Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Is 2008 The New 1964? [John Derbyshire]
There's a Pro-Ron-Paul meme going around, to the effect that 2008 is the new 1964; i.e. that on the premise—debatable in itself, of course—that the GOP has no chance of winning the presidency next year, conservatives should run a Goldwater-style insurgency to remind the party we're here & set up some influence for 2012. Bruce Bartlett floated the meme here.
I got a thought-provoking e-mail along similar lines (one of dozens like it I've had on that Paul column) from Ben Novak, who lists himself as "founder of the Americans in Europe for Ron Paul Meet-up Group in Bratislava, Republic of Slovakia." Blimey. Well, here's what Ben says. "Mr Derbyshire—-Recently you wrote an eloquent article titled the 'Ron Paul Temptation ,' about how tempted you were to support him. However, you concluded by fighting off the temptation, writing that '[Ron Paul's] candidacy belongs in the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, such sweet dreams.' A Ron Paul candidacy does inspire sweet dreams. But, rather than writing Ron Paul off for that reason, I suggest that there are a multitude of reasons why you—and a lot of other Americans—should follow your dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
We have to do something or the dollar will collapse. Boomers retiring and endless wars is a recipe for economic Armageddon
And of course release on their guaranteed acquittal, to murder again.
George Romney ran in 1968, not 1964. And not surprisingly, nobody cared about his being a Mormon then. Of course religious bigotry was not then in fashion the way it is today.
Why did you bring it up? Are you a religious bigot?
hmm, I’ll have some of what you’re smoking.
If the revolution had failed, the way you wish, there never would have been a Contitution to sign, nor any signers to execute. Your post is incompetent and insipid to boot.
You brought up the issue....not I.
It was reported in Stephen Hayes's book.
No, it's just one piece. We have satellite intel of Russian trucks carrying materials to Syria. We have record of meetings between Saddam's people and Osama's people. The best evidence is their own documents, which were posted on the web until our government realized that one or more of them discussed how to make WMDs. Oops.
And that is just some of it.
Oh golly. I can’t wait to wage a reactive war that started with a nuclear or biological attack on American soil!
You think very conventionally.
And Goldwater’s 1964 bid was followed by the Great Society of LBJ, Nixon’s wage and price controls, Jerry Ford and “Whip Inflation Now!” and the disastrous “Give Iran to the Mullahs” Jimmuh Carter. It took us 16 years to get to Reagan...and I’m not willing to wait until 2024 to get a conservative in the White House!
you are a liberal is what you are.
if you support Ron Paul. you are a irrational liberal in sheeps clothing.
LOL Spend a little time in uniform. You’ll find it both educational and rewarding.
I would in a heartbeat if I could.
Ron Paul is not a conservative. He’s a libertarian. To a libertarian, individual liberty is the highest good in a given society. To a conservative, Tradition, Family, and Property are the ultimate values.
Ron Paul is a conservative of the old right. The traditionalist right. Google the name Clarence Manion. You’ll begin to understand.
Same here.
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.