Mark Steyn on Ron Paul’s worldview: ‘Sheer stupid, half-witted parochialism’
The reaction to Ron Paul’s ascent in the polls — especially now that he has a shot at winning the Iowa caucuses — has been severe, with critics raising questions regarding his apparent September 11th “truther-ism” and ill-advised statements found in newsletters Paul distributed in the 1990s.
National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” says all of this is evidence that Paul is a flawed candidate. In his regular appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Thursday, Steyn explained why the “truther-ism” aspects of Paul’s and his supporters’ beliefs wouldn’t hold up.
“This by the way is not an irrelevant thing because it gets to the heart of the most disfiguring aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign — leaving aside his unpleasantness to Michele Bachmann the other night and all the rest of it — which is this stunted parochialism.” Steyn said. “Let’s say for a moment 9/11 was an inside job. Does that also mean the Bali night club bombing was an inside job? That the Madrid train bombing was an inside job? That the Beslan school shooting was an inside job? That the London tube bombings were an inside job? In that case, that’s one hell of a sum to be hiding somewhere within the darkest recesses of Dick Cheney’s specific line items.”
And that, says Steyn, along with his isolationist view on foreign policy, is where Paul “meets the left.”
“So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”
[dcvideo videoid=”24779764″ name=”ndnPlayer_24779764″ type=”ndn” /]
Steyn also turned his attention toward Paul’s controversial newsletters from the 1990s.
Steyn raised the question that if Paul is unable to hold his newsletter to strict standards — in which accusations that Martin Luther King Jr. had sex with young boys made its way into print — is he capable of being the president of the United States?
“When a guy says, you know he signs off on Martin Luther King had sex with underage boys and then he says, ‘Oh I don’t know how that got into my newsletter. It must be an unpaid intern.’ I mean, if for example at SteynOnline.com, or HughHewitt.com — a statement to the effect that Martin Luther King was having sex with underage boys appeared, and you or I said, ‘Oh I have no idea how that got up there. I’m a busy chap. I can’t possibly be expected to take note of everything that appears there’ — whether you believe me or not, you have at least had it confirmed to you that if I can’t run a small modest publishing enterprise. I shouldn’t be entrusted with the government of the United States. He’s basically said the buck doesn’t stop here.”