One of the other things I've been meaning to get to . . .

[mojave_wolf]

I doubt anyone reading this journal is a big Ron Paul supporter, but since he's increasingly gaining traction for having basically an overlapping set of virtues w/Dennis Kucinich but some vices Kucinich would never have in a million years (i.e. why you shouldn't be a Ron Paul supporter), I'd like to offer the following things about Paul that *never

Comments

[redcandle17]

Every time I see the name Ron Paul anywhere, my first thought is of RuPaul. :P

[don_fitch]

I'm not going to beat a drum for either of them -- for some of their ideas, perhaps, but not for them as candidates -- and consider it fortunate that neither stands a snowball's chance of being nominated. But Paul has an additional disadvantage: he's a Republican. I'd have never, during the previous Century, considered that an absolute disqualification, but now... the national Republican Party is dominated by NeoCons, with some basic ideologies that I consider more harmful to the well-being of our country & people than any foreign foe this nation has faced during my lifetime. That isn't going to change much in the decade or so I have remaining, so all I can do is try to prevent any Republicans from being elected to High Office. Unfortunately for our country, the Democratic Party isn't much better and I expect to be biting my tongue as I vote for someone whose major qualification will be the ability to raise the largest possible sum from corporate & wealthy donors (with the future obligations to them, rather than to the People,

[mojave_wolf]

Agreed w/you totally on Paul, totally on the Neccons, partly on Kucinich. I was briefly supporting Kucinich as my choice, and on domestic policy he probably most closely reflects most of my views of any of the democrats, especially on economic issues, and he has guts, but . . . I worry that he is overly naive and would be a potential disaster in the foreign policy mess that Bush and the neocons have left us

[don_fitch]

That last is the sticker, as far as I'm concerned -- and I'm not sure if we'd be bast-off with a sly, unscrupulous, & domineering Politician (i.e., Hillary) or a Statesman (Edwards maybe being closest) to Inspire (or shame) the People & Congress to do the right things. The main drawbacks I think I see with Hillary are her connections with Big Business and her apparent desire for permanent strong military presence in Iran/the Near East

[mojave_wolf]

Eh, despite numerous things her hubby did wrong which are having awful and far-reaching effects, I do think she will do a vastly better job than any of the neocon types across the board.

That said, I do worry a *LOT* about a possible pro-corporate bias similar to what her husband had; hopefully, tho, she's learned from how little catering to those types got him, and from seeing the effects of those policies.

[mojave_wolf]

Sure. =)