I endorse Bill Richardson for temporary dictator of the U.S. jurisdiction. His positions on executive power seem acceptable, his overall domestic policies and record as governor of New Mexico are better than most politicians (i.e., not abominable), and his foreign policy is not insane. Regarding the last, Richardson outlines his principles in this video.
True, Ron Paul‘s more radical foreign (and general) policy is mostly closer to my preferences than Richardson’s. However, in spirit and delivery, Richardson’s foreign policy is a viable and positive alternative to interventionism, approximately the Wright thing, in contrast to Dr. No’s.
And Richardson is in theory electable, while Paul is not. Traders are probably correct in giving Richardson essentially zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination at this point, but they are certifiably insane to give Paul even a smidgen of a chance of winning the GOP nomination (currently about 7%), let alone the dictatorship (4%).
I also think that to the extent the Paul campaign gives some libertarians (entirely false) hope of revolutionary change for the better through electoral politics, the campaign and whatever success it has is a bad thing. It makes me sad to see libertarians impoverish themselves by sending a “moneybomb” to a hopeless electoral campaign.
However, I probably would not have bothered to tack on this anti-endorsement of Paul had I not seen this excrement from his campaign.
Paul is also a religious kook (but then so is every candidate, of one sort or another). At least Barack Obama admits doubt, which I’d challenge any other candidate to do. As Richardson doesn’t have any chance of nomination, this post is effectively an Obama endorsement.
Via Freedom Democrats and Sheldon Richman.
This post is the definitive proof that you have a screw lose. Ron Paul is the man to support in order to convey the libertarian message, which he does excellently. Ron Paul will have a profound impact, just like Ross Perot did. What counts is the impact that people have in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas become popular, then the popular politicians of the time will endorse them. After Ross Perot, the priority was the deficit reduction —for both Bill Clinton and the Republicans in his Congresses. Supporting mutant ideas are more important than endorsing an “electable” politician.
You’re wrong; I’m right.
I love mutant ideas. Elections are the wrong context for them.
Ron Paul infiltrates mutant ideas into the media and the blogosphere. The political elections are just a pretext. Indeed, nobody believes that Ron Paul will be elected. The great thing is that Ron Paul went on Meet The Press and gave Tim Russert a run for his money. You should watch the video.
http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/12/24/rep-ron-paul-r-tx-would-free-our-prediction-markets/
“After Ross Perot, the priority was the deficit reduction —for both Bill Clinton and the Republicans in his Congresses.”
Clinton did something with it, but the Republicans certainly didn’t under Bush.
Paul’s positions on immigration and free trade aren’t really libertarian–he’s anti-immigration (while using welfare as an excuse to those who are in favor of open immigration) and is happy to pander to protectionists with his opposition to free trade agreements (while saying that he only favors true unilateral free trade to those who favor free trade). His pandering to Tancredo supporters is disgusting.
Sheldon Richman’s opinion of Paul’s “Meet the Press” appearance is at odds with Chris Masse’s, as apparently is Robin Hanson’s.
[…] though I wish the loathsome Edwards had done poorly enough to drop out. (By the way, although I stated my preference for Richardson and effectively for Obama a few days ago, I had forgotten that I already did the same back in […]
[…] me to explain that while I broadly agree with Paul on policy (with some glaring exceptions like immigration and abortion), I could not work up significant enthusiasm for the campaign, nor even support it […]