There are two opposing columns on National Review Online this week. John Derbyshire argues against supporting Ron Paul, and Todd Seavey argues for. Both are well-written and persuasive.
You’ll notice I don’t have “Who I’m Not Voting For in 2008” listed as a category for this post. I can’t imagine a realistic scenario that will stop me from voting for him in the Republican primary. Why is that? Well, he supports real border security, the abolition of the IRS, and an immediate end to the “War on Drugs,” for starters. Sounds good to me. (Nobody who doesn’t say, loudly and unambiguously, that the federal government is too big will ever have my vote again, I don’t think.) You can check out his positions on the major issues here.
Of course, it’s more likely that the sun will rise in the southwest tomorrow than it is for Alabama to be anything other than oxblood red in the 2008 presidential election, so all of my principled voting consideration is essentially meaningless. This is die-hard “anybody but Hillary” territory.
Seen any of the Democrat debates? She’s the only one up there who isn’t a goofball, as far as presentation and oration go. Obama has moments and even gets in a groove occasionally, which abruptly and consistently terminates when he says or does something so unflatteringly youthful that he might as well be chewing bubble gum, working a yo-yo, and wearing a ball cap.
I think her nomination is rapidly closing on inevitable, and my state would try to vote a can of cling peaches in before Mrs. Clinton.
I still feel the same way I felt a year ago about this race. It’s never mattered less in the grand scheme who I vote for, and I’ve never looked more forward to the spectacle of the whole thing. This is going to be the “funnest” presidential race of my lifetime.
Bringing it back around, and reiterating a point Seavey makes in the above column: I think Ron Paul would look fantastic against any of the likely Democrat nominees, Hillary included. I’d love to see it, but I don’t have much hope of it. The irony Seavey points out is that his own party is going to do him in, not the Democrats.
Thanks to ronpaul2008.com for the image.
You might also like:
- National Review fires John Derbyshire
One of my favorite opinion journalists, John Derbyshire, was dismissed from the staff of National Re… - The #Trump2016 threat: significant, if not yet compelling. What will you do?
So National Review has its first bona fide this-could-happen piece on Donald Trump out today. Longti… - Ron, Fred, and I might stay home that day
Well, I actively aligned myself with a local Ron Paul organization this week. It marks my first part… - Super DUPER Tuesday! Woohoo!
Hmmm. Two consecutive post titles with exclamation points. Two, even. I’ll have to watch that. I don… - The Clintons vanquished?
I don’t think I’d care for Barack Obama to win the presidency. He has far too much interest in makin…
Ron Paul has consistently opposed the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton has not been consistent, except doing what it takes to win the White House back for the Clintons. She supported the Iraq war when she thought that was where the American people were, and for the same reaon is now running as the anti-war candidate. I think Ron Paul has a lot more credibility on this issue than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Yeah, this hatred of Ron Paul by the right is truly mind-boggling.
Did I hear somebody say John Paul?
*** look left ***
*** look right ***
*** bust out laughing ***
*** skip off to beddie bye land ***
Dr. Paul may be our humble republic’s last hope.
They all want to invoke the name of Reagan, but there’s precisely one Goldwater Republican in the field.
It’s pathetic that a party who call themselves Republicans do not support the only small-r republican in the field but instead pick sides in a catfight between two Yankee statists.