So, ummmm, tell me again how well dishonest, fraudulent, antiAmerican, antimilitary, do nothing on abortion, do nothing to defend marriage and stuff the fedbudget with Galveston pork plays nationally masquerading as "conservatism?"
The minigovernment crowd has a place in the conservative movement but it is hardly as senior partner. Slashing taxes and spending, eliminating bureaucrats, turning BATF into a convenience store, etc., are good but they do not constitute all or even most of conservatism. Accept social and military conservatism or pay higher taxes when most conservatives stay home on election day, bored silly by endless chewing on such compelling topics as the Federal Reserve. Those are your choices. We are not the soulless creatures that call themselves Brit Tories. We have an issue tapestry and not just plain jane muslin.
Ron Paul was one of very few Republican Reps to support Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.
I don’t know why you need to mention Reagan here, though.
Ron Paul is a social conservative, believing in traditional conservative values.
He is against big goverment though, and prefers not to use big government methods.
One on one against a Dem, he would get an enthusiastic turnout from limited government conservatives (roughly the tea party). He has the best record on this, by far, of any of his probable opponents on the R side, and is vastly superior to Obama on this.
He would also get a very strong turnout from social conservatives. He would say “I am 100% against Roe v Wade” and that would take care of that against a Democrat who always would appoint judges who would uphold Roe v Wade.
And he would sign the Sanctity of Life Act. Those would be big victories for Pro-Life. Bigger victories than Reagan or either Bush got.
He would not do well with some “military conservatives”, especially the most vocal ones here. But maybe the “military” “conservatives” might want to take a breather from the endless wars. (As an aside, were “military” “conservatives” in favor of the various military actions under Clinton? I’m not sure that “military” “conservatives” will be all that fired up to go out and vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is, because Obama is bringing plenty of the wars that they like so much. Maybe if there was a war shortage, a Republican might be needed to come in there and bring an exciting new war, and new enemies for us to hate, but with Obama, there is no war shortage, so “military” “conservatives” won’t be starving for a war, and won’t be fired up anyway.
I don’t see military conservatives voting for Obama, even though he’s bringing the war, because most military conservatives (except the neocons, who are Trotskyites) are also at least somewhat interested in keeping the growth of government somewhat in check, at least some of the time.