I don’t watch presidential candidate “debates” anymore, and last night was no exception. You can usually predict the winner by figuring out which candidate has the lowest IQ and is willing to pander the most. That’s a good fit for the average voter. I don’t have a strong enough stomach to watch that.
I have a lot of friends, though, who are getting excited about Ron Paul‘s chances of winning the Republican nomination. His fundraising is kicking into high gear and his message is starting to catch on with younger people. The momentum is building for a grassroots campaign. Oh, wait. That was 2008, wasn’t it?
I’m having deja vu as I observe my excited libertarian (and some conservative) friends throw their efforts into a new Ron Paul campaign, because it really does feel a lot like 2008. I’m hearing the same things from his supporters. I’m hearing the same vague sense of irrational optimism. I’m having trouble figuring out why such bright people — many of whom I love and respect — are being sucked into a campaign that has no chance of winning. I frequently tell people that it would be easier for me to get my dog, Lucy, elected president than Paul — partly because Lucy never ran for president on a party platform that supported illegal drugs. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
When intense feelings turn numb, something inside has died for me
Both sides of gun debate see what they want to see in D.C. shooting
Question the ‘experts’: They don’t know as much as they think
Today’s group hatred says world hasn’t learned Auschwitz lessons
Goodbye, Dagny (2004-2019)
Norman Rockwell or Norman Bates? Holidays are dysfunctional for some
‘Cash for clunkers’ was an even bigger clunker than we first realized
Buggy WordPress plugin knocked site off the air for about 36 hours
They won’t listen to arguments; they might listen to honest art