Posted on 05/23/2010 11:36:16 AM PDT by CaroleL
Carole dearie.... you lie.
Yup, this was not a wise choice.
Nothing good will come from having nominated a Paul. If the party is going to nominate a libertarian leading candidate it had better be A) NOT a Paul, and B) an extremely good politician who can defend what is not a traditional American point of view. This is not a libertarian nation. Not even remotely close. A person with Rand’s views had better be able to handle himself and make a convincing case for his positions.
A guy like Rand will obviously infuriate the left, but he also runs the danger of pissing off the right with his libertarian foreign policy ideas. Conservatives do not want to elect Republicans who are allied with anti-war organizations. If that is what the GOP becomes it will very quickly apart.
A fuller version of the quote is “...I'm sure my experience, that you see novice candidates occasionally stumble on questions. I think he's clarified his position. But I think he's done the right thing...I think he needs to be talking to the voters back in Kentucky, the people who actually will be able to cast a ballot on whether he's elected as the next United States senator or not."
So you take the "stumbling" part of the quote, but neglect to include the part where Cornyn says that Dr. Paul has clarified his position and should be talking to the actual voters. So considerable context that would be more favorable to Paul is lost in your synopsis. Why?
Also, because Cornyn's use of the word "novice" is used mid-sentence, it should be in lower-case if you are going to use quotation marks, not capitalized as you have it. But that part doesn't affect the context; it's just sloppy journalism. After second thought, maybe a media career, perhaps at NBC or the NYT, might be a good fit for you after all.
The blog-hit-trollers are all over FR. I am really annoyed at the number of half-a**ed blogs cited here now in obviously blatant attempts to drive up their no-doubt (and well-deserved) puny readership numbers.
If a blogger wants to regale us with his brilliance, he can have the courtesy to paste the entire article on FR and give up some hits. Otherwise, I'd sooner he just leave.
I hope fellow-Freepers who feel the same will start a little push-back.
The default blog position.
If you look at the new Maine GOP Platform, you’ll see a lot of Ron Paul influences there. no “one world government” “end the fed” “austrian economics”. But the same platform has interventionisme in the middle east. You put 10 people in the room, 3 tea partiers who aren’t big Ron Paul supporters, 3 Ron Paul supporters, and 4 establishment / RINO types, and that’s likely the result you get. The Ron Paul people are able to provide a bunch of libertarian economic detail that the other tea party people agree with. The 4 establishment / RINOs would likely affiliate with the tea party on foreign policy and many social issues. “Legalize it” did not appear in the Maine GOP Platform.
People here who read the Maine GOP Platform, or read about it, were pretty happy with it.
In more accurate terms you are pimping your blog.
In the beginning full articles were always posted so one didn’t have to give a hit and pick up a cookie from sites they might not ever visit. That was a big part of the draw not having to click on a site especially an “expletive deleted” blog that may be full of malware or viruses.
(Blog pimps suck)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.