With the release of the caustic article by Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator, and further whetted by the wily and cantankerous talking head Mark Levin, conservative thought in foreign policy has been brought to the forefront. Levin and Lord, in their ex-cathedra pronouncement, have claimed a sin has been committed by the sly Ron Paul, who, it is asserted, is surreptitiously holding on to liberal views while claiming to be a conservative.
In a recent column, Jeffrey Lord warned that Ron Paul's presidential bid was secretly a "Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign." Writes Lord: "the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign -- a serious campaign -- to re-educate the American people…" For Lord, Paul's alleged reeducation mission means passing off liberal ideas as conservative. This is amusing -- because this is precisely what self-described conservatives of Lord's ilk have been doing for years.
Imagine that there never was a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left the White House he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama carried out the exact same agenda as Bush -- Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- the whole works. Would conservatives have generally supported Obama as they did Bush -- or would they have rightly criticized the most big government president in our history at that time?
Despite his glaringly statist record, did Lord ever consider Bush a "neo-liberal"?
Lord's response to Jack's response is revisionist garbage. Don't forget to leave your coments on their site folks!
American Conservative Mag weighs in on Lord's misrepresentations: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/08/24/no-ron-paul-is-no...
Thanks Brutus56 for making us aware!