Reply #143: OK, I see your point

[LeftishBrit]

In my case, it's nothing to do with any kneejerk reaction to Nader - it's a perhaps kneejerk reaction to anything that could look like a defense of Ron Paul. It's that there have been some posts in the past, suggesting that Paul is actually preferable to some Democrats, and even that he might be a suitable presidential or vice-presidential candidate on a bipartisan presidential ticket. Also, possibly the word 'coalition' has a different meaning in Britain and America: here it implies a binding, at least for the short term, alliance between parliamentary parties, which requires compromises and agreements on a number of issues, not just one. Working together for a single issue is fine. Accepting right-libertarianism as a valid philosophy, or 'paleoconservativism' as at least preferable to 'neoconservativism', or the view that right-wingers are OK if they 'love liberty' is a step on a very slippery slope. I approve of any campaign to cut military spending, even if it includes some right-wingers - it's just not what I call a 'coalition', but I realize there may be national differences in the way that the word is used. 'Coalition' hasn't worked too well in the UK recently - and most of our Tories are at least less extreme than Ron Paul!