<p>He’s a nut-job. The best spin on the situation is that he was so busy delivering babies that he entrusted the use of his name to a racist bigot (some great judge of character that reflects) who used his name to spread hatred, didn’t hear about it from anyone for more than a decade (shows you what his so-called followers must have been like), and then took his own sweet time to repudiate it. </p>
<p>This is a guy running for President?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - NAACP Director Comes To Ron Paul’s Defense](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA)</p>
<p>and another:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - NAACP says Ron Paul is NOT a racist (part 1)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtNUJ2vy_eo]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtNUJ2vy_eo)</p>
<p>(Drossel, you might find this 2nd one in particular very interesting.)</p>
<p>It would reflect better on him if he WAS a racist than his being such a poor judge of character, and then covering up for so long.</p>
<p>He didn’t cover anything up.</p>
<p>So where was he for the past 16 years? You mean he DIDN’T KNOW how his name was being used, and not a single one of his supporters bothered to tell him?</p>
<p>That’s far more damning than being honest about one’s racism.</p>
<p>mini, have you watched his response on cnn?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I think is interesting is that the black guy was not unequivocal in his assurance of Ron Paul’s integrity, but was more interested in counseling Paul to change his general approach and message. He said he “met” Ron Paul twenty years ago, not that he knew him. And he also expressed suspicion that Ron Paul’s competitors were sending out their hatchet men to thin the field. Well of course that is exactly what is going on. But if a candidate takes his own neck and then stretches it across the chopping block, as Ron Paul did, he will get his neck chopped – and he should. A modern presidential candidate ought to at least gives us enough of a veneer of wisdom and honor so that we may lie to ourselves about his suitability for office. Ron Paul has failed to give us even this.</p>
<p>Not unequivocal in his assurance of Ron Paul’s integrity? Did you watch the same video I did?</p>
<p>Wisdom and honor??? </p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>Ron Paul exudes more wisdom and honor than ALL the other candidates, in both parties, put together.</p>
<p>If you can’t see that, then I give up.</p>
<p>I can’t vote for Ron Paul, even though I think he understands what is going on economically better than the other republican candidates (who are awful). </p>
<p>The stuff that was written under his name is despicable, and I think like Drosselmeier and Mini, none of the reasons why this happened work for me. </p>
<p>He has no chance anyway.</p>
<p>Zero.</p>
<p>and if he was a true libertarian he’d let the darn babies deliver themselves,…</p>
<p>mini: Regarding your post #121, that reminds me a little of Obama phoning up Rezco to see if he can help him afford his multi-million dollar house (sold with land next to the house, that he couldn’t afford, but which Rezco bought and overpaid for him). Obama knew even then that Rezco was criminally corrupt. And how does Obama now answer this charge? Uh, he doesn’t remember, but whatever he did, he now admits-- oops-- it was a
“boneheaded” decision. This is a digression and probably deserves a thread of its own, but this suggests that Obama also has serious character flaws. “And this is a guy running for president?” ;)</p>
<p>You probably should have directed post #131 at someone else. I have written repeatedly that what I expect out of a President is that s/he be able to lie well. And I mean that seriously.</p>
<p>Of course I like Edwards slightly better on the issues. Actually, I like Kucinich MUCH better on the issues. I’m voting for Obama because I like the symbolism, and I think symbolism really counts - and to me counts much more than any of other issues.</p>
<p>Symbolism of Ron Paul - he’s either a rabid racist, or has his best friend and advisor write rabidly racist things in his name for an extended period of time, and doesn’t repudiate them until he’s called on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you think Obama’s answer to the question about Rezco (contacting Rezco, knowing he was a known criminal, and getting in a cozy real estate deal with him-- solely for purchasing his multi million dollar house) was a good one? He doesn’t remember, but knowing full-well he entered into that deal with him, he admits it was a “boneheaded” decision. You think that makes for excellent character, and the ability to “lie well?” Hmm . . .</p>
<p>I’m not defending Ron Paul; he’s not my candidate. I just don’t think Obama is exactly squeaky clean. I worry about Obama making some really bad deals in office–where it might effect all of us, and then going-- oops-- that was a boneheaded decision-- duh-- silly me. Yikes, that’s all we need.</p>
<p>I actually look at the issues, but to each his own.</p>
<p>Bad decisions like Whitewater and cattle futures? Like stonewalling the healthcare industry in an attempt to Stalinize health care? Nobody is perfect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. Like that.</p>
<p>And taking hoards of campaign money from the healthcare industry-- the same industry that knows you’re gonna attempt universal health care.</p>
<p>Yeah, bad decisions like that.</p>
<p>I think all the health care proposals except Kucinich’s are rather absurd. I have single-payor health care, and I (and my wallet) know the difference. We could provide coverage for everyone who doesn’t have it for not one penny more than we pay now - flexible care, where one can choose providers of one’s choice rather than those chosen for us by insurance “managed to care less” companies. But none of the major candidates has the guts to allow market competition about physicians. </p>
<p>It’s just corporate socialism at work, and I’m acclimatized, thank you.</p>
<p>mini, I have been trying to understand you ever since I joined cc, because your cryptic posts intrigued me, but I give up. You seem really reasonable on some things, and seem to have knowledge about events not in the mainstream consciousness, but seem to pick and choose which info you will consider valid and which politicians to hate, based on isolated events, while turning a blind eye to other, in some cases much more important, issues.</p>
<p>Respectfully, I will just say I don’t understand you and probably never will.</p>
<p>Well, rest assured universal health care will not be an issue, at least not with Clinton and Obama leading the way on campaign contributions they’ve taken from insurance companies. </p>
<p>People have been talking about universal health care forever. Obama’s own plan leaves out ~15 million people. So I’m guessing with his plan, those who can afford health insurance will get it; those who can’t, won’t. So . . . can someone explain how that’s different from what we have now? </p>
<p>Anyway, I have great insurance coverage, and I choose my own providers (and not from a limited select pool). I go to the people I think are the best at what they do, and I’d like to continue to do that. Even so, I still think my insurance is ridiculously expensive and my deductible so high, that I’m basically covered for major medical, nothing more. I don’t go to the doctor enough to ever reach a deductible, so everything comes out of my pocket. Do I think universal health care is gonna make things better for me? Not for a second. I’ll be paying a premium, as I do now, and-- in addition-- I’ll be paying more for some overweight smoker, who could care less about his/her health-- you know, sorta like what I’m doing now. </p>
<p>Maybe if everyone is covered, though, people would generally be healthier-- get to the doctor sooner, get physicals, etc., and learn how to take better care of themselves, and we could find ourselves paying less in the long run. That’s probably too optimistic.</p>
<p>Whatever-- universal health care will never come to pass anytime soon.</p>
<p>As an aside, John Edwards has stated in interviews that he would consider a single payer system, that he is “sympathetic” to the idea.</p>