I'd be willing to buy that Ron Paul didn't write the incendiary passages in those newsletters of his, but ultimately, such foolishness reflects poorly upon the management skills of a leader. His name was, after all, on those newsletters. One would have hoped he would have done a competent job at overseeing their content. At the very least, he should have read and approved each and every article. That is what is implied by having one's name in the title--approval. So there are two possible conclusions for our dear Republican presidential candidate. Either he was negligent in a manner some might label gross, or he indeed wrote the articles himself or approved them after having read them. Either way, it's a bad lemon for the campaign.
Seems like most of the candidates were doomed from the get-go. Once they go double-digit in the polls, the powers-behind-the-throne unlock a skeleton from the closet and parade it in the media. The candidates don't really know how to handle a media firestorm, and maybe there is no way to handle it.
I still think Ron Paul is better than many of the other candidates, however. I really like his non-interventionist foreign policy. His views on the economy have relevance. Although many of his detractors claim that he has radical views, in reality it is they who have the radical views, while his are more consistent with the mainstream. Ron Paul is often the only one talking in the whole debates that makes a lick of sense. The others are history, language and thinking -challenged. They smile and shake their heads, as if they are hearing a fantasy, when Ron Paul says quite obvious things that are true. The others tend to march in lockstep with their party's social conservatives. It is clear that they have been told what they are to say, how they are supposed to feel, how they must think. On the other hand, Ron Paul has decided for himself how he will speak, how he will feel, what he will think. That is both original and refreshing. One is willing to forgive quite a bit of such a leader.
Conservative Jews are all in a lather against Ron Paul (see the WSJ for a completely rabid over-the-top attack on Ron Paul as "home-grown propagandist for our chief enemies" by Lyinbitchowitz), for one reason, because he might cut aid to Israel. Siphoning funds from our bank accounts on behalf of Tel Aviv has been a long-time favorite of some of the Jews in America, and they pretty much compel every Presidential candidate to swear fealty to the cause of Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S.
I support Ron Paul because of the enemies he makes. If the powers-that-be like the owners of the WSJ are against Ron Paul, then he might be good, because WSJ is a newspaper that prints lies with regularity and is in part responsible for the financial crisis and the financial meltdown. Why didn't the WSJ raise any alarm about the conditions prior to the financial meltdown? Why did the WSJ snooze through the first ten years of this century? I think the WSJ is a chief enemy of the United States, not Ron Paul. The WSJ represents everything that is wrong in this country and the people who create financial problems for the United States.
The one thing I dislike about Ron Paul is that he is big on freedom when it comes to big business, but he's not so keen when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion. If I were a woman, I'd want the right to abort.
No comments:
Post a Comment