A question for you Conservatives out there...

So, after more than a year, I FINALLY got the new antenna for my Sirius Satellite Radio, and I'm back in the loop, so to speak.

Anyway, I'm setting my presets... ESPN, HairNation, EWTN, Classics, et al ... and I plug in Sirius Patriot 144... the Conservative Talk station. Mike Church is on, so I listen for the ride home from running errands in town.

The entire 15 to 20 minutes of what I listen to is Church ranting about the Liberal LIES of global warming, national healthcare, amnesty for "undocumented immigrants"... you know the schtick. Babbling on about how twisted Clinton, Gore, Biden, Kennedy and the rest really are, and how they are the root of all evil in America.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not DENYING that these people are wrong, or idiotic, or inherently evil deep in their souls. I don't know them well enough to make that determination. I'm simply giving you the context of the "show" as I heard it for just under 30 minutes.

My question?

Why are so few "mainstream" Conservative commentators and pundits openly backing Ron Paul as the ONLY Conservative choice for President in 2008?

They constantly play his radio adds, in which he (Ron Paul) clearly states that those adhering to "conservatism" as a political ideology MUST, by definition, reject the GOP hopefuls and their calls for "nation-building" in Iraq, ANY increase in the budgetary size of the Federal Government... including Homeland Security and a LARGER Armed Forces, any institutional intrusion into public privacy by a Federal agency without a Federal warrant (meaning the complete repeal of the Patriot Act), ABSOLUTELY ZERO tolerance of or considerations to illegal aliens currently in the country, an instantaneous US withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the G8, and the end of the Federal Income Tax as the primary means of Federal revenue.

So, how is it that the greatest "pundits of Conservatism" like Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest won't give the guy the time of day? Paul's right, you know... the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are antithetical to the very heart of conservatism, yet every GOP PotUS since Reagan has exercised that effort somewhere in the world, and all with almost zero success. No GOP President since Hoover has advocated AND delivered "small" government in the face of a growing economy, yet every GOP President since Hoover has seen a growing economy during their administration (even if only shortly, as in Ford's case). Every GOP worth his salt cod has decried the loss of American sovereignty to foreign interests like the UN and NATO... yet none has ever even considered an actual withdrawal from either of those organizations... or any of the other groups mentioned above. The President has declared the "end of major hostilities" in Iraq years ago, and the Vice President has said the same about Afghanistan... "mission accomplished" in other words... Saddam is gone, as is the threat of his propagating WMDs to terrorists and jihadists, and the Taliban is out of power, paving the way for a democratic Afghan nation!

If what I have written here isn't the case, then I think I am going to insist that commentators and pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity et al need a new label... because they are NOT conservatives. Ronald Reagan might have been one of the greatest Presidents in US history, but he was NOT the father of the Conservative movement in America. I think we all agreed that Hoover gets that title. Advocating an ideology based on Reagan's politics (juvenile in the extreme, but that's an aside) can be called many thing... but I am inclined to agree with Paul when he says it ISN'T Conservatism.

Response?