RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,163003,00.html Ron Paul is too independent for a polical culture that pretends "independence" is important but crushes it if it does not serve party interests. The RNC and DNC believe they run this country and sadly they do. Shame on us.
If Ron Paul had gotten the same treatment, which his bona-fide "Conservativism" warranted from the so-called "Conservative" hosts of Talk Show radio programs, as Barack Obama got from the hosts of AirAmerica, then Ron Paul would have had the same chance as Barack Obama got to appeal to the American public.
But these mouthpieces work for entities, who have contorted the term 'conservative' to mean a person who embraces a chauvinistic aggressive interventionist foreign policy. Conservatives today believe in Big Briother, Big Government, and thought control, not in individual rights and minimalist government.
Still, Ron Paul bears much of the responsibility for his own failure to connect with the American public. He is not an energetic campaigner nor an inspirational speaker. Some of his proposals -gold standard, for example- are quaint but unworkable today. Furthermore, his defense of open foreign trade is anti-populist and sure to undermine the future of the "median man" in America even faster than the NAFTA/WTO globalism which we institionalized during the Clinton/Gingrich era.
As much as I like the man and his ideas, I would have voted for him only as a way of protesting what the two major parties have nominated.
Very good opinion piece. I agree that Ron Paul embodies many of the qualities of the Founding Fathers and still appeals to me more than McCain. However, I do wonder about the author stating
"Paul is a rare politician who actually acknowledges expert opinion on al Qaeda. That opinion has concluded that bin Laden attacks the United States because of its foreign policy toward the Middle East—that is, the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, and support for Israel and corrupt, autocratic Arab dictatorships."
Where was the US invading and occupying Muslim lands before the attacks on the world trade center? Does the US have to ask Arab permission for which countries it can support? If the US does not support any corrupt, autocratic Arab dictatorships, is there any Arab country it can support? It seems to me that the Arab world needs to understand they are only part of this world and learn to exercise some give and take and moderation to become fully respected members of the community of nations.
Where was the US invading and occupying Muslim lands before the attacks on the world trade center? Does the US have to ask Arab permission for which countries it can support?
How about foreign aid to the tune of Billions per year? Think outside of the box.
