Bill Kristol expresses the unthinkable. He says something that makes sense and needs to be considered here:
Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out
Watching the Fox debate last night I was once again left dumbfounded by the statements of Ron Paul. The man seems to live in a totally different world; one populated by rational North Korean leadership and moral mullahs of the Middle East. We would isolate ourselves behind the vast oceans, beat our swords into plowshares, sell the plowshares to Mexican pot-growers and eliminate all government services because they simply aren't covered in the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
The question that Kristol asks is whether a party harboring a loon is more appealing to the electorate than one which could not bear to risk the loss of people who would vote for such a loon to become president. Clearly Kristol's answer is that the GOP simply looks foolish by their continued tolerance for Paul. Would he run as a third-party candidate? Would he be able to muster the money of a Ross Perot? Would his foreign policy which is arguably to the left of Obama's actually draw conservative moderates away from a rational Republican nominee?
Kristol's answer is that we would be better off without this continued charade of Ron Paul viability for the party. I think maybe he is right.
12 comments:
Kristol is spot on.
The Dennis Kucinich of the GOP. What a PITA for you guys. No way the O-Man would agree to a debate including him as a 3rd party candidate.
~Leadfoot
Ron Paul is the quintessential post senile whack job!!! Too many flight surgeon hours in the altitude chamber in an anoxic state. At least the rest of us are impaired by the indulgences of a great Scotch....or a fine sour mash by product. There is a certain clarity endowed by the nectar of the Gods......Paul suffers from a stenosis.....and he's killed his son's political career.....picking up after demented Daddy.....
What point exactly are you making about govt services not specified in the constitution?
In that regard, the govt has gotten way off of the reservation, and the obvious debt and the nondisclosed future liabilities in transfer payments, overhead, and long term benefits to govt employees (outside of military and other essential govt functions) is a tremendous burden and security threat for this country.
Wow, a presidential candidate who would govern according to the constitution! Can you imagine?
I was considering something and please chime in if you're an Obama supporter. Yes the GOP covers a wide scope and that's both good and bad. I figure it's most good to hear points of view that cover the spectrum. We can make fun or join support groups and best of all, we can vote and have a real choice. The Democrats of late, on the other hand, must be dedicated socialists to get a hearing. That's not to say there are not fiscally conservative Democrats, but they are brushed aside by the press and hidden under the rug by the party. I saw the GOP is doing exactly the right thing by keeping the big tent BIG.
While I'm certainly no supporter of our Uncle Ron Paul (when he's talking about raping the military, a foreign policy from 1802, or legalizing drugs) - Bill Kristol is clearly "Boo-Hooing" over his inside-the-beltway crowd's inability to overcome opposition to the candidate they (in their infinite wisdom) have deemed 'electable'. (After all, it's Romney's turn, isn't it?)
It's bad enough that they have to be careful of pissing off the Tea Party's Conservative majority - but the Ron Paul robots really frost their jaws.
Because of many state parties allowing proportional delegates to the convention (instead of winner-take-all), they're afraid the 'non-Romney' candidates will be able to extract terrible party-plank concessions to the 'status quo" platform they wrote (in 1956 ?).
Screw Kristol, AND the horse he rode in on. It is OUR party - not his (or any elite's) fiefdom - and Paul has a right to speak his mind.
I'll be ignoring much of what he has to say, anyway.
@foxone12
Unfortunatley the conservative democrats were the one who got whacked in 2010. The far left dems Like Pelosi were in safe districts.
~Leadfoot
I don't agree with Paul's positions on foreign policy and free-range pot, but otherwise I'm hard pressed to fault his positions. He is a Constitutionalist after all.
Besides, in the grand scheme, would he really be that bad? Assuming his strict adherence to the Constitution results in unprecedented damage to the U.S. (chew on that notion for a moment), how much damage could he inflict in 4 years? Not much, I think. And in the interim, perhaps the "kooky" Constitutionalist's rhetoric is exactly what this Country needs for a posthase extraction of our collective craniums from our collective keesters, remembering what our Founders had in mind when they started this gig. Maybe 4 years of Paul would prompt The People to ask not "What's Snooki doin' on Jersey Shore tonight?", but rather "What is the proper role/size of the Federal Govt?"...Why is there a Dept of Education?...Why isn't our tax system simpler?...Why are taxpayers funding billions to overseas anti-American despots?...What is the proper role of the President (i.e. Whad'ya mean he doesn't fix the economy and create jobs?).
But that's what our Country needs; a President who'll govern according to the Constitution.
That reminds me, a couple debates back, Romney (read Obama Lite), after being sufficiently badgered by George Snuffleupagus about the constitutionality of birth control, in frustration turned to Ron Paul and said "Why don't we ask our resident constitutionalist?" Now, I ask you, shouldn't they ALL be Consitutionalists? And yet, Paul was effectively singled out as a oddity...an oddity for being a Constitutionalist.
I'm not ready to give my vote to Paul. I love his constituutional accumen. But I also like Perry's candid, no nonesense Texas demeanor, as well as Santorum's consistency. Too bad we can't mix-n-match; Paulperrtorum in 2012!
Come November, I fear The People will see fit to put Obama Lite (read Romney or Gingrich) in the Big House, and thus we'll tack another 4 years onto our accrued 80-year drift to the Left (to quote the latter, ironically).
Frankly, I think the Parties want it that way. And we The People seem comfortable.
My apologies for the hurried typos.
Just a question for Ed:
What in hell is a 'Conservative Moderate"?
One who is very seriously committed to waiting to see who wins the election, before making the choice?
Dweezil, the nation is split politically into thirds: those who identify as Democrats, those as Republicans and those who are "unaffiliated" and therefore don't understand their own ideology. Within that third there are those who favor governmental solutions and redistribution (liberals) and those who favor free markets and individual responsibility (conservatives). I referred to those in the middle who are swing voters, but actually conservative as "conservative moderate" voters.
Post a Comment