And we need the EPA why, exactly?
No doubt. Until then he really gets the right goats. Yeah, he’s a little too genuine with the gold standard stuff, and his stage presence gives Nader a run for his money, if your currency in this case is fringe-ness.
Barry Manilow, however, supports him. You can’t say no to Barry.
I think a compelling case has been made that the corporate model rapidly develops predatory tendencies towards the environment that prioritize stockholders’ short term gains over the long term dangers and resource problems their actions create. Many credible ideas have been offered about the need for reform of the EPA, but I have never heard a credible case for destroying it altogether unless you consider objectivism and the like credible as sources for workable political options. I don’t, but those are the only people I’ve heard say it who can resist rubbing their hands together and laughing in a sinister manner immediately afterwards.
Well we’ve done really well with a gutted agency that’s supposed to inspect imported products.
It’s not like there’s imports being recalled every week that are poisoning us or our children…oh wait…nevermind.
You guys are forgetting something though…no way in hell is a woman or a black man going to be elected president.
So, when Obama gets elected, are you going to try to weasel out of this prediction by saying he’s half-white?
Oh, and jjb070 (“Why do we need the EPA?”) - quality first P&R post. I salute you.
Some people start a duel with a glove-slap, and others with a hand grenade.
Ah, but the only thing they hate worse than a Mormon is a Clinton.
Thirded. He’ll never get nominated, but he’s by far the best of the Republican crop.
Re: the EPA: I’m fairly libertarian, and even I acknowledge the need for the EPA. I think it should be reformed (and probably even strengthened), but definitely not eliminated. Environmental protection represents a legitimate public good, and is a free rider dilemma, which makes it very unlikely to be adequately addressed by individuals or by market forces. Government regulation is necessary and good in that sort of situation.
The problem with Ron Paul is that one cannot be a both a small government libertarian like he claims to be, and a member of the current republican party. It destroys any shred of credability he might have.
See, that’s actually what I respect about him, and what I used to respect about McCain. I think that both the parties would be healthier (but particularly the GOP) if there were less toeing of the party line. Parties weren’t always so soul-crushingly on-message as today’s Republican party is. It would be better for everyone if there were a greater diversity of ideas and opinions, even within parties.
Making compromises is not necessarily a sign of hypocrisy. It can be, but I think being untrue to his convictions is the one thing you could not accuse Ron Paul of. He’s just doing his best to present relatively unpopular opinions (or opinions that are easily misrepresented as unpopular) to a broader audience. Watching the status quo candidates play the crazy card again and again convinces me that there is a lot more to it than that.
Follow my election 08 rule of thumb: If Giuliani attacks something, think about it again. Odds are you missed something the first time you made up your mind about it.
We’ll have lots of opportunities to put this doctrine into practice during his presidency.
Yup. There was a fabulous article out of Stratfor called “Gaming the US Elections,” where they presented the facts that pretty much every president in the past half-century has either been a Republican governor from Texas or California, or a Democratic governor from one of the original Confederate states (also including Texas). The only such candidates this time around are Ron Paul and, surprise, Giuliani (the only reason a NY Republican governor hasn’t won is because there haven’t been very many in the running).
Wouldn’t being elected govenor of a state which is traditionally a stronghold of your political opponent mean that you are generally fairly moderate in your views? Seems to me that that would count more than whether you governed a big state that totally disagreed with your party.
Also, half a century ago the South was solidly Democrat, with fine, upstanding men like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond leading the way.
That’s why the republican party fought tooth and nail against him when he was running for the senate. The republicans can’t stand him becuase he simply won’t play party politics, but he’s closer to a goldwater republican than he is to current democrats or republicans, so the term ‘republican’ is where he hangs his hat.
Paul is a fairly strict constitutionalist who also leans more toward states rights than federal - truly a foreign concept in washington these days.
Thats all great, and I agree with most of what he claims he stands for, but by being a member of the republican party, a party which supports very little of what he does, he helps them retain power. He isnt going to change the repubs, they are a lost cause.
That assumes he votes the party line.
Exactly. Ron Paul’s views don’t conform to the Republican platform very much… and he seems to practice what he preaches. (i.e. he actually votes for the things he says he will) Mr. Paul pretty much ignores his party platform nowadays.
As for the repubs being a lost cause… no group is ever a lost cause. 80 years ago the Democrats were the party of ignorant backwards conservatives. Now the Republicans have that honor, and the Democrats are shining paragons of virtues. In another 80 years, the wheel of fate will turn again, and the Republicans will return to their original role of defenders of all that is good & holy. Of course, by that time we’ll be ruled by our robot overlords, so it’ll be kind of a moot point.
BTW, someone once asked Mr. Paul why he was a Republican at all, and his answer was refreshingly honest. He baldly stated that he tried being an independent for awhile, but the current 2-party system demands that you be part of one of the parties in order to compete. So he became a Republican in order to actually participate.
Who does he vote with when it comes time to choose leadership?
I don’t know what you mean precisely by that question, but his voting record is unlikely to help with the love-hate relationship most people have with him.