Ann Coulter's push for Romney; care to critique?

[Ron]

Was that supposed to be a response to moi?

More generically to all those who find Ron Paul's distaste for military adventurism somehow an abrogation of support for a strong national defense. 

[Perd Hapley]

More generically to all those who find Ron Paul's distaste for military adventurism somehow an abrogation of support for a strong national defense. 

Oh, not me then.

[AJ Dual]

The problem as I see it, is even if we argue for the need for a global interventionist policy to keep America safe is a given, and 100% accepted for the sake of argument...

We still have to be able to pay for it.

And America's ability to "throw money at the problem" has been our #1 key strategic and tactical asset since WWII. It's ultimately how we defeated the Soviet bloc. And more so now than ever, as conflict continues on the double trend of ever more technical, and ever more asymmetrical warfare, our ability to develop new responses is key. (and it co$t$ us dearly) Simply marshaling our natural resources in industrial meat-grinder war as in WWI and WWII, supported on our internal economy only is probably never going to happen again.

Paul's geopolitical and military stances may make us vulnerable.

Anything other than a slash-n-burn restructuring of the fed.gov, our spending, and our monetary policy is guaranteed to leave us vulnerable.

[Balog]

I read a few excerpts of the old Ron Paul Lew Rockwell Murray Rothbard newsletters and wondered "Where's the beef?" 

Racism sure ain't what it used to be.

This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.

[roo_ster]

This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.

It has become an "established fact" the same way it is an "established fact" that the candidate who has won the fewest elections is "most electable," Newt is the smartest critter running, and Santorum wants to outlaw rubbers & plays with dead babies for kicks:
Repetition, consumption, regurgitation. 
Note, "cogitation" is not in that ^^^ mix.

[Balog]

Roo_ster: the mockery of Santorum's way of mourning his child is unwarranted. Dunno if you've ever had a child die, but someone's method of mourning and coping say little about them. I also note that what he did is in fact a common and even recommended thing to do.

Note: I can't stand Santorum and wouldn't vote for him. But "he handled the death of his child differently than I would have" is hardly a substantiative criticism.

[roo_ster]

Roo_ster: the mockery of Santorum's way of mourning his child is unwarranted. Dunno if you've ever had a child die, but someone's method of mourning and coping say little about them. I also note that what he did is in fact a common and even recommended thing to do.

Note: I can't stand Santorum and wouldn't vote for him. But "he handled the death of his child differently than I would have" is hardly a substantiative criticism.

It was not I who mocked the death of the Santorums' child.  The lefties, MSM, and pro-abortion harrows sure had a field day deriding Santorum & family for their actions rather than just aborting the child ASAP and sending her out with the biomedical trash.

More generally, my list consisted of conventional wisdom that looks more like lazy groupthink than wisdom by my estimation.

[Perd Hapley]

This. Have you read any of the "racist" newsletters Fisty? Even taken wildly out of context as the pundits enjoy doing, it's about as "racist" as the average call for an end to illegal immigration or affirmative action.

Well, here's one that I perused.

 http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1

Paul knew this was a problem,  so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?

[MicroBalrog]

And you may have faith in Ron Paul accomplishing all of those things through presidential power. I do not. I also find it contradictory to the portion of his platform in which he bemoans the enlarged powers of the president.

On the contrary, Ron Paul has stated - correctly - that using the pardon power  to free federal victimless crimes inmates is within the President's power. So is canceling previous unconstitutional executive orders.

No, it is true, the President cannot kill the beast, but he can do it some serious injuries.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, here's one that I perused.

 http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1

Paul knew this was a problem,  so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?

Let us suppose, for the sake of hypothethicals, that Ron Paul personally dislikes African Americans and has written the newsletters (I do not believe either, for reasons that have been discussed by smarter and better people for only about five thousand times on the Internet).

Is it the job of the President to like African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, or any-other-Americans? Is his Oath of Office "I shall be non-racist"? No, his job is to protect the Constitution, and therefore the Constitutional rights of African-Americans and any other Americans.

Ron Paul is clearly more willing to do that job than Santorum, Romney, or Newt. 

[roo_ster]

Well, here's one that I perused.

 http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html?m=1

Paul knew this was a problem,  so why did he keep that racist's money 4 years ago? Does this guy have any intention of winning?

Like I wrote, racism ain't what it used to be.  

I recall the 1992 LA riots, and have read much of the social science quoted/alluded to in that article.  My recollection of events and the social science at that time jibes with what he wrote.  The author of the article is guilty of being insensitive and not kowtowing to leftist standards of PC & doublespeak.  

"There is a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority of fact."
----Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Perd Hapley]

Let us suppose, for the sake of hypothethicals, that Ron Paul personally dislikes African Americans and has written the newsletters (I do not believe either, for reasons that have been discussed by smarter and better people for only about five thousand times on the Internet).

Is it the job of the President to like African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, or any-other-Americans? Is his Oath of Office "I shall be non-racist"? No, his job is to protect the Constitution, and therefore the Constitutional rights of African-Americans and any other Americans.

Ron Paul is clearly more willing to do that job than Santorum, Romney, or Newt. 

The only quibble I have with that is the willing part. He doesn't seem all that eager to get the job.

[seeker_two]

The only quibble I have with that is the willing part. He doesn't seem all that eager to get the job.

He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?.... 

[roo_ster]

He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?.... 

The gravitas of Buddy Roemer.

[Perd Hapley]

He's running a campaign in multiple states for the office....what more do you need?....  

To win? To earn our trust by presenting himself as a guy who can lead, not just a guy who has opinions?

Was that a trick question?

[MicroBalrog]

So basically, "I won't vote for Ron Paul because other people don't vote for Ron Paul"?

[Perd Hapley]

Try, "I won't vote for Ron Paul (at least in the primary) because he has not earned my trust as a leader."

Hey, wait, that actually resembles what I said. 

[MicroBalrog]

What exactly is that prize awarded for, in this case?

[Perd Hapley]

Huh?

[MicroBalrog]

What does that mean?

It clearly doesn't mean "he doesn't look Presidential enough".

What do you mean by it?

[Perd Hapley]

I've explained it before. Re-read my posts. And if that doesn't satisfy you, just chalk it up to the hair, and move on with your life. Is it that important to you that I don't think your favorite candidate shows the qualities of a good leader? Is he so far above reproach that you can't admit he has a few flaws? Like being OK with racist dweebs writing his political screeds and sending him well-publicized donations?

Look, maybe it's just me, and he's convinced enough people that he will win the primary. If not, then he loses, and he finally learns that he should have been a better candidate.

Then let Rand run in a few years. He'll probably do much better.

[seeker_two]

Are you saying that Paul would make for a worse leader than Romney or Santorum?.....

[MicroBalrog]

Everybody has flaws. This is a meaningless argument.

But the problem is, the three other candidates are maybe 75% flaw.

It's funny to me - and it's always been, not just in relation to Ron Paul - that when mainstream canddiates run we're told to overlook their "minor flaws" (consisting of basically being part of the machine), whereas where candidates like Herman Cain appear, the same people nitpick them over bizarre pseudoscandals.

And why do people like Rand Paul that much, I have no idea.

Here is my prediction: Rand Paul will never be President.

[Balog]

You don't fancy Rand Paul? Surprising, he strikes me as everything his dad isn't, in a good way.

[MicroBalrog]

You don't like Diet Coke? It strikes me like everything Coke isn't.