Though McCain has some problems, like what Mark Levin discusses, Michael Medved presents a much more balanced picture that takes a far larger number of issues into account:
Levin is writing for National Review, which has endorsed Mitt Romney, and my impression is that Levin has leaned toward Fred Thompson. Apparently, Romney's Mormonism isn't much of an issue to National Review or Mark Levin. It is a significant issue to me. Romney also has a major credibility problem and, partly as a result of that credibility problem, an electibility problem. Fred Thompson has improved in recent weeks, but apparently not enough to win South Carolina, much less the nomination. National Review and Levin have said some of the same things about Mike Huckabee that they've said about McCain. Giuliani is conservative on some issues, but has been liberal or moderate on others, including some highly significant ones, and has some major problems in his personal life. As bad as McCain seems if you just read something like Levin's article or listen to some of the comments of Rush Limbaugh, for example, I think he comes across far better if you consider the factors Michael Medved discusses and the weaknesses of the alternatives. People often ignore or minimize issues like electibility and a candidate's religious beliefs (like Romney's Mormonism), but if you give such factors the weight I think they deserve, I have yet to see anybody make a case for any of the other four candidates that's as good as the case for McCain.
Yes I am an avowed anarchist. Specifically, a market anarchist, or libertarian anarchist. I say the less government the better, and the no government is the best! Note the name of my political blog: The Radical Libertarian.
To that end, getting a libertarian like Ron Paul into office (a guy who quotes anarchists like Lysander Spooner on national TV no less), would be a gigantic step in the "right direction" in my opinion. Electing Ron Paul would vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government. It would help bring peace to the world and prosperity to us here at home.
Im not an anarchist who believes that all change must come from outside the system. Im one of those who advocates a multi-faceted approach. Ostracization from the outside, and infiltration by anarchists and libertarians on the inside.
Though McCain has some problems, like what Mark Levin discusses, Michael Medved presents a much more balanced picture that takes a far larger number of issues into account:
ReplyDeletehttp://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=iowa_eve_misconceptions,_secret_weapons_and_the_gop_big_five&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=01/02/2008&page=2
Levin is writing for National Review, which has endorsed Mitt Romney, and my impression is that Levin has leaned toward Fred Thompson. Apparently, Romney's Mormonism isn't much of an issue to National Review or Mark Levin. It is a significant issue to me. Romney also has a major credibility problem and, partly as a result of that credibility problem, an electibility problem. Fred Thompson has improved in recent weeks, but apparently not enough to win South Carolina, much less the nomination. National Review and Levin have said some of the same things about Mike Huckabee that they've said about McCain. Giuliani is conservative on some issues, but has been liberal or moderate on others, including some highly significant ones, and has some major problems in his personal life. As bad as McCain seems if you just read something like Levin's article or listen to some of the comments of Rush Limbaugh, for example, I think he comes across far better if you consider the factors Michael Medved discusses and the weaknesses of the alternatives. People often ignore or minimize issues like electibility and a candidate's religious beliefs (like Romney's Mormonism), but if you give such factors the weight I think they deserve, I have yet to see anybody make a case for any of the other four candidates that's as good as the case for McCain.
Ron Paul is the only conservative running. Ron Paul is #1 in military servicemember support.
ReplyDeleteThe troops disagree with McCain, but they agree with Dr. Paul.
I support the troops, and I support Dr. Ron Paul for president in 2008.
Aaron, aren't you an avowed anarchist? Troops? President? A "doctorate?"
ReplyDeleteanonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes I am an avowed anarchist. Specifically, a market anarchist, or libertarian anarchist. I say the less government the better, and the no government is the best! Note the name of my political blog: The Radical Libertarian.
To that end, getting a libertarian like Ron Paul into office (a guy who quotes anarchists like Lysander Spooner on national TV no less), would be a gigantic step in the "right direction" in my opinion. Electing Ron Paul would vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government. It would help bring peace to the world and prosperity to us here at home.
Im not an anarchist who believes that all change must come from outside the system. Im one of those who advocates a multi-faceted approach. Ostracization from the outside, and infiltration by anarchists and libertarians on the inside.
Hopefully noone will count Kinney's support against Dr. Paul.
ReplyDelete