The Hill
Sunday, July 20, 2008
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
CONVENTIONS
Democratic
Republican
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign 2008
Endorsements '08
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Byron York
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
Hillscape
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Last Six Issues
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Letters arrow There’s no basis to predict that Paul will be voted out of office
Letters PDF Print E-mail
There’s no basis to predict that Paul will be voted out of office
Posted: 11/20/07 07:45 PM [ET]

I found David Hill’s Nov. 14 column on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) fascinating (“Ron Paul: trouble back home”). Mr. Hill contends that “Ron Paul ... has little honor in his own land. He’s about to lose his congressional seat.” Lose to whom, Mr. Hill? You failed to mention the name of any formidable opponent. Ironically, Jay Root, in an article the same day in the Kansas City Star (a McClatchy Newspapers story), wrote “Democrats are so used to losing to him that they haven’t even fielded a candidate yet, and probably won’t.”

I was not surprised to learn later in your column that disgruntled Republicans came to you in 2004 seeking encouragement for challengers to Dr. Paul. Here we are “almost four years later,” and you and the anti-Paul Republicans have yet to find someone to mount a serious campaign against Paul. Not even in 2006, a pretty lousy year for Republican incumbents, was Paul seriously challenged.

Kyle, Texas



Definitely not a conservative

From Leo P. Ribuffo, history professor, George Washington University

 

In his review of Jon Lauck’s Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race (“The South Dakota showdown of 2004 — from the inside,” Nov. 16), Albert Eisele identifies me as a “conservative historian.” I write to reassure friends who read The Hill that I have not undergone one of those ideological conversions now common among ambitious and/or aging professors.

While I have written with empathy and, I hope, understanding about American conservatism, I am not now nor have I ever been a conservative. I am pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and pro-welfare state. I favor national health insurance. I opposed this squalid war in Iraq from the outset. I voted for Jesse Jackson in two Democratic presidential primaries and have no regrets. The most conservative presidential nominee I ever voted for was either Al Gore or John Kerry (I’m still not sure which one was more conservative).

I describe myself as an unreconstructed McGovernite. That is, I would like to see the development of a left beyond the latest version of “vital center” liberalism. This may not be possible but hope springs eternal.

Washington

 
 
 
BLOGS
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2008 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.