jemartinsen81
11-30-2007, 03:59 PM
A Ron Paul supporter on the "Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008" Facebook group posted this criticism, which had been expressed by his father. As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I'd very much like to see some feedback on this. I'm certain someone with better knowledge of Ron Paul than I have will be able to come up with an intelligent defence. :)
"Whatever the fundraising is, his lousy performance on Tues. will only
assure that coverage of him will be negative or non-existent. He is,
for better or worse, not Presidential in looks, personality or demeanor,
and that is a quality that the public seeks and the media responds to. If Ronald Ragan or Bill Clinton looked like Dennis Kucinich (sp), they
never would have been elected. It is shallow, but you need to consider
the practical realities.
He needs to have the balls to stand up to an attack like McCain's, and I
think if you took a poll, most objective observers would say that his
reaction and attempt to respond to that reveals he is not up to the
task.
He needs to have the balls to say to the moderator, "Hey, how about
directing some questions to me, or giving me some time to respond, I'm
not a potted plant." People want a leader who is confident enough to do
that.
When he so badly mangles the first question presented to him about the
Council on Foreign Relations, etc., he only confirms the suspicion that
he is not willing to distance himself from that paranoid and conspiracy
theory view of the world. I have read about the road that he mentioned,
and as best I can tell, it is simply another part of the interstate
highway system, since there is no easy and direct way to get from Mexico
to Canada. One would think that someone who believes in capitalism
would be all on favor of efforts to increase the flow of goods and the
economic benefits it creates. The interstate highway system is one of
the reasons this country's economy has thrived.
Sorry, Mitchell, but while I understand, appreciate and tend to agree
with many of the more main-stream economic arguments he and you make, he is not the guy for this country at this time. We live in a dangerous world, and we can debate on how we got there, but we need someone who can deal with the present and the future, and he is not the guy. Some questions for you:
I appreciate the Framers concerns about "entangling alliances", but they
lived in a world where they had single shot rifles and pistols that had
to be loaded by hand, and it took weeks or months to sail from one part
of the world to another. Now we live in a world where nuclear bombs can
be deployed thousands of miles away by aircraft or missiles. The world
is different, and the Constitution is a real lousy document if we must
use 18th century approaches to deal with 21st century problems. What
would Ron Paul do if:
North Korea nuked South Korea or China? Would Ron Paul say "I don't
care, it has not directly harmed the US, you guys straighten out your
own mess, and let's open up trade with North Korea?"
Germany invades most of eastern Europe and parts of western Europe?
Would Ron Paul say "I don't care, it has not directly harmed the US, we
don't care that a fascist regime is taking over Europe, how about we buy
more wine from German controlled France and vodka from German controlled
Russia?"
Russia installed nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the US? (Check out
the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis) Would Ron Paul say, "No
problem, let's buy a whole bunch of Cuban cigars, because I want to
trade with you and I don't want any entangling alliances to help me get
that threat off of my doorstep?"
I hate what Bush has done, and I think he has harmed the US in ways that will take the rest of my life to straighten out, if not longer. And I understand (at least conceptually) that RP is not an isolationist. But I am wholly unconvinced that his view of foreign policy will in fact meet the challenges we face in the future. Plus, as we have discussed, the chainsaw he wants to take to government is not, in my estimation, ultimately good for this country or the environment. We need a scalpel to eliminate what needs to be eliminated, not a wholesale rejection of most every government function."
"Whatever the fundraising is, his lousy performance on Tues. will only
assure that coverage of him will be negative or non-existent. He is,
for better or worse, not Presidential in looks, personality or demeanor,
and that is a quality that the public seeks and the media responds to. If Ronald Ragan or Bill Clinton looked like Dennis Kucinich (sp), they
never would have been elected. It is shallow, but you need to consider
the practical realities.
He needs to have the balls to stand up to an attack like McCain's, and I
think if you took a poll, most objective observers would say that his
reaction and attempt to respond to that reveals he is not up to the
task.
He needs to have the balls to say to the moderator, "Hey, how about
directing some questions to me, or giving me some time to respond, I'm
not a potted plant." People want a leader who is confident enough to do
that.
When he so badly mangles the first question presented to him about the
Council on Foreign Relations, etc., he only confirms the suspicion that
he is not willing to distance himself from that paranoid and conspiracy
theory view of the world. I have read about the road that he mentioned,
and as best I can tell, it is simply another part of the interstate
highway system, since there is no easy and direct way to get from Mexico
to Canada. One would think that someone who believes in capitalism
would be all on favor of efforts to increase the flow of goods and the
economic benefits it creates. The interstate highway system is one of
the reasons this country's economy has thrived.
Sorry, Mitchell, but while I understand, appreciate and tend to agree
with many of the more main-stream economic arguments he and you make, he is not the guy for this country at this time. We live in a dangerous world, and we can debate on how we got there, but we need someone who can deal with the present and the future, and he is not the guy. Some questions for you:
I appreciate the Framers concerns about "entangling alliances", but they
lived in a world where they had single shot rifles and pistols that had
to be loaded by hand, and it took weeks or months to sail from one part
of the world to another. Now we live in a world where nuclear bombs can
be deployed thousands of miles away by aircraft or missiles. The world
is different, and the Constitution is a real lousy document if we must
use 18th century approaches to deal with 21st century problems. What
would Ron Paul do if:
North Korea nuked South Korea or China? Would Ron Paul say "I don't
care, it has not directly harmed the US, you guys straighten out your
own mess, and let's open up trade with North Korea?"
Germany invades most of eastern Europe and parts of western Europe?
Would Ron Paul say "I don't care, it has not directly harmed the US, we
don't care that a fascist regime is taking over Europe, how about we buy
more wine from German controlled France and vodka from German controlled
Russia?"
Russia installed nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the US? (Check out
the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis) Would Ron Paul say, "No
problem, let's buy a whole bunch of Cuban cigars, because I want to
trade with you and I don't want any entangling alliances to help me get
that threat off of my doorstep?"
I hate what Bush has done, and I think he has harmed the US in ways that will take the rest of my life to straighten out, if not longer. And I understand (at least conceptually) that RP is not an isolationist. But I am wholly unconvinced that his view of foreign policy will in fact meet the challenges we face in the future. Plus, as we have discussed, the chainsaw he wants to take to government is not, in my estimation, ultimately good for this country or the environment. We need a scalpel to eliminate what needs to be eliminated, not a wholesale rejection of most every government function."