And if I could throw a football 75 yards, flat footed, and run a 4.3 forty I’d be an NFL quarterback. Come on fellas, Paul had a chance to really make a splash, and he blew it. He had desperate voters, looking for a leader and willing to contribute their time and money. Things really look bleak for this nation.

I think Tom’s earlier observations regarding local and state participation in the process are correct. If we want to do anything about taxes and illegal immigration we’ll have to make changes closer to home.

Speaking of militancy, I was gonna try to read up on Kilgore. Wikipedia has a short, not very informative article on him. But when I tried to take a gander at his campaign (I assume) website, it’s blocked by the filter here at work, due to “militancy/extremism”. A Google search was a little more fruitful, but makes Kilgore look like a virulently legalistic theocratist. (Personally, I, unlike many evangelical believers, am perfectly happy with the so-called “separation of church and state,” so long as “freedom of religion” does not become a forced “freedom from religion.” We are, of course, I think riding the ragged edge on that one)

When in doubt, vote the incumbent out!

I think the social conservatives need to change strategy, adopt a more libertarian approach to the various battles, an incremental approach. It doesn’t take amending the Constitution to win, it just takes knowing the Constitution. (And assuming that it is still valid)

Abortion: Pass a law removing abortion-related cases from the purview of the federal courts system, including the Supreme Court. This is the check against judicial tyranny the Founding Fathers gave us. We will not get a “right to life” amendment passed, because the topic is a political football that both major parties use as a fundraiser, and which neither will abandon. If the Constitution is broken (as it was when, say, suffrage was denied women and blacks), then it needs amending. Abortion does not exist as a right, except in the “penumbra” of the Constitution (and therefore, not at all) as divined by activist justices. If they cannot hear cases, they cannot make rulings. If they cannot make rulings, they cannot overturn pro-life legislation. If they cannot overturn legislation, then it becomes the right of the several states to decide where they each stand. And state legislators are much more accountable than federal ones. (And who among the pro-life movement would say, “That’s not good enough. I’m gonna allow millions more babies to be killed each year because I’m not gonna accept hundreds of thousands being saved?” Only a myopic fool. Even ten live babies and 90 dead ones is better than 100 dead ones)

Gay marriage: same thing. Remove “marriage” from the purview of the state, so that the state can’t define what it is or is not. Will that open the way for gays to be “married”? Yes. It will also open the way for polygamy, bestiality, and other ills that are already going on. But it also allows those who don’t want such things in their communities to keep them out, rather than being forced to accept them. Because if you pass a law, even an Amendment, that defines marriage one way, it can easily be redefined at a later date. (If you don’t think so, try going out and buying a beer. Can you?)

I’m just spitballing here, but I think you see my general thrust. The biggest problem social conservatives — and especially our particular breed, the evangelicals — have is a numb-witted reliance on the state, or at least, the belief that the state is capable of doing good. I am about as patriotic as they come, but I do not support the government. As the last truly conservative (sic) President said, “Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.” I love the United States of America. I don’t trust the government of the US as far as I can throw it. It is not my friend, it does not have my best interests at heart, it does not care any more about me than I do about it.

And libertarians? Here, we just need to get out from under the equally wrong-headed idea that people will always look out for only their own best interest, and that if you leave them alone, they’ll leave you alone. Libertarians’ biggest fault is in assuming that nobody has ulterior motives, that everyone just wants to get along, and that everyone is just as rational and intelligent as they are.

http://www.larrykilgore.com/

As for Paul, I think he should run as an independent. He’s too old to run again, and we are at a unique point in history where both parties are on the outs with the people. Recent polls show that about 80% of voters would consider voting independent. I think he might, but being the careful politician, wants to sew up his Congressional seat first. Many of the independent voters I know have more sense than the typical Republican. A Republican, in many ways, is simply a conservative who’s drunk too much Kool-Aid.

Some of the Paul people think they can take over the Republican Party. I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but Ron Paul’s supporters don’t have the numbers to overcome the thousands of little old ladies I met at the state convention in 2006 who wanted to draft Condoleeza Rice “to beat Hillary”. No matter that Rice is pro-choice and so obviously an overpromoted affirmative action beneficiary- she can “beat Hillary” (or so they think). And those nasty people in the media will stop calling us racists!

The real conservative movement has always been a coalition between libertarians and social conservatives. Both groups have been sold out and used at times by Republican Party elites. Many leaders of the grassroots have themselves been grafted into the Washington establishment.

That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, Tom: keep your enemies close. It’s been around in various forms for centuries, at least: give them lands with hereditary title; grant them prima noctes; give them a job in your new admiistration in a newly-created cabinet post, where they can work their pet issues and keep themselves running on a bureaucratic hamster wheel, out of the way and out of your hair.

You know, initially upon reading this, I was kind of incensed at your analysis. But then it occurred to me that the reason I was so irritated was because, as always, your read of the situation is spot-on. I have been greatly frustrated with Paul at times because he refused to engage. There is a time and a place for a principled campaign, but when you’re down and struggling, that ain’t it.

We “Ulster Scots” are definitely scrappers; I, in particular, am, as you may have noticed (often to my detriment). I somehow missed out on the cool German reserve from that part of my woodpile (a very mixed bag, that).

While conceding your points, I must still exhort. The fact that Paul is so far back notwithstanding, the only way I can see a vote being wasted in this contest is to pile on for the obvious future nominee. At this point, McCain, short of some catastrophic event, is inevitable, it would seem. I know everyone likes to back a winner, but the primaries are the only time there is an actual choice.

So please, if you have not voted, do so today.

Send a message. Be heard.

Vote Ron Paul.

(And wait ’til November to decide between being shot or being stabbed.)