In 2008, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she had answers to questions and was easily the smartest and most experienced person in any room she was in. I could understand Obama’s appeal, but I wanted someone who could do the hard work we needed.
Clinton did not get the nomination, and a not so small part of that was due to her support of the Iraq War and her unwillingness to apologize for it. I understand why principled people felt they couldn’t support her, but I know a lot of those people have winced over the last three years. Punishing a candidate over one issue might not have been our best strategy.
By the same token, should we really give the presidency to someone because they oppose the wars? Because that’s the best thing anyone can say about Ron Paul, and when you look at the rest of the package, that’s not much. (“Progress Over Party: JP should vote for Paul,” op-ed, Jan. 6.)
I write this hours after watching the second GOP debate in New Hampshire. Someone asked Paul how he would be able to get his policies across when, out of the 300-plus bills he’s proposed during his many years in the House, only one has passed. His answer was that the record showed how out of touch our political system was, but said nothing about how he would lead. He was asked about rights, and he said he didn’t like talking about gay rights, minority rights or women’s rights; he does not acknowledge in anything I’ve seen so far that anyone would need special protections. He also doesn’t seem to understand the 13th and 14th Amendments. As I watched him talk about his fears that giving rights and entitlements to one group would cost other groups something, I couldn’t help but think he was showing his age. That, of course, is an insult to the many other people his age who have been fighting those falsehoods for as long as he and others like him have been repeating them.
If “progressives” would seriously consider supporting someone like Paul, then please put me back in the old-fashioned “liberal” column; I’m partial to its association with “liberty.” I don’t know the man personally, but I suspect Paul thinks liberty is a privilege. I base this assumption on his infamous newsletters, which contained incendiary and degrading language about racial minorities and Jews. I am horrified that anyone would consider supporting someone who is in essence a slightly spiffed-up white supremacist. His anti-choice statements are also appalling. To consider him the “peace candidate” in light of all of that mocks peace.
The practical damage Sean Ryan’s op-ed can do is limited. Even if every Republican and independent in Jamaica Plain votes for Ron Paul, Mitt Romney is going to win the state. But it is disheartening that someone would support such a candidate and brush off his extreme flaws as “warts.” Paul’s problems are not cosmetic—they go to his essence.
Deborah Nam-Krane
Jamaica Plain
View Comments (5)
Thank you for exposing yourself as a fool in your first sentence. Anyone who would support Hillary Clinton and the Bush/Obama policies we have today is incapable of forming an intelligent opinion.
Who or what exactly would be damaged if Obama had to face off against Paul instead of Romney in the November general election? Deb does a poor job of responding to the point being made in the original editorial - that Paul's presence on the ballot would force Obama to reckon with his terrible record on war and civil liberties. Since she does not respond to Ryan's reasoning, is it possible that she has no counter-argument to make?
http://jamaicaplaing.wpengine.com/2012/01/06/op-ed-progress-over-party-jp-should-vote-for-paul/
Deb, you do not understand Ron Paul and hence should not write about him. A hate crime is a crime...there is no reason to judge the motivation of the crime. What is wrong with saying everyone has the same rights.period? This reply probably does no good though as you see yourself as a "progressive" or "liberal" or some other collective.....rather than an individual. Fortunately my generation will be taking the reigns within a decade or two and we will vote against the 'politics as usual' prez...it is not surprising that in Iowa and New Hampshire 50% of voters age 18-29 voted for Paul.
You're right in one regard.... that he is completely out of touch with our current political system...and I admire him for that.
Isn't there is something wrong when money in a savings account actually loses value over time? Isn't there something wrong when we try to protect israel from iran when israel has ~400 nuclear weapons and iran has ...zero? Isn't there something wrong when taxpayers fund corporate bonuses....err I mean bail out banks?
Please make a real effort to understand his core idea: the individual should have the freedom to do whatever the individual wishes, so long as these actions do not infringe upon the liberties of other individuals.
How about the 4000 bills he's voted against? How about his staunch defense of the Constitution? How about him talking about the REAL causes of our debt and their solutions? How about the devaluation of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve (an unconstitutional bank)? How about his defense of civil-rights? How about his position on ending the failed drug war? Etc... Etc... Etc...
His position on just about every issue is that the federal government needs to drastically be reduced to the powers given to it by the constitution, while the rest going to either the people or the states. He's the only one that seems to want to hold the government to its own rules.
...you act like his non-interventionism is his only position.
I don't think you understand what liberty means. We all have individual rights, not gay rights, women's rights or any other group rights. Individual rights. It's because certain people have been discriminated against that many feel the need to create a certain number of rights for certain groups. That concept alone creates a divide. We can't come together unless we recognize that we all have the same rights because we are all the same.
I for one don't see his congressional record as a problem. He doesn't play the political game and votes for principle, not to gain favor. It's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. He's ideologically pure, and I see that as a good thing. When did the people of this country settle for mediocrity?