What's going on with Republican candidates?
I don't watch the debates much. I only know what I read in these funny papers. Here is a comment from Sullivan,
"The Republicans, we learned, have absolutely no idea what to do about Iraq. ... ... (snip)
The notion that a national Iraqi government, composed of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, will be able to defend itself and take the side of the West in the war in Jihadist terror is simply ludicrous in the imaginable future. That much we surely know by now. So empire is the new Republican consensus: an empire built entirely for security reasons, and an empire which somehow manages to make us less secure. Paul, in contrast, had the balls to state the classic Republican position, and to defend it in the wake of 9/11. Man, that guy has some brass cojones. He even invoked Ronald Reagan in urging withdrawal from the irrationality of Arab politics. Other than McCain and Paul, the others were risible in their soundbites and faux toughness.
(snip)
The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture...
Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules of Western justice has no business being president.
Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight. ... .. For me, then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick."
Palmetto Punditry
(All this found here:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25591
and here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/palmetto_pu...
and discussed here:
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/05/16/endangered-species/ )
I have read some things by Rep. Paul. I suspect much of his support is related to his efforts over a long time, I don't know how many years, to put out writings and ideas over the internet. He also should attract libertarian and what's left of older style Republican conservative voters.
Another appeal to me is the cahones factor. He seems willing and able to stand up to his opponents and give back well stated arguments. I'm not saying I approve of what he has been saying. But, he doesn't seem to back down on wanting out of Iraq for principled reasons.
I have the idea that a Gravel/Paul or Paul/Gravel ticket would sweep 49 of 50.
