Club Against Growth

I guess we should be happy the Club for Growth has finally acknowledged Ron Paul's tenacious fight for the presidency.

Until recently, the Club hadn't even included Rep. Paul with the likes of Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in their economic profiles of the candidates. You'll note that the Club released Brownback's record on economic issues way back in February, and only this week released a white paper for Ron Paul.

I'm not exactly sure why the Club suddenly decided to profile Dr. Paul, but maybe they figured it looked a little silly to ignore him when they've already compiled a scorecard for a guy who's not even in the race anymore. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Paul raised as much money as John McCain in the third quarter and trails only Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in primary cash on hand.

So congratulations to the Club for Growth for finally waking to the idea that the only truly pro-growth Republican in the race deserves some recognition. Maybe my inner cynic is coming out to play here, but I don't believe this has to do with anything other than trying to save face. After all, Ron Paul refuses to go gently into that good night, and only the fool still clings to the belief that Paul is a sideshow -- a "kook," a "pencil head" -- as he spreads his message of freedom and liberty.

But that doesn't mean the Club won't still do its best to discount Paul's viability. Indeed, Club president Pat Toomey analogizes Ron Paul as "the perfect as the enemy of the good."

"While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect," Mr. Toomey continued.

That's right, folks. Ron Paul is just "too principled" for America. Apparently, the Club for Growth would rather only endorse candidates for president who are kinda-sorta pro-growth. Toomey criticizes Paul for opposing "free trade" agreements primarily composed of terms dictated by the U.S., and federal school choice programs that are no business of the federal government. Fair enough, Mr. Toomey, but just don't go around touting your organization as dedicated to economic growth. That the federal government deigns to regulate (i.e., limit and control) trade or education in the first place is abhorrent and is the very antithesis of pro-growth policy.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Club's white paper on Ron Paul is the insistence to not just find, but emphasize, the (supposedly) negative in Paul's policy when it does the opposite for virtually every other Republican candidate. Go ahead and read Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani's reports for starters and tell me they don't read as if the Club's trying to turn a prostitute into a prom queen.

But Ron Paul? Hey, he's essentially perfect -- indeed, he's "ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies" -- but Paul's supposed opposition to "all but the perfect" will apparently spell our country's turn to disaster should he win election in 2008.

In short, I've never read anything so bizarre in all my life. The Club for Growth ostensibly exists to fight for principles of economic growth, yet it categorically denounces the one presidential candidate it admits is the most economically principled. It laughably suggests that because Ron Paul insists on possessing a voting record that is consistent -- in other words, what Ron Paul says is what Ron Paul does -- "we might never get a chance to pursue the good too."

I don't know exactly where the Club for Growth has been lately, but our politicians in Washington have been shoveling a lot of crap for a long time now. And as far as this writer is concerned, I'm about ready for our lawmakers to pursue nothing if "good" means continuing to settle for a federal government that will maintain and likely extend its collective control over virtually every waking minute of my life.

Comments

[Bambi]

Great work.

[Beata]

Great work.