Vote for Ron Paul. Shake up Washington, send the special interests hired lobbyists a running, return America to honest statesmanship where a president would just as soon here your opinion as some wealthy banker, industrialist or campaign financier.
It was implied. I'm certainly not qualified to make any judgments about your sanity, but that won't keep me from trying.
If that's the dude who I saw on Real Time with Bill Maher a few weeks ago, then I do think it's fair to question his conservative credentials.
From his bio: It is true that Andrew has turned against the administration and the war. But you will find no one with more true conservative credentials.
He's conservative. He's just not a Bush toady. Conservatism: There's nothing about the current administration that adheres to the definition of conservatism.
More from Sullivan on Paul -- The Bush Legacy vs Ron Paul 06 Nov 2007 12:38 pm You will notice the Bushies' defensiveness and smears. As the call to rescue the GOP from big government at home and militaristic belligerence abroad resonates, especially with the next generation, you will hear Paul described as "nutty" and anti-Semitic and fringe and marginal and on and on. A classic anti-Paul post can be found on Powerline, the pro-torture, more-war-please Cheney faction of the blogosphere. Money quote: They don't even want the voters and money that Paul is bringing into the GOP - because their power - and the big spending, war-mongering authoritarianism they favor - is threatened by this revival of grass roots conservatism. What I find energizing is how Paul has managed to talk many on the "left" into appreciating the benefits of smaller government and limiting executive power. What they now share with the paleocons and the crunchy cons and the conservatives of doubt is a resistance to and skepticism of the imperial impulse to control countries we do not understand and to indefinitely occupy whole regions of the world to defend ourselves against an enemy that knows no geographical boundaries. Here's Greenwald today, emblematic of the way in which Paul has brought traditional conservative ideas into constituencies once reflexively hostile: The fundamental realities of this election are two: we are in a war in Iraq that was clearly a mistake and that will be very hard to disentangle from; the American people overwhelmingly think we are on the wrong track both at home and abroad. There are only two candidates who effectively respond to this desire for change of direction abroad and repair at home. They are Barack Obama for the Democrats and Ron Paul for the Republicans. The voters most engaged with this campaign so far - as measured by fundraising and enthusiasm - are clearly favoring these two change agents. The question is simply whether a broader public will follow, or whether they will fall for the formica candidacies of Romney and Clinton or the neo-fascist option in Giuliani. Know hope. America isn't finished yet. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
The problem though is that a Libertarian policy wouldn't necessarily grant mean that the average American would get as much say as the wealthy. If anything by doing away with campaign finance laws and most economic regulation would likely lead to a greater influence of wealth and more concentration of wealth.
so mark, on the off chance ron paul actually gets the nomination, would you support him over hillary or edwards?
Sorry basso, no, I would like to keep the department of education among other things. I just find it amusing that an antiwar republican is scaring the **** out of the front runners.
I am still evaluating my choices, and have not come out with a candidate yet -- for those of you who have emailed me looking for guidance, expect something within a month. I do have a strong preference at this point, but don't want to find myself guilty of PREMATURE NOMINATION
