Quantcast

Categorized | News

IS ANN COULTER JOINING THE NON-INTERVENTIONIST CAUSE?

I do not often read Ann Coulter.  She was critical of conservative lawyers several months ago on basic interrogation rights and I had to call her out.  No word on how she felt about my criticism. 

But I could not miss this column:  Bill Kristol must resign.  I agree.  He ought to leave the conservative movement.  He once read those unwilling to attack a nation who did not attack us in 1999 out of the conservative movement on national television.  That’s fine; I’ll be a Ron Paul libertarian.  (I’m having more fun!) 

But Coulter writes some great truths:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

That about covers recent history pretty well, doesn’t it?  Coulter also alluded to Kristol’s support for McCain:

Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president — and look how great that turned out!

Coulter also accused Kristol of being for amnesty and the National Greatness Project:

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. 

National Greatness is another way of saying intervention in wars that are none of our business  Adam Garfinkle says it well at FPRI:

As to the formula, it is weighted heavily toward America’s role in the world. And in that domain we are told that the defense budget is too small, even though it is larger than the next dozen such budgets in the world combined. We are told that America is becoming isolationist despite the fact that since 1992 U.S. military forces have maintained a higher operational tempo than at any time in American history short of civil or world war— and we have forces stationed semi-permanently in 19 foreign countries. We must do more, we are told: get tough with China and Russia; get still tougher with proliferators; save Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti and Burma and Rwanda; aggressively open foreign markets to our notion of rational, transparent, IMF-approved capitalism; and more, much more, besides.

Coulter says it:  Time for Kristol to quit. 

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

I strongly suspect there is a fair amount of sarcasm in Coulter’s article.  She’s a pro at it.  But great truths can be hidden in good sarcasm:

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war — and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

It wasn’t liberals that warned us about unnecessary preemptive goody-goody wars.  Ron Paul did too.  He was laughed at and cheated out of votes and delegates in 2008.  But who’s having the last laugh?  I see tea parties everywhere and Ron Paul ideas on the march.  Be encouraged!  We’re winning!

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

4 Responses to “IS ANN COULTER JOINING THE NON-INTERVENTIONIST CAUSE?”

  1. Again Va Right is on teh FRONT PAGE of Freedom’s Phoenix!

  2. There seems to be two distinct, fundamentally incompatible threads of Teapartyism: a Ron Paul thread and a Sarah Palin thread. Although I fall mostly into the liberal/progressive camp, I find that I agree with Ron Paul on far more issues than I disagree with him on. I think some useful discussions could take place between liberals and conservative Teapartiers of the Ron Paul sort, if we could all (including me – I’m probably guilty of some hyperbole) de-escalate the rhetoric a bit.

    However, the Sarah Palin version of Teapartyism, particularly with its deep anti-intellectual streak, horrifies and terrifies me.

  3. Well said, Aaron. I’m not sure if I agree about Palin (she was once a darling of libertarians but she is clearly mainstream at this point) but I prefer the intellectual side of political discourse.

    Please come back again.

    Sandy

  4. My main concerns with the Palin-branch of Teapartyism lie in its theocratic bent on social issues and its neoconservative bent on foreign policy issues; these run orthogonal to the Ron Paul-branch (with the big exception of abortion, but Paul is always careful to make his case based on secular arguments.)

    Note I carefully included Ron Paul’s first name above, as it seems that his son, Rand, is curiously sliding more and more into the Palin camp and away from his father’s camp. Perhaps he suspects that’s where the votes are? He may be a newcomer to politics, but he’s learning fast.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: