January 17, 2008
Today we see another attempt by rabid anti-Paul crusader Joel Hirschhorn to marginalize the Ron Paul momentum. I truly do not understand the rationale from Joel, as I have read his book and thought he was one of the guys who truly “got it.” Unfortunately his “damn the torpedoes” attempts to sink Paul have me at a bit of a loss. Luckily, his article today allows for a crystal clear view into what is wrong with this crowd. His article can be found here:
Hirschhorn correctly points out that the country is clamoring for significant change but then leaps off the reality cliff in his latest attempts to dismiss Ron Paul. A careful reading of the article reveals the following problems Joel has with Paul:
1) Some of the Paul followers are not nice – this apparently takes up about a third of the article. Apparently, Joel has run into some Paul supporters who have not behaved civilly. I am sure we can find an equal amount behind any candidate. Joel knows this of course. The larger point is how you dismiss a candidate based upon who chooses to support them and how vociferously they do that. To do so is simply silly. Joel tries the tired old “cult” lies to again attempt to portray the Paul following as some kind of fringe element instead of the true grassroots effort it has become with millions of dollars in support from individual folks across this country. Joel claims that the Paul followers reject anyone talking real change but is not supportive of Paul directly. This point is empty since there is no such person left in the race talking real change except Dr. Paul.
2) Paul offers no specifics? This appears to be the second issue Joel takes with Dr. Paul. Never mind that Paul has a website entirely designed to answer any and all policy questions and positions held by the candidate. Never mind that Joel does not hold the other candidates to the same standard. Paul has said that he would call all the troops home. What does Mr. Hirschhorn want to see? Travel arrangements? He said that he would pay down the debt with the money saved on eliminating war as a foreign policy. He said he would restore civil liberties and do away with such horrific laws such as the Patriot Act. Once again, what does Mr. Hirschhorn wish to see?
3) Paul will not support Article V of the constitution. While I am no expert on this matter, I know that no other candidate is vocally calling for this either. So applying the Hirschhorn standard, we have no candidates left. Not to mention the Pandora’s Box that could be opened if an Article V convention were actually to be held.
4) Paul has not denounced the stranglehold the 2 party system has on this country. I am with Joel on this and I sincerely hope that when the GOP nomination doesn’t go to Paul; that he runs as an independent. But to dismiss his candidacy because he will not denounce something that no OTHER candidate has done either is not only unfair; it speaks to the true motivation of Mr. Hirschhorn. Heck, even Dennis Kucinich has ran back to his safe spot in the Democratic Party rather than run as an independent, so holding Dr. Paul to a higher standard then everyone else is patently unfair as well.
That about it. One reason that Paul has no control over and is grossly misstated and three standards that Hirschhorn will not hold the other candidates to. There is the logic of the Anti-Paul movement. All fluff and no substance. Joel at least then correctly points out that no one else left is a true agent of change either. NONE of them. So he starts out by saying that the country wants an agent of change, concludes that none of them are, but spends the entire article slamming only one of them. Hmmm.
The strangest twist though is to conclude that the best option would be if Mike Bloomberg ran as an independent! A corporate billionaire who has made New York great for business. Another corporate president, after 8 years of a corporate president! Does anyone really want a president who is going to side with business over the people again?? What about foreign policy experience? Does anything matter anymore? I am not saying that Ron Paul is the panacea for all that ails this country but he seems like a good start. He wants the troops home and wars over. He wants civil liberties restored and the checks and balances restored. He wants to pay down our debt before the dollar collapses. There is nothing false in those positions. They are what is needed now. They are the best of what is being offered. The rest of the GOP field wants to blow up the rest of the world, so they are out. Hillary and Obama are bought and sold and will end up being Bush Light. Does Mr. Hirschhorn really think that they would break the stronghold of the 2-party system??? They ARE the 2-party system! That leaves Edwards, who says the right things but does not appear to have the backing of his party. Heck, I hope it comes down to Edwards and Paul. It is time to realize that people who are so adamant about you not voting for Ron Paul simply do not have a better alternative. Maybe there simply isn’t one.