GOP Can Learn from Ron Paul

[Xavier_Onassis]

We used to get presidential candidates to pose in Indian headdresses consisting of lots of feathers, but they won;t do that anymore. I guess the Indian vote is not so important. They do like those casino donations, though.

Of course, Indians are less into headdresses than they used to be, and most of them didn't have the many-feathered bonnets of the Sioux and Cheyenne. Rudy would look silly in a headbonnet, but even sillier with just a couple of chicken feathers.

You have to watch using eagle feathers these days, so you won't piss off environmentalists, who are against eagle-plucking.

[Universe Prince]

One would expect a candidate touted as so uncompromising in his ideals to not be so pragmatic.

This is funny. First Paul gets derided for not being pragmatic, and now he gets criticized for being pragmatic.

I am saying there is no evidence that he is as different as his supporters say he is.

No evidence? I guess a Congressional voting record isn't evidence. I am beginning to understand now why some people think Ron Paul cannot win. Apparently Paul is altogether too idealistic, too pragmatic, too unlike the other politicians and too much like the other politicians. Oh golly, it's all so confusing.

[BT]

This is funny. First Paul gets derided for not being pragmatic, and now he gets criticized for being pragmatic.

He wasn't pragmatic, his staff was.

No evidence? I guess a Congressional voting record isn't evidence. I am beginning to understand now why some people think Ron Paul cannot win. Apparently Paul is altogether too idealistic, too pragmatic, too unlike the other politicians and too much like the other politicians. Oh golly, it's all so confusing.

I'm not the one saying he is uncompromising in his principles. Yet while he votes no for pork expenditures, he lines up at the trough after the fact and delivers bacon to his district.

I can see why you are confused.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is funny. First Paul gets derided for not being pragmatic, and now he gets criticized for being pragmatic.

He wasn't pragmatic, his staff was.

=============================================
If we elect a president, we electe his staff with him, don't we? Sop this point seems rather moot.

[_JS]

No evidence? I guess a Congressional voting record isn't evidence. I am beginning to understand now why some people think Ron Paul cannot win. Apparently Paul is altogether too idealistic, too pragmatic, too unlike the other politicians and too much like the other politicians. Oh golly, it's all so confusing.

Welcome to the era of two parties whose mainstream basically support the same thing. It is all about personality and image now. Issues are for candidates who can't afford high quality PR firms.

[Universe Prince]

He wasn't pragmatic, his staff was.

Yet you criticized Ron Paul for being pragmatic. "One would expect a candidate touted as so uncompromising in his ideals to not be so pragmatic." Of course, from where I sit, you still appear to be grasping at straws.

I'm not the one saying he is uncompromising in his principles. Yet while he votes no for pork expenditures, he lines up at the trough after the fact and delivers bacon to his district.

I can see why you are confused.

I'm not in the least confused. I am, however, amused.

Watching people insist first that Ron Paul cannot get anything done and then criticizing him for getting something done is humorous. Say the man has integrity, and he gets pounded for by some for being supposedly too uncompromising and by others because he supposedly has compromised. It's kinda like watching people fall back on grade school tactics. "Oh yeah, well he's... he's... he's not as different his supporters say he is." Oh, wow. Ron Paul is human? Ron Paul is fallible? Say it ain't so! Heh. He still stacks up as more trustworthy than the other candidates. Let's see, voting against pork spending while making sure some money taken away from people gets sent back home versus politically expedient flip-flopping on issues like gun control, abortion and immigration. Yeah, see, I still gotta go with Ron Paul. Candidates who "lead" by taking the position that suits them at the moment are not worthy of my vote. A candidate who uses the system to try to beat the system--even if he is not perfect--seems a much better choice.

[Universe Prince]

Welcome to the era of two parties whose mainstream basically support the same thing. It is all about personality and image now. Issues are for candidates who can't afford high quality PR firms.

Yer preaching to the choir.

[BT]

Watching people insist first that Ron Paul cannot get anything done and then criticizing him for getting something done is humorous.

What is amusing is watching you place Paul on a pedestal then dismiss every valid criticism of him as grasping at straws.

Paul's staff was pragmatic in worrying what the blowback would be if a picture of Paul with a hooker surfaced. However Paul is on record as saying he doesn't have a problem with Nevada's legalization of brothels.

He says one thing, his staff says another.

When one of Hillary's staff contradicted a stance of hers, he was fired.

Paul seems to lack the same firm control of his operation.

That is the real problem.

[Universe Prince]

What is amusing is watching you place Paul on a pedestal then dismiss every valid criticism of him as grasping at straws.

I'm not placing Paul on a pedestal. I am merely saying I think he is the best of the candidates. And I am not dismissing every valid criticism as grasping at straws. I'm calling your attempts to paint Paul as some sort of political opportunist grasping at straws. You seem so desperate to pull Paul down from the pedestal (upon which some of his supporters do seem to place him) that any little criticism you can find is grasped at and pointed to insistently. Yes, Paul is not perfect. Apparently Jesus Christ isn't interested in running for President.

Paul's staff was pragmatic in worrying what the blowback would be if a picture of Paul with a hooker surfaced. However Paul is on record as saying he doesn't have a problem with Nevada's legalization of brothels.

He says one thing, his staff says another.

When one of Hillary's staff contradicted a stance of hers, he was fired.

Paul seems to lack the same firm control of his operation.

That is the real problem.

So, you're faulting Ron Paul for not being as authoritarian and dictatorial as Hillary Clinton. Well, if those are qualities you think are important, then I can see why you might have a problem with Ron Paul.

[BT]

Nonsense.

You are the one bragging that Paul is consistently uncompromising in his principles.

You are the one making excuses for his managerial missteps.

Directing staff, making sure that your message is consistent, is not authoritarian nor is it dictatorial, it is what executives should do.

That is the position Paul is campaigning for. Chief Executive.

XO postss about Bush being better suited to manage a Piggly Wiggly. I don't think Paul even qualifies for that.

[Religious Dick]

XO postss about Bush being better suited to manage a Piggly Wiggly. I don't think Paul even qualifies for that.

Well, I'm not under any illusions about Ron Paul - in some ways his unworldliness  reminds me uncomfortably of Jimmy Carter.

OTOH, we survived Carter, and Paul is the only candidate the GOP is offering that doesn't inspire me with a desire to give him a good, swift kick in the nuts.

In lean times, you take what you can get.....

[Universe Prince]

You are the one bragging that Paul is consistently uncompromising in his principles.

I believe what I have was that Paul has a record of sticking to his principles and has therefore indicated a level of integrity that other candidates like Romney and Giuliani have not. So far you haven't mounted a reasoned defense of Romney or Giuliani, merely tried to denigrate Paul.

You are the one making excuses for his managerial missteps.

I don't believe I have made any excuses. But then, I'm not the one trying to tie all of two errors over a span of something like 30 years into some sort of pattern of gross mismanagement. I don't believe saying I think you're wrong is the same as making an excuse.

Directing staff, making sure that your message is consistent, is not authoritarian nor is it dictatorial, it is what executives should do.

Firing someone off staff for making one mistake--and that is pretty much what you are faulting Ron Paul for not doing--on the other hand, would be rather authoritarian and dictatorial. Delegating authority and allowing people to do their jobs, and even occasionally making a mistake along the way, is also something executives should do.

That is the position Paul is campaigning for. Chief Executive.

No kidding?

XO postss about Bush being better suited to manage a Piggly Wiggly. I don't think Paul even qualifies for that.

Yes, I am sure Piggly Wiggly managers never allow mistakes. Certainly never more than one in any 30 year period lest they be fired for incompetence. Oops, I was being sarcastic again, wasn't I?

[Cynthia]

I would say that he is more a doctor than Christian. I have yet to hear him proselytize, quote the Bible or refer to other religious figures.


Now, I haven't read all the other replies to your post, XO, and I have to admit I read yours first, as I find your posts to be enjoyable on many levels......but

I would think that in response to your statement, that perhaps he's more of a Christian in his heart BECAUSE he choses not to proselytize.
Not all  Christians have the need to do so, nor are they in the business to speak up and force the Word on others. Is there a equation that states....just because one is Christian that one has to proselytize?

[BT]

Firing someone off staff for making one mistake-

Perhaps in the case of the hooker, but what about the ongoing newsletter with the racist slurs.

That went out in his name and went out for years.

So far you haven't mounted a reasoned defense of Romney or Giuliani, merely tried to denigrate Paul.

I see no need to defend Romney or Rudy, as the subject is Paul.

Yes, I am sure Piggly Wiggly managers never allow mistakes. Certainly never more than one in any 30 year period lest they be fired for incompetence. Oops, I was being sarcastic again, wasn't I?

I doubt a Piggly Wiggly manager would allow a store clerk to disrespect a customer like Paul's staffer did, so yes i think the manager would fire the clerk on the first offense.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Now, I haven't read all the other replies to your post, XO, and I have to admit I read yours first, as I find your posts to be enjoyable on many levels......but

I would think that in response to your statement, that perhaps he's more of a Christian in his heart BECAUSE he choses not to proselytize.
Not all  Christians have the need to do so, nor are they in the business to speak up and force the Word on others. Is there a equation that states....just because one is Christian that one has to proselytize?
=====================================================================================
Er.... I thnk that prosetization has always been a rather major part of Christianity.

You don't catch Jews, Zoroastrians or Sikhs havihg tent revivals and sending missionaries all over the place.

Paul may follow Christoian principles, but this does not entail actually being a Christian.