“I’m not sure he can have it both ways.”
Both ways? He’s saying RP is only a threat to the RNC nomination process due to perverting it withg leftist suporters. How is that two different statements?
“only? lol I think there is a big number of these, and they account for the majority of Paul’s support, IMO.”
You think there are a HUGE number of Republicans ready to throw national security under the bus and retreat in defeat by supporting Paul just because they’re angry with Bush over his spending?
I’d say nearly ALL Republcican voters are looking for a fiscally conservative candidate for a change. But damn few are willing to retreat in defeat from the WOT to elect a nut like Paul. That’s the statement in the coulmn. Are you really disagreeing?
He’s saying Paul has all these leftist supporters and then says that “if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal.”
If Paul was so liberal that why would he taking the most conservative republican voters, wouldn’t he start siphoning the moderate republican voters first?
Why would the most conservative republicans be attracted to a man with all these leftist supporters? This is the contradiction in this article I was alluding to. I suggest that he does not have many leftist supporters, that most of his suppporters are very conservative, with some libertarians and independents sprinkled in.
On your second point, I think there are many conservative republicans who may be uneasy with aspects of Paul’s foreign policy, but find his domestic record so remarkable they are willing to overlook it. And, even so, most Republicans agree with the general principle of a humble foreign policy, with nonintervention, and no nationbuilding. It is only when you apply it to the specific situation in Iraq where you start loosing them.