More Ron Paul stuff
Glaivester, a blogger who has posted amiably and frequently for years at VFR under another name, and whom I’ve always treated respectfully, attacks me for supporting Romney for the Republican nomination. At Google, the item appears this way:
When it Comes to Presidential Elections, Lawrence Auster is ridiculousHowever, at Glaivester’s site, “ridiculous” has been changed to “No Different from the Mainstream,” and “nuts” has been changed to “not very useful.” I’m glad for that. In any case, in the familiar manner of Ron Paul supporters, Glaivester seems to see any failure to support Paul as not just a mistake, but as the expression of a deep moral and intellectual flaw that throws into question everything else about a person.
Glaivester also hasn’t read me carefully. I have not supported Romney for the presidency; I’ve left open what I’m going to do in November. I have supported Romney for the GOP nomination, as strongly as I could (while also acknowledging his flaws), because that is only way to stop the catastrophe of a Giuliani or McCain nomination, because Romney is the only viable candidate who has presented himself to the country as a conservative leader, and because Romney is a good and impressively capable man. But for the Paul supporters, all politicians who are not Ron Paul are equally egregious and vile.
Glaivester mangles and casts in a negative light other statements of mine as well, but the points are not worth correcting.
Scott N. writes:
Thanks for continuing the discussion on what appears to be a painful issue (with the buzzing mosquitoes and all).LA replies:
“Ron Paul has a greater ability than any other Republican candidate to bring in support from across party lines, as well as from the rather large majority of American voters with an anti Iraq war opinion”Gintas writes:
You’re right about the Ron Paul supporters:LA replies:
And one thing in particular. The Paul supporters keep telling me that Paul is good on illegal immigration. But since he believes in essentially open borders for legal immigration, limited only by the economy’s ability to absorb more people (which is in principle the same as the Bush plan of 2006, which said that immigration would be allowed for all people who could underbid an American for a job), the increase in legal immigration he would allow would be far vaster than the reduction of illegal immigration he would supposedly bring about. But this simple fact never gets through to the Paul supporters. They remain displeased with me because I, an immigration restrictionist, will not support Paul.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 30, 2008 08:24 PM | Send