Catching Flies With Honey...

So as much as I may criticize Ron Paul for his ugly paleo positions, or electoral politics in general, it's stuff like this that makes me think twice and remember why I can't stay mad at him for very long:

And yet it was only late last month that his state headquarters here acquired a basic campaign tool: telephones. For months, Paul's avid supporters were perfectly willing to make campaign calls with their own cellphones.....

Paul admitted how much his election prospects are outside his own control...."They've been out walking the streets all day, and we didn't plan it. We didn't plan the money-raising. It is in a sense a revolution, a grass-roots revolution in the best of its meaning," he said.

Asked if he hopes to exert more control over the effort as the primary nears, Paul demurred. "It's the way I want the markets to work, so the market of politics should work that way, too," he said.

He added with a chuckle: "The only thing that's going to close it down is some [Federal Election Commission] ruling or something: 'That's too much freedom. We better abolish this spontaneity.' "

- via Hit & Run

Share this

Yeah, but who needs all the flies?

I hate flies.

I know the feeling. There's

I know the feeling. There's a cure though, read the following every morning:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

True dat. Back to the fence

True dat. Back to the fence I sit.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Paul's imigration policy sucks

but what else about his positions (ignoring whether he is good for libertarians) do people find objectionable? even those who find that his trade objections are overly idealistic seem to support them in theory. I would love to see a Paul policy debate rather than a philosophical one from the crowd here. Personally, I think returning to a gold standard is lunacy, but maybe I just haven't studied up enough on the issue.

What matters is not so much

What matters is not so much the money standard as the freedom to use any kind of money (by removal of legal tender laws and above all taxation of inflation 'profits'). I think Paul's plan for a return to the gold standard it not to have the fed start buying and selling gold at a fixed US dollar rate but rather to introduce a competing gold based dollar. I don't find it lunatic at all.

I find his position on abortion a bit weaselly

and that's not a great sign. To be consistent with his avowed principles he should support an amendment banning abortion; instead he plays to both sides of the street insisting it's a question for states. I'd ask him if slavery should have remained a question for the political market. What good is a federal bill of rights if states get to decide who is a person?

 

He also has a tendency to let his followeres believe he will do things like shut down the IRS, though in fact he won't. Rewturning to the gold standard would be an improvement of sorts, but he won't do that either.

 

What would probably happen if Paul were elected is that he would stop the war, overturn a lot of executive directives, and veto most deals sent to his desk. Congress would shortly start sending him only veto-proof bills. He'd be out of office four years later. That's a potential reality he could run on. But he lets his followeres believe something much bigger will happen because that energizes them.