Friday, December 14, 2007
My take on Ron Paul and the rest of the GOP
UPDATE: And so the Ron Paul morons are out! Some sniveling bitch posted in the comments here: "It's obvious you have never served in the military."
A commenter asked what my take on Ron Paul was.
Here's a little story about Ron Paul. It was back in my financial reporter days. At the time I was a cub reporter for a national consumer magazine, now defunct, called Mutual Funds. I was working on some story or other - I can't remember what it was now - and I was looking for some quotes to add color and perspective, particularly from a conservative commentator, since I already had a more liberal perspective from a couple of different sources.
So, for some reason, I gave Ron Paul's office a call, and wound up talking to his spokesperson. We started chatting, and I got him going. That's part of the key to interviewing...say something provocative and just shut up and let the subject talk. (That's why print can be better than TV. On TV you have to be seen to control the interview. Print journalists don't have to control the conversation so much, and can let the source be more himself.)
Anyway, I mentioned the Securities Exchange Commission somehow, and the Paul spokesperson said, and I quote him precisely because that part I remember like it was yesterday:
"Well, obviously the SEC should be abolished tomorrow."
There was about a half second of silence on my part. Then he said "well, obviously, that's off the record."
I said, "You mean you wish it were."
Most serious investors and investment thinkers I know realize that the United States has the best and most transparent markets in the world because it is the best regulated market in the world. We have the lowest frictional costs, and the risk premium you have to take into account to adjust for financial fraud is small compared to equity markets in less well-regulated environments. GAAP isn't always a model of clarity. But it at least provides a common language for security analysts to start with.
Yes, we sometimes go overboard, but I think that's mostly a matter of stupid compliance officers in the financial industry rather than a stupid regulatory body.
But the bottom line is this: I don't think Ron Paul is not being honest with the electorate about what he believes and is campaigning on. I don't think Ron Paul is a serious and sober-minded thinker.
Plus, he's a surrender monkey.
No way.
He's the kind of candidate who can discredit Libertarians and Republicans all at the same time.
He attracts the dumbest people on the right, the same way Dennis Kucinich attracts the dumbest people on the left. Except that when Dennis Kucinich says something, I believe he's being honest about it.
Not Paul.
He should be heaved overboard with the ballast.
Oh, and regarding Giuliani... I like the guy personally, and agree with him on the War on Terror. But there will be more skeletons falling out of his closet.
I will be happy to cast a vote for Thompson or McCain, though McCain and I part company on a lot of things.
I do want to see Thompson step up to the plate and run a more effective campaign. He's too passive, and you can't have a passive Chief Exec. You wind up with Reagan's second term. Not a disaster, but some things got away from him as he began to slow down.
Don't know anything about the lesser known GOP candidates now.
My only hope is that Huckabee and Paul will split the moron vote between them.
Splash, out
Jason
A commenter asked what my take on Ron Paul was.
Here's a little story about Ron Paul. It was back in my financial reporter days. At the time I was a cub reporter for a national consumer magazine, now defunct, called Mutual Funds. I was working on some story or other - I can't remember what it was now - and I was looking for some quotes to add color and perspective, particularly from a conservative commentator, since I already had a more liberal perspective from a couple of different sources.
So, for some reason, I gave Ron Paul's office a call, and wound up talking to his spokesperson. We started chatting, and I got him going. That's part of the key to interviewing...say something provocative and just shut up and let the subject talk. (That's why print can be better than TV. On TV you have to be seen to control the interview. Print journalists don't have to control the conversation so much, and can let the source be more himself.)
Anyway, I mentioned the Securities Exchange Commission somehow, and the Paul spokesperson said, and I quote him precisely because that part I remember like it was yesterday:
"Well, obviously the SEC should be abolished tomorrow."
There was about a half second of silence on my part. Then he said "well, obviously, that's off the record."
I said, "You mean you wish it were."
Most serious investors and investment thinkers I know realize that the United States has the best and most transparent markets in the world because it is the best regulated market in the world. We have the lowest frictional costs, and the risk premium you have to take into account to adjust for financial fraud is small compared to equity markets in less well-regulated environments. GAAP isn't always a model of clarity. But it at least provides a common language for security analysts to start with.
Yes, we sometimes go overboard, but I think that's mostly a matter of stupid compliance officers in the financial industry rather than a stupid regulatory body.
But the bottom line is this: I don't think Ron Paul is not being honest with the electorate about what he believes and is campaigning on. I don't think Ron Paul is a serious and sober-minded thinker.
Plus, he's a surrender monkey.
No way.
He's the kind of candidate who can discredit Libertarians and Republicans all at the same time.
He attracts the dumbest people on the right, the same way Dennis Kucinich attracts the dumbest people on the left. Except that when Dennis Kucinich says something, I believe he's being honest about it.
Not Paul.
He should be heaved overboard with the ballast.
Oh, and regarding Giuliani... I like the guy personally, and agree with him on the War on Terror. But there will be more skeletons falling out of his closet.
I will be happy to cast a vote for Thompson or McCain, though McCain and I part company on a lot of things.
I do want to see Thompson step up to the plate and run a more effective campaign. He's too passive, and you can't have a passive Chief Exec. You wind up with Reagan's second term. Not a disaster, but some things got away from him as he began to slow down.
Don't know anything about the lesser known GOP candidates now.
My only hope is that Huckabee and Paul will split the moron vote between them.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
well regulated market = not a free market.
It's obvious you have never served in the military. I have, so let me clue you in on something - the war was over years ago. It is not the job of the military to be police in another country, you are not trained for it. You are trained to win combat and kill. The job was done long time ago, the only thing going on now is us trying to inject politcal influences.
It's obvious you have never served in the military. I have, so let me clue you in on something - the war was over years ago. It is not the job of the military to be police in another country, you are not trained for it. You are trained to win combat and kill. The job was done long time ago, the only thing going on now is us trying to inject politcal influences.
The casual reader will note that I said that Ron Paul attracts the stupidest people on the right.
This last commenter makes my point for me.
I rest my case.
Have another bowl of dumb flakes for breakfast, ILTC.
I'll see you at the VFW post. If you're eligible.
This last commenter makes my point for me.
I rest my case.
Have another bowl of dumb flakes for breakfast, ILTC.
I'll see you at the VFW post. If you're eligible.
The only reason Ron Paul has an "R" after his name is that is the only way he's been able to get elected in his district in Texas. He's a nutjob Libertarian... and a RINO.
It's good that the right wing nutbars are so ardently excluding themselves from the general election by going hyperactive for Ron Paul now.
That way we don't have to cut deals with them next August.
Thompson is waking up and hitting a few out of the park right now. He just beat the hell out of the AP at their request.
That way we don't have to cut deals with them next August.
Thompson is waking up and hitting a few out of the park right now. He just beat the hell out of the AP at their request.
I was going to make fun and call you a closet communist for one line in this, but I found something better to comment on
"I believe he's being honest about it."
I thought this too, till I listened carefully to him on the radio.
And no, he lies. He said he would end the war, bring back the troops and spend the money here, as opposed to the other candidates that he said would continue the war. But listened carefully to what he really said, "bring back troops, and replace with international force"
So who is going to pay for this international force, and who will man this force, who will provide logistics support for this force? Questions which were left unanswered for the obvious reasons. Only the US could fill those requirement. And would we really want to outsource our war to some unknown "force"? Will they perform like the Marines? I somehow doubt it.
Talk about a quagmire...
I would vote for McCain, I would vote for him over Obama.
I think Ann Coulter was right when she said that the US was not ready to elect a liberal black man to the presidency. I think she hit the nail on the head. We are still way to racist a country to go down that road. Obama will lose the general.
"I believe he's being honest about it."
I thought this too, till I listened carefully to him on the radio.
And no, he lies. He said he would end the war, bring back the troops and spend the money here, as opposed to the other candidates that he said would continue the war. But listened carefully to what he really said, "bring back troops, and replace with international force"
So who is going to pay for this international force, and who will man this force, who will provide logistics support for this force? Questions which were left unanswered for the obvious reasons. Only the US could fill those requirement. And would we really want to outsource our war to some unknown "force"? Will they perform like the Marines? I somehow doubt it.
Talk about a quagmire...
I would vote for McCain, I would vote for him over Obama.
I think Ann Coulter was right when she said that the US was not ready to elect a liberal black man to the presidency. I think she hit the nail on the head. We are still way to racist a country to go down that road. Obama will lose the general.
The ignorance Jason’s service by the author of first post is compounded the fallacy of their central thesis. The study of the use of the military as an instrument of national power shows that “policing” actions represent the majority of military operations in terms of time. In fact, even the “template” war of WWII resulted in post conflict operations of 4 years for Germany, 10 years for Austria, and 6 years for Japan.*
*Lawrence A. Yates, The US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006)
*Lawrence A. Yates, The US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006)
# posted by 
: 11:45 PM
: 11:45 PM
I'd rather see the skeletons parading out of Giuliani's closet than peek in at the ones the rest (particularly Hillary) have managed to keep bottled up, much less how they've done it.
Nevertheless, not sure who I'm voting for yet.
LTC D.
Nevertheless, not sure who I'm voting for yet.
LTC D.
# posted by : 3:48 AM
: 3:48 AM
Hmm..you mentioned all the Republican candidates except Romney. Oversight, or intentional?
# posted by : 12:10 PM
: 12:10 PM
I'm in full agreement with you Jason, right down the line.
I'm still hoping that Thompson is marshalling his resources for later in the campaign, which would make sense if he persues, as I think he will, a Southern strategy.
Ron Paul is the only possible Republican nominee that would result in my voting for a Democrat. Paul has the proper reverence for our Constitution, but his abject ignorance of the powers of the Presidency lead me to think he's never actually read it.
I'm still hoping that Thompson is marshalling his resources for later in the campaign, which would make sense if he persues, as I think he will, a Southern strategy.
Ron Paul is the only possible Republican nominee that would result in my voting for a Democrat. Paul has the proper reverence for our Constitution, but his abject ignorance of the powers of the Presidency lead me to think he's never actually read it.
I think Ron Paul would be great (or at least a lot of fun to watch) at Justice, or Treasury. I would love to see the BATFE placed under him.
But for the love the G-D keep him the hell away from anything to do with the military or foreign policy. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius by comparision on those issues.
But for the love the G-D keep him the hell away from anything to do with the military or foreign policy. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius by comparision on those issues.
# posted by : 10:15 AM
: 10:15 AM
Oops. Yes, leaving Romney out was an oversight!
I like Romney, so far, but I'm not sure which Romney I'm getting yet. He seems to be a bit of a weathervane.
I'd vote for Romney over all Democratic contenders, based on what I know now.
Post a Comment
I like Romney, so far, but I'm not sure which Romney I'm getting yet. He seems to be a bit of a weathervane.
I'd vote for Romney over all Democratic contenders, based on what I know now.
