Even Gibbon couldn’t have pictured a scenario in which a group like the GOP could be so prepped for a downfall as they are now.
When the RNC is okaying TV ads where Mitt Romney is portrayed as a “flip-flopper”… and that is a term that MUST be anathema to a Republican, if ever there was one… on issues like abortion, Reagan-ism, taxes, and small government, and the elite of the Party are allowed to publicly fight and name-call to the delight of both the Dems and the liberal media, what does this say about the state of the Party at this time in American history?
In the last two days, I have read two very good articles about Republican candidate Ron Paul, and I have even heard a portion of his debate response from that YouTube thing they did a few weeks ago. Prior to this, I only knew his name as a third-party hopeful in the ‘88 run against G H W Bush, as the Libertarian ticket holder… and I guess I thought he was a Libertarian through and through.
It seems, however, that he has only ever been a Libertarian to get his name on the ballot… much the same way Lieberman is an Independent now. While I am NOT going to say that I support his candidacy for President (he strikes me as far too focused on cutting taxes at a time when we have lots of bills to pay), am curious why more of the GOP-on-the-street conservatives don’t give him a listen. He is not a Reagan-ite, as he opposed very vocally the deficit-loving spending habits of Ron-Co. during the ‘80s, but he is a conservative… and he opposes the war in Iraq for rational and well-spoken reasons. He is a veteran of the USAF during the Vietnam War (but never served in country), a MD from Duke University, a dedicated Lutheran with as strong a pro-life position as any other current GOP candidate, and is the only GOP candidate that I have heard of (or listened to) that actually would work to REDUCE the size of the Federal Government. He opposed the Patriot Act on Constitutional grounds, and voted against the Iraq Resolution because it didn’t detail HOW the job would be accomplished and instead left the job COMPLETELY up to the Bush Administration to pay for, plan, and execute. He has voiced open intentions to increase the size of our conventional military forces to better handle their “new” role in a world without “commies”, while working to reduce the amount of money spent to increase our nuclear and non-conventional forces to a level compatible with today’s geo-political climate.
Both Giuliani and Romney have shown themselves to be less than total conservatives… both have a history of pro-choice and high taxes habits in the past, and both are banking on a popularity stemming from a “middle-of-the-road” position with the more liberal Dem candidates. That makes them acceptable in MY eyes (a very moderate Democrat), but I am surprised they are front-runners in the GOP world.
Ron Paul is a conservative by every definition of the word, and has never wavered from that position in his 24 years of political activity. THIS man is against the war, but for all the RIGHT reasons… what more could a traditional conservative American want? He has clearly stated his intentions for the US in Iraq if he is elected, and has outlined how he will reduce spending in all areas at the same time (he seems to think the ‘94 Republican Congress had the right idea with “Pay as you Go”).
Honestly, the only ting this guy is lacking is that he is a Representative in the House (from Texas, no less), which pretty much kills his chances of actually being elected to the White House. Couple that with the fact that the RNC won't give the guy the same consideration it gives any of the other candidates, and I'd say he's being left out to wither and die once again.
Too bad, really… this guy might have something to say…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have re-read my post, and think maybe I wasn’t clear enough on why I posted it…
I’m NOT going to vote for Ron Paul. I don’t think that this is the era of American history in which a reduced Federal Government is the answer to our woes, and I do not think that America is incapable of a nation-building effort (as Bush clearly voiced in ‘00 concerning US actions in the Balkans, and the Dems are saying now about Iraq and Afghanistan). I think that in a time of war (which I agree we are in, regardless of declarations to the contrary) BIG government wins the day, because that means BIG spending… DEFICIT spending on a grand scale.
That doesn’t make me a liberal, however. As James has clearly stated, New Deal politics still has a place in America, and while it may not be a permanent place, it is the kind of policy that history has shown to work… time and time again.
My point was more along the lines of “Why isn’t the GOP and the RNC (specifically) giving someone like Paul equal time to voice his views?”
Here is the ONLY true conservative candidate running in ‘08, and in both the straw polls and the online debates, he has shown himself the equal of both Giuliani and Romney. If (as we have proven here in the Bund at least twice) Hoover, and not Reagan, was the bench-mark Conservative President of the 20th Century… then this man is the heir to that platform, and not Bush, Giuliani or Romney.
He hasn’t raised the money he needs, but that is tough to do when you aren’t given the same access to fund-raising events by the RNC. That tells me that the RNC is far less worried about maintaining the “conservative” face of the GOP and is far too worried about pandering to a liberal-saturated American public with no attention span whatsoever.
Post a Comment