Saturday, June 23, 2007

I like this guy


Ron Paul

It's usual that so-called fringe candidates have so much to say. Such as the idea that using force to meddle in others affairs may have some blow-back. Maybe the policy of the CIA taking out democratically-elected governments (Chile, Iran) has made other countries more likely to be pissed at the West, embrace a fundamentalist ideology?

The cusp...The CIA itself is doing a mea culpa over 30 years of spying on dissidents, taking out leaders, funding insurgents. Though the problem is, the CIA is saying, "that was then, we're better now." Really?

Also Ron Paul has this crazy idea that democracy should be spread by example instead of bombs. What is even more crazy is that Republicans are bashing him, though when you think of the insane amounts of dollars spent on defense, and the damage of war on markets, are hawk Republicans being conservative?

And that government ought to stay out of the bedrooms and private lives of gay couples. It's like he makes a distinction between public good and private belief...

I may not agree with Paul on privatizing all government entities. E.g. available, quality health care isn't necessarily a profit-making venture for privatization. And his stance on choice and government environmental protection (although, where has that gone?).

But I hope this guy has a high place in the next administration, instead of the comedy relief/puppets running now at the head of both parties.

The clip below is good, except Bill Maher's stupid talk about how everyone loved Clinton and JFK.

12 comments:

  1. Ron Paul is really a libertarian and not a republican. But I can't agree with him on alot of issues, including privatization of various industries (Enron anyone?), and immigration (one of the few issues I support the President's agenda on).

    But from what I can tell, the term 'republican' now means pro-Iraq war. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at how republicans consider conservatives who are against the war, such as Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel. They are marginal characters-not really republicans to them. On the other side of the isle, look at how democrats treat liberals who are for the war (the r-word is likely to come out).

    Granted the war is a marginalizing issue, but I have problems with the modern political discourse being based almost entirely on whether you're pro-Iraq war nor not...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good observation on the Iraq War's ability to delegitimize political players in both parties.

    I mainly like Ron Paul because he appears to be saying what's on his mind, despite the popularity contest that is today's political system.

    The libertarian streak is also appealing, why the hell are we spending so much money on a war that's pissing everyone off? Why is government in my bedroom? Why should government be spying on citizen's library files, phone messages.

    He has an argument, unlike the other candidates who spit out rhetoric, and I respect that argument though I may disagree with it (primarily on the issue of health care, basic government services, environmental protection) A private corporation likely will not get me affordable health care or give a shit about controlling air pollution.

    That's why I wouldn't want to see him president, but maybe a cabinet member?

    I've also seen a lot of interesting argument from Bill Richardson. Though he won't make it because he's not the right robot for the job. But he'd make a great secretary of state with his diplomatic and foreign policy credentials.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Paul's statement that we don't need other countries to love OR hate the U.S.; rather, we need them to respect the U.S., and that can only be achieved by setting a good example. However, I don't think that being non-interventionist is a feasible or beneficial foreign policy. I just don't have any answers about how to repair the horrifying level of damage the Bush administration has done to our foreign relations.

    ReplyDelete