Where is Candidate Rudy Paul or Ron Giuliani

The 2008 GOP presidential nominees seem to be not inspiring much support among conservatives. Oh sure, among the center-right Republicans candidates like Mitt "Damn I Look Good" Romney, Rudy "I'm The Anti-pro-anti-abortion Candidate" Giuliani and John "Say Good-bye To Your First Amendment" McCain look great. But for the conservatives? We basically grimace every time we look at the crowd of hopefuls.

The truth be told, there is only one candidate in the crowd that appeals to conservatives. The problem is that the same candidate causes us to avert our eyes in shame and bow our heads in frustration. That candidate is none other than Ron Paul.

Every now and again someone will bring up the name Ron Paul to me and I know that my face must certainly look as though I have just been struck in the gut. That reaction stems from the realization that while Ron Paul is exactly the candidate conservatives have sought on almost every issue, the man has gone off the deep end with regard to Iraq and global terrorism.

When he says things like we never declared war on Iraq despite a clear resolution authorizing military force (that's "war" by the way) and how we're basically at fault for 9/11 because we dared to defend a country that Saddam invaded unlawfully and held him to the terms of the cease-fire he signed, clear thinking conservatives wonder who the heck crossed the wires. We wonder what would make an otherwise intelligent man start raving like a moonbat on Kool Aid.

To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if tomorrow Ron Paul ran to the microphone to talk about how the World Trade Center was brought down by a clandestine plot and concealed explosives.

I know, I know, it's insulting to all you fringe libertarian "non-interventionist" (i.e. isolationist) Ron Paul supporters out there to hear me say that. And I'm sure you'll come up with all sorts of talking points to back up your candidate's half baked ideas. But to be honest I do get tired of pointing out that using al Qaeda's propaganda about how we are the reason they attacked us because we are defending allies in the Middle East (imperfect as they are) is about as sane as citing rants by Hitler and the NAZIs against the Jews as proof positive that they were the reason Germany had problems and justification for the Holocaust.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to go back and research history and find comments by radical Muslims from the very first clashes between a new America and Islam. During the Barbary Wars they made their intentions known to us without the spin because there were no television cameras in their face and no PR battle to wage. When Adams and Jefferson asked what the justification was for attacking American interests the response by Ambassador Abdrahaman, Tripoli's representative in London at the time, told us then all that was needed in order to understand their reasons:

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."

So you'll just have to get over it. Radical Muslims hate us because we are not radical Muslims. They do not care where we are. Whether we are in Saudi Arabia or cowering inside our own borders they will attack us. Their ideology and interpretation of their faith is not new. It did not start with America putting up bases in the Middle East and forming alliances with countries that supply us with oil.

It took a while, but eventually even the founders figured it out; you defeat these folks by killing them and breaking their stuff until they relent. When the founders did that the problem didn't go away, but it lessened greatly.

And all your little rants about how it's the "neo-cons" which have infested the GOP and which will prevent Congressman Paul from winning the nomination can also hit the circular file where they belong. Because I hate to break it to you but it isn't the neo-cons that are against Paul; it's the core, small government conservatives who just cannot bring themselves to vote for a man so divested from the reality of why Islamic terrorists attack. That reality is that they attack people because they are "infidels" or unbelievers in their brand of radical Islam.

I even ran a poll on American Conservative Daily asking this question:

"If Ron Paul was more supportive of the War in Iraq would you be more or less inclined to vote for him?"

The results? Certainly NOT anything the Paulites are going to want to hear: More inclined (67%), About the same (24%) & Less inclined (9%).

Like I said, it ain't the soft socialist, big government neo-cons that are against Mr. Paul boys and girls.

The fact is that what conservatives are looking for is someone like Ron Paul who is willing to accept that not only was the Iraq War justified, but that it must be fought and won. Conservative voters would like to take someone like Rudy Giuliani who is strong on the on terrorism, willing to go to where the terrorists are and fight them and mesh it with someone like Ron Paul who is willing to reign in government spending and power grabs that exceed the powers vested to it by the Constitution.

What they are looking for is someone like a Ron Giuliani or a Rudy Paul. And it is a shame that we do not have someone like that. Because that is what conservatives, except for the fringe "not my problem", head in the sand libertarians crave.

====================================================

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the lead editor of Conservative News & Opinion - The Land of the Free and also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.