Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Running on Angry


It's always safe to support someone with no hope of winning whatsoever.

Posted by The Baron | August 9, 2007 11:39 AM

Yah, I've been hearing people talk about him like he's the solution. I respect him for speaking up against the war on terror, and saying that 9-11 was a result of our policies, but man, on everything else he's sooooo wrong. Evidently, no one has taken a look at his website.

Posted by Dianna | August 9, 2007 11:40 AM

I am shocked that so many people like him for simply a couple of issues they agree on. But it does demonstrate how voters can be so single issue focused no matter what other problems a certian candidate may present.

Ron Paul is for the total destruction of what we have left of a social safety net in this nation. No Medicare, no Social Security, no Federal Student Loans or Pell Grants. A Ron Paul America is best seen by having a look at late 19th Century America in the era of the Robber Barons.

Ron Paul would effectively reverse not only the New Deal in it's totality but the entire Progressive movement in the US. What we need is a NEW Progressive Movement and a NEW New Deal. We need not small government nor large government but effective AND accountable government that is ethical and fair. Ron Paul is the ultimate in extreme convervatism.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | August 9, 2007 11:50 AM

The popularity of Ron Paul is definitely one of the more bizarre twists in the ’08 election. He is, after all, a foaming at the mouth, die-hard, right-wing Republican.

People are simply projecting the things they want to see onto him.

Posted by Original Andrew | August 9, 2007 11:53 AM

And what exactly are the Dems and Repugs doing about global warming now? Nothing. Even Clinton’s Kyoto treaty was crap compared to what needs to be done to curb greenhouse emissions. Another thing establishment liberals need to look at is how much greenhouse is created by the biggest military in the world(ours) roaming the planet. If Paul wants to end the war unlike the Dems, that would do a lot more to curb greenhouse gases then the tepid policies of the Dems. Also, think of what a defanged(refunded) federal government would mean for a place like Seattle, where we dominate the state with our large population. We would have more of a say in the laws of the land.

Posted by GJ | August 9, 2007 11:55 AM

Single-issue voters make me tired. Always have, always will. They tend to be what I call ideologically precious - they're so protective of ideological purity on their single issue that only that litmus test counts, and the candidate must be utterly free of any past ambiguity or nuance on that issue.

It's a child's worldview. Totally black or totally white, with no room for compromises or doubts, and complete tunnel vision on the issue.

Besides, anyone ideologically pure enough to appeal to a single-issue voter on that one issue is bound to be an utter nutbar on others.

Posted by Geni | August 9, 2007 11:56 AM

I love it.

IF there is such a thing as sunlight, and it sure ain't clear to me that there is..."

Posted by Fnarf | August 9, 2007 11:59 AM

@5. What the HELL are you talking about? A defanged federal government is EXACTLY what we do not need. What if you loose your job? (a portion of you unemployment is federally funded) What if the BIG quake hits Seattle do you realize how much Federal money would be needed to rebuild but in your scenario that would not be available. And what if you became disabled? No social security for you.

And to further go down this argument. What if our economy bottoms out? Libertarians are not just for a "defanged" federal government they also want to do the same on the state level. No money for public transit, no money for schools, no money for Fire and Police.

SLOG readers, why am I a liberal fire breathing New Deal Democrat arguing with a short sighted libertarian anyway?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | August 9, 2007 12:05 PM

@8 If I loose my job, does not the state have unemploymnet befitis? If we abolishe the IRS, could we not pay more state or municipal taxs to pay for underfunded federal programs? The federal goverment's, and the dem and repug's, top priority is the military. Look at our massive fucking deficiet. At least our tax monies would go to sumething more worthwile then depeted uranium shells.

Posted by GJ | August 9, 2007 12:15 PM

i think all libertarians should be forced to sign a waiver exempting them from taxes and barring them from all services funded by tax revenue.

Posted by bing | August 9, 2007 12:19 PM
I am shocked that so many people like him for simply a couple of issues they agree on.

I don't think that's true, or else why wouldn't they support Kucinich instead? Most Paul supporters know what he's about and agree with him nearly 100%. I'm convinced the vast majority of libertarians are closet white male supremacists. In the case of Ron Paul, nix the "closet".

Posted by jamier | August 9, 2007 12:53 PM

To oppose programs at the federal level, and leaving most of the responsibility (and the tax base) at the state and local level, is a different thing from opposing it altogether.

The most interesting question in that video was whether or not we should defend Taiwan if attacked. His answer amounted to, "what should you care what my opinion as President is? Declaring war is up to the Congress."

As a progressive, the best reason to oppose Ron Paul is if you care a great deal what happens in, say, Alabama. His hands-off attitude is more likely to result in a more progressive body of laws here in Washington state, although in the Bible Belt there woul be some serious reactionary stuff going on.

Posted by MHD | August 9, 2007 1:13 PM

@12. Give the red state Christian fascists enough rope to hang themselves, and their populations would rebel, or move to liberal mecca’s like Seattle or San Fran, thus giving us more power, more control over greenhouse gases, a larger tax base for human services. Yea, I like FDR, but this Democratic Party is not the party of FDR. We need to be practical, and look at the bigger picture.

Posted by GJ | August 9, 2007 1:40 PM

Ever notice how you never see Ron Paul and Ross Perot in the same place at the same time. Even their initials are the same. hmmmm...

Posted by monkey | August 9, 2007 1:50 PM

To Bing@10: Sounds like a good idea at first, but we can't stop them from doing things like using roads, calling the police when they are in danger, eating cheap food that was grown with federal subsidies, etc. I am sympathetic to the libertairian ideals on some issues, like drugs. But this guy takes it way too far.

Posted by Dianna | August 9, 2007 1:56 PM

Libertarians absolutely should be banned from using roads, the whiny tax dodging assholes.

Weirdly I think there is a strong correlation between peoples tendency towards libertarianism and the proportionate degree that they are subsidised as road users, since so many of them live out in the sticks on seldom used roads that cost just as much.

Stop pandering to the moany fuckers is what I say.

Posted by The Baron | August 9, 2007 2:21 PM

The fact that Ron Paul looks good to a lot of people says a lot about the other Republican primary candidates.

My problem with Libertarians is they talk a good line about civil liberties, but when it comes down to the wire they always vote Republican, because they only issues they actually care about are guns and taxes.

Posted by Orv | August 9, 2007 2:33 PM

For me, Bush has provided an irrefutable argument that US power is too big, centralized, and unaccountable. The size of our country makes it inefficient in addressing local problems and a dangerous unchecked power at home and abroad.

The political process and the American people have failed to responsibly control their government. The Dems have had a chance but show temerity in the face of their self doubt and political maneuverings. Bush won the last election even after the electorate had had four years to observe his fitness for office. He remains in office because of insufficient will to fix and take responsibility for an obvious mistake.

Ron Paul has many positions that I'm uncomfortable with. However, on all that I'm aware of he supports local answers. This would indeed make the Bible belt a scary place, but think of what the NW could be like.

I'm no longer excited about the possibilities of a strong benevolent US government. I no longer have faith in our current party system to control the influence of wealth in politics or provide meaningful checks on each other.

Malkin, Coulter and Company have convinced me that we have at least two incompatible groups of people in this country. I don't believe that a common policy will work for both groups. Devolving Federal power and returning control to the States will alleviate the pressure between Red and Blue America while allowing each to follow its own path.

A Paul presidency would allow for Washington State to keep its tax dollars and to craft appropriate progressive solutions for the areas needs and problems.

Posted by Cascadian | August 9, 2007 3:39 PM

I think you people are missing the point. What other candidate has stated that he will not send troops to China? Why does Hillary want to bomb China? Is she against lead paint on children's toys? Listen! People! Lead is the only thing keeping children's toys from flying away.

Posted by Fnarf | August 9, 2007 4:04 PM


Posted by GJ | August 9, 2007 8:00 PM

@ 18 We could turn the northwest into Country like Sweden with a decentralized Fed!?!? We certanily have enough pasty people here to make it look like Sweden.

Posted by GJ | August 9, 2007 8:09 PM

I think the "top teir" Democrats need to take a very hard look at what exactly is driving people to Ron Paul. If any single "viable" Dem candidate spoke up REALLY CLEARLY against WAR and for the CONSTITUTION, we wouldn't be seeing this phenomenon. But alas.... The Dems refuse to win.

Posted by jeffuppy | August 10, 2007 1:22 AM

Ron Paul does not represent the broader libertarian movement. He is anything but a mainstream libertarian.

His views on economic issues are quite admirable: oppose higher taxes, cut government spending, oppose global warming lunacy. But his views on foreign policy do not fit in with traditional libertarian thinking ala Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand, Dana Rohrabacher and John Hospers.

Traditional libertarianism is Pro-Defense. We fight back, particularly when our country is attacked as in 9/11. We are not Girlie-Man non-interventionist isolationists.

Ron Paul clashes with libertarian mainstreamers like Neal Boortz, Dennis Miller, and PJ O'Rourke, all of whom favor fighting Islamo-Fascism.

Please do not confuse Ron Paul's views on foreign policy with mainstream libertarianism. He is on the fringes of our libertarian movement.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

(Sometime resident of Queen Anne/Seattle)

Posted by Eric Dondero | August 10, 2007 6:49 AM

Dondero a sometime resident of Queen Anne? Shouldn't you stick to places like Texas? Thanks for pointing out that Paul doesn't slavishly follow Rand or any other Libertarian theologian.

The value of Paul is that he follows the Constitution. The value of the Constitution is supposed to be protecting us from an intrusive over powering Government.

Posted by Cascadian | August 10, 2007 8:48 AM

Eric Dondero is obviously gay, but is he in the closet?

Posted by GJ | August 10, 2007 9:41 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).