I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, which I've said numerous times. But when you compare him to the rest of the idiots, at least you get a fiscal conservative. Pawlenty is a fawking spender who believes in global warming and is pushing E-20, despite the flaws in the study. He could give two shits about cutting the budget as evidence in MN.
It's sad, really, that those who bitch about the size of gov't bitch more about the people who actually seem to want to shrink it. The hypocricy is fawking asounding.
bkg......I'm curious about something......you criticize and bash many of us for supporting Republicans who are not "pure", or have in any manner taken an expedient vote on an issue, while at the same time you make a comment like the one in bold above.........
Whether Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative or not, his policies in other areas are so onerous to most of us that we would not.....in our weakest moment......give him anything but scorn. He is a wacko, and a political anomaly that no intelligent person would ever take seriously about anything......
Most of us are here, (and this board exists), mainly due to the efforts of acolytes of Dr. Paul in the last presidential election cycle......ergo, we don't want to hear about him.......it shouldn't be hard to understand, we are simply not interested, even remotely, or by innuendo, having Ron Paul as a part of our discussion........
Politics is known as "the art of the possible", and in light of that fact, in certain areas, election of candidates who are "true" or "pure" conservatives is simply not "possible".........for example, a conservative running in Speaker Polosi's district is never going to win......it ain't gonna happen, due to the political realities of her constituency. The same is true of many of the areas in the country.......therefore, is conservatism better served by losing seats to Democrats, who will reliably vote against us "most if not all of the time".......or is our cause better served by running carefully selected candidates who, although they are not as "conservative" as we would like, would vote for our issues
the vast majority of the time........this doesn't mean that we accept a moderate candidate in an area that will elect a conservative.......and there has been some of that, which we are hoping to correct.......but the idea that we support a moderate Republican in a reliably liberal voting area, is a realistic strategy that benefits our cause incrementally.
Whether you like it or not, those are the political realities that we are faced with today........railing on and on about whether a candidate is a true "conservative" or not, does not advance the cause, and it makes you look like a politically naive fool.........
Just sayin'
doc
