A Gay Girl’s Guide to the GOP: The 2012 Republican Candidate Cheat Sheet



(read our full profile of her here!)


Economy and jobs! I may just stop typing that each time and let you assume it, like how they no longer put the Bible on the NYT Bestseller List. Other highlights include “repealing Obamacare,” reducing debt, “defending marriage” and – this is on her website verbatim – “[rebuilding] respect for America as the shining city upon a hill.”

What she’s got going for her: The Tea Party. Virtually every person and media outlet with any modicum of neutrality views Bachmann as so far out there that you can only reach her via space shuttle, but unfortunately extremism is very on-trend right now. What’s worse is that one of the hallmarks of extremism is that it isn’t so interested in recognizing criticism of itself, and so all the media snarking and attention piled on Bachmann’s politically calculated crazy talk (including this right here) actually only strengthens her base of support. As Frank Schaeffer says at the Daily Beast, “[She] says certain things which sound crazy to the general public. But to anybody raised in the environment of the evangelical right wing, what she says makes perfect sense.”

What might not work out so well: As noted above, Michele Bachmann is a little unhinged, which has its advantages in the current political climate but also doesn’t lend itself well to life success in general. Probably what critics have harped on most is her strong track record of being wrong – which Politico politely refers to as “a pattern.” For instance, this January speech covered by Wonkette:

[yframe url=’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGSCF712FCA’]

Most recently and controversially was an intended comparison of herself to John Wayne of Western fame that instead unintentionally referenced murderer John Wayne Gacy. For now, these things are embarrassing gaffes that Bachmann hasn’t seemed particularly bothered by. But when the debates begin in earnest and become an important factor in a candidate’s campaign, it may come back to bite her.

Feelings about The Gays: VERY NEGATIVE, which we have already explained in great detail. In the interests of time and space, we’ll stick to the highlights (lowlights):

+ Lists “defending marriage” as part of her official campaign platform

+ Believes homosexuality can be “cured,” and her husband runs an ex-gay clinic that was recently infiltrated by Truth Wins Out.

+ Described homosexuality as a disorder at a national educational conference in 2004: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.”

+ Says that after being “devastated” by marriage equality in Massachusetts, knew through prayer that the only answer was to introduce an anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota in 2004. Her thoughts on what would happen if it failed: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.”

+ Signed a pledge from Iowa group FAMiLY Leader, which seems to imply that slavery is preferable to gay families (or that enslaved black families were somehow lucky in that at least they weren’t headed by gays) “…a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

+ Assisted in the writing of the 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which contends (among many other things) that the Founding Fathers can’t be blamed for OWNING SLAVES: “[Author John Eidsmoe] also argues that even those founders who owned slaves opposed the institution and wanted it to disappear, and that it was only Christian for them to protect their slaves until it did. ‘It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible,’ he wrote.”

(Many quotes taken from The Bachmann Record, where there are still plenty more.) Bachmann has also been extremely vocal in her opposition to Planned Parenthood and any kind of reproductive choice, as well as essentially attempting to ban pornography. She has said that she studied tax law because of her husband’s instruction, and recommends: “Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands.”

Death Eater Equivalent: Bellatrix Lestrange




Strengthening the economy and “keeping jobs in America” – he describes himself as fiscally conservative. Also, education prioritization and reform, more conciliatory foreign policy, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as bringing peace to the Middle East and Israel. He supports a path to citizenship for immigrants as well as improving border security, and also lowering the voting age – which is a pretty astute goal for a gay candidate.

What he’s got going for him: Well, put charitably, he’s a “long shot.” His goal seems to be to appeal to younger voters, who might not be impressed by Gingrich or Pawlenty, and who may not belong to the middle-aged Tea Party set that Bachmann seems to cater to. He was a consultant on Reagan’s campaign, whose name is still sacred in the Republican party. He also calls Obama a “miserable failure,” which seems like a popular position to take at the moment.

What might not work out so well: Well, he’s gay. (And Jewish.) And his pet cause is exposing Mormon involvement in Prop 8, which is an admirable but not politically expedient move. So there’s that. To be honest, Karger may see himself as a gay Shirley Chisholm; someone with a virtually negligible chance of winning, but whose role in history is important. He wasn’t invited to the first major GOP event for the 2012 election, which even pro-marijuana legalization Gary Johnson was. He’s a very seasoned campaign consultant and strategist, but seems to have little interest in using those skills to win votes, and more interested in stirring things up.

Feelings about The Gays: Um, positive? His statement on GLBT Pride Month:

“My candidacy sends a strong message to millions of Americans that if you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer you can do anything you want in life, you can even run for President. As the only full equality candidate running for President in 2012, I will fight for full equality for all Americans.”

Also, he’s a pro-choice feminist (i.e. not the Sarah Palin kind.)

“I’m a very strong feminist. My mother was so I better be. I’m a founding member of Republican Majority for Choice. I’ve been a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, of the Equal Rights Amendment which was around when I was just starting in politics, and a big supporter of Hilary Clinton the first time around.”




Surprise, he wants to pay down the debt and create jobs, as well as ramping up national security, as well as “protecting life and religious liberty” (which I am fairly sure is Republican code for “restrict access to abortion and contraception”). His alternative to Obama’s healthcare plan is called Patient Power, and you can read about it here.

What he’s got going for him: Newt Gingrich is part of the old guard of the Republican Party, and he’s really put the time in. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, and was named “Man of the Year” in 1995 by TIME Magazine for being an integral part of ending 40 years of Democratic majority in Congress. The respect he gained for those accomplishments is significant and still alive in the Republican Party. Gingrich still has an active career in consulting and political analysis, has written twenty-three books, and still speaks and is invited to conferences and lectures very regularly. He also writes historical fiction!

What might not work out so well: Newt Gingrich’s entire campaign staff more or less walked out on him earlier this year, reportedly because “they realized they were working for Newt Gingrich.” He’s decided to continue his run despite what seems like a pretty fundamental and insurmountable obstacle, but betting markets give him only a 1-in-200 chance of winning just the Republican nomination. Also, there is apparently an issue where he’s bought a lot of things at Tiffany’s, and he has also raised less than half the amount of money than his main Republican competitors, and these elections are in a lot of ways won and lost with money.

Feelings about The Gays: He’s given at least $350,000 to anti-gay groups, so that, you know, sets a certain tone. He sides with John Boehner in maintaining that the DoJ refusing to defend DOMA (and now actively challenging it) is a failure on Obama’s part to “do his job.” He’s also said that he would “work on slowing down the progress of gay rights if elected president,” which seems pretty clear-cut.

Death Eater Equivalent: Barty Crouch Jr: “He was basically out of this race just as it was beginning, just like Barty Crouch Jr. lost his soul just as Voldemort first came back to power. Also, Gingrich is kind of considered the “intellectual” Republican (and was voted “Most Intellectual” in high school and was a National Merit Finalist) and Barty Crouch Jr. got 12 O.W.L.s”
So! Whether you or someone you know/are related to is voting Republican this year, consider yourself prepared.

Are you following us on Facebook?

Pages: 1 2 See entire article on one page

Profile gravatar of Rachel

Rachel is Autostraddle's Managing Editor and the editor who presides over news & politics coverage. Originally from Boston, MA, Rachel now lives in the Midwest. Topics dear to her heart include bisexuality, The X-Files and tacos. Her favorite Ciara video is probably "Ride," but if you're only going to watch one, she recommends "Like A Boy."

Rachel has written 1024 articles for us.


  1. Karger is a great example of the type of candidate that we need in America- one that demonstrates that economic conservatism does not necessarily go hand in hand with social conservatism. He actually just needs his own political party, kinda like the Tea Party, but less batshit crazy.

    • I mean, I’m glad libertarians have somebody they can get behind (and not Ron Paul since he’s a racist and anti-choice and doesn’t want real equality for gays), but I think economic conservatism is the last thing this country needs right now. One of the big reasons we have such a huge deficit is Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, and we would probably be doing better if Obama hadn’t given in on keeping those cuts.

      If anything, we need more money put into the government right now, not less.

      • That aside, I am glad there is a Republican this year I could actually vote for, if I didn’t live in a state which required me to *be* Republican in order to vote in their primary. I miss Michigan sometimes.

        • I realize it sounded like I’m all for economic conservatism- I’m not, by any measure. But of the Death Eaters presented to us by the GOP, I’m glad at least one is socially liberal, not that he has a snowball’s chance in the first six circles of hell.

  2. I agree with Regulus for Karger. He was a Death Eater but didn’t really agree with their methods. And he was hella ballsy, which you have to be in order to run as an openly gay Jewish Republican.

    I don’t know about Snape for Romney, though, because you do know where Snape’s loyalties always lay now that the series is through. And Snape was, in the end, possibly the book’s greatest hero despite being a Death Eater. I say Peter Pettigrew for Mitt – he wasn’t really loyal to anyone and in the end, no one ended up liking him because he didn’t really stand for much of anything.

    Clearly, I am focusing on the most important parts of this article…

    • We had Peter Pettigrew for Ron Paul originally (because of how liberals seem to see him as “not as bad” when, no he’s not). I like the Regulus comparisons, but ultimately I didn’t assign Karger one because I didn’t realize we’d be covering him – I thought we’d only be going over the bad ones.

      But I’m glad he’s running. He sounds like all the shit I was told about Ron Paul by his fanboys four years ago, except that Karger IS actually all those things.

  3. I’m so glad to live in a country where these sort of games won’t get you elected.
    I really don’t know what to say. If some of these quotes were aired by candidates in many other countries they would be out of the running. Only in America and all that.

    • “these sort of games”…do you mean the rhetoric / promises game? because that gets everyone elected, no matter which side of the political spectrum one is on.

      and i don’t know..i feel like there are a lot scarier people out there..the kind who don’t bother to say what they will / will not try to do if they happen to win an election. some scary people just do whatever the eff they want, when they want & that’s that.

      i can see where you’re coming from though.

    • Okay, but plenty of other countries have other issues they can be totally insane on and it’s perfectly fine even if not particularly these ones… So “only in America” is totally inaccurate.

      But these people do scare me.

  4. I kind of just spent ten minutes laughing over the fact that I misread John Boehner as John Boner. Over this side of the Atlantic, we have a Labour (the left-leaning party) politician called Ed Balls. Basically no matter the seriousness of the situation, you can always make a dick joke about politicians… you know, because most of them are.

  5. Ron Paul is the most pro-gay candidate in the race, democrat or republican, and you’ve just written him off. What an incredible disservice you’ve done for us all.

    • Ron Paul thinks marriage should be settled by the states and he has supported DOMA. On that former point, he’s where Obama is and on that latter point, he’s BEHIND Obama. And both of them are behind Fred Karger.

      I mean, I don’t understand you Ron Paul supporters. Karger is everything everyone wanted Paul to be back in ’08 and everything his fans incessantly claimed he was despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Why aren’t you guys flocking to Karger?

  6. “someone you are related to is voting Republican this year, consider yourself prepared.” yes. every time i try to have a conversation with my parents about how insane the candidates are, they tell me that i’m probably just misunderstanding whatever it was that michelle bachman or whoever said. now i have actually “things they said” to give to them. thanks rachel!

  7. dude, i kind of LIKE belletrix lestrange though! this is TOTALLY offensive to her. plus her name is way cooler than “michelle” and there ain’t no WAY helena bonham carter plays bachmann in any movie, ever. you should’ve just called her voldemort and gotten it over with. or just one of the demons, like maybe the basilisk or something else disgusting.

  8. You should have talked about Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson!

    Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson are officially for civil unions, have said that they respect NY’s gay marriage law, and would not sign the anti-gay marriage “Marriage Vow.” So even though they’re uncomfortable with the term marriage (or fear that it would make them even less viable of a candidate than they are), I don’t think either of them would defend DOMA/prosecute states for allowing gay marriage.

    Not Death Eater-y at all.

  9. Pingback: Autostraddle — A Gay Girl's Guide to the GOP: The 2012 Republican … | MyGaySpot

  10. Thoughts:
    -What the hell is in the water in Minnesota?
    -Rick Santorum can suck my Dick Santorum. Seriously, fuck that guy.
    -“…pro-marijuana legalization Gary Johnson…” HELLO, GARY JOHNSON!
    -Basically what this article tells me is that the GOP is a clusterfuck right now and all the votes will be split and Obama will win. Probably. Hopefully.

  11. Don’t want to ever hear about Ron Paul again? Ron Paul is racist and anti-choice?

    Ron Paul is the preeminent freedom and liberty candidate, so I fail to see how one could label him fairly as “anti-choice”. If by this, one means he is against abortion, well, yes, he is on a personal level. How can he not be when, as a physician, he has delivered over 4000 babies? Despite this, he would still leave the regulation of abortion to the states, some of which would legalize it, while others would ban it altogether.

    As for the claim that Ron Paul is racist, how can that be true when he has said he will pardon ALL non-violent drug offenders victimized by the racist federal War on Drugs?

    Yes, Ron Paul supported DOMA, but only Section 2, which protected the rights of states from intrusion by the federal government. He did NOT support Section 3, which attempted to establish a federal definition of marriage for all. On the gay marriage issue, he has been very clear that he thinks the government should stay completely out of it.

    You all should do some research before jumping to conclusions about Ron Paul.

    • LOLing at the idea that I haven’t done research on this issue. Research on the issue of Ron Paul specifically is what got me asked to be a writer at Autostraddle. I really don’t think I need to write essays in response to obvious trolls to prove I have done my research on Ron Paul. But I’ll do it this once so it won’t be in dispute any more.

      A quick Google search of “Ron Paul racism” turns up this:http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88421/ron-pauls-racism
      and this:
      and this:
      and this!

      The fact that the drug war is racist does not mean that those who oppose it are automatically anti-racist. Racism is one reason to want to end it, but it is far from the only one. Another one is wasteful spending, which I imagine is probably closer to Ron Paul’s heart as a libertarian.

      I’m just not going to touch your privilege-denying and historically-ignorant nonsense about “states’ rights” apparently being more important than people’s rights. Or the idea that Ron Paul being a former OB-GYN somehow means he can read the minds of every pregnant woman in the U.S. and know what their particular life situations and needs are. I’m really done arguing these points with privilege-denying jerks who are never going to concede that perhaps as people who are not female and are not queer, they are not the best people to be deciding what matters to women and queer people. The very fact that you think, as a male, that you deserve a say in what should and should not be covered on a LESBIAN site means you obviously don’t get it.

      I think the one who needs to do their research here is you. Specifically, I think you need to look into information about Paul other than his official campaign material.


    like do you see the implications here
    wizards make more sense to me than the republican party

  13. I’m sad Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul aren’t even in there. I know, I know, nobody’s ever heard of friggin’ Jon Huntsman but there’s a reason Obama sent him away, he was afraid of his political might! (Even though is first ad is about basically… who he isn’t… Wrong strategy buddy)

    I’ve been harassed by Ron Paul supporters too, I understand your reluctance. But sometimes he makes sense, and he’s Kucinich’s right wing equivalent. Be it on Libya or same-sex marriage, he can be cool once in a while.

    And I can’t stand Fred Karger. That is all!

  14. Posts like these make this European gal really happy. Using Harry Potter-comparisons to make people like me understand stuff is absolutely brilliant and makes me feel less of a nerd.

    Autostraddle, if you were a girl, instead of a website, I’d obsessively stalk your Facebook, annoy the shit out of all my friends by incessantly talking about you, alongside being to shy to dance with you and writing embarrassing calligraphy containing both our names in my diary. […] Oh wait. I actually do that shit.

  15. Pingback: Romney Silent Over Debt Talks – Wall Street Journal | Conservatives for America

  16. “LOLing at the idea that I haven’t done research on this issue. Research on the issue of Ron Paul specifically is what got me asked to be a writer at Autostraddle.”

    I find this statement interesting because what you have actually done, by giving time in your article to some of the other, in my opinion, more anti-gay bigoted presidential candidates, is help promote their presidential candidacies. If you dislike Ron Paul so much, why not just include him at the top of your list and ridicule him as much as you can? That you haven’t is in conflict with your apparent position that the candidates whose policies you’ve reviewed are the ones gay people should be most concerned about.

    “I really don’t think I need to write essays in response to obvious trolls to prove I have done my research on Ron Paul. But I’ll do it this once so it won’t be in dispute any more.”

    I read the articles found at the links you provided.

    Regarding the newsletters with racist content, there’s no evidence that Ron Paul wrote any of them (in fact, one of the articles you suggested implies strongly that Lew Rockwell did!). Any alleged evidence that does exists is either circumstantial or hearsay, none of which would survive a respectable challenge in court. Either way, I fail to see what all of this says about Ron Paul himself, except that he once might not have been as attentive to what goes out under his name as he is today. Agreed, he should have known about the letters, and on that point, to the best of my knowledge, he takes full responsibility. But to say his doing so proves he is racist is utterly ridiculous. It’s like saying that because the infamous fabulist and writer, Stephen Glass, fabricated most, if not all, of the articles he wrote, the entire editorial staff at The New Republic, that was ignorant of what he was doing and that eventually apologized on his behalf, was necessarily comprised of liars too. In the end, all that really matters about the newsletters (in the way they apply to Ron Paul) is that none of the racist ideas expressed in just a few of them is or has ever been represented anywhere in Ron Paul’s voting record.

    About the Civil Rights Act and property rights issue on which so many people appear fixated, I’ll start by saying that I believe the Civil Rights Act was instrumental in ending segregation. You got me there. But that doesn’t mean it was a perfect bill. In fact, it was the Jim Crow laws which were responsible for legally creating segregation in the first place. It is those laws the government should alone have repealed instead of passing legislation that infringed on property rights. What if instead of property rights, it had been racist language targeted at the time? Would you have supported a move to limit 1st Amendment rights just to keep people from saying controversial and/or discriminatory things? Saying Ron Paul is racist because he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act the way it was written is like saying he did not vote for the Patriot Act because he supports terrorism.

    “The fact that the drug war is racist does not mean that those who oppose it are automatically anti-racist. Racism is one reason to want to end it, but it is far from the only one. Another one is wasteful spending, which I imagine is probably closer to Ron Paul’s heart as a libertarian.”

    Ron Paul is against wasteful spending, that is true, and most especially in regards to the enormously wasteful Drug War. But I’m surprised you think someone who is truly racist would free, en masse, those minorities who are under incarceration from the obviously racist Drug War. If anything, a better plan would be to NOT do this and also vote in favor of police state policies, which happen to be the very things Ron Paul has fought against all his life. Look, if all you’ve got are the newsletters to support your position on this, I’m sorry but your argument just doesn’t stand up to critical examination. It just doesn’t.

    “I’m just not going to touch your privilege-denying and historically-ignorant nonsense about “states’ rights” apparently being more important than people’s rights.”

    How you confuse “states rights” with “privilege-denying” and “ignorant nonsense” is beyond me. All states rights means is that “powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the PEOPLE [my emphasis].”

    “Or the idea that Ron Paul being a former OB-GYN somehow means he can read the minds of every pregnant woman in the U.S. and know what their particular life situations and needs are.”

    I don’t think Ron Paul has ever claimed to be telekinetic due to his former practice as an OB/GYN. However, again I say, as a physician who has delivered many babies, he has a unique perspective on the abortion issue that I believe should be heard by everyone.

    “I’m really done arguing these points with privilege-denying jerks who are never going to concede that perhaps as people who are not female and are not queer, they are not the best people to be deciding what matters to women and queer people.”

    First you call me a troll, then a privilege-denying jerk, and then you denigrate me as a male, suggesting that because I’m not a lesbian, I’m likely not qualified to have an opinion about abortion and gay rights. What does being female or gay exclusively have to do with abortion? I think regardless of sex, both straight and gay people know what a baby is and can determine for themselves if life does or does not begin at conception.

    “The very fact that you think, as a male, that you deserve a say in what should and should not be covered on a LESBIAN site means you obviously don’t get it.”

    Please don’t try to make this a lesbian rights issue. It’s about getting your facts straight about Ron Paul. Do that and you won’t have a problem with people like me who are sick and tired of the establishment, the status quo, and the people who blindly follow it. And BTW, the last time I checked, this magazine you write for is open to the public. If you or it are fearful of public discourse and prefer to indulge in a media echo chamber, you should configure your website to be members only or something.

    “I think the one who needs to do their research here is you. Specifically, I think you need to look into information about Paul other than his official campaign material.”

    I have looked into Ron Paul’s history and I have read his books. Because of his absolutely stellar voting record on being pro-civil liberties and anti-war — which the other presidential candidates, especially the incumbent, cannot even hope to match — he has my unwavering support for president. And I believe he should have yours too.

    • I didn’t write this particular article, but I responded since you were obviously targeting what I had to say in the comments.

      For starters, you really need to familiarize yourself with the concept of “male/straight privilege” before you start throwing around accusations that I am anti-men, or anti-straight, or afraid of criticism. Here is a nice place to start: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

      Re: racist newsletters – They were printed in the “Ron Paul Political Report.” Whether he wrote them or not, he clearly put his stamp on approval on them. He clearly didn’t mind them being associated with his name. I think it’s fair to assume, then, that Ron Paul didn’t see them as problematic and therefore is racist.

      Re: drug war – There are many different ways of being “truly racist,” and many degrees of racism.

      Re: “states’ rights,” “privilege denial”: What I mean is you need to look up the history of the term “states’ rights” in the U.S. and how it has been used. It has a long history of being a way of denying minority rights, which is obviously how you are using it here (as though “states’ rights” is somehow more important than women’s and LGBT equality). I reiterate: states do not have more rights than people. And on property rights – again, as with states’ rights, which “property rights” are you talking about here? Think about what you’re saying. A landowner’s “property rights” are only infringed by the civil rights act if the landowner wants to discriminate based on race. Black people do not have true equality if people can continue to deny them homes. Your First Amendment analogy is a false one; allowing people to say racist things (with the real issue here being, who defines “racist”?) is totally not the same as forcing Black people to be homeless because landowners are allowed to turn them away. And when it comes to specifically using hateful speech to intimidate or drive away Black people – aka “hate speech” – the legal issues are much murkier.

      Re: abortion, I think you need to review this: http://alexryking.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/notdifficult.png?w=500&h=465 You should also review the fact that medical literature, by and large, does NOT determine the start of “life” at conception – it defines at implantation, if anywhere. This is largely a religious value. And you are aware that Ron Paul is not the only OB-GYN in the world, right? There are plenty who have delivered just as many, if not more babies, who are pro-choice. I don’t think his status as an OB-GYN is what is important here. What is important is the fact that as a man, this is not his issue, just as it is not yours for the same reason. Neither of you will ever have to worry about making that choice. This is what we mean when we talk about privilege.

      I don’t see how you can recommend to me who I should vote for when you know very little of my personal political credo. We haven’t even gone into his economic policies, which are enough reason for me not to want him to be president, even apart from his troubling views on the issues discussed here. I think it’s very telling, though, that with this little information you already think I should vote for Ron Paul. It seems to indicate a lack of respect for viewpoints different than your own, that you think the best candidate for you is the best candidate for everyone.

    • this is a small part of your comment, but it bothers me; can you really not understand why it angers women when men think their stake in the issue of abortion is the same as theirs? when, exactly, will you ever get pregnant and have to make a decision about what’s happening to your body? and is it men or women in our culture who do the vast majority of the child-rearing? I think someone else made this point already, but still….

  17. You’re take on R Paul’s View on civil rights is not as thorough as I want So Ill help complete your reply.

    Ron Paul banks off of the illegitimacy of the American government. How politics are dirty, and that the well being of our people can only be attained by the division of federal powers in order to dilute corruption, and lower the influence of lobbying. Ergo, power to the individual/true democracy on the smallest level.
    On social issues, He’s supportive of EVERY lifestyle, Lesbians included.He banks off of trusting individuals to make their own life choices and not restrict the liberties of others.

    Laws favoring segregation were actually put into power by the federal and state governments in the early 1880s. Would Ron Paul’s respective Ideologies come in play at that time, We wouldn’t have needed to go through many decades of segregation and discrimination.

    His justifications for supporting Jim Crow Laws are simple and true. A) The owner of the land of the business should have the right to permit or deny serving whoever he wants.B) Not serving a specific race in unregulated capitalism means less business. Less buisiness means going out of business.

    -To the lady that wrote the article-
    Shame on you. Leaving out something like a political CANDIDATE on your “Republican 2012 cheat sheat” is veiwed as a very nasty thing by any experienced political thinker.

    • Goddammit, you guys. She barely mentions your personal hero, and you still can’t STFU about Ron Paul. And you wonder why Rachel and everyone is sick of hearing about him?

      She left out lots of people from this list. You guys make so darned sure that the whole world will never hear the end of Ron Paul, it isn’t going to ruin his chances that one site did not cover him.

      Grow up, it’s not all about you.

Contribute to the conversation...

You must be logged in to post a comment.