http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters

Take care, Jim

How does working for a perennially-losing candidate assure liberty?

Will America be more free on January 20, 2012 when Obama is inaugurated for a second term or Romney is sworn in for his first?

Will all this time and effort for a Congressman who managed to get just one piece of legislation into law in 22 years serve the cause of Democracy?

Claiming that your support of Ron Paul somehow serves liberty is a nice sound bite Mac but that’s all it is — a sound bite. In the end, nothing has changed and a lot of time, money and effort has been expended for a lost cause for the third time.

That’s another problem I have with Paul. If he is truly anti-establishment, how can he run as a member of an establishment party? One could argue that doing so is the only way to bring about change from the inside but is it also not true that the same establishment will do everything in its considerable power to keep him at bay?

It seems his efforts are — by design — self-defeating. This is why I would like to see a true — and viable — third party.

James accused supporters of Paul of being ignorant sheep who know nothing of political philosophy, economics and American history.

I believe supporters of the two parties fit that description far more accurately than many Paul supporters.

But I also know that in order to change the country for the better we need to start thinking outside the two-party box.

Do I believe that many of these policies would be enacted? No, I’m a realist.

In order to change, the dialog needs to change. Minds need to change. Our thinking has to change.

These positions seem simplistic, but they are not. Perhaps in theory, but not in application. It will take a long time.

For instance, perhaps getting rid of the Education Department seems extreme, but before it existed we had an education system that was the envy of the world. So maybe this “extreme” postition would move us in the right direction in redefining its role. And perhaps once that change starts to take place, the ultimate result would be the end of it entirely.

We got to this point by increments. We need to reduce it by increments. So maybe the solutions aren’s as simplistic so much as the American voters’ grasp of them.

Is that not engaging in exactly the kind of political diversion as the others? The old ploy of “well, the other guys are worse.”

You’ve been around here long enough to know that I don’t buy into any party or political philosophy. I think they’re all crap, without exception. I think the crop of candidates this year are the worst I have ever seen in almost five decades in this business.

I have no problem with anyone looking for someone or something different. Hell, that’s the way it should be. I just don’t happen to believe that Ron Paul is different. I think he is just as much a part of the problem as the rest of the bunch.

I don’t necessarily believe that whole abolishing of certain agencies is the answer. Redefining their role perhaps. Banking deregulation didn’t help the economy, it helped lead to the economic meltdown. NAFTA didn’t open up trade, it gave American companies more incentives to move jobs out of the country. However, simplistic solutions cannot solve complex problems and what I see from the Paul campaign are quick-fix populist ideas that — in my opinion — ignore reality.

That’s my opinion and I stand by it. Judging by the results of the primaries, the American voters apparently are not yet ready to accept the simplistic solutions of Ron Paul.

It’s a sad day when believing in some thing outside the established doctrine (which is doing well for us, yes?) makes one uninformed and ignorant.

By what scale would you gauge this knowledge of political phiolosophy? Of Economics? Of American history?

Has the prevailing political philosophies of either party done right by America? What exactly is their philosophy? Please inform the ignorant.

Has the Keynesian, centrally managed debt-based economy that both parties employ as an economic model made our country better or worse? Is it getting any better?

Has massive deficits improved our quality of life?

Has the Department of Energy given us cheaper, more abundant energy?

Has the Department of Education given us better education for all the millions we spend on it?

Has the war on drugs made the drug problem better?

Has the war on poverty given us less poverty?

I’m curious to know your depth of knowledge on American histroy, in particular pre-revolutionary activities?

I’m not sure rational debate is possible when the responses tout the same bromides, link to the same, self-serving YouTube videos and offer the same, worn-out platitudes.