Jimbob_Rebel
Posts : 408
Join date : 2008-03-12
 | Subject: Ron Paul.........postmortem;  Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:50 pm | |
| How many respond to comments regarding Ron Paul with a litany of cliches meant to expliain his failure; he lacks charisma, he's not a powerfull orator, the party base wasn't with him.
Doesn't all this strike you as being rather disingenuous? Why, instead of discussing the merits of the man's ideas do they want to give him their own homespun political version of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? The man's ideas should not be judged upon the basis of popularity but neccesity. Back to the popularity topic for a moment, it's not like the media gave him even a fraction of the time they lavished upon that loser-from-the-git-go Rudolph Gulianni, but if the media had not done everything within their power to strangle Paul's candidacy in the cradle, what might have been the outcome? If they had refrained from telling the people "of course, he can't be elected" every time they mentioned his name, if they had given the man time to communicate his concerns to the people, what might have been the outcome? One other factor which impacted Paul in a negative fashion is the fact that the problems facing our nation now, the sub-prime meltdown, the bailout, currency inflation, are not topics which lend themselves to five second sound bytes. This leads us back to the "neccesity" angle of Paul's candidacy; the problems facing this nation need to be aired in a public and an intelligent fashion. If the nature of our republic is such that important but complex questions are too thorny for public debate, then we need to go back to the drawing board and re-design a system of government which is capable of confronting serious matters without becoming paralyzed through ignorance. The ideal solution would be to go back to limiting the vote to qualified individuals but that ain't gonna happen anymore than our leaders would act to restore any other portion of the dead letter we refer to as the highest law of the land. Lest some should accuse me of being too harsh on my fellow citizens, I'm sorry, but the proof is in the pudding; we had an honest man who was telling us the truth about the problems we face and the electorate rejected him. Still, their collective guilt is somewhat ameliorated by the power of the media campaign to ignore or smear Paul as well as their public education which taught them "what to think", not "how to think". Saying that his message is out of touch with the party base does nothing to invalidate what he has to say, it would be like having the first mate on the Titanic say to the captain;" I don't think I'd mention anything about the iceberg, the passengers really don't want to hear about it.". I'll tell you now and you'll believe me later, the iceberg is eventually going to have to be discussed.
To go back to my opening statement, a man who is not disingenuous might respond to the Ron Paul question somewhat like this;"The people lack discernment, The media did their best to shut this man down, we need to find a way to communicate what Mr.Paul has to say to the electorate".
These problems are not going to go away. They are going to have to be dealt with sooner or later and critiqueing Mr.Paul's stage prescence is not a prudent reaction to the precarious position that the fools who run this country have put us in.  | |
|
