So now the Republican race for the nomination for presidential candidate looks ever more like Mitt Romney the pick, albeit reluctantly in many quarters, with Ron Paul really going for influence on the party platform more than president. In his second-place victory speech in New Hampshire the tone of it all was that his cause had won a great victory and there is no way the Republican Party can ignore that. So the cause won, not him. He won’t be the nominee and won’t be president.
I think some of the loud mouthed so-called conservatives of the talk media loved Paul when they did not see him as a threat to win any votes but now they don’t know quite what to think. Paul as a Libertarian in philosophy or ideology is fiscally conservative — they like that. But he is also quite liberal on social issues and he does not believe in needless foreign wars and they don’t like that.
They are also nervous that he seems to attract so many young people; they feel forced to recognize the value of that. They also probably fear the votes he might snatch if he ran under a third-party banner — that gives Paul the upper hand on political influence going into the convention.
And conservatives are hard to figure out. Once upon a time, before World War II, they were isolationists and the liberals were the ones for foreign intervention to fight fascism. But I digress. The term conservative does not seem to be very precise, it includes a lot of different factions under one banner.
I think all this infighting in what used to be seen as a tightly-knit Republican Party may be healthy for it.
I just saw a video clip of New York Times columnist Gail Collins saying, among other things, that Romney has a quality about him that manages to irritate people no matter where he goes to speak.
I know he irritates me. But then so does Obama.
And since we have freedom of speech in this country and since this is my own blog, I can say this without worrying about political correctness:
That irritating quality about Romney is probably his Mormonism. They’re like that.
And now I will correct or clarify the originally posted draft on this blog post:
I originally wrote:
“And back to Paul. Isolationism has its dangers. It gives rise to people like Hitler.”
But a reader, whose comment can be seen at bottom (by clicking onto comment), corrected me by explaining the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism”. Basically the reader says that Paul is for not getting involved in foreign entanglements, but is for making free trade agreements (and I would imagine protecting free trade, as when we went after the Barbary pirates or even the pirates of today). I think I got sloppy and just used the popular journalistic shorthand everyone is using for describing Paul’s foreign policy. For the most part I personally think we (the U.S.) should engage in world-wide trade and protect that but otherwise keep our noses out of other peoples’ business and problems — for the most part. And thanks to the reader for the comment.
Also, this thing he has against the Federal Reserve:
As I understand it, the Fed is basically our central bank. Once upon a time we had no central bank in the United States and banks all over the country issued their own money and they went bankrupt, leaving people with worthless money.
There has to be some type of consistent centralized system. But I do agree that is seems problematic when our money is based on debt, rather than hard value, such as gold and silver, or as in the case of a very elementary economics book I had, fish sticks.