This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |

« There is No Dana; Only Fool | Main | Wonders Never Cease »
Ron Paul is formally seeking the Republican presidential nomination – something that we’ve known, but that was just made formal this week. I didn’t think the official announcement would cause me any confusion, but then I read this in the NYT:
A statement released by campaign chairman Kent Snyder described Paul as “a real conservative in the race for president” who Republican primary voters can support.
A real… conservative? Wait… Ron Paul is known for being libertarian – in fact, he played the part of the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. So which is it? Libertarian, or conservative?
Or are libertarians and conservatives really very similar after all?
Oh, sorry. Ron Paul is running for the Republican presidential nomination, which means he needs to get GOP voters to identify him as a reasonable option. Thus the word “conservative” being so attractive. I get it. Just for a second, I thought we were going to have to identify the issue that separates libertarians from conservatives. (hint)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/491
Clicking through to your link about the terms liberal and conservative, the way they've been stripped of any objective definition would make Winston Smith proud...
Posted by: Brad Warbiany
at March 14, 2007 7:21 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)