Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Cracks (And Crackpots) in the GOP Conglomerate


This is Michelle Bachmann. She's crazy as batshit. And some Republicans wanted her to be president. (Though, mercifully, not many.) (Credit: AP)

We independents like to whine and moan about the abominations of our nation’s two-party system, but it is increasingly evident that the two-party system is a lie. It is a myth we told ourselves to make ourselves feel better. Just because every time we go to cast a ballot, each candidate has either a “D” or an “R” next to his or her name does not at all mean that the choices were so simple as one or the other; rather, it seems, the race begins much earlier, in small contests in America’s backwoods to which we have traditionally paid very little attention. Until it is too late.

That fact has become ever more apparent now, with the close of the Republican caucuses in Iowa last night that brought former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a fire-breathing moderate, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, an iconoclastic fundamentalist, within eight votes of carrying the first contest of the 2012 presidential race.

And in third, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a one-time Libertarian Party candidate for president who has his very own wing of the Republican party.

The way the two parties have managed to secure their stranglehold on the American politic has been by holding up a wide umbrella – or casting a wide net – to usher different beliefs into the fold. This means that people often affiliate with one party or the other for fundamentally different reasons. Civil rights, abortion rights, populism and a secular government are the reason many become Democrats. Evangelical Christianity, socially conservative principles and fiscally conservative principles are among the leading reasons that people become Republican.

But these standards are frequently in conflict. Black Christian congregations have not taken a shine to abortion rights, and many leaders in the black Christian organization have said that they do not consider the quest for gay marriage or gay rights to be the same as the quest for civil rights. The party was all but ripped asunder in 2008, with a white woman (many women vote Democratic) and a black man (again, many blacks are staunch Democrats) vying for the party’s presidential nomination. Many debated which deserved to head a major party ticket for the first time in history, just as many debated whether blacks or women should first get the vote a century before.

In the end, Barak Obama got the Democratic nomination and Sarah Palin became the Republican candidate for vice president, in order to woo all those disenfranchised women who believed that Hillary Clinton ought to head the ticket.

(Indeed, this played out within my own house; I was partial to Obama, and my wife to Clinton. Though, it turned out, her affinity was not due to Clinton’s policies or even her gender, but because my wife happens to own an autographed copy of Clinton’s memoir, which sits on the bottom shelf of an upstairs bookcase and that I’ve never once seen her open, except, oddly, to make sure the signature is still there.)

But in the Republican Party, the ties that bind seem to be absolutely strained to the point of snapping. In 2008, the Democrats had Obama, about whom everyone was excited – young, articulate, attractive, and vigorous. The Republicans compromised with each other and gave the nomination to John McCain, a candidate about whom no one was excited and who likely ran because, well, it was his turn (see Dole, ‘96). He wasn’t especially socially conservative, religious or fiscally conservative. He was, you know, the other guy.

Democrats turned out in droves to vote for Obama. I waited in line for more than an hour. With a baby. During early voting.

Hardly anyone came out to vote for McCain.

In 2012, the Republicans want to make sure that doesn’t happen again. They want a candidate all their members can be excited about. The problem is, what each sect of their party wants is not wholly embodied in a single candidate, and in fact, some strands of the fold are feeling so disenfranchised by the party that they may be inclined to run their own third-party candidate (see Roosevelt and Taft, 1912), which could split the vote and give President Obama a clear course to a second term – and possibly even a perceived (though fictitious) mandate (see Bush, 2004).

Santorum opposes a woman’s right to choose, believes that church has an important role to play in the affairs of the state and appeals to people like the Duggars, who have something like 19 kids and (obviously) don’t believe in birth control. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, a notoriously liberal state (elected Ted Kennedy for, like, what? a century?) and whose “Romneycare” reform in Massachusetts was the basis for the now much-decried “Obamacare,” and who used to support a woman’s right to choose and was OK with gay people but now says not so much.

And neither has especially broad appeal. Romney is a quintessentially Republican, er, Republican. Owns a few houses, has a lot of money, is “pro-business” (whatever that means), doesn’t like high taxes, goes to church a lot and has beautiful hair. Santorum is a fundamentalist Republican – without compromise on “traditional” beliefs to which a “Christian” nation such as ours ought to adhere (see Huckabee, 2008 – but without the charm or sense of humor).

Iowa Caucus Results

Results of the Iowa Caucus. A lot of Republicans think Ron Paul is batshit crazy, too. And they voted for him for that very reason. (Credit: Google, AP)

Then there’s Paul wants to close all our military installations overseas, shut down a whole bunch of government departments, make everyone pay the same tax rate, rich or poor, and do a bunch of other stuff that scares the hell out of anyone who’s not part of his messiah-like following. And he finished third. And not a distant third, either! He had more than 21 percent of the vote! Romney won the thing with barely more than 24 percent!

The only thing these candidates really have in common is that, well, they don’t really want Obama to be president anymore. And it’s nothing personal; they don’t want any of the other guys to be president, either. But the vision they have for the nation is very different, because at the heart of it, the Republican Party is very different.

This is not a single party – it’s a group of parties who pool their votes to be stronger en masse than they are individually. And the strange thing is, they act like it’s some kind of a big secret. Some Republicans will whisper to you, their voices low, that they’re really Libertarians, but they know the Libertarian Party doesn’t have a chance, so they vote Republican so they can elect politicians who might help move the Republican party in a more fiscally conservative direction. Some Republicans will say, “I really wish Sarah Palin would run,” but they don’t know why, nor can they name one policy position of hers with which they were familiar. Some Republicans will say, “well, the Democrats want to let gay people marry, and I just don’t think that’s right,” and will be in direct contrast to the Libertarian Republicans.

The Republican Party is actually the Republican Parties. And in some instances, when it comes to treating corporations like individuals, Republican Parties, Inc. That the group has tried to corral so many separate and distinct ideologies under one banner for so long – without giving any one of them what they’ve asked for in exchange for their vote – is bound to be the party’s undoing.

So, next time someone says they’re voting Republican, ask which one.


Ron Paul Demonstrates Idiocy over FEMA Opposition

Hurricane Irene

Hurricane Irene as it swept into New England. Ron Paul told people in the path of the hurricane to support his efforts to abolish the federal agency that had helped them prepare for the storm.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas and a contender (once more) for the Republican nomination for president, took occasion on Friday to tell folks that he didn’t care for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

To be clear, this was Friday, Aug. 26 – the day before Hurricane Irene made landfall, battered much of the East Coast and claimed at least 20 lives.

Before Irene hit, FEMA deployed, organizing resources across multiple state and municipal jurisdictions – an extremely daunting task. Towns often disagree with one another, as do states. Even communities within those towns disagree. For FEMA, that means getting through the bureaucracy to make sure that Americans have food, water, shelter and other necessities when pounded with disaster (usually natural, sometimes industrial or otherwise).

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. Sing along, everybody! "C'mon, babe! Follow me! I'm the pied pipper, follow me..."

Paul told people in New Hampshire – where Irene would blow in two days later – that in Texas, folks from FEMA “only come in and tell you what you can and can’t do.” And if there’s one thing Texans can’t stand, it’s somebody telling them what they can and can’t do.

Paul’s comments also come almost six years to the day that Hurricane Katrina made landfall, destroying about three-quarters of all the housing units in the city of New Orleans. Three-quarters. That’s 75 percent. That means that only every third housing unit was left standing.

FEMA failed, badly, in its preparation and response to Katrina. They told folks to leave, but did little to help them get out of Katrina’s way. After the hurricane wrecked the city, FEMA – under the direction of then-Administrator, who was a lawyer whose highest-level appointment before running FEMA was as the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association – FEMA invested almost $3 billion to purchase about 145,000 trailers to house 770,000 displaced people (trailers that were later determined to have levels of formaldehyde so high that people could not safely live in them).

In 2006, a congressional report illustrated the utter failure of FEMA’s preparation and reaction to the storm.

However, we must realize that the FEMA of 2005 was not like the FEMA of any time past or present. As Irene began to swirl up the New England coast, states and communities were ready. Evacuations had been put in place, shelters were open, and the recovery from the storm is already in motion.

Texas is an exception to many rules. We don’t think of Texas as a costal state, but it consumes quite a bit of coastline along the Gulf Coast. So much so, in fact, that state agencies are often able to coordinate storm preparedness and response without much federal oversight. Where you need federal assistance is in places where multiple states will be impacted – like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana along the coast, or the great many states in the Northeast that have been struck by Irene.

Of course, Paul in a unilateralist when it comes to the federal government. That is, if it’s government, it’s bad. Despite the fact that he completely lacks credibility when it comes to national politics due to his fundamentalist philosophy, people still listen to his rants. To sell people in the path of a hurricane that the very agency tasked with their protection is a waste at worst and superfluous at best is almost evil. You know what? Strike that. It’s evil.

Paul tried to make political gumbo on the back of an agency that had worked around the clock to save American lives and preserve communities. Rather than taking the opportunity to play pied piper to people in harm’s way, he would have been better served asking folks to heed FEMA’s warnings and – in line with his philosophy of self-determination – do what they could to be ready independent of FEMA.

In the months to come, we’re going to hear a lot about government waste and federal agencies that ought to be dissolved. It’s true, there is waste, and there is overlap between agencies that can be made more efficient. But to completely remove government from areas where government is the only thing standing between ourselves and ruin is idiocy. The problem with Ron Paul is that Ron Paul is too stupid to know better.