Peggy Noonan, on the GOP debate the other night. Emphasis mine:
The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials--the rightness of the endeavor, and what should rightly be done now. From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. "The people who say there'll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?" His foreign policy: "Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders." After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Well, if Paul had the perky and sassy political T&A consonant with his ability to argue the fundamental importance of maps, he might be electable, but as it is he remains Granny squawking about draining the cement pond.
I've been unable to stop laughing at Peggy Noonan for quite some time now, so....
Ron Paul is a one note crank. However, it's a worthwhile note and he will have some effect up until the convention.
I just remembered this little stink-bomb from Mark Davis and the DMN:
"In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. "We've been over there," he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"
"That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."
We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win."
Does the DMN really need this kind of journalism, Rod?
I am not sure that there would be no Jihadism if there were no American interventionism. Islam and the notion of spreading Islam by force is much older than the American "experiment".
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, his libertarian ideas would work if people donated at least 25% of their income to charities, if elderly infirm people would still be kept at home by their grown children, if men and women who parented children married each other, if couples who are sterile/infertile adopted about 3 children, if the expenditures of government were decidedly agreed on by the populance, if about 70% of all the lawyers in this country would find a new profession, if 150 new nuclear power plants were built and new improved technologies for converting shale oil and coal into liquid fuels are developed, if we go on a gold exchange standard (a classical gold warehouse receipt standard may be impossible) and people understood the problems with this, if the baby boomers can decide to give up much if not most of their social security entitlement and dedicate their retirement to service to their churches and grandchildren, if minority peoples can give up some of their victimhood mentality and be more welcomed into business and mainstream society by the white upper middle class; IF ALL THESE THINGS WOULD OR COULD BE OR COULD HAPPEN, THEN RON PAUL IS DEFINITELY THE MAN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.