Ron Paul’s Moment

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul is poised to pull off a major upset. The Texas congressman is surging in the polls and may even win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. He has run an effective - and at times brilliant - campaign. His scathing ads have eviscerated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. As Mr. Gingrich’s numbers fall, Mr. Paul is attracting disaffected Republican voters. He is emerging slowly as the conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Yet, is Mr. Paul’s rise good for the GOP? Or will he ultimately help President Obama get re-elected?
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2011/12/22/webb3-paul-party-gg-web_s160x258.jpg?06d80fea060e1d7b534f982a4f7419573 c4a57b9

Mr. Paul is the godfather of the Tea Party movement. He is not a Burkean conservative but a libertarian constitutionalist who champions limited government, sound currency and states’ rights. In foreign policy, he is a non-interventionist who believes - like our Founding Fathers - that America should mind its own business. For this, Mr. Paul has been excoriated by both the progressive left and the neoconservative right. The Democratic and Republican establishments despise him. The media largely ignore him. Much of talk-radio ridicules him.

I, however, have a confession to make: I like him. Mr. Paul is right on many key issues - out-of-control spending, our runaway national debt, exploding entitlements, the evils of the Federal Reserve and the perils of military interventionism and nation-building. He is the only Republican candidate truly serious about rolling back the federal leviathan. He seeks to slash government spending by $1 trillion - within one year. He favors massive cuts to capital-gains, dividend and income taxes. He would repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, thereby unleashing the private economy. He champions real entitlement reform, pushing for Social Security and Medicare to be phased out gradually and privatized. He wants to audit and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve. This alone would tame inflation, restore the value of the dollar and protect the purchasing power of the working and middle class. Mr. Paul is the mortal enemy of New Deal-Great Society liberalism.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/22/ron-pauls-moment/

[bluesc]

It was a great read, but this ruined it for me:


Mr. Paul’s anarcho-capitalism is too radical and too naive and deviates too much from Reaganite conservatism to capture the GOP nomination. Yet he has the potential to command 10 percent of the electorate - not enough to win, but enough to be a spoiler.

[Sola_Fide]

Ugh... Talk about an article that starts out good and then takes a nose dive.

He is wrong about this:


His libertine libertarianism would lead to a more permissive society and widespread drug use, especially among youth. Indeed, Mr. Paul appeals to many young voters: He combines the principles of Steve Jobs with Charlie Sheen, the economic individualist and the moral hedonist.

This is what most conservatives get wrong about freedom. They think that when we propose people are free to do what they want to their bodies, they think that means that we condone every hedonistic vice in the world.

Endorsing the principle of liberty is not the same as endorsing aberrant choices. In fact, the principles of liberty promote responsibility, while statism promotes license and immorality.

[jpate86]

It was a great read, but this ruined it for me:

Yeah, that was a shot at the end. However, the overall tone of the article is favorable and I'll take it. The media is not going to just wake up one day and "see the light". If they do start to shift the tone of their coverage it will be an incremental process. It is sad when all you want the media to do is report a candidate accurately and that he be retreated with the same respect as all of the other candidates.

[Carole]

Well, that was some good writing in the first half of the article, but the remaining half was trashing Dr. Paul.

Hit piece.

[Paulatized]

I doubt most people read to the end, most are skimmers. If it just causes some to pause and think for a moment and consider Ron Paul, the tentacles of truth might have a chance to sink in.

[rprprs]

Well, that was some good writing in the first half of the article, but the remaining half was trashing Dr. Paul.

Hit piece.
Agree.... and then some.

I am getting sick and tired of these articles which couch their real agenda amid seemingly pro-Paul sentiments.
This article falls off the cliff fast and furious and is a perfect example.
The ultimate conclusion of this piece is that Ron should go back in the "closet" where he belongs.

Ugh!

[bobbyw24]

Yeah, that was a shot at the end. However, the overall tone of the article is favorable and I'll take it. The media is not going to just wake up one day and "see the light". If they do start to shift the tone of their coverage it will be an incremental process. It is sad when all you want the media to do is report a candidate accurately and that he be retreated with the same respect as all of the other candidates.

Exactly

Not every piece that doesn't kiss his ass is a hit piece.

[Bruno]

Yeah, I'd call that a hit piece, and no, ass-kissing is not a prerequisite, as the scare tactics below not based upon fact show:


Yet Mr. Paul is also an ideologue. This is his fatal weakness. Ideology trumps reality. He denies that Iran is bent on getting the bomb. In fact, he often sounds like Tehran’s public-relations agent, defending the mullahs’ quest to acquire nuclear weapons. He refuses to recognize the existence of radical Islam and the mortal threat it poses to the West. He lionizes anti-American, anti-war websites such as the odious WikiLeaks. He will not stand up to China’s predatory trade practices, blindly adhering to free-trade nostrums. His support for homosexual rights and the legalization of drugs, including cocaine and heroine, represents an assault upon traditional America. His libertine libertarianism would lead to a more permissive society and widespread drug use, especially among youth. Indeed, Mr. Paul appeals to many young voters: He combines the principles of Steve Jobs with Charlie Sheen, the economic individualist and the moral hedonist.

Mr. Paul’s anarcho-capitalism is too radical and too naive and deviates too much from Reaganite conservatism to capture the GOP nomination. Yet he has the potential to command 10 percent of the electorate - not enough to win, but enough to be a spoiler. He repeatedly has refused to shut the door on a possible third-party run. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee. The party would take him back in a heartbeat.

This, however, would be a tragic mistake. Running as an independent candidate would split the anti-Obama vote, enabling the president to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Mr. Paul would become the right’s Ralph Nader - the man who helps consolidate Mr. Obama’s socialist revolution. His legacy would be tarnished permanently and his movement betrayed.