I was peacefully enjoying my lunch today, when I flipped open the San Francisco Bay Guardian. This is one of those independent weeklies. It's fluff, really, but I expect it to be responsible fluff. I found its cover today to be irresponsible fluff. The cover had a clip out guide, with this content but in a more visually pleasing format. Basically, it said, if you vote Democrat, vote for Obama, and if you vote Republican vote for Ron Paul. It has no reasons for it, and no reasons for voting for Ron Paul that I could find in whole issue. If you go online, you can find the reasons, which will be discussed later.
First, though, let's get down to business. Ron Paul. Really?? It's bad enough that a local store I shop at supports him. What does Ron Paul stand for? Well, he may be a Republican, but he's really a libertarian. Sure, libertarians have some interesting things to say (besides "get off of my property"), but there's something about Ron Paul that goes beyond the interesting and into the down-right scary. Let's spell it out:
*He does not vote for legislation unless he sees it as expressly endorsed by the constitution. This is particularly timely, seeing as I just posted about The Good Ole Days. So much has changed in the last ten years- I'm sure the Dead White Men who wrote the constitution, oh, a few hundred years ago, had legislation in mind that would literally address, for example, these changes.
*No income taxes. None. Gold standard if possible.
*(Personal favorite here:) Only 2008 candidate to have received a coveted A+ from the Gun Owners of America. Living in Oakland, I am always on the lookout for candidates who are eager to arm the Average Angry American. I'm glad the SFBG is, too, since SF has recently seen a rise in violent crime.
*Unsurprisingly, he is extremely anti-choice, and since he's so "pro-Constitution," believes all social decisions should be left up to the States.
*"Nonintervention." I love this code-word. It's awesome. I prefer to call it "Isolationism," which history has shown to be a very effective political strategy. Ron Paul would like to withdraw from the UN (who needs them?!) and NATO. He thinks NAFTA and the WTO suck, because they're not "free trade" they're "managed trade." Well, I don't like NAFTA and the WTO too much, either, but I don't like the direction Paul goes in here: denying entry to "illegal aliens" even better, ending amnesty. So people are being tortured and persecuted in other countries. That's their problem dammit!
There is more where that came from, but I'm about to go follow my own advice and use my seat as a barf bag. So here is my issue with the SFBG. Apparently, if you research the issue, the SFBG believes that voting for Ron Paul is a "protest vote." Says the SFBG:
No, really? Interesting take after putting this man on the front page of a weekly that is distributed all around the Bay Area, with no caveat, just an "endorsement." Here is why the SFBG thinks he deserves a protest vote: He's against the war.
He's been associated with some statements that are racially insensitive (to say the least). He clearly shouldn't be president.
Paul is absolutely correct that if we stopped trying to police the world, ended the war on drugs, and quit negotiating trade deals that favor multinational corporations over American families and workers, we would be a far more free and prosperous nation.So, if can hold onto our gag reflex long enough to be single-issue voters, and we believe that a protest vote is the way to go, (and we pretend that we're all anti-war registered Republicans, since in the primaries, we have to vote our party in California) then we should vote for Ron Paul.
I leave you with this, from the good Doctor Ron Paul, who believes in the dignity of human life, as long as you are born in the United States:
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)