by Andrew MurphyJohn McCain has lost a conservative to Bob Barr. Conservative columnist for the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, Paul Mulshine is looking hard at the Libertarian candidate.
In his column, he writes of John McCain,
"As for John McCain, so far he gives every indication of being every bit as bad as Bush in every regard. His one conservative position - in favor of keeping the income-tax cuts - is meaningless if he is going to keep spending at the level Bush spends, which he is. And then there are the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy bills, on which I need not elaborate"
Mulshine is a traditional conservative and laments at the democracy promotion of the last eight years. "We right-wingers don't give a damn about spreading democracy for the simple reason that the democratic will of foreigners is going to be exercised in their interest, not ours" Mulshine writes.
However, Mulshine is not a Paulite isolationist. He writes also that, "A right-wing foreign policy would focus solely on America's interests. If we had had a right-wing president after 9/11, we would have had a War on Al Qaeda, which could have been quickly wrapped up."
Contrary to McCain campaign, traditional conservatives and most especially libertarians have yet to warm up to his campaign. Mulshine is yet another example of this.
Read Mulshine's entire column here:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2008/05/bob_barr_offers_an_alternative.html
Also check out the Bob Barr interview from National Review from May 13th
Posts
11 comments:
Mulshine has had nice positive things to say about Paul and he is supporting Murray Sabrin for the senate
Ha ha!!! He is certainly a smart and respective writer with substance, a true conservative.
Andrew/Eric: I just hope the LP is wise enough to nominate Barr, there seems to be a strong effort by
the radicals to stop him from getting the nomination and even banning him from the party. They want to change the party platform to more the 04 version than the 06 version. If this happens, then I personally think Barr and all the smart libertarians should break and run under say the Reform Party platform. The CP could also support him and this way he will perform the maximum and the LP can remain a debating society nobody care about. It can then be a liberal left wing libertarian party who is irrelevant with 0,5 % of the vote, about like Alan Keyes. All the moderate LP's will join him, also Independents, Reform Party etc. etc. also Root, Kwiatkowski, Smith, Stephen Gordon etc....
Paul is NOT an isolationist! How many times do I have to repeat? Which part of non-interventionist foreign policy and free trade with all did you not understand?
Do I have to stand on my head???
Consider this by a Paul-critic:
"We give Ron Paul a lot of crap on this site, especially his supporters. But we must give credit, where credit is due. Ron Paul is a force to be reckoned with, and his latest adventure proves just that. I have just finished reading his new book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" and was very surprised. This is one of the greatest visions I have seen on Freedom and Liberty.
We define conservatism as the ability of the individual to succeed on his own. That government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem (Ronald Reagan). Ron Paul has a tight grasp on this concept and is what made him appealing during the primary. I even came pretty darn close to supporting him for President. There was only one thing that drew me away and that was his stance on foreign policy.
His foreign policy stance was well argued in the book, more than it was in the primary. It is hard in a debate that has about 10 candidates trying to state their position on the various issues. The one thing he said in the debates that triggered a lot of resentment was that the reason we got attacked on 9/11 was because we were over there. That statement was the reason I did not support him for President.
There wasn't enough time to adequately explain that statement, but he does in the book, and it starts to make you think. I still believe that the Constitution grants the President the ability to defend the country at all cost and take pre-emptive action. However, our country has taken the approach over the past half century of being the worlds policeman. That is the reason we are still in a lot of countries and wasting a lot of money that could be used for essential needs.
The size of our government has gotten to big. Ron Paul explains brilliantly how our Constitution constrains the government and that we have moved beyond the constraints. Just look to the right and you will see. That clock ticks and ticks and Washington does nothing to stop it. They are the ones that are contributing to it. We need drastic cuts in government spending to stop a disaster that is waiting to happen.
Since the end of the Republican primary I have become a fan of Ron Paul. I don't regret not supporting him in the first place, but nonetheless I have become a fan. This book is essential to the conservative movement. It outlines the principles behind liberty and freedom and what it will take to get us back to sanity".
Take notice...
Points:
Stefan, that is absurd. If Barr does not get the LP nomination, the logical place for all mainstream LPers to turn is to McCain and the Republican Party. The Reform Party exists now in only 5 states. What a waste of time that would be.
No, if the Radicals reject Bob Barr, we will make a big push to get all these LPers to join the GOP coalition. And my guess, through conversations I've had with many of them, a large majority of them would.
It would be a boomlet for McCain.
Secondly, Ron Paul is absolutely an isolationist. He epitomizes isolationism. You can't find anyone more hardcore isolationist than Paul. Name someone please. If Paul doesn't represent isolationist values, than who does?
I had no idea the Reform Party exists in only 5 states, it would indeed be waste of time, you need to be in at least 48 states.
Ron Paul already respresent most moderate Libertarians, 72% plus of them, so you hasve NO influence whatsoever. They could run as Ron Paul Republicans or Ron Paul Libertarians. Barr could theoretically run in a congress or senate as an Independent or member of another third party, or wait till the GOP implode in November and then run for senate under constitutional conservative-libertarian, non-interventionist platform.
It is absurd to believe most moderate Libertarians would ever vote for McCain aka McCCCP if the Radicals in the LP take over and radicalize the platform to keep Barr out. Period.
Eric Dondero and most interventionists represent ISOLATIONISM as the whole world just get totally fed up with American government colonialism and arrogance.
"Isolationism" is intended as a pejorative term, but very few so-called "isolationists" actually wish to isolate the United States from the rest of the world. Establishing diplomatic & trade relations with all the nations of the world is Ron Paul's platform, along with opposition to foreign military interventionism, and a Washingtonian eschewal of entangling foreign alliances. By that standard, I guess Ron Paul is an isolationist, and so am I, and should we all be.
"Washingtonian eschewal of entangling foreign alliances"
Washington wasn't against Alliances, just specific alliances that he was talking about at the time. They were trying to stay out of the french/british thing for obvious reasons. They were very much for certain alliances, jefferson for example saw no use for Jihadist and argued for War with them for over a decade before he took us to war with them.
Paul is a military isolationist and a naive fool. To think you can trade with nations and introduce cultures with each other but be a pacifist no matter what is idiotic. the Founders certainly weren't this naive, which is why we traded all right back then, with the Navy next to us all over the world and often times at gun point.
I'm not a pacifist either, just a general critic of military interventionism. I have no philosophical objections to the Barbary Pirates War, nor to the initial invasion of Afghanistan (although it should be pointed out that the Afghan war has been handled about as badly as it could have been, especially when, at Tora Bora, we incompetently let the Northern Alliance guard the Pakistani border, so that much of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership could escape).
I also don't see any reason why we needed to go to war with Iraq in 2003, or with Iran in the near future. But a pacifist? I never made that claim, and I doubt a President Ron Paul would refuse to respond to a military attack on this nation as well. Dont you?
No, I do think he would refuse to attack. He's a ghandi like pacifist, US wrong give enemies benefit of doubt, etc. as a Rothbardian. Paul has stated that all the US needs to defend itself is a few submarines and a few missles, and apparently has no clue what makes Trade in the ungoverned waters and trade routes possible. If we isolated ourselves from the Middle East, a tyrant like Saddam would via Force seize most of the oil and only sell the least amount as he could to dictate to the world who would be at his mercy.
He has stated that the Afghanistan War was "mainly about Oil Pipelines' straight from the Michael Moore playbook and wants to withdrawal asap.
that said, I do think the Iraq war was necessary and justified. It was however sold badly, especially in hindsight, they put together 23 good reasons and everyone only remembers one. The best is that Saddam had been committing acts of war against us, a laundry list of them, and was a long time state sponsor of terrorism, including Al-Qaeda. That we made a mistake leaving him in power the first time, etc. This is something I th ink history will bear out eventually, after all the leftist and the MSM are done politicizing/lying about the thing.
Eric,
C'mon... you wrote: "if Barr does not get the LP nomination, the logical place for all mainstream LPers to turn is to McCain and the Republican Party."
What happened to Root? You don't think Root is superior to McCain!?! If not, I think you've lost it, my friend.
Of course Root is superior to McCain. Sorry if we weren't clear. Guess we should have said if "Root or Barr does not get the nomination..."
But unfortunately, both gentlemen are fighting for the same mainstream libertarian vote among the delegates. It's Root and/or Barr versus the crazies.
Post a Comment