printHere’s Part One of John Derbyshire’s odyssey.
I agree entirely with what Derb has to say today at The Corner:
“I take the naïve point of view that you support the candidate whose principles are closest to your own, and whose record suggests sufficiently strong will to stick to those principles, and sufficient ability to act on them. Since Paul is promoting a passive style of federal government — i.e. masterly inaction, leaving the country to run itself so far as possible — the last doesn’t really apply. On the second, Paul’s record is hard to beat for consistency (though the standard here is a political one, i.e. low). And on the candidate debates I’ve watched, or read transcripts of, Paul is the one I most agree with. I can’t see that I need justify myself any further than that.
If I can’t get a Paul-Thompson ticket, I’ll settle for Thompson-Paul, or even Thompson-Giuliani. When a dysfunctional federal government generates systemic problems, though — and there are some doozies just over the horizon — you need systemic solutions. I believe that in current circumstances, that means a withdrawal of federal power from areas where it never had any proper business being, and a return to a strict reading of the federal Constitution. I see the same belief in Paul. I don’t see it Fred.”