marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
[personal profile] marahmarie

Second. After coming in third in Iowa. For him, these are better-than-usual finishes. Our favorite candidate who we know will never win, but who can divide the ticket as neatly as Nader or Perot ever did, seems to almost have a chance. Not that I want him for president; I don't (my usual ability to reach across the aisle, which caused me to rather happily endure both W. and Reagan, has evaporated with this bunch - except for Gingrich, whom I have weird soft spot for). I did want Paul in office a few years ago, but I've read and listened to too much since then to continue to believe he's 1) serious presidential material or 2) anywhere near liberal enough - and my liberal streak just will not quit. But...I love the guy despite all that. He's got tons of spunk and so many good ideas I can't count them up on both hands.

People should listen to him - and take notes - even if they don't elect him; he's not one to parade around like a peacock wasting everyone's time (and I'm lookin' at you guys, Romney/Huntsman/Santorum: put up something of substance or just go away already). I wish Ron Paul the best...if he makes vice prez maybe he can finally convince Congress to bust up the Federal Reserve and return us to a gold-backed, non-fiat financial system...I'd enjoy seeing that, honestly.

(no subject)

Date: Jan. 14th, 2012 02:47 pm (UTC)
tuzemi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] tuzemi
The sad thing about the Ron Paul campaign isn't that he's this weird granola mix of Old Skool allegedly-liberal ideas (ending the wars, shutting down the police state, etc.) and Really Old Skool Old White Guy ideas (racism, anti-abortion, etc.), it's that by him being the only candidate seriously pushing the most important issues like winding down the American Empire in a controlled fashion everyone gets to pretend that those ideas are unworkable and beyond the pale.

In the same way Candidate Obama was carefully curated to be a mirror for everyone to project their hopes onto, Candidate Paul seems like a deliberate choice to lock up the best policy memes into a crappy jalopy so the key voting blocs won't look too close.

(no subject)

Date: Jan. 16th, 2012 06:03 pm (UTC)
tuzemi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] tuzemi
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd have to look into it some more, but I don't think any faction of any political party nor any PAC has put him up to running on the odd cornucopia of ideas he puts forth solely because those ideas, when combined, make him unelectable, therefore drawing votes away from a more middle-of-the-road Republican candidate (which is what your comment seems to imply).

I'm coming at things more from a somewhere-beyond-the-American-left standpoint. My favored candidate in 2008 was Dennis Kucinich; for 2012 I have no favored candidate. I think that anyone looking at Ron Paul will find half of his positions great and half horrible, but every observer will have a different dividing line.

I don't see Ron Paul (RP) as a serious contender like say Ross Perot was in 1992, but more like Lyndon LaRouche or Ralph Nader, always running for President but never really expecting to win. I don't think there is a well-defined conspiracy of Powers-That-Be (PTB) that are telling him to run, but at the same time they probably find his runs very convenient to make rolling back the big policy mistakes of the last 40 years politically untenable. (Things like: pulling out of NATO, undoing NAFTA, ending the Drug War, closing the hundreds of foreign bases we operate, etc.) I think the PTB definitely send him funds and do some backroom organizing with the other candidates to ensure they don't try to compete with RP on these issues.

They're hypocrites at heart, touting the Tea Party message yet hoping like hell it won't turn off even one middle-of-the-road voter. That's why I can't stand most of them.

I have yet to see any evidence that the Tea Party will ever sit out an election, or that they are anything other than the true heart of the GOP ever since the Dixiecrats switched over after LBJ. I think Romney will get 90% of the Tea Party vote, even as they claim he isn't a real Christian, or is part of the 1%, or whatever.

It is a shame that in this election - and the last - Ron Paul has been the only candidate willing to tell the truth about where we are in America and where we need to go.

Kucinich had the right ideas in 2008, but he was shut out even faster than RP. (And people from both sides point to their shared ideas to discredit the other.) And of course the Green Party have about 85% great ideas, but they too are shut out. The best explanation I've seen so far comes from Rogue State, which basically says that regardless of which party is in power, America will always pursue an imperial agenda. Believe it or not I was set to vote against Al Gore in 2000 because of Clinton's atrocious record on civil liberties. (Due to a moving mishap I was unable to vote at all. But who knew GWB's civil rights record could even be so much worse than Clinton's?)

The racial past he comes accused of having is what kills him as a candidate more than any of his ideas, most of which are sound. And it's the one mark against him that, if you believe the official story, is not his direct doing: he used to publish a newsletter under his name that was ghost-written by someone else. He allegedly never read it before each edition was published, so he supposedly didn't know until some undetermined time after the fact how racially slewed it was. It's hard to believe that was the case, though, so I can see clearly why that story will always cause him problems.

I don't believe RP's story honestly. I'm from Texas, and even have relatives in RP's district. RP's comments are no different from what I have seen in my own family and Texan co-workers (especially in the oil/gas/chemicals industry), and I'm sure plenty of them would have been willing to put that to print way back when.