I gleaned this from Foxnews.com.
I have noticed that most of their articles are very short and concise. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wonder why?
Nonetheless it points to a glaring issue, to me, with Ron Paul. The guy is just so interesting and I mean in an old school, real human, exceptional and flawed, warts and all, kind of way. Sure he is nutty but on some things he is so deadly outspoken and nano-level correct you cannot ignore him. Unlike his GOP counterparts. Let me get to that after the first thing: his stance on the war on drugs.
At what point do we get our act together on this? I am not shocked at how easily duped some Americans are considering their sources yet drug addiction, law enforcement failure (were they ever really in the game on this one?) to do one whit of good, and the mounting deaths from this problem should be enough of a harbinger to allow us to drop the old model, or the facade of the old model which made us think someone was actually doing something about the problem.
More people died from drug overdoses last year than in automobile accidents.
We have too many people, leaders on the front lines, on both sides of the fence, conservative and liberal, and across the strata of our country who know, from first hand experience what we are doing has never and will never work at dealing with our drug problem. Just like everything else, with the coming Singularity, it is up to us, as a race of people, to start making the changes necessary to better our world.
Ron Paul is bold in many of his assertions and this is the very reason he will not have a shot, ever, of getting the nod from the GOP, and most likely someone like him, on the other side of the fence, would never get the nod from the DEMS. Why? Because he does not present as a pre-cut cookie. As much as I want to dislike both the Doctors Paul for some of their stances I cannot help but grudgingly admire them for sticking to their guns and being the old and young coot who says what they think and believe and do so loudly. How absolutely American of them. I used to feel a similar affinity for John McCain but he was not as Maverick as I once thought or maybe he should have made a run for the gold when Maverick was still Top Gun era Maverick and not Grand Torino era Maverick.
What you need to ask yourself, since the Obama administration’s acceptance of Super PAC fundraising, is not: has the POTUS shown the world that he is prepared to play gamesmanship right along with the wave of coming Super PAC campaigning? True enough he has done this yet this is not the ultimate layer to the onion waiting to be peeled. The Obama campaign knows its history well and what the term “Swift Boat” means. The GOP is in a scratching contest right now but in reality this is nothing more than a charade allowing the spin masters room to do what they do best. The problem is three of the candidates are using kitten claws in the scratching contest and one is emboldened by a gang of rabid tigers with titanium claws, seriously. I am going to be so shocked if Mitt Romney is not the GOP guy I will be at a loss so great it might stop me from thinking for a whole five minutes. Not only is the smart money on Romney but the largest portion of the rest of it as well. Why do you think Super PACs are so important?
It is no great secret: he who spends the most effectively wins. He outspends all the other candidates combined and then some. One can pontificate all day long about Santorum’s appeal to the Midwest and the core conservative values or Ginrich’s smarts and experience or even that Ron Paul may be a bit nutty but “gosh some of the things that nutty guy say make sense.” At the end of the day and this illusion of a campaign it will be Romney and the deep coffers supporting him which will prevail, they already have. The others, in my opinion, are making their case for the next go around, and admirably so. ‘Let’s wind it up and see where it takes us’ kind of planning for the future, 2016 or beyond.
The POTUS knows what is coming and regardless of whom the GOP (Romney) throws at them they had better be prepared with coffers of their own or they will lose. It is simple math which leads to the real issue at hand: the failure of the United States Supreme Court when it ruled unlimited spending towards political campaigns was lawful. There is the issue and the real question which should be bouncing around inside of any sensible person’s mind like a BB in a boxcar: Is our government really that openly for sale? Answer: absolutely!
Has it always been, at least in the last 100 years, for sale to the highest bidder? Of course yet not in such an open fashion, our government is on the auction block and the one who is able to generate the highest bids will win. It will come down to this and always come down to this until ‘we the people’ stop allowing it to happen. Is this a realistic possibility? I am not so sure yet when gamesmanship is so openly practiced and bought it makes me wonder if we were not better off making each candidate dress like a NASCAR driver. At least we would know who is sponsoring the car, it could be, should be, printed right there on their suit coats.
If someone is pointing at the full, bright moon don’t get caught up looking at the finger. The finger is not the moon.