KramerDSP
10-04-2011, 04:19 PM
Charles Pierce of Esquire magazine just posted this article with an incredible title:
"The Post-Christie, Not-Insane, Not-Romney Option: Ron Paul." (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/why-not-ron-paul-6505020)
So, anyway, in the immortal words of Charlie Rich, who will the next fool be?
I'm not kidding, this is getting tiresome. Every couple of weeks, there's a new great Republican hope come down to save us from the previous great Republican hope, who has proven to have feet of clay, a head of mush and, in the tragic case of Rick Perry, truly terrible taste in picking vacation spots. At least this time around we were spared the sight of Chris Christie in his first debate in that horrible moment that comes upon any new Republican candidate when that candidate realizes he is on stage for the weekly talent show down at the Nervous Hospital. I saw it in Rick Perry's eyes — that flash of insight that says, "Who is this crazy woman yelling at me about vaccines? How did I get here?" Once he realized where he was, and with whom, he never stood a chance. I'm not entirely sure Christie could have handled it at all. There would have been great bellowing, and furniture tossing.
So I think they're out of them now, unless there's a renewed stirring in the loins of Indiana's Mitch Daniels, who was once George W. Bush's budget director and the federal budget was not the only area in which he came up a little short. (Bada-bing! Why should poor Christie get all the morphology humor?) You will be able to tell if this is the case if you walk by the house of David Brooks and hear a cold shower running for several hours. Brooks, and a host of others, were pitching Daniels as the Not Insane, Not Romney alternative long before somebody considered Perry for the spot, and even longer before Christie's name surfaced at all. Alas, Daniels had a number of good reasons not to run — and at least one very funky one — and is unlikely to change his mind now, after seeing Perry get barbecued the way he has. Which leaves us with the current field and an obvious question that nobody wants to answer.
Why not Ron Paul?
By any empirical measure, he is worthy of being treated like a serious contender. He has run well in the preliminary contests so far. (C'mon, the winners were La Bachmann and Herman Cain, and neither of them have any more chance of being president than Casey Anthony does.) He has raised a formidable amount of money, which now looks like the only reason anyone ever took Rick Perry seriously. He has a devoted base of support within the party, and a substantial one outside of it, neither of which Mitt Romney has. His positions on the issues are, well, eccentric is too kind a word, but look at this field. His views on the Fed, or his isolationish foreign-policy notions, or even his market-based solutions to problems like giant oil pipelines that explode, are no further into the Land of Whackadoodle than are Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan, or Bachmann's views on church and state, or Newt Gingrich's image of himself.
Quite simply, if Ron Paul's views on fiscal policy were just a touch less retrograde, if his foreign policy didn't owe quite so much to Charles Lindbergh, and if so many of his followers didn't wear dreadlocks, Paul would have Chuck Todd camped on his front lawn until Christmas. Why he's still considered to be a fringe passenger on this big ship of fools becomes more of a mystery every day.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/why-not-ron-paul-6505020#ixzz1Zr1eaV4Q
"The Post-Christie, Not-Insane, Not-Romney Option: Ron Paul." (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/why-not-ron-paul-6505020)
So, anyway, in the immortal words of Charlie Rich, who will the next fool be?
I'm not kidding, this is getting tiresome. Every couple of weeks, there's a new great Republican hope come down to save us from the previous great Republican hope, who has proven to have feet of clay, a head of mush and, in the tragic case of Rick Perry, truly terrible taste in picking vacation spots. At least this time around we were spared the sight of Chris Christie in his first debate in that horrible moment that comes upon any new Republican candidate when that candidate realizes he is on stage for the weekly talent show down at the Nervous Hospital. I saw it in Rick Perry's eyes — that flash of insight that says, "Who is this crazy woman yelling at me about vaccines? How did I get here?" Once he realized where he was, and with whom, he never stood a chance. I'm not entirely sure Christie could have handled it at all. There would have been great bellowing, and furniture tossing.
So I think they're out of them now, unless there's a renewed stirring in the loins of Indiana's Mitch Daniels, who was once George W. Bush's budget director and the federal budget was not the only area in which he came up a little short. (Bada-bing! Why should poor Christie get all the morphology humor?) You will be able to tell if this is the case if you walk by the house of David Brooks and hear a cold shower running for several hours. Brooks, and a host of others, were pitching Daniels as the Not Insane, Not Romney alternative long before somebody considered Perry for the spot, and even longer before Christie's name surfaced at all. Alas, Daniels had a number of good reasons not to run — and at least one very funky one — and is unlikely to change his mind now, after seeing Perry get barbecued the way he has. Which leaves us with the current field and an obvious question that nobody wants to answer.
Why not Ron Paul?
By any empirical measure, he is worthy of being treated like a serious contender. He has run well in the preliminary contests so far. (C'mon, the winners were La Bachmann and Herman Cain, and neither of them have any more chance of being president than Casey Anthony does.) He has raised a formidable amount of money, which now looks like the only reason anyone ever took Rick Perry seriously. He has a devoted base of support within the party, and a substantial one outside of it, neither of which Mitt Romney has. His positions on the issues are, well, eccentric is too kind a word, but look at this field. His views on the Fed, or his isolationish foreign-policy notions, or even his market-based solutions to problems like giant oil pipelines that explode, are no further into the Land of Whackadoodle than are Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan, or Bachmann's views on church and state, or Newt Gingrich's image of himself.
Quite simply, if Ron Paul's views on fiscal policy were just a touch less retrograde, if his foreign policy didn't owe quite so much to Charles Lindbergh, and if so many of his followers didn't wear dreadlocks, Paul would have Chuck Todd camped on his front lawn until Christmas. Why he's still considered to be a fringe passenger on this big ship of fools becomes more of a mystery every day.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/why-not-ron-paul-6505020#ixzz1Zr1eaV4Q