Besides having an ambiguous position on science, I think it’s important that the libertarians understand that anybody that the neo-Nazi Stormfront supports has to be some kind of bug-ass crazy doodoo-head, and that Ron Paul has that kind of white supremacist support. Which makes him a bug-ass crazy doodoo-head. Which is not, obviously, a disqualifier, since look at the bug-ass crazy doodoo-head we’ve lived with for the last seven years, but it should make even the Ayn Rand liberation front a little wary of getting too cozy with him, him being a bug-ass crazy doodoo-head, and all.
Technorati Tags: bug-head-crazy-doodoo-headism, had to add a racism tag for this one, Ron Paul isn’t just hopelessly naive and crazy he is also a mean spirited racist, but a lot of techies like his fiscal policies, i’m sure
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Scruggs 01.04.08 at 8:54
Lyndon Larouche supports single payer healthcare. David Duke opposes the war against Iraq. I support single payer healthcare and an end to the occupation of Iraq. Therefore they support me, or I support them. Or I endorse them, whatever. The dirtiness through association thing has unlimited mileage.
It would be better if the righteousness of the Clinton Restoration and Audacity of Glurge crowds could be directed against their own opposition to ending the occupation of Iraq, their own support for the national security state, their own candidates’ versions of Romneycare, their ghoulish support for the prison industrial complex, et fucking cetera. Without fail, they scream “skinhead” before turning the neoliberal control freak ratchet another notch. That stupid apocalyptic trick has gotten old.
Ron Paul gets up their noses because he can articulate a clear position on two major issues that they consistently fudge. The energy they put into ankle-biting straying progressives is a disservice to issues and ideology they claim to uphold.
Frank Paynter 01.04.08 at 10:48
Ron Paul is ambivalent about evolution. It’s a “theory” he doesn’t “believe in.” Ron Paul, whether conscious or un-, behaves like a racist when he presents an analysis of crime demographics in Washington DC that, while erroneous on the face of it, rings true with neo-Fascist hate groups around the country.
These two lapses in judgment on the part of Ron Paul deserve consideration when making an informed choice.
Scruggs 01.04.08 at 1:26
Put delicately, he’s not getting my vote or my support. I welcome his candidacy, however, for his comparatively greater grasp on reality regarding wars and the security state, and his ability to speak coherently on them. The other “mainstream” candidates, across the board, have mastered the mush mouth dialectics that obscure their intent to continue them. Their analyses, sadly, resonate broadly enough to ensure a wretched continuity.
Jon Husband 01.04.08 at 1:44
All the candidates are dishonest about who they are and what they are, unfortunately.
It seems to be a requirement. Then again, as E. Fromm pointed out about 60+ years ago, we are now fully living in an era of the marketing personality. He’d shit himself today, no doubt.
Frank Paynter 01.04.08 at 3:22
I’ve been reading more about him today, and find him to be a gold standard idealist, someone whose best intentions would short circuit the entire divisive strategy of the Republican Party by putting issues like abortion and gay marriage so firmly in the hands of the states that the federal government would have no say in these matters. I think he would make a great Secretary of the Treasury.
Scruggs 01.05.08 at 4:03
Does his opposition to interventionism and the national security state count for anything? If I recall correctly, our beloved wingnut leadership and their vichy colleagues just dragged us into yet another interminable war, replete with crimes against humanity, and managed to give torture pride of place as a tool of administrative discipline.
Frank Paynter 01.05.08 at 9:45
His appealing “solutions” are hung on the brittle framework of libertarianism. I find this honorably idealistic and yet naive. Let’s see how the campaign develops.
Scruggs 01.05.08 at 11:55
His solution to interventionism and the security state works across all ideologies, nominal to doctrinaire: don’t fund it, any of it. Don’t amend the constitution to permit it.
His most frequent ally in the House is Dennis Kucinich. There’s a respectful collegiality there, on those issues, even though K is a United Nations lovin’, welfare state builder.
It’s a shame that the two Democrats who are every bit as forthright about their opposition to war, to police states, can’t attract as much support as he can. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have been exiled and ridiculed by the alleged “realists”. Only veteran peaceniks like you, Frank, have a kind word for them. What will make the campaign fascinating is the way the relegation of the better Dem leaders drives the younger and more principled into the margins, or over to the idealistic right.