Homer_Rice Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Thought I'd pass along an editorial written by a friend of mine who is the editorial page editor for a mid-sized newspaper. He's a bow-tie wearing, classical liberal...but he has a point: [quote] [b]Why Not Ron Paul?[/b] The Republican crackup continues apace. And it is hurting their brand. Common sense, the late-night comedians, and the polls all tell you that. What is going on now is that many in the GOP are looking for someone -- almost anyone -- to displace their titular front-runner, Mitt Romney. They still just don’t like him. In the new Gallup poll Romney has only 10 percent of the GOP primary electorate. Think about that. The man was runner-up for the nomination four years ago. In a score of debates this season he has dominated -- the only one (save Ron Paul) who sometimes looks presidential, or at least does not look like a total fool. Every pundit and every focus group has said Romney won every single debate. And yet his numbers have actually declined among the Republican base. In the most recent CBS poll, Herman Cain leads with 18 percent and Romney ties with Newt Gingrich at 15 percent. Good grief: Cain is a rank amateur, wracked by a scandal he has mishandled, and he leads. Romney is the epitome of preparation, control, and rectitude and has been running for president for the better part of a decade. He’s behind Cain? The GOP voter core has careened wildly from alternative to alternative -- Sarah Palin (remember her?), Donald Trump, Michele Bachman (two weeks at the top), Rick Perry, and Cain. It’s been a clown show. It is also a primary within a primary: the contest for the mantle of the anti-Romney; the un-Mitt. And it’s shifting again. The polls and the political hounds say that, Perry and Cain having self-destructed, right-wingers and evangelicals have begun to move to Gingrich. He will be the next favorite of the month. Newt Gingrich? The man is a moral and intellectual mass of noxious goo. He’s also been peddling his brand of snake oil for decades. Nominating Gingrich would be like trading your car in for a 1980 Chevy Citation. Skippy the Wonderdog would be a more relevant and noble nominee. Why the suicide wish to nominate a total yahoo just to keep from giving the prize to the “reasonable guy” (George Bush the Elder’s description of Romney)? Two reasons: Right-wingers suspect that Romney believes in precisely nothing. He is simply a professional businessman and politician who will say and do what he has to do to make the sale. Second, they are offended that the one thing Romney accomplished in his one term in elective office -- medical insurance reform -- mirrors the accomplishment they most despise by the current Democratic president. They have two good points. Yet Romney will probably win the nomination because the right cannot settle on one anti- Romney -- at least not one who is not a joke. So why not Paul? Unlike the other alternatives to Romney, he is a man of principle and dignity. To many it seems clear that some of those principles, and Paul’s applications of them, are dead wrong. (Paul would abolish Social Security, for example.) But at least he has principles. There are two models available to the Republican Party. One is comedic nihilism. (I want to abolish three departments of the federal executive branch. I just can’t remember what one of them is.) The other model is the traditional Republican model: We must limit the power and the growth of government. All the major Republicans of the last century took this basic tack, in varying degrees -- Goldwater, Reagan, Buckley, Eisenhower, Taft. All were some shade of libertarian conservative, which is what Paul is. The other GOP candidates of 2012 are not anything. They have no worldview, no public philosophy, only gimmicks and sound bites that they memorize and try to repeat without forgetting or muffing. Paul is sometimes dismissed as an extremist. But four of those five great Republicans of the past were also called extremist at one time or another. Ike was always a moderate and he believed in the social safety net and the welfare state, which Paul does not. But he was a libertarian moderate who disliked bloated government, especially in the military. Paul is a critic of a blank-check military and of a foreign policy of empire. These were very much Eisenhower’s concerns from the end of his presidency to the end of his life. If Republicans have something constructive to offer the country, it is pointing out that government, by its nature, overreaches, overtaxes, and overestimates its ability to solve problems. Paul is an eloquent spokesman for this respected American political tradition. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1321629733' post='1063657'] Thought I'd pass along an editorial written by a friend of mine who is the editorial page editor for a mid-sized newspaper. He's a bow-tie wearing, classical liberal...but he has a point: [/quote] Much of what he says is accurate. And, his last line of the article is on point. But, the Repub party is a dumpster fire right now... not to say the Dems are any better. Obama will win again because "everyone else sucks as bad or worse"... considering the candidates from the two popular parties. Pretty sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Agree wholeheartedly, Vol. The only Repub that I sort of like as a potential prez is Huntsman. Interesting, the following editorial is from the same paper, same week (this week) but a different author. It's from the managing editor and he is a hardcore Republican (closer to Eisenhower than Taft--but he does like Fred Bastiat a lot.) [quote]With President Obama rehabilitating Herbert Hoover, all the Republican Party has to do to win the next presidential election is nominate someone halfway sane. But most candidates for the Republican nomination seem to be wooing people mad with rage. Distress about the country's decline is certainly the prerequisite for change. But while rage may win a party primary, an election is something else, and many distressed voters may be only more distressed the more they see of the Republican candidates. Businessman Herman Cain, who says God told him to run for president, may be the foremost candidate of rage, what with his proposal to raise taxes on the poor and reduce them on the rich, his reckless mouthing off, and a sexual harassment problem as serious as any of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions." Yet many conservatives seem eager to forgive Cain for the sort of character flaw for which they sought to crucify Clinton. That Cain continues to place well in Republican polls suggests that much of the party is so angry that it [ITALICS] wants [END ITALICS] to give offense. At their debate the other night most of the Republican candidates, including sometime front-runner Mitt Romney, advocated waging pre-emptive war against Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. No one questioned the legality of such a war. (That pre-emptive war now is taken for granted may be the only lasting legacy of the Bush II and Obama administrations.) Cain and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann even pledged to resume "waterboarding" terrorism suspects -- that is, to apply Nazi torture tactics to people who have been tried and convicted of [ITALICS] nothing at all. [END ITALICS] At the last debate Texas Gov. Rick Perry was reduced to making fun of his inability during the previous debate to remember one of the three federal agencies he wants to abolish. For him, empty posturing comes way ahead of interest in public policy. Two Republican candidates, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, have not yet made themselves ridiculous -- nor, unfortunately, won enough support to be taken seriously. As none of the Republican candidates has a meaningful lead in polls of party members and as the lead keeps switching, it seems that many party members would like something different. If the polls keep showing that a "generic" Republican can defeat Obama but that the president can defeat any of the Republicans already in the race, will Republicans take the hint about mere rage? * * * In one of his "B.C." comic strips almost 50 years ago, the cartoonist Johnny Hart summarized what was becoming the country's political economy. The strip showed two cavemen hiding behind a boulder as they watched a sleeping dinosaur. One caveman said to the other, "Watch this," plucked a thorn from a bush, snuck up on the dinosaur, plunged the thorn into the poor creature's foot, and dashed back to hide behind the boulder again. The dinosaur woke up and hopped around crying in pain until the caveman who had inflicted it walked over, sat the animal down, removed the thorn, and was hailed by the dinosaur as its savior. Whereupon the second caveman appeared from behind the boulder and declared: "My boy, you're ready for politics!" This seems to be what has happened with the "jobs" legislation recently produced by Governor Malloy and a special session of the General Assembly. State government created two serious problems and now would claim credit for remediating them. The centerpiece of the "jobs" legislation is the borrowing of $340 million to be dispensed as loans to favored businesses. Another $40 million would create at three vocational schools and three community colleges the manufacturing technology training program already in operation at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield. The whole "jobs" package would borrow more than $600 million. Would such special patronage for business be necessary if Connecticut, once the most prosperous state, hadn't taxed itself into decline over the last 20 years? And while specialized job training is necessary in some circumstances, the "jobs" legislation overlooks the state's underlying educational problem. For proficiency tests keep telling Connecticut what state government itself discovered last year when it surveyed freshmen in the state university and community college systems. That is, most elementary and high school students in the state are being promoted from grade to grade and then even being admitted into college without having mastered basic skills. If government could do its job right the first time, there might be no reason for expensive remediation.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Paul, IMO, is clearly the most capable of the GOP candidates to run a nation. He is one of, if not the most honest politician in the country and that's a big step up from...everyone? I've been trying to not focus on a person's (especially a politician's) most extreme view points as it doesn't give an accurate picture of the whole. But some of Paul's opinions on the role of federal government and limitations of the constitution make me wary. We really can't do away with social security or child labor laws for instance even if it also means he believes they shouldn't be regulating weed. But I can't imagine with the recent state of congressional inefficiency he would get even a quarter of his ideas into law, and he wants nothing to do with wars so I could probably muster up enough pride swallowing to support him. That said, he'll never get the nomination...dude can't even get 90 seconds of air time in the debates. He could produce the most lucid explanation of the missteps of current American imperialism that would give even a passionate Islamaphobe pause to reconsider, but you wouldn't hear about it on any of the news networks or read about it in any of the papers because he doesn't sell. There is no drama to Ron Paul and we fucking love drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I love Paul's stance on our military and foreign policy (reign in our military and use them to protect our country instead of implementing our foreign policy preferences, stop bombing the bejesus out of people who did nothing to us, stop being so damned imperialistic) but his domestic policy views terrify me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Well Herman Cain is quoting the Pokemon movie, that has to mean good things for our country right? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93R8DryOXZc[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1321637940' post='1063705'] I love Paul's stance on our military and foreign policy (reign in our military and use them to protect our country instead of implementing our foreign policy preferences, stop bombing the bejesus out of people who did nothing to us, stop being so damned imperialistic) but his domestic policy views terrify me... [/quote] This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I guess it's good for both of you that as President, he'd be Commander-in-Chief of the military but completely unable to dictate domestic policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1321642446' post='1063728'] I guess it's good for both of you that as President, he'd be Commander-in-Chief of the military but completely unable to dictate domestic policy. [/quote] I get the sense that if we ever come across a president who wants to reign in the military, he would likely lose that ability too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 [quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1321642446' post='1063728'] I guess it's good for both of you that as President, he'd be Commander-in-Chief of the military but completely unable to dictate domestic policy. [/quote] No but some of the things he would want is pretty supported with the R base, especially the removal of SS, that it wouldnt be too difficult to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Finklestein Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I am soooo glad I don't have horse in this race. I'd be really down on my party if these guys were the cream of the crop. Steve Christie would have been a godsend for the Republican party if he would have run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1321653597' post='1063787'] No but some of the things he would want is pretty supported with the R base, especially the removal of SS, that it wouldnt be too difficult to get. [/quote] He wants to allow people to opt out of SS, he has no intention of not honoring the promises made to those who have already paid in. [url="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/"]http://www.ronpaul20...estore-america/[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Social_Security"]http://en.wikipedia....Social_Security[/url] [b] Social Security[/b] Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-Texas_Straight_Talk-133"][134][/url][/sup] Paul says that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)"]Social Security[/url] is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-townhall2-12"][13][/url][/sup] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Treasury_bonds"]U.S. Treasury bonds[/url]. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-townhall2-12"][13][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-orlandodebate-134"][135][/url][/sup] [sup]Still blows my mind that Paul is harangued on SS, not the two parties spending its funds like drunken sailors.[/sup] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 [url="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/"]10 Reasons not to Vote for Ron Paul[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 stopped reading when they called him racist, though addictinginfo.com is quite the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.