Taking Aim At Kevin Tracy

Taking Aim At Kevin Tracy
This is a Ron Paulite response to a recent K.T. Blog.

Kevin, we have yet to ever officially meet as far as I know. Your comments show your utter lack of understanding of conservatism via the Goldwater/Taft (Traditional Conservatism) form of it. Your comments could be construed to the fact that you may perhaps be a Closet Progressive? And, if that weren't enough, you lower yourself to the point of name calling and middle school minded taunting. If one is too ridicule this no vote then one must assume that you are in favor of:

Government interventionism and that Reagan was wrong when he said that Government doesn't solve the problem, that Government is the problem.

You are in favor of spending other peoples money, even if they disagree with it. More commonly referred to as wealth redistribution.

You are in favor of propping up Government as the answer to all social problems of the world (making world problems our problem) rather than allowing the free market and good old fashion charity to do their own job.

For the same reason it was wrong for the Mayor of Valpo to give taxpayer money to charity, it would be wrong for the Government to take on the Responsibility in the task of Nation Building the Nation of Haiti. I believe George Will, a renowned conservative columnist, put it best this past summer in one of his columns, “Nation Building is an insane concept, even if we knew how to do it.” Of course, he was ridiculed by the progressives within the party.

Taking on a comments within the comment section.

The issue of Slavery, all Ron Paul has ever advocated is that their was peaceful options to consider rather than the course this nation chose to take. If it is fantastical or wishful thinking, then how come Nations of Europe were able to deal with the issue of slavery in a peaceful, humane manner without the need for a bloody civil war? In fact, Ron Paul usually sites how Britain chose to deal with the issue as an example of what he means when confronted by childish ridicule and laughter such as yours. Personally, I don't think that childish laughter is the way to respect an opposing opinion to the atrocities of the Civil war. Do you?

Earmarks for his district. So all Republicans that are opposed to pork should also turn down their own pork packages allowing their districts to suffer the penalties of grotesque spending while reaping none of the benefits? Bull and child like to say the least. There is nothing wrong with accepting pork, or ensuring your district gets their fair share while standing firmly against it. He is, like all other Representatives, beholden to his district and thus should deliver their share of the bacon. If he didn't, who would be hypocritical then? Think a McCain comes to mind as someone who stand firm against pork but then gladly accepts it for his district.

Mr. Tracy, it is one thing to disagree and I am always willing to have civil discourse with any of my friends, but it is another thing entirely when a person of your stature chooses to resort to child like, tongue out behavior to get his point across and in some respect shows the weakness of your argument. Essentially, your only defense is that you don't respect principled individuals.

I'm posting this on here instead of on your blog as a comment for I feel you neither deserve or are wanting of the traffic.

I have heard that you may be considering a run for office currently or somewhere in the near future. I wish you good luck. Maybe then you will come to understand why it is so hard to be a principled individual and be a member of congress. Will you buy the Bacon while standing firmly against it? Not so easy is it now?