"No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq -- or anywhere else on foreign soil.
"The Internal Revenue Service would be history in the first week that Ron Paul sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. And the dismantling of the above-mentioned entities and relationships -- plus a long list of others -- soon would commence.
"Think that sounds eccentric, strange, even crazy?" Why, no. It sounds like a start.
Thus begins an excellent article on Ron Paul's candidacy in the Chicago Tribune entitled, "Paul: A Seller of Ideas." The article, unlike so much that passes for political journalism, focuses on the candidate's--Personality? No. Fundraising? No. Popularity? No.--ideas. What a novel idea, a political article about ideas. What a novel idea, a political candidate with ideas.
I'm certainly coming closer to supporting him in the primary (I still plan to stay home during the general). Some of his libertarian commitments are misconceived (e.g., legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution), but even so, he's far and away the best candidate concerning abortion, taxation, foreign policy, and fiscal conservatism.
That said, it seems to me that, at the very least, he makes ambiguous comments that seem to be aimed at appealing to the conspiracy theorists. In the linked article the reporter gives the following quotation: "In terms of foreign policy, [Paul] said, 'I make them feel good that you can be conservative and pro-truth and pro-American and pro-Constitution and not want to go to war for needless purposes.'" When I see the phrase "pro-truth" in this context, I think of the "9/11 truthers." I understand that Paul has publically opposed such conspiracy theories. Which makes me wonder whether the ambiguous phrases he uses are a clever way to gain the votes of the crazies.
And how, with our huge top heavy corrupt government systems, is a Utopian like Paul supposed to get elected by stating the obvious truth?
Yes, his ideas are wonderful. But reality says that they will never see the light of day in a practical sense.
asdf,
I used to share your opinion (and still do to an extent). However, it is becoming clear to me that Paul has no intention of dropping out of the race prior to the Convention; and he certainly has the money to keep going. If he has any support, and remains in the race to the Convention, he'll get some delegates. And then the other candidates will have to pay him and his ideas some attention.
Although I stand by my comments, I agree with you in principle.
Overall, I think that Paul has some good ideas and he seems very committed to them. So, even though I was and to an extent still am a Romney guy, I’m coming around to Paul and will vote for him. But not for the reasons you’d expect.
To be honest, I don’t think Paul has a chance (and that’s too bad) but I think that if enough people vote for him and his share of the primary vote ends up significant, a good showing by him might serve to make a statement about how tired people are of the “same old same old” of Presidential candidates.
Last time in the general election, we had a choice between two men of privilege (and both members of Skull and Bones). As it turns out, philosophically, there was very little difference between them.
This time, the other guys are all sounding like each other and it’s become hard to distinguish one from the other.
Paul is the only one that stands out among them.
"I'm certainly coming closer to supporting him in the primary (I still plan to stay home during the general). Some of his libertarian commitments are misconceived (e.g., legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution), but even so, he's far and away the best candidate concerning abortion, taxation, foreign policy, and fiscal conservatism." - Ralph
He doesn't advocate legalizing either at the federal level. He believes it is the province of the states to decide. Like anyone with any sense, he recognizes the war on drugs as a colossal failure that has achieved nothing but the creation of large criminal empires in South America and failed utterly to stop drug use in the United States.
Paul has little chance unfortunately. For that reason I likely will not bother voting in 2008.
Fine. He's for removing federal prohibitions of recreational drugs, and that's a mistake.
The "war on drugs" has failed for one reason, open borders. If the border were secured, drug traffic would dramatically decrease.
The War on Drugs has failed for one reason. There is a demand for drugs. Prohibition has failed always and everywhere. Even the draconian methods of the Soviet Union and Red China failed utterly to shut down black markets in forbidden goods.
Furthermore, even accepting a drug free society as a benefit (I see this as a benefit no more than an alcohol or tobacco free society. If drugs were legal, drug users would function in society just as alcohol and tobacco users function today. Drugs such as opium were perfectly legal prior to the progressive era of the early 20th century, with no wide scale breakdown in society.) at what point does the cost outweigh the benefit?
This problem is the reason *all* government action is ultimately doomed to failure. We have a benefit: A drug free society. We have a cost: The civil liberties we give up, the productive opportunities we fork over, etc, to make sure this benefit is achieved. Does the benefit outweigh the cost? Because utility is an inherently subjective notion, there is no way for the government to know. Calculating how to allocate resources is impossible without a price mechanism. How many of our liberties and our productive opportunities should we give up to make sure some stupid hippie who isn't bothering anybody doesn't take a hit off a bong in some college dorm room?
I am willing to give up none.
And finally, there is a very simple way to abolish widespread drug addiction without waging a costly and doomed war on drugs. Abolish the welfare state. If people are forced to deal with the costs of their actions, sans government aid, they will be forced to turn to traditional social support methods, such as church and family, for help. These institutions, rather than simply forking over money, will actually take a personal interest in the lives of their charges, and insist on changes for the better in exchange for further aid.
Conservatives seldom realize that their attempts to put the state in the traditional roles of church & family constitutes a direct assault on both. But it does, and invariably leads to terrifying results.
P.S: On the issue of prostitution, we should learn here from the wisdom of the Catholic Church, who largely tolerated prostitution in medieval Europe. Men using prostitutes is bad, no doubt. But consider the unintended side effects of keeping men who are of low enough moral standing that they desire prostitutes from getting access to them.
Rape.
Violence against women and between men.
Homosexuality.
The list goes on.
Ben-T, you should still vote in the primaries. I too have no plans for the general election but Paul is now on an uptick in national polls (5-6%) and in the early primary states is also polling very well usually putting him 3rd or 4th (which means above McCain and Thompson, e.g.). Therefore, like Ralph says he really could end up impacting the GOP positively, and since we are stuck w/ these two national parties we may as well try and do that.
I agree w/ Ralph that his strict constitutionalism as regards drugs (possibly medical marijuana and hemp excluded) isn't a great stance. But it is one of those which is consistent w/ his views but difficult to see how it could be implemented by him when I doubt Congress would go for it. One thing he has regularly done in interviews is downplay his desire to e.g., get rid of the Dept. of Ed or whatever by saying that it is a goal but would be difficult to achieve as President b/c he would need Congress' support. But in the areas he can impact in a regular presidential term I think he is spot on.
As for prostitution I don't think there are any federal laws regarding it. Isn't that how Nevada can have it legal? I know St. Augustine and St. Thomas both thought that prohibitions against it may be counter-productive, Augustine says something about if restricted lust would rule the world. However, I think we are doing okay even w/o a general legalization of it. It isn't a big issue for me in presidential politics.
I think what Ralph is seeing though is his willingness to be consistent regarding his principles of constitutionalism and federalism which we are simply unaccustomed to from pols.
BTW,
I submitted an application to be a Ron Paul delegate at the Convention. Now let's just hope he can fare well enough in Gotham against Rudy so I have a chance to be a spoiler at the Convention.
"Ben-T, you should still vote in the primaries. I too have no plans for the general election but Paul is now on an uptick in national polls (5-6%) and in the early primary states is also polling very well usually putting him 3rd or 4th (which means above McCain and Thompson, e.g.). Therefore, like Ralph says he really could end up impacting the GOP positively, and since we are stuck w/ these two national parties we may as well try and do that." - Bruce Wayne
Oh, certainly I plan to vote for Paul in the primaries.
"As for prostitution I don't think there are any federal laws regarding it. Isn't that how Nevada can have it legal? I know St. Augustine and St. Thomas both thought that prohibitions against it may be counter-productive, Augustine says something about if restricted lust would rule the world. However, I think we are doing okay even w/o a general legalization of it. It isn't a big issue for me in presidential politics." - Bruce Wayne
You are correct. But the impression I get from the other things Ralph said is that he desires a federal ban on it.
Oh Ralph on the truther comment.
I think that is thin gruel, the reason being that I can't see the motive to appeal, even subtly, to a very small number of people whom no one would be happy that he appealed to. That is, the downside seems to far outweigh any perceived benefit politically.
Basically, I haven't gotten the impression that he panders to anyone. For example, he gave a talk to some sort of Arab-American League and the first thing he told them was that he was asked if he had prepared a certain speech for this particular audience and that he had responded "no, its the same speech I give everywhere." Obviously his own denial of pandering isn't proof, but I just haven't seen the clear signs of tailored inconsistency, or changes in accent marks as I have followed him that indicates such activity. Therefore, I don't see why he would think it behooves him to drop in lines pandering to a small nutty fringe. So I am inclined to read those ambiguous statements as ambiguous only by their abstractness and not by an intent to slyly pander. he is very clearly attacking the staus quo of both parties so it seems only natural that the fringe types gravitate towards him more than some other candidates.
"No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq -- or anywhere else on foreign soil....
What a novel idea, a political article about ideas. What a novel idea, a political candidate with ideas.
Yes.
So many ideas.
Eliminating Medicare? Pulling out willy-nilly of NATO? Scrapping the Federal Reserve?
These are ideas that very, very few people support.
I sometimes wonder if a few of my fellow conservatives don't deserve the intellectual morons label for supporting such a guy...out of blind allegiance to the rigidly ideological positions he maintains.
Doug,
Why not debate the merits/demerits of the ideas and positions rather than cast off an appeal to purported majority opinion and then slandering conservatives who hold the positions. Dan didn't go into any of Paul's justifications for holding these views but neither have you offered any reasons to support them. Or do your just get your kicks making a donkey of yourself?
My apologies. You're right. Perhaps I was too aggressive in my previous comment.
Here's my hang-up: I get the same vibe from Ron Paul that I do from Dennis Kucinich. They both don't project any pragmatism. They both come off as rigid ideologues. And they're not in this to win (see: Paul's appearance on Face the Nation this past Sunday).
I went to Paul's web site and couldn't find anything concrete as to what his plans/proposals/ideas are on most issues. For example, nothing on the site about energy policy that I could find, while the other major candidates such as Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney, all have either outlines or detailed documents explaining their energy policies somewhat. Ditto for tech issues.
I think that most conservatives are fully aware, thanks to the dedicated legion of Paul supporters, that he is "pro-liberty, pro-constitution, pro-American." But if that translates into, as I put it, "eliminating Medicare, pulling out willy-nilly of NATO, and scrapping the Federal Reserve," then Paul the candidate is nuts. People vote in elections. And the American people are not going to vote for that platform of ideas.
Now, that said, I have enormous respect for Dan and would be interested in hearing more about why he supports Paul. As a bonus, I doubt he'll immediately call me "donkey" for questioning Paul's ideas.
Doug have you listened to Ron Paul respond to any question similar to the one you raise? He is asked them frequently, and at almost every debate.
His answer has never been something along the lines of "let's scrap medicare and let the cards fall where they may". He understands the transition problem and frequently talks about ways to make it without ensuing chaos.
I don't understand what it proves to vote in the primary and not the general election. Is that some kind of half a$$ed protest?
To be involved and be heard you have to be involved all whole way. Not just when you're voting for the candidate you're currently swooning over.
Let's get real though; similar to my all time favorite candidate Pat Buchanan, a forthright honest guy like Paul will never have a chance in our current political system.
What we're really heading for or are already at is a political monarchy where most of the same financially top heavy power mongers stay in office for as long as they like. Their ideas aren’t new and they have adopted the necessary play along compromise attitude necessary to maintain power.
This is why they’re generally so far askew of the philosophies of the people they pretend to represent.
It’s interesting that we measure the projected success of candidates not by what they believe in or say but by how much money they raise.
ASDF,
Your appraisal in your second post kind of answers your question about why some people would participate in the primary but not general election doesn't it? That is, they see a way to effect the party in the primary by clearly getting behind a candidate that is speaking plainly and in a more traditional conservative manner. But, since we all would be shocked to all hell if Paul got the nomination we are expecting to have a "more of the same" candidate in the general election. At that point the only way to try and get a point across to teh GOP is to let it get shellacked by the Dems. Then maybe they will redefine themselves back more to their conservative roots.
I think that is the reasoning process.
Doug,
I will retract the donkey comment since you have stuck around to actually debate, it was a like response to you calling us Paul supporters intellectual morons (assuming you wanted both terms ascribed to us and not simply the latter).
Here is Paul on energy policy in an interview I just happened to read last night. It can be found here Paul interview :
Boulder weekly: "What specific steps, if any, should the government take toward the use of renewable energy?"
Paul: "They should just get out of the way and let price determine it. When there's a prohibition against certain forms, there shouldn't be a prohibition. Like nuclear. It's not prohibited, but they're [the government] in the way all the time. I don't think we've had a nuclear plant in over 20 years, and it's the cheapest and the safest. And that might contribute to the lowering of other prices, like lowering the price of natural gas.
The politicians and bureaucrats have no idea what the best form of fuel is. If they subsidize one, and let's say it's gonna be ethanol, they might make a mistake, and a lot of people think we have made a mistake. It might take as much energy to create a gallon as what you get. So you want the market to work so that there are other forms. Brazil is a lot more effective by using sugar cane as a form of energy, but we don't subsidize sugar cane.
Of course, one of the greatest sources of ethanol is hemp, but we can't use that because it's illegal in this country for some bi-zarre reason. So the Canadians grow the hemp, and we just have to get out of that attitude that we have to regulate everything. The market will determine what is renewable and how necessary it is. If we ended the war, the prices would drop. If we continue the war, oil is going to be $200 a barrel, and someone is going to have to do something. Our problem in Washington is that they subsidize this and prohibit that, and then when the.y come up with a program for energy, there are tremendous subsidies for corporations. They have funds in there to give to the giant energy companies. And it shouldn't be that way. I have a lot more faith in the market than the government does."
******
What is wrong w/ that? Free market principles, reduce government interference, stop manipulating the market irrationally w/ corporate subsidies, etc. These are sound and traditional conservative principles.
So Doug,
Why did you think that his interview w/ Schieffer demonstrated that Paul is not in it to win? What does that mean anyway?
And to respond to other stances you mention, on Medicare, when asked about it he has repeatedly stated that he understands that the President can't simply abolish these programs. He also says that he has no intention of forcing people out into the street. Do you really think that a President Paul, against the will of a Democratic Congress could waltz in and in 4 years, or even 8 simply get rid of all the bureaucratic Leviathan? These are ideals and he knows that.
His plans are for budgetary restraint so thata program like Medicare will be fiscally solvent and then to encourage young people to opt out and take care of themselves This is a general stance of encouraging self-reliance and responsibility, quite Reaganesque I think.
NATO is an anachronism as the enemy it was created to defend against ceased to exist well over a decade ago. Now it is more trouble than good since the US has expanded it, w/ a complete lack of prudence, right up into Russia's grill. Also, we pay for it almost entirely, and we are generally NATO's military. This is an unreasonable state of affairs that should be stopped. Look, new international alliances are formed and dissolved throughoutt the history of Europe as situations dictate. There is no reason to be sentimentally attached to NATO.
The federal reserve position is too involved for me to fully explain it in this comment, but he is dead right about restricting its power. Just watch the video of him addressing Ben Bernanke this past week and see for yourself. Also, the financial ana-lysts like Larry Kudlow and on CNBC generally were very much respectful of Paul's stance. Those videos are interesting as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvirM1goFq4&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URgXOJm1P6w&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNH5Xy8_0NM&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
He is clearly the best informed politician on fiscal and monetary matters in a very long while, like Don Luskin says on Kudlow.
"I don't understand what it proves to vote in the primary and not the general election. Is that some kind of half a$$ed protest?
To be involved and be heard you have to be involved all whole way. Not just when you're voting for the candidate you're currently swooning over." - asdf
To be involved in what? I'm not interested in "being involved" for its own sake. Other than Ron Paul I cannot name any Republican running that I think would be better than any of the mainstream democrats.
Doug: I support "eliminating Medicare, pulling out willy-nilly of NATO, and scrapping the Federal Reserve" because these are all good ideas.
Medicare is socialized medicine for old people. All conservatives opposed it in 1965, just like all conservatives oppose universal socialized medicine today. If universal socialized medicine gets passed in the next few years, methinks some self-identifying conservatives forty years from now will say how crazy it is to be against socialized medicine (although they will surely call it by another name).
NATO demands of member states that they defend other member states who have been attacked. See Washington's Farewell Address for why that is a bad idea. See also the opposition to NATO of "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft. Times change, but bad ideas don't eventually become good ideas. If anything, with the end of the Cold War, NATO is now more irrelavent than ever.
The Federal Reserve violaes Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, shifting a dollar's worth is as patently dishonest as meddling with weights and measures. A pint should be a pint. A dollar should be a dollar. The act creating the Fed outlined its purpose as "to furnish an elastic currency." This was a proposal born out of a hubristic age when men believed they could scientifically manage economies, societies, etc. It deserved to die with that age. Consider that in the century-plus prior to the Fed the dollar inflated about six cents. In the century or so after the Fed, it has inflated by nearly $22.
I agree with you that few people agree with these positions. I think they are wrong, which is why I both disagree with them and support Ron Paul.
P.S. I don't think you're a "donkey" either!
I suppose if your selection gets through the primary then it’s a win win for you. But regardless of whether or not your chosen candidate wins or how distasteful the eventual nominee happens to appear to you personally, aren’t you abandoning your Party if you don’t support it in the general election?
I don’t think it accomplishes anything when people protest the vote by casting one for a third party candidate or by not voting at all. Let’s face it, somebody is going to get elected and choosing the best candidate from a field of even poor candidates accomplishes something, doesn’t it?
And yes Ben, being involved for its own sake and for the sake of the Party that you supposedly support is important. At least down the line there’s a better chance that some of that Party’s political philosophies will be maintained and maybe the right judges will be appointed regardless of who the candidate is. But I can’t say you don’t have a point with regard to how some of the alleged GOP candidates are thisclose to the Dem ones. Unfortunately, it often times becomes the lesser of two evils, doesn’t it?
We do know this: all prospective nominees for the Democrats are way left and way radical. So until the Dems come back with a standard bearer who is politically and socially more sane, even our resident GOP lefty Rudi would be more palatable.
"I suppose if your selection gets through the primary then it’s a win win for you. But regardless of whether or not your chosen candidate wins or how distasteful the eventual nominee happens to appear to you personally, aren’t you abandoning your Party if you don’t support it in the general election?" - asdf
I'm not a Republican, so no. If I was, maybe.
"I don’t think it accomplishes anything when people protest the vote by casting one for a third party candidate or by not voting at all. Let’s face it, somebody is going to get elected and choosing the best candidate from a field of even poor candidates accomplishes something, doesn’t it?" - asdf
Sure. But I wasn't using hyperbole when I said I think the non-Paul Republicans are the same as their counterparts.
"And yes Ben, being involved for its own sake and for the sake of the Party that you supposedly support is important. At least down the line there’s a better chance that some of that Party’s political philosophies will be maintained and maybe the right judges will be appointed regardless of who the candidate is. But I can’t say you don’t have a point with regard to how some of the alleged GOP candidates are thisclose to the Dem ones. Unfortunately, it often times becomes the lesser of two evils, doesn’t it?" - asdf
Again, I don't claim to support the party line of the GOP. And I no longer think it is the lesser evil.
"We do know this: all prospective nominees for the Democrats are way left and way radical. So until the Dems come back with a standard bearer who is politically and socially more sane, even our resident GOP lefty Rudi would be more palatable." - asdf
Are there any substantial ways Rudy or Mitt are different from Hillary or Obama? I honestly can't think of any.
Ok. Now I understand. I thought you were coming at this from a GOP perspective but I'll have to assume based on past writings that you are an independent / libertarian type of person? So, you're political options to select a viable candidate on a national level are limited.
I'm a Rothbardian libertarian. I voted for Bush in 2004, reluctantly, and now regret it. I plan to vote for Paul in the primaries. I don't see myself voting a whole lot after that.
ASDF,
I hear you, except that I think realistically nothing changes in terms of the party leadership and the neolib/neocon plus media elite bipartisan ruling class when we choose the "lesser of two evils." The only argument that has carried any water at all is that good judges will be nominated. I think this is overplayed however, and I don't appreciate having my vote held hostage by a party based on the promise that judges who simply do what their job entails will be nominated. That should be a given.
I definitely see a means to change the debate in this country and push a conservative revitalization in this primary season through the vehicle of Ron Paul.
But how do we shape the party if they still choose poorly? I say we withdraw support from them and let them go down to stunning defeat. They are pragmatic enough (in a Machiavellian sense) to maybe wake up and reflect on the fact that 14 years ago they seemed to have hit on the recipe for creating a Republican legislative majority for the next generation, yet they have squandered that completely. Maybe then they will retrace their steps and begin to get rid of the neocon tumor.
Just curious, what are some of your feelings in the recent discovery of Neo-Nazi funds Ron Paul has been accepting? Michael Medved has just written an article about this. Look, I like Ron Paul's ideas but he better have an explanation about this. This isn't just a so-called Neo-conservative "smear" on him. Paul has accepted the money. And he won't return it. Why not? I would like to hear a no-spin excuse from him... or anybody.
Frank,
Some guy who is apparently a Neo-Nazi sent the campaign 500 bucks. The campaign hasn't paid it any real attention, and some clearly think this indicates a lack of political acumen or experience. I know that the young campaign financial director has stated before that since Ron Paul's views are completely clear and open to scrutiny and he has a long public record on his stances they think that if anyone who has views he doesn't endorse wants to send them money then it is that fool's loss. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Despite your contention to the contrary this is simply a circumstantial ad hominem smear, and neocons like Medved or Mona charen on NRO are great at that sort of crap. Why should anyone care what loonies send money to whomever's campaign as long as the contributions and their sources are completely open? The focus should be on the candidate himself and his views.
If Paul's campaign decides to placate neocon smear artists by giving the dude's 500$ back then so be it. But it isn't a big deal at all. Yawn. Even neo-Nazi fools can give their money away to people who don't support their worldview.
Btw Frank,
If you are so interested in what a look at candidates contributors might tell us about the candidate why not take a look at the rankings of employers of the donors to the various campaigns. Isn't it interesting how big finance, big business, and the military-industrial corps are providing the most donations to the MSM's anointed "top-tier" candidates? That is a much more interesting story than some jerk fruitbat racist giving 500 bucks to Paul's campaign. I see that as 500$ that some Nazi now DOESN'T have to promote his evil ideology.
Check out the major donors to campaigns here, it is fascinating but typical of how politics works in this country.
Frank W: Ronald Reagan, in response to pestering questions about Birchers supporting his campaign for governor of California, said something along the lines that because they support him does not mean that he supports them. Tens of thousands of people have donated to Paul's campaign. I'm sure a few of them are absolute screwballs, some are criminals, some are virtuous people. Who an individual supporter is does not tell us who a candidate is. Do you think Paul is a neo-Nazi? I think he is the furthest thing from one, but what these slimy kind of articles seek to do is imply--they never state, declare, charge--that he is in some way similar to these people. He's not.
Thanks for answering the question guys. To be blunt, I'm still a bit conflicted about this.
Frank,
Dan is suggesting why I think the Paul campaign chooses to basically ignore this little "controversy" when he says that the articles are trying to smear him as somehow like Neo-Nazis, since some racist sent him a donation. If Paul were to give the money back it would show more concern w/ a smear than he should feel. It would strike me as pandering to jerks who are both never going to support him anyway (the neocons) and also giving them satisfaction for something they should be ashamed of having done, that is implying he is a Neo-Nazi.
One thing Paul has done is really lock up a lot of the "anti-status quo" vote. People who are dissatisfied w/ the two major parties right now find much appealing in Paul as he is willing to stand up to his own parties leadership. If he starts to investigate why all the people donating to him are doing so I bet he will find a ton of people who he doesn't really agree w/, but this would only be a concern for me if Paul was able to be bought by lobbyists or special interests to begin w/. Since he is completely above reproach on those grounds there is zero fear that a nutjob can affect his policies therefore it isn't a big deal if the nutjob wants to throw money away.
How can anyone support a candidate who wants to go back to the gold standard?
This isn't 1834 for christ's sake.
Are all repubs just plain retarded?
@Dan: Thanks for your thorough, and thoughtful, response.
@Ben-T: surely you jest when you say,
Are there any substantial ways Rudy or Mitt are different from Hillary or Obama? I honestly can't think of any.
The kind of judges they would appoint is just one difference. The way Rudy and Mitt approach economic issues is another.
I get the Buchanan/Nader/Edwards riff that the two parties are both run by the same interests, there isn't much difference, etc etc. But to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't differ at all from Rudy Giuliani is a bit of hyperbole.
@Frank: If there was any evidence at all that Ron Paul sympathized with racists then the donations would be a cause for concern. But he doesn't, so it's not. In a campaign where he is raising millions of dollars, a few thousand from bigots hardly seems to be worthy of concern.
"The kind of judges they would appoint is just one difference. The way Rudy and Mitt approach economic issues is another." - Doug
Mitt is worse on the economy than Hillary. He is the only president running that has actually brought about socialized medicine. Rudy is about the same on it.
Certainly there is no reason to believe that pro-choice, pro-gun control Rudy would be better on judges than Hillary, and while Mitt's rhetoric lines up, what has he done to indicate his track record will be better than any of the other Republican presidents who were horrible on judges?
"I get the Buchanan/Nader/Edwards riff that the two parties are both run by the same interests, there isn't much difference, etc etc. But to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't differ at all from Rudy Giuliani is a bit of hyperbole." - Doug
You offered two issues; the economy and judges. Rudy McRomney is better than her on neither.
I told myself for days that I wasn't going to respond to the leftist troll.
But, in defense of Ron Paul's monetary views and the gold standard (which we only completely left in 1971, as in, it's not ancient history), why don't we let the economists and traders speak for themselves:
