Article at Real Clear Politics

[alexlcameron]

the last couple of paragraphs really get me!:mad: :mad:

August 01, 2007
Ron Paul: Idea-Driven, Decent, Unworthy
By Mark Davis

Some say that after eight years of President Bush, the nation would not elect another Texan or another Republican. But Ron Paul shatters both stereotypical definitions, simultaneously bringing him waves of criticism and armies of new fans.

He has no chance of winning the 2008 Republican nomination, but unlike, say, Tommy Thompson or Sam Brownback, he seems to know that and even admit it. Ideas are what matter to the congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, and those ideas have won him 10 elections from a voter base that admires his curious blend of social conservatism, populism and libertarianism.

That libertarian streak, in particular, gives me much to admire about him. He opposes gun control and abortion like most mainstream Republicans, but he brings a special courage to his passion for cutting the size of government by as much has half. Republicans talk a good game about making government smaller but have abjectly failed. They generally advocate less government than, say, Democrats, but the old joke is still true: What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? You'll get bigger government under either, but the Republicans will tell you they feel terrible about it.

Dr. Paul's genuine devotion to profoundly smaller government - and, thus, profoundly lower taxes - earned him the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nomination and the half of 1 percent of the vote that usually goes with it.

Nonetheless, I share his dream that one day Americans will realize that government should do no more than the limited list of tasks clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Until then, you can find him speaking to groups of schoolchildren too young to vote, hoping to spread the honorable concept of such limited government into future generations.

This is a small part of the portrait of Ron Paul that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he is a gentleman cut from the finest human cloth. He is unfailingly polite, carries none of the condescension or affectations that power can often bring, and he still seems to have the aura of genuine caring that led him to deliver babies for free for needy Brazoria County families back in his obstetrician days.

So let us stipulate that Dr. Paul may be one of the more decent people ever elected to Congress. Now to the issue of his run for the White House, where the news is not so happy.

And not because of his meager chances. Plenty of good, smart people have no realistic chance of reaching the Oval Office. The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense.

For example, there is a corner of American economic thought that is skeptical of the Federal Reserve and laments our departure from the gold standard, now obsolete across the globe. But the Ron Paul take is that the Fed and its various chairmen have acted as sinister puppeteers doing the bidding of an ill-defined elite.

This John Birch-style conspiracy geekdom has sparked appeal among the disaffected of all ages, especially twentysomethings ripe for the artificial know-it-all vibe that often accompanies three to six years of adulthood.

File all that under disturbing quirkiness. But it is the Ron Paul take on fighting terror that makes him unfit for even the briefest consideration for the presidency.

In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. "We've been over there," he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."

We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win.

Joined by a host of Democrats who clearly do not view America as "the good guys," Ron Paul has shown he is one of many otherwise respectable Americans wholly unworthy of the White House. :mad: :mad:

Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.
Prehaps we should show this man the truth??

[Hurricane Bruiser]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/ron_paul_ideadriven_decent_unw.html

Some positive, some negative. But overall probably good for Ron Paul IMO as it boosts name recognition.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

funny how I started an identical thread at the same exact time. lol

[alexlcameron]

I just posted that... how odd

[alexlcameron]

We are running aroung one another here.

[nullvalu]

Somebody oughta school that man..

[alexlcameron]

I sent him a warm toned email explaining that Ron Paul did not actually blame America for the attacks... on a personal note I believe I may be as tired of explaning this position as Ron Paul himself is....

[FreedomLover]

I actually LOL'd at this paragraph.


That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."

I see a caricature when I read this. Everything you find wrong with America today is showcased so effectively in this little article.

I had to skip to the end to make sure it wasn't just a joker trying to make wingnut kool-aid drinking chickenhawks look bad, but no. This is really how they think.

O my goodness. Is this man mentally retarded? People like this are at the brink...and they're are far too many of them.

[ThePieSwindler]

He has no chance of winning the 2008 Republican nomination, but unlike, say, Tommy Thompson or Sam Brownback, he seems to know that and even admit it.

When did Ron Paul admit he has no chance to win the nomination?

All i've ever heard him say is that he's in it to win, that stranger, more poor-odds events have been won, and that he does not see himself as just in it to "make a statement". This part of the article is false, as is much of it.

Why is Ron Paul a "longshot"? Because they media makes him so. The establishment uses the media to say who is a frontrunner. Ron Paul is, objectively speaking, more qualified than Fred thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, etc, yet because the establishment utilizes thought control in the media, Ron Paul is a "longshot" because they say so. Its sickening.

[cac1963]

I think it's a good article overall. His "roping Jesus" into the rhetoric comment is an indictment of all the candidates who pander to Christians with no intent to respect the gospel once they acquire the power they seek.

[AMack]

I just sent him a polite (but stern) email asking him to remove the article because it presented false information.

[alexlcameron]

I disagree cac1963 even the title calls him unworthy... I think this is one of the worst I have seen so far. I am tired of the articles that say the good Dr. has no chance. This article basically says that a strong moral character is unelectable.

[alexlcameron]

The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense.

This section offends me on so many levels!

[ThePieSwindler]

I think it's a good article overall. His "roping Jesus" into the rhetoric comment is an indictment of all the candidates who pander to Christians with no intent to respect the gospel once they acquire the power they seek.

How is a good article overall? EVERY SINGLE LINE at the end ridicules Ron paul, his supporters, or his movement/ideas. The ending just ruins it completely, using the typical ignorant assertions about how the critics of the Federal Reserve and advocates of the gold standards are nutjobs and that the gold standard is "obsolete". Sure it is out of use, but that does not make the current system more advanced. People who criticize the gold standard from a "oh well look what happened in american history and how its now obsolete" standpoint are idiots who know nothing about economics (though there are plenty of economically-based criticisms of the gold standard, Friendman was a controlled fiat currency guy, but most people are ignorant on the subject).

Then of course the usual JBS misconstruence and smear with the typical language that paints them as kooks, and goes on to spout of neocon bullshit that completely ignores the fact that 1) Ron Paul is blaming bad policy, not America and 2) Ron Paul bases his position off of facts and history, not off of neocon dogma that has no basis in reality

[FreedomLover]

I think it's a good article overall. His "roping Jesus" into the rhetoric comment is an indictment of all the candidates who pander to Christians with no intent to respect the gospel once they acquire the power they seek.


Exactly. We all know Jesus wanted us to fight terrorism with more terrorism and war.

I sincerely fear that the man that wrote that article is a dumbass. Or atleast the dumbass side tookover on the last half of it.


We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win

A quote worthy of a sixth grader. Fitting for a Gi-Joe cartoon epilogue as well. While we live in the real world, he can continue his infantile "good guys bomb the bad guys until there are no more bad guys" shtick until the entire middle east is a haven for terrorism and anti-american sentiments, yes, even more so than today.

I hope the people who read that article all the way to the end were smart enough to see through that shit.

[0zzy]

People bash on him too much and like to predict the future while they're at it. I'd rather not have people tell me the future unless they just came from the future.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

True, very negative comments at the end, but I think smart people can still pick up some positives from the article. There are also Democrats at this website that will read the article and they often get tired of the "blame America" comments. So I am not sure what the real impact is.

[JPFromTally]

This whole thing about being against America if you don't agree with the central government's foreign policy is getting on my nerves.

As Obi-Wan says, "Only the Sith speak in absolutes."

[cac1963]

How is a good article overall? EVERY SINGLE LINE at the end ridicules Ron paul, his supporters, or his movement/ideas. The ending just ruins it completely, using the typical ignorant assertions about how the critics of the Federal Reserve and advocates of the gold standards are nutjobs and that the gold standard is "obsolete". Sure it is out of use, but that does not make the current system more advanced. People who criticize the gold standard from a "oh well look what happened in american history and how its now obsolete" standpoint are idiots who know nothing about economics (though there are plenty of economically-based criticisms of the gold standard, Friendman was a controlled fiat currency guy, but most people are ignorant on the subject).

Then of course the usual JBS misconstruence and smear with the typical language that paints them as kooks, and goes on to spout of neocon bullshit that completely ignores the fact that 1) Ron Paul is blaming bad policy, not America and 2) Ron Paul bases his position off of facts and history, not off of neocon dogma that has no basis in reality

I think it's a good article because I think people will read the good stuff about Paul and think "what's wrong with that?" and realize the criticisms of Paul's policies are more extreme than the policies themselves.

[pazzo83]

My response:


Dear Mr. Davis,

After reading your column on Ron Paul, I am troubled by what can only be explained as being uninformed about Ron Paul vis-a-vis the issues. Primarily I was disturbed by your assertion that Ron Paul "blamed" 9/11 on America ( i.e. the people). That, sir, is pure smear, and it is what is making Old Media less and less appealing to younger generations of Americans. Ron Paul never said any such thing. I would ask that you provide even the slightest bit of evidence that Ron Paul said, "It is America's fault that 9/11 happened." One would hope that journalists are bound by the unspoken code of backing up what you say with facts and evidence. It's clear you have failed here. That having been said, I would invite you to read the overwhelming amount of literature and research that confirms exactly what Ron Paul is saying: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a significant factor in increasing anti-American sentiment there. It is THAT sentiment that has given radicals the capacity to expand their influence, their response being attacks on our homeland. Ron Paul never justified it, he never said it was the fault of the American people. What he SAID was that our foreign policy has consequences, and if we don't recognize that, it is to our own peril. It is akin to ascertaining the motive of a killer in a homicide. Literature such as the 9/11 Commission Report, research done by Michael Scheuer (former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA), other research in academia, and even statements by Paul Wolfowitz ( http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594) confirm exactly what Dr. Paul has been saying. You unfortunately have sunk to the level of a Rudy Giuliani and twisted his words to say something that they did not initially say.

Regarding your comments on the Federal Reserve, if you think putting such power as control over our currency system into the hands of an unelected body, then perhaps you should look back at history and see what has resulted when such methodology has been utilized by other states. When there is any entity over which there is no check on its power, it violates the principles of republicanism and is therefore antithetical to our system of gov't. Be they sinister or not, putting trust into gov't, let alone an entity with a lot of power subject to little if any check on that power, is unwise in all cases.

I hope in the future, when you discuss Ron Paul, you can discuss the facts and back up your points with evidence as opposed to simply twisting his words and smearing his image.

Regards,

[alexlcameron]

My response:


Quote:
Dear Mr. Davis,

After reading your column on Ron Paul, I am troubled by what can only be explained as being uninformed about Ron Paul vis-a-vis the issues. Primarily I was disturbed by your assertion that Ron Paul "blamed" 9/11 on America ( i.e. the people). That, sir, is pure smear, and it is what is making Old Media less and less appealing to younger generations of Americans. Ron Paul never said any such thing. I would ask that you provide even the slightest bit of evidence that Ron Paul said, "It is America's fault that 9/11 happened." One would hope that journalists are bound by the unspoken code of backing up what you say with facts and evidence. It's clear you have failed here. That having been said, I would invite you to read the overwhelming amount of literature and research that confirms exactly what Ron Paul is saying: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a significant factor in increasing anti-American sentiment there. It is THAT sentiment that has given radicals the capacity to expand their influence, their response being attacks on our homeland. Ron Paul never justified it, he never said it was the fault of the American people. What he SAID was that our foreign policy has consequences, and if we don't recognize that, it is to our own peril. It is akin to ascertaining the motive of a killer in a homicide. Literature such as the 9/11 Commission Report, research done by Michael Scheuer (former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA), other research in academia, and even statements by Paul Wolfowitz ( http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=2594) confirm exactly what Dr. Paul has been saying. You unfortunately have sunk to the level of a Rudy Giuliani and twisted his words to say something that they did not initially say.

Regarding your comments on the Federal Reserve, if you think putting such power as control over our currency system into the hands of an unelected body, then perhaps you should look back at history and see what has resulted when such methodology has been utilized by other states. When there is any entity over which there is no check on its power, it violates the principles of republicanism and is therefore antithetical to our system of gov't. Be they sinister or not, putting trust into gov't, let alone an entity with a lot of power subject to little if any check on that power, is unwise in all cases.

I hope in the future, when you discuss Ron Paul, you can discuss the facts and back up your points with evidence as opposed to simply twisting his words and smearing his image.

Regards,



Nice, very well stated.

[Bossobass]

I e-mailed the hapless hack. I'm fed up with these childish, no-substance hit pieces and all those who write them.

Ron Paul is a 10 term Congressman with more awards than any other legistator I know of, who also happens to hold a Medical Degree from on of the best schools in the country.

If you oppose his views, do so with something of substance and a little dignity, or expect to hear from me. :mad:
Bosso

[pazzo83]

I e-mailed the hapless hack. I'm fed up with these childish, no-substance hit pieces and all those who write them.

Ron Paul is a 10 term Congressman with more awards than any other legistator I know of, who also happens to hold a Medical Degree from on of the best schools in the country.

If you oppose his views, do so with something of substance and a little dignity, or expect to hear from me. :mad:
Bosso

Exactly, disagreeing with his views is one thing. I mean if you truly believe that larger gov't is beneficial, or excessive foreign interventionism benefits our national interest, that is fine (I mean I disagree with you, but we all have the right to believe whatever we want). Misstating the Dr. however, is WAY over the line.

[nullvalu]

e-mailed him.. hopefully he issues an apology.. one of the things i mentioned, i told him he should check out RP's reading list. :D

[Sematary]

I clicked on contact and then feedback and sent this letter:

While the author seemed to do a good job, overall, the piece is unquestionably biased and his conclusions about Ron Paul's stance on terrorism are completely off the mark. Ron Paul is not an isolationist who would allow terrorists to run rampant around the globe. What he has said, and the CIA backs him up as does the 9/11 report, is that our actions have consequences and if we stop interfering in the internal afairs of other nations and simply take care of our own security and stop bombing the crap out of middle eastern countries, then the situation (with terrorists) will improve. His foreign policy is based on the constitution, as are all of his positions, and for this writer to say in one breath that he admires his adherance to the constitution then just shortly thereafter argue that abiding by the constitution is nutty is hypocritical to say the least.

[Zydeco]

Good thing for the author that article doesn't have a comments section.

[Sematary]

Good thing for the author that article doesn't have a comments section.

right? Send an email though.

[squirrelbrewer]

I just emailed Mark Davis the following letter. I thought his opinion is a huge microcosm of the current Republican closemindedness. His audience needs to hear the good Dr.!!

Hi Mark. I'm a supporter of Congressman Ron Paul. I just got done reading your opinion on realclearpolitics.com regarding his unworthiness to receive the Republican nomination. I certainly appreciated the flattering things you said about him, but of course, disagree with you on the unflattering analysis. I'm sure you don't have a lot of time reading why I and millions of other Paul supporters disagree with you, so I suggest that you invite him to be on your radio show if you have not done so already. Both you and Congressman Paul agree that government, and thus taxes should be reduced in size, so your topics could be eliminated to a few talking points that you so strongly disagree with him on. As pointed out in your article, they would be:

1) The Federal Reserve/departure from the gold standard
2) Foreign Policy/The War on Terror

These are huge issues, and Congressman Paul's views are why supporters like me are excited about him. I keep meeting and running into new people every week who are supporting Congressman Paul's views on monetary and foreign policy. A lot of us feel that America is "one of the good guys" but that our massive size government and what we believe is a long history of hypocritical foreign policies over many years are putting our children in great danger. We feel our government is doing a miserable job when it comes to mistaking gasoline for flame retardant when it comes to the fire that is terrorism, its growing acceptance in Islam, and the increased recruitment of terrorists. That's why I am suggesting you invite him on your radio show. I think this would be a good opportunity for you to be able to go in depth and one on one with him regarding these issues. In my opinion, I couldn't pick up a lot of substance from the article you wrote. I'm not sure if there was a restriction on the word count or if you felt that you've already gone over these issues ad nausea, but this piece seemed to be reduced to only name calling and other fluff type tactics that are usually reserved for liberals. As I sifted through the archives on realclearpolitics, I felt like you are a person who has the intellectual capacity to not only debate Congressman Paul, but also the consideration not to cut him off or talk over him. I think if you have him on your show, Ron Paul supporters would listen to your program and you would be able to point out to us how we just don't get it. It's a win-win Mark!

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I certainly hope to have the opportunity to hear a fair and balanced interview with you and Dr. Paul in cyberspace sometime in the near future!

Best regards,
Mike
Toledo,OH

[MyKillK]

This article got me worked up so much that I registered on the forum (been reading for a while, though) today just so I could post my e-mail reply to the author, sent to mdavis@wbap.com:

-- BEGIN --

You are really a professional? Allow me to point out a few things...

"But the Ron Paul take is that the Fed and its various chairmen have acted as sinister puppeteers doing the bidding of an ill-defined elite."

To avoid doing any research on Ron Paul's actual position you just hide behind your lame 'Ron Paul take' label.

"especially twentysomethings ripe for the artificial know-it-all vibe that often accompanies three to six years of adulthood"

You sound like a know-it-all, stereotyping fool.

"In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11."

Completely unprofessional. You should read the evidence from our own governmental authorities that confirm what Dr. Ron Paul said, that America's foreign POLICIES contributed to the motives for terrorist attacks including 9/11. A statement like this is considered libel my friend...

"We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities."

Are you serious man? Was this a satirical article without me noticing it to be so? Peace IS the cessation of hostilities. From my dictionary:

PEACE -- The normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.

You must get your definitions from the George W. Bush dictionary.

"Peace is what you get when the good guys win"

If you've ever wondered why "they" hate us, it's not because of our freedom of religion or prosperity; it's because people like you, especially in the upper echelons of our government, have an attitude like this.


I should pursue a job in journalism because if this is the quality of work required in the industry I could write a good 30-40 articles a day.

-- END --

[nullvalu]

I should pursue a job in journalism because if this is the quality of work required in the industry I could write a good 30-40 articles a day.

Nice. That about sums it up, quantity over quality.

this is what I wrote:


I enjoyed reading your article about Ron Paul on Real Clear Politics. I think you make a lot of good points about Ron Paul, however you also made a lot of statements that are completely false. Ron Paul has never blamed 9/11 on America. He has merely come to terms with the fact that we were attacked due to a horrible foreign policy and constant intervention in the middle east. Please study the facts before making such claims and misconstruing his words. I think you should check out the reading list Ron Paul assigned to Rudy Guliani, including the 9/11 commission report!

And I have no idea what you meant by "Peace is what you get when the good guys win." That to me, seems like a statement fit for a 6th grader.

So, once you come to the realization that Paul's stance on the middle east IS the most peaceful, will you support Ron Paul? It seems that you've at least admitted that he's the most principled men in DC. You can't judge a man by his support base and some fringe elements within. Contrary to the way the media has tried to portray Ron Paul, most of his supporters are just liberty-loving Americans, not "9/11 truthers" or JBS members.

[Paulitician]

Peace is what you get when the good guys win.
Oh sweet irony! The writer said it himself guys, we need Ron Paul more then ever. Too bad this guy has the definitions of good and bad mixed up; or worse, he believes there's actual good guys in this administration or there will be come 2009 even without Ron Paul as president. Who's nutty here? This guy needs to get back in touch with reality. I respect our country, but let's face it: we aren't seen as good guys all across the globe and merely proclaiming such doesn't make it so.

[Tim724]

I forget where, but there was another recent article about Ron Paul that was very similiar to this one. It was similiar in that the first half of the article spoke very highly of Ron Paul as if to say "I understand all of the reasons you find Ron Paul appealing." Then the hit job is delivered in the last half of the article as if to then say "even though you like some things about Ron Paul, you really can't vote for him."

I think the article attempts to use psychology by first gaining the readers trust and then attempting to manipulate them.

This is a show of desparation because they know the blatant hit pieces aren't working anymore.

[MyKillK]

I think the article attempts to use psychology by first gaining the readers trust and then attempting to manipulate them.



I agree -- Why hold up someone to the light only to smash them down a few paragraphs later as "nutty" and "unworthy"?

[Alabama Supporter]

I encourage you to send a non-hostile message to him. Hate mail probably doesn't help the cause much.

[dseisner]

I think it's a good article overall. His "roping Jesus" into the rhetoric comment is an indictment of all the candidates who pander to Christians with no intent to respect the gospel once they acquire the power they seek.

You might be right about your second sentence, but it doesn't describe RP. I have only heard Ron Paul talk about Christianity in a way that is personal, constitutional, and as a sound moral basis for arguments.

On another note, how is that a good article overall? The beginning and end speak inaccurately and harshly of Paul. Plus, this guy is totally brainwashed. This is one of those guys who's almost beyond conversion. Hey, we know we won't change EVERYONE's mind and sometimes it's better just to spend your time on a person of sounder mind. I think it's more unlikely that someone like Hannity becomes converted to this thought than it is that RP wins the presidency...by far.