I explain why Joe Scarborough is foolish for voting for Ron Paul.
Two weeks after Mitt Romney accumulated the 1,144 delegates required to become the Republican presidential nominee, two months after his only viable competition dropped out, and half a year after anyone with access to basic fundraising disclosures knew he would eventually win, Joe Scarborough announced to the world he voted for Ron Paul.…
Article comments
26 - Heywood Jablowme
A junior college nerd video geek blogger who supports the status quo repub candidate. How refreshingful inspiring. lol Come on Andrew. As insensitive as the comments in those newsletters were, there was a lot of truth in them. And does that disqualify Dr. Paul's candidacy.
27 - Snake
I have had the privlidge of meeting Dr. Paul as well as the dubious pleasure of meeting half a dozen other politicians and I can only say that the honesty and integrity of Dr. Paul is blatently obvious whereas the rotteness of the other politicians I have met is obvious also.
28 - Igor
Snake: did Ron Paul shake your hand? I ask because I've often read that Ron Paul doesn't shake hands with strangers.
29 - F22ERaptor
Mr. Casso. I appreciate you have your own political views, but you have to be professional.
You may disagree severly with Mr. Scarborough. If that is the case, you are entitled to debate him. That's fine.
However, you have no right to call him a fool on a headline. That is a personal attack. Mr. Scarborough spoke his mind and he is free to do so. He didn't personally attack anyone, he gave view points and backed them up with facts. Just because they do not align with your own doesn't make him a fool. He's entitled to his opinion, and you, yours, WITHOUT personal attacks.
As a political science major, you should know better. You should have titled this "Why I disagree with Joe" or something to that effect.
Personal attacks have no place here.
30 - Glenn Contrarian
"Raptor"
Personal attacks on celebrities IS allowed on BC - just not personal attacks on private citizens such as thee or me.
31 - zingzing
"As a political science major, you should know better."
given the state of political discourse in this nation... i think "fool" is pretty mild.
32 - harrybrowne
The only fool here is the author of this hit piece. Kudos to Joe Scarborough for recognizing a decent, principled, honest man like Ron Paul. Joe was in congress so he knows the crap that goes on there. And has the guts to admit it.
33 - Andrew Casso
Willis -
Accepting that elections are about choices doesn't make me naive, it makes me pragmatic. Our "winner-takes-all" political system all but guarantees that two party rule is inevitable. I'm not saying I endorse the system, just that I have enough common sense to understand it. You're the naive one if you think continuing to carry water for Ron Paul after his own son has endorsed the GOP nominee has any consequence whatsoever. Ron Paul ran for president and he lost. Whether you accept it or not, it is the truth.
34 - EmoryAlum
Dear Dr. Dreadful,
I noticed that you removed, in their entirety, a number of comments that cast aspersions upon both Emory and Mr. Casso, leaving no trace of them, yet left most of mine and inserted [personal attack deleted].
Jeepers. You call that an attack? It's not like I called him a dope, he's not, and though I acknowledge PoliSci/Econ major may border on insulting in some circles, you left that part in for goodness sakes!
Nonetheless, in deference to your authority and wisdom as assistant comments editor, I shall grant that the source of my embarrassment could be better specified. Thus let my prior post open with:
I was embarrassed to see this lousy article by a bright young man who attends my Alma Mater; then I saw it ...
Why is it lousy?
Because it characterizes Mr. Scarborough as a fool for recognizing, as the author eloquently points out, that "Mitt Romney is an unconditionally obedient, empty vessel for the most reactionary forces that have ever controlled the Republican Party."
The fact that Scarborough was able to eliminate Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich (a fellow alumnus, bless his heart) in favor of Paul, testifies to his intelligence, not his foolishness. After studying the candidates for six months, he surprised himself, and confounded the political "scientists." Bravo! There seems to be a lot of that going on these days.
"We all remember when [Paul] infamously declared the government should turn away sick people without health insurance, right?"
No. I don't. I do find the phrasing interesting though.
Lastly, the part that begins with "If Ron Paul were given complete dictatorial control," is weak. I understand why Mr. Casso would assume the dictator model, given the behaviors of presidents a man of his age could personally have observed. However, Rep. Paul has argued against a dictatorial executive for some time now, in fact, since I was younger than Mr. Casso -- encouraging fellow members of Congress to take responsibility for governmental powers constitutionally assigned to them. Therefore I consider the predicted calamity to be a non sequitur; perhaps Mr. Casso is invoking his comedic skills, in which case, I totally approve of his use of the literary device.
With regard to Romney having it sewn up? Who knows? I would encourage Mr. Casso to sit tight, he may get to witness an event called a political convention, instead of a "Romney Infomercial." Regardless of the outcome, these things are a sight to behold, and frankly, I miss them.
35 - El Bicho
Once the author of a piece uses insults he should be fair game to receive them.
36 - Andrew Casso
EmoryAlum -
If you acknowledge that Romney is controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, what does that make Paul? Romney is a liberal by comparison, at least on fiscal and economic issues.
Additionally, I was very careful to characterize Paul's response to the health insurance debate question fairly. He claimed people should have the freedom to make their own choices - to purchase health insurance or not - and suffer the consequences. Paul isn't a cruel man, I'm sure he grieved the death of his campaign manager. But he is so stridently anti-government he genuinely believes, "the government should turn away sick people without health insurance." If you're rich or lucky enough to receive private charity, you will survive. Otherwise, maybe not.
I assumed the "dictator model" because even if Paul were elected President his policies are so extreme and unpopular his presidency would be an utter failure. Basically I was creating a thought experiment where Congress is irrelevant to test what his ideas might look like.
Finally, by continuing to argue, even at this point, that Paul can still win tells me you are so brainwashed (I hate to use this word because of its connotations but it's the only one I can think of that applies) that even basic facts and indisputable evidence don't persuade you. I don't mean to sound snarky or condescending, but you should really consider investigating how your admirable and legitimate support for Paul impedes your ability to think and argue rationally.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Casso -
I have one and only one compliment for Ron Paul - he's not a hypocrite. He's flat wrong on most social, fiscal, and economic issues (but has some good ideas on foreign policy), and he's quite racist (unless you choose to ignore what he's published in the past), but except for his politically-necessary claims that he's not a racist, he's not a hypocrite...
...which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians.
38 - Dave Nalle
The author's horrible misrepresentation of Ron Paul is matched only by his horrible misrepresentation of Mitt Romney.
This is another example of why leftists just look foolish trying to analyze political trends within the GOP.
Dave
39 - Zingzing
Where are the tanks, Dave?
40 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You do realize, of course, that fiscally speaking, Obama's been the most conservative president since Eisenhower.
41 - EmoryAlum
Dear Mr. Casso,
In answer to your question, "If you acknowledge that Romney is controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, what does that make Paul?"
I would say, it makes him not controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, or as Mr. Scarborough calls them big government republicans. You yourself admit,�"Paul is anything but a big government Republican," so we agree on that. I think�Scarborough �and I might find that a tad more refreshing than you do.
What is important is not who controls Romney, it is that he does not control himself, therefore he will be led, he will not lead.
Regardless of anyone's feelings about the other three republican candidates, they all exhibit a degree of confidence in their own ideas. Romney has no ideas, he is as you say, an "empty vessel."�
Your characterization of Paul's position on healthcare is more fair in your response to me than in the original article. However, I never understood how a man who has spent so many years in the House of Representatives can be called "anti-government." His colleagues in the House seem to have quite a bit of respect for him -- including his former colleague Mr. Scarborough. Hell, he voted for him!
I would say Paul is pro-limited-government, with the limits being constitutionally defined. In my opinion, a very difficult position with which to argue. His opposition knows this, which is why they avoid discussing it.
So had you said something like: But he is so stridently limited-government he genuinely believes the Federal government should not be involved in providing healthcare. Even though I suspect that you and he would differ on this point, it is more accurate than "the government should turn away sick people without health insurance." -- especially when the statement is characterized as "infamous."
Your thought experiment detracts from your fool proof of Scarborough's allegedly wasted vote. I understand that you consider his policies extreme, though they did seem to resonate with Iowa republicans this weekend, and much to my surprise, apparently with a number of Massachusetts republicans, if the number of elected delegates to the national convention is any indication.
As for the convention, please do not deny me the audacity of hope. Nonetheless, I simply indicated my wish for you to see a real political convention rather than an infomercial, regardless of outcome. I had thought that a PoliSci major would be excited at the prospect.
I'll take your brainwashing comment as a compliment, just in case Dr. Dreadful (assistant comments editor) is watching. ;-)
42 - fritz
IF Krugman actually said this:
The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.
Then he's a dolt.
There was virtually no inflation on a gold standard - literally for centuries. The very inflation he points to since 1971 is caused by leaving gold and going to pure fiat money.
It's foolish to consider the inflation of gold when it's no longer considered a currency. banal. dis-logical. doltish.
i'd like to see an actual quote from Krugman on that
43 - Glenn Contrarian
fritz -
Nixon took America off the gold standard because France was buying and selling gold in such a way as to manipulate America's economy...and that's the point - if we're on the gold standard, we have to follow the golden rule, namely, that he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Now picture what China would do with all their surplus trillions.
However our economy may have operated on the gold standard - and we were on the gold standard when the Great Depression hit, remember - being on the gold standard enables other nations to use gold inventory levels to manipulate our economy, and that's not good.