[1]
Though I share this sentiment [2], any intelligent reader will have to realize that not every instance of correlation is an instance of causality.
The whole idea that Ron Paul is a racist based on the opinion of what some copywriter thought would work is ludicrious at best. Rick Sincere some years ago plowed right through this attack [3] when it came up in 2008:
Let me speak from my own experience as someone who has met Dr. Paul on several occasions, all of which were characterized by civility, politesse, and good humor. I have never seen any evidence from Ron Paul the man that he has a hateful thought or possesses an animus against any group or individual. He, like most libertarians, is focused on ideas, ideas principally aimed at promoting human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.
…
Did Ron Paul exercise poor judgment in allowing others to publish badly-written newsletter articles under his name? Yes — and that is something that he acknowledged more than a decade ago, and quite explicitly in that 2001 Texas Monthly article. He has taken responsibility for his error, owned up to it, and did not even beg for forgiveness. In fact, he has reacted to this smear attempt [4] in a cool, evenhanded, and direct manner.
Now folks, I will be the first to admit that I do, indeed, lean towards Ron Paul. His beliefs in concept best mirror my own: human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.
I believe Paul is 110% wrong on Iran. I believe many of his so-called “supporters” are obnoxious and part of the lunatic fringe, thus crowding out some of the more sensible Paul supporters. I further believe that Paul’s ideas on America’s role in the world are dangerous to the Pax Americana — as I firmly believe that the post-British Empire inheritance of world policeman will be gobbled up by powers and interests that are not our own. Lastly — and probably most emphatically — I do not believe in the decriminalization of drugs of any sort. Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from irrational actors, and the idea that alcohol, with thousands of years of societal use, comes even close to a gateway drug like marijuana is absurd on its face and disastrous in practice.
Nevertheless…
The Republican Party is being offered two choices. The first is a Massachusetts governor struck from the cloth of the Rockerfeller Republican set, a man whose father was so liberal that Richard Nixon was thought to be a better choice for president. Mitt Romney not only imposed socialized medicine on the citizens and taxpayers of Massachusetts, he is in his core beliefs a pro-abortion Republican, one who views government’s role as active rather than passive, with a terrible record on gun rights, and a lack of moral firmness or consistency in any of his current positions — even to the point of editing his own books without an explanation as to why his position might have changed (thus throwing his “conversion” on life into serious question).
Ron Paul — in total contrast — is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, demands fiscal accountability from the federal government, will implement real and lasting spending cuts (even if tax cuts are mathematically off the table), will cut the size and scope of the government’s power, and has been remarkably consistent in his views and positions from day one.
Now tell me. Who would you rather support?
[5]
Conservatives and libertarians are constantly told to swallow our convictions to support candidates of dubious quality. When will the self-appointed moderates and mainstream Republicans do the same?
It’s time to take a serious look at Ron Paul. I may not agree with everything he believes in (or his supporters would impose upon him), but I agree with Paul a hell of a lot more than I agree with Romney — and no, that doesn’t make me a racist to say so (nice spin, but it falls flat).
Rather, it makes me an American concerned with the cliff leaders in both parties seem unable or unwilling to steer us away from. Paul wants to do something about it. Why won’t Romney do the same?