Jeffrey Lord just doesn’t know when to quit. He keeps coming back for more and keeps getting brutal intellectual beat downs.
You’ve got to hand it to Lord though. He’s persistent. He reminds me of a Jack Russell Terrier. He keeps going after intellectual Great Danes, and doesn’t seem to realize he is a 15 lb lap dog. Whether that is more a demonstration of courage or stupidity, I’ll leave for others to decide.
Anyway here is my reply: (For the record, I’m not elevating myself to the status of intellectual Great Dane. His posts always draw responses from the likes of Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman. You really don’t want to get in an argument with Tom Woods about much of anything.)
Surprise, surprise! Jeffrey Lord is demonstrating his anti-Ron Paul obsession (and ignorance) once again. AmSpec must need page views.
First, personally I wish Ron Paul would not pass on earmarks (on budgets that he ALWAYS votes against, btw) because it gives ammo to the Jeffrey Lords of the world. (I wish Mr. Lord would let us know which Congressman he thinks embodies fiscal restraint in comparison to Paul so we could all get a good laugh.) But it should be noted that earmarks DO NOT increase total spending. They simply direct spending that is already budgeted.
Second, as I have already schooled Mr. Lord, non-intervention is the foreign policy that flows naturally from the authentic conservative mindset. From a philosophical standpoint this is not a debatable point. Modern style non-interventionism, based as it is on a belief that America has some supranormal duty to maintain world stability, is inherently radical. It is modern day Jacobinism. Mr. Lord’s simple-minded non-interventionism must be leftism because McGovern believed it dichotomous thinking is quite pathetic, and he ought to quit embarrassing himself by displaying his utter lack of nuance.
Third, while I don’t think it is good politics for someone who is trying to get GOP primary votes to go after talk radio without qualification, (although Levin’s anti-Ron Paul hysteria borders on unhinged and is even worse than Lord’s), it is obviously true that the modern “conservative” movement, of which talk radio is one manifestation, has done a pretty lousy job of conserving anything. This is why Ron Paul is so beloved by constitutionalists. He is THE ONLY consistent constitutionalist elected at the national level, and is one of only a few significant spokesmen for constitutionalism. Most consistent constitutionalists are associated with third parties or with groups that “respectable conservatives” like Mr. Lord undoubtedly label fringe. Who, I would like to know, does Mr. Lord think epitomizes conservatism?