Friday, December 07, 2007
Candidate Review! Ron, Or Paul?
Fig. 1: This is Kate Walsh; she was in the same room as Ron Paul for a time, and she’s better looking than he is, too.
In a town that I know but shall not name, there's a sleazy junk food drive-in called Ron's Taco. The parking lot is stained with upchuck and other unmentionable signs of distress in the lower tract. Makes you wonder what Ron's serving up, though the customers seem to keep coming.
Question: is Ron Paul a Ron's Taco-grade candidate for the high office of president of these United States?
Superficial thoughts first. Name game again. Casual is still the name of that game, isn’t it? Not Ronald, but Ron. Ron Paul it is. (Reagan would flip; despite his many deserved epithets, his team's decision to keep him Ronald was an effective coat of teflon that kept things relatively presidential.) We have had a president named Ronald, so it is conceivable that we could have a president named Ron. We will not, however, EVER - as I’ve said before – EVER have a president named ‘Mitt’. Nor will we ever have a president’s son named ‘Tagg’. Boy, I’m glad we can put THAT controversy to bed!
So, this here Ron Paul guy . . .
Ron Paul looks like he might have been sketched, sans the doughboy attire, by Bill Mauldin, but he has one effective touch to his appearance: plenty of Potomac Grey in that Stewart Granger-like 'do'. As a matter of fact, Granger could play Ron in a biopic. He'd really give the guy a dignified flair. Alas Stewart is no longer with us. All the actors are in DC now.
The existence of Ron Paul as an active candidate for president is as sure a sign as any that the decline of the USA is in full process, and it is probably irreversible.
In other words, he's a fellow speaking up about all sorts of matters that need truthful examination, yet he has no chance whatsoever of attaining the office he seeks. That's a sheer sign of a great nation in decline. When said great nation is reduced to having its controllers connected to high-level networks of corruption, and others without the connections but bold enough to come forward (e.g. Ron), the practice of free speech is being enacted on a token level only, as the unconnected candidate is merely being tolerated for the moment. The connected candidates know that these pesky fleas will soon run out of money and then the big boys (Hillary included) can get on with their hog race unencumbered by truth-flinging fuddy-duddies.
For Ron's got the guts to spread some unpleasant truths before the public. To me he will always have a special place of endearment by flat-out condemning the Iraq War, and he occupies a special category of shocking the garter belt off of Rudy Ghouliani by truthfully declaring that 9/11 happened as a result of American foreign policy. (And American foreign business practices, I might add.)
Now listen up, folks. Ron's an interesting guy, plainly a kindly guy, a bold and refreshing guy - for a politician. He's saying stuff that's welcome to both sides of the aisle. He's a skinny OB/GYN doc to boot (though after Doctor Bill 'Frist-Fry' Frist's pollution of the Senate, physicians do not necessarily heal the weeping sores of Congress, nor themselves, either). Doctor Paul, MD. No doubt he's brought many a plump and bawling baby into the world. Drama he knows. But he doesn't want gun control.
But that's not the point here. He can talk about all these things, but he will be contested, shot down and quickly forgotten. Remember John Anderson? Ross Perot? John Anderson was a Republican who was decent, responsible, humble, and straight-talking. It was during the (Ron) Reagan years, and I voted for him, I’m proud to say. He would have made a good president. Perot? He shook things up, but that's all he did. Ron Paul? He said stuff that other Republicans wouldn't say. That's because Ron's a Libertarian, and is a Republican in label only. Libertarian. He's open about it, and that's good, but people should understand what Libertarian really means.
I saw Ron on 'The View', and he was asked what he thought of abortion rights, given that he doesn't want government involved in our lives. Of course the conditions of this non-involvement (and the very mention of it is crowd-pleasing), are circumscribed by his own personal tastes. Ron danced around the Roe v. Wade issue with all the grace of a Ray Bolger - scarecrowish, but rubbery. He has a brain, though. (Guest co-host Kate Walsh - seen in the attractive Art Nouveau-ish colour plate above - didn’t even have a chance to verbally beat him up. Keep trying, Katey-lass!)
But here’s the bottom line about Ron Paul. Ron wants government out of our lives. Got it. There’s a whole other mega-side to this anti-gov thing though. He also wants it out of the business world. The latter is of much greater importance – exponentially greater – than those trifling social issues that get most of the media attention. WARNING: Ron Paul is playing with hydrofluoric acid; he doesn’t have any idea of what he’s getting into. Big government is certainly something to be concerned about, especially after Dubya’s triumphant success in inflating our government with more Bloat Factor ™ pork material – everything except the oink – into the government’s sclerotic veins, making it the biggest single entity in the history of the universe. HOWEVER, removing any regulative training wheels or shock collars that barely keep the hydrophobic hyenas of big business ostensibly in line is sheer madness. He is a naïve fellow and should be spanked, then sent to his chamber without his dinner or his pudding.
Verdict: Ron is a Ron’s Taco-grade candidate.