Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Ron Paul Flaws - A rebuttal

Today on Donklephant, Justin Gardner wrote an article entitled "Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate".

His article reads:

"By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 3rd Party, Ron Paul, 2008 Election

I’ve often questioned how viable Paul is as a candidate, especially for the GOP nomination, with such a singular viewpoint on how the country should be run. Many of his supporters have suggested that a Ron Paul presidency would have to be one about compromise because Paul would never have the votes to push that singular agenda through. And fair enough, that’s viable in my mind.

But what about some of these other viewpoints the blogger points out?

  1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
  2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
  3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
  4. He’s Not For National Health Care
  5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
  6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

Now, far be it from me to speak for the Ron Paul crowd, but my guess is that many of you are completely okay with most of these. Maybe one thing on this list would be a big problem for you, but it’s probably different for most everybody. I also think the blogger raising these concerns seems to me to be rather liberal in his viewpoints because he says he’s in love with Ron Paul for his foreign policy views.

Which raise the questions: How many of Ron Paul’s liberal supporters will really support his bid for the presidency? And is it really just about the foreign policy views?

This is yet another reason why I think Paul will need to go 3rd party if he has any shot of actually winning. His appeal is broad, but his liberal supporters will fall off once they start to really dig into the issues. He’s a libertarian through and through and that appeals so much more to Republicans and Independents."

My rebuttal:

1. Church and State
Rebuttal: The Founders used the words 'God' or 'Creator' in almost every important document, including the Constitution. The courts use a Bible to swear in witnesses and the Chief Justice uses a Bible to swear in the new President of the US.

2. Federal Department of Education
Rebuttal: The children in the US rank 37 in the world because of our flawed federal system. Solution: follow the Constitution and let the States control education.

3. Student Loans
Rebuttal: Cost of State College Tuition is driven up when federally subsidized loans are handed out like candy. No more loans would drive the costs down, create more schools and so on…

4. National Health Care
Rebuttal: Follow the Constitution and dissolve the insurance monopoly created by HMOs and corporate pharmaceuticals. If federal laws promoted private practice instead of protecting insurance companies, health care costs would go down and people could afford it. Let people keep their taxes and that would be roughly the monthly cost to a private practice.

5. Global Warming
Rebuttal: There is enough evidence supporting that global climate change has been a cycle caused by the sun and stars for eons of time, that many of us are beginning to dispute the so-called “Man-Made Global Warming” theory. By the way, it’s still a THEORY. This does not mean we shouldn’t be concerned about energy consumption and pollution.

It seems some of Ron Paul's supporters subscribe to very socialistic ideals. I'm sure this discussion will continue, however, Ron Paul is not only the most viable candidate, he is the candidate most strongly principled in the Constitution. Foreign policy aside, his platform is exactly what this country needs to avoid a total collapse in 50 years. No exaggeration.


Paul said...

God shows up nowhere in the constitution, thankfully, so you are wrong on that point. I support Ron Paul, but the main area in which we diverge is on religion and abortion. The schism on these issues is absolute, but I think, nonetheless, that Mr. Paul would be a good president at this time. Especially since the president really can't inflict too much jesus-freakery on the country.

yes_even_me said...

The word "God" doesn't show up in the constitution, but the word "Creator" does. Mainly because most of the founding fathers were deist. They weren't referring to the Judeo-Christian God.

Jono said...

I think a smarter rebuttal would be:

1. Ron Paul does not believe in the Church as a political body, and it is an important distinction to make. Saying "I love Jesus" does NOT align me with the Catholic Church, nor does it align me with George W. Bush.

2. I don't know why the Fed can do something better than the state, or even the city. The state is local and has a MUCH better idea of where money should go. You HAVE to remember, Ron Paul is trying to take power away from the Federal Government to give it to the State Government where it can actually do more good.

3. I agree with the original poster.

4. I agree with the original poster.

5. Honestly, he's a doctor, and one who has delivered over 4,000 babies at that. I think his opinion is fair based on that alone. That said, this is ANOTHER case where he wants to remove federal power and give it to the state. He has ALSO said that he DOES NOT want to make a Federal law BANNING abortion either. He truly does not believe that the federal government is capable of making a "One law for all" kind of proposition and trusts the State government to be able to take care of that on a case by case basis. (Something that the federal government can't, or won't do.