Violence... The story so far

Editorial

From Wikipedia:

"Paul has been called conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations; supports free trade, rejecting NAFTA as "managed trade"; and opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion."

This is not just a bit scary it is unreal. Make that UNREAL.

He would not only have us withdrawing from the international agencies that promote peace and stability, but he would emasculate our own government. Of course Congress would be there to curtail him, Or would it?

It is in his favor that he repudiates the Neocon/Bush push in the lands of Islam. And that is his record, not just a campaign throwaway. On this particular score he is the sharpest on either side of the aisle.

It is his resume on Wikipedia that troubles us. It is basically unreal.

And there is this parallel: Johnson, Papa Bush, Junior Bush. Three failed wars (Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq) and later, Junior is still trying. So bully for Ron Paul. Oops, he is from Texas, too. What is it about Texans? Junior presided over more executions than any governor in history. He smirked all the way. In later times Junior declared on national TV: "I AM A WAR PRESIDENT." In earlier times, he blew up frogs with firecrackers and branded those pledging his fraternity. He certainly is at least sadistic in behavior... Others would say sociopathic.

The question arises: Are these guys defined by the Texas Culture, or did they create it? Either way, and for the reasons mentioned above, we oppose Ron Paul. Moreover, even though he is right about the Middle East, he is right for the wrong reasons--he wants to withdraw from all significant international engagements, like NATO and the UN. Each of these agencies provide measures of stability in these troubled times.

Ron Paul seems to have his own set of hang-ups that would be dangerous--in opposite ways--from those of Bush Junior. Extremism in isolation politics seems to be Paul's Achilles Heel.