Have you ever tried reading in complete thought’s?
The column doesn’t say this - “those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits.”
It says this - “The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits. Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending.”
The half of the statement you want to talk about would include more than 75% of Republican voters. But the people the writer is talking about in the complete statement, those willing to ignore everything else just to vote for a small government promise, accounts for only about 2.7% of Republican voters, according to national Republican polls of course.
The operative phrase there is “all of this”, meaning the article’s prior ravings that the Paul campaign is the captive of left-wing Trojan horse plotters. What nonsense!
The obvious fact is that Ron Paul is the ONLY semi-credible candidate in either party who says he will end the Iraq war in three months, and quite obviously means what he says. Therefore it’s quite understandable that this reactionary Taft-Republican grandpa has scooped up the single-issue antiwar support in both major parties. Why this should worry me, or any other Republican, I can’t imagine.
I started this campaign as a Tancredo supporter, and I still like both him and Duncan Hunter; but neither of their campaigns has taken off at all. Apart from his Liberalism, Giuliani will be dragged down by his closeness to Bush, and Bernie Kerik going to jail. Fred Thompson can unite the party, but his campaign seems to be lagging. Mitt Romney is a talented chameleon who I now consider the front-runner; but does he really believe in anything besides getting elected? As for Ron Paul, the only question worth discussing is whether his proposed policies are right or wrong for the USA. His proposed foreign policy might lead straight-away to Japan and Iran with nuclear weapons and a dire fate for Israel. On the other hand, if we bomb Iran won't the Islamist Pakis just give them another bomb to revenge themselves with? I think they will. And if we are truly too broke to play world policeman anymore, we might as well bring our troops home and pretend it was our own idea. I'm really not sure any more what is the correct foreign policy for our country to follow. What Ron Paul proposes is a drastic break from the recent past, but I'm no longer certain that he is wrong. As a Republican and American, I'd like to hear a further debate. Then we will vote!