Mindless

 

If you support both of us, you have no brain.

If you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and you’re supporting Ron Paul in 2012, one of three things must be true:

– You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 without knowing much about the candidate you supported.

– You jumped on the Ron Paul 2012 bandwagon without knowing much about the candidate you’re supporting.

Or, the most likely answer…

– You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 and you’re jumping on the Paul bandwagon in 2012 and you don’t know a goddamn thing about the political system or either candidate you’re supporting.

I don’t intend to champion Obama nor to bash Ron Paul’s supporters here.  I only intend to point out how utterly fucking absurd it is to be a supporter of both of them. The only way for this to happen while maintaining any degree of intellectual consistency is to have completely changed your basic core beliefs in a matter of a few short years…and that’s, well, fucking absurd.

You can’t go from voting for a center-left, pro-choice, black guy to an extreme-right libertarian (except of course when it comes to women’s reproductive rights or the expression of one’s sexual orientation) who is a 9/11 truther, conspiracy theorist, religious zealot, and racial bigot. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

I’ve said many times, here and in other places, that I appreciate Ron Paul’s integrity and look at him as one of the most honest men I’ve seen run a political campaign.  He doesn’t pander and he has no qualms with bucking his own party.  Those are great things.

The rest of it though? Not so much.

Most of his policies, if you can call them that, fall somewhere in the range of impractical to impossible to enact. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks it’s possible to disband the Fed and return to the gold standard, no matter how nice he makes it sound. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks disbanding FEMA is a good idea and that people without health insurance should be left to die.  You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion.

These aren’t rationally coherent positions to take.

Which brings me back to the original point…you either didn’t know anything about Obama, don’t know anything about Paul, or don’t know anything about either or how anything works.  Most people will fall into the third category, and it’s the most logical and obvious reason why someone would support both candidates for president, since you can’t really support both of them if you’re truly knowledgeable about both of them.

While Obama and Paul couldn’t be further apart on almost every actual policy issue they do have some similarities in what we could call the “ethic” of their campaigns.

Both have a strong appeal to young voters and both have a strong social media presence.  Both embody “hope”, just in different ways.  Obama actually preaches hope of rising to a better sort of politics – post-racial, post-partisan,etc…  Paul embodies the hope of the individual to dictate their own course in life and the idea that many young people have that if they do their best, things will work out.  They’re both able to make very powerful connections to young voters because of this.

This is where it becomes important to note that both of these appeals are generally mindless.  While it’s certainly nice and admirable to support and follow both of these ethics, it shouldn’t be enough to be choosing the leader of the free world on either.

While I fully support Obama’s reelection, I don’t support people who voted for him based on their feelings that he just agreed with everything they believed, apart from any knowledge about his positions.  If you voted for Obama thinking that he was going to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan when he campaigned on a military surge there, or because you thought he was going to legalize marijuana, or any number of other policy positions that people pinned to him without knowing what he was actually campaigning on, you are your own biggest problem.  (You’re also your own biggest problem if you think marijuana legalization is a critical political issue.  Not that I don’t support it, I do.)

And if you’re voting for Ron Paul because he’s the rage-against-the-machine, tear down the establishment, reform Washington guy you think he is without realizing who he actually is, without knowing what stuff he plans to do, and without recognizing what things he plans to do that he simply cannot do, you’re going to be your own biggest problem again.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 and you’re tearing him down right now to build up the candidacy of someone you don’t know anything about, congratulations, because you’re fucking yourself twice.

You just helped elect Mitt Romney.

So Many Things…

Sometimes when you win, you're still a loser.

There are so many things wrong with this picture.  Let’s see if we can find them all.

First of all, Mitt Romney won the pointless Iowa Caucus by 8 votes out of 122,255 total votes.  He spent 17 jillion dollars there trying to make Newt Gingrich look bad.  That worked.  But then a guy who spent nothing almost beat him.  Considering what advantages Romney had over Rick Santorum, Santorum kind of did beat him.  Mitt’s been the frontrunner for years now, so winning by 8 votes means that everyone pretty much still hates him.

And he (almost) got beat by someone whose name has come to be defined as something I don’t even want to write…so just Google it.  It’s more fun than me ruining the surprise for you, and it’ll keep it in the top search spot.

Then we’ve got Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all finishing with less total votes combined than Ron Paul alone which is strange since god told them all to run for president.  Then again, if god can’t make up his mind and he totally lacks the follow through to help any of them win, what does his endorsement really mean anyway?  Besides, he told George W. Bush to invade Iraq, so maybe politics isn’t god’s thing.  It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep those things separate…

Somewhat unsurprisingly, 58 Iowans actually didn’t realize that Herman Cain left his sexual harassment 9-9-9 campaign of bullshit in the past a few weeks ago.

Jon Huntsman, the only candidate who openly admits to acknowledging the realities of climate change and evolution got 745 total votes.  Literally, the only candidate with enough intelligence and integrity to essentially say that 2+2=4 gets treated like a total non-factor.  There’s so much wrong with that.

But none of that is as wrong and funny as this…

135 people showed up to caucus for “no preference”.

Caucus attendees left their houses for a non-binding vote where they had to mill around for a while and then write a name down on a piece of blank paper…and 135 Iowans spent a few hours of their day doing this to write “no preference” on a card.

That is unequivocally insane.

So congratulations, Iowa.  Your caucus system is still a total sham.

He Doesn’t Just SEEM Crazy

I know I'm crazy, but at least I'm consistent.Ron Paul is, like, just about the hippest presidential candidate ever…

…especially if you don’t know anything.

Now, I know what you’re thinking – I’m the one that doesn’t know anything.  Ron Paul is the savior of the world, if only people would give him a chance and listen.  Well, it’s when you give Ron Paul a chance and really listen that the most crazy stuff comes out.

Let me say, before you get really angry, that I do, in fact, respect Ron Paul.  I think he has principles and he is unafraid to stick to those principles in the face of sometimes extreme opposition from his own party.  He stakes out his own policy territory and owns it.  I believe he’s got integrity and that he’s an honorable man.  Unfortunately, he’s just slightly insane.

If you carry his political philosophy to its logical end, it simply cannot work.  Beyond that, there are definite consistency issues when he feels that the government shouldn’t be involved in making its citizens’ private decisions but is still adamantly anti-choice when it comes to abortion.

Over the weekend, in the aftermath of Hurrican Irene, Ron Paul went around promoting the end of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  By all accounts, FEMA did a superb job responding to Hurricane Irene – in stark contrast to how it managed to handle the response to Hurricane Katrina back in the good old days of small government (as if) conservative, George W. Bush and “Brownie”.

Paul declared that the city of Galveston, in his home district, battled one of the most severe natural disasters in our country’s history back in 1900 and came through it swimmingly – all without the help of the federal government.

Continue reading

Thinking is Redundant

"I'm not the decider."

I’m loathe to write twice in a row about the same person, especially when that person is Michele Bachmann, but her performance on Meet the Press yesterday merits some comment and consideration.  In short, it was an absolute abomination – one that is sure to please her followers and enhance her position as the Tea Party princess.

Between skirting her former judgments on how debased and deplorable homosexuals are and redefining the word “submissive” to somehow be synonymous to “respect”, she made an argument that more and more people are making these days, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

At one point, David Gregory addressed Bachmann’s hardline stance to oppose any raise of the debt ceiling, even though every expert said it was a reckless position to take.  Her response was as follows:

The people of this country would love to weigh in, and they would love to say, “Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, you’re wrong. Mr. President, you’re wrong”…. all the people in Washington said we had to raise the debt ceiling, all the people out in America said don’t raise the debt ceiling…. representatives are supposed to represent the people that they serve. The people that they’re serving are saying, “You guys don’t have it figured out. Stop spending money you don’t have.

Gregory actually did a surprisingly reasonable job of following up on these statements, asking repeatedly if public opinion should be the determining decision making factor in a representative democracy, noting that the whole reason to have representatives making the decisions is because we don’t just use public opinion.

Continue reading