Monday, September 12, 2011

Washington Post Frustration

Recently, I read an opinion article on washingtonpost.com


Erik Wemple published another piece earlier (a few weeks ago perhaps), after Jon Stewart had pointed out that the media ignored Ron Paul after his near tie finish during the Iowa Straw Poll Dr. Paul finished in second place and narrowly missed first place by 200 votes. That opinion piece resulted in an outpouring of support for Ron Paul in the comments section.

In this latest opinion piece, Wemple outright dismisses Paul as a nut after the debate at the Reagan Library, and stated that the media was right in ignoring Paul in the first place. This article again was met with an outpouring of support for Paul. Most negative comments directed at Paul supported the 'nutcase' name calling without any actual argument to back it up.

However, when this was pointed out, here was one reaction:

"The problem with what you state is that the pro-Paul posters state the same talking points over and over again, and quite a number of them are frankly dubious (Ron Paul is the only politician that is truly interested in the welfare of this country?), if not wrong on the facts (Ron Paul considers the income tax to be unconstitutional, even though the 16th Amendment clearly authorizes it -- so is he THAT knowledgeable about the Constitution?)."

I was pretty frustrated that I wasn't able to respond to this person because the comments were closed. This guy's argument is just flat out wrong. If he did any research at all, he would know that Ron Paul supports repealing the 16th Amendment. Doing research on a candidate helps when you are actually interested in who you want to see as President.

The point still stands that detractors really can't say much about Ron Paul other than attacking him on an uninformed basis or calling him a racist because he opposes certain legislation (which if you actually read his reasoning, you would see that it is not based on race, but on the principle of what the federal government should or should not do). If people were to examine the candidates more instead of going off of small quips or sound bytes, then I think all of us would be in better shape.

No comments:

Post a Comment