Replies

LOL if I were you two shills, I wouldn't be that concerned with what a 'lowly' poster on an internet board thinks. You'd best be firing off emails to Jonah Goldberg, the current editor of the NRO.

Buckley was right in 1952: Much "hard thinking" was required of conservatives. And it is required of us again. So it's good news that Paul is running. Alas, too many conservatives dismiss him out of hand rather than engage him. The Rothbard-Paul vision was rightly defeated during the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, it seems not only fair but wise to give it another hearing--and if it can't be defeated on the merits, it deserves to win.

and John Derbyshire at the same publication

If you think that our efforts against jihadist terrorism constitute World War Four (I don't), you will not want Ron Paul for president. (Jonah Goldberg's article "The Tradition of Ron Paul" in the Dec. 17 issue of National Review is key reading in that context.) If you think there would be a whole world of difference between what Hillary Clinton would accomplish in the Rome-of-the-Borgias down there on the Potomac, by comparison with what Rudy, or Fred, or Mitt would accomplish, you won't be supporting Paul.
If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul's your man.

The 'cause' (whatever the heck Junior says it is today) may be falling apart around you when even the NRO is starting to question you. But heck just toss them under the bus too eh? Cause only you two have the real news (with cool translated documents too!! And a decoder ring!!) that hardly anyone in the real world believes anymore...

I won't even bother discussing that you think Mona Charen could write a history book...