So...we should nominate Paul so we can lose and be reminded of what “real” conservatism is?
Right. I guess anyone who supports such a delusional theory likes the idea of President Hillary and Co-President Bill.
Of course the entire theory doesn’t make sense. Goldwater had popular support and was saying things that conservatives agreed with and supported. Paul has the support of 1% of Republicans and holds foreign policy views that Republicans and conservatives vehemently disagree with.
2008 isn’t 1964. 2008 is 2008.
You are right. These political science wonks are wrong. It’s not 1964, that’s so 9/10.
None of the candidates seem to recognize that. Thompson by appointing Spencer Abraham signaled he was 9/10.
Newt seems to get it, but he’s still stuck on “the market” solutions, that is, favoring those who already control the market as opposed to changing the market game.
Ironically it is George Bush II who says some of the most radical and needed things, such as “getting off our addiction to oil” and “turning into the hydrogen economy.” Then he does nothing, or raises the price of corn.
1964 was a special year because of the JFK assassination. LBJ basically ran on a sympathy ticket. It was to be JFK’s “second term”. No way a republican was going to win that year. 1968 would be a good analogy because it is wide open for both parties to win, and we have a lot of debates about where we are going as a society. Further left, or a return to sanity? Don’t forget that the dems were attacked from the RIGHT in their party via Wallace. Now the dems are going harder left than they ever have, and bragging about it. I agree with Paul on about everything but Iraq, but he isn’t going anywhere with mainstream America.