Tuesday, September 23, 2008

In Defense of...Bob Barr!?

Anyone who follows third-party politics (I confess: it’s a guilty pleasure of mine) has already heard the news: Ron Paul has endorsed the theocratic whacko Chuck Baldwin to punish Barr for ditching his press conference.

First, regardless of what you think of Paul and his conference, it was a HUGE mistake (from a strategic standpoint) for Barr to skip the conference. He pissed off everyone for no good reason and the whole thing could have easily been avoided.

Nonetheless, I can understand why Barr decided to skip it after hearing the initial details. When I first heard of Paul’s press conference, I also thought it sounded extremely asinine. Like Barr, I got the impression that Paul was mindlessly endorsing four candidates (including Ralph Nader!?), stupidly diluting his following. It wasn’t until I actually watched Paul’s conference that I really understood what he was trying to do. “Aaahh, so that’s what the man is getting at.”

While I am a fan of Ron Paul (boo, hiss, not an anarchist, I know), his “endorsement” was clearly just an act of childish, petty revenge to get even with Barr. He came off as butthurt and unprincipled. “Oh yeah? Well now you can’t come over to my house after school!”

Baldwin is a grade A (or is that grade F?) nutter. The guy is all of the very worst elements of the Paul campaign rolled into one gigantic shit burrito: unhinged social conservatism, crackpot rightist populism, and fringe conspiracy theories out the ass. The Constitution Party’s platform of “family values” (ie, gays back in the closet, women back in the kitchen, Timmy back under daddy’s spiked belt) is quite open in its advocacy of theocracy. If you insist on voting and are torn between Chuck and Bob, you are better off with Bob.

Only one word can describe Paul’s endorsement of these creationist idiots:



John Petrie said...

"The guy is all of the very worst elements of the Paul campaign rolled into one gigantic shit burrito."

Nice. I haven't really read much about him because I don't care because I'm sure as hell not voting for him. Or for anyone for president. I admit, if Ron Paul were running in a third party or had mounted a write-in campaign, I might have voted for him, but I'll probably just write in my own name. Or maybe Dave Barry's.

I found your blag via nostate.com, and I'm glad I did.

Cork said...

Thanks, John!

I don't think I'm going to vote either this year. If I do, it'll be solely for my own amusement, or to end boredom.