Jonah Goldberg in today’s LA TIMES: [1]
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, media conservatives are beginning to attack Paul in earnest
You’re usually more on top of things than this, Jonah, so I’m not quite sure what to make of this comment of yours. The attack on Ron Paul’s been going on for several months now. Where have you been?
Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul “too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists.” Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul’s supporters and finds “an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 ‘truthers’ and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.”
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair.
I think not. I saw that article that article of Mona’s for example, the other day, and thought it one of the better researched articles on demand I seen thus far. The title “unfair” is a little out of line, given that this stuff is all documented.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s say they’re not. Let’s even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the “Star Wars” cantina, and that many of his top advisors actually have hooves.
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
…
What’s troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee is a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do “good works” extends to using government — and your tax dollars — to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee has indicated he would support a nationwide federal ban on public smoking. Why? Because he’s on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
[2] I suppose I can’t argue that one, Jonah. But, we have survived GWB, and Bill Clinton, the two of which basically you’re describing in Huckabee. Paul is still the bigger concern, for two reasons:
The first is one you yourself mention:
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous
So it would… and that’s what my own objection boils down to… our inability to survive a Ron Paul Presidency because of that misbegotten foreign policy. As I said at Q&O the other night: Isolation doesn’t work. It never has, in the modern world. That disconnect alone makes me wonder about his mental capacity.
But, secondly, go back and look at Mona’s article [3]again, and tell me anyone in their right mind will be involved in such groups as Ron Paul has been documented as being, even on a slightly removed basis. Sorry, it doesn’t wash.
I’ll grant, Jonah, that Huckabee is the more immediate threat, given he has a bigger chance of being elected. But a Ron Paul presidency constitutes a bigger threat to our nation’s survival… bigger on an order of scale. Mind, I won’t vote for either of them, but there it is.
But there’s something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.
True, but that’s the nature of the beast. As to a solution, may I suggest better candidates?
Fred Thompson roars to mind.
Discussion, Memeorandum