Drawings courtesy of Flickr/DonkeyHotey
Related Article
L
isten, we know most of our readers would never vote for either Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. Both have taken abysmal stances against black people at various points in their political careers. But considering Gingrich’s strong performance in the two most recent debates and Rick Perry’s endorsement of him, he could become a serious contender for the nomination after South Carolina. That’s why it’s useful to speculate about who would be the worse President. So, if forced to choose Paul or Gingrich as the Republican nominee, which one would you choose and why?
Ok, I have to take that back. I just saw a video of Ron Paul giving a speech in front of a confederate flag, arguing that the South was right and saying among other things that the war caused a great “loss of liberty.” The end of slavery = loss of liberty? I can’t take it. Between the two, it’s a draw.
I know you must think it goes without saying that of course the civil war was fought over slavery. But in the South they remember a different story. Lincoln forced protectionist/isolationist tariffs on the South when the South wanted free trade. That was what they say drove them to succession. I know this is a completely foreign concept to most of us in the North, but they may be right. War has much more to do with economics than is generally realized.
More importantly, Ron Paul does NOT support slavery or any racism, sexism, religious bias, or any other prejudice. He made a huge mistake 20 years ago by allowing some unidentified jackass to insert terribly prejudiced quips into his publications on occasion over a span of a couple years. He didn’t even find out about it until it was brought up in an election many years later. They are not his views. And they do not reflect his actions. He actually voted FOR MLK holiday in ’79 (tho against later bills that had too many unconstitutional provisions). As a doctor, he gave free medical care to any in his community who were in need. Dr. Paul is a man of great compassion (totally unlike the other monsters running for the GOP nomination). It will be tragic if no one realizes that in time!
I’m going with Paul on this one. At least he’s anti-war, particularly elective wars. I don’t think he’s any more anti-gay, anti-people of color, etc. than Gingrich. Plus Gingrich is more electable and probably more dangerous. That said, Counterpunch has an excellent piece on why supporting Paul because he’s anti-imperialist doesn’t make sense. Might be worth looking at the Greens or working at making Obama a better president.