Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Want to know more about Ron Paul?

Right now, the media wants to narrow the Republican race down for us: it's either McCain or Romney, in Florida and also in the nation. I'm sure even Mike Huckabee supporters are annoyed by this premature slant. Anyway, the chances are you are not going to find a news article this week about Ron Paul, though like Huckabee he is still in the race. However, the other day one of my friends forwarded me this article from the NY Times; though I am generally not a fan of the Times, I found the article interesting in its profile of Paul as a man and fairly balanced overall (but of course Paul is "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life"). Previously, I had also read An Open Letter to Catholics on Ron Paul, which focuses more on the main issues at stake in the upcoming election.


Propter Quid said...

Thank you for this post. Dr. Paul is a good man and probably the last honest man in DC. That said, I don't think he's going to win, and it's not just the media's fault.

Brian said...

Ron Paul is actually the MOST pro-life candidate of ALL the candidates!!! He was the ONLY candidate that showed up at the "March for Life Rally in DC" this year, he is a OB/GYN doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies, and he has introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act" into the house both in 2005 and 2007.

If you want to make the claim that he is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life", please qualify your statement... I see no truth to it.

and consider the INACTION so many other "so-called pro-life republicans" who have not done anything effective to end Roe vs. Wade. "PRO-LIFE" CANDIDATES SHOULD PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Brian said...

As much as I've read on Ron Paul, I had not read that NYTimes article - so thanks. However, the title should honestly read "The Pro-Peace, Pro-Life, Pro-Personal-Liberty, Pro-Personal-Responsibility Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul" instead of "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul"... however I still think it left much to be desired, as others I've read that focus (I feel too much) on the

What I think is important are a man's ideas - not who/where they come from, e.g. "What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” " even though "Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals". If we could all just learn to separate the ideas from people, and not mandate one to "denounce, refute, repudiate, reject, disagree, disavow, disembowel, dispell, deny, etc" themselves from the other "bad ideas" that may come from the same people.

No one is perfect, but this "guilt by association" fallacy we all seem to latch on to needs to end. Judge a man by HIS ideas, not the bad ideas that come from OTHERS who support him. I think the article tried to establish this distance, but it could be difficult for some - especially if that's the closing remarks. Kind of leaves one with a bad aftertaste unfortunately