Posts filed under 'Ron Paul'

Obsessive Fan Mindset

fandom.png

(from xkcd, where the alt text reveals that Ron Paul wants to put the New Republic back on the Corusca gem standard.)

January 7th, 2008 at 06:20pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Comics,Ron Paul

Pop Quiz

Who has scarier friends, Beagle Eyes or Bunny Ears?

I’m really struggling with this one, but I think I have to give Bunny Ears a slight edge.

2 comments January 6th, 2008 at 11:10pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Huckabee,Racism,Religion,Republicans,Ron Paul,Wankers

Ron Paul: Courage, Contradictions, And Cowardice

I just finished reading the transcript of Ron Paul’s appearance on Meet The Press, and it’s fascinating stuff. Paul says a lot of things, good and bad, that no other mainstream presidential candidate of either party would dare say. But there are also a couple of issues where he just sounds like a hypocritical weasel.

First, some examples of Paul’s extreme/controversial statements (and remember, I’m just bullet-pointing, not necessarily agreeing):

o Wants to abolish the income tax and IRS completely. No flat tax, no 20-25% hike in sales tax. Just get rid of it, and slash the budget down to “Constitutional size,” whatever that means.

o Wants to bring all 572,000 overseas troops home. Says they’re not protecting America where they are, cost hundreds of billions a year, and make the world hate and mistrust us.

o Would not defend South Korea against attack by North Korea, would not defend Israel from attack by Iran, which he says is an absurdity anyway (“That is like saying, ‘Iran is about to invade Mars.’”)

o Would cut off all aid to Israel and the Arab world, and butt out of Israel’s affairs because our involvement and aid is holding them back diplomatically and economically.

o Al-Qaeda attacked us because our troops are all over the Middle East (Saudi Arabia in particular), not because they “hate our freedoms.” If we leave the Middle East, al-Qaeda recruitment will dry up and they’ll leave us alone.

o Hates wars of any kind (including the “War On Drugs”) because they make people “more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure.”

o All drugs should be decriminalized at the federal level, with legality decided by the states.

o Wants to eliminate the Department of Education, but denies ever saying that public schools should be abolished.

o Kids should be allowed to opt out of Social Security because it’s not keeping up with inflation (not entirely sure on this one – Paul’s response was hard to follow, and Timmeh didn’t pursue it).

o The Civil Rights Act was bad because it was an overreach of federal power into the state and private spheres, and poisoned race relations in America.

o The Civil War was completely unnecessary – the government should have just bought up all the slaves and freed them.

Alrighty then. (Unless I missed it, there was no mention of his support for the gold standard, or his opposition to abortion, which seems at odds with his libertarianism unless he believes that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother.)

It takes some serious balls for a presidential candidate to say that we brought 9/11 on ourselves (by the way, does Ron Paul ever get attacked as a soft-on-terror, Qaeda-coddling weakling, or does that only apply to Democrats?), just like it takes some serious balls to say that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. He may be racist and half-crazy, but he’s not holding back. Until you get to earmarks and term limits, and then he goes all squirrelly:

MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district…. This is the Houston Chronicle: “Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also” “represented a congressional district that’s consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government’s” fiscal “2006 fiscal year,” “it received more than $4 billion.” And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. “The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.’ There isn’t much that” Ron–Dr. “Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks” for his district “are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill,” all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.

(…)

REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I’ve never voted for an earmark in my life.

MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.

REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn’t cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?

(…)

MR. RUSSERT: …and then you, then you know it’s going to pass Congress and so you, you don’t refuse the money.

REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It’s like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I’m against the taxes but I take all my tax credits….

Got that? He’s opposed to earmarks, but he requests them for his own district. But then he votes against them, so it’s okay! It’s not his fault that the pork-laden bills pass, Ron Paul did all he could to hold the line against government spending. He says that pork is wrong… but as long as Congress is going to keep voting for it, he wants to make sure he gets some too.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask this. Term limits. You ran on term limits. “I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders.” You’ve been in Congress 18 years.

REP. PAUL: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There’s a big difference. I didn’t sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn’t, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left. And it’s true, I, I didn’t run on that, Tim, you’re wrong on that. I support term limits. You know, I, I, and I voted all–we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them…. But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits. It’s good to have a turnover, but that isn’t the solution either. It’s the philosophy of government that counts. It’s only…

MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn’t you voluntarily…

REP. PAUL: Well, it’s, it’s one of those, it’s one of those things that’s not on–I mean, you don’t see that out I’m campaigning on that. I mean, I don’t think it’s–I don’t think it’s the solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

It’s just like the earmarks. Paul professes to believe in term limits, but as long as everyone else is benefitting from the lack of compulsory term limits, he figures he should too.

To me he sounds like a baseball player who thinks steroids are ruining the game but uses them anyway, just to keep up with everyone else. It may be understandable, but it’s not exactly what you’d call a principled stand.

5 comments December 23rd, 2007 at 07:06pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Elections,Politics,Republicans,Ron Paul


Contact Eli

Salk Institute 6




Choose a color scheme:

Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

August 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *