For many years now I’ve been a strong supporter of Ron Paul, and his unwavering integrity continues to attract me as I write this. Along with Kucinich I see him as one of the few pure, untainted politicians in existence at the top levels.

At some point, however, I was forced to stop supporting him because he’s somewhat insane. Here’s a short list of the views that remove him from the realm of serious consideration in my mind:

1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation Between Church and State. Dr. Paul is a devoutly religious man, and his denial of the fact that many of the founders wanted a religiously inert country is one of many examples of where his logic fails when confronted by dogma.


2. He is Against Federally Funded Education. He would have us abolish the Department of Education and go to a more local, non-standardized and Church-based education model. How he doesn’t realize this will create massive divides among us is a mystery to me. Also, can someone do some sort of comparison in the education systems of Finland and Nigeria? One has full, absolute government control and the other is significantly less obstructed by socialist influence.


3. He is Against National Health Care. Perhaps some see this as a positive, but I don’t. I think the need for it is obvious, and the fact that we don’t have it is embarrassing to us as a nation.


4. He’d Abolish the FDA and other Consumer Protection Groups. He believes that they are bureaucracies that should be abolished, and while I agree that there’s horrible waste and corruption of these groups, the notion that small groups of local activists or local government would be a good defense vs. corporate legal armies is pure fantasy. Where would smoking legislation be if it were not for government controls? Would it be ok to sell cigarettes to children, on TV, during cartoons? Of course it would. Money wins any legal argument unless there is concrete law to stop it.


5. He’s Fiercely Anti-abortion, and it Influences His Politics. People love to talk about how Dr. Paul doesn’t let his personal views influence his politics, but those taking that stance need to explain his support of the Sanctity of Life Act, which looked to make abortion illegal in all 50 states. Indeed, beliefs do guide action.


6. He Doesn’t Believe in Evolution. Not only does he not accept it, but he takes the extreme lowbrow stance of, “It’s a theory!” His own words of justification are the most damning, “I don’t believe the presidency should be decided on a scientific matter.” Goodness. The issue isn’t a specific scientific matter, it’s the rejection of obvious fact. To put a point on it, anyone who can watch this video, and still reject evolution is clearly being influenced by something harmful.

In short, Ron Paul is a deeply flawed candidate for any high-level position other than champion of integrity and consistency. We can do better than someone who thinks abortion is murder, think’s evolution is just a “theory”, thinks the “people” can fight billionaire corporations selling and marketing addictive poison to children, and and wants to leave our education in the hands of localized groups with varied standards and values.

He is a great man, but with that set of core beliefs he’s simply not fit to lead us. ::

I knew it. So many Ron Paul supporters told me that nobody who likes Ron Paul would ever support Obama because he’s so opposite from Ron Paul. My argument was that while his views ARE opposite in many ways, he’s still MOST similar in foreign policy, and that foreign policy is worth backing Obama for.

Well, Ron Paul hasn’t endorsed Obama, but he’s done something pretty similar. He’s come out and said that he’s the candidate least likely to get us pulled into Iran, and I totally agree with him.

The one who would most likely to keep us from expanding the war [into Iran] is probably Obama. — Ron Paul

Yes, Ron Paul said that. [ Video Here : @2:50]

Ron Paul supporters: please stop playing the purity game. Ron Paul isn’t going to win, and your vote counts. Please vote for the person most likely to keep help fix our foreign policy, which will allow us to focus on our problems back home. Even if Obama goes about it incorrectly, at least we’ll be on the right path.

With Clinton or McCain we’re going to war with Iran. We have to do whatever we can to stop that — even if it means for voting for a liberal. I would not be suprised at all if Ron Paul himself asked us to endorse Obama once it gets down to either him or McCain.

As sad as it is we have a simple case of “greater good” here. I ask you to reconsider your position of not supporting anyone but Paul. There truly is a difference between the non-ideal options in this race.:

Yeah, I know. You’d never vote for Obama because he’s basically a socialist. His views are “completely opposite” from Ron Paul’s, etc, etc. Right? Wrong.

Paul and Obama are actually very similar in one major respect — and it happens to be the most important respect given how warped our current reality is. They’re not fucking lunatics bent on destroying our country through asinine security policy.

Abroad McCain will stand up and tell the world how it’s going to be — perpetuating the Bush style of creating hate for America. And when terrorist attacks take place he’ll take our freedoms away at home to “protect” us. He’s also very likely to be at least as aggressive and war-mongering as Bush was. He’ll fucking ruin us.

That’s immediate danger. Serious danger. It’s not “socialist policy” danger. It’s not “philosophical” danger. It’s “staying the course in Iraq” danger. It’s “war with fucking Iran” danger. This guy is batshit crazy. Wake the fuck up.

We don’t have the luxury of basing our decision on a candidate’s view on federalism or social programs. Our problems are immediate, global and life-threatening. If we don’t support Obama either Clinton (see McCain) or McCain (McCain) will be the leader of our country, and our military, for the next four years.

Do you want a man who sings “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” at a political event in charge of our military? In charge of our “security” at home?

Here’s a crazy idea — consider putting some of your ideals aside and taking the action that WON’T get a complete lunatic put in office.:

Ron Paul just said, “gg”. I have so much respect for this man. I think he permanently reset the standard for pure and honest political dialogue in this country. I’m very sorry that our country was not ready for him.

But it’s time we ask the question again — are you, as Ron Paul supporters, going to write him in knowing it won’t help 1) him, 2) the republicans, or 3) the country — or are you going to retask and try and prevent McCain from getting into office?

Don’t get me wrong, I know that’s a messed up question. I know it’s wrong and horrible and pessimistic and all that stuff. Trust me…I know. But seriously…think about it.

And if you decide it’s best to write Paul in, do me a favor and send me an email, or leave a comment below, explaining why you think that’s the case. I’m honestly open to that perspective; I just need to be convinced.

But my current view is that failure to support Obama may very well equate to giving the country to McCain for four years — thus further solidifying our global decline — in the name of principle.

I ask you to reconsider and/or articulate why I should do the same.:

Ron Paul just took 3% in Florida, and most states have been going similarly. I’m thinking what everyone else is thinking, but now I’m thinking it out loud.

When do we call gg and switch our energies to keeping Romney or McCain out of office? In other words, when do we give up and start supporting Obama?

Perhaps there are those among you that don’t like Obama, but here’s something to consider: you should vote for him for the same reason you’ll vote for Paul even though he doesn’t believe in evolution. He’s an honest man with common sense.

It’s sad, but that’s pretty much where the bar is at this point. McCain is all about the war in Iraq and wherever else he deems necessary. He mentioned future wars (plural). He’s seriously not much of an improvement over Bush — if any. Romney may be better, but who knows.

Anyway, consider this: Obama / Edwards. Graded on a curve that would be pretty stout. Then if we could just get Paul in as some sort of economic advisor we’ll have a decent shot of not dissolving as a union in the next 10 years.

So when is the right time to say that Paul has no realistic chance and start backing Obama instead? One one extreme we have the danger of abandoning the cause too early, and on the other we have the danger of hurting Obama’s chances by waiting too long.

Thoughts?

FOX: “Oh crap…he’s got a point there, and now I feel silly. Um…commercial break!”

The results so far?

Paul: 35%
Huckabee: 18%
Thompson: 18%

Too funny. They put out a poll and then ignore it if it doesn’t say what they want it to.

Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007

[ Video Proof @ ~2:40 ]

As a Ron Paul supporter who has sent his campaign money, I’m thoroughly shocked. All this energy for a candidate who basically reduces to an openly extreme religious conservative who just happens to agree with us on a few key issues. So many positives, but so many negatives.

We should have known something was amiss when one of the best ways to support him was to say, “Don’t worry, he doesn’t believe in making policy based on any of the crazy stuff he believes…“

Is that what we’re reduced to? Hoping that our best candidate will erect a permanent barrier between government policy and what he believes the invisible, omnipotent creator of the universe prefers? (see abortion) That just seems so depressing.

I can’t believe this. I smelled something early on, but blinded by desperate optimism I (like so many others) tried to ignore it.

Oh well, he’s still better than everyone else, right? At what point does abject dismissal of science become a deal-breaker? Do we stick with him based on his overwhelming positives (foreign policy, personal freedom, economic policy, etc.), or should we get behind someone else? Kucinich? Obama?

Meh…

Today alone there are like five stories about how Paul is outpacing the other candidates in terms of donations. Add that to the 4.2 million dollar day a while back and that’s pretty impressive.

But I’m not impressed.

We don’t need Paul to raise a lot of money. We need him to spend that money. We need to get his numbers up, and in order to do that he needs to be heard. So don’t tell me about what he’s raised. Tell me what he’s done with it.

If the CNN YouTube debate is any indication we are at a serious disadvantage due to bias. We need to be taking action immediately rather than rejoicing in the size of our coffers.:

And yes — I’m assuming Kucinich will be treated the same as Paul, i.e. like a threat to the establishment. Let’s assume he’s taken out of the running as well. What do we do then? Seriously.

Obama? Edwards?

I know it’s early, and I know it’s not time to give up on Paul and Kucinich, but what’s our backup plan? After the treatment Paul received in tonight’s debate we need to start thinking about it.:

It’s disappointing. We have so little time to get noticed. I don’t think it was necessarily Ron’s fault, though; he didn’t get that much time and the crowd seemed visibly against him. How the crowd reacts to him shapes how the television viewers react. If I were a conspiracy guy I’d read something into that.

Oh well. Chin up. There are more opportunities to get the message out, and we must battle on.:

First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. — Ron Paul

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:

First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. — Ron Paul

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:

– [ Updated: 09.16.07 ]