Rede
01-26-2008, 10:03 AM
Like others, I've been kind of annoyed at what appears to be other candidates taking Ron's talking points as their own. While it takes some of the credit from Ron, I'm beginning to think it is a good thing.
With others now talking about the constitution and borrowing from China, it only lends credibility to the argument when Ron Paul takes it up. When other people are using the exact same talking points it makes it very difficult to just dismiss Paul as a fringe candidate then cut to Huckabee or Romney saying the exact same thing.
The point is that if it is generally accepted that America cannot continue to spend like it has and must make changes Paul is not only the best qualified to do that, but has ideas that can resonate with the electorate. Think of it this way: if we can't afford everything thats being paid for now without borrowing from China, would most Americans rather give up the war in Iraq or Social Security? The war in Iraq or prescription drug benefits for seniors? The war in Iraq or lower taxes? The war in Iraq or not being indebted to China? Hell, the war in Iraq or no income tax?
Paul needs to frame it not as a question of whether or not the war is justified, but whether it is worth the cost and whether it is a better way of spending the money than the alternatives. If the discussion is going to be on Ron Paul's terms I think he has the best opportunity to do that.
Also, Paul should point out who has been arguing that we need to stop borrowing from China for ages now and who jumped onto that bandwagon when the media started talking about what was happening to the economy.
With others now talking about the constitution and borrowing from China, it only lends credibility to the argument when Ron Paul takes it up. When other people are using the exact same talking points it makes it very difficult to just dismiss Paul as a fringe candidate then cut to Huckabee or Romney saying the exact same thing.
The point is that if it is generally accepted that America cannot continue to spend like it has and must make changes Paul is not only the best qualified to do that, but has ideas that can resonate with the electorate. Think of it this way: if we can't afford everything thats being paid for now without borrowing from China, would most Americans rather give up the war in Iraq or Social Security? The war in Iraq or prescription drug benefits for seniors? The war in Iraq or lower taxes? The war in Iraq or not being indebted to China? Hell, the war in Iraq or no income tax?
Paul needs to frame it not as a question of whether or not the war is justified, but whether it is worth the cost and whether it is a better way of spending the money than the alternatives. If the discussion is going to be on Ron Paul's terms I think he has the best opportunity to do that.
Also, Paul should point out who has been arguing that we need to stop borrowing from China for ages now and who jumped onto that bandwagon when the media started talking about what was happening to the economy.