Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton
Radley Balko, over at Reason, does a great job taking apart Hillary Clinton. Reading his article made me think of last Sunday's Republican debate on Fox. In particular, it brought to mind this question Ron Paul was asked (paraphrasing):
"Hillary Clinton wants to end the War in Iraq. So do you. What makes you different from Hillary Clinton?"
I didn't like Paul's answer. It was a great opportunity for him to:
a) call HC out on the carpet for being part of the reason for the war, never mind that there is no reason to believe that a Hillary-led White House will end the war anytime within her first two terms.
b) distinguish himself from her on domestic issues, where a wider gulf exists between Paul and Clinton, than between any other Repub candidate for President.
With respect to a)
We could take Clinton's word for it, or we could, as Kasparov wisely recommends when it comes to Putin, look at her track record. She voted for the war, Paul didn't. She voted for more funding, Paul didn't. She hasn't apologized for voting for the War. She doesn't commit herself to pulling out any time soon.
We could also look at her track record during Bill's tenure as the President. It wasn't like she opposed her husband's radical and wide-ranging military escapades (yup, the biggest since WWII). In fact, she proudly said that she urged Bill to bomb Kosovo during a phone conversation when tensions there were mounting.
A peace candidate Hillary Clinton is not. A left neo-con, she is. (More grist for the foreign adventurism stems, in reality, from a left-wing ideology mill?)
With respect to b)
Clinton wants a (pre-Chaoulli decision) Canada-style health care system. Ron Paul wants more health care freedom. Clinton supported the Patriot Act, and is unlikely to pull out any of its teeth. Paul voted against the Patriot Act, and introduced American Freedom Agenda legislation just a couple of days ago into Congress that would, amongst other things, disallow torture, and restore habeas corpus (read the three-page PDF doc here. Really. It's awesome). On tax policy, Paul wants to abolish the IRS and eliminate the federal income tax. Clinton? I don't think so. Paul wants to fulfill Ronald Reagan's dream of abolishing the Department of Education. Clinton? Take a wild stab at this.
The only policy they see eye-to-eye on domestically is the stupid border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border idea. They both voted for it. They're both supporting a ReallyDumbIdea(TM)
Ron Paul is about as non-Clinton (or anti-Clinton) as they come. There is no Republican contender for President who more sharply differs, ideologically and with respect to their voting record, than my man Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. Then again, that same gulf exists between Ron Paul and all the other Republican candidates as well. Is it any wonder I love the guy?
"Hillary Clinton wants to end the War in Iraq. So do you. What makes you different from Hillary Clinton?"
I didn't like Paul's answer. It was a great opportunity for him to:
a) call HC out on the carpet for being part of the reason for the war, never mind that there is no reason to believe that a Hillary-led White House will end the war anytime within her first two terms.
b) distinguish himself from her on domestic issues, where a wider gulf exists between Paul and Clinton, than between any other Repub candidate for President.
With respect to a)
We could take Clinton's word for it, or we could, as Kasparov wisely recommends when it comes to Putin, look at her track record. She voted for the war, Paul didn't. She voted for more funding, Paul didn't. She hasn't apologized for voting for the War. She doesn't commit herself to pulling out any time soon.
We could also look at her track record during Bill's tenure as the President. It wasn't like she opposed her husband's radical and wide-ranging military escapades (yup, the biggest since WWII). In fact, she proudly said that she urged Bill to bomb Kosovo during a phone conversation when tensions there were mounting.
A peace candidate Hillary Clinton is not. A left neo-con, she is. (More grist for the foreign adventurism stems, in reality, from a left-wing ideology mill?)
With respect to b)
Clinton wants a (pre-Chaoulli decision) Canada-style health care system. Ron Paul wants more health care freedom. Clinton supported the Patriot Act, and is unlikely to pull out any of its teeth. Paul voted against the Patriot Act, and introduced American Freedom Agenda legislation just a couple of days ago into Congress that would, amongst other things, disallow torture, and restore habeas corpus (read the three-page PDF doc here. Really. It's awesome). On tax policy, Paul wants to abolish the IRS and eliminate the federal income tax. Clinton? I don't think so. Paul wants to fulfill Ronald Reagan's dream of abolishing the Department of Education. Clinton? Take a wild stab at this.
The only policy they see eye-to-eye on domestically is the stupid border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border idea. They both voted for it. They're both supporting a ReallyDumbIdea(TM)
Ron Paul is about as non-Clinton (or anti-Clinton) as they come. There is no Republican contender for President who more sharply differs, ideologically and with respect to their voting record, than my man Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. Then again, that same gulf exists between Ron Paul and all the other Republican candidates as well. Is it any wonder I love the guy?
posted by P. M. Jaworski at 2:25 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home