Blog Roundup: Ron Paul Edition


The Case for Ron Paul: [Glenn
Greenwald,]: “Perhaps most importantly, Paul is
the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to
ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not
by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into
question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is
defining our role in the world.”


Concurring Opinion: [Ross
Douthat, The Atlantic]: “I suspect
that if the Democrats take the White House, certain elements in the GOP will
rediscover their 1990s-vintage fealty to a Quincy Adams foreign policy, but for
now at least Paul’s positions are at once popular enough for him to run a
well-funded campaign and almost completely unrepresented in the mainstream of
either party.”


Dissenting Opinion: [Melissa
McEwan, Shakesville]:
“[Am I the only person] who cannot abide the unqualified statement that Ron
Paul is such an awesome advocate for civil rights and personal freedom, or even
that his is a coherent, consistent, and/or principled ideology, when he is
virulently anti-choice? … There is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing,
even remotely consistent about claiming a passionate support for personal
freedoms and being simultaneously anti-choice.”


Beneficiary: [Brian Beutler, Brian Beutler]: “Since ‘going
negative’ has regularly proven to be perhaps the most reliable political tool
politicians have available to them, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a
sustained attack on Hillary Clinton ultimately caused her to drop in the polls.
Perhaps even significantly. But that's just the thing. In this race, a Hillary
slide doesn't necessarily correspond to an increase in relative support for
John Edwards. Because there's still that Barack Obama guy out there for people
to support.”


--Ben Crair

For more stories, like the New Republic on Facebook:

Loading Related Articles...

More articles tagged as

Article Tools