They could argue against Ron Paul, I think, but the arguments wouldn’t be conservative ones. They know that he’s a constitutional conservative, and they aren’t.
I like Sarah as well. She’s my 2nd choice, and this time around I’m picking based on “who am I most sure will make cuts”. To me, Ron Paul wins on that. I’m not picking based on “would it be good to try to have a Female Republican President”. The answer to that is definitely yes. It would most certainly be huge for the Republican Party to have the First Female President. That would be huge. It has almost always been expected that the Democrats would have the first female President. But we get “First Female President” we close that “gender gap” real quick. Romney would be “First Mormon”. I’d rather have 1st Woman.
The same people say the same stuff every time. Kook shrimp earmarks. The worst thing they have is that. And he did’t spend any money. And earmarks don’t increase the amount of money spent. Other candidates actually voted for things we hate. Unless these people have a real, philosophical problem with letting Congressmen, instead of the President, determine where the money is spent. They know that what they’re saying is bs. They just are trying to blanket this thread with those words. Trying to leave an overall impression. That’s why I use the Reagan pix. Just to leave an impression (the right one I might add) that Ron Paul was right there, as a conservative, with a conservative. Instead of one of the Bush supporters who fought Reagan till the end. Ron Paul’s foreign policy, which so many hate, is really very similar to Robert Taft’s foreign policy. Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”, who almost got the nomination in 1952. A true conservative, and the recognized leader of the Conservatives throughout the 1940s. Not a kook. His were “the” conservative positions of the time, and they are very similar to Ron Paul’s.
The foreign policies that Ron Paul opposes were brought to the Republican party by ex staffers of Democrat Scoop Jackson. Bill Kristols dad, Irving, the intellectual founder of the movement, was supporting Trotsky at the same time that Taft was the Conservative leader.
That’s a nice contrast. That’s a nice contrast, how did it happen exactly that “conservatives” abandoned Taft’s foreign policy and adopt the Trotsky/Kristol foreign policy?
Taft was also a major force behind federal housing programs. He was a good man but he was not very comparable to today's conservatives. As a Unitarian, he might have agreed with taking no action to prevent abortion, but I have a hard time imagining a man of Taft's generation in leadership mistaking fudge-packing for marriage.
Opposing Ron Paul's claims to "fiscal conservatism" as he stuffs zillions in wasteful earmarks into every budget while voting against the budget while knowing his colleagues will vote to send his pork to Galveston is not only a conservative argument but is also an argument against his utter lack of integrity.
Surrendering to our nation's enemies is something that every conservative can and should attack. Paulie wants to castrate this nation's military power and hardware. He is no conservative on matters military.
This is not, thank God, a contest between Mittens and the paleosurrenderman. Fortunately there are conservatives and patriots available as candidates and you can count on the fact that we, as the conservative movement, (not they who consort with babykillers, fudgepackers and Code Pink and Alex Jones and Trufers) will choose one to defeat Comrade O.
There were about ten original editors at National Review and only Bill Buckley had never been any form of communist or hard socialist. Scoop Jackson was probably to the right of Bill's colleagues. Whittaker Chambers had been a red. Ronaldus Maximus became SAG president by the wiles of Hollywood reds. The actual neocons led by Irving Kristol and his friends belatedly decided that Western Civilization had to be saved from Marxism and came over when McGovern and the reds took permanent charge of the Demonrat Party. Would you have rather that these brilliant men and women (including Jeanne Kirkpatrick, BTW) stayed on the left????
The paleopipsqueak has not an inkling of what the argument was about nor why the Cold War and several hot wars were morally necessary. Ron Paul is strictly amateur hour.
As usual, your defense of the good Doctor here is first class. I'd just like to point out that your sentence above points out the source of most (all) of Dr. Paul's opposition here.
Your typical Paul-bashing freeper, the ones who attack him with childish insults and even more childish photoshop pics are deathly afraid of cuts at the federal level because they have a parasitic relationship with the American taxpayer and they fear that gravy train ending if Dr. Paul were to be elected.
I'd like to make an argument to them based on their true fears - just because a President Ron Paul (man that looks good!) would work towards slashing the insane level of wasteful fed spending and work towards restoring constitutional gov't, there would be new opportunities for people with your talents in the reinvigorated private sector.
Take my office for example. Fed tax and regulatory cuts would create a boom in civil engineering. We'd hire more engineers. That would create a demand for more cleaning people. I have little doubt that years or decades of "service" at high levels of fed gov't would qualify some of you scrub the toilets and sweep the floors of my office.
Or how about this? Every prez since Jimmy Carter has promised to secure the borders. Every one of them lied. Some, like Reagan, went so far as to grant amnesty to millions of those criminal alien invaders. Ron Paul would be good to his word and actually cut off the flood of invaders. That would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector. Once again, I say that your vast amount of experience in your gov't "job", along with some intensive training, would qualify many of you to pick tomatoes and cucumbers on our nation's farms.
Lastly, even the negative aspects of the Ron Paul economic boom would benefit many of you. Think about it - one negative aspect of bringing back a booming economy is garbage generation. Prosperous people generate a lot of trash, and a good portion of it ends up on the side of our roads. Surely, a typical GS-99 level bureaucrat would, or could, in time, be able to develop the skills necessary to pick up litter on the side of the road.
You see, restoring liberty can benefit everyone, even those of you with the work ethic and skills we've come to expect from those with years in gov't "service".