Posted on 07/31/2007 12:06:19 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington’s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater. The sleepy old boulevards of the 1920s are now shadowed between great glittering ziggurats of glass and marble, where millions of administrative assistants to the Department of Administrative Assistance toil away at sending memos to each other.
Few of these laborers in the vineyards of government do anything useful. (In my experience — I used to have to deal with them — few do anything much at all.) Some of what they do is actually harmful to the nation. On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It’s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are — duh! — not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! — whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain’t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!
Speak for yourself. Well, maybe counterrevolutionaries. The revolution is the state of affairs the article describes. So of a slo-mo overthrow of the Constitution.
I know why: Because Ron Paul is a tin-foil hat wearing NUT-JOB.
Fred for PREZ in 08!
>> plus he’s a nut. That’s a major drawback also.
I /strongly/ disagree!
(No, I’m not saying Ron Paul isn’t a nut, ‘cause he is. It’s just that being a nut isn’t a drawback for holding office. More like a requirement!)
touche!
The more criticism I hear of Ron Paul, the more his critics sound like nuts
Paul critics should think how liberal they sound when they criticze him. I mean, I hear some criticize his stance on the UN...
Psst....youre not a conservative if you sound the least supportive of the UN
Exactly right, so why not support Ron Paul?
"Ron Paul is unelectable."
I disagree. IMO, Ron Paul is the only Republican who actually stands a chance against a dummycrat.
Dr. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that the democrats cannot deal with. They simply wouldn't know how, except of course for the usual character assasination, which wouldn't be effective in his case.
Look at it this way: Ron Paul, being a Republican, would automatically have all the Republican votes.
He would also get votes from "Reagan Democrats", ALL the Libertarians, All the Constitution Party voters, MANY independent voters, and even a smattering of "greens".
Ron Paul would carry the major states, and except for liberal strongholds such as the North-Eastern seaboard, would claim a landslide victory in the Electoral College, and would win.
The loonies that support George Washington and those stuff-for-brains who think they can start a new country must be wearing tinfoil hats.
London is London and it will always be. It’s too big to bring under rein so may as well enjoy the ride and get yours while you can.
Somebody has to be a superpower and it may as well be the British Empire. May the sun never set on her!
Long live the King!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.