Keith, let us address your question this time next year. When things really blow up in our face in the middle east.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael, > > Do you consider Ron Paul's foreign policy "conservative"? > > I also find it humorous, that all of the Ron Paul supporters are now crying > foul, now that Paul is getting all of the media attention that last week, > the Paul supporters were complaining that he wasn't receiving..... > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of >> “conservative” principles and the like, Paul’s Republican opponents in >> Washington and the so-called “alternative” or “conservative” media are not >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are refugees >> from George W. Bush’s administration -- the writers at The Weekly Standard >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” commentators >> aren’t conservative at all; they are neoconservative." >> >> Ron Paul: Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by Republicans >> Written by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. >> Friday, 26 August 2011 00:00 >> >> It is hard not to be amazed by the blackout of media coverage of Ron >> Paul’s presidential campaign. Had Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, >> Jon Huntsman, or any second-tier candidate been performing remotely as well >> as Paul has, he would no longer be regarded as a “second-tier” candidate. To >> the credit of such left-leaning outlets as Jon Stewarts' The Daily Show and >> The Huffington Post, this phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by everyone. >> >> Let’s think about this. >> >> In spite of the extent to which Paul has been ignored by the establishment >> media in both of its leftist and rightist varieties, he unfailingly elicits >> explosive applause in every GOP presidential primary debate in which he has >> participated. A Fox News poll, of all places, shows that the overwhelming >> majority of its respondents hold that Ron Paul achieved a decisive victory >> over all of the other candidates in the most recent debate in Iowa. Of 7,991 >> “active” cities nationwide that participated in the poll, and 43,293 total >> votes, 27,459 people thought that Paul won the debate. Newt Gingrich came in >> second place -- with 5, 906 votes. >> >> Statistically speaking, Ron Paul practically tied with Michele Bachmann >> for first place in the Ames Straw Poll, a contest that is evidently so >> significant that “top-tier” contender Tim Pawlenty’s third place showing >> compelled him to abandon his campaign. Bachmann beat Paul by a meager 152 >> votes. >> >> A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released back in May showed that >> among possible Republican contenders (Perry may not have been a >> consideration as of yet), Paul stands the best chance of beating President >> Obama. This poll showed Obama leading Paul by only seven percentage points, >> while he led Romney by 11. Since then, however, things have changed. >> >> A Gallup poll from August 23 shows that if the election were held today, >> Mitt Romney would beat Obama by two percentage points (48 percent-46 >> percent) and Rick Perry would tie with him (at 47 percent). It is true that >> this same poll has Obama beating Paul by (only) two points (47 percent-45 >> percent); but it has Obama beating “top-tier” candidate Bachmann by four >> points (48 percent-44 percent)! However, when it comes to that much >> cherished “independent” vote, Paul leads Obama by three points. The >> significance of this vis-à-vis my contention that Paul is a top-tier >> candidate himself and should be recognized as such becomes obvious once we >> grasp that Romney is the only other Republican candidate who leads Obama >> among independents by this much (but only this much). “Top-tier” candidate >> Perry leads Obama in this category by two points while “top-tier” candidate >> Bachmann trails Obama among independents by six points. >> >> In a Texas poll among “882 highly active Republican voters,” these voters >> said that if the Texas primaries were held at the time that the poll was >> taken, they would vote for Congressman Paul before they would vote for any >> other Republican contender including their own Governor, Rick Perry (who >> was second choice). >> >> As I write this, a Gallup Presidential Nomination preference poll shows >> that Paul has leapt ahead of “top-tier” candidate Michele Bachmann and is >> now third place behind Perry and Romney. Twenty-nine percent of those polled >> prefer Perry; 17 percent are partial to Romney; and Paul picks up 13 percent >> of the vote against Bachmann’s 10 percent. >> >> Polls fluctuate. In any event, they are no substitutes for actual votes. >> Still, the point here is not that Paul is likely to get his party’s >> nomination or that he would actually win the general election if he did; in >> these propositions it is not my purpose to either affirm or deny. Rather, >> the point is only to show that by the very standards by which establishment >> pundits and pollsters determine top-tier candidates, Paul should be >> considered a top-tier candidate. >> >> But he is not. >> >> The reason for this, I think, is pretty clear. >> >> Even though he is the partisan for constitutional or “limited” government >> par excellence, Paul is despised and feared by the party of “limited >> government.” That is, he is anathema to the GOP establishment, for while he >> has proved prescient regarding the economic collapse of 2008, and while an >> ever increasing number of Americans generally and Republican-minded voters >> in particular have gravitated toward embracing many of his views over the >> last three years, Paul’s uncompromising repudiation of his party’s foreign >> policy vision has earned him quite a few enemies within it. >> >> Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of >> “conservative” principles and the like, Paul’s Republican opponents in >> Washington and the so-called “alternative” or “conservative” media are not >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are refugees >> from George W. Bush’s administration -- the writers at The Weekly Standard >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” commentators >> aren’t conservative at all; they are neoconservative. >> >> In all fairness, it may be a lack of familiarity with the conservative >> intellectual tradition or even a reliable history of the conservative >> movement in America that accounts for why some of these folks wrongly, but >> sincerely, confuse their commitment to neoconservatism with conservatism >> proper. As for many of them, though, I suspect that they know exactly what >> they are doing when they deceptively identify themselves as “conservative.” >> >> My intention here is not to criticize Paul’s detractors for being >> neoconservatives. The term “neoconservatism” is not, or at least should not, >> be interpreted as a slur. As I and others, including its apologists, have >> argued, neoconservatism is a distinct political-philosophical orientation, >> an expression of the Enlightenment liberal rationalism that continues to >> dominate our political imagination. But philosophically, neoconservatism is >> as far from classical conservatism as is socialism. >> >> There is no more shame in a neoconservative arguing and defending his >> convictions than there is shame in anyone else doing the same. There is, >> however, shame in a neoconservative pretending that he is something other >> than he is. >> >> And, like today’s “progressives” who pretend they are not “socialists” >> because of the unpopularity of the idea of “socialism,” our neoconservatives >> pretend they are “conservatives” because of the unpopularity of >> neoconservatism. >> >> To sum this all up, Ron Paul has proven to be, at the very least, >> competitive with the best that this GOP primary race has to offer. However, >> as long as his party remains dominated by neoconservatives, he will face an >> uphill battle. >> >> >> http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/8751-ron-paul-why-a-top-tier-candidate-is-ignored-by-republicans >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
