Doubtful; very doubtful
Go ahead and take up one of Paul’s principled stands and make an argument against it (I’d agree with some of the good ones), but please try to not be fooled enough to tell me or anyone that a Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or McCain are doing anything but posturing in order to try and strike the right balance. You can verify it for yourself: Paul says exactly what he has always said. Via Rockwell, Mike Morris at The Facts newspaper seems to get it.
He’s saying what he truly believes. Off the cuff. Straight off the top of his head.
How unusual is that in today’s age of scripted sound bytes? In modern politics, candidates are trained to repeat phrases as though they are voicing a See-N-Say. Point the arrow to the picture of an illegal immigrant, pull the handle and hear, “We must protect our borders.”
Yep, for the consumption of the unthinking, i.e., most of the electorate, either [virtually indistinguishable] side. You might object, on the grounds that Paul too advocates heightened border defense. Actually, one of my least favorite of his positions, but he is consistnt about it, principled within the premise of the constitution it is his job to uphold, and consistent and integrated with his call to get out of Iraq and stop policing the world.
If only we could trust all presidential candidates to be as unscripted and genuine [as Paul].
Of course, we can’t. They stick to their message, their practiced
phrases which appear to answer a question but are so superficial they
really commit to nothing.
Yep, for the consumption of the unthinking, i.e., most of the electorate, either [virtually indistinguishable] side.
Paul during a debate or interview is refreshing for voters. They
appreciate his honesty and the passion with which he presents his case.
And they have responded by contributing millions of dollars to his
campaign, much of it through the Internet. This grassroots support is
shocking to the pundit crowd in Washington and, in some ways, the
Well, refreshing for all
except those republicans and so-called libertarians so
invested in the mistake of America invading a third-world country incapable of launching any sort of military offensive against us or anyone. Yep,
with enough money (to be paid by your children and theirs) and time you
can probably transform Iraq into anything you want. But it’s already a
failure because it was wrong; a mistake, and only the most brutal and
murderous continuation of force can transform it into something some people need in order to protect egos so limp that they can’t even forthrightly admit they might well have been wrong (as I have) and that continuing in this — if it was a mistake to go in — in order to salvage "victory" (save face) is a really depraved exercise in justifying means with ends.
If you suspect that the original excursion may have been a mistake, you have a moral duty to honestly assess that. And if you conclude that it indeed was, then to not call for an immediate halt to all offensive action and a withdrawal of troops is immoral and dishonest and there’s simply no logical way around that.
Isn’t it remarkable how many years, how many American and innocent
Iraqi lives, how many trillions, and how much good will people are
willing to spend on a socialist, collectivist expedition they have to
have been "right" about?