The folly of progressives for Paul

[MFrohike]

11. Credibility?

If you attack him solely on the newsletters and a few votes from years ago, it sounds like the same old bullshit. If you show his economic/monetary viewpoint is not just wrong, but dead wrong, you ultimately whittle his influence down to the hardcore, drink-the-koolaid-daily cultists. Show his supporters, more than a few of whom are employed by government, that his ideas will put them on the breadlines because that's exactly what they did in the past (I would say unemployment line, but we know Ron would nix that).

When I speak of his perceived strengths, I don't mean to liberals and further left. I'm talking about everybody else. There are a lot of people in this country who think Ron Paul must know what he's talking about because 1) it's different than anything else they've heard before and 2) he keeps talking about it. He's almost like a model diagram of a right-wing economic policy mouthpiece. That makes him perfect for discrediting the rest of them. They don't attack him on his ideas for taxation, spending, and the like. It would be a smarter move to link his ideas, and by extension theirs, to the hot topic of income inequality.

I get why people like him. He offers radical change at a time when great change is desperately needed. I just don't think mass starvation and vastly empowering unelected, unaccountable individuals is really the smart plan. I'd prefer if Ron moved somewhere like Somalia so he could experience his "paradise of freedom" firsthand.

I can't stand Rand. I thought he was a smarmy bastard from the start, but I knew he had a good shot with all his bumper stickers I saw when I lived in Kentucky. He actually makes Bunning look slightly less insane, which is just astounding.