Is it a requirement that the field of Presidential candidates must always include a third-tier wacko?
I speak, of course, about Ron Paul, he who has galvanized a motley procession of internet glibertarians, gold-standard tin-foil-hatters, colloidal silverfish and neo-paleoconservatives.
---
There is literally nothing about him that isn't batshit insanity masked by the most reasonable facade. He's a snake oil salesman peddling cyanide. Just go to THOMAS and check out his bill sponsorship.
He wants to repeal the estate tax. He wants to make it so that children born to non-citizens won't be citizens themselves. He wants to put into law that human life begins at conception. He wants to bar the Federal government from putting any funds at all toward family planning, which means Planned Parenthood would be completely gone (instead of just underfunded and gutted, like all social programs after Reagan's rape of The Great Society).
He wants to get the US out of the United Nations, because if there's one thing he learned from Bush's shitty foreign policy it's that the US needs to isolate itself from the world even more. He wants to "restore the second amendment rights of all Americans," which means that he doesn't want the government to distinguish between automatic weapons made for killing lots of people and sports rifles, and he doesn't want laws about child safety locks or safe storage. Oh, and you should be allowed to carry your Gatling gun into National Parks, goddammit. Also, no gun-free school zones; as long as the children are packing heat, they'll be fine.
Jesus, I can go on. He introduced a bill that would've helped out with his Colloidal Silver scam by making it so that if you claim your bullshit cures people then the FDA can't label it a drug unless there is no scientific evidence supporting it. Like you can't find a crackpot doctor to sign off on your bleach-flavored boner pills.
He doesn't want any Federal funds going toward any universal health screening program. Offshore drilling. Canceling fuel taxes when the prices reach a certain amount, thereby "promoting free trade," also known as "kickbacks to Big Oil."
He wants the President to have the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. If you don't know what that means, he wants the President of the United States to have the authority to pay pirates and mercenaries to capture persons and property affiliated with bin Laden or al Qaeda. I'm guessing the burden of proof wouldn't be on the mercenaries.
Fuck this guy. For every reasonable Puppies Are Cute Act he co-sponsors, there are three of his own pet projects that read like Sean Hannity's dream journal.
---
Look, just read this piece from Reason magazine. It concerns newsletters that bore Ron Paul's name and were published with his full knowledge and which he of course disavows. Smart, because the content is no better than the screeds put out by Stormfront.
I know he says he didn't approve the writing. Either he is lying or he's a fucking moron. Maybe both. It's very possible Lew Rockwell, a good buddy of Mr. Paul, actually did the writing, which doesn't make things any better. Lew Rockwell's a sanctimonious little shit, and just the type of guy to still use the term "comsymp" in 1991 (when referring to Martin Luther King, natch).
Vote for who you want. But don't fucking try to convince me that Ron Paul has anything in common with the left-wing just because he's up for legalizing marijuana and doesn't trust the government. He's pretty much a textbook example of a reactionary states-rights Dixiecrat with just a hint of Ayn Rand's anal-fixation philosophy.
8 comments:
I'm afraid I disagree. Nobody is perfect, but he's qualitatively better than everyone else in the field.
Well, sounds pretty spot on to me.
I guess the question is, "What exactly makes him qualitatively better than everyone else in the field?" I suppose if you think that the Federal government should be completely crippled except where it is busy regulating uteri then he's the ideal candidate. I haven't heard any good reasons for him, just a lot of vague "revolution" nonsense - he's about as revolutionary as Andrew Jackson. He appeals to glibertarians because he's got the notion that corporations should be completely unfettered rather than mostly unfettered, but other than that he's in tune with the sanctimonious Moral Majority shitheads.
Well, I'm struggling with all the Republican candidates this year, but Ron Paul certainly seems like a saner choice than, say, 9ui1ian1 - who, I note, Ron Paul consistently beats in the primaries. :)
But I don't think Paul has any chance of winning the nomination, so I confess to being rather unconcerned as to the details of his policies.
Chris, it's still worthwhile to oppose him so that his run doesn't further mainstream what used to be widely and justly viewed as idiotic or stupid.
I'm not going to convince anyone to change their mind no matter what I say, just look at the data and make your own choice.
I'm leaving this country and don't expect to reverse its descent. Ron Paul and Kucinich are the only people who are even talking about how such a reversal might be made. They both are flawed, Kucinich thinks individuals should be more constrained, Paul thinks Corporations should be less constrained. It is questionable that America is even a functioning Democracy anymore, so odds are he won't be permitted to win, even if he has the support.
If we wins, I might return to the country someday.
Finally! Followed by thank you! Yes, Ron Paul has the occasional good idea but that doesn't make up for his many extremely anti-libertarian ideas, particularly when it comes to just how much Christian evangelism ought to be dictating our personal choices.
Arghh. And the UN thing has always killed me. We created the rules, designed the field, plunked the arena down on our home turf, and guaranteed that we're one of the 5 permanent refs. American conservatives who scream about international laws and norms don't seem to get that we created (and actively advanced) those norms because we benefit from them tremendously. Would we be better off if we took our ball and went home, leaving the game to the Putins of the world?
I've been doing door-to-door canvassing for Dr. Paul for a few weeks now. We both share a pretty subversive worldview, and have had good convergences in opinion. Since I assume you judge me to be a pretty rational person, how do you reconcile your perspective on Ron Paul with my support of him?
I think we should all realize that Left and Right can be cancled out like zeroes in an equation, and the ultimate question is, does facism or freedom prevail? There are particular things that I disagree with about Ron Paul's positions, but, the wider movement is really the key.
Post a Comment