York City.

And then see:Who's the Real Republican?

Speaking in New Hampshire on Saturday, McCain cited Romney's checkered Republican past to question whether he should be trusted to lead the party in 2008. He noted that Romney had contributed money to a Democratic Senate candidate in 1992, had voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Massachusetts presidential primary, had failed to endorse the Contract with America as a Senate candidate in 1994 and had distanced himself from the Reagan years in that same campaign.


"So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party," McCain said.

McCain should be banish from our country after his support for amnesty for foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. And this clown asserts he should lead our Country?

And, as to Mitt Romney, a real Republican would want to subjugate the limited veto power granted to the president by our Constitution. Romney wants to assume a dangerous power allowing the president to blackmail the national legislature and destroy the delicate balance our founders created between the president and legislature. He is a domestic enemy of our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government.



None of these clowns in my opinion are “real Republicansâ€