The stuff about earmarks is very highly debatable, and Paul has defended himself to the satisfaction of quite a lot of people on the subject. I happen to be one of them. Even if I wasn't, I'd still point out that at worst it's no more than a pimple on Paul's face compared to the open lesions that cover the other candidates' entire bodies.
I have no idea what you mean about his reading of the Constitution being 'unusual'. I do know that you don't even capitalize 'Constitution', so I kind of doubt that you're any sort of expert on interpreting the document itself.
I have no idea what sort of education in economics you might have. I myself have none to speak of, and can't critique Paul's economic philosophy with any authority. I do know, however, that Paul is generally noted for his grasp of economics, that he was personal friends with Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard (who were both very well-respected in the field), and that his interest in economics is what led Paul into politics to begin with. You can wave your hand and be dismissive about his economic philosophy all you like, but that isn't an argument... and if you had a real argument to make, it would probably have to end with one or both of us shrugging and saying "I have no idea."
I've already mentioned the Ron Paul Newsletter and the racist remarks that appeared there. At the time, Paul was not serving in Congress, he had turned his back on politics and was busy delivering babies. I think it's reasonable to assume that he didn't have much interest in monitoring his newsletter at the time... and if the NAACP says he's not a racist, then I'm inclined to believe it. You're not, because you've already made your mind up and don't need to be bothered with anything as inconvenient as a compelling testimony from someone whose job it is to detect racism in high places.
The only thing you've written here that might have any objective validity at all is the bit about Paul's competence. I won't even bother to open that kettle of fish, it's a debate that could go on virtually forever. All I will say is that in a perfect world, I'd choose an honest and competent leader... but if I can't have that, I'd still vastly prefer honest but blundering over dishonest and competent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
Re: Integrity and the lack there of
Date: 2008-05-05 06:00 am (UTC)I have no idea what you mean about his reading of the Constitution being 'unusual'. I do know that you don't even capitalize 'Constitution', so I kind of doubt that you're any sort of expert on interpreting the document itself.
I have no idea what sort of education in economics you might have. I myself have none to speak of, and can't critique Paul's economic philosophy with any authority. I do know, however, that Paul is generally noted for his grasp of economics, that he was personal friends with Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard (who were both very well-respected in the field), and that his interest in economics is what led Paul into politics to begin with. You can wave your hand and be dismissive about his economic philosophy all you like, but that isn't an argument... and if you had a real argument to make, it would probably have to end with one or both of us shrugging and saying "I have no idea."
I've already mentioned the Ron Paul Newsletter and the racist remarks that appeared there. At the time, Paul was not serving in Congress, he had turned his back on politics and was busy delivering babies. I think it's reasonable to assume that he didn't have much interest in monitoring his newsletter at the time... and if the NAACP says he's not a racist, then I'm inclined to believe it. You're not, because you've already made your mind up and don't need to be bothered with anything as inconvenient as a compelling testimony from someone whose job it is to detect racism in high places.
The only thing you've written here that might have any objective validity at all is the bit about Paul's competence. I won't even bother to open that kettle of fish, it's a debate that could go on virtually forever. All I will say is that in a perfect world, I'd choose an honest and competent leader... but if I can't have that, I'd still vastly prefer honest but blundering over dishonest and competent.