Earlier today in Arlington was the Republican Party of Virginia’s 24th Annual Donald Huffman Advance. The highlight was a straw poll of the Presidential candidates. The results were:
182 Ron Paul
112 Fred Thompson
51 Mike Huckabee
45 Rudy Giuliani
43 Mitt Romney
23 John McCain
19 Duncan Hunter
4 Tom Tancredo
Ron Paul’s organization was the only campaign to make a concerted effort to get their supporters to attend and vote in the straw poll. The results clearly show this.
The attendees at the Advance are usually Republican activists from across the Commonwealth. This year the exception to this was the Ron Paul attendees. Almost none of the Ron Paul supporters were Republican activists. The only prominent Republican that I saw, who supported Ron Paul, was Laura Jost. The overwhelming majority of the Ron Paul supporters were people who had never been to a Republican meeting before, and never will be at Republican meeting again.
Ron Paul’s people did follow the rules, so they do deserve kudos and the publicity for being well organized. None of the other candidates made an earnest attempt at getting their supporters to the straw poll. The supporters of these seven other candidates were the usual party activists, so this straw poll does show the relative support among Republican party leaders for the non-Paul candidates. Thompson was the clear leader with Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney closely bunched together.
Filed under: 2008 Elections, National Politics, Republican Party of Virginia, Virginia Politics
OK, what does is say when the rank and file, ordinary joe GOP cares enough to make the trip and the “establishment” is polar opposite???
Ron Paul, Hope for America
Doesn’t surprise me that Laura is a Ron Paul supporter. She’s personally told me she is more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
– Ronald Reagan, 1975 interview with Reason magazine
I was the speaker for Ron Paul last night at the straw poll. I also help organize Virginia. I’m going to give you some insider information on what we did to get folks there. Ready? Here it is:
I sent two emails to our supporters about two weeks ago telling them of the event.
No one was bussed in, except for Sen. George Allen and Attorney General Bob McDonald. They are celebrities here in the Commonwealth. They draw people. Chris Kachouroff (me) is a nobody. What you fail to understand is that it is the message of Ron Paul (and also Ron Reagan by the way.)
You Fred folks ought to stop whining. There were several folks at this event who came to see Allen and vote for Fred but who, after hearing my message and the enthusiasm of Paul’s supporters, decided to vote for Ron Paul.
The only reason Paul supporters did not make the entire event was because of the expense. They wanted any extra money to go to the Paul campaign.
I’ll end by asking you to change your support once you’ve read our message. The garment of this message is seamless and you’ll not find any flaws in Paul’s message.
Just a quick addition: The post here isn’t accusing any of you all being Fred supporters. It’s just a message for the public at large here in the Commonwealth.
I’d like to also add, that Ron Paul was the only Presidential candidate that had a hospitality suite. However its information to Advance goers was mysteriously left out of the RPV’s program and outline of times, locations, and hosts of all suites for the weekend.
Amazing, someone like Chris Saxman can jump into a race mere days prior to this event, and he seemed to not have any problem getting his suite and events into the program. Yet, I receive an email weeks out from the Paul camp informing me of Paul’s suite, and assume by them having that suite that RPV too had been informed, yet again, Paul’s info is left out.
No worries- it made listening to Chairman Hagers announcement of the results that much sweeter.
As for the Paul supporters being individuals that are not members of the gop, I’ll note that I saw Jim Gilmore sign a Paul petition, frmr. Del. Dick Black spend a lot of time in the Paul suite and Del. Bob Marshall request and take a Paul yardsign. Three very conservative, and active, gop’ers.
Same thing out here. Almost no one that supports Paul at our events here in Iowa is a Republican activists, and many appear to not be Republican at all.
Well then- it sounds as though the Republicans out in Iowa are as inclusionary as those here in Virginia. (sarcasm)
Let me correct your statement Sporer; ‘many appear to not be Republican at all’. I think you really meant these folks don’t appear to be YOUR KIND of Republican.
We shouldn’t fault these folks for showing up. We should invite them in, and instead see if we can get them to hang around long after the gop nomination. If there is any group out there that the gop should be extending invites to, recruiting within, its libertarians, and other fiscal conservatives. Instead, here (and I’ll assume now in Iowa given Sporers’ comment) the gop isn’t recruiting anyone. Its quite the contrary- we’re eating our own from within. As long as this remains the case, we’ll continue to see our majority status(where we even still hold those) dwindle slowly but surely to the minority. I’m starting to think thats become the goal of the Republican Party- to see how quickly it can lose all that it had gained. Its certainly off to a great start.
I am a local RPV activist as well as a quiet Ron Paul supporter who attended the convention. I can tell you there were plenty of “closet” Paul voters who are also GOP activists. I know because I talked to a few of them myself. I never thought of myself as a Paul supporter but his traditional conservative message really does have sway. I will vote for Allen for Governor in 09 when and if he runs (And I hope he does run) and Paul in the primary if he gets on the ballot in VA. I certainly don’t need Allen and McDonnell telling me who to vote for president.
What are Paul’s views on abortion and the death penalty?
I just did some research and found that Ron Paul is pro-life (i.e. against abortion on demand) and also against the death penalty because it is so unjustly administered. I agree with him on these issues and believe the Republican party needs to revisit its position on the death penalty. I really like everything I’ve read about Ron Paul so far and would consider voting for him. I’m not impressed with any of the other arrogant candidates.
Paul’s position on the war would spell disaster for the US if he were elected. I’m also troubled to see he is opposed to the death penalty.
I would also agree on Ronald Reagan’s statement about libertarianism, but just like the conservatives and liberals of today being more like the liberals and tories of the revolution, Libertarians of today are a bit too far off the deep end for me. Most are supportive of abortion and legalization of things like gambling, drugs, and prostitution.
What is his position on the war? I’ll have to do more research…
Why would his views on the war spell disaster for the U.S? Aren’t we spening trillions of dollars on this awful war in addition to the thousands of lives lost? I read that he wants us to begin to withdraw. Why would this be so awful? I admit I don’t know a lot about foreign policy but I heard a former general say recently that if things keep going the way they are the U.S. can expect to be in Iraq for 50 years. That sounds like more lives lost then most Americans are willing to tolerate. Please explain what you mean though because I’m sure there are good arguments for staying. (I’m not being sarcastic — I really want to hear and understand this issue more fully.)
Well, I note several anonymous folks posting here. Don’t know why they are afraid to identify themselves. At the risk of offending someone, here we go with another observation. I noted that many of the Paul supporters who arrived just for the straw poll, looked very similar to those Anti-War hippies that we Veterans encounter regularly in DC. I also noted that they seem to be the same ones who shouted boos and interrupted a couple of the speakers when they expressed their candidate’s support for the Military and Victory for OUR side in Iraq. Now, I’m not suggesting that ALL of the Paul supporters fall into this category, but many did.
If anyone wants to see George Allen’s speech, you can see it here:
http://PWC4Fred.com
Many of the conservatives who have backed Paul are not anti-war at all. They are anti-nation building.
I think there are quite a few rank and file Republicans
(as evidenced by the many polls out) that are tired of the Bush doctrine on Iraq. We have won the war!!!! It’s over ,Sadaam is gone! Our troops are the best in the history of the world. No doubt about it.
On the other hand, I do think some conservatives are right when they critique the current Bush nation building doctrine with absolutely NO end in sight in Iraq. Let the Iraqi people sort out there own mess to a certain extent. Our U.S. military should not be used for world policemen. The surge has definitely worked but it really cannot continue into the unknown. I think the answer is somewere in the middle between Thompson and Paul.
I attended the straw poll and cast my vote for Ron Paul. Chris, thanks again for an excellent speech and helping to keep people informed to support Ron Paul.
And I also would like to thank many from the GOP for welcoming the discourse and inviting me to get more involved.
OP
if memory serves me correctly, you’re a veteran. please explain to me if Dr. Paul’s position on the war is so off the mark, why has he received more campaign contributions from active duty and retired military than any other candidate for president– republican or democrat?
our military is made up of trained killers, not trained traffic cops. when america goes to war, it should never be a fair fight. this country has the very best highest trained best equiped military in the world- yet we’re fighting the war on terror to a stalemate now for years? if we’re in it- lets be in it to win it. let’’s all, not just our military heroes and their families, be asked to sacrifice something-and i don’t mean more tax dollars. we are the US, yet our foreign policy is becoming more like the UN. we can’t police the world, and we sure as heck can’t do it forever.
as for the death penalty- dr. paul, as he feels with many issues, believes it is a decision that should be left up to the states.
he is 100 percent pro-life, an ob/gyn by profession, having delivered over 4,000 babies.
“mytwocents” and “majorkong” PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELVES!
“majorkong” please prove your comment about “more contributions from active duty and retired military.” I’m tired of hearing this claim without proof. SHOW YOUR LIST! I DON’T BELIEVE IT!! It is an empty claim as far as I’m concerned.
You can read some of the names of Fred Supporters at:
http://Vets4Fred.net
I certainly will not be told what to do by opditch. People choose to blog anonymously for various reasons. I will keep mine to myself. In addition, many of the founding fathers of our country choose to write using pen names as well. Please tell me what I have said incorrectly in my above posts and I will gladly correct myself if I am wrong.
I do think America’s foreign policy is somewhat misguided ( We are doing exactly what we criticized Clinton for in the 90’s,that is nationbuilding after we have won the war.) in Iraq but that being said, I would gladly vote for any of our GOP field with the exception of RUDY. I will think long and hard on that one due to the moral reasons.
I said PLEASE… isn’t that a request?
“mytwocents” claims “founding father” status by remaining anonymous? You also claim to be an RPV activist. I was just wondering about that. It’s hard to verify anonymously. I guess you think we are in Iraq to “nation build”? Not hardly. Have you ever heard of the concept of “Preventing a terrorist safe haven”? That is quite different than nation building. There is a very very big “middle ground” between Paul’s get out yesterday, and Thompson’s leave when we have VICTORY (stable Iraq and no safe haven).
For a number of reasons, I don’t like Ron Paul. While I respect his integrity and intellectually consistent and deeply philosophical approach to policy, I think many of his positions (especially the cut & run approach to Iraq) are deeply unserious and dangerous. Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you think it happened for the right reasons, WE ARE THERE, and we absolutely must see it all the way through to a conclusion that leaves Iraq as a bulwark against terrorism and Iranian regional hegemony. An untimely exit would instead leave Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, and a playground for Iranian shenanigans. Victory in Iraq–for these and many other reasons–is a vital national interest, but because the idea and reality of that war does not fit neatly into the philosophy of the Ron Paul brigades, this vital interest is dismissed or merely glossed over.
All that is of secondary importance though. The best reason not to support Ron Paul is that he is easily caricatured as a wack-job, and would get completely steamrolled in the general election if he were actually the nominee. Further, he would have devastating down-ballot effects on GOP candidates everywhere. If you have an interest in acutally achieving conservative/libertarian policy goals, the best thing you can do is vote for the ELECTABLE candidate who most closely embodies those positions. That candidate is most certainly not Ron Paul.
OP
You said please in all caps, I took that as a demand, my apologies. The Iraq situation has divided even many within the GOP. The sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. Healthy disagreement within our Grassroots party is good but I do think Bush’s rhetoric has really hurt us even in our last GA elections here in VA.
You make a good point about preventing a terrorist safe haven and that is why I think there is common ground between Paul and Thompson. I have no problem with U.S. foreign policy preventing terrorist attacks but I certainly do not think our great heroic troops need to be taking a police role right now. We do not need to be responsible for educating, rebuilding, and policing a country we have already defeated. I personally don’t think any type of democracy is possible with these type of Muslim
countries.
As for our troops rooting out terrorists, I will disagree with Paul on this because I do think it is the role of our troops to clean house of the terrists but not to nation build, educate, waste money, ect. ect. ect. when we are done. In the end, Thompson also seems like a small government, states rights guy so I wil support him over other big spending Republicans with grand big government social programs.
Good, if you are currently on the Paul bandwagon, you’re wasting your time, IMHO. While I’m NOT telling you what to do… I surely recommend you get with Thompson NOW, before one of those “big government” guys gets too much traction. I’ve got to go now. Later.
http://PWC4Fred.com
http://Vets4Fred.net
The last time I wrote something critical about Ron Paul, on another website, I got an irate e-mail from a Paulnut telling me that I was nothing more than a “dirty Jew lawyer” (an assertion that would certainly come as a suprise to my Catholic parents and Grandparents) and that I was “in the bag for Israel at the expense of real Americans”. Suffice to say, the e-mailer proved every negative comment I made about Paul and his supporters and then some and only served to convince me to stay on message about the mentally-unhinged doctor.
Here are the simple and unassailable facts. Ron Paul is a lunatic. He is prominently supported by several well-known racists and anti-semites (including David Duke) and as we saw this summer in Michigan, his supporters are not adverse to using goon tactics and physical violence to intimidate opponents. In almost every statement Paul makes–from his wish to essentially give Al Qaeda veto power over our foreign policy, to his complete indifference to those killed on 9/11 to his to his hostility towards any exercise of American power–oozes an underlying hatred of the United States.
The only good thing that can be said about Paul and his motely band of moonbats, “truthers”, racists and assorted political detrius is that polling suggests that if he runs as an independent, he will do far more harm to the Democrats than he will to the GOP. With that said, just as Buckley once exiled the racist and reactionary John Birchers from the conservative movement, conservatives of good will must come together and marginalize Paul and his supporters. In the long run, nothing good will come of being associated with this class of vermin–they are essentially the mirror image of the Kos Kids and every bit as despicable.
PS–the claim by Paulnuts that Ron Paul has received contributions from more military personnel than any other candidate has been thouroughly debunked. I would recommend John Fund’s work in the Opinion Diary of the Wall Street Journal as the best work on the subject. Apparently, this talking point was fabircated whole cloth by Ron Paul flack Trevor Lyman (appropriately pronounced Lie-man). In truth, it would appear that McCain, Giuliani and Thompson have all received exponentially more in contributions from soldiers and vets than the unhinged doctor.
One thing that is true with respect to Ron Paul, he leads all GOP candidates in contributions from known Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. While Paul’s contributions from this subgroup totals tens of thousands of dollars, the rest of the GOP field has received a combined total of 0$. Way to go Dr. Ron!
Hey rittinger, can you give me a link to the John Fund report debunking of the Ron Paul “military donors myth”?
Mr. Ditch: Here are the second quarter fundraising reports. You’ll see that both these sites link the actual reports as submitted to the FEC.
Only Republicans
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates
All candidates GOP and Dem:
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/
As to Paul not being able to win:
“Traders in on-line prediction market inTrade bet in early November 2007 on Paul having 7 to 9 percent chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, ranking third among the contenders.
Oddsmakers at betting exchange Sportsbook.com changed Paul’s odds for becoming president from 200-1 to 15-1 in May 2007, then to 8-1 in August 2007[13] and to 6-1 in October 2007.”
“Another trading market, World Sports Exchange (http://www.wsex.com) slashed his payout potential in half from $2,400 to $1,150 for a $100 bet, confirming his continuing uptrend.”
From mid-September (heading into Q3)
From ABC News: (Page 2 speaks to his support from troops)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3686073&page=2
“Another Paul constituency, interestingly enough, comes from the military. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics found Paul received more campaign cash from members of the military than any other Republican presidential candidate.
The study of contributions of $200 and more during the first two quarters shows that Paul has raised three times as much from members of the military as what’s been raised by GOP fundraising front-runner Romney, and four times what Giuliani garnered.”
Another interesting article:
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300
Ok, majorkong, now are you a real “major” or just a figure of speech?
I”m trying to follow your convoluted links to the source of your information. You refer to the “Center for Responsive Politics”, a very impressive name…. but when I go to the ABC link it doesn’t link to to the CRP, it goes to some Capital Eye thing that uses a 19k figure. BUT it doesn’t say when that was counted, for what period. I’m not buying all this bunk. I’m also still looking for the John Fund report that rittinger referenced. So please don’t send me on any more rinky dink link chases again. If the CRP report was for the first two quarters, Fred wasn’t even in the race then. So you shouldn’t beat your chest anymore, cause it is a new ballgame.
The Thompson campaign is going to mirror that of Gen. Wes Clark’s of 04′; late entry and early exit.
And let me know when you find that Fund report- I can’t seem to locate it either. Not saying it’s not out there, I simply can’t track it down on the net.
Opinion Journal is a pay site of the Wall Street Journal. It can’t be accessed without a subscription. As for the ABC report, I would recommend googling off of it and you will see several articles that call it into question that are free.
And one last thing, with respect to the futures trading market, as was pointed out in 06, they are easily manipulated. As Paulnuts have already shown a willingness to swamp websites during informal debate polls, and send millions of dollars in support of the insane doctor, it is not a stretch to think that they would be willing to lay down some big bets to move the betting line for the PR value.
Look, Paulnuts aren’t stupid. They may include a large number of racists, frustrated Democrats and various America haters, but that doesn’t make them dumb. Aside from cozying up to David Duke and his ilk, they have run a pretty good campaign given Paul’s obvious limitations as an appalling, disgusting and pathetic man. I think the rest of the field should expect them to use every underhanded, deceitful and thuggish trick they can. Ultimately, it will thankfully not be enough to get the mentally unbalanced Doctor elected (and has anyone noticed the striking similarity between Paul and Senator Thinskin?), but that doesn’t mean that Republicans should not denounce the candidate, his despicable tactics and the large number of morally questionable supporters.
I’d like to make few points re the RP claim to more military donations. While there may yet be merit to the claim, the comments on this blog do not yet reveal it.
* OpinionJournal.com is not a paysite. It is the free editorial page of the WSJ, but it does offer a subscription-only Political Diary. WSJ.com is a paysite.
* Google does not turn up any evidence that John Fund has opined on the issue of military contributions to Ron Paul. Even if it were behind a pay wall, had this work actually “thoroughly debunked” the Ronulans’ claims, I’m guessing we’d see it repeated somewhere else, but I can’t find it anywhere. What I could find was at the Weekly Standard blog, in a post entitled “The Fantasy of Ron Paul’s Military Support.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp
* If one actually examines the data linked to by Pauloids above, one finds that the conclusions the Paulnuts have drawn to be somewhat suspect. For instance, included in Ron Paul’s total is a “VETERAN” category. This is entirely specious, as the FEC does not gather information on a donor’s veteran status. Instead, what they gather is the person’s self-identified occupation and employer, which is not always reliable. For instance, Paul lists someone whose occupation is amusingly reported as “tax slave to the federal government,” while yet another lists himself as “Head Slacker in Charge.” Bottom line: while there may yet be merit to the overall claim, the Ron Paul number linked to above is a made-up number.
* I think there are likely other problems with the Paulite claim as well, such as its lack of the disclaimer “from contributors who gave $200 or more,” as only those donations require submission of employer information. Another angle is that an active duty member’s spouse (most likely not a military member) is often the one within a military family to make the donation, so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or violation of UCMJ or Hatch Act provisions governing political activities while on active duty (I saw this a lot when on active duty myself). Still another: they are probably counting civilian employees of certain agencies (e.g., Department of the Navy) as active duty servicemen. Another: given their (uncharacterstic for libertarians) penchant for organizing, it would not be surprising to me to discover a concerted effort by the Paul people to have donors describe themselves on FEC forms in ways that hint at a military association, or that they are taking steps to “over report” military contributions (i.e., by formally reporting military donations under $200, where the other campaigns do not).
I’d love to see a reporter really dig into this and come up with the full story, and one that relies on more recent data than the 1st two quarters of this year. And Paulbots, please don’t link to the same CRP/Houston Chronicle/ABC regurgitation of the same tired data as I’ve described above. Counting someone who describes his occupation as “VETERAN” doesn’t work, as most veterans (unless instructed by their campaign to do otherwise) will list themselves as members of a their new occupation. I am a veteran who is undecided between Rudy, Fred, & McCain. When I get around to making my choice and my donation, I’ll list my occupation as attorney, not “VETERAN.”
As much as the national media can not stand Ron Paul, don’t you all think they’d debunked this claim, if indeed is untrue, months ago? CNN? FoxNews? MSNBC? One of them?
Don’t you think simply, one, of the GOP Presidential nominees (hello- John McCain), would of called his bluff on this, again, if indeed it is untrue?
Wouldn’t one of the other Presidential candidates enjoy making this claim, if indeed they were the candidate that had actually received more from the military?
Yet not one news organization, not one opposing campaign nor candidate has said word challenging this has untrue? Not one.
So let me get this right- you’ve got some conspiracy theory that Paul is instructing folks to put ‘Veteran’ on their donation cards to his campaign just to bump this number? Really – thats what you think?
C’mon ya’ll? Everyone on this post who has commented against Paul, and claimed him and his supporters as whacked out, need take a long, hard, look at themselves in the mirror, because those that you’re claiming to be so adamently opposed to, are those that you sound exactly like.
Hey majorkong, I think Bullelephant has some good points, this claim is very hard to substantiate. REGARDLESS, this claim will NOT get Paul out of the lower tier of candidates. He just is NOT going anywhere.
Vote VICTORY in Iraq and the WOT, vote Fred.
http://Vets4Fred.net
Hey Mr. Ditch, Paul is on pace to out fundraise every other gop candidate in this next quarter. ($12M)
Additionally, look for him to have more petition signatures getting him on the Virginia ballot than any other candidate.
So what tier does that put your candidate, if we’re on the lower one?
I’ll add- that your candidate (and Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, and Tancredo) are all in danger of not even making the Virginia ballot for a lack of signatures.
Knowing this, I’d suggest you set your keyboard aside and head to your nearest grocery store and start collecting some signatures- you may not even get the opportunity, except maybe ‘writing-in’, to vote for your guy.
I will answer the previous question about Iraq in this way, which is how I view this personally.
Doe we still have troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Balkans?
Do we still have troops in Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia?
Do you see a pattern in the results of places we have cut-and-run and places where we finshed the job and helped new democracies become stable?
We need to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq as long as it takes to see stable, free governments emerge. To do anything short of that will eventually come back to burn us.
Majorkong,
As I said, it may very well be that Paul has the most contributions or highest amount of contributions from military people. My only point is that the method employed to make this claim is flawed. At bottom it is probably too difficult to prove or disprove.
Also, when I see campaigns organizing to put people on buses to get them to straw polls or state conventions or whatever, I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to think that somewhere within one candidate’s organization (especially one so diffuse and decentralized as the Paul organization) that someone would see an advantage in being able to point to as many military-related donors as possible and act accordingly. I think it’s a good tactic and I even welcome it for the level of respect it implies for military voices.
BUT, if a claim is being made that more members of the military have contributed to a certain candidate’s campaign than to others, and that claim appears to rest at least partially on specious grounds (i.e., people’s self-identification of their occupation as “Veteran” or whatever) that deserves to be pointed out, particularly when we are talking about a relative handful of people to begin with.
Ron Paul should continue to make as much hay out of this claim as he can. However, based on my personal experiences and ongoing relationship with the military and its members, and on the points I’ve raised above, I’ll maintain my skepticism.
I continue to find it amazing how many so called conservatives will vote for GOP liberals and RINOs instead of embracing the Paul campaign. For years, the GOP has trumpted limited government, tax cuts, original intent, etc…Yet, the GOP seems to be so wed to the idea of perpetual war they have abandoned all other principles.
VotePrinciple:
“Perpetual war”? I’d like to think I’m on the side that seeks victory and end to war as quickly as possible.
Nonetheless, your comment suggests an interpretation of conservative doctrine that is well outside the mainstream of where conservatism has been for 50 years. It is the same school of thought that opposed waging the Cold War on the grounds that Soviet and Chinese communism was a made-up justification for the expansion of the state. Most conservatives (Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan to name but a few) rejected this thinking a long time ago, recognizing that the national government’s primary responsibility was indeed to protect the country against external threats, and that expansionist communism was just such a threat.
I’ll grant you that most national GOP figures don’t have the courage to stand firm on most of the traditional conservative principles you list, and that Ron Paul certainly cannot be counted among that weak-kneed crowd. But today, most self-identified conservatives agree that Islamism is a threat to our way of life and our freedoms, and should be aggressively confronted. To imply that those who embrace this notion are liberal Republicans or RINOs is ridiculous, and to say that they have “abandoned all other principles” in favor of it is downright ignorant (see, e.g., Rudy’s position on judges, Fred’s position on a flat tax, Mitt’s position on free trade, etc. etc.).