I agree. But Ron Paul is a tragedy. Hands down he’s the best candidate from either major party (now that Johnson is out). The others are dictator-wannabes. Paul is sort of principled, sort of libertarian, and the “sort of” makes him entirely vulnerable and impotent. He won’t shed his ties to the Lew Rockwell cult and, via them, to white supremacists, neoconfederates, truthers, and the like. This makes it much harder for him to draw from the moderates and leftists who oppose the growing police state and permanent warfare, and from genuine free marketers (and leftists!) who oppose bailouts and privileges for well-connected businesses. We’ll end up with a “choice” of Obama 1 or Obama 2 (Barack or Mitt) or else Obama vs. a conservative sociopath (Newt or Rick), and I think it owes to Paul’s willingness to compromise on principle:
[…] From tomgpalmer.com […]
I agree. But Ron Paul is a tragedy. Hands down he’s the best candidate from either major party (now that Johnson is out). The others are dictator-wannabes. Paul is sort of principled, sort of libertarian, and the “sort of” makes him entirely vulnerable and impotent. He won’t shed his ties to the Lew Rockwell cult and, via them, to white supremacists, neoconfederates, truthers, and the like. This makes it much harder for him to draw from the moderates and leftists who oppose the growing police state and permanent warfare, and from genuine free marketers (and leftists!) who oppose bailouts and privileges for well-connected businesses. We’ll end up with a “choice” of Obama 1 or Obama 2 (Barack or Mitt) or else Obama vs. a conservative sociopath (Newt or Rick), and I think it owes to Paul’s willingness to compromise on principle:
http://unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-ron-paul-libertarian.html
http://unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com/2011/12/poor-ron-paul.html
http://unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-update.html