If it is the case that elected officials reflect the desires of the voters then we are in a world of hurt. Andy Cobb and the Partisans recently appeared at a rally carrying a sign that read, Obama is a Keynesian. Many were outraged and took Cobb to task for suggesting that President Obama was from Kenya. And, there is the American electorate for you – they don't know the difference between a country and an economic system.
These same people populate the comment strings whenever there is a news story regarding Dr. Ron Paul for President. Here are some of their reasons why Paul should not be President.
1) He is an old coot. Now there is a comment that really exercised the gray matter. Of course, coot refers to a kind of bird but can also mean a harmless, simple person. I agree that Paul is harmless, but to suggest he is simple misses the mark by a few light years. No other candidate for office of the President of the United States can meet Paul head on in a debate without coming out looking like a fool. If you don't agree with that statement just read a few of Paul's books, Keep a dictionary handy.
2) He is a nut. I suspect this shallow comment means that Paul is foolish, eccentric, or crazy. No proof is offered. It is just a baseless ad hominem attack.
3) He is an isolationist. This comment is clear evidence that the writer has made no effort at all to understand Paul's foreign policy. It just happens to be identical to that of Thomas Jefferson. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." If we had followed that foreign policy throughout our history almost no wars would have been fought. We fought a war in Vietnam during the 1960's. EVERY day in 1968 we brought an average of 80 boys a day home in body bags. Why did we fight that war? Containment? How did that work out? Then we normalized relations with Vietnam in 1979 and began the foreign policy of Paul and Jefferson. Guess what? We have a friend in Vietnam and trade regularly. What we could not do with bombs and bullets we have accomplished with commerce, friendliness, and example. Paul is not an isolationist – he is for non-intervention.
4) He doesn't understand that we are at war with Islam. Really? Is that the express or implied policy of the United States? Shall we ask Congress to formally declare war on 1.5-billion Muslims? Islam may be a problem but any debate should take place in the free market place of ideas. Paul understands this quite well.
5) He is unelectable. This comment comes from watching too much television rather than thinking for oneself. A reporter put that question directly to Paul during one of the debates in 2008 without even realizing he was insulting the voters in Lake Jackson Texas who had consistently elected Paul to Congress multiple times. Did the reporter think that the voters of Lake Jackson were someway not demographically representative of the nation as a whole? More likely the reporter did not think at all.
6) He favors letting Iran have nuclear weapons. No, Paul does not believe in interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. Many nations possess nuclear arsenals. What is special about Iran? Test your memory – when was the last time Iran attacked anyone?
Many other comments are similarly inane. He is not a pure Libertarian, he is pro-life, he doesn't look presidential, his supporters are nuts, etc. So, will Paul be given the opportunity to heal the nation? Probably not. Because as a people we are worse than ignorant, we think government is good.