Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Rand Paul

Kentucky held a primary yesterday that received national attention thanks to the participation and victory of "tea party"-backed Senate candidate Rand Paul, son of libertarian Representative Ron Paul of Texas. The seat is currently held by Republican Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame former baseball pitcher. The race was noteworthy because Mitch McConnell's preferred (and groomed) candidate, Secretary of State Trey Greyson lost the race.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic ballot, state Attorney General Jack Conway defeated Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo and won his party's nomination for the same Senate race. Rob Farley declared this "Good news from Kentucky... Conway is more progressive than Mongiardo and polls better; against the Randernaut he might have a chance."

Frankly, I suspect most Kentuckians know little about Rand Paul. I'm also betting that Conway will make sure that voters learn a lot more before November.

What's to know?

Like his better-known father, Rand opposed the Iraq war -- and he thinks the "murky" Afghan war needs to be formally declared by Congress. Those are defensible positions, but they are clearly not reflective of Republican policy in the last decade.

Many of the policies Rand and Ron Paul reject were proposed and implemented by Republicans in power during the Bush era: bank bailouts, deficit spending, war without end, etc. This is likely why Dick Cheney supported Greyson in the primary and why neoconservatives are alleged to be upset by his prospects for success.

Indeed, Paul himself says that he typically agrees with his father on policy issues:
Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues?

Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree.
He then notes that his father will sometimes introduce an earmark, while he thinks "the whole system is broken down, and it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t put earmarks on bills."

He thinks drugs should be a state issue, which is an evasive way of saying that the federal government shouldn't make them illegal. Right?

Libertarians oppose drug laws, but what about health and safety issues? How much should the federal government do to help save lives? The New York Times Magazine asked him this question in April:
But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.

I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.
The "nanny state" is a line used by people who don't think the government should try to limit tobacco consumption, promote better nutrition, etc. However, these examples may also mask antipathy towards environmental regulations, occupational safety and health standards, minimum wage laws, etc.

Paul has a somewhat dystopian view of the economy and is fairly cynical about the culture as well:
I see us in the latter stages of the Roman empire, when you have bread and circuses to placate the mob... I think there’s a danger that we could destroy our currency and be like 1923 in Germany, with the Weimar currency, with money in wheelbarrows. Germany was a civilized country in Europe, and they destroyed their currency and then elected Hitler, so things have happened before and they could happen again.
Paul certainly isn't a Keynesian as he favors a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He is "worried that the deficit will consume our nation."

The bipartisan Keynesian economics we witnessed in 2008-2009 reflected legitimate concerns that the banking and credit system would collapse without emergency assistance, thus destroying the economy and provoking another Great Depression.

I cannot wait to hear what Paul has to say about that topic, as well as aid to Israel, farm subsidies, Social Security (!), public education, etc.

Helpfully, Trey Greyson's campaign maintained a website of "randpaulstrangeideas.com." It seems to have been taken down, but the google cache of the central issues is still available for now. Here's an idea of what it used to look like.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Huckabee

Will Republican phenom Mike Huckabee be the Howard Dean of 2008? He seemingly came from nowhere to head the polls in Iowa -- but new scrutiny of his past may bring collapse.

First up, did the former Arkansas governor lose weight via gastric bypass surgery? That theory is circling around the right blogosphere. This is from the Sacramento News and Review "bites" page:
Prior to assuming the lead in the polls for the Iowa Republican presidential caucus, Huckabee’s greatest claim to fame was losing 120 pounds off his previously obese, 300-plus-pound frame in little more than a year. Huckabee says he did it the “hard way,” using a special exercise and diet regime designed by Dr. Phillip Kern, director of the University of Arkansas Medical Center Weight Control Program.

“What if Huckabee’s signature issue is a scam?” asks Plutarch, a California physician who has painstakingly put together a case that suggests the Huckster may have lost the tonnage the new-fashioned way: Through bariatric surgery, also known as gastric bypass surgery, in which the stomach is stapled to reduce the amount the given patient can eat in a sitting. As gruesome as it sounds, it’s easier than dieting and exercising.

What would it mean if Plutarch’s right? Well, according to approximately two-thirds of the Freepers who responded to Plutarch’s treatise after it was posted on conservative Web site Free Republic, it means Huckabee is toast.
I happen to know that some major media figures know about this blog post...

Second story: Huckabee's Iowa Christmas ad. Ron Paul doesn't like it and you may find his response to it fairly incredible. See this:



You only need to watch the first minute or so!


Visit this blog's homepage.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Ron Paul


Several times in the past, I've blogged about a couple of prominent political figures that I've briefly tagged as "my favorite Republican."

A few years ago, like many members of the news media, I had a brief infatuation with Senator John McCain. By 2005, with his persistent support of the Iraq war, McCain lost the title.

Then, more recently, Senator Chuck Hagel was the top choice. Hagel has been a critic of the Iraq war -- plus I shook his hand and appreciated his frankness back in '05.

If I had to limit my choice to the 2008 Republican candidates for President, it looks like Ron Paul wins the title. I base this both on his May appearance on Bill Maher's show and on this test.

And like Rob, who pointed me to the test, I was surprised at how much I apparently like Bill Richardson.


Visit this blog's homepage.