Letters to the Editor
_zack_
Published Letters: 373 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Interesting what he doesn't mention in that You Tube video
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn’t find anything in that YouTube that Ron Paul said that I disagreed with.
Absolutely none of the positions he takes that I disagree with are in there. It’s a wise decision for him to keep them out. He’s been doing the same thing in the debates.
As Steve Benen said:
“Listening to the debates, Paul often comes across as the most sensible guy on the stage, especially when it comes to Iraq and the Patriot Act. And then we're reminded, in print, that when it comes to a paranoid vision of the world, Paul really is out there on the political periphery.”
While I won’t be voting for Ron Paul, I am glad he’s in the race saying a lot of things that need to be said – particularly in the Republican debates.
At the same time, we need to keep in mind his more extreme positions that he kept out of that You Tube video – the positions that will keep me (and lots of others) from voting for him.
Some of those positions can be found here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/055259.php
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787
-
Paul's support shows just how weak the GOP field really is
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Capt. Ed (who often gets too much credit for being a “sensible” Republican) actually says something worthwhile today:
“Beyond Paul and his flaws, the Republicans had better start paying attention to these voters. Like it or not, they represent a passion that seems to have left the GOP in recent months, and even if they skew young and may not vote as promised this cycle, they will eventually. Rather than continue to write them off, Republicans have to find a way to address them outside of conspiracy theories and allusions to blowing up buildings.”
To put another way, Ron Paul’s “strength” is the result of the inherent weaknesses of the other candidates. Ed didn’t say it outright but this just shows how weak their candidates are.
All the other candidates represent a continuation of Bush policies without Bush, and there is nowhere else to go besides Paul if regard those policies as a disaster.
Paul’s strength is a reflection of the inherent weakness of the other candidates not being able to distance themselves from Bush policies. And his popularity does not bode well for the other GOP candidates.
-
rollotomasi, Glenn, and the cult of Ron Paul
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just to follow up on a very good point by rollotomasi, I think Tim F. over at Balloon Juice summarizes quite nicely why Ron Paul appeals to Glenn and so many others:
When you watch the Democratic debates, just like the Republican debates, everybody more or less takes for granted that we have a right to throw the US military around the world without regard for anybody’s opinion but our own. On the face of it that seems silly, not only did the Bush years show that it can be a catastrophically stupid approach but we have every reason to think in advance that casually throwing the military around would cause more problems than it would solve. There is a good reason why diplomatic corps and the FBI have a frustratingly cautious approach to international operations.
Either the Democrats are too afraid to challenge the neoconservative mindset that rules Washington or they don’t actually have a problem with it. It’s hard to say which of those two options pisses me off worse.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter (and neither is Tim F.), but we do recognize that Paul is saying something that needs to be said.
It’s too bad that this point – an important one – gets lost once you mention Ron Paul and his hard-core cult-like supporters (who broach no criticism of him) take over any discussion of this topic.
Ron Paul may be saying some things that need to be said, but really, calling everyone who disagrees with him on a host of other issues “gene defectives” (and other such slurs) only serves to detract from Ron Paul himself, and the part of his message that needs to be heard.
Many of Ron Paul’s supporters are their own worst enemies.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9034
-
Vote for Ron Paul and "elect" Rudy Giuliani?
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We really don’t have to worry about Ron Paul becoming a U.S. President, he doesn’t have the support and given his positions on the issues, won’t ever have it either.
What we do have to worry about is him getting enough support to inspire a third party run which could put Rudy Giuliani in the White House by drawing a sufficient number of anti-war votes away from the Democratic candidate.
In terms of foreign policy, there is no one farther away from Ron Paul than Rudy Giuliani, yet that might be the end result of his “success” that we saw in recent fundraising.
There is tremendous dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party among Democrats on ending the war as well as standing up for Constitutional issues. It would be a sad day if enough of them expressed that disapproval in such a manner that we’d end up with the most pro-war, un-Constitutional President ever. But it’s beginning to look like might be a possibility.
More thoughts on a Paul “third party” run here:
http://thebluevoice.blogspot.com/2007/11/third-party-thinking.html