What's with the Ron Paul bashing?

JMoon

Every four years our presidential elections showcase a dozen or more generic candidates whose positions on critical issues seem closely aligned with sets of artificial answers their campaign managers and speechwriters pound into their heads. Why during every televised debate do most candidates limp along, just pandering to their small base while trying not to say anything outside of the ordinary? Maybe for fear they might be open to criticism from those who demand politically transparent debate?

It was refreshing to see Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul included in the debates. All have strong political backgrounds and stay honest to their core principles, which is most of what they have in common. Of the three, only Ron Paul has managed to garner any significant support with his message spreading throughout the world. It is quickly becoming clear that his followers are not a few spammers and his message of life and liberty is articulate and appealing to the populace. While his support base is indeed growing, there is also a large troop of critics that oppose his campaign with many doing so for the mere sake of opposition.

The trouble with folks opposing a candidate for any reason other than his position on important issues is that individuals that dislike or are annoyed by grassroots movements may very well help the uniformed decide the outcome of the election. Groups of individuals that have knowledge of and agree with relevant issues drive grassroots movements in an attempt to elect their preferred candidate as opposed to much of the population that receives their information from the MSM without much in depth knowledge, and then attempts to elect a candidate based on popularity. Instead of disregarding or censoring information generated and driven by a grassroots organization, one should honesty try to understand the ideas being expressed.

There was a point in American history when politics was considered “The only game in town.” Not because the populous were bored out of their minds, but because people had a genuine interest in their potential representatives as well as the logical debate that was required to elect them. This is a free society and one cannot be faulted for being uninterested in politics; that is their individual right. Conversely, if one is uninterested in politics but still votes because he or she likes the vast fleet of personal jets their candidate owns, the political process is imperiled.

Instead of bashing Ron Paul’s name with curses and slander, it would be nice if his critics pointed out the flaws in his position as well as the reasoning behind them, and if we want to promote our candidate because we truly believe the direction he will navigate our country will be beneficial to society while protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we shouldn’t whisper his name under our breath! We should holler it at the top of lungs!!