Is Ron Paul a complete fool?

I hate even bringing up an election that is so far off, but is Ron Paul completely ignorant of politics and public impression?

Ron Paul has formally announced that he will keep, yes keep, a $500 donation from an openly-acknowledged white supremacist. Ironically, the white supremacist’s name is Don Black. Somewhere, deep in the heart of the Black Power movement, there must be a guy named Don White. Can we just get these two idiots together and put them in a mud wrestling pit to sort out their problems?

I’m all for a candidate that doesn’t put his finger to the wind every time he has to make a decision, but there are certain customs we follow here in America. For instance, we don’t drive vehicles off a cliff at 80mph, we don’t pass gas in someone’s face while they are eating, and we don’t keep donations from racists. Well, we don’t normally do those things if we want to be elected president of the free world. Someone send Ron Paul the memo.

Now, Paul’s reasoning (as if this could be reasoned) is that by keeping the money, Ron is actually preserving freedom and using the racist’s money to help his campaign so that (follow closely my children) the racist can no longer use that $500 to hurt blacks.

I actually understand his idea, and on a personal level, I think it is kind of funny. However, on a national, political stage, surely Ron Paul understands that this $500 gag on the racist will cost him millions of dollars of support, public relations, and unnecessary explanations and controversy on news talk shows.

Which leads me further to believe that Ron Paul is not fit to hold an office, any office, in which people depend upon him to lead and make careful decisions. You see, as a congressman, he’s fine. Let him be. He has a little staff to manage and that seems to be about the level of his competence. Heaven forbid the man should have to be a governor, or a cabinet officer, or worse, president, in which he would have to be the voice of reason for thousands or millions of people who depend upon him.

I hate to say it, but Ross Perot was more fit for office than Ron Paul ever will be. Ron is one of those great guys who are programmed to argue and make a point on every issue, no matter how trivial, much like some of his more rabid supporters. Instead of just doing the tried and true sensible thing and return the money, denounce racism, and go on with life, he makes a huge scene by keeping it and trying to make some alternate point. Does he have some vain hope that the entire country might suddenly say, “Oh, yeah. I get it. Smart guy, that Ron Paul. Keeping the dough out of the bad guy’s hands. I’m voting for him.” For every person who might even consider that line of thinking, he has alienated 20 normal potential voters. And I’m not even counting the opposition on the Democratic side. They feed off of controversy like that.

The bottom line is Ron Paul either doesn’t have the sense of public perception accurately, or is just too finicky and persnickety to try and make a point over this. Either way, that sort of misjudgment doesn’t appeal to my sense of what an Oval Office resident should understand about the country. George W. Bush is criticized heavily for being “out of touch”, and while I disagree with that assessment of Bush, I would have to say that “W” would be like Mr. Encyclopedia Britannica compared to Ron Paul, at least when it comes to social graces, political perception, and common sense.

If Ron Paul really wanted to make a point, he should have given the money to the United Negro College Fund and let them worry about it. Or even the NAACP. Gee, I can’t even believe I’m saying that, but that’s what lightening rods like Ron Paul cause you to do - start thinking like a crazy man.

But the fact that he kept the money tells me that there is no real principle at stake here. I just think the man needs the money. Even John McCain, who I honestly thought had dropped out of the race, has raised more than 8 times as much money as Ron Paul. I think Ron is desperate - for money, for attention, for controversy. And I think that attitude will carry over to the White House which would be a dangerous thing for all Americans.

The only good thing about Ron Paul? He makes it very easy not to consider him for office. I just wish the other Republican candidates would do more to differentiate themselves like Ron Paul and help me to eliminate them from consideration.

Related posts

Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, I recommend using Google Reader to start. It's free and easy. Otherwise, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

No trackbacks/pingbacks yet.


So let me understand the logic of our system.

Elected officials take money from special interest groups so they can screw over the taxpayers- everyone knows this happens . Oil companies lobby and spend hundreds of millions of dollars so they can get tax breaks and sweetheart deals.

Nobody squawks and everybody grins and goes along with it.

Now when someone is raising millions of dollars , approx. 100 bucks at a time, and a few crazy folks contribute - it is just unconscionable.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict but I bet Rudy would cash his check in a New York minute- and the press would not ask Rudy why he was taking money from an admitted drug addict.

Focus on the issues affecting our country. Ron Paul is not going to cater to some white supremacist nor will he cater to an oil industry lobbyist.

Ron Paul has raised more than $18 million this quarter alone. More than any other GOP candidate. The figures you are looking at are so outdated, not showing the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate to double his fundraising every single quarter. The other thing is that Paul only accepts contributions from individuals, not big corporations or special interest lobbyists. Unlike other candidates who are influenced by special interest dollars, Paul does not change his views to match those who fund his campaign. This is called principle and, one would think, it should be applauded.

So by your logic, Romney should give back any money he’s collected from homophobes, and Clinton should give back any money she has received from women who have had abortions?

There are an infinite number of other examples of the flawed logic being employed in this argument.

This is merely a smear tactic against Paul and a non-issue.

I don’t believe you understand Paul’s platform. He is a supporter of personal freedom, and that includes the right to have unpopular and stupid ideas. If this causes people to be turned off from him, they are not ready for his views yet.

In the long run, that doesn’t matter, because this movement is not about Paul, or any person. It is about the ideas of freedom, and they will find new champions long after Paul leaves politics. With all of the myriad problems this country is likely to face in the coming decades, we will be forced to take many of the economic measures that Paul supports. We just want to do it as painlessly as possible, before we are left with no choice but to cut social programs because of our massive debt and declining economy.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your e-mail address is never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>