Kooks Unite: Kucinich Wants Ron Paul as Running Mate

Chris, in one post you harp about Ron Paul purportedly being tied to “right-wing” kooks and here in another you say his rhetoric is “damn near identical to the rhetoric on the far left.”

So which is it?

Do you think he’s a right-winger with a screw loose? Or a left-winger with a screw loose? Or maybe you’re backing another horse, worry that the resonance Ron Paul has found may transmute into political traction and so you wish to convey the impression any which way you can that Ron Paul MUST have a screw loose?

What ISSUES do you wish to challenge Paul on? This silly character sniping has all the absurdist hallmarks of an Ionesco play.

Remember posts on the internet are around and can be an embarrassment forever.

When I was an undergrad I said some things in my columns against the draft and other things that I wish I’d said differently (though to the best of my recollection, anyway, I still stand by the substance of every word). But nobody has a clue even how to go about finding those.

Things are much different now. It’s easier to find a forum. You can make yourself look foolish across the globe at the speed of light. The price of access is that the burden of responsibility consequently is even higher than 35 years ago. This is your 15 minutes, Chris. Don’t blow it.

Thank you for replying.

I don’t like kooks of any flavor, be they right wing conspiracy nuts or left wing messianic social ‘reformers’ or UFOlogists or religious cultists (Islamic, Christian, Aum Shinrikyo), eugenicists, fascists, synthetic wackos like the Manson family, or racialists and bigots who lump individuals together based on some arbitrary and non-essential or irrelevant characteristic or pseudo-characteristic.

But to argue that someone who admires another is evidence that the one being admired is in agreement or sympathetic to the views of the admirer is logically spurious.

It is to suggest that John Lennon’s character was somehow mirrored by the nut-case who murdered him, or that Jodie Foster is suspect because the loony-tune who shot Reagan thought highly of that actress.

I support Ron Paul in the same way that I support any other candidate who stands for a number of positions with which I agree. And in spite of other positions which I don’t.

I regard the UN as a useful diplomatic meeting point for the most part and have no qualms about the continued participation of the US (although ‘our share’ of dues over the years has seemed vastly disproportionate). Paul sees it differently.

I am pro-choice, though like most pro-choice people I regard abortion as a last resort under special circumstances. Paul sees it differently, albeit in a way that could end ‘the abortion wars’ by letting states make a determination on their own.

I don’t believe that vast conspiracies exist, or that even small intended secret conspiracies will exist for long, and the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger hooey is to me like fingernails scraping on a chalkboard.

Probably those with power and influence consort with others similarly situated and may at times seek to have their interests fostered politically. But that isn’t a conspiracy, that’s de facto how power and influence operate in the world, whether in a rural county in our own Georgia or in Russia. Since Ron Paul speaks of the CFR with disapproval, I presume he sees it differently and I don’t agree with him on that.

It’s pretty well established that the Depression was facilitated by a Fed easy money policy designed as a political favor to keep the then-British government in power by discouraging the flow of British investment to the US, with devastating unintended consequences.

Central banks have great power and its worth watching that very closely. Having money tied to something tangible helps to rein in potential printing press abuses and eliminate the insidious inflation tax, and it is worthwhile to restore the abandoned linkage. Paul is a little more forceful in making these points than I feel is necessary.

Paul’s foreign policy views are totally in keeping with the traditional view of the GOP, and I am in agreement with them.

The vision of an America somehow mandated to project liberty by force on an unwilling world has been a persistent streak in American history that didn’t originate with Wilson.

The consequences of Wislon’s messianic fervor and rigidity led inexorably to World War II and the Cold War and the reverberations with which we still live.

How that Wilsonian view ever came to drown out the historical “Old Right” GOP view of non-intervention as exemplified by “Mr. Republican” Senator Bob Taft (in the tradition of George Washington), is amazing.

Now that two or more generations have passed since Ike (who also was approached by the Democrats to run on their ticket) beat “Mr. Republican” Taft to win the ’52 GOP nomination, the traditional non-interventionist GOP view now seems to have disappeared down the memory hole to the point that some folks see holding it as downright alien in a Republican. The bunker mentality of some 65 years of war, hot and cold, certainly distorts perspective.

Probably I should cut and paste some of this to the other thread since its pretty much you and I speaking together here on this old one. Some of the other Paul supporters posting might benefit from the history and a more nuanced view than what in their enthusiasm they may encounter.

I appreciate that you don’t think much of Paul as your Congressman, Chris, but Paul’s district returns him to office time and time again either unopposed or by whopping majorities (60-something percent this last time) when the Democrats find a sacrificial lamb to run against him. I think we’ll wake up on election day to find that the Congressman has won another election. Maybe two.