Iowa Ron Paul supporter candidate an embarrassment to GOP

by Republican Security Council

It is almost always a bad idea to nominate Ron Paul Republicans. We will say what few other GOP organizations will admit, the Paulbots are nuts!

Today’s example is Randi Shannon who was [this year’s] GOP nominee against State Sen. Liz Mathias (D-IA).

Mathias won a closely contested special election last year and her victory kept the [Iowa] Senate in Democratic hands.

Shannon has just resigned [as the Republican state senate candidate] and declared herself seceded from the United States. Similar to Dr. Paul, she believes Abraham Lincoln was one of our worst presidents.

Shannon thanked her fellow Ron Paul supporters in announcing she’s left the race to become a U.S. Senator with the “original government.” That is correct; she is calling herself a U.S. Senator with a fictitious government.

Practically all Republicans defend the Constitution, are against big government, and we want serious deficit reduction. The Ron Paul Revolution supports those goals, but a major problem is that many of its members, such as Randi Shannon, are extremists and a complete embarrassment to the conservative cause. She is now being replaced as the GOP nominee.

NOTE (7/16 10:30 PM): It looks like the Ron Paul supporting Liberty Iowa PAC has already taken down their endorsement of Randi Shannon, but it’s still available in Google cache.

The Republican Security Council was established to emphasize the importance of foreign policy, defense, intelligence, drug interdiction, as well as trade, energy and border security issues.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2012 Election | 25 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • michael riggs

    Fuck you too

  • Somewhere in the rush to marginalize this new ideological threat to the defense industry gravy train that adds less value to our economy than even truly wasteful things like high speed rail, this rather spooky named group “the Republican Security Council” tries to paint people who reject the notion that the US taxpayer should fork out any cost and bear any burden to police the world and shove our noses into every ancient blood feud as nuts, by jumping on the story about someone who truly was crazy.

    Every faction has its kooks. I remember in the 1990s as a PCP delegate at ORP state conventions, I was always trying to remove this language we used to have about a Pvt. New who was being court marshaled for not wearing a UN patch. It was not even an argument that the US should not participate in UN operations. These national security conservatives I was arguing with were all for America leading these kinds of missions; they just asserted it was unconstitutional for our military chain of command to order our own soldiers to wear a UN patch.

    And then there were the kooky conspiracy theories the OCA had about gay people and the like. There were good and decent folks belong to this faction. Can’t we all agree that it would be wrong to identify some bizarre conspiracy theory of Lon Mabon as evidence all social conservatives are crazy?

    We can probably find an even greater proportional representation of the truly crazy among seemingly respectable people in the NeoCon establishment. Anyone who professes the idea that the bond market will let us invade Iran displays a serious sign of a disconnect with reality. The kind of romantization and glorification of a war that you find published in Commentary Magazine, now that is truly nuts.
    I recall an often accepted definition of crazy as doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. If the Wilsonian foreign policy goals are in one party and the Wilsonian domestic policy goals are in another, and we keep electing Republican Presidents and continue getting the same result, it’s because Woodrow Wilson’s progressive vision of government continues to win. Republicans keep talking about limited government, but when push comes to shove in this Madisonian structure of government we are forced to compromise in, Republicans are quick to expand domestic entitlement programs for the other side in exchange for their bombers. Republicans have been an abysmal failure at limiting government primarily because they have their own set of stakeholders in the patronage game of federal spending.
    Regarding Lincoln, it takes a certain amount of primary source rigor to look beyond our mythopoetic narrative of such lauded figures to see what a role Lincoln played in centralizing federal power. He did more than fight a civil war and free slaves; Lincoln used that war as a crisis that was not to be wasted.
    But forget about Lincoln one of the worst presidents of all time was Ronald Reagan, whom more than Barack Obama we can thank for our fiscal position today. Republican worship of Reagan is definitely part of the problem, yet in our human tribal behavior such a statement seems crazy to those who don’t know what really happened under his watch or those who don’t care to know seem to prefer myth. Reagan was sworn into office when the Soviet Union was already collapsing of its own inefficient economic weight, but to escalate a cold war against a poor, weak nonthreatening enemy, Reagan eagerly signed into law the very automatic entitlement program spending increases that are bankrupting us now – all so he could have his fleet of unneeded B1 bombers and 600 ship navy.
    The most important lesson to learn from Reagan is that every time the government spends money it will have to tax that money. It does not matter how much you lower taxes in the present, any president that increases spending increases taxes. Because Reagan increased spending at far higher rate than Obama has, he has a worse tax record too. This rising faction within the Republican party that has been centered around Ron Paul, but is increasingly calling itself the Republican Liberty Caucus, fundamentally gets this principle. Until the Republican Party as a whole does, it will continue to lead us to fiscal oblivion. Does one have to be nuts to see past the partisan blame game and to realize our problems did not emerge the moment Obama was sworn in to office?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I think you are taking Reagan a little out of context here. When Reagan was sworn into office it was hardly evident that the USSR was collapsing. From the point of view of the public the Soviet Union seemed to be quite strong. They had invaded Afghanistan and were moving into Central America. The American military was seen as decimated – Americans heard statistics that only a small fraction of our Air Force could get off the ground at any given time and this was reinforced by helicopters crashing in Desert One, the mission to pull the embassy hostages out of Iran. Militarily the American public saw us as paralyzed – how was it we could not muster some sort of force to go into Iran and rescue the hostages? Against all that, most Americans did not see the Soviet Union as at all in collapse.

      Should Reagan have spent money the way he did on the military? Should he have proceeded with the dubious B1? That is debatable. However there was the clear perception that the US military was not the fighting force it once was. The prolonged hostage crises and the absolute disaster of Desert One on the American psyche cannot be understated.

      Reagan definitely spent more than he should have and above all was totally idiotic when he signed the 1982 tax deal with Democrats, one dollar in tax increases now for two dollars in spending cuts later. Obviously the cuts never came.

      The real lesson of Reagan is the same as that of Obama – bipartisanship is a losing game. Obama and the Democrats knew they could get no where on health care with a bipartisan bill. This is why the 60 seat majority in the Senate in 2008 was so crucial. It is also why concern for our countries economic problems were put on the back burner for close to two years. Obama and Democrats in congress knew if they wanted health care, they had two years to get it. They did not compromise on that mission and got a huge new entitlement as a result.

      What did Reagan do? He compromised. Obviously he was in a less advantageous position in terms of congressional numbers than Obama. However Reagan had a more advantageous position in terms of public support. He had won in landslides and was clearly very good at swaying public opinion towards his goals. Instead he compromised with the 1982 deal which was a mistake.

      Republicans need to learn that bipartisanship has never helped them. Obama didn’t give a rip about bipartisanship and got health care as a result. Republicans, from Reagan’s 1982 deal, to Newts 1994 congress that compromised so much they became indistinguishable from Democrats is the counter example of failure.

      • Shane Young

        I think, Rupert, that Eric’s use of Reagan is to point out how long of a history the Republican Party has of praising things without actually realizing that those things run in direct contrast to the notions of “small government” that they fill within their rhetoric.

        Reagan pledged to never raise taxes and then proceeded to raise taxes high above his predecessor Carter. He said he would abolish departments like that of Energy and Education, but only gave them more power. He called for “Free Trade”, but maintained an extremely protectionist agenda. He also was a strong interventionist in places like the Gulf and supported violent regimes in places like Cambodia. Indeed much of the Neo-Con roots can be traced to Reagan.

        Now whether you think Reagan was a good president or not, or whether you think he only did what he did out of “negotiations”, the point remains, and I would echo Eric’s point here, that Reagan did not do what he said he would do and, here’s the important part, many Republicans, who shouted out “Limited Government” and “Free Market” pre-election, simply didn’t care. Instead they made Reagan their poster boy.

        Bringing it back to the discussion at hand, Ron Paul’s point all along has been that the GOP, as well as the Democratic Party, run on the platform of liberty, but not only settle for the exact opposite, but praise it when it comes around.

        I guess I fail to see how Paul’s calling for the Republican Party to praise actual limited government is “extreme” and “embarrassing”?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Reagan pledged to never raise taxes and then proceeded to raise taxes high above his predecessor Carter.

          On what basis are you claiming Reagan raised taxes higher than they were under Carter? Specifically.

          >He also was a strong interventionist in places like the Gulf

          Reagan in no way ran as an isolationist, how does your statement imply contradiction in what Reagan ran or supposedly stood for?

          >and supported violent regimes in places like Cambodia.

          Everybody supported violent regimes in Cambodia from the end of the Viet Nam war until Pol Pots death. I’m not really sure what your statement has to do with anything.

          >the point remains, and I would echo Eric’s point here, that Reagan did not do what he said he would do

          Sure he did. Did he do everything he said he would do? Nope. but he did a hell of a lot of it.

          Reagan ran on three big themes – Economic recovery, lower taxes, restore US military preeminence and through that beat back the Soviet Union.

          Now you might not feel Reagan was responsible for all of those things, but the fact is they were the themes Reagan ran on and they were largely achieved.

          Taxes, at least federal income taxes, were lowered, We had an economic recovery that seems unimaginable now, and the Soviet Union was clearly beat back from their expansionist policies that had clearly been in place only a few short years before.

          Was government smaller after Reagan left than before? Nope. But the point remains that Reagan largely accomplished what most of what he set out to do.

      • Rupert, the sources of all those public perceptions about Soviet Strength and American weakness came from stakeholders in increased defense spending. Should we continue to throw more money at Portland Public Schools under the conventional wisdom that their students are failing for lack of financial support? We need to recognize that the Pentagon and people who sell things to it behave no differently in their attempts to influence our political culture for their own benefit. There were many perceptive people in the 80s recognizing the Soviets were a joke. Ron Paul was one of them.

        Regarding compromise, only fools do not compromise, and the Republican Liberty Caucus will have to learn to do just that the way Rand Paul has. But the nature of this compromise is very different when you are a stakeholder in increased government spending. That was my point. Reagan’s compromise was “my patronage network gets theirs and Tip O’Neill’s gets theirs and we both dramatically ramp up spending together.” This is very different from someone whose only constituency is the overburdened taxpayers who merely compromises on how much he cuts.

        Let’s also not forget, that Reagan had a strong conservative majority in both houses of Congress. The 1994 majority was simply a matter of them switching from southern Democrat to Republican. They were just like Reagan, willing to cut domestic programs, but more eager to increase defense spending (which is how FDR finally won the south in 1940). When push comes to shove their desire to increase defense spending was greater than their desire to cut in other areas so compromise meant pork for all.

  • “republic security council”? Now that is rich. That is almost as good as the “federal reserve”… With a name like that I am scratching my head because I was just called “nuts” for supporting Ron Paul.

  • Shane Young

    I’m a bit surprised Oregon Catalyst, and those who have posting privileges, posted this on the site. It is written without any sort of thorough argument and comes across as extremely childish and uninformed.

    Somehow, the author identifies a single Ron Paul supporter, Randi Shannon, (while I know Shannon supports Paul, the author doesn’t even explain Shannon’s relationship to Paul), and then extends her actions to all Ron Paul supporters…in the very first sentence of the piece, before any mention of Shannon.

    We then get a strange jab at Shannon, and Paul, for their criticisms of Abraham Lincoln. Not only does the author just assume that anyone who criticizes Lincoln must be wrong in all other areas of life, he/she also fails to even entertain why Paul, and presumably Shannon, hold such beliefs to begin with (Lincoln was guilty of infringing on many personal liberties…as well as economic liberties. See: Income Tax).

    We then magically switch to Republican ideals, those that “are against big government”. This is of course strange as the criticism Paul and his supporters are giving the modern GOP is the fact that they have strayed away from exactly this idea. Some of the biggest spenders and government expanders in this country’s recent history have been Republicans (See: George Bush).

    We end on the conclusion, which is that Shannon, as well as all of Paul’s other supporters, are extremists and embarrassments to the Republican Party.

    This of course makes me wonder if some individuals within the Republican Party have not only strayed away from the belief of small government, but also from the belief of persuasive and factual argument. I encourage all GOP members who feel a similar way as this author (and perhaps not without good cause due to some Paul supporters’ actions) to consider what has been Paul’s argument all along: It is not “extremists” and “libertarians” that have turned their backs on liberty through small government….it’s those who preach limited government with such enthusiasm and then embrace it once given power.

  • Ron Glynn

    I have been a conservative Republican Activist in Oregon for the last 22 years. I am currently a member of the State Republican Central Committee. The person who wrote this is an embarassment to the Republican Party and is totally lacking in wisdom. Building a story about one Ron Paul supporter who loses their mind is shameful. In fact, the person who wrote this article maybe on their way to losing their mind.
    A statement like”…the Paulbots are nuts.” is itself nuts. There are millions of great Republicans who support Ron Paul and it does no good to call them names as their help will be needed to elect our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. It is sad that some Republicans(a very small minority I hope) disparage other Republicans because they do not fit in to their narrow view of reality. Finally, look at the people who gather to hear Ron Paul speak. They appear to be mostly people under the age of 30. We will need those people in future to replace a 61 year old dinosaur like me.
    The person who wrote this needs to grow up and think about the big picture of the Republican Party in America.

    • joe

      Thank you for acknowleding us. I was a new pcp at one of the district conventions with my father in law who has been involved as a pcp since Reagan ran for office. I & my father in law have contributed money & time to numerous Republican candidates both locally & on a national level. I will continue to do so regardless if those candidates agree with me on all issues. We do not wish to alienate the Allen Alleys from our party just put them on notice their views are now part of a minority despite the efforts of the media to block us out & villianize us.
      My Father in law was disgusted with the current leaderships deceit & the villination of those not even he entirely agrees with. Ron Paul is to us what Reagan was to you & we now view those who oppose us as much like the RINO’s of your day. The people willing to settle for Ford rather then one of honesty & reason. We are commited to not settling for the medias canidates of choice & picking our next President on merit rather then the lesser of 2 evils.

  • HBguy

    Who is behind the Republican Security Council. I looked everywhere online, their website, their facebook page, I googled and binged. Nothing. There is an address on their fb page that appears to be a condo in Wash. DC.

    Now their website is very vigirous. Posts every day. A lot of effort behind it. Though no one wants to take credit.

    I assume that OC knows who wrote this piece. Or did you publish this without knowing who wrote it. Can you enlighten us? Or do they wish to remain anonymous? I guess many of us post anonymously, but we do have to verify we’re real people. I assume the Republican Security Council is real people that that’s been verified.

    Maybe the RSC is run by Mitch McConnell, since they seem to be so adamantly against disclosure of who is behind its funding

    • Rupert in Springfield

      You are posting with the nick HBguy to complain about people not using their real names?

  • Ozymandius

    Do not feed the Paulbots.

    • What this article above and your comment here are doing is not so much feeding debate as it is an attempt to marginalize those you disagree with in an ad hominen way that avoids debate.

  • valley person

    Great debate to watch from the sidelines. Are we starting to see the inevitable crackup of the Republican 3 legged stool? Are the economic libertarians finally fed up enough with the social conservatives and military hawks to abandon ship?

    And what do we do if we think all 3 of these factions are equally nutty in their own ways?

    Tune in next week….

    • HBguy

      Right. And the key here is who whether the Republican libertarians will abandon enough positions on personal and civil liberty issues enough to entice the social conservatives. I think that’s what the Tea Party was originally largely about.

    • Onion Skin

      “Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood” – filler provided by vp in a state of plasmabation

  • Maegan Bell

    The RNC has announced that RON PAUL IS UP FOR NOMINATION. He already had the 5 states before Nebraska. Don’t listen to the MSM. They just want to distract his supporters into thinking its over when it is NOT OVER AT ALL.

  • HBguy

    OK. I’ve wasted the better part of two hours today trying to find out who the RSC is. I found a facebook page,

    And it’s clear from the info page that the RSC is someone, or some persons, or some defense corporations or their employees, who really dislike Ron Paul.

    The RSH has a twitter account where someonws tweeted a dozen times already today.

    There is a blog
    that is a wordpress, so you can’t find out about any domain ownership (But if you want to buy the domain you can go ahead and do that, if you want to screw with them), and they post on that blog every day, and sometimes as many as 6 times per day.

    The address they list looks like some condo in Wash. DC.

    This much energy takes time and money.

    There is nowhere on any of these sites where there is an exec. dir. board memberers, officers, agents, list of contributors, anything. It appears there was an effort to make it as anonymous as possible.

    I actually have some respect for the editors and most commentators here, because there is some intellectual honesty. But Isn’t it conservatives who way light is the best disinfectant? So, Who submitted this editorial? Or was it submitted by unsigned, untraceable fax that you received and decided to print? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Junk Address

    This is almost as interesting as the ORGOP breaking it’s own rules at the last convention.

  • Tim Lyman

    Really, Steve, what did you think you could gain by pissing on a large faction of the Republican Party? The enemy is Obama, and all Republicans need to pull together to defeat him, not waste time on intraparty ideological differences.

  • obsid

    The “Republican Security Council” seems to just be an anti-ron paul group. Here is some of the junk on their website: “The Republican Security Council backs practically every GOP general election candidate, but we do not endorse candidates in contested primaries…. We remained neutral in the 2012 presidential primaries, but our editorial comments and analysis were clearly in opposition to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson…. we also oppose a variety of isolationist and protectionist organizations associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)….They include Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the John Birch Society and Young Americans for Liberty, which now has chapters on over 600 campuses…. Paul is a moral monster who would have done nothing about the Holocaust, slavery or segregation…. Dr. Paul’s supporters praise him for being consistent, but unfortunately he is consistently wrong. He was one of four Republicans to reject the Ryan budget [ME: PS it was because it was TOO SMALL of a cut]” Yawn, its just hate hate hate. That’s all…. Hardly even worth our time.

  • CalRepub

    I’m a registered republican and I have to say that you neoconserva-twits are worse than democrats. Since the GOP has been so dismissive of Ron Paul and also because Romney is not a conservative, I’m voting for Obama. Just decided that today. The GOP is now just a party of neoconservative trash, R.I.P..

  • We can see who’s signing your paycheck you freak. Go get some morals and a real job!!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)