At last! Someone expresses my opinion on Ron Paul!

It is in response to Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald begins his post with the argument that we should drop the who "with us or against us" viewpoint. You can applaud Ron Paul's opposition to endless overseas war and domestic War on Terror and War on Drugs without committing yourself to vote for him. True, but I am not sure how much use that is. Unfortunately, we do not have the option of voting for Paul on foreign policy and national security issues and against him on domestic and economic issues. If I had that option, I would take it in a heartbeat, but I dont.

After insisting that one can praise Paul on some issues without committing oneself to actually vote for him, Greenwald then heaps scorn on anyone who would vote for Obama over Paul, urging them to come out and say:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Gee, if that isn't an endorsement for Ron Paul as President (except, perhaps, against Gary Johnson), it sure sounds like it. And I don't know. Maybe I should accept blowing up our domestic economy as an acceptable sacrifice to make for ending the madness. After all, I did at least half-seriously endorse David Stockman as Republican candidate despite believing his preferred economic policies were disasterous, in order to discredit them. But then again, I also endorsed Stockman because I thought he was not batshit crazy and would not do anything the caused irreparable damage. Ron Paul I not so confident about. And maybe it is just rationalizing to say that blowing up our economy as a necessary sacrifice to end the madness may not work out because economic disaster has a way of inciting madness and scapegoat seeking.

But now I can stop worrying about rationalizations because this commentator expresses just my opinion in response to Greenwald:

In fact, let me just edit Greenwald's proposed tradeoff so that it's a bit more accurate:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have some Muslim children inadvertently die by covert rones and cluster bombs, and a disproportionate percentage of America’s minorities imprisoned for no good reason, and the CIA taking action with minimal checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers and lots of rhetoric & covert action against Iran that makes Glenn Greenwald hyperventilate in exchange for avoiding a complete and total meltdown of the global economy due to the massive deflation that would naturally follow from a re-constituted gold standard.

I don't like this choice, but it's an easy one to make.

Exactly!