Is that the best you got ? Anyone who reads this blog (yes there are some) will know that I'm not a jump on board gotta do the Ron Paul thing anytime I sit down at a type writer. It does seem that anybody who wants web traffic let's one go about a Ron Paul attack or lovefest. Former Nancy Reagan speech writer, Mona Charen has contributed her version of a Ron Paul hit piece. 
I do read the blogs and news and keep track of the Ron Paul campaign. I did even contribute an eight minute segment about the campaign for another project I'm involved in. I've even attended a meetup and had the opportunity to meet Dr. Paul in NYC last month while attending the Mises Institute Anniversary. Having secured an excellent understanding of my own ideals, that of the Party and even the whole movement in all it's manifestations, I do not feel compelled to fight in the trenches as all the Ron Paul newbies do. I am taking a moment to respond on this occasion.
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Premised under the rubric of civil liberties, Mona decries Paul unsentimental regard for a Scooter Libby pardon.
Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
Remember he was being asked about whether he thought Libby should be pardoned, not whether he should have been convicted. There's a difference. The idea of a pardon is that someone who has committed a crime but deserves some special pardon due to exemplary service or loyalty as a form of executive privilege or favor. Whether or not Ron Paul agrees with the premises of what convicted Scooter Libby might be a better way to gauge consistency. If he weren't running for President I'm sure he's the kind of guy that would take time to outline these beliefs. With regard to war, fiscal & monetary policy, let alone civil liberties have all been very consistent. If you wanted to you could find them.
2. Paul is historically challenged. Aside from brandishing the isolationalist vilification (that's so Woodrow Wilson Era) you seem to confuse what Paul is attempting to do. Indeed Eisenhower and Nixon both campaigned for a humble 'non-interventionist' policy in regards to conflicts started by previous administrations. Paul's on board about the evils of the Iran coup in the fifties and his been consistent about this for years. He uses this line to illustrate how voters are sympathetic to such a stand and always disappointed by the results. Bush being the most glaring example. I don't touch the Israel stuff out loud.
3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
Even the most newbie Paulite, Ronulan or even the Wonkette inspired Paultard know that Ron doesn't think he can just do these things. It requires a willing Congress and ending the war will be hard enough regardless of who comes or goes. All of these quoted agencies have little to do with the Constitution and that's where Paul is always serious, consistent and unchallenged. It is possible to envision a Republic without such a large need for military, intelligence and revenue demanding agencies. Washington insiders and parasites have a real hard time with such concepts, however wistful we all acknowledge the sympathy to rid ourselves of their undemocratic natures.
4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.
This is the real meat of Mona's criticism. Most elites can't stand the fact that there are angry and marginalized people out there who are attracted to the ideas of freedom. I really don't know who Alex Jones is are care what he thinks. As Paul has continually stated, if he couldn't go on a show simply for disagreeing with the hosts, he'd never be on anything. Sure a hyper image crazy campaign might not go out on such limbs, but what were Paul's options this time a year ago ? There are rumors that Tucker Carlson might be sacked for his overt sympathy for Paul. Is it any wonder that some supporters might hold conspiratorial or fronge positions on many issues ? Most of the Paul people I've met or seen run the whole gamut of American life.
If it wasn't for the Branch Davidian crack at the end this would have been a very easy article to ignore. I'm sure there will be plenty of responses to it's rather simplistic orientation. I had an extra half hour today.
Leave a comment