Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Another “Jon Stewart Makes Ron Paul Look Smarter Than Those Other Guys” Moment

In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Texas congressman Ron Paul finished a distant third behind Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (or was it Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich? Heh, whatever ...). And since it was their poll, the gang at NBC Nightly News actually swallowed a big lump and made history by MENTIONING HIS NAME!

Yours truly has not really decided on Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is a big favorite among many pro-life Catholics who tend to vote conservative, and he would be with this Catholic if the guy didn't beat the war drums like all the neo-cons up in the polls already. So when you watch how the other candidates start snickering when crazy old Uncle Ron starts talking about the Federal Reserve (again), consider that Jon Stewart might be on to something. If being consistent makes you crazy, what does the refusal to be make out of those other guys?

Discuss.
 

8 Comments:

At 12/14/2011 08:17:00 PM, Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

How can you seriously consider a candidate, like Paul, who favors legalizing all drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, etc.?

Paul's libertarianism does not see the unit of the family as in need of legal protection.

 
At 12/14/2011 08:52:00 PM, Blogger David L Alexander said...

Kneeling:

When I "seriously consider" a candidate, I don't rely on either what other people say he says, let alone people for whom I wonder what part of "yours truly has not really decided on Ron Paul" they didn't get. I rely on a candidate's record, and their stated positions. Ron Paul has the advantage of a stable platform, one that is not continuously shifting and evolving by his being a total suck-up like most candidates.

Unlike some people, I went to Ron Paul's website, and found this: “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.” His record, especially on pro-life issues, would indicate that he is true to this. There is nothing in his own statements that suggests he supports any of the things you mention. What he HAS said, is that many of these things should be handled at the state level. Constitutionally speaking, he is correct.

I've indicated some interest in Rick Santorum, but while I admire his positions on most issues (except for his continuance of Wilsonian interventionalism, which unlike Ron Paul, this guy thinks we can actually keep paying for), I have reservations. I'm making a careful study of the matter, which is more than I can say for some, don't you think?

Or don't you?

 
At 12/16/2011 08:38:00 PM, Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

Hello again, Mr. Man w/ Black Hat!

I think if you hear it from Mr. Paul's mouth (see below) , you will see that he views prostitution, drug abuse, et.al. as victimless crimes. i.e. he doesn't see such forces which tear at our social fabric as anything the government should try to counteract.

here's where he says that he is not even 'personally opposed' to homosexuality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gcu3lZckYo

I doubt you will find yourself in agreement with what he says.

 
At 12/16/2011 10:45:00 PM, Blogger David L Alexander said...

Kneeling:

I watched both videos, and more.

Before I elaborate on them, the point of what I wrote was not so much how great one particular candidate is (and I think it's pretty clear that I'm undecided at this point), as it was the mainstream media's continued attempts at manipulating the outcome. I don't believe Americans by and large are equipping themselves well enough to choose a President wisely, because they're not listening to the candidates and reading up on the issues, so much as waiting for late night talk show hosts to tell them how the "cool kids" are going to vote, and so they should follow suit.

Regarding the first views, Paul's views on gay marriage, the interview itself betrays a difference between how most evangelical Protestants discuss homosexuality, as opposed to Catholics, namely the failure to distinguish between the proclivity itself, and the acting upon it. I'm afraid Paul is among those who cloud that distinction. While I find his response to be somewhat incoherent (which I have repeatedly conceded to be his weakness as a candidate, obviously while you weren't paying attention), he does not come out and endorse gay marriage. He is simply against the government passing a law trying to define what society has already defined. (There's more to this point later. Hang in there.)

Regarding the second video, on so-called "victimless" crimes, it is important to distinguish between his position on such behavior, and what he sees as the government's role, specifically the Federal government, in attempting to prevent it. His emphasis here is on the role of the States to decide these things for themselves. He also presumes, as did John Adams, that such a government can only function well in a society with a common code of public morality and civility. They didn't have laws against gay marriage in colonial times. People already understood sodomy to be a heinous act, and what laws there were, were at the state level. Even so, and especially at the Federal level, you simply could not pass enough laws to regulate behavior, in a society that had no such code, without resorting to tyranny. From the standpoint of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, he's on safer ground than most, if not all, of the other candidates. This is why the lack of emphasis on the "culture war" issues, and concentrating only on those affecting the pocketbook, is also disturbing.

But it's the fact that Paul is so vague on certain "what ifs" that makes him a weaker candidate than he otherwise might be. It is also disturbing to note the failure of so many Catholics who wear their orthodoxy on their sleeve, to justify a Wilsonian foreign policy of continued interventionism, without a clue as to how we will continue to afford it. They should ask their parents or grandparents what kinds of sacrifices Americans made in their daily lives, while we were fighting a war that was actually declared by an act of Congress. Do you think America is prepared to make those kinds of sacrifices to win a war in a country that does not pose an imminent threat to our borders?

Here's a clue: they haven't so far.

 
At 12/17/2011 12:54:00 PM, Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

>>While I find his response to be somewhat incoherent <<

Exactly, Sir! Ron Paul's incoherence is prominent.[I think overall] Your link to his exchange with Bachmann over Iran also revealed Paul as a fast-talking, self-contradicting, hysterical, confused [fill in the pejorative].

I complement you on your analysis.

Re: interventionism. Again, you are correct. I think it would be wise, and would have been, to have immediately placed large tariffs on imports - especially imported oil, and explained to the American people: "Sorry. We are at war, and we must feed the war machine until we win or lose. period."

I probably disagree with you, where I do not see our military's influence as malevolent. The vast majority of our casualties over the past 10 years have resulted from us trying to keep various Muslim subgroups from killing each other. I would disagree that Paul's snearing- at our attempts to save Muslim lives- is more Christian.

 
At 12/17/2011 01:14:00 PM, Blogger David L Alexander said...

"I think it would be wise, and would have been, to have immediately placed large tariffs on imports - especially imported oil, and explained to the American people ..."

... which he would do, in the form of calling upon Congress to declare that a state of war exists with the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you listen to him (babbling) long enough, you know that this is what he would do if elected.

I think where we disagree (besides in your use of "complement" as opposed to "compliment"), is the degree to which his weaknesses affect his viability as a candidate. A President cannot do everything he wants to do. More often than not, the most he can do is persuade Congress and/or the American people to take certain actions. That is, unless you are life most recent Presidents who pass one executive order after another, all with dubious Constitutional basis at best, and which Ron Paul most assuredly would NOT do.

"The vast majority of our casualties over the past 10 years have resulted from us trying to keep various Muslim subgroups from killing each other."

... again, which would never happen were it not for our policy of interventionism, including playing Iran and Iraq off each other for over half a century. During that period, one has been our ally against the other at any given time.

 
At 12/18/2011 11:38:00 AM, Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

>>.... which he would do, in the form of calling upon Congress to declare that a state of war exists with the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you listen to him (babbling) long enough, you know that this is what he would do if elected.
<<<

No, I do not know that. He responded to the 9/11 attacks with soul searching about what we did to bring on the attacks. Then he catered to -and no doubt has raised funds from -- 9/11 truthers,--of which I am not convinced that he isn't wingnut number one.

If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior, then - we can expect- Mr. Paul to respond to a future attack on U. S. soil with more soul searching or crackpot speculation.

 
At 12/18/2011 03:22:00 PM, Blogger David L Alexander said...

"He responded to the 9/11 attacks with soul searching about what we did to bring on the attacks."

He wouldn't be the first. Recent books about the years leading up to Pearl Harbor suggest that our diplomatic and military actions provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl, to the point where the White House knew of it in advance. If you know the history of that period, there is enough to suggest the possibility. That doesn't justify what the Japanese did, but it does put it into perspective.

Ron Paul, whatever you think of him (and I'm still not sure myself), is the only candidate who is mindful of the wishes of our Founding Fathers who wanted to avoid foreign entanglements.

None of this requires soul searching, so much as reading history. (I'm still not reading how we're going to continue to afford all this.)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home