Charlie Rose

Richard_DeBiase  01/03/2012 11:32 AM Report

I'd like to say a few kind words about Ron Paul. Simply because I do not want the Republican primary decided by the corporate media before anyone actually votes.

First, it has been the position of the Republican Party, ever since the Reagan administration, to cut taxes as a way of forcing spending cuts; the idea was to "starve the beast". Ron Paul seems to think that this strategy does not work, simply because we keep borrowing money to feed the beast. Ron Paul seems to think that the only way to kill the beast is to actually cut spending. What do Republicans think is the alternative? To continue to borrow more money? Or to raise taxes?

Second, Ron Paul's position on ending the drug war is obvious to anyone who actually follows the drug war. Mexican President Felipe Calderon's term is almost over. Mexico will have to legalize drugs within the term of the next Mexican president, or else the drug cartels will completely overthrow the Mexican government. The drug cartels already control 71% of Mexican territory. The United States lost 3,000 people to an act of terrorism 10 years ago; Mexico loses 10,000 people every year to a reign of terror, no government could survive that. The only people who say Ron Paul is wrong, are either idiots, or are making their living off the drug war.

REMant  01/03/2012 11:29 AM Report

Well, as I've said several times before, ppl - including those here - don't seem to understand what basically is going on in the Republican Party. We have a Bush faction, represented by Romney; a libertarian faction, led by Paul; and a Reaganite faction, represented by Gingrich and various others, which seems torn, as Reagan, himself, was between the two. The question turns on fiscal and monetary, and interventionist foreign policies. Paul is the only candidate who represents real change in this regard, and so the question of who is most electable, depends entirely on whether you want to meet Obama on his ground or on Paul's. IMHO Paul has far more chance of beating Obama than any of the others. Nor do I see Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich turning out much better than what we have now.

All Paul needs to do is to explain to ppl that he doesn't intend to disengage from the world, only stop patronizing it, and that we really would be a lot better off without Keynesian permissiveness. Take away this kind of thinking and we really wouldn't need as much govt as we have now. It is, after all, the core republican message. Ms Bachmann and others will no doubt label him Utopian, but I don't think so, tho there's no question that its success will depend on ppl starting to think and do for themselves. But it is not as Romney would have it, a meritocracy. God determines merit, not we. There are some others who seem to equate libertarian with libertine, which it most certainly is not. The point here is an old one in Protestantism. You must believe in free will, so that ppl can choose God. But as long as no one believes the choice obliges God it's okay, and a lot better than hewing to some ritual or deprivation, which should have no basis in faith. Whatever God predestines, it neither relieves us of responsibility, nor directs our lives. Religion, and esp Protestantism, should be a rational affair. It's not a contest to see who can repent or proselytize the most. The commandments were to love God and our neighbors. John Locke, patron saint of the Founding generations, admonished us to do something useful, not what we liked. And nature clearly rewards those who do. We are brought by it to like things which are good for us, not the other way 'round.