Why aren’t we attacking Ron Paul?
Nobody ever contradicts the man, once he gets his ideas across. Sure, Colbert does a great job suggesting he’s a crazy nut *wink, wink* but then there’s nothing. No real debate.
In a previous post, which I deeply regret (sort of *wink*), I suggested that people should start attacking Ron Paul.
Some attacks can be devastating (think John Kerry + Swift Boat Veterans for You-Know-What). But other attacks can actually help a candidate by raising awareness (think about how the current top candidates are attacking each other, with their rebuttals and attacks highlighted across nationwide news). Meanwhile, poor Ron Paul gets left in the dust. Secretly, I think he might appreciate a wild yet well-produced attack advertisement. It might raise awareness for his cause.
But so far, nobody is stepping up to the plate. Why? Either they don’t know how to argue with Ron Paul, because he makes so much sense. Or they think he’s not worth the argument.
And that, in the spirit of democracy, is rather sad.
February 2, 2008 at 5:22 pm
As far as I can tell other candidate’s don’t have much of an argument against Ron Paul’s stances. Look what happened to Rudy in an early debate when he tried saying that Ron Paul was blaming the US for the attacks on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
February 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I guess this means Ron Paul is right on everything eh?
The man is impeccable.
February 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm
he really is.
February 3, 2008 at 9:36 am
You forgot how Ron was savaged by the corporate media for those supposed racist newsletters with the suggestion that he is a rabid racist.
February 3, 2008 at 11:19 am
That might because he is in fact racist. Otherwise, he might have sent back the money he got from the guy who runs the Stormfront white supremicist Website.
February 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Great debate, guys! It seems a lot of you all care about this as much as I do (if I read the stats correctly, over a 120 visitors in the last couple days for my Ron Paul posts, which is more than I’m used to).
One thing though: If Ron Paul is a racist, I haven’t really seen it in any of his policies or his plans for the country. And in the end, isn’t that what matters most? I mean, that seems to be the standard for all of the other candidates, for the shifty things they have done, all of which have been eventually overlooked.
February 3, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Maybe it’s because Ron Paul has no chance to win anyway!!???
Just a thought.
February 3, 2008 at 5:52 pm
True, the guy really has no image for this sort of thing. This is, after all, a popularity contest. I’ve heard of people voting for George W. simply because they liked Laura better than the other candidates’ spouses.
Who’s Ron Paul married to? Does he like hunting or fishing? Or would he rather go to a coffee shop? When it comes to Hilary or McCain, there’s instant recognition. And that’s the way most people cast votes, toward the most familiar face in the crowd. Never mind how wishy-washy they tend to be on issues that matter.
February 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I think its that he’s not perceived as worth the effort (as rj777 notes).
Bloggers and such do argue with his ideas, often and cogently. “Leave it up to the States” isn’t exactly a bulletproof concept.
February 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Yeah, pretty much everybody’s ideas can be shot to shreds, depending on how you look at them and from which perspective. This might explain why the top candidates tend to dance around questions, or change their positions entirely. They’re trying to appeal to as many perspectives as possible, which is quite nice of them, to be so thoughtful.
But it’s frustrating for everybody else.
February 3, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Hah! Brilliant!
Although I’ve found that those who do explain their ideas (sometimes in painful depth), often find the substance ignored in coverage (unless something juicy pops up that the press can’t pass on).
February 4, 2008 at 4:44 pm
So true! Thanks all for commenting and visiting! We’ve had over 200 views! Yeah!