There was a time not so long ago there was no difference. However with George and Company's hijacking of the Republican party, a conservative can advocate wasting money stacked to the sky domestically as long as he or she advocates bombing third world nations that don't represent a threat to our borders.
I'm just saying...Madagascar, I've been hearing things.....could have a nuclear weapon in say 70-80 years. Don't see how George hasn't noticed them. I mean they stick right out on the Risk board....
If he has to publicly defend legalizing drugs, ending federal subsidies of student loans, supporting gun rights, ending welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, farm subsidies and a lot of other specific government spending, etc. he’s going to lose support of those who are on the right or left, but like some part of the libertarian agenda in favor of candidates who more accurately reflect their beliefs.
And yet interestingly enough there aren't calls for the hacks occupying the stage with him to do the same....perhaps 'conservatives' can ask their own candidates how they're going to accomplish the things they advocate before attacking an actual conservative. Oh sorry, most of those candidates have advocated anything yet. No, just sorry platitudes that can mean anything.
Still, I do wish there were some way to harness his fans' obvious spam skills
You're telling me!! His campaign was spammed with $5 million in the last three months alone. Perhaps Republicans need to wake up and realize it's not spam. The internet for the large part is occupied with libertarian thinking, let me alone with my business sorts that don't want the government to run their lives. Not many BOHICA please can I have another sir statists on the net yet to influence the polls out there.
There have always been differences, otherwise Ron Paul would have had no party under which to run for President in 1988 after 8 years of the most "conservative" President we've had. At most he might have run a primary challenge to Bush on grounds of conservative purity. The differences have sadly grown, and the Bushes do deserve significant blame for that. There have been some questions asked of the other candidates, perhaps not as specific as I'd like, more along the lines of general spending tendencies. The monster of government has grown so large that it is hard to ask all the appropriate questions individually. Because of Paul's record it is a better question to ask him does he still take this or that stance which falls outside the positions of "mainstream" Republicans and Democrats. I would hope he would endorse his past traditional libertarian positions. I hope that would separate those I believe belong on the loony anti-war left from his camp and leave a political force pushing for reduced government. A good conservative would be able to use such to good effect. And if Paul were to, by some fluke, end up President, he'd need good conservatives to accomplish his goals, as his election would leave zero libertarians in Congress.The bulk of Democrats certainly won't support reducing the government, their chief employer and source of power.