Bill Kristol, editor of the influential
conservative publication, Weekly Standard,
told C-SPAN viewers this weekend that he thinks the Republican Party would be
better off without Texas Rep. Ron Paul and his devoted faction of loyal voters.
Kristol took on a rather personal
tone while attacking Paul's positions. Kristol said that, while most Paul's
detractors often preface their criticisms with the obligatory nods to Paul's sincerity, his affability and the goodness of his intentions, he would not.
"I do not
think he’s a particular good guy," said Kristol. "I think it would be better
for the Republican party, if he left the Republican party."
Kristol’s observations are not
rooted in animus against Paul but in history. He goes on to describe how the
GOP bent over backwards to keep Pat Buchanan and his followers under the big
tent in 1992 and 1996 and their reputation suffered for it. In 2000, once the Buchanan
forces in the Republican party were spent, the GOP fared far better – to the
point of retaking the White House from a sitting vice president in peacetime.
Kristol has a point. Buchanan’s
brand of isolationism had its intellectual roots in xenophobia, as does Paul’s –
as evidenced by the decades old newsletters that went out under Paul’s name.
And, no, there will not be a re-litigation of that issue here – Paul both
published and profited from those deplorably racist writings. That cannot be
undone and, outside of the circular firing squad of a Republican primary, this remains
an insurmountable electoral weakness.
Kristol concludes: “I don't think anyone should plead with
him not to run or to stay in the party. I would be comfortable in a general
election if Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum as the Republican in
the Reagan tradition and debating both Barack Obama and Ron Paul.”
---
Want to connect with other PoliticOlogists? Continue the
conversation on My.Ology
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!