Aug 07 2007
GOP Lemmings Heading For The Cliff
Some fools on the right think it would be wise in 2008 to back the lunacy of Ron Paul as a sign of where the GOP stands – seriously:
All of the current crop of power-seekers spurning the Ron Paul campaign in hopes of power, jobs, and largesse in a Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, or Obama administration, will have to start looking for honest work. Instead, we will get a new generation of idealists eager to start cleaning up the mess.
…
[Me] Whew. While I am generally resistant to romantic gestures in politics, and I don’t believe the Giuliani, Romney, McCain, etc. camps are TOTALLY devoid of idealism, or unacceptably short on honesty, courage, decency, or integrity, still… the guy makes a case.
The Corner is losing its mind. Must be all the echoes bouncing off the walls there. If anyone thinks the law enforcement, get tough on terrorists, defend this nation stance of Guiliani or McCain or Romney is going to be lost to the run-and-cower-at-home position of Ron Paul they are nuts. The far right is still frustrated they are not the end all, be all they convinced themselves they were in 2000 and 2004. They cannot fathom they have to compromise or find common ground. It is driving them crazy.
The truth is this nation is center right. And if the far right wants to stomp its foot and select Ron Paul as a sign of where it is heading – well who am I to stop them? Ron Paul is no George Bush or Ronald Reagan or Rudy Guiliani. Clearly that is the point some at The Corner want to make. OK – point made.
And it you look carefully, much of the far right’s behavior is EXACTLY the same as the Left they so despise…
Same coin, just the opposite side. They both trade turns: one is the pitcher, the other the catcher….so to speak. When will they look in the mirror and see this?
To resurrect on old term from the ’80’s, “co-dependency” runs rampant in this country, imho.
AJ, I think you are reading this wrong.
The point is, there has long been a conservative faction that regards defeat as a proof of ideological purity. Pat Buchanan comes to mind. And there are some conservatives who think that the 2008 Presidential election is lost, and that the Republicans would do better to make an ideological statement than to field a strong candidate. Mr. Derbyshire merely is stating that there is some plausibility to this argument.
My own assessment is that the whole argument is founded on sand…because I think the Republicans are in good position to win in 2008. Not to mention the primacy of national security as an issue.
Congressional Democrats are making themselves persona non grata with the electorate. And it is certain that the Dem nominee will be a sitting member of Congress. Not to mention that having to run so far to the left of center is providing the Republicans with a treasure trove of material for the main campaign.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to run as the Adult Party. Strong on national security, sensible on domestic issues, and competent at managing both. And since none of the Republican candidates are part of the Bush administration, they are insulated from the negatives he has accumulated over the last seven years.
And given the choice between an ideologically pure (if you neglect national security) defeat that puts a Clinton back into the Oval Office and an ideologically tainted victory…it’s no choice at all.
Anyone remember what percentage of the vote Pat Buchanon got when he ran for President? Ron Paul would do well to get 1/10 of what Buchanon did.
The Ron Paul campaign is nothing but a bunch of right wing bloggers trying desperately to convince themselves that they have an infinitely greater amount of influence than they actually do. Whenever the real world gets its say, as it always does sooner or later, the Ron Paul mania will prove itself to be nothing but the latest blair witch project: an amusing but time wasting diversion believed in only by fools.
Mike M,
I understood the argument. I found it ridiculous. And I could care less about purity. Americans are not pure, they are diverse and independent.
And excuse me, Mike, but George W. Bush has put all conservatives on the map. Where were they 7 years ago? Newt Gingrich was about as popular as a dead fish.
All those who think they can run away from him have another thought coming.
AJ,
The vast, vast majority of NRO readers and authors unequivocally reject Ron Paul’s candidacy. To take John Derbyshire’s posts and extrapolate them to all of The Corner/NRO is a stretch.
Derbyshire might be losing his mind, but not “The Corner.”
ivehadit:
hear, hear. You always articulate my thoughts exactly.
AJ,
Agree.
I would never trust our country to anyone with the judgment of today’s libertarians.
Reagan advanced conservative principles by being elected, not defeated. Goldwater’s defeat did nothing to advance his ideas.
The viable candidates would be wise to support Bush’s foreign policy, security policies, and his policies to promote human freedom and human life .
I will not vote for Ron Paul.
BTW, I think the guy is a lunatic. There is nothing pure in that. Is it really the feelings of the conservative that purity means going to the gold standard and getting rid of all programs that help pay for health care? Do most conservatives think 9/11 was blowback. That is not purity, it is stupidity.
WWS:
Pat B. got about 1% of the vote, compared to 4.6% for Nader. That is reality.
Derbyshire might be losing his mind, but not “The Corner.â€
You sure? They always seem to harbor the most destructive forces to the unity of the GOP. Without unity……..we lose. Pure or unpure. They produced that dear speechwriter, David Frum that forced the first crack that never healed. You can hear their drumbeat against Bush, even when they are ‘supporting’? Yeah.
ivehadit…..exactly.
Yes Macker……the first trick is to be elected. This is the ‘purity’ point that so many thought was so cute to ignore in last election as they raised holy hell.
Ron Paul? No way. Only reason Ross Perot got his 19% was because of that idiotic Repub Convention. I can still almost hear Buchanan and I actually tolerate him a lot better than a lot of our ‘new’ zealots. Even with our best candidate and even if we were all united, 2008 will still be a photofinish race. I agree with Guiliana that the ticket is Hillary/Obama and he is the only one that stands a shot. At this point, I don’t care if he has 4 wives at the same time if it would stop that power duo and he doesn’t dump on George W Bush. We have had a fine, upstanding, Christian man as a President and look how some of this sainted party has treated him.
THe Corner has gone really downhill. They are a huge echo chamber that is part of the problem. Often with Mrs Lopez and John Tanton’s boy Mark Krikorian leading the way.
I am sure next year that instead of trying to defeat Democrats they will have 4 post a day trying to defeat Republicans that even hinted supporting the immigration bill.
“At this point, I don’t care if he has 4 wives at the same time if it would stop that power duo and he doesn’t dump on George W Bush. We have had a fine, upstanding, Christian man as a President and look how some of this sainted party has treated him.
Owl”
HAHAHAHA! Zactly my thoughts too Owl. Wow, great comments from all of you. I have nothing to add, just love the commentors and AJ.
Ron Paul scores well when you put a poll up on the internet and both of his supporters can respond eleventy zillion times. When they do telephone polls to reach out to the population his support polls at right around zero.
Ron Paul is a lunatic and most people know that.
If anyone thinks the law enforcement, get tough on terrorists, defend this nation stance of Guiliani or McCain or Romney is going to be lost to the run-and-cower-at-home position of Ron Paul they are nuts.
Two of the three ‘defend this nation’ candidates mentioned are long time supporters of open borders at home and military aggression abroad. That’s a lose-lose for America. It would appear that Ron Paul’s common sense border control and Golden Rule foreign policy is not only traitorous to neocons but now it is ‘nut’ as well. You live in an inverted world when those adults that think invading and conquering the Arab world and turning them into ‘mericans is sensible but the minding one’s own business is nut and traitorous.
I believe the ‘merican busybody holier-than-thou mindest is rooted in New England Puritanism and more recently has been utilized by Jewish neoconservatism to pursue their own ethnic goals. Ever since the New Englanders proclaimed their city on the hill they have always had some great moral cause to pursue…at someone else’s expense.
Do most conservatives think 9/11 was blowback. That is not purity, it is stupidity.
The entire world thinks blowback was the reason for 9/11 but obviously the whole world is not as smart as George Bush and his blogger groupies.
THe Corner has gone really downhill.
Translation: They are no longer Bushbots.
Don’t worry when the next election comes around NR will do its usual worst to con conservatives into voting for the GOP wing of the corporate elite.
Jules,
Your little arguments in support of Ron Paul aren’t worth chasing down. Suffice it to say, Bush and the usual coalition are remaking the ME as it did Europe in WWII, And not in America’s image, but in a human image.
Using world opinion to bolster your ignorant and anti semitic views is weak.
“THe Corner has gone really downhill.
Translation: They are no longer Bushbots”
No that is not the translation. Unlike some in the party even though I want it too be a conservative party I am not a big fan of purity test especially those we have seen lately
If National Review is going to be the leading organ of conservative thought then they need to make sure all that thought is represented. Sadlyu that is sometimes lost over there.
I do have a problem with the guy that is with CIS being a regular contributor. They have a agenda that I am not so sure has anything to do with conservatism. That sort of got out when he went too far for a few days and even the regualar readers thought he was goofy.
As to the corporate wing. You need big business m snall business, hispanic evangelicals, Catholics etc etc in the party to win. IT is ac alled a coaltion. I don’t expect nor does NRO need to cater to all branches of the Republican party. But I am getting tired of every few months something becoming the defining issue of conservativism and if dare not heel right away you are a RINO. That is not the conservatism or the thinking conservatism I thought this movement was all about.
Jules:
Bush was the first Republican I ever voted for President and if people like you have your way he might be the last.
And I am sick unto death of hearing about open borders. We have had open borders for 140 years and now all of a sudden raving fanatics on the right start yammering about the North American Union and Jorge Bush selling them out and all kinds of bizarre, paranoid, extreme nonsense. Oh yeah, you guys won, you made sure your party looks as loony as the other party. No wonder both parties are polling at all time lows. They do not come up with solutions to difficult problems, they just beat each other and everyone else over the head.
BTW, I would rather be a Bushbot, than a Ron Paul zealot. The man really is a lunatic.
And I will tell you something Jules, the NRO has no problem with big business, when big business kisses their butts. This leaning to populism is such a hoot coming from people who supposedly do not support any social programs.
BigLSU,
Not so sure that NR is the leading conservative journal. The Weekly Standard is influential. Agree on the need for “thinking” conservatism.
Terrye, Agree.