Ron Paul is "the Pee-Wee Herman of the Republican Party"

Yet another hat tip to the PowerLine brainiacs. And, I promise, my last Ron Paul post.

Some years ago, after popular children's television performer Pee-Wee Herman was arrested in a pornographic movie house, a friend commented that he wasn't surprised, as he'd always felt there was something "off" with respect to Herman. In hindsight, that wasn't too tough a call. I had a similar reaction to James Kirchick's revelations about Ron Paul.

...

It seemed obvious to me during the debates that Ron Paul is not just a principled, if quixotic, libertarian. Like Pee-Wee Herman, he is visibly "off." Paul's newsletters reveal him as prone to hatred and fond of conspiracy theories. So, in practice, he is much more like an internet liberal than a libertarian of the Steve Forbes or Cato Institute ilk. This is, of course, exactly how he came across in the presidential debates.

Read the Kirchick report. 'Nuff said.

What has Ron Paul accomplished? redux

I knew it. It was so incredibly predictable.

But before I continue, I do need to congratulate the Paulaholics. They are very well organized, and they are phenomenally passionate. Those are two outstanding qualities in politics. (Too bad their guy is a kook.) O.K., back to the post.

After posting my "what has Ron Paul accomplished" question two days ago, I received an anonymous comment a little over six hours later from a Paulaholic. And it followed the typical Paulaholic response. Let's break it down, shall we?

You are asking the wrong question of Paul supporters. If we wanted an activist government to go out and achieve things, we'd support Socialists like Hilary and Rudy.

Oh so clever. Anonymous equates government achievement with Socialism. And then (correctly) lists Mrs. Clinton and (incorrectly) Rudy as examples of Socialism.

Yes, we do want government and our government's employees and representatives to actually achieve things, like . . . oh, I don't know . . . ending the Cold War or keeping our taxes low in order to fuel economic growth. To a certain degree, I agree with the Paulaholics that government is too big and that it does to much and way more than is constitutionally mandated. But it has to DO something. It has to get something done. There is a minimum threshold of achievement that must be met. Remember this phrase?

...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

Those are some basics that our government needs to achieve. If it doesn't get some of those correct, we have no nation, and all of our discourse will be for naught.

Continuing with the Paulaholic comment.

I'd say in general, Ron Paul supporters hope that he will bring the size of government down in line with its present level of effectiveness, and the cost of that government down in line with that size.

O.K. That's nice. I'd like for every elected representative to pursue that goal. But what has he done that shows us he's capable of (here's that nasty word again) accomplishing that goal? Let's read on.

What Ron Paul did in his career was to stand firm for the philosophy of limited government as his own party stampeded away from it the moment they took power. By definition, the voice in the wilderness is not the leader of the pack. But if we ever find ourselves in a country where a politician can say, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government *is* the problem," without being derided as a racist kook, Ron Paul will be remembered as a great keeper of that flame.

"STAND FIRM." That's all they can come up with! No accomplishment. No record of getting something done. Nothing in history that will give us a clue as to what might actually occur, besides a whole bunch of speaking and standing firm.

And then...

And then...my dear anonymous commenter displays his/her ignorance of true accomplishment. For Anonymous misquotes the Great Accomplisher himself. Here's the correct quote:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, spoke of true conservatism when he said this. And, dear Anonymous, Ron Paul is most certainly not a keeper of the Reagan flame.

Predictably, the question remains unanswered; what has Ron Paul accomplished?

What has Ron Paul accomplished?

Well, I've been away for quite a while, busy with house stuff and work stuff. But now the holidays are here, and it is my goal to blog each and every day until I return to work, sometime the first week of January.

For my first Holiday 2007 post, I altruistically seek information from the Paulaholics. So, for you Paulaholics out there, please answer this question: what has Ron Paul accomplished?

Some disclosure is appropriate: I cannot lay claim to the originality of this line of questioning. I hear the unbeatable Edd Hendee and Pat Gray on AM 700 KSEV and AM 1160 KVCE ask this question every time a Paulaholic calls in. But they never answer the question. They'll start out with "Ron Paul has defended the Constitution..." or "Ron Paul has stood for American principles..." or some other platitudinous drivel. Never do they list an accomplishment.

Therefore, I ask of you, dear Paulaholics on the internet, with sincerity, what has Ron Paul accomplished?


By the way . . . by "accomplished" I mean something in government, not fund raising. He's an incredible fundraiser, no one can deny that.

First television ads from Ron Paul

Ron Paul has launched the first television ads of his 2008 campaign in New Hampshire.

Because...

• he's got cash to burn?
  
• he wants to appear relevant?
  
• he likes seeing himself on television?
  
• his (incredibly organized) supporters voted for television ads in their internal polling?

Pick one. Doesn't really matter. Because...he's a kook.



Yes, I know. You Paulaholics are organized and passionate (see the comments to my previous post on the subject). That's a wonderful thing. I just wish you could be organized and passionate about a candidate who has a chance of winning.

Ron Paul is this generation's Woodrow Wilson School of Government flunkee with a Texas Twang Twist

Amazingly there are still a formidable number of people vying for the Presidential nomination on both sides of the aisle. I say amazingly, because I thought a number of them would have been weeded out by now. Indeed, some have been: Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Tom Vilsack. But there are still eight Defeat-o-crats and eight Republicans in the race, not including Fred Thompson.

Anyway, at Playwriter Girl's Buh-Bye Chemo Pool Party Extravaganza a couple of weeks ago and after the "in an alternate reality" question, some folks and I got into a discussion of the current Republican candidates. And the name Ron Paul was mentioned, which was fortuitous timing for me. You see, earlier that day I had begun thinking about some of the Tier 2 candidates and how to sum them up. I came up with this summation for Representative Paul; he is this generation's Woodrow Wilson School of Government flunkee with a Texas Twang Twist.

Why do I call him this? Like Wilson, he would never have sent American troops into Iraq. (Wilson was forced into joining World War I, but kept us out of it for far too long.) He is an isolationist. Check out this snippet from his web site on "War and Foreign Policy":

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Indeed, we should not abdicate our sovereignty to the United Nations, ever. But President Bush's policy of fighting the terrorists over there so that they don't attack us here is the correct one. "No-win police action"? Really. How about 79.6% voter turnout in a new democracy? For me, this issue alone disqualifies Mr. Paul. Additionally, he's the only 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate to have voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.

But wait, there's more. Mr. Paul doesn't get anything done in Congress, because he doesn't work with anyone. Again like Wilson, he's an elitist. Oh, but he has worked enough with fellow representatives in order to make $400 million worth of earmark requests - check out this PDF. Some people describe him as a conservative. Yet his American Conservative Union rating for 2006 (and 2005) is 76. I'm not joking. Check out that link for yourself. But what really seals the deal for me is his 1988 Presidential candidacy. On the Libertarian ticket. Game over.

As I told a party attendee a few weeks ago, when choosing a presidential candidate the only question I ask myself is, "who would the terrorists fear?" For me right now, the only answer is Rudy Giuliani.