From Glenn Greenwald’s post linked by Michael below:
Paul, of course, is not only in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but also emphatically opposes the crux of America’s bipartisan foreign policy consensus. He reserves his greatest scorn for America’s hegemonic rule of the world through superior military force, i.e., its acting as an empire in order to prop up its entangling alliances and enduring conflicts — what George Washington lamented as “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others.”
[…] Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America’s addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire — not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul’s campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America’s imperial rule wreaks on every level — economic, moral, security, liberty — makes his success worth applauding.
This point is more important than most people appreciate, and not just because I have hit on it before. When you watch the Democratic debates, just like the Republican debates, everybody more or less takes for granted that we have a right to throw the US military around the world without regard for anybody’s opinion but our own. On the face of it that seems silly, not only did the Bush years show that it can be a catastrophically stupid approach but we have every reason to think in advance that casually throwing the military around would cause more problems than it would solve. There is a good reason why diplomatic corps and the FBI have a frustratingly cautious approach to international operations.
Either the Democrats are too afraid to challenge the neoconservative mindset that rules Washington or they don’t actually have a problem with it. It’s hard to say which of those two options pisses me off worse. Iraq matters to people, and the further you get from the cocktail circuit bobbleheads the more viscerally the issue hits. Knowing full well that Paul will never break 10% and knowing that half of Paul’s issue stances border on the lunatic, I have a very easy time understanding where his money comes from. Literally nobody else is saying what people are hungry to hear.
TenguPhule
When the lunatics preach sense you know our nation’s fucked.
Zifnab
There is a huge advantage to have international military bases that encircle the globe. Take a look at Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks, we turned and crushed the Taliban sponsors within roughly a year. What other country could have rallied that much manpower and firepower that quickly? Likewise, the physical invasion of Baghdad has been acknowledged – logistically – as a smashing success, a success that rested heavily on our bases in Kuwait, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
This isn’t to say we should be rushing around the globe and squashing foreign enemies, but you’re going to have a very hard time finding anyone – much less the type of egomaniac that would actually run for President – willing to turn down that grip on power.
It’s not the President’s job to give up that sort of military power. It’s the job of the Congress to take it back when they believe that the cost of worldwide military bases exceed the benefit of an international long arm. The Founders gave Congress the power of the purse to use it. And when almost half the discretionary budget goes to tanks, planes, guns, and bombs, you can hardly blame the Executive Branch for spending it.
Gary Poopart
The fact is Rupaul has alaway sspoken truth to power.
Incertus (Brian)
Not quite, Tim. Dennis Kucinich has said much the same thing. Department of Peace, remember? He has something else in common with Ron Paul–he won’t get more than ten percent of the vote, either.
r€nato
Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight is highly recommended. The first half is rather balanced; the second half rather more polemical. Even if one doesn’t agree with the conclusions, it will certainly open one’s eyes to how often this country sends in the troops.
r€nato
I’m all for Ron Paul doing well enough to make the rest of the GOP candidates uncomfortable… thank goodness he won’t do well enough to actually win!
srv
Kevin Drum and his fanclub think we’re just a bunch of asbergers social infants. Obviously, our more enlightened socialite Hillary/Pelosi/Feinstein-loving “we’re anti-war!” morons just don’t have a clue.
I mean, how can you possibly be anti-war, pro civil liberties and be a Dem at this point? It’s not like any of them would evah vote for Kucinich.
sglover
Literally nobody else is saying what people are hungry to hear.
Precisely. That’s it. Decent people see their country going off the rails, and at the same time their “leaders” may as well be talking about events on Mars. Paul rates loyalty for the same reason Howard Dean did in the last cycle: He speaks lucidly and candidly.
But our smart set won’t have that. Look at little Matty Yglesias’ take:
As a practicing doctor, Paul’s done more tangible good for more people than Yglesias, with his cloistered little Beltway pundit career already mapped out, ever will. Hell, I’m far more in Yglesias’ ideological camp than Paul’s, but this smug toss-off line repels me — and I think it’s typical of the incestuous Beltway “consensus”.
sglover
Kevin Drum and his fanclub think we’re just a bunch of asbergers social infants. Obviously, our more enlightened socialite Hillary/Pelosi/Feinstein-loving “we’re anti-war!” morons just don’t have a clue.
I gave up on reading Drum months ago. The guy’s the master of the obvious, and the banal.
Lemme guess — He’s devoting post after post to parsing the precise differences between Clinton’s and Obama’s and Edwards’ marketing, and then dithering from week to week about which one should win or can win or looks or smells most like a winner. Am I right?
misc
I was a 10-percenter in 2002, when everyone else supported the invasion of Iraq. It’s discouraging to see many of the few voices who opposed the invasion then, now condemning Ron Paul as someone one step away from the straitjacket.
I don’t support Paul on a lot of issues, but I can understand the excitement underwriting his campaign at this point. He possesses a level of integrity absent from every other presidential campaign.
Disagree with him or not, that’s a force to be reckoned with.
Dreggas
I always figured Drum was just a DLC Hillary supporter.
I read his post regarding Paul today and figured he was just being a dick. Because heaven forbid someone supports someone ANTI-establisment.
This isn’t just about Paul, this is about being tired of the same damn shit. All this needs is a commercial like the one for the apple with the drones staring at the screen then the bald chick throwing a sledgehammer into the screen or something.
Hell even Sully gets it. This is about change period. Dean was the spark in 04.
Gary Poopart
The fact is John B Anderson failed attempt tried this back in 1980 led to 8 years of the greatest presidency ever.
I suspect RuPaul will split the independant vote and we will again have a wonderful 8 Huckabbee years.
The Other Andrew
While I do agree that Paul is a huge weirdo who seems a bit crazy, he’s obviously right on the war/empire issue. But he’s able to get away with saying that because he’s a Republican. If Obama said that, he’d be tarred and feathered by the media. When a politician endorses a radical (actual or perceived) idea that originates on his side of the political spectrum, he’s an extremist, but if he endorses such an idea that originates from the other side of the political spectrum, he’s a maverick. There’s probably a name for this principle, but, I’ve no idea what it is.
Mike
You could say the same about Bill Frist, and I wouldn’t want him even looking at videotapes of the White House.
But, at the moment Ron Paul is a weirdo; his views of foreign policy and the scope of the federal government’s power are immensely far from the reality of the last 75 years. Before I could vote for him, I’d need a serious statement of both where he intends to go and what path he expects to travel to get there.
sglover
Instead, Obama decides to prove his “toughness” by calling for another 100,000 soldiers. Because our military-centric foreign policy has just been so damn successful in Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama — yes! More of the same, please!
Believing Dems would rather we not bring up embarrassments like that, however.
I really don’t want to be the Ron Paul defender, but it seems to me that Frist’s major health care concerns were as much about building his corporate empire as anything else. But cheap shots aside, Frist made it inescapably clear that he had no real principles, that he’d say or do anything. Jesus, look at how he debased himself in the Schiavo tragedy.
Anyway, it really annoyed the hell out of me to see a 20-something careerist Beltway gasbag write off his better the way Yglesias did.
rilkefan
This is trivially false, unless it’s moronically straw.
SmilingPolitely
If Gozer was commanding me from the sky to choose my Republican destructor, I’d probably go with Ron Paul.
sglover
This is trivially false, unless it’s moronically straw.
No it isn’t. Kucinich and Gravel aside, no Dem dares go near even suggesting that maybe Americans should take a good hard look at their military, er, “foreign” policy. The rest of the world has our number — for us, diplomacy has almost come to mean, who can draw the biggest gun first? It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Forget about Iraq. Consider Grenada, Panama, our proxy wars in Central America, or the way Bill Clinton would sporadically lob some cruise missiles (“no Americans were risked in the making of this air strike”) at this or that ramshackle state. You gonna tell us that the reigning President asked **anybody** for their opinions before the killing started?!?!
Vegan
Its extremely arrogant for you to say that you “know full well” than Ron Paul will never break 10%. Let me alert the 90 % of my friends that our newfound HOPE for a change is misguided, so we can go back to our justified apathy. Do you understand why we like him? WE’RE NOT CRAZY. We’re sick and tired of all this political posturing by professional bullsh*tters. We’re not gonna just start supporting someone else….If its not Ron Paul, then to hell with the rest of them.
Jim Peterson
I am one of those military veterans who disagrees with Ron Paul on the Iraq War. But he still gets my vote so far because he is the only candidate even mentioning the Constitution.
All a citizen has to do to like Ron Paul is to see an activist judge redefine the Constitution on a matter that counts personally.
Chuck Butcher
If Kucinich wasn’t so wrong on firearms I’d work for him, but I do not trust people who grab civil liberties, even in the name of peace.
VidaLoca
Fixed.
A. Correa
I see what you say. a lot of other articles also say these things about Ron Paul. In the end people always say his stances on some issues are crazy,like what? Doing away with the CIA? we only have 17 other intelligence agencies to chose from. Is it the FBI and its redundancy when every state has the same org. Is it dept of ed. which spends a quarter of its budget on payroll,admin fees,supporting no child lfet behind which only gives money to companies like jeb bush’s. Then it gives half of its money back to the people it took it from, you know only the fed gov. knows how to best spend this money. Is it the FDA that is manipulated by the pharma co. and politicians and will not let people take experimental drugs even when they are going to die? Is it really the unfederal reserve with its funny money and it’s inflation tax? Not to say a non governmental agency, staffed by the unelected should not collect their low interest rate tax on billions.(Got to keep them impartial How does it go? He who controls the money,controls the economy. He who controls the economy,controls the govern- ment. He who controls the government,controls the country. He who controls the country,controls its people. He who controls the people have all the power.) You would not want a by metal money competing with the fake money. You would not want to put 10 dollars of gold money in the bank and have worth the same amount when you take it out 10 yrs later. Only money that loses its value over time makes sense, right? Is it the income tax because we would not want all those rich people to have an extra billion on top of 10 billion because whats $10,000 to some one who makes $30 or 40 or 50,000? They just do not hard work enough to spend it on themselves.You only want to give them $300 every once in a while,right? Only the gov. knows the best way to spend it. thats on the fore mention fed. reserve. That great well meaning institution. Oh yeah this money only gets to be spent to service the interest on the nat. debt because it does not matter if the politicians overspend its for all those good causes,right?
r€nato
Project much?
please see my comment above re: Why We Fight, and report back what you’ve learned once you’ve watched it.
r€nato
all this and more covered in the above-mentioned film.
Wilfred
Americans think locally and bullshit globally. Combine that with the absence of radicalism and you get negotiated constructions like: I hate imperialism, militarism, torture, blah blah blah. BUT my Senator is great on gay marriage, health care, the environment blah blah blah. Think locally, bullshit globally.
Throw in hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts and everybody’s happy – except for waterboarded brown people who don’t care about gay marriage, health care or the environment anyway – run loop.
JGabriel
Tim: “Knowing full well that Paul will never break 10%…”
If Ross Perot could break 10%, Paul can probably do it too. Safer to say Paul will never break 20%.
It wouldn’t change your point, it would just prevent people from making nitpicky arguments about underestimating Paul.
JGabriel
SGlover: “Lemme guess—He’s [Kevin Drum’s]devoting post after post to parsing the precise differences between Clinton’s and Obama’s and Edwards’ marketing, and then dithering from week to week about which one should win or can win or looks or smells most like a winner. Am I right?”
Not really – he’s been running a contest to pick out the wingnuttiest post, evah.
Actually, it’s pretty funny.
sparky
Wilfred:
Yes.
Toss in some well-applied pressure groups (see, e.g., Cuba),
and, lest we forget,
blend in the all-important idea that any impingement on the American way of energy consumption (or profits) is a threat to “vital American interests”
half-bake, “create own reality” and trill over the results.
sparky
Tim: thanks for highlighting this again.
To me it seems that both left and right, people have it somewhat backwards these days. What is the point of arguing about social issues when the entire governance structure is burning down? The first question is, or ought to be, what kind of country do we want. Do we want to be an undemocratic empire? Or are we fine with that and then we can squabble about second-order social issues? I have a hard time understanding how social issues can be more important than governance issues; it’s not that they are unimportant, but at this moment it’s a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Pb
Wait, Paul is a ‘serious’ candidate, but Kucinich and Gravel aren’t serious? Is this some sort of dollar threshold definition of the world serious at work here? And, if so, it’s probably worth noting that Mitt “double guantanamo” Romney is net negative $8M dollars of ‘serious’ at the moment, so I’m predicting that he’ll be the nominee–GOP loves ’em some deficit spending!
El Cid
I am pleasantly shocked whenever I hear a major U.S. politician cross the “unspeakable” barrier to say the simple truths I have been living with for roughly 20 years now (since I began paying attention).
Such is the case with Ron Paul’s core statement on U.S. foreign policy principles.
Although, he still follows the Threefold Golden Rule of Right Wing Populism:
Liberals and lefties listening to a right wing populist will hear two stirring statements they surprisingly agree with.
A third statement then comes out of bizarro world and leaves the listeners confused.
I.e.: “Yeah! Yeah! What???”
Rudi
Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. He is going to split off the Libertarian/Republicans like Nader did in 2000. The Demoncrats smell power, they won’t waste a vote on Paul. While cheerleader W was playing hookey in Alabama, Paul was a flight surgeon.
Incertus (Brian)
Paul is correct on pretty much one thing and one thing alone–the Iraq War and the issue of empire. On the rest of it, he’s fairly nutty, but if you’re a person who agrees on that one point and refuses to consider a Democrat, that’s appealing. His support for the Constitution is dubious at best, when compared with his votes on issues like womens’ choice.
Tim F.
Paul is serious because he has a coherent and internally consistent platform, not because he has some money or popularity threshold. Thompson, for example, is completely unserious by any legitimate measure. IMO Kucinich is just a grab bag of far-left policies that he picked up a few years ago to grab the gullible hardliner demo and Gravel is running for the president of Dada.
glasnost
I mean, how can you possibly be anti-war, pro civil liberties and be a Dem at this point?
Just because Democrats have failed to end the war and less than completely protected our civil liberties doesn’t mean they aren’t trying. They’re being obstructed by Republicans. Ron Paul is a Republican. His own party would pull him into a men’s bathroom and gut him like a fish if he attempted to roll back militarism as a Republican President.
For some reason, Ron Paul is positioned in a way that enables him to say things that Democrats can’t say. Howard Dean was intensely, seriously anti-Iraq in 2004, and he was wiped out. Democrats helped, to their shame, but the Republicans led the way by painting him as a military-hating freak. Veterans and soldiers command political weight in our country inverse to their numbers – they and the industries that serve them are directly responsible for our enormous military-industrial complex, which is responsible for our penchant for shooting first and thinking later. But if you talk sh*t about them, they’ll politically bury you.
Ron Paul’s genius is in how he somehow takes no anti-military flak – and there’s usually a seething tide of it – while railing openly against the military-industrial complex. Bill Clinton tried to roll back US commitments overseas and close some bases, and two years later we had the Republican Revolution.
I don’t know how he does it, but Democrats have tried to do it and failed.
Every Democrat but Hilary Clinton is sincere about trying to use the military less in foreign affairs. On the other hand, Americans are quite likely to get blown up over the next couple of decades. It’s too late to stop that entirely. A president who finds himself unable to react to that forcefully will be tossed over the side of the good ship America like a rubber duck out of the bathtub.
So there are practical limits to how much anyone – even Ron Paul – can eliminate the U.S.’s military commitments.
ImJohnGalt
Incertus (Brian), I would suggest you go over and read that Greenwald analysis of Paul. He addresses Paul’s votes/stance on choice and explains how Paul, as a constitutionalist, is still being internally consistent in his abortion stance by saying that abortion is a matter best left to state.
Now, you may disagree, but it’s worth reading Greenwald’s updates, too.
I think most of his ideas are (to be charitable) “out there” and as a dual citizen, I wouldn’t vote for him. Perhaps as his popularity grows/gets more coverage, the Democratic candidates (besides Dodd) might actually have to take a principled stance on America’s foreign policy.
RareSanity
Maybe I’m just a little naive, or maybe just a little crazy myself, but could someone please explain to me which “policies” of Ron Paul’s are “insane”?
I think that word is being thrown around entirely too much, I mean come on, there can’t be disagreement without caricatures? Isn’t that what everyone rails against neocons about? That if you disagree with them, you hate America and love the terrorists…etcetera, etcetera…
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and yes, there are policies of his I disagree with, but what must be understood is that because of his main principle, the Constitution, a lot of his policies would never see the light of day. Remember that co-equal branch of Government called the Congress? Last I checked, Democrats where is control and gaining. What are the chances of a bill nullifying Roe v. Wade makes it out of Congress to even reach him to sign? Wait..I know…zero, zip nada.
Understand the the beauty of a Ron Paul presidency is an attempt to return power to the people. I think that people wrongly assume that Paul would exercise the same “unitary executive” powers that Bush has, he doesn’t believe in it, he seeks to reduce the power of government, not maintain (the new) status quo.
Doug H.
Here’s why Ron Paul is ‘nutty’: Once, we joked that George W. Bush was building a bridge to the 19th century. With Ron Paul, that’s no longer a joke. Isolationism, dismantling the Federal Reserve, revoking Roe vs Wade, a greater emphasis on keeping the coloreds down- er- “states’ rights”… If you liked the America of 1897, then Ron Paul’s your guy.
RareSanity
Doug, you do understand that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Isolationism says I wall myself off and don’t interact with anyone else. Non-interventionism means I interact with you, but I don’t tell you how to handle your own affairs. The difference between international hermit and not being an international busy body is huge.
Do you actually think that institutional racism, in 2008 could make a come back just because of state’s rights? That’s a reach, and a scare tactic.
Incertus (Brian)
Incertus (Brian), I would suggest you go over and read that Greenwald analysis of Paul. He addresses Paul’s votes/stance on choice and explains how Paul, as a constitutionalist, is still being internally consistent in his abortion stance by saying that abortion is a matter best left to state.
Now, you may disagree, but it’s worth reading Greenwald’s updates, too.
I read it yesterday. I don’t generally disagree with Greenwald, but I think he’s way off base on this. He’s seeing a consistency that simply isn’t there.
jenniebee
It’s not that he’s “crazy” in any medical sense – it’s that he’s a Randoid who wants a return to the gold standard. I don’t know what’s a better illustration of not being able to tell a good idea from a bad one than that.
Yes, he’s a man of some very good principles, principles I would have hoped I could expect from anyone who is stepping up to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (Paul’s radical notion that the oath ought to be fulfilled is, indeed, refreshing). But we’re in trouble if willingness to adhere to the constitution is enough in itself to make someone a desirable candidate for our highest office. Rather, that ought to be our baseline. It is not unreasonable to expect our candidates to show themselves capable of good judgment as well.
Doug H.
Yes, let’s argue semantics as opposed to Rep. Paul’s actual policies and what they’d do to the world at large.
Do you actually think it wouldn’t come back in some form? Not against African-Americans, perhaps than against, say, Muslims and Latinos?
Oh, and I noticed you had nothing to say about Rep. Paul’s thoughts on the world economy and going back to the gold standard. Not as if that’s an important part of his platform or anything.
sparky
jenniebee–
i agree with you about judgment. but it seems to me that almost none of the candidates meet the baseline, with the possible exceptions of Dodd and Paul. is there anyone else? what about if there is no one else? is judgment more important? it’s an interesting question.
RareSanity
I’m not arguing semantics. Let me say this clearly…Ron Paul does not support isolationism…period.
He does not support NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or any on those treaties or organizations. If Dell wants to sell computers in Cuba, that is between Dell and Cuba not between is US Government, Dell and Cuba (not isolationist). However, he does not believe that the US Government should tell Dell not to sell computers in Cuba because it wants a regime change in Cuba (interventionist), or that Cuba’s government should be subverted or attacked because the US doesn’t agree with their form of government. Do you see the difference? Don’t be dense, that is not semantics. You don’t like Ron Paul for what ever reason, just stop misrepresenting his policies.
No, because state’s rights or not, no law can be enacted that is unconstitutional, you can’t violate people’s civil rights in any form…period. A state legislature cannot override the Constitution anymore than the Congress can.
Again, I don’t have to agree with every policy he supports. I don’t support returning to the gold standard. I do agree with allowing citizens to conduct their business with each other with a competing currency (gold), which is currently illegal, and so does Ron Paul.
Name one candidate that you agree with %100 of their policies…can’t do it can you? That is why there is a Congress, do you think a bill requiring a return to the gold standard would make it through Congress.
What does the Federal Reserve do that the US Treasury cannot? Nothing, so exactly what would happen if the responsibilities of the Fed were taken over by the Treasury?
El Cid
I never was obsessive about these arguments about the “private” Federal Reserve being the root of all evil.
But since the Bush Jr. / Reagan II regime, I have a greater degree of appreciation for Hamilton’s notions of the US banking system NOT being under the direct control of the executive.
Yeah, maybe the Federal Reserve isn’t the best way to set it up.
But can you imagine how worse it could have been had Bush Jr., Cheney et al had had their hands directly on the US banking system?
grumpy realist
If Ron Paul doesn’t support the usual international organizations such as WTO etc., then he’s definitely loopy. Does he know what most of these organizations do? 90% of what they’re doing is figuring out international standards, so you don’t have to renegotiate every single jot and tittle of international business every time you want to buy, sell, manufacture, or ship something.
There’s a reason why we have the Universal Code for commerce in the US. Because we don’t want to have to repack 10-egg packs to be 12-egg packs when going over a state line.
This is why libertarians are idiots. They assume everyone has infinite time, infinite money, and infinite effort to negotiate every single transaction and to check the safety of every product.
And anyone who wants go back to the pre-FDA era, it looks like with the gutting of the agency by the Bushites, that’s what you are going to get. Stop expecting women to wear US-made lipstick–that’s the latest product out there that has been showing up with high levels of lead.
RareSanity
So let me get this straight, if these trade organizations were to go away, all of the sudden supermarkets are going to accept 10-egg packaging from their suppliers? Wouldn’t they just deal with suppliers that provided the product they wanted package like they want it?
Hmmm…let’s look at that a different way. What if the FDA went away, and an organization like…say Consumer Reports began to offer food and drug testing for which they charged a fee for companies to submit their products for testing. Would you choose to by a product that didn’t go through Consumer Report’s (or some other organization’s) testing? Plus, here’s the kicker, income tax money isn’t paying for it, the developer of the product is…what a novel idea.
Why do you think that their would not be a profit motive for companies like that to begin springing up all over the place? Why do you not think that any product that goes through Consumer Report’s testing as safe and cause harm, that it would hurt their reputation and therefore their profitability, and their very existence?
How about the company that specializes in testing Chinese goods for lead? Would you trust a Chinese toy that didn’t have that company’s seal on it?
Look, you disagree with libertarian philosophy, fine. Does that make libertarians “idiots”. you realize that Republicans think Democrats are idiots and vice-versa…which one is right? Neither…so just because you disagree does not make the other side an idiot…
You idiot…
grumpy realist
RareSanity–you realize that what you outline as Consumer Reports doing for physical products is EXACTLY what the rating agencies such as Moody’s, Fitch, etc. have been doing with CDOs and SIVs?
Doesn’t look like it helped the risk analysis of actual financial products, did it? Or have you even noticed the sub-prime meltdown and now how an “AAA” means absolutely NUTHIN’?
That’s the problem–agency capture. Get enough money attached to buying off the regulators and all those nice little certifications are worth dooty-squat.
The only argument is whether it is easier for private agencies to undergo agency capture than branches of government. I think so, because private agencies are usually a) smaller (fewer people to subvert) and b) more likely to operate on a profit motive (more likely to be subverted.) Of course, you get enough packing of government with politicians’ cronies and yeah, it will go down the tubes as well.
Cui custodet custodes? has never been solved in any system. The only thing you can do is put in enough checks and balances, lots of anti-corruption legislation armed to the teeth, and hope for the best.
grumpy realist
Anyone who thinks that standards, once created, don’t need organizations to keep them codified hasn’t done that much work in business. There’s a reason why we got a piece of prototype equipment from the US with a three-prong plug that was expected to fit into a Japanese piece of equipment with a two-prong hole.
RareSanity
Financial instruments are dynamic entities, a toy is a static entity. It is either safe or not safe. You are comparing apples and oranges. A Moody’s rating could have been valid until say the price of oil skyrocketed, these things cannot be foreseen. With a toy, it either has lead paint or doesn’t…is a choking hazard, or is not.
So then what happens if a government official, say the president, appoints people to head these agencies that have received paychecks from the very industries that they are now supposed to police?
Same problem…right? The only difference is my income tax isn’t paying for it.
Well you just proved my point, with all the bureaucracies in place, that event still happened. From my point of view I look at the company that sells those little adapters that allowed you to use it anyway and think it is a good thing, everybody involved benefited. Or, it can be looked at as a minor inconvenience that is corrected with some wire cutters and a soldering iron. You look to government to prevent the event from happening, which it did not, and can’t…there was a need and it was filled, and not by government.
grumpy realist
Looks like Kevin Drum has attached quite a collection of the loonier RonBots. The hagiography about Ron Paul that they are spewing out sounds suspiciously like what a lot of the 28%ers say about George Bush.
Look–I like parts of what Ron Paul has to say. I like his commentary about US foreign involvement. I like his support for civil liberties and the Constitution. But this doesn’t blind me to the fact that a sizeable percentage of his stated policies sound totally fruitcake. The US is NOT going to go back on the gold standard, we’re NOT going to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and we’re NOT going to get rid of the IRS. The business community would blow a gasket.
RareSanity
Why do you feel it necessary to attempt to insult me (whether implicitly or directly) every time you respond to a comment of mine?
Well, you would agree that those things you view as extreme would have trouble being enacted right? I’m sure you also agree that the points you do agree with him on are really the most important right?
I say, put this guy in office, let him institute a sane foreign policy, reinstate civil liberties, and Constitutional government, which Congress would not fight. Then let that same Constitutional government (Congress) fight it out with him about the other things that are so “fruitcake”, in your opinion. If they are in fact “fruitcake” Congress won’t pass bills enacting them.
grumpy realist
Hey, don’t play with the flea-ridden dogs unless you want to catch ’em. There are enough Randoid Ron Paul applauders running around on the net babbling like Paul is the Second Coming and blog-swarming every site that mentions him. Go read the two threads at Kevin Drum’s site and see what I mean. If you don’t want people to think that the Ron Paul-ites are total lunatics, you’re going to have to tell the crazier bunch of Libertarian Randoids associated with him to put a sock in it.
And I don’t agree that the points I agree with Paul “are the most important” if he’s going to be so batshit crazy as to attempt to implement the rest of the package. I want a President with some sense about reality when it comes to how the whole system works and why our economic system as it stands right now can’t stand any attempts to rip down the Fed or get rid of the IRS. Not right now. I don’t need another loon in the White House–the one we have there has done enough damage already.
Plus, doesn’t Ron Paul not believe in Global Warming? That makes me worry about his brains right there. How far do the ice-caps have to melt down before the Libertarians will admit that well, maybe something is occuring?