by Richard Kane   

Many progressives condemn those they agree with some of the time like Ron Paul while yawing at the Rick Santorums. If politics involves changing people's minds it isn't helpful to condemn someone when they decide to agree on an issue or two. Pat Robertson is for legalizing marijuana. If he was running for President again, would progressives suddenly point to his every fault.


But Ron Paul isn't being stopped from running for President on say the Constitutional Party ticket because of his enemies but because he loves the Libertarian Party which he supported from the beginning. However in 1988 when he ran for President under the Libertarian banner there was a nasty internal fight over abortion. All libertarians are squeamish of the government getting involved on family maters. Whether arresting a mother for leaving a baby locked in the car while she shops or someone arrested for assaulting their spouse. Libertarians don't want the government involved in these family maters especially the federal government, or for these kinds of issues be considered the important deciding issue in any election. So how could Ron Paul run?

Libertarians who are also members of People for the American Way and can prove it or spoke out or had blogged forthrightly for Abortion-Choice could ask him to run, but only if no Libertarian pro-choicer decides to run against him in the Libertarian Party.

WSH is afraid of Ron Paul taking votes from Obama in the next Presidential Election. He needn’t worry unless every pro-choice Libertarian activist comes out for Paul,

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9272-ron-paul-may-have-secretly-won-the-iowa-caucuses#comment-128489

Does someone besides WSH have a reason to condemn those they agree with part of the time? Isn't it good news that Pat Roberson supports legalizing pot? Or does doing so make him doubly evil?

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/9245-ron-paul-santorum-and-bin-laden-personal-morality-their-followers-admire

By the way where are the polls of Ron Paul vs Obama and Newt, and Ron Paul vs Obama and Mitt, etc?

>

To make a contradictory thought. It is possible that those praising and those condemning Ron Paul are both accomplishing one thing, bringing the real causes of our economic mess into the public awareness. That is of huge military expenditure and huge debt. So every time Paul is mentioned both in praise or in criticism, the real world and real problems seeps into the political discussion, and real solutions are a little closer. And real debates not sound-bite debates are being milled over by ordinary people who don't have politics on their minds all the time. For instance neither Barack, Mitt, or Newt has a magic-wand to create jobs with. They can give out pay checks and make-work jobs and more debt Well designed make-work assignments may or may not lead to real jobs in the future. Without Paul in the race this statement would appear to make no sense.

Richard Kane