Letters to the Editor
-
YOUR beef with Ron Paul supporters
Here's MY beef with the Ron Paul folks.
> 1.) The federal government is inherently bad and unfixable.
It's not inherently bad and unfixable, it's too big and quite fixable.
> 2.) The state governments are inherently good and can deal
> with all problems the Constitution doesn't lay out a solution
> for. These apparently include issues of individual liberty
Again, untrue. The point is that, as an individual, you have more control over your local government than over the federal government.
> such as gay marriage or abortion (both of which the Paul
> campaign wants to leave as matters of the state.) There's
> also the issue that for all his rhetoric, I've not seen
> anything stating that Ron Paul would explicitly allow gays in
> the military. I would like to know what his stance on this
> if anyone could enlighten me.
If these are your biggest issues, then you don't sound very liberal to me. In reality, I don't see any of this changing with a Paul presidency. His number one concerns are our foreign policy and our economic policy. Splitting hairs over sexual orientation is better left to neocons and the religious right--everyone else really doesn't care.
> Okay so about the feds. Ron Paul supporters seem to go on the
> idea that the federal government is broken and we should
> throw out the whole damn experiment. This would only be valid
Untrue, see response to #1.
> if federal gov't has always been a bad thing. However, thanks
> to the federal government, we have minimum wage and age laws,
> union protections, civil rights protections, anti-trust laws,
> voting rights laws, and other key standards of modern civil
> society. If you'd like to argue these bedrock American ideas,
> by all means.
I don't think anyone is arguing that these things are bad, including Ron Paul and his supporters.
> So in replacing the federal government, Ron Paul backers
> present us with an equally poor solution: leave everything to
> the states. I am frankly stunned this is a line of reasoning
> that has a leg to stand on in the 21st century. Especially
You're over-simplifying Paul's stance to fit your narrow world view, which isn't Ron Paul or his supporter's fault, so don't blame them.
> for people who claim to be Libertarians. How exactly do the
> states righters propose protecting liberty for all Americans
> on a state level? If every person deserves the right to smoke
> marijuana, what happens when some states ban that right? What
> if one state prevents one group of people from voting? What
> if states allow corporations to bust up unions or block gay
> rights? If Ron Paul believes in these rights, he has to allow
Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. I'd rather have choices than be stuck in a one-size-fits-all style of government. What if abortion was outlawed at the federal level? Where would you go to get one performed? Roe V. Wade sets the precedent for this to happen, which is what a lot of people fail to grasp. Regardless, as stated above, the majority of these issues are at the bottom of the list for the average Ron Paul supporter.
Let's take a look at the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Do you know anyone that is directly affected by this legislation? I do, and to be perfectly honest with you, it does not fit in a state where 1/3 of the student population at a given public school doesn't even speak English. It makes life very difficult for the teachers, who get paid a minimal salary to essentially perform miracles. I know somebody who is directly affected by this piece of federal legislation, which might work for states that don't border Mexico, but here reality is a little different.
> the federal government do its job when the states refuse to
> do so. That was important in the Civil Rights Movement, and
> contrary to what anyone wants to believe, it is still
> important now.
I don't think civil rights protection falls outside of the role of federal government in any Ron Paul supporter's view.
> I take other issues with the Paul platform (though I admire
> the sincerity of his convictions), but they've pretty much
> been covered. More Ron Paul articles, please. I love me a
> healthy debate.
I'd like to hear what other issues you have with the Paul platform, and I'd also like to thank you for sharing your ideas and encouraging a healthy debate.
-
Why bother? Seriously
Why bother with this argument at all?
It's going to be between Rudy and Hillary next year and we all know it.
All these debates, ostensibly between divergent political cultures, are taking place on Salon.com, so nobody here should think for a second that any of us, pro or anti-Paul, represent the average voter.
And the average voter isn't going to vote for this dude.
So enjoy the debate, I admit it's made for some interesting reading.
But Ron Paul doomed his candidacy to failure when he refused to launch an independent bid and stated his intention to stick with the GOP.
And the GOP is a top-down organization, and they have made it plain and clear they're not interested in this guy.
If Paul launched a third-party bid, he could use his internet coffers to ensure that his message survives beyond the primaries.
As it stands now, that's not going to happen.
And nobody please label me anti-Ron Paul. To say that I feel ambivalent about the upcoming election is an understatement. But I'm not betting on that horse, sir.
-
The "horse race"
> And nobody please label me anti-Ron Paul. To say that I feel
> ambivalent about the upcoming election is an understatement.
> But I'm not betting on that horse, sir.
"not betting on that horse" eh? So, you really view the presidential election as a horse race, and you're really only interested in voting for who wins? Do you have any principles at all, sir?
-
dream on, dreamer
"not betting on that horse" eh? So, you really view the presidential election as a horse race, and you're really only interested in voting for who wins? Do you have any principles at all, sir?
It's an expression, but of course you already knew that.
And seriously dude, wake up. Of course it's a horse race, especially vis-a-vis the GOP. Those guys annointed Bush 43 at the beginning of the primaries back in 2000 and then spent the rest of the campaign season marginalizing the other contenders in the partisan press. And the average GOP voter is going to be far more swayed by FOX news than the Internet.
If Paul doesn't get out of the GOP and go on his own, then this debate and debates like this are meaningless. He won't secure the nomination.