Sunday, December 4, 2011

Ron Paul

We listened to some news coverage after the recent Republican debate (moderated by, um, Donald Trump?) and two things stood out to us.

One was that the "issues" debated were education, the environment, and a couple of other secondary issues. The crucial, critical, urgent ones were not mentioned at all, at least by this report on NPR.

The other striking thing was that there was no mention of Ron Paul. We've noticed this before, how the press snubs him. Never mind he's a solid third in the polls among Republican candidates. The press covers candidates who are garnering much smaller numbers than his, but mention of Ron Paul is avoided.

Is this a clue that the powers that be don't want him? And is that, in turn, a clue that we do?

Could it be we have found an honest man at last? I'm skeptical, having been so disappointed in Obama, whom I thought honest. I don't even care any more if I agree with a candidate or not, so long as he is honest. Because I think it's dishonesty, corruption, that more than anything else is bringing down this country. Honest mistakes we can live with, but corruption can destroy it all.

So I'm going to keep an eye on Ron Paul. He's the only candidate I am even remotely considering so far.


Chris said...

The press always wants to choose the candidate, regardless of party. They have made themselves "kingmakers" which is why they were so disappointed when George W. Bush was the candidate--he didn't meet with their approval. The media's candidate for the GOP nomination is clearly Mitt Romney, hence why almost no stories that have a negative air have been aired about him. With Ron Paul, they can't find anything negative, so the media ignore him. It's all for one purpose--make sure Mitt is the GOP nominee and that Obama wins a second term.

Chris said...

BTW, Obama honest? I'm sure you were serious, but the man is a charlatan and a hypocrite pretty much like any other politician. Not to mention, horribly unqualified.

James the Thickheaded said...

I like your stand for honesty. I'd agree with your initial position on Obama. Something happened to him after he received the nomination, and after that he was a "captured".

I tend to think folks are all highly motivated and "in touch" when elected, but then capture by the interests tends to accrue. So I've come full circle on term limits, and am over the pretense that "experience and intelligence are important"... not saying they're unimportant, only that I have a messiah and am not looking to replicate a secular version. Tend to think Obama suffers rather naturally the media-inflicted "smartest-man-in-the-room syndrome". He also said in all seriousness, "As president you get only one chance to get it right". Apparently the smartest man never heard the engineering dictum that "the best is the enemy of the good". We need less, not more perfection. More courage, more action and less dithering.

For my part, I like courageous action dictated by honesty... but I'd add it ought to have a good heart as well. I don't think a good heart makes for a screaming liberal or even a liberal, just a human being. Get the marketers and money changers out of politics and maybe the humans have a chance. 'Til then...hmmmm, I guess as they used to say on Hill Street Blues, "Be careful out there."