Sunday, November 27, 2011

Shouldn't get no respect

Just now (Sunday morning, ca. 9:00 am on the East Coast), on CNN, the editorial editor for the NH Union Leader explained his endorsement of Gingrich over Romney: Romney "wants to be liked," but Gingrich "wants to be respected." Whatever happened to "deserves to be respected," which applies to none of the Rethuglicans?
And his second choice is Perry! He sounded like someone who should never be allowed to operate a keyboard connected to an editorial page.


  1. Ron Paul has, contrary to most politicians, retained a significant degree of consistency. That deserves some respect, no? But I only say this because he is running in the Republican primaries where, in fact, he really maintains a Libertarian position.

  2. Consistency only deserves respect if you are consistently moral and ethical. Clearly, Paul is not. His positions on the War on Terror and the War on Drugs are correct; his other positions are viciously anti-humanistic to the point of being dangerous.

  3. RE: "consistently moral and ethical"

    I'm interested to see what you constitute as 'moral' and 'ethical'. For example, is receiving a free education morally right? What is ethical about receiving someone else's goods and services for free when the person providing the education should be compensated for such goods and services?

    On another note I don't find anyone in the Democratic party (or in any party for that matter) more 'ethical' or 'moral' than Ron Paul. In fact, I'm inclined to think that any politician using such jargon should be kept under suspicious eye.


Comments and feedback are welcome, as long as they conform to normal standards of civility and decency. I will delete comments that do not meet these standards.