AmericanPapist Comments
I wonder how Paul will do in the Michigan primary?
As I understand it, the really is no Dem. contest there . . . will that draw anti-war voters to the Republican primary to vote for Paul?
it appears that Ron Paul held his own despite some underhanded questions, and came out ahead with a few zingers of his own:
No, he really just came off, as he usually does, as a whiny, petulent, nag. I agree with Paul on about 80% of what he has to say, but the guy just turns me off with his style of speaking. You know it's possible to uphold the Constitution as Reagan did without sounding like a scold. In fact, in terms of style, Ron Paul is the polar opposite of Reagan. Oh, and he once again distorted history by claiming the Bob Taft mantle. Unfortunately for Ron, Taft's opposition to NATO stemmed from his belief that it would harm the UN. So much for isolationism.
Firstly,
I think RP is a loon.
Secondly,
I think it was an outrage that he was excluded from the NH debate. He had 17% in the state (according to polls), and had raised more money in the last quarter than any other candidate. He may be a loon, but he is a loon with support, and a free and open process demands his inclusion.
I watched the CNN debates last week and Ron Paul was asked about 9/11. He said America caused 9/11.
I was in a stupor.
At that moment I eliminated him from the possible candidates I would like to vote for.
He lives in Bizarro world.
I'm trying to think of who's candidacy is hurt by Paul's presence. I'm inclined to think that it's Huckabee, but Huckabee's base is the religious right and I don't know how that group views Paul. I would think that he would hurt McCain or Romney, but they appeal to the moderate wing of the party who rejects Paul as the Kucinich of the GOP, a view I happen to share. Either way, as Howard Dean found out, Internet support doesn't necessarily become support at the polls.
I think it was an outrage that he was excluded from the NH debate.
He wasn't, or at least not from the debate last Saturday. There were two debates last weekend, so I can't recall if he was excluded from the other one, but he was allowed to participate in at least one, if not both.
Okay, he participated in the Jan 5 debate, but not the Jan 6 debate.
Ron Paul is a little like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. And, the article this week in The New Republic does show the Ron Paul was affiliating with the wrong people at one point. Those old newsletters do give a lot of pause.
But, I am still really glad that Ron Paul is in this 2008 race for president. He is raising the questions that the Republican party needs to address -- important questions about our financial systems, our tax structure, individual liberty and sensible, humble foreign policy.
And, he's really the most pro-life candidate in the race -- against abortion and the federal death penalty and more discerning about the use of war.
Thomas,
I'd be curious to see your thoughts on Weigel's Faith, Reason and the War Against Jihadism, which could be read as an implicit critique of Ron Paul's "bring our troops back home, eliminate foreign aid to Israel and they'll leave us all alone" understanding of world events.
I just finished reading that, Christopher, and I'm mulling over his arguments. Have you published your review yet?
"I've neglected posting about Ron Paul lately..."
Don't worry. I don't think anyone noticed.
Yeah, Christmas is over, so no more generous gifts to my readers. ;)
Nathan --
Whom does Ron Paul hurt?
My guess is that the vast majority of his voters in the primary would not be voting in the Republican primary if Paul were not a candidate.
An intriguing question is whom he would hurt if he runs in the general as an independent.
At this point my instinct is that he would hurt the Dems more than the Reps, but it's much too early to tell.
That's interesting that you believe that his supporters might not even take part if he weren't involved. I never bothered to think of that, and it might very well be true.
As for him hurting a Democrat if he ran as an independent, I don't think so at all. The hardcore conservatives who back him might not go for a Romney or McCain, but I would bet that they'd turn out to stop Hillary or Obama from winning. If Paul ran an independent campaign, those are votes the GOP candidate would lose. The Nader effect, if you will. I know there are liberals out there who like what he has to say, too, but I think their number is negligible.
What's your take, brassband?
I just finished reading that, Christopher, and I'm mulling over his arguments. Have you published your review yet?
I linked to my review -- the first part, at least. (I'll blog the remainder of the review next week).
I do believe that Ron Paul will become president, and I'm disappointed that you've seem to have lost hope in Dr. Paul. Perhaps you could look up some meetup groups in Washington D.C. - I'm sure there are plenty of grassroots supporters there.
It is really really hard to talk about Ron Paul because the most collected, objective, rational, and cool take on his policies, beliefs, and ideas would necessarily use all the prime flame-war-provoking adjectives as realistic and justifiable descriptors.
I have so been biting my tongue lest I offend his supporters but to be honest Paul's supporters offend and embarrass me.
You do not have to support my favorite candidate but anyone who supports Ron Paul needs to work hard to win back my respect.
Somehow in all our love for the sole Republican candidate whose platform addresses all those issues that are most dear to us (pot smoking, ally-forsaking, surrender, rampant globalization, racism, antisemitism) this tidbit of pertinent politics got by:
http://www.catholic.org/national...ry.php?
id=26413
Thank you, Catholic Knight ^_^
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/
"The Church Doctrine of Pope Ron Paul" is an interesting column about the merits of libertarianism and its downside in the Washington Post today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...id=opinionsbox1
In one of the first paragraphs, the columnist brings up how the Terri Schiavo was libertarianism's greatest moment of all. So being the critic of government interference in our personal lives that he is, does Paul support the right-to-die? He talks a lot of "medical privacy" on his website's issues section, so it's a pertinent question for us Catholics.
I also can't find an answer to the question of gay marriage, which, based again on how he talks of the evil of government and the primacy of civil liberties, I presume Paul has no opposition to. After all, marriage is the domain of the states and since he believes that if it's not in the Constitution, it shouldn't be regulated, I don't see how he can reconcile his ideological beliefs with opposition to gay marriage.
Perhaps, unless clarified, he's not the candidate most in-tune with the Church on these two rather key issues that are non-negotiable in the eyes of the Church.
Commenting by HaloScan
