Ron Paul
No one seems to be excited about the Republican candidates in 2008. Pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Rudy Giuliani, while the frontrunner, doesn't seem to be getting the base fired up. John McCain appears to want to see how many times he can sink his campaign by supporting some crazy proposal (amnesty), then resurrect it. Everybody seems to have forgotten Fred Thompson is in the race, including himself. Now he's for it, now he's not Mitt Romney isn't getting anyone fired up, nor is he the frontrunner- except in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Since none of the mainstream candidates seem able to get the job done, many are looking to Ron Paul. Paul does have some genuinely good ideas. He is for a smaller government, reduced spending, and a very strong commitment to individual rights. But while he is sound on some issues, he is a disaster on most others. I do not exaggerate when I say that if somehow the election came down to Paul or Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Hillary. In a heartbeat.
If that sounds reactionary and shortsighted, consider Paul's foreign policy. He would withdraw from Iraq immediately, sending that country into a vicious civil war. It would also turn the United States into a laughing stock for the Islamic world- and it would be hard to blame them. If we turned and ran from Iraq, it is certain that some terrorists would follow us, and the ones already here would be emboldened. Our chances of getting hit again would rise dramatically.
Not that we would know what those chances were. Paul also wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA. He doesn't want any foreign entanglements. So we would have no idea what Al-Qeaeda or any other terrorist group is up to. And if another, comparable superpower ever appeared, the technology and information hijacked by people like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs during the Cold War would appear insignificant. In a world in which knowledge is power, any reduction in our intelligence gathering capabilities would be suicide.
Hillary would be make a poor President, but Paul would be incalculably worse. Hillary would hurt our national defense. Ron Paul would kill it. If Paul was elected, and managed to get any part of his radical agenda implemented, we would see another 9/11- and probably more than one.
posted by Daniel Ruwe @ 5:57 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Daniel, do you really think it could come down to Ron Paul vs Hillary? Could America be that uninformed?
sheesh its getting scarey following this election isnt it.............
I'm with you 100% on this, Daniel, except I don't think it will come down to a Hilary/rPaul election.
In Paul's libertarian platform the god is Liberty. I remember in the 80s the libertarian movement showed its face with student activism at Berkely and other avant-garde universities. Ron Pauls' campaign raises the same battle cry that the hippies raised in the cultural sphere: no limits, no restrictions. If I’m not hurting you, then I’m free to do it. In other words, it is the modern “tribal” life without interference of the state or any kind of authority. It is a form of anarchy. Then, every conservative could see this. Who would imagine that 20 years later conservatives and even traditional Catholics could jump on this bandwagon? Why? Because principles are not important anymore.
It is the anarchic formula of liberty of the French Revolution, and it cannot bring good fruit.
Ron Paul is an idiot that believes we attacked ourselves on 9-11.
There is NO chance I am voting for that dingbat!
For the record, Anarchy comes about as a result of too many laws and regulations. It is a result of backlash against the establishment.
Ron Paul's Libertarian roots have less correlation to anarchy and much more to laissez-faire/free market capitalism. And, quite frankly, there was much much more of it in early America which served us well (that is of course until the New Deal era).
Good job, Daniel.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home