The Batshit Crazy Republicans Roundup

[Adam54]

Rand does scare me just a bit though. He's like a less crazy version of his dad, and dad was awfully popular in some circles.

I just don't think Rand's willingness to (occasionally) work with the other side is gonna play well with the Republican base though. They don't exactly appreciate that sort of thing.

[Dalty]

The Republicans have a base?

Is it a Death Star?

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

"Ewok" is a weird last name, but whatevs.

[Space Tycoon]

Ron Paul deserves a lot more respect than he has received from liberals and conservatives alike.

He has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress of a sharply reduced American military footprint at home and abroad; a critic of out-of-control federal encroachment on civil liberties, including surveillance, torture, unconstitutional prisons, and the failed war on drugs; and has correctly explained the reasons for 9/11 and anti-American terrorism in general.

To Rudy Giuliani's face, no less.

The downside of Ron Paul for me personally is his being a card-carrying member of the "global warming is a theory, just like evolution," crowd. And a number of other things. He's got his issues--and don't we all. But if someone like him had been in charge of America's general direction over the past 20 years(and he has been consistent for about 40 years now, unusual for a politican), I promise you, many of America's current foreign policy nightmares simply would not exist.

[Space Tycoon]

As for Randal Paul, he is much more a standard, ambitious Republican contender than his Dad, but at least he has maintained a critical stance towards foreign policy.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Ron Paul's a mixed bag for me. There's good and bad. I think of him as being one of the least corrupted and least corruptible politicians in the US. I don't care for a number of his platforms, though, so this incorruptibility matters less to me than it might.

[Space Tycoon]

What would you say is the "good," then, in your opinion.

[Adam54]

Ron would've been president in a landslide had he been running in 1952.

The difference is exactly what you say it is, Spacey. I don't think anybody can really disagree with the basic "Hey, leave me alone. Worry about yourself" principles of libertarianism, but when you mix it in with the science denying and/or religious fanaticism, it doesn't work. That was exactly my issue with Ron and it remains, to a lesser extent, my issue with Rand.

[Space Tycoon]

If his example encourages others to take up the mantle of opposing or rolling back an imperial government establishment, not necessarily from an ideological standpoint, then his career will have been an overall benefit to the country.

[Space Tycoon]

Ron would've been president in a landslide had he been running in 1952.

Instead, you had Eisenhower, a criminally underrated president and probably the best the GOP produced in the 20th century.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Ron Paul's a mixed bag for me. There's good and bad. I think of him as being one of the least corrupted and least corruptible politicians in the US. I don't care for a number of his platforms, though, so this incorruptibility matters less to me than it might.

What would you say is the "good," then, in your opinion.

The good? I like that he's generally consistent (or, at least, he's been presented as such), even if I don't always like what he's being consistent about. That's really just a restatement of what I already said, so I'll move on to specifics:

I have this memory of his changing his stance on the death penalty, but I also remember him being pretty up front about his having changed it. He didn't try to brush it under the rug or do any equivocating. I like that he's not war-mongering. I like what I know of his position on the Internet. I like his anti-torture stance and his stance on marijuana. I think he's OK with stem cell research, and I'm OK with him being OK with it. I guess I like that he stuck to his guns on the Patriot Act, even if I'm still not sure how I feel about the Patriot Act. These are things off the top of my head. I'd need to give myself a Ron Paul refresher to give you more.

The list of what I consider to be the bad runs a bit longer. Most of it focuses on his aggressive and unyielding stance where privatization is concerned. A big one is that he's against public education and believes access to education is not a right of the people. While my relationship with education in the US is complicated, I think it's pretty important that people have access to it. I'd much rather the universal standards of instruction be higher, but that's another matter and would require a longer post.

While Social Security's admittedly leaning toward being broken, and while I've read that the government has leeched from Social Security funds in the past, I like the idea of the old and infirm receiving care and having some guaranteed quality of life. I'm not sure that he does. I think his official stance is that the people grandfathered in should get the benefits they put in for but that younger people should be able to opt out. Young people are stupid and shouldn't necessarily be trusted (or trust themselves) to make decisions for their older selves. Also, people who were once flush with cash and felt they had no need for Social Security often fall on hard times. Ron Paul's way would fuck those people. It might also fuck people in divorce and death-of-benefactor situations. It's all well and good if these people have family to prop them up later in life, but this isn't always the case. Ron Paul's stance seems to me to be very much the stance of an old white guy of privilege. Things have managed to fall in place for him, financially, so he assumes this should be the case for everyone. In instances when it's not the case, I suspect he thinks they're necessarily at fault for making bad decisions and not working hard enough, and I also think he may think they should be punished for this.

His attitude toward homosexuality is unpleasant to me, but he's sort-of-kind-of OK with homosexuals having equal rights--as long as homosexuals don't get what he sees to be special treatment, and as long as homosexuals don't somehow "impose" themselves on him. It's equal rights, but it's conditional equal rights. This doesn't quite feel like equal rights. He makes it an "I'm tolerating this!" situation, which is demeaning and insulting. Even so, his position still allows for greater freedom and more rights than homosexuals currently have. I like that this gives them more rights, but it still leaves me feeling icky.

I'm not keen on his stance on gun control. I also get this feeling that his stance toward non-whites is similar to his stance toward homosexuals. It also leaves me feeling icky. He constantly defaults to the if-everybody-has-equal-rights-there-would-be-no-reason-to-discuss-groups-of-people-getting-special-rights-because-this-would-be-an-abolishment-of-divisive-"group"-think stance, but it strikes me that he also wants to make it clear that he's personally and fundamentally opposed to who the members of specific groups are as people. It's a sweeping bit of condescension, and it bothers me. It would bother me less if he would simply say, "I think X Group should have every right granted everyone else. Full stop." Instead, he makes a point of lifting his nose and tacking on a little censure. It's douchey. It's not exactly a crime to be douchey, and, again, I like that he would make it so that people who don't have certain rights would have those rights, but damn.

When it comes to his stances on taxes, the budget, government spending, market interference, inflation, and other things of a deeply financial nature, I admit I'm at a loss. Nothing makes my head swim more than business talk. If it didn't make my head swim so much, maybe I'd have a different take on some of the things like public education and Social Security. Maybe I wouldn't be such a goddamn naive dreamer. There's no real way for me to know.

I don't feel I'm all that political a beast, despite how I may have painted myself with the above. Talking about this kind of stuff wearies me in a way that talking about almost anything else doesn't. I can talk sex and religion all day, and I can wake up fresh the next day and keep talkin' sex and religion. Talking politics, on the other hand, really takes something out of me.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Apologies in advance for any mischaracterizations of Ron Paul's politics. I was working off memory. I tried to make it clear when I was being interpretive with the usual variety of "seems," "feels," and other related words.

[Adam54]

You talking about Ron or Rand there, Goits?

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I'm talking about Ron, since he's the one Spacey asked me about, though I suppose there's at least a little crossover from Paul to Paul.

I'll edit to make it more apparent.

[Adam54]

Ah. Nope. My fault. I read right over that post where he asked you about Ron.

[Space Tycoon]

I'm talking about Ron, since he's the one Spacey asked me about, though I suppose there's at least a little crossover from Paul to Paul.

I'll edit to make it more apparent.

Some good points there Goits, I would take exception to the "privileged white guy" comments, I feel this can definitely apply to most higher-level politicians, Republican and Democrat alike. With Ron Paul, on the other hand, I always got the impression that he genuinely believes that excessive federal intrusion does as much to hold back non-whites as empower them. Take, for example, his drug policy, which would effectively emancipate hundreds, if not thousands of minorities and underclass whites from incarceration.

Ron Paul and other like-minded types are motivated by the belief that excessive government, particularly wrt the military-industrial-complex, is largely responsible for America's economic woes. Hundreds of billions in tax dollars (or should I say, borrowed dollars that will eventually be put on the shoulders of future generations) spent overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, that could have either been left in the pockets of ordinary Americans, spent by local or state governments, or even the feds to deal with the neglect of decades.

I agree that RP sr is probably a little too old-school for my tastes on a raft of social issues. I've often thought my ideal Republican candidate would combine Paul's foreign policy, McCain's moderate domestic policies, and Jack Kemp's embrace of racial inclusiveness.

But that sounds more like a centrist Democrat, doesn't it... time for a new party!

[neglet]

For me, it's very simple: as long as mainstream Republicans continue to spout their anti-science, anti-woman, anti-minority bullshit, I will never vote for one for federal office, no matter how much I might wish for more financial restraint in the government.

[Space Tycoon]

I'm sure you speak for many.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I was initially hesitant to say his stance was "very much the stance of an old white guy of privilege," but then I reasoned that I wasn't excluding others. I was, instead, saying that this is the kind of thinking an old white guy of privilege would think. Still, I was generalizing for effect. I admit to this.

This kind of thinking can also be thought by non-whites of privilege and other non-whites in higher-level politics. (The majority of people in higher-level politics may no longer be old white guys of privilege. I haven't seen recent stats.) I suppose anyone can think anything. Ralph Nader's an old white guy of privilege, and he clearly doesn't see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul on every issue.

[Space Tycoon]

No, but there were some titillating rumours on the Internets some years ago about an alliance of sort, which never really crystallized, between Nader and Paul. It would have been glorious, if improbable.

[Adam54]

For me, it's very simple: as long as mainstream Republicans continue to spout their anti-science, anti-woman, anti-minority bullshit, I will never vote for one for federal office, no matter how much I might wish for more financial restraint in the government.

So say we all.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Whaddafuck you talkin' 'bout, Adam? My grandmother and aunt sure as shit don't say that.

[Adam54]

So say you.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

My aunt recently responded to this image with a Spacey-as-Lex-like "Wrong!" (To clarify, she wasn't suggesting that Jesus didn't turn out fine. She was suggesting that it was wrong of filthy and demonic St. John's United to slander Jesus by suggesting that he had two fathers and that his raising was in any way queer.)

[Adam54]

I don't suppose anyone asked her to clarify exactly how that's Wrong! did they?