The paranoid style
Saturday November 10, 2007
Categories: Republicans
Yesterday the Dallas Morning News ran an editorial speculating that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee, but saying that he's a phenomenon that deserves serious attention, that he could have a major effect on the race, and that...
Filed Under: Ron Paul
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Speaking of misspellings, what's "Environmenetalism?"
Creative license.
It seems lately that every election cycle has to have a kook candidate. No, the candidate is not a kook, but is enough on the fringe that the candidate attracts kooks as followers. Dennis Kucinich was in that role last time around. Ron Paul is in that place this time.
Speaking of misspellings, what's "Environmenetalism?"
Posted by: Will | November 10, 2007 1:45 PM
Creative license.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | November 10, 2007 2:28 PM
Existentialism in action. ;)
There are a lot of things that Ron Paul stands for that I like. Indeed, if the GOP primary were today, there's a good chance that he'd get my vote. His supporters, however, scare me to death. It's not really his fault any more than Barry Goldwater can be faulted for being the candidate of the John Birchers, but you get the impression that he has a cult following in all senses of the word.
His supporters, however, scare me to death. It's not really his fault any more than Barry Goldwater can be faulted for being the candidate of the John Birchers, but you get the impression that he has a cult following in all senses of the word.
Now I think I understand how my family felt when I became a Deaniac back in '03.
Heck, if the Texas GOP primary were held today, I'd vote for Paul as a protest. Can't blame a candidate for his supporters. Mostly.
Maybe it should be decoded for hidden meanings? :)
By all means please keep saying he can't win. I want RudyRompson to feel inevitable right up to the last minute.
GoRonGo
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Ron Paul can't win
Basically, what I'm saying is that Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination.
Not with that attitude Frank! That's what is called a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you want him to win, vote for him!! Don't withhold your vote because he "can't win", does this mean you'd vote for the frontrunner because he can win?
Mr Dreher,
Please note that you have three days to turn in your timesheet for this pay period. Please disregard this mailing if you have already logged your time.
Sincerely,
The Agency
;)
Ron Paul's supporters are a bit strange, but initially all movements seem to be kooky; remember both the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers. Most people (about 70%) will agree with 70% of what Ron Paul says, it is just that it will not be the same 70% for any given number of people. Some will like some things he advocates, others will like somethings else and disagree on other things.
I donated $100 to his campaign last week on Nov 5, Guy Fawkes Day. Crafty Idea, I thought; Guy Fawkes theme to "blow up" the Establishment.
If Ron Paul could win the presidency and achieve all that he advocates, my pension (from a military contractor) will be all but lost. But if he can get all he wants I lose this pension but other things will happen that will compensate.
Even I admit he said something interesting to Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation this morning.
He said something to the effect of, India got the bomb and we're helping them with an aid package. Pakistan got the bomb -- proliferated it no less -- and gets an aid package. North Korea got the bomb and is getting an aid package.
So why WOULDN'T Iran, for all the current bluster out of Bush and Cheney, want the bomb?
Good point, Congressman Paul.
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because he can't win. I'm not voting for him because he's got a goofball outlook on foreign policy. He is the last person I want as commander-in-chief. Actually, I don't even want him to be last. I don't want him in the picture.
Ron Paul seems to bring out the kookiness in opposition to him as well. I recieved an e-mail from someone unknown to me, attacking Ron Paul for not believing that the terrorists attacks of 9-11 occurred, and pointed me to a site "proving" he has this POV. The site did no such thing of course, and I have no idea why I was entitled to this mailing, except that I have posted on my blog that RP was the front runner for my vote.
Wish I had a time machine to take me to mid-November '08, so I can avoid all the inevitable goofiness to come in the next year.....
There is no "Bremington, Washington". He must mean "Bremerton".
So why WOULDN'T Iran, for all the current bluster out of Bush and Cheney, want the bomb?
Exactly. And with Cheney making a big push for nuclear energy in the US, why wouldn't Iran want nuclear energy too? Even the Dallas Morning News is talking about peak oil!
That writer sounds a lot like a Birchie. I think the JBS's president came out a few years back with a book calling William F. Buckley "pied piper for the establishment" and accusing him and national review of being under the influence of the CIA.
Current US policy around civilian nuclear power has nothing to do with anything. Iran would want the bomb because Pakistan, India and Israel have the bomb. Suggesting anything else is, with respect, ridiculous.
Every country will think thrice after the example the US made of Afghanistan. Set off a nuclear device on US soil, and we will depose your government and go about (badly) installing one we want. We would not have to use nuclear weapons to do it, either.
Suggesting anything else is, with respect, ridiculous.
Oh really? And nothing to do with anything? I expected better from you Frnaklin. Pray tell, why wouldn't Iran want civilian nuclear power? Why would the US help India build a civilian nuclear program if it's so ridiculous?
Will, you are asking two completely separate questions, but let's see if I can cover them both:
Iran should be under no restrictions towards getting civilian nuclear power, but the moment we find that they have nuclear bombs, they should know that we will go to defcon 4 and start immediate overflights of their weapons facilities... all that is assuming, of course, that Israel hasn't already destroyed those weapons facilities.
Is my comment clear now?
Iran should be under no restrictions towards getting civilian nuclear power...
Yes, they shouldn't be, but the Bush administration claims to know with existential certainty that Iran wants more than civilian nuclear power, despite Iran's clais to the contrary.
The only reason there's all the bluster over Iran's nuclear ambitions is because of Israel. Pakistan, that paragon of democratic ideals, has nuclear weapons, as does North Korea, but because they no oil, Bush gives them a free pass.
Really, if your neighbors had nuclear power and nuclear weapons, you'd want them to. Get real.
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.