I don't understand why you think Dr. Paul being anti-abortion is relevant. It's only his personal opinion, and he's proven more than once that he doesn't let it influence his vote. What he wants is an end to the Feds being involved in the matter... he's strongly in favor of the individual States making their own laws without Federal interference. He's also voted twice (counter to his Republican colleagues) against bills that would make it illegal for a minor to cross State lines to get an abortion. This is actually a really good example of Ron Paul's integrity.
Another example is Dr. Paul's Christianity. I probably don't have to tell you that I despise religion more than anyone I know, especially Christianity, and double especially the American variations. Surprisingly, he keeps his religion out of his politics and uses the Constitution as his guide, not the Bible. He may be a believer, but he's not a zealot, and he's also a believer in the separation of Church and State. I don't admire his religious beliefs, but I sure do admire his willingness to leave them at home when he goes to work.
I don't think he took the racism allegations very seriously, which was probably a tactical error but also speaks loudly against the allegations being true. Ultimately, I can't really fault him for not being interested in playing the popular American game of "Look At How Self-Consciously Non-Racist I Am".
One nice thing about the meritocratic Libertarian view is that it promotes the idea that race shouldn't be an issue at all. I find that a very refreshing change from the Liberal habit of patting non-white people on the head and giving them handicaps to help them compete, which to me smacks of the assumption that non-whites aren't as good as whites and need assistance. Racism isn't always a matter of hating people for their skin color; liking people for their skin color is racist too... and we're always going to have a race problem in America until people stop trying to artificially dignify our superficial differences.
The earmarks thing was such a non-starter as a scandal that I forgot all about it. Yes, he earmarked money for research on shrimp fishing in his district, and for marketing shrimp. Unless earmarks themselves are a problem for you, I don't see what was so scandalous about that. Here's an excerpt from an article about it that includes Ron Paul's own remarks:
It turns out, though, that for all his scourging of government excess, Paul never has been much of a crusader against earmarks. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”
Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny.
In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn’t be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. “I don’t want them to take it,” he says, “but if they do take it, I’d just as soon help my constituents get it back.”
no subject
Another example is Dr. Paul's Christianity. I probably don't have to tell you that I despise religion more than anyone I know, especially Christianity, and double especially the American variations. Surprisingly, he keeps his religion out of his politics and uses the Constitution as his guide, not the Bible. He may be a believer, but he's not a zealot, and he's also a believer in the separation of Church and State. I don't admire his religious beliefs, but I sure do admire his willingness to leave them at home when he goes to work.
I don't think he took the racism allegations very seriously, which was probably a tactical error but also speaks loudly against the allegations being true. Ultimately, I can't really fault him for not being interested in playing the popular American game of "Look At How Self-Consciously Non-Racist I Am".
One nice thing about the meritocratic Libertarian view is that it promotes the idea that race shouldn't be an issue at all. I find that a very refreshing change from the Liberal habit of patting non-white people on the head and giving them handicaps to help them compete, which to me smacks of the assumption that non-whites aren't as good as whites and need assistance. Racism isn't always a matter of hating people for their skin color; liking people for their skin color is racist too... and we're always going to have a race problem in America until people stop trying to artificially dignify our superficial differences.
The earmarks thing was such a non-starter as a scandal that I forgot all about it. Yes, he earmarked money for research on shrimp fishing in his district, and for marketing shrimp. Unless earmarks themselves are a problem for you, I don't see what was so scandalous about that. Here's an excerpt from an article about it that includes Ron Paul's own remarks:
It turns out, though, that for all his scourging of government excess, Paul never has been much of a crusader against earmarks. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”
Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny.
In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn’t be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. “I don’t want them to take it,” he says, “but if they do take it, I’d just as soon help my constituents get it back.”