I was among those polled. My (un-ranked) least-list (with links):
Ron PaulSenator McCain nearly made my list, but there still are ample areas where we agree.
George Will
Colin Powell
Orrin Hatch
Pat Buchanan
Bill O'Reilly
Dinesh D'Souza
Dick Morris
James Baker
Pat Robertson
BTW, I assumed no one still rated Andrew Sullivan -- who came in at number twelve -- a righty.
7 comments:
Carl could you please elaborate on Ron Paul as your #1 choice to disrespect?
I can't say that I agree with your choice of George Will.
Here's why: Will is consistent in his logic.
One may (and I often do) disagree with his premise and therefore with his conclusion.
But I have yet to find a case of his logic's rationale, from premise to conclusion not being rigorously consistent in its logic.
That's worthy of respect, especially today.
The poll isn't one of who we might disagree with but of whom we don't respect. Respect doesn't require agreement, just that one be intellectually honest. If nothing else, Will appears to be that.
I can't speak for Carl, and I probably would not put him at #1 (also -- note that Carl does say "unranked"), but he clearly does not grasp that policies which made sense back in the 1800s when the USA had nothing worth stealing, little worth envy, and two giant moats on either side for protection might not make sense in an era when the moats are largely irrelevant and we are rich and powerful and automatically subject to envy and resentment by others as a result of that -- so we can be as kind, decent, and considerate of others in other nations as possible yet there will still be out there who want to attack us and take us down. Q.E.D., a modicum of pre-emptive awareness and action in regards to our self-elected enemies is called for and appropriate.
If even angels can envy those with great power, how, praytell, does one actually think that humans will be better than that?
Paul, by representing the hardline of the Libertarian Party, has made no effort to sway them from their isolationist position. In fact, he has long had a relationship with Lew Rockwell (he's distanced himself from Rockwell since there were allegations of racism against Rockwell which I'll neither deny or affirm, I have not investigated).
Rockwell is at the heart of an isolationist movement, and rabidly anti the Iraq war (and we are talking froth on the lips rabid, here, not "hyperbole" rabid).
In general, I consider Ron Paul to be a poor instance of someone who often aligns with the right on many matters.
=====
I really am surprised Michael Steele isn't on either list (Carl's or RWN's).
He's not done a very impressive job in dealing with or removing RINOs, and his effectiveness in producing any cohesive strategy for the GOP to get back on track has been minimal.
This is the perfect time for the GOP to be staking out its new heading, and it's done nothing but flounder, as far as I can see...
P.S., if there was a time for a new, truly conservative party to form, this would, indeed, be it.
I'll depart from my usual practice of research and links to provide a more rapid response.
Bob in LA: I agree with OBH (except for the plumping for a conservative party), and would add only that Paul's advocacy of a return to the gold standard is economically illiterate.
GB: I don't respect Will because he's abandoned many of his former positions, on both foreign policy and economics. I do agree with you that Will remains worthy as a writer--only Krauthammer is more clear. I still concur with come Will columns, but have yet to see him articulate a plausible rationale for his position reverses. His recent columns remain admirably clear but, in failing to explain his prior inconsistent position, they are not logically sound.
I'm clearly in the minority here--I'm surprised at the variance between my list and the polled outcome (none in common in the top five; only two in the top ten, four in the top 20).
> (except for the plumping for a conservative party)
I'd happily re-wright the GOP, I'm just not sure it can be done, since it requires a wholesale housecleaning of RINOs and Ersatz neocons. And those people amount to enough to represent a major power base in the party as-is. How can you restructure the GOP when 1/3rd of them don't agree with or follow basic conservative philosophy en toto?
Better, perhaps, to leave and create a truly new one that keeps out the "faux of conservativity" (pun intended)
BTW, Michael Steele didn't make my list because I liked him as Lt. Gov. of Maryland.
Post a Comment