bobbyw24
04-18-2010, 04:39 PM
No sooner did Congressman Ron Paul emerge in one of latest opinion polls as neck-and-neck with President Obama in 2012 than he came in for a new round of critical postings on the internet. One of them is quoted by Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who writes that he detects something “off” about the physician, who is a Republican from Texas. Mr. Hinderaker quotes an email from one of his readers who had heard Dr. Paul speak at a Tea Party event and concluded that he “ is a nut, out of touch with reality seemingly.”
Our own view of Dr. Paul, however, is different. It has been formed in the process of covering his campaign for sound money on and off for nearly 30 years, starting with his membership on the United States Gold Commission at the start of the Reagan presidency. We clearly have differences with Dr. Paul in respect of foreign policy and, in recent years, the current war. He has, however, earned our abiding respect for the clarity and commitment with which he has pressed the case for a constitutional approach to money, which in our view is one of the fundamental issues facing the country.
We don’t by any means dismiss the critical coverage of Dr. Paul by such journalists as James Kirchick, who started at the New York Sun and has become a real voice on the reportorial right and who, in a widely read piece in the New Republic, reported on how Ron Paul’s newsletter was infected with pieces hostile to minorities. Dr. Paul has tried to repudiate those articles and their sentiments, while saying he bears a moral responsibility for them because of his failure of oversight of the newsletter in which they appeared.
Also, we are aware that Ron Paul has spoken ill of the pro-Israel lobby, bought into conspiracy theories involving neo-conservatives and Iraq, and voted against a resolution condemning Hezbollah. These are part, although not all, of the differences we have with him that we would characterize as profound. But in the dozen or so conversations we’ve had with Dr. Paul over nearly 30 years, he has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic. On the contrary, we have heard a tone altogether different.
It gives us the sense that he has the potential to play a leading role in disentangling the sound money movement from unsavory elements. There is no doubt that it has been entangled. The entanglement has roots in our history, in that the most famous form of American paper money, the greenback, was brought in by Lincoln to help the Union pay for the Civil War. So those who opposed Lincoln for all the wrong reasons got entangled with those who opposed paper money for all the right reasons. This disentangling is an important part of the fight for sound money?
Where are Ron Paul’s critics in that fight? It is one thing for Dr. Paul’s critics keep a lookout for signs of bigotry. It is another for high-minded critics to go missing in the fight for sound money, which, after all, is another moral issue. We are now in a period in which the dollar has collapsed to less than 1,000th of an ounce of gold, but a quarter of what it was worth at the start of, say, George W. Bush’s presidency and but half of what it was worth when, say, the Democrats acceded to their latest leadership of the Congress. It is a catastrophe that hurts all Americans, of all races, and imperils our civil society.
The thing we like about Ron Paul is that he understands the monetary powers and disabilities in our Constitution. He knows that neither the Constitution nor the government created the dollar. He comprehends what the Founders understood a dollar to be, and he understands the implications of the fact that, in 1792, they codified it as 416 grains of standard silver. He has been a steady watcher of the price of gold. So he understood that an economic crisis was on the horizon before any other member of Congress. And he understands the dollar has to be made sound before we will solve the economic crisis.
* * *
Is the fact that such savvy writers as Mr. Hinderaker reckon Ron Paul has something “off” about him the reason that the Texan has been unable to translate his appeal into a major office? That’s something for Dr. Paul to think about. Is the fact that Dr. Paul is out front on the monetary issue related to the fact that he has emerged with such strong poll numbers? That is something for his critics to think about. Our sense of it is that the American people are ahead of the political elites in respect of the dollar. As the federal government has debated its own fiat currency, there are already stirrings at the state level to use the constitutional power of the states to make gold and silver coins legal tender. When all the drama in respect of, say, Goldman Sachs has come and gone, Ron Paul will still be correct that at the bottom of the trouble lies the fact that we didn’t have sound money able to transmit the accurate price signals that need for a free economy.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/reckoning-with-ron-paul/86919/
Our own view of Dr. Paul, however, is different. It has been formed in the process of covering his campaign for sound money on and off for nearly 30 years, starting with his membership on the United States Gold Commission at the start of the Reagan presidency. We clearly have differences with Dr. Paul in respect of foreign policy and, in recent years, the current war. He has, however, earned our abiding respect for the clarity and commitment with which he has pressed the case for a constitutional approach to money, which in our view is one of the fundamental issues facing the country.
We don’t by any means dismiss the critical coverage of Dr. Paul by such journalists as James Kirchick, who started at the New York Sun and has become a real voice on the reportorial right and who, in a widely read piece in the New Republic, reported on how Ron Paul’s newsletter was infected with pieces hostile to minorities. Dr. Paul has tried to repudiate those articles and their sentiments, while saying he bears a moral responsibility for them because of his failure of oversight of the newsletter in which they appeared.
Also, we are aware that Ron Paul has spoken ill of the pro-Israel lobby, bought into conspiracy theories involving neo-conservatives and Iraq, and voted against a resolution condemning Hezbollah. These are part, although not all, of the differences we have with him that we would characterize as profound. But in the dozen or so conversations we’ve had with Dr. Paul over nearly 30 years, he has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic. On the contrary, we have heard a tone altogether different.
It gives us the sense that he has the potential to play a leading role in disentangling the sound money movement from unsavory elements. There is no doubt that it has been entangled. The entanglement has roots in our history, in that the most famous form of American paper money, the greenback, was brought in by Lincoln to help the Union pay for the Civil War. So those who opposed Lincoln for all the wrong reasons got entangled with those who opposed paper money for all the right reasons. This disentangling is an important part of the fight for sound money?
Where are Ron Paul’s critics in that fight? It is one thing for Dr. Paul’s critics keep a lookout for signs of bigotry. It is another for high-minded critics to go missing in the fight for sound money, which, after all, is another moral issue. We are now in a period in which the dollar has collapsed to less than 1,000th of an ounce of gold, but a quarter of what it was worth at the start of, say, George W. Bush’s presidency and but half of what it was worth when, say, the Democrats acceded to their latest leadership of the Congress. It is a catastrophe that hurts all Americans, of all races, and imperils our civil society.
The thing we like about Ron Paul is that he understands the monetary powers and disabilities in our Constitution. He knows that neither the Constitution nor the government created the dollar. He comprehends what the Founders understood a dollar to be, and he understands the implications of the fact that, in 1792, they codified it as 416 grains of standard silver. He has been a steady watcher of the price of gold. So he understood that an economic crisis was on the horizon before any other member of Congress. And he understands the dollar has to be made sound before we will solve the economic crisis.
* * *
Is the fact that such savvy writers as Mr. Hinderaker reckon Ron Paul has something “off” about him the reason that the Texan has been unable to translate his appeal into a major office? That’s something for Dr. Paul to think about. Is the fact that Dr. Paul is out front on the monetary issue related to the fact that he has emerged with such strong poll numbers? That is something for his critics to think about. Our sense of it is that the American people are ahead of the political elites in respect of the dollar. As the federal government has debated its own fiat currency, there are already stirrings at the state level to use the constitutional power of the states to make gold and silver coins legal tender. When all the drama in respect of, say, Goldman Sachs has come and gone, Ron Paul will still be correct that at the bottom of the trouble lies the fact that we didn’t have sound money able to transmit the accurate price signals that need for a free economy.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/reckoning-with-ron-paul/86919/