Ron Paul is an interesting candidate and certainly has garnered some Internet support. While traditional or more scientific polls have him near the bottom of the pack the on line or unscientific polls show him near the top. This might be, as some of his supporters claim, because he has wide support among the tech savvy or it might be that those who support him vote a number of times in these polls. Whatever the reason, this second tier candidate has been mentioned more than he likely would have had it not been for his appearance in the last debate. He made a statement that upset many in the party by claiming that the reason they attacked us is because we have been bombing Iraq for ten years. This statement received a strong rebuff by Rudy Giuliani who claimed never to have heard of such a thing. Giuliani’s statement ignores the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources who claim that blow-back for our actions was one of the reasons we were attacked.
While I certainly agree that our foreign policy is likely to have ticked off those who do not agree with us I also believe that radical Islam has been looking to pick a fight with us for decades in order to beat us and impose their twisted religious views on us. Regardless of the bombing of Iraq for ten years we were likely to have been attacked anyway for nothing more than our support for Israel and its right to survive. Radical Islam believes that Israel is not legitimate and has no right to exist. That twisted ideology extends to those who support Israel and the right of its people to exist and to defend themselves against attack.
Ron Smith of WBAL had a great piece on Ron Paul and his statements. The article, Love Him or Loathe Him, Ron Paul Speaks his Mind points out:
As you might or might not know, Big Media jealously safeguards the status quo, ridiculing anyone who might, Like Dr. Paul, call into question the basic precepts of modern federal government, which include agreement by everyone who can be taken seriously that the U.S. is a special nation, a gift to the world, tasked with making sure that all other nations defer to it and, above all, do what we tell them to do, or else.
This is a true enough statement and one only needs look at Howard Dean to see it in practice. The big boys in government, regardless of party, and those in media hate when the apple cart is upset. Dean bucked the status quo and his over exuberant scream became his undoing though similar types of display by people such as Ted Kennedy have had little impact on their careers. I do not agree with Howard Dean’s politics but I do believe that the media and those running behind him at the time focused on his outburst as a means to shut him up. The left was so afraid he might actually run again that they made him the head of the DNC. If his outburst made him unsuitable as the face of the Democrats why did they make him the face of their party? They know that many people liked the freshness of Dean as he bucked conventional thinking. Ron Paul is such a candidate.
I certainly have not decided who to support in the next campaign. It is far to early to throw support behind any one person until there has been time to flesh out opinions and to separate the contenders from the also rans. I believe that Ron Paul, as Smith indicated and much like Dean before him, speaks his mind and unfortunately his thoughts run counter to the conventional thinkers in politics. I believe we need new faces and new ideas in politics. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to determine what party politicians belong to and for all the infighting those already in office seem to work together to help maintain things just as they are. Paul seems to espouse beliefs that many have but that the old boy network does not want to hear. As Smith points out in his piece:
Whatever the case, to me it’s just refreshing to see a man of principle stand tall and unafraid in the face of being called a party apostate and traitor and calmly state his case before a hostile audience. It’s uncharacteristic of modern politicians because it represents actually[sic] bravery as opposed to crowd-pleasing bravado.
I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle and that he speaks what is on his mind. He is doing it during the primaries when others save what they really think for the general election and this, like in the case of Dean, might mean he will never win any office higher than the one he holds. I do not suggest that he should not be who he is and that he should not stand on principle but his statement in the debate allowed Giuliani to go on the attack and to deflect the criticisms he has had on issues like abortion and gun control. Right now, people are talking about this and ignoring the hot topic of Giuliani and abortion that was in the limelight only a week ago. It was suggested that the focus on abortion would hurt Giuliani in the debate but Paul gave him a way out.
The establishment, consisting of both major parties and the media, does not like people who rock the boat and Paul has shown up as a Category 5 hurricane. His opinions, while researched and accurate, threaten the business as usual government and unfortunately for him, he will have to overcome the attacks from that entity as well as the others running in the race.
It has been suggested that Paul should not be allowed to attend any further debates and I think that is a terrible tact to take. What would be the uproar if Conservatives stated that Rudy Giuliani should not be allowed to attend debates because he believes in abortion rights? The purpose of debates is to allow people to put out their ideas and to let the public decide which candidate they want to represent them. If Paul is so contrary to public opinion and his ideas are so out of touch, why silence him? People are usually silenced out of fear. Is the Republican Party (and the establishment for that matter) afraid that Paul might get support? That would be the most likely reason to silence him.
Conservatives are looking for a person who espouses traditional Conservative values and Paul certainly has the credentials. As I stated, it is far too early for me to decide who to support but I want to be able to look at all the candidates and not just the ones the establishment thinks I should see. I like Fred Thompson but until he gets in the race I can not tell what kind of leader he will be and how firm he is in his Conservative beliefs. Regardless, Paul deserves to be heard and the people deserve to be able to hear him. It is the people, not the establishment, who candidates are elected to represent and the people deserve to hear the thoughts of every person interested in holding office.
To allow the establishment to decide who we may hear is un-American and smacks of Communism. I may never vote for Paul and he might not be around when the time comes but he deserves to be heard just as much as any other candidate.
Ron Smith’s show page does not have Digg. If you like his piece and want to let others read what he has to say, consider linking to his piece or Digging this one so that others might see his work.
I am interested in what you have to say so please feel free to comment as often as you like.
