Saturday, June 23, 2007

If you are finding Ron Paul's anti-war stance attractive

Take a look at what he really believes:

Paul is very well organized online -- much of his support is derived from this -- and it's entirely likely the flood of "liberals" and "progressives" who are busy arguing that someone like Paul is worth forming an alliance with are, in fact, simply part of Paul's corps and they're doing their part to muddy the waters and ultimately attract new supporters in a "Third Way" kind of strategy.

And to some extent it seems evident that they're succeeding. Mostly, they seem to be taking advantage of a combination of amnesia among those experienced enough to know better, and simple ignorance on the part of progressives who've never heard of, or paid any attention to, Ron Paul previously. They hear Paul's carefully crafted antiwar rhetoric and his critique of the Bush administration -- all of which elide or obscure his underlying beliefs -- and think it sounds pretty good, especially for a Republican.

As Sara has already explained, there's a real problem with that -- namely, for all of Paul's seeming "progressive" positions, he carries with him a whole raft of positions well to the right of even mainstream conservatives.

At this point and forever onward, we must never assume we know all about a presidential candidate until we have inverted his/her life upside down and shaken out all past actions and speeches. A politician, by the very nature of the beast, has gotten into bed with all sorts of strange partners. Let us know them all.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

My position is that Republicans should support Ron Paul if they want to preserve their party.

I won't support Ron Paul for president. I would just as soon destroy the Republican party, it doesn't need to be saved, it isn't something we need.

That isn't to say that we don't need an alternative to the Democratic party. If one party holds power it won't be pretty no matter who it is, but the alternative can be something better.

ellroon said...

Ron Paul is really really a fringe element and the more press he gets, the more it will be clear to voters.

At the moment it looks like many are hanging their hopes on Fred Thompson. No Ronald Reagan, he's left quite a trail of lobbying, quotes and statements that just won't go down smoothly.

Anonymous said...

All the better they should support Ron Paul and marginalize themselves, then.

mapaghimagsik said...

A Ron Paul/Nader ticket would so be the vanity ticket.

ellroon said...

Let's hope he smells all manly and daddy-like then....

ellroon said...

Paul/Nader? Bwahahahaha!

Oh, yes please!

Steve Bates said...

Ron Paul? (*rolls eyes*) Texans know Ron Paul. If anyone is tempted, please note that he is NOT in reality a small-l libertarian. And we all used to say that we pitied his patients when he was a gynecologist. As a politician, Paul is a fraud... kind of like Nader...

ellroon said...

Ron Paul a doctor? Of Gynecology?? From TEXAS???

All sorts of red lights should be going off about now.....

Steve Bates said...

According to Wikipedia,
------
Paul began his medical practice in Lake Jackson, Texas, as a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, delivering more than 4,000 babies. He took over the practice of a retiring doctor and was busy as the only obstetrician and gynecologist in Brazoria County. Paul said of his time as a doctor, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery."
------

Then there's this quirky statement:
------
Dr. Paul did not accept Medicare or Medicaid as a physician; instead, he would do the work for free or work out a greatly lowered payment or payment plan for needy patients.
------

Heaven forfend that free or cheap medical care should be had any way other than at the discretion of the doctor! I'm glad he was charitable with his skills, but it should not have to be that way.

ellroon said...

Interesting. Trying to change the system one patient at a time. At least he's consistent.

Steve Bates said...

I do not think Ron Paul is evil in the way that, say, Darth Cheney is evil. But Paul and I have very different views on the roles of practitioners, government assistance and insurers in the providing of healthcare. I take this bit of Paul's history as an indication of what he would do regarding single-payer systems if he were in the Oval Office.

And I do find it offensive that the only practitioner in a county would refuse Medicare and Medicaid. That should be illegal. If doctors leave the business in response to compulsory acceptance, well, I hope the door doesn't whack them in the butt on their way out. Basic healthcare is a right, not a privilege; I'll never change my mind about that.

ellroon said...

"Basic healthcare is a right, not a privilege." Amen to that.

Having healthy happy workers makes so much economic sense as well, it's strange the corporations haven't figured that out...