Saturday, January 26, 2008

A dead, but instructive, horse

Mark Alexander, editor of the venerable Patriot Post, wrote this last piece year and I wish I could have seen it then. It might have saved me a lot of blood and sweat. In this article, he does a careful, scholarly analysis of Ron Paul, where he stands and what kind of values are inherent to his positions. I've seen an odd avoidance of the word "libertarian" by both Paul and his supporters. I wasn't sure why at first but I think I know why now. First, as I said all along, is a libertarian, not a conservative, and second, this has nothing to do with party affiliation (except for the fact he ran as a Libertarian Party candidate for president in the past).

Alexander's point isn't to cut him down, rather to make him better understood by conservatives who don't understand why he is not one of them.
Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?

The key is the difference between the meanings of "libertarian" and "conservative." As for Ron Paul's status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.
Read the entire article for the answer.

Labels:

<< Home 1 Comments:
Blogger Poindexter P. Parkenfarker said...

As a former Libertarian, that still has some strong leanings that direction, There are many things that I like about Ron Paul.
Many of my close friends have wondered then why I am not leading the Ron Paul charge here in this county.
If the United States were in a different situation, I may be a supporter. However here is where I part ways with Mr. Paul:
We did not declare war on Islam.
Wahhabist Fundamentalists, bent on exterminating every living soul in Israel, destroying capitalism, the United States and creating a world wide Caliphate, where indivdual liberty would cease to exist declared war on us. We inherited this after we took down the Soviet Union. We and China are the only two remaining superpowers. THey attack us because we are forgiving and percieved to be weak. They do not attack China, because China would not have "rules of engagement" and other civilized delusions of waging war.
Right now, there are only two Candidates who understand this. General Jerry Ralph Curry, and John McCain. There are two more who could learn fast, and they are Romney and Giulianni.
There is no other candidate that I think is capable of understanding that we will need an operational military base in Iraq for at least as long as we have had one In Germany or Korea.
Maybe Huckabee could get it too. I'm not sure.
But not a single Democrat running for president has a clue as to how serious the situation is.
My priorities are:
1) National Security (all aspects)
2) A strong economy (ours and everyone elses)
3) Beating China to the Moon. (This may not be readily apparent to most as to it's importance.)

4:55 PM, January 27, 2008  

Post a Comment