Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention

Daniel,

In regards to your response, my point is that claiming that he has said nothing of the “millions who would suffer” without Federal programs assumes that:

a) It is the Federal programs that are alleviating suffering rather than creating it.

b) There will be any serious fallout at all.

You are right that he may not be communicating them well enough, and goodness knows that we need everyone we can get on our side. He has said on many occasions that he would attack corporate welfare before social welfare, which in my book is good enough.

Government is the cause of most of our problems, not the solution. To attack RP because he is in favor of dismantling Government is to miss the point of why that is a good thing and why you should vote for him in the first place.

Thanks for telling all of Paul’s “flaws”.

I’m “definately” voting for Ron Paul now!!!!

I’ve studied all the issues and I support Ron Paul.

It’s time we got our Liberties back.

Leaving Iraq is the ONLY choice we have to avoid worldwide terrorism aka WWWIII. 95% of all suicide bombing is in retaliation to an occupying military, not fundamentalism:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

Ron Paul will be our next President. I hope it’s not too late.

When it is all said and done, Paul is the only candidate that actually follows his oath of office and can restore honor to our lost government. I

If there is no oath followed, there is no foundation.

Observe the flip flopping front runners of both major parties.

Daniel,

I’d like to take a few minutes to respond to your concerns.

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state

This isn’t quite accurate. Paul believes that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Note the emphasis on Congress. A careful reading of the history of the Ratification will show you that the Framers wrote the First Amendment to prohibit the national government from infringing on the enumerated rights. They relied on individual state constitutions to determine the attitudes of the various states. You may disagree with this position (as do I), but Paul is correct in his interpretation of Original Intent.

He’s not for Federal Public Education / no federal student loans

Yes, this is true, and in the first part, he represents the traditional Republican position. Reagan, the most brilliant Republican rhetorician, said that he would tear down the Dept of Education and sow salt in the earth where it stood. (It’s a shame that Reagan’s policies rarely matched his rhetoric, partly due to a Democratic Congress.) As we have seen with No Child Left Behind and mandatory testing, federal funding comes with federal control. The removal of the Dept of Ed would return education to the state and local level, where parents could exercise more control over their kids’ education. As for student loans, Paul’s position is simple and consistent with the tenets of liberty: Why should people who are unable, or who choose not to go to college be forced to subsidize your education?

He’s not for national health care

That should read, “He’s not for socialized medicine,” and bravo for that. He is also not for government-subsidized, corporate-controlled health care. As an OB/GYN, Paul knows first-hand that government intervention leads to rising prices and a deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. When independent (as in non-AMA member) doctors like Paul are telling us that government interference in health care is bad for health care, we ought to pay attention.

He would abolish the FDA

Yes, it’s true that Paul believes, philosophically, that we do not need the FDA. Given that this particular agency is bought and paid-for by the pharmaceutical lobby, represses the use of “alternative” or “natural” medical treatments, and prevents patients from volunteering for potentially life-saving but experimental treatments, who can blame him? Having said that, Paul has made clear that his presidency would have priorities, and that the American people must be “weaned off” the addictive drug of Big Government. It’s not like he’s going to shut the doors on the FDA on January 21st, 2009, and given the attitude of Congress, it is unlikely that he will succeed fully in ridding us of these burdensome and harmful regulatory agencies.

Rant about the impossibility of private property rights to protect the environment

While it is true that we would need more robust laws regarding private property rights, I think you overestimate the ability of lawyers to help their clients get away with murder, Johnny Cochran notwithstanding. Do you not think that the tobacco industry had some of the most expensive lawyers money can buy? How about Microsoft in their anti-trust suit? For that matter, how about AT&T, Alcoa, Standard Oil, and the host of other companies prosecuted under anti-trust law? When the law is clear (or, in the case of anti-trust, sufficiently unclear), no amount of sophistry on the part of a defense attorney can alter it, particularly in civil cases that are determined by a judge and not a jury.

He’s anti-abortion

Yes, this is an issue where I disagree with Ron Paul. As much as I hate to admit it, I am closer to Giuliani’s stance that the question “should ultimately be between a woman and her doctor.” However, I do agree with Paul that the abortion issue is most emphatically not one for the federal government to decide, and although I believe that the principles behind Roe v. Wade would make a good (state) law, the Supreme Court had to seriously torture some “implied” rights from the Constitution in order to make that ruling, and Roe is probably the clearest example of so-called “legislation from the bench.” As a strict constructionist, I think the Court overstepped it’s bounds in the Roe verdict, and it should be reversed simply in the name of keeping the federal government within it’s proper sphere of influence.

He thinks the case for man-made global warming is overblown

Ok, first off, I’m not a climatologist. I don’t have the evidence, nor would I know how to interpret the evidence if I did have it. However, Henny-Penny environmentalists like Paul Erlich have been saying that the sky is falling since at least the 1960s, only they used to do so under the guise of “Global Cooling.” Then, in the 1970s, Erlich and his ilk were predicting massive, global famine within seven years. If people are slow to take these people seriously, it’s because the environmentalists have consistently been crying wolf for quite some time. I can understand skepticism of people like this; I myself am quite skeptical of people like this. However, as I have heard Paul say, there are common-sense steps we can take to reduce our carbon footprint and pollution levels without dismantling the Western industrial economy.

In summary, some of your criticism is spot-on, and some of it is simply misinformed. I’m glad that you haven’t let your personal issues with some of Ron Paul’s stances turn you off completely; after all, the only time most of us will fully agree with a candidate is if we run for office ourselves. I hope I’ve at least given you something to think about, and I welcome you to contact me if you’d like to discuss any of these issues further. I love a good intellectual sparring match. :-)

Whatup niggaz.

On a few points, mainly regarding eliminating regulatory agencies, the environment/property rights point, etc… and the relationship between the powerful and the weak…

One of the metrics you’re ignoring her is the fact that government intervention in the market CREATES the big, powerfui corporations and concentrates market power in industries. This is almost always the result of a strong regulatory states; higher-cost competitors get squeezed and shut down, and this concentrates market power and actually ends up increasing the profits of the firms left. Furthermore, the corporate welfare state (subsidies, special tax exemptions, etc.) is what is driving most of this mess. If you remove the government support of these large and artificially powerful firms and liberalise the market they operate in to more competition, then their ability to abuse the public decreases drastically.

In so far as the reliance on consumer reports as a replacement for some of the regulatory state is concerned… why not? This would create an incentive for people to become more self-sufficient, which is what our society needs. Sure, transactions costs dictate that many would suffer under this regime at first years ago, but transaction costs have been reduced TREMENDOUSLY by the emergence of the internet, which has become the great equalizer in a number of ways in society.

Every government department listed has failed repeatedly to serve public interests, most only serve corporate interests.

The FDA (through Rumsfield) legalized Asperatame but Stevia is banned as a sweetener. Prescriptions drugs are monopolized, even ragweed allergy extracts are considered a controlled substance (forced to go through an allergist). The list of BS goes on and on. They even protect companies from lawsuits.

Public schools train kids to be subservient, compliant employees and citizens. Many people pay for private schools.

Scholarships, non-profit charity, and lower taxes could replace school loans, and state welfare. Welfare is so pathetic that it barely helps those in need and there are many, many charities that help.

National Health care I fear would kill off the biggest upper middle class – doctors, etc. The medical industry is really the last strong American industry (manufacturing is gone). The government would create new legal protections from poor care (the stats show medical error deaths the highest cause of death). So no more need for quality care if nobody can be sued for malpractice. They would import immigrants for the new low paying medical professions.

On top of all this, the country is basically broke from the war. We don’t have money for all these wasteful departments.

We don’t even have money for roads. All the highways will be toll roads in a few years, policed like a sovereign state. Toll fees will be higher than gas costs in 10 years.

The current republicans and democrats are running the country like Enron.

I say Ron Paul has no cons, unless freedom from a bloated, corporate-owned, corrupt, over-reaching government is a con.

I believe Cory Cagle (a few posts up) did a very nice job of clarifying some of the holes in your points. While you raise many good points, there were some points that were slightly off-base. One of those points was on the issue of public education. I think you missed the boat in thinking that Ron Paul is against public education. In fact he stated he doesn’t have any problems with public education, just that it should be run entirely at the local level. He was a student of public education himself, and sent his children to public schools as well.

His problem is with the federal department of education and its overbearing hand adversely affecting education. One the topic of federal loans for college, he is right to think that people who don’t go to college should not be forced to subsidize the college education of others. He believes there will be no problem, as private lenders will step in and fill in the gaps, albeit at a higher rate of interest. In fact, private lenders already play a large role in funding college education so the change would not be a drastic one.

I detest this drive by Ron Paul assassination which is clearly funded by the military industrial complex and a corrupt media.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes any sense and tells no lies.

The issues which you bring up the government doesn’t solve. I can find deep flaws with most of those anti-Ron positions you are highlighting. If this system is so good and so perfect, why are people so PISSED OFF AND FED UP?

The other candidates are LIARS, at least with Paul you get to see all his positions before you elect him, not wait and see.

For any one who is still doubting the corruption and lies we’ve been sold check out this link to a whistleblower who basically tells that we have treasonists in our government conspiring against the US for their own financial reasons.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/sibel.mp3

And here is a link to a transcript about how the Bush administration plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years from Wes Clark.http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=3777

If anyone can’t see it’s time for Ron Paul you will never get it until your children wake up homeless on the land our grandfathers conquered.

If Ron Paul is elected, any laws passed by Congress would be vetoed because that don’t meet his strict interpretation of the Constitution. This would shut down the government. This notion of strictly local control of everything would lead to 50 city-states. State and local government pass laws that violate constitutional rights of its citizens. .

I’ve updated the piece and have (fortunately or unfortunately) obsoleted some of the comments above. I felt that I needed to both refine my own thoughts on the issue as well as clean up the sloppy language.

Sorry for the rewrite this late in; I just felt it was too important a post for me not to have it say exactly what I wanted it to say. And I appreciate all the feedback above; it greatly assisted with the reorganization of my thoughts.

Kind regards,

-Daniel Miessler

@ Ori. Lies. He would veto trash legislation. Presidents have done this before. The states wouldn’t pass laws that would violate the constitution because the court cases would be appealed through the federal appellate courts and to the supreme court. You dystopian liar future of a Ron Paul presidency is DEBUNKED. Liar.

“He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state

This isn’t quite accurate. Paul believes that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Note the emphasis on Congress. A careful reading of the history of the Ratification will show you that the Framers wrote the First Amendment to prohibit the national government from infringing on the enumerated rights. They relied on individual state constitutions to determine the attitudes of the various states. You may disagree with this position (as do I), but Paul is correct in his interpretation of Original Intent.”

Dude, 14th Amendment. Ron Paul and his supporters seem to often pretend that it doesn’t exist.

As a libertarian, I also believe that Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate – but not for the reasons this author cites.

What I do like about Dr. Paul is his hard core advocacy of decentralization. This is hardly just a right-wing or libertarian position. Many on the left and the Green Party also advocates decentralization.

I don’t understand the obsession with control of nearly every facet of life by the federal government. Remember, these are the same shysters that lie, steal, cheat and murder. Am I to believe that someone like Hillary Clinton who supports war, torture and domestic spying cares about my health care as she proposes mandatory insurance. This is nothing more than fascism and a bonanza for insurance companies.

What is so outlandish and outrageous about states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods having control over their own education, health care, and numerous other facets of life?

I can’t think of anything that the federal government does well at the cost imposed upon the public. I would go so far as to say that at this point in time, Americans would be better off with NO federal government than with it. That is unless you are attached to corporate fascism, global warfare, and big brother databases.

No, Paul is not perfect. But he will do his best to respect the constitution and end our foreign policy of intervention. That in it self is worth my vote and my support.

It seems the writer, with his belief in socialism so obvious, should probably be voting for Denis Kucinich. I like Denis Kucinich too, I’m just not a socialist.

For those people, who do not accept global warming as true, go here. If you still do not believe it, you will have to also reject the ideas of gravity, relativity, velocity, the solar system, density, and anything else science agreed on in unanimous (excluding those on payrolls) fashion.

All of those areas that you say are weaknesses are strengths. They are precisely the reason why Ron Paul should be the next President.

I salute you on your honestly. I may not agree with you politically but I respect someone who’s willing to take abuse for speaking from the heart.

Kudos.

Strange that your largest problems with Dr. Paul are many of his followers’ greatest points of pride.

You know, a lot of us have known for years that Ron Paul is an asshole and a dingbat. Congratulations for finally figuring out what a bright thirteen-year old with Internet access could have figured out in an hour’s time.

While I realize many of Paul’s supporters like these traits, one of the reasons I’m so excited about Paul is that he has so many supporters from both the conservative and liberal ends of the political spectrum. After eight years of one of the most divisive administrations in U.S. history, I really believe Paul would have a healing effect on our nation.

And the first step in that healing is making peace between the conservatives who support Paul and the liberals who support him. I’m really glad this post is out there.

That said, let me give my (bleeding heart liberal) take on these points:

Church-State separation – there’s a difference between being opposed to teaching Jesus in schools and being opposed to government offering funding (federal or state) to all qualifying programs in a specific area, such as drug rehabilitation. Ron Paul is saying the Founding Fathers did not support denying program funding to an otherwise qualified organization on the sole basis that is has a religious affiliation. His is not saying all public school children should say the Lord’s Prayer every day.

I could care less where he believes most people get their morality from, but I’m very enthusiastic he trusts that we already have morals and don’t need the government to impose them on us. This would not be an issue for me even if he were running for state or local office.

State governments get to try 50 different things and watch each other to see what works and what doesn’t. The most successful programs will spread throughout the states, the least successful ones will die off. If the federal government’s program falls flat, it lives on indefinitely because it’s now entrenched in the bureaucracy of Washington. The fiasco of No Child Left Behind that both parties are supporting at the federal level is all the evidence I need that the federal government should get out of the state’s business regarding education. A plus will be the ending of federal funding of abstinence-only education programs.

I agree with previous posters that the availability of low-interest federally backed loans has contributed to the inflation of college tuition rates. I also believe it has contributed to the deflation of the value of both vocational and college educations. So no problems here with ending the federal student loan program.

No universal health care – and certainly many people will die and be seriously harmed due to lack of health care if Paul is elected as opposed to one of the Dems. But I believe Paul is the strongest candidate for ending the death and serious harm the caused by the way we are using our military. I hate having to make this trade-off, but Paul still has my support.

There’s no standard for determining what herbal supplements are safe to consume, and there’s been very little problems in that field. That said, I strongly oppose the idea of eliminating the FDA and believe for many reasons that having state-level FDAs would be much worse than our current system. This is an area where I’m relying on Congress to not pass Paul’s more radical legislation. Same with the environmental protections. And even more so with the economic policies he advocates – I believe going back to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a very bad idea.

The Bush appointees to the Supreme Court are very close to overturning Roe. It’s scary. But, if Roe is overturned, having those same Supreme Court Justices strike down all federal legislation on the matter will be a huge boon. And, I can see benefits to our national dialog on abortion if states had the power to act on that dialog. Again, abortion is one of the most divisive, polarizing issues in America today, and giving the matter back to the States may offer some healing.

Global warming – thank you to the commentators who described his position on removing subsidies for fossil fuels. As a person who believes peak oil is imminent (or recently happened), this is one area where I’m in favor of allowing market forces free rein – the decreasing supply of oil will drive prices so high the alternatives will take over. Government actions like invading oil-rich nations and nationalizing oil companies would in this case, I believe, cause more harm than good.

I have seen several interviews with Paul where he acknowledges how dependent so many people have become on federal government programs and states that it would be wrong to simply end them. He is definitely in favor of transition periods – decades-long transitions for some programs, such as Social Security – and has been up front with this his whole campaign. I believe he would make an excellent president, but barring that I believe our support for him is needed to send a message to the ruling parties. May we all live freer.