However...
The fact of the matter is that Dr. Paul is doing remarkably well on the publicity front, far exceeding the expectations that any sane person would have placed on him a few months back. (I know he is still polling near the bottom, but remember it is June of 2007, and support for the alleged GOP front-runners is so fickle that grown men are responding to Fred Thompson as if they were 14-year-old girls and Thompson was Justin Timberlake. Or whoever 14-year-old girls are stupid over these days.)
Word is that Paul's donations are up. Way up. As in possibly on par with McCain's
And it may have something to do with the fact that he is the only person in the GOP race who is articulating a solid opposition to the Iraq war (and arguably, the most consistently anti-war in either party's slate of candidates). When (not if) the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, an anti-war GOP candidate is probably the best bet to beat her (not to mention the best bet for bringing our entanglement in the Middle East to a reasonably quick conclusion.)
Given my recent ambivalence towards voting (and the fact the 2008 NC primary might as well be held in 2010) I've decided that even a nominal monetary contribution would have 1000 times the effect the empty gesture of actually punching a ballot (particularly in my district).
So I gave Dr. Paul some cash today, my first contribution to any candidate for anything, ever.
6 comments:
I'd have to say that if I were to have to vote anti-Hillary/Obama then this guy would be my choice, even though he seems just a little more than isolationist.
i know where his hardline immigration stance comes from: its patriotism and the rule of law.
a soveriegn nation must have defined, and defended, borders.
i've decided to register GOP so as to cast a vote for him.
he doesnt get much respect in the media for his viewpoints, but its a view that needs to be heard and explained.
I don't question the logic of Paul's (or your) positions on immigration. I just disagree with the premises on which they are based.
But that's an argument for another day. Besides, there will be no significant change (for better or worse) in our immigration policies for a very long time, regardless of who is in charge. Too many people depend on the status quo.
Ergo, I have no problem supporting Paul, even though I disagree with him on immigration.
Ditto his thoughts on abortion, for pretty much the same reasons.
when you get around to it, i'd like to know what your premises are versus mine.(per immigration)
we already understand each other on abortion,though.
Gino--
The short answer is that for me, ideology trumps nationality. I am more interested in living in a free society than in an "American" one.
And I don't think that unnecessarily restricted (i.e., for anything other than clear security problems with an individual) movement across borders is consistent with a free society. Freedom of movement (and commerce) in all directions is very, very fundamental.
we can take this discussion a long way...
i believe in wide scale immigration, with the goal of infusing the american ideals in those who desire to be here.
on not totally on board with the idea of quotas of certain types regions, but i see where they are coming from, and some of their points do have merit.
Post a Comment