Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Sorry, one more Ron Paul post

I know I promised that this would be a Ron Paul Free Zone, but Wendy McElroy posted this on her blog yesterday:

“I sympathize with Wally Conger's decision to declare his blog a 'Paul Free Zone' -- not merely because such discussion easily becomes tedious but also because any discussion of Ron Paul has the potential of alienating good friends. In my case, I am watching former anti-politicos as they sign get-out-the-vote petitions, do 'vote for my guy' mail-outs, and write Rah-Rah blog posts for a man who seeks a position of raw political power over their lives; there is no other way to describe the Presidency.”

Very well said.

Labels: , , ,


At 2:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an incredibly defeatist point of view. Paul is the only person in 100 years that actually intends to decrease that powerful position into something better. The only one!

Like it or not, you can't get to Utopia in a single step. And you can't do it with only a few hard core purists.

You need to use persuasion. You need to sell the idea to people outside of the narrow confines of hardcore anarchists, because otherwise it's just a self defeating pipedream, and you'll die, screaming at the top of your lungs, DAMNIT! I'M RIGHT!

Morally, perhaps your views may be 100% correct. But if they're rejected because of your obstinate holier-than-thou stance, you'll end up respected about as much as the "Randroid" crowd is now.

I'm an anarchist. But I can see reality for what it is, not just what I demand from it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate to gain traction for the ideas of liberty in 100 years - and you and Ms. McElroy can't see that he's embarking on the path toward what you want.

You don't roll back a trillion dollar government in one step. You have to take bite sized pieces. Before you can do that, you have to convince others that it needs to be rolled back in the first place.

Ron Paul looks like the only president in my lifetime that may be able to truly say that he left the country in better shape when he left than when he got in.

I quit voting in federal elections in 1996 for the same reasons you and Ms. McElroy refuse to vote. However, I'm going to vote federally in 2008. It's that important.

If you doubt my sincerity, check out some of my stuff:

New Hampshire

At 9:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the previous commenter... Wendy McElroy almost sounds like she's writing in bad faith here. Everyone knows RP has no delusions about using power for good, he has no ulterior motives, and there's about 0% chance he'd be corrupted by the position.

At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be fair, since the office of POTUS exist and we cannot do anything about it, it would be much nicer to have Ron there than any other candidate... assuming we could get him elected.

At 11:58 AM, Blogger Mike said...

"office of POTUS exist and we cannot do anything about it"

Sure you can...would there be a POTUS if no on voted? Nope.

Ignore them and don't participate. I think Wendy is bang on about Paul - he's not quite the "libertarian messiah" that many libertarians think - or want - him to be.

At 10:19 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I share Wally's and Wendy's opinions on Ron Paul's fully. I even commented on it in an article on Strike the Root called Let's Join Forces for Liberty. In it I claim there is no way one can effectively push back government and restore liberty - the state has to go.

This is an all or nothing question, you cannot have "little government" just like you cannot be "little pregnant." Either you are governed (and thus a slave - slave's with "friendly" masters are still slaves!) or you are not.

But I have nevertheless fallen a bit for the RP mania and analyzed the chances of Ron Paul's campaign on my blog...

At 8:17 AM, Blogger blog owner said...

It's good to see that some libertarians aren't falling for the Ron Paul sham. Bravo.

At 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said... highlights Ron Paul's candidacy.


Post a Comment

<< Home