Before we get on to the regular Winners and Losers, I’d like to get personal with you – I feel like our relationship has hit the stage where I can share this with you – and talk about my individual struggle with the Florida primary coming up on January 31st. I’ve normally made up my mind long before this point in the primary process. But not this time around. This time, I’m still trying to decide on a candidate. And believe it or not, the wild card in my deliberations is Ron Paul.
I know I’ve been tough on old Dr. Paul at times. I may have used words like “crazy,” “fringe,” and “bug-eyed old coot”on occasion. But as the Republican primary race drags on into what feels like its fifth year, Paul is starting to look… acceptable. If you break it down, 90% of what Paul preaches is right on target for a conservative audience. Yes, we’re overextended around the world militarily. Yes, we’re spending way too much. Yes, the Federal government has usurped the authority of the states in many areas. Yes, yes, yes. Preach on, Brother Paul.
It’s just that other 10%. The freaky, over-reacting, drug-legalizing, isolationist absolutism is really scary. Does the 90% outweigh the 10%? Until recently, I’d have said “no”. Now, with less than a week before the primary in my state, I’m saying… “maybe.”
Nothing else has worked. Ronald Reagan borrowed and spent like crazy in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. I get that. That was good. But what was President Bush’s excuse? We had eight years of supposedly conservative rule and the government overspending only got worse. Republican or Democrat, it isn’t getting any better. Could it be that Paul would stand his ground and restore fiscal responsibility to the federal government? Could he really return the power to the states, where it belongs? If he could, would it be worth the risk of his less acceptable (to me) philosophies?
I guess the biggest question is “Could he win a general election?” Four more years of what we’re getting now just isn’t going to cut it. Could he win? Should he win? Somebody drop me a note in the comments below to either help me get comfortable with this idea or talk me back from the ledge.
Well, thanks for letting me share. Since I spent most of my allotted word count on my personal Ron Paul dilemma and nobody really stood out as a Winner this week, we’ll just jump ahead to the Losers, where there is never a dearth of deserving candidates.
LOSERS:
The Tired Old Stereotypes –
Mitt Romney gives more than four times as much to charity, as a percentage of his income, than Barack Obama does, according to tax records released this week. Miserly Joe Biden gives a tiny fraction of a percent of his dough to charitable causes. He gives away so little of his vast fortune that it is less in pure dollar terms than some poor freelance writers that you might know, even though his income is many times more. I thought it was supposed to be the Democrats who are concerned about the less fortunate and the Republicans who couldn’t care less about the poor and weak.
The Republican Contenders –
34% of Republicans would like to see another candidate enter the race at this late date, according to a Rasmussen poll. That means that 1 in 3 GOP voters are not so entranced by Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Mitt Romney. After a year of campaigning and 18 debates, no candidate has managed to really wow the GOP as the clock ticks down toward the general election.
Nancy Pelosi –
“I know something that could ruin Gingrich’s chances of being president, but I’m not going to say it” – what is she, twelve? I’m a little surprised Pelosi didn’t add “neener neener neener” to the end of her little stunt. That kind of childish and asinine behavior may be the norm inside the beltway, but real Americans just aren’t buying it.
Well, to answer your questions about Ron’s electability, Mr. Rowe, I can strongly recommend my article “The Myth Of The Ron Paul ‘Revolution’”. I also recommend my “The Final Four”, which focuses on all the guys we’ve got left.
boy you think Eric has made up his mind? We need passion, real Hope for AMERICA not hope for United Socialistic State of the Obama brotherhood.
Mr. Rowe,
As for drug legalization, Paul is pointing out, and correctly in my opinion, that the FEDERAL “war on drugs” is a complete and total failure. Let states decide what is legal. Similarly prohibition did not work, so it was repealed.
As for absolute isolationism, I think that is the opposite of what Paul is suggesting. He is 100% for free trade. What he is against is fighting undeclared wars with no end in sight.
What do you want from us, Ronald–a pat on the back for finally pulling your head, part way, out of your butt?
How can any Republican consider anyone but Dr. Paul?
He is clearly the most intelligent, honest and consistent candidate.
He answers the few questions he’s asked with a detailed fact-based argument and has written a number of books on economics and has top economists agreeing with him — yet, fellow Republicans call him a “kook” — I guess a bunch of SC bumpkins know more about the economy.
He has been married for 50 years and obviously lives his Christian faith, but evangelicals support Newt — obviously, “Christian Values” don’t count for much with these hypocrites.
The man is in his seventies but can bike 25 miles in Texas heat — let’s see that tub of lard Newt do that.
He has consistently polled well against Obama, despite the media blackout and negative coverage and has the support of many Democrats without compromising his Conservative positions. He has brought young people to the GOP like no one ever has— But, the political “experts” insist that he is un-electable.
Both Mitt and Obama have Goldman Sachs as their top contributors. Ron Paul’s campaign is totally funded by ordinary people and enjoys the most support from the military personnel and can keep up with the rest of them spending-wise. He is an MD and a recognized expert on economics — yet, he’s called “stupid”.
He’s the only candidate that will make real cuts to the Government, — But, the small-gov conservatives seem to like things just the way they are (F’d-up).
He is the only candidate that will follow the Constitution and the founder’s wisdom to stay out of foreign entanglements– yet, this idea is called radical and “isolationist”.
No, the problem isn’t with Ron Paul — its with the stupidity and hypocrisy of the GOP voters.
The voters say they want change, but when they get a chance to make it happen, they chicken out. let’s face it, the only thing that’s important to these clowns is to “get that Black Guy out of office”.
Pull your head out the rest of the way and join the best thing to ever happen to American Politics.
Amen to Wallace. No reason for me to say any more. But here is a challenge for you, Ronald: Why don’t you read one of Ron Paul’s books, maybe “The Revolution,” and see what you think then? It is short, easy to read, and illuminating. If you don’t have time to read, here is a 10 minute summary from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5BRF4juyT0.
Please bear with me so I can explain, in my own maybe not so elloquent way, why I and others like me support Ron Paul…
I do wish that people truly understood Dr Paul and what he is doing. The other three, God love em, are politicians. They have a need for power to varying degrees. I dont say that to be snide or nasty, but it is the way politicians are. Ron Paul is no politician, hes an intelligent, quirky fella who has ideals that are just not in keeping with what people have grown to know from their government. He is not about the slick talk, its the MESSAGE that he is delivering that have his supporters so excited and loyal. He truly is a likeable man that sees the government and this huge, for lack a a better term, sprawling monster that chips away at personal lives and has been doing so for almost the past 100 years. He IS a patriot, who served when asked, loves this country with a passion, and was a very successful Dr. He didnt NEED to enter politics for any reason, other than to try to cut the head off of the monster. My generation, and my parents generations have only known war, so us being the empire is the norm for us all. We all know he wants to stop the endless, undeclared wars…he has repeated the mantra over and over. But, did you know (I know this hecause I have studied his beliefs) he isnt necessarily against all war. He has said, unfortunately not during the debates, going to war is acceptable as long as the people want it and the Congress declares it. Of course, most arent aware he has said this.
Marijuanna legal? Not because he is pandering to the kids and dope smokers, but because it is not the governments business. War on drugs over? not because he wants junkies high in the streets but because the war on drugs is a huge failure. He is a champion for tiny government because he gives the American people credit to be who they wish to be without the government telling them what to do and how. He has full faith in the American people to help the less fortunate rather than taking their money from them to hand it over to some huge burocracy…where they put their hands in it first and then send the few remaining cents to some agency that will dole those pennies out where THEY want to. Which is where the crony capitalism and lobbiest kickbacks come in. You will never see the guy pander to the crowd he is standing in front of and doesnt promise the moon to get votes. Because…he knows he cant deliver the people the moon. Atlas is shrugging, folks.
Even Newt said the man has been right about domestic policies and the fed for the last 25 years. Yeah, Newt even admits it…. Now, foreign policy…I know many despise him for.his thoughts. Has anyone ever thought, maybe, just maybe, he is on to something. Live and let live, let other nations handle their issues. He has said before, always happy to help out a friend all they have to do is ask and we will do what we can, but not at the expense of dragging down our own country. Those who take the MSM soundbites or listen only to debates will never understand. Unfortunately, we have become a soundbite society and people just dont want to take the time to really think about what this country has become and the bleak, BROKE future we are facing. If we continue on our current path we are never going to be ABLE tohelp anyone else out, whether it be militarily or durng a natural disaster. Hes the man who has a message, a different way of looking at who we are and what we can be. The MSM has decided who the candidate should he and what we should here. Those other three (actually 4 if we include the current POTUS) are NOT a threat to the established government….the quirky little 76 year old ob/gyn is. They will all promise anything we want to hear and then NOT deliver. Current President is an example of that.
[...] is being punched by his opponents without him having to lift a finger. Ron Paul I recently wrote an article saying, in essence, that I agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says but the other 10% scares me. I then [...]
Hi Eric,
I would like to comment about the 10% of Pauls’s message that scares you. Your perception of that part of his message would scare me too but I think you may be misinterpreting (to an extent) what he is saying.
My interpretation of Paul’s foreign policy; Dr. Paul believes that the best way to impact other nations in a positive way is to trade heavily with them. Instead of trying to impact the path of their country militarily (be it through strategic force placement or sanctions which I believe to be an “attack” on their economy) that we instead have infuence on their culture by spreading our beliefs through interaction that is mutually beneficial. Free market trade with another country would make it so that we both have more to lose if hostilities were to arise. Also, it is my opinion that a country you openly trade with would be more willing to compromise on issues where we differ ideologically.
As far as the war on drugs…..this is a difficult issue for me. Drugs like marijuanna I feel are fairly harmless when compared to cigarettes and alcohol but I struggle with the (possible) legalization of the harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, ect.
I do feel that to allow the states their own stance on each of these is the right way to go because it would take the responsibility off of the federal government and give us the ability to eliminate those departments saving quite a bit of money.
I also believe it would open the door for new tax revenue (under current tax law) and reduce the power of foreign criminal organizations specializing in the production and distribution of these drugs. I think it would have a very positive impact on the Mexican government due to the fact that the cartels have effectively cornered the market (America)when it comes to “illegal” drug trade. Of course America itself supplies more “legal” drugs to the masses than the cartels ever will but that is a separate issue. Beyond that, I do feel that the Federal government doesn’t have the right to take away the people’s right to be foolish. If these drugs are available, people will use them, that is the simple truth. I don’t however, believe that rampant drug use would over run the United States. The federal government can’t be in the business of protecting people from themselves. It’s constitutionally incorrect and isn’t a sustainable path financially.
I would like to hear your thoughts on my comments. From what I can tell by reading your posts, you strongly support Rick Santorum but I’m hopeful that you will honestly consider my opinion on these topics and reply with your own perspective.
Thank you – Richard Nine
Mr. Nine,
I apreciate your questions–and the fact that you lay out your case in a civil manner, unlike most of my critics. Thank you.
Now: ideally, trade with other nations is great. However, the fallacy is that trade with hostile nations encourages them to be less hostile. Consider China: no one can accuse us of not trading heavily with China–and yet we see cyber-threats from them, as well as the manipulation of their currency that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney warn about. One can easily argue that it is BECAUSE we trade with China so heavily that they are able to get away with it. Thus, though we are not fighting them militarily, were are engaging in an effective cold war with them in the financial sector–and frankly, that’s one of the most dangerous battlefields of all.
As for the War on Drugs–as I said in other articles, I uderstand the Prohibition arguement regarding pot. However, legalization is not the only method to go–particularly regarding “hard” drugs. Singapore has one of the toughest anti-drug policies in the free world. It also has the least severe drug problem.
I would offer that it isn’t that the War shouldn’t be fought–it’s that the wrong methods are being used. Just as we should look to Israel for inspiration regarding airport security, we should look to Singapore regarding drug policy.
I would, however, be willing to look at de-criminalizing pot–for purposes of tax revenue. But Ron Paul doesn’t want to stop there.
Glad to discuss!