As many know I stayed neutral in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Basically I like both guys in that race that have a real chance to win and I have been watching with amusement the drama on the Republican side as Conway and Mongiardo duke it out. I have no desire to attack either one. However, now that race is being sorted out as we speak, and Rand Paul seemingly will win on the Republican side. Now the amusement is over and I must look at Paul as a candidate I must say whomever between Conway and Mongiardo emerges we must work hard to elect them because Rand Paul represents an ideology that quite simply put is dangerous.
Now if Paul loses I guess I will look stupid with this diary but barring a miracle he will win. The fact of the matter is that as a mainstream candidate this man is beyond just wrong, he is dangerous for our country.
Now the lovely part of the general election is that now that I will have a candidate to support it is time for me to point out just how wrong Paul is on some very important issues. For the first time actually I went to his site to look around for info and I did not take very long to find one point he is very wrong on, and could help do even more serious damage if elected.
With the tragedy and disaster in the Gulf, immediately this page stood out to me:
I will vote to cut taxes and lift regulations on companies developing new sources of energy. But this does not mean that I want to take taxpayer money to subsidize them. Any energy source that really meets the needs of the American consumer would not need the government to subsidize it. Just as we don't subsidize laptops and iPods, we should not be subsidizing solar and wind power.
Our energy crisis today stems from too much government intervention and the solution is to allow real competition in the energy industry, not political favoritism.
Now, does everyone understand what he is saying?? Remember the massive failure of BP and the lax regulation that allowed them to obtain a permit without appropriate safety measures to cut costs?? Well, Rand Paul is telling you that was TOO MUCH government regulation. He thinks if the government just gets out of BP's way, everything will be just fine.
Rand Paul is also completely against trying to research and develop the fuels of the future. These are our real hope to put America back to work in a new industry. They DO need to be researched and developed just like they did in the 1970s. For that you need funding but it is not a waste, it is an investment that could pay huge dividends for our country and create millions of middle-class jobs that could not be outsourced. Is that what the Paul folks hate so much??
I would just like to remind Mr. Paul that while the 1960s called and want their hairdo back, it is indeed a new day and age. Republicans always want to talk about a "pre-911" mentality, but it seems as if Paul has a "pre-1970s" mentality on energy. His vision has brought us the massive failures of both parties on Energy policy since we first knew we had a problem in the 1970s and his vision brought us the massive de-regulation and Corporate greed that caused the tragedy in the Gulf and cost so many lives, livelihoods and ecosystems. It could be an even greater tragedy than we all realize.
So, to those who think they are making some kind of "statement" in voting for Rand Paul consider this. He offers the same failed vision of Corporate dominance and the Energy companies writing national energy policy offered us by men like Dick Cheney in the last decade. In case anyone needs a reminder this is what that vision brings, along with $4 a gallon gas. Debt, de-regulation, ecological disaster, and basically more of the same: