Oh dear, scratch one 'possible'!

No doubt to your relief I have eschewed any hard opinions on the riders and runners in the forthcoming White House Stakes.  This self-embargo will not last, of course, with an opinionated fellow like me.  To be honest, part of my self-effacement stems from my ignorance of any details concerning the 10  17  32  89 and counting? Republican politicians who can see a man when he's down and cannot resist giving him a kick - sorry Barack, old boy.  However, one man did stand out as worthy of a second look and that was Ron Paul, a Texan Congressman who is even older than me.  In addition, he claims to be a libertarian which in certain circs is 'A Good Thing' but taken to extremes can be 'A Very Bad Thing'.

For example, he called one of his sons, Rand, presumably in dedication to the late Ayn Rand, the Goddess of Libertarians everywhere.  Now, she was, on the whole 'A Good Thing' but it must also be admitted that in many ways she was as mad as a Hatter.

However, returning to Paul Snr., I am obliged to Chuck Roger of The American Thinker who has picked up some rather alarming deviations from the distinguished Congressman.  Speaking of the execution raid on bin Laden, Rogers reports:

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, now officially seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, says that the raid which killed Osama bin Laden "was absolutely not necessary." In the same radio interview, Paul conjectured that the United States could have convinced Pakistan to turn over bin Laden. The congressman added a bizarre non-sequitur:

What if [bin Laden] had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the... helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out?

Mr. Rogers is quick to point out:

 

Can Ron Paul not distinguish between steadfast ally Britain and a Pakistani regime poisoned by duplicitous people? The London scenario seems to have sprung from a mind unable to discern the difference between close friends and shifty acquaintances that cozy up close just often enough to collect handouts.

In answer to Paul's two questions, if bin Laden had been in London, British Special Forces would have popped the scoundrel as a favor to a close friend. That the congressman offered the implausible London ploy presents voters with a scary view into the "thought process" of an aspiring President of the United States.

A small slip, perhaps, but there is worse to come:

On a recent episode of Fox Business Network's Stossel, self-declared "man of the left" and history Professor Thaddeus Russell stated that "if we're going to end the wars, if we're going to end the American empire, the only thing that will do that is a coalition between the left and people like Ron Paul. And in fact, he knows that he's talked with Ralph Nader in public and with Bernie Sanders and other very leftwing people in American political discourse about doing just that. And so I know that Ron Paul agrees with me in this project of working with the left."

"Do you?" host John Stossel asked Congressman Paul.

Paul responded, "I have certainly worked with those on the left and with the progressives. I think our problem that we face is..."

That sounds a bit like Maggie Thatcher cutting a deal with Michael Foot!

ADDITIONAL:  Apparently Ross Kaminsky of The American Spectator shares my doubts concerning Ron Paul's suitability as a candidate and for much the same reasons.  In addition he scratches Newt Gingrich's chances because of his pathetic efforts to 'triangulate' his policies to catch as wide a section of the electorate as possible.  Kaminsky echoes my thoughts that what many Americans are yearning for is authenticity which Gingrich, with his vacillations, has now completely lost.  If authenticity is indeed the word then step forward MDS (My Darling Sarah) who reeks of it!

 

 

Comments

[Sassyandra]

I believe Rand got his name after the Krugerrand of South Africa, which is a GOOD thing.
I used to collect them and still have one or two floating around.
Check the price of gold!

[Hank]

Congressman Paul, I believe, is an Isolationist of the sort that says the US had no bussiness intervining in the European half of WWII. Of course he can tell the difference between Great Britian and Pakistan, he just doesn't care.

Someone caused a intenet bruhaha a couple years back by saying Libertarins such as Paul are the Marxists of the right. Not that they would support marxist type police states and death camps, but because the both gets the respective prize for sticking with an ideology in the face of overwhelming facts and common ssense.

[David Duff]

Yes, Hank, I picked up that isolationist tendency in his words. And you are entirely right that Libertarianism taken too far is idiocy.

Andra, darling, do you really have some Krugerrands about you? They say so much about you. Let us elope instantly - I will even live in Australia!

[dearieme]

"the US had no bussiness intervining in the European half of WWII": but the US didn't "intervene"; Germany declared war on her.

[David Duff]

Well done, DM, that's why we keep you on, you are "a snapper up of unconsidered trifles" - as well as being dead accurate!

[Hank]

DM

You, of course are quite correct. The point about Ron Paul and assoictes is that down't msak sny fifference.
i.e. sticking with an ideology in the face of overwhelming facts and common ssense.