Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Gail Collins makes the case for Ron Paul:
Paul says he believes that the federal government (“the wealth-extracting leviathan state”) shouldn’t be doing anything that’s not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, which once caused him to vote against giving a Congressional medal to Mother Teresa.
He doesn’t really believe in global warming, but, even if he did, he doesn’t think government is smart enough to be able to do anything about it.
He also doesn’t believe in, well, let’s see: gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn. Also the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Taxes are theft. While his fellow Republican candidates fume about gay marriage, Paul thinks the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely. (“In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.”)
I kid. This is supposed to be a list of all that disqualifies Paul from being considered by all sensible folk. A shame, since most* of what’s listed above is pretty good stuff.
Of course, Paul won’t win either and on many of these matters he remains painfully, if often splendidly, isolated within his own party. Which says as much about the GOP as it does about Dr Paul.
Bonus: Paul could, maybe, snatch second place in New Hampshire. This would be nice, not least when one considers how damaging it might be for many of Paul’s freedom-hating rivals.
*Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act is principled but, in the end, unfortunate since, in the name of opposing federal tyranny, it necessarily and unfortunately buttressed another, legally-sanctioned, tyranny.
Comments