I like Ron Paul a lot. If I even bother to vote this time around, I'll probably write him in as my choice for president, since he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at getting the Republican nomination.
However, I've noticed a lot of buzz around him lately. He's appeared on both the Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher in the last month. He's made numerous other appearances (both televised and not) beyond the amount of attention you'd expect from a second-tier candidate. Still, I want to clear something up.... He is NOT as popular as some online polls would have you believe.
What these polls demonstrate is the devotion Paul's supporters have for the cause. He tends to attract people that are equally as passionate about the issues and smaller government in general as he is himself. They are well-organized and often well-educated. They also tend to vote regularly. Still, this underground popularity in contrast to his mainstream coverage is not indicative of a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests that most people aren't as supportive of small government as they think they are.
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who consistently votes against the majority of spending that Congress initiates. He's one of the few that really practices what he preaches in fighting government waste. Most people when asked about his principles seem to agree with the general idea of minimizing government, but ironically, they tend to still vote for politicians that increase spending rather than decrease it.
Think about it... The average Republican politician may claim to believe in smaller government, but a lot of them still send tax money to corporate interests, whether it's through war or some pet project that supposedly benefits his or her home state. The average Democrat claims to stand for the interests of the working man but still can't bring himself or herself to repeal corporate tax cuts in favor of giving small business owners (the people who actually need tax cuts) tax relief.
To make matters worse, a typical Republican voter will claim to support smaller government, but it doesn't take much to get them to voice support for increased military spending and interventionism. A typical Democrat will claim to support the common man, but too often, he or she will get caught up in defending illegal citizens more than working class LEGAL citizens (and the immigrants who actually had the dignity to follow our laws).
So really, this is a billionaire's game. This isn't a contest that is won by principled leaders who practice what they preach. This is a game won by opportunistic corporate whores due to the complacent, uneducated electorate that elects them to power.
Ron Paul is still the kind of man I will support until the bitter end, but I do so knowing full well that he will be overshadowed by the bastards who always seize power.
There is a scene near the end of the recent movie "Shooter" where the protagonist kills a Senator. The first thing that came to my mind at that point was.... "1 down, 99 to go..."
So... am I right? Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach? Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money? If so... what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
However, I've noticed a lot of buzz around him lately. He's appeared on both the Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher in the last month. He's made numerous other appearances (both televised and not) beyond the amount of attention you'd expect from a second-tier candidate. Still, I want to clear something up.... He is NOT as popular as some online polls would have you believe.
What these polls demonstrate is the devotion Paul's supporters have for the cause. He tends to attract people that are equally as passionate about the issues and smaller government in general as he is himself. They are well-organized and often well-educated. They also tend to vote regularly. Still, this underground popularity in contrast to his mainstream coverage is not indicative of a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests that most people aren't as supportive of small government as they think they are.
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who consistently votes against the majority of spending that Congress initiates. He's one of the few that really practices what he preaches in fighting government waste. Most people when asked about his principles seem to agree with the general idea of minimizing government, but ironically, they tend to still vote for politicians that increase spending rather than decrease it.
Think about it... The average Republican politician may claim to believe in smaller government, but a lot of them still send tax money to corporate interests, whether it's through war or some pet project that supposedly benefits his or her home state. The average Democrat claims to stand for the interests of the working man but still can't bring himself or herself to repeal corporate tax cuts in favor of giving small business owners (the people who actually need tax cuts) tax relief.
To make matters worse, a typical Republican voter will claim to support smaller government, but it doesn't take much to get them to voice support for increased military spending and interventionism. A typical Democrat will claim to support the common man, but too often, he or she will get caught up in defending illegal citizens more than working class LEGAL citizens (and the immigrants who actually had the dignity to follow our laws).
So really, this is a billionaire's game. This isn't a contest that is won by principled leaders who practice what they preach. This is a game won by opportunistic corporate whores due to the complacent, uneducated electorate that elects them to power.
Ron Paul is still the kind of man I will support until the bitter end, but I do so knowing full well that he will be overshadowed by the bastards who always seize power.
There is a scene near the end of the recent movie "Shooter" where the protagonist kills a Senator. The first thing that came to my mind at that point was.... "1 down, 99 to go..."
So... am I right? Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach? Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money? If so... what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
