Saturday, November 28, 2009

Why Palin and not Paul?

(American Conservative Blog)--...LINK

-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

I agree that Ron Paul is a far more authentic, principled conservative, and Sarah Palin pales in comparison. But here’s the problem. The Democrat (and Leftist) game is to promise the world to the electorate in order to gain power, and once in power, use the largesse and money-power of government to perpetuate their partisan advantage. In other words, the Left is willing to fight unfairly by using taxpayer money to buy its permanency — which begets a similar (unprincipled) response from the Right. Dick Cheney embraced and articulated this reality once he and Bush were elected by saying something along the lines of: “Now it’s our turn” (to use Big Government to our advantage).

So as soon as the Left starts fighting dirty and using the power of government to rig the game, it poisons the well. Since the entire design of the Left is to use taxpayer money to not only buy off the referees, but to buy off the media reporting on the game, and the team owners as well, any opposition that does not respond to some extent in kind is doomed to permanent minority (and eventually Gulag) status.

Until conservatives find a way to enforce the Constitutional limits on government and prevent Leftists from taking taxpayer money to tilt the playing field to their own advantage, they’d (seemingly) be crazy to put a libertarian in office who will unilaterally disarm, and probably be voted out of office next election cycle once the Left paints him as “heartless” for not throwing billions in taxpayer money at the first “emergency” to come down the pike

I think that’s a big reason someone like Palin gets better traction than someone like Paul on a national level on the Right.

2 comments:

Eric Dondero said...

It's issues, as well. Sarah represents Mainstream Libertarianism. Her views are right smack dab in the middle of the Libertarian Movement. And note - she's got strong ties to the Libertarian Party of Alaska.

Whereas Ron Paul (not his son Rand who is much more like Palin), represents a far out unpopular and even whacky fringe of the Libertarian movement. His isolationist views are jarring to most Libertarians, most especially those of us who see fighting Islamic Fascism as just as important as figting big government.

It's laughable to see Prima Donna Raimondo in the video above befuddled as to what to make of Sarah Palin.

Sorry Justin, it's Palin 2012, and Rand Paul 2010 who are the future of the Republican Party; not Ron Paul's nutty isolationism and surrender to Islamic extremism.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican

Anonymous said...

I disagree, Eric. I don't know what 'mainstream' libertarian philosophy you adhere to but it certainly isn't true libertarianism. He's not an isolationist. If you were more educated on the subject you would know that he wants a return to constitutional principles--especially when dealing with foreign threats. He supports the old school way of declaring war (or in the terrorists' case, letters of reprisal) Read the constitution, understand it, and then call yourself a libertarian next time.