Home @ 02 Jan 2008 05:33 pm by Christina Waters
Is Ron Paul the village idiot? the court fool? or one of the smartest secret weapons in the Republican arsenal? Think about it. Why is this stranger-than-fiction gnome up there on the stage with all those relatively clear-headed straight-arrows? Here’s why. Paul is so far right that he’s left, and threatens to become a cult darling of anti-war libertarians and independents alike.
The light went on for me as I watched the recent Republican debate.
The reason the elephants are keeping him up there in the candidate pack is so that he can play the Nader role. Paul could just siphon off democrat votes that might have gone to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, hence making it possible that a Republican will win the White House for another ruinous eternity.
Pass the absinthe.
Are you bereft of sense? An adolescent scribbler? A searcher for hits by using Dr. Paul’s name?
Then I had an epiphany.
You have no idea about Dr. Paul other than what you have been spoon fed by the likes of CNN and such liberal rags as the Daily Kos.
Live a little. Read Dr. Paul’s writings. Perhaps then you wouldn’t seem so unenlightened.
Okay, I take back the village idiot remark, but the role of court fool has a long and distinguished history. After all, the king’s fool was the only one who dared state the unvarnished - albeit disguised - truth.
I find myself in agreement with many of Ron Paul’s beliefs, notably the uncompromising anti-war stance. Other of his stands, e.g. on the weirdness of immigrants, I find just plain silly.
Mainly I was responding to the fact that the iconoclastic Paul is, given the American craving for slick façades, unelectable. Hence his quixotic pleas may have attracted a following, nonetheless he is still a dangerous diversion - and potential black hole - for much-needed Democratic votes!
Tell you what - I’ll read some of Dr. Paul’s stuff, if he’ll read some Dr. Waters. Deal?
CW
google “ron paul newsletter” and read the New Republic on his racist, anti-semite and homophobic views from the past.
I certainly won’t vote for Ron Paul, but he has three points in his favor. He’s against the war and promises to get out of it post haste, he takes money from no one, and seems to be honest. Not bad for a Republican.
I was going to vote for Bill Richardson, but our undemocratic gerimandered system has prevented me, so now I have to pick amongst the front runners.
Why do the smallest (first primaries) states have the biggest influence?
Democracy indeed!
-jim munro