Say You Don't Know, Joe!
Although Joe Wallace made his case clear about why the ignorant American public would not elect Ron Paul, I found Joe’s article to be fatally flawed in two ways. Perhaps you guys spotted more flaws than I did, but here’s what I found. First, he spent substantial verbiage on the right-to-life issue and injected a very condescending opinion on it. He called it a non-issue, although he clearly is a pro-choice kind of guy. Heralding the pro-choice stance, he called any reversal of the status quo “going backwards”. The more one reads of his two pro-choice paragraphs, the more one sees that it’s not a non-issue for Joe. In any event, his focus on the issue was misplaced and his opinion that it is a non-issue, erroneous. It is misplaced because the article was supposed to introduce Ron Paul to his readers, not take jabs at right-to-lifers, and it was erroneous to state that it is a non-issue because Ron Paul is someone who seeks to bring power back to the States from the Federal government and, like every President before him, would have the power to nominate and appoint federal judges who, in turn, can play a part in bringing the question of choice or life back to the States. In concluding the topic of Joe’s first fatal flaw, let me just implore voters to not reject any candidate based on one issue. The second fatal flaw in Joe Wallace’s supersedes even the first. Joe Wallace’s article purported to be about Ron Paul, but revealed itself to be an article of opinion about why Joe thinks Ron Paul will not win the Presidency. Not only is the title, “Who The Heck Is Ron Paul” misleading, but the article, whether intended or not, casts Ron Paul’s campaign in a negative light. With the title as it was worded, Joe Wallace should have presented Ron Paul to the reader and left the reader’s choice in limbo. Instead, an uninformed reader was left with the impression that a vote cast for Ron Paul (“the spoiler” as he put it) is a wasted vote. I harken back to that ABC News interview from July, 2007, with George Stephanopoulos:
George: What’s success for you in this campaign? It’s just not proper for a journalist to discount a candidate’s viability in an interview or article, especially an article entitled, “Who The Heck Is Ron Paul?” Joe Wallace, you’re obviously a man of intelligence, and maybe you are a bit above the average in your degree of being informed. However, it does not appear that you think outside the box - yet. You wrote the Ron Paul article as if you get most of your information from network television, an extremely controlled, commercialized zone. The mainstream press covers Ron Paul very poorly, Joe. And since you admit to being ignorant about him, well, I must conclude that your source for news is the mainstream press. It appeared by your surprise at the sheer volume of responses to your article, that you were about to be awakened from your zombie state. But, alas, you did not snap out of it. I, for one, want you awake and on our side. Consider this, Joe. Taxes, by percentage, have steadily increased over the past one hundred years and our privacies have steadily decreased. As you know, we’re taxed on income at staggered and staggering rates. Additionally, we’re taxed on merchandise, gasoline, real estate, interest on our savings, take your pick. In some states, we’re taxed on our personal property. The harder we work and the more financially successful we are, the more we are penalized. By the same token, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act have eroded our civil liberties in the name of safety. We’re now a highly-surveiled society. Heck, the local government just installed video cameras on every other block on Merrick Road along the south shore of Long Island. They even tried to fingerprint me at Disney World to keep track of my ticket use. (Upon inquiry, I was told that it was not a fingerprint, but merely an image of my bone structure). Police departments are asking for our children’s DNA, and the list goes on. On the other hand, the current administration fights tooth and nail if a member of the public, or even a member of Congress, asks for documents or testimony. I thought the government was we, the people. I thought it was supposed to be transparent. Transparently not.
Joe, I think you’re on board with the above issues, and with the war in Iraq being a mess with no exit strategy. I think you know that we should not attack Iran as a preemptive measure, and that illegal immigration, in its current torrent, poses a problem. I think you know that the federal government is too expansive and that our foreign policy needs a severe adjustment. I think you know that oil has reached a new peak almost every day for the past two weeks, that we’ve failed as a nation to pursue alternative sources of energy, that the dollar is sinking to new lows everyday, that foreign nations such as China and Saudi Arabia now have the power to affect the value of our currency, our currency having no inherent value of its own, that unhealthy foods and children’s toys with lead paint have been imported for over a decade now, with little oversight, that once-American corporations are multi-national now and have no allegiance but to the sources of their profits and that these corporations pour buckets of money into our political system through lobbyists. Hey, I think I hit on something with that last comment - lobbyists and corporate money. This article is about Ron Paul, isn’t it? Ron Paul’s message of changing the tax system, reigning in our military resources, reducing the Federal government and following the Constitution stands out in many ways against the other candidates, but Ron Paul, the person, also stands uniquely. He admits and embraces his role as public servant. He’s a ten-term Congressman from Texas, yet he opted out of the lucrative Congressional pension on principal. What person, much less politician, turns down money on principal these days? Ron Paul (aka Dr. No) has never voted for a budget that was not balanced. He never voted for a tax hike or a personal pay raise. As an obstetrician, he never took Medicaid or Medicare. He voted “no” on the Iraq attack, advising his colleagues on The Hill that if they wanted to go to war, then war should be declared by Constitutional procedure. Here’s another thing about Ron Paul: He wants to leave the internet unregulated and hopefully untaxed. Many of the other candidates, whose coffers may be affected by the telecommunications industry, are geared in the direction of internet regulation and taxation. Joe, that would essentially ruin LongIslandExchange.com and many other informative websites, not to mention at least one of your venues for expression. Joe, I think that you’re absolutely correct that Ron Paul wants to change things in a radical way. You are also correct in that candidate Ron Paul has not been effective in getting the message out pertaining to the details of his plans to change things. But right now, the candidates are limited to sound bites, and no one else is even proposing such changes. Every once in a while, opportunity knocks, and it’s knocking now at a very pivotal time in American history. Our opportunity is Ron Paul, and more importantly, his adherence to the Constitution. Why not pursue this candidate of hope and change, rather than suppress interest in him by opining that he will not win? The college campuses are not so jaded, Joe. Ron Paul is spreading like wildfire over the quads. Further, Ron Paul supporters are some of the most astute people I’ve ever met. They come from all walks of life - doctors and lawyers, students, website designers, cops, train conductors, you name it - and they all have two things in common: they were not politically enthusiastic until they heard about Ron Paul and they will NOT miss their chance to vote. I cannot say that I know anyone whose attitude can be classified as “enthusiastic” with regard to another candidate, and I’d be willing to bet that the likelihood of a Ron Paul supporter actually going to cast a ballot on primary day is twice as high as any other registered voter. It may seem archaic or quaint for Ron Paul to be so concerned with the Constitution, always mentioning it like he does, but it is neither archaic nor quaint. And it certainly is not just “a goddamned piece of paper” like Pres. Bush is purported to have said. The Founding Fathers (another archaic-sounding term) weren’t about just making a clean break from the British Crown. They were about designing a unique form of government, with checks and balances and with liberty for all. They were paranoid as founders because they knew what could become of government if government became too powerful or if government were subtly infiltrated by corrupt money. These were not just long-haired men in tights. These were scholars of history. Joe, do you know that there currently exists a vast array of executive orders which give the President, whoever he or she may be at the time, the discretion to declare martial law and which permit the takeover by the Federal government of all vital aspects of American life? Perhaps Ron Paul would reverse or neutralize these Executive Orders. Can you believe that the following men, men who lived in the days of blacksmiths and cannonballs, had the scholarship and foresight to say things that actually are relevant to our society today? I find it amazing. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788. As a man is said to have a right to his property. He may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his posessions. James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March 27, 1792. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson Many decades later, President Abraham Lincoln saw the same potentials for disaster: The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. Today, Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to address the potential, nay, the probability, of disaster. Perhaps, he is the only candidate who recognizes it, or perhaps all the other candidates are content to keep moving in the current direction. That is a scary thought, appropriate as this article is written on Halloween.. Ron Paul’s consistent record and past acts demonstrate what sets him apart from any candidate for President who I’ve ever encountered: He refuses to be bought. His fellow Americans come first and his wallet and self-interests come last. It appears as if Ron Paul desires to be the best leader he can be and not the greatest or most powerful. What do you think, Joe? Is Ron Paul the best candidate notwithstanding your opinion on his chances of winning, or is he just like all the others? Let me be so bold as to say that it’s not six of one and a half dozen of the other this time. Come aboard for the sake of future generations of Americans - the more, the merrier. For more on Ron Paul, check out the video on this page or visit: by Charles Fisher *Sent in by the above citizen journalist in response to the Society News column by Joe Wallace and was reviewed/approved/published by Long Island Exchange.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
When I first read Joe Wallace’s column on LongIslandExchange.com, 
