The main thrust of the attacks of the Left has been the alleged "racism" of Paul for some highly charged racial language used in fundraising letters. Paul probably did not write these himself, although someone close to him probably did. If he wrote them he should say it and challenge anyone to claim they have never used a racial issue in a way that was divisive. If someone else wrote it he should ask them to admit it. Enough with this phony outrage regarding racial language in politics. It is a bitter and sad consequence of the racial games played by both parties. It is an open secret among political consultants that race still plays a huge part in American politics in BOTH parties. This is because race still brings out powerful emotions in many people and that is too often what gets people to vote. The Left Democrats ALSO use race and racial language in exactly this divisive way.
The Left has systematically attempted to claim that virtually any attempt to place any limits on Federal spending to slow a catastrophic expansion of debt is "racist" in its philosophical underpinnings because "cuts would disproportionately fall on the poor and many poor are blacks ergo any reduction in federal spending is racist." This is simply an attempt by the Left to increase voter turnout among racial groups they think are "their people". If this is not using race and some might say racism to divide the population, raise money, and win elections that is at least as egregious as something written in a Paul newsletter in 1995 then apparently every issue of Federal taxing or spending is racist?? Paul wants to cut off bailouts for a gaggle of white, rich, Federally enabled bankers. Is this racism against Whites because 99.9999% of crooked federally bailed out bankers are white bastards?? I have always said that if the government would simply spend money helping TRULY poor people of all races, and not the middle or upper classes there would be no debt at all.
As an aside one of the most frankly ridiculous arguments I recently read attacking Paul from the Left was in regard to his non-interventionist foreign policy. The writer said that although she was anti-war like Paul, she did not agree with Paul because his views were based on an "isolationist hatred of the world" and not on "love for the world." (Oh God, where do I begin with this idiocy.) Um oh, sorry, to be polite, where do I begin. First of all, Paul has never expressed any "hatred for the world" unless being pro-free trade with all nations is "hating the world." The only evidence the writer gave for Paul's supposed hatred of the world is that he opposes foreign aid. Paul opposes foreign aid not because he "hates the world" but because he has read and respects the constitution. What he hates are the criminal regimes that foreign aid props up like the current Military regime in Egypt placed there by the "Arab Spring."
Frankly, the writer's argument about "hating" or "loving" the world is an intellectually lazy argument and belongs more in a tweet of 40 characters than a serious article. I assume she prefers Presidents Bushobama who, while professing to be "defending the world" behind smirks and toothy grins, set out to intervene in virtually every country in the mideast while destroying the fiscal and moral credit of the United States.
Well, as disingenuous as the attacks on Paul from the Left are, the one's from the Right or the "right" are even more so. There are many, including jumping on the Left's back and crying phony crocodile tears about racism. However, the main thrust is that Paul is "a nut" because he wants to "legalize heroin" and he "wants Iran to have a nuclear bomb." This was encapsulated recently on Faux News by the slimy chameleon DICK Morris.
First, Paul is exactly right on the decriminalization of drugs. This would rapidly and systematically destroy the major dealers of all types of drugs both nationally and internationally because the US is the biggest buyer. (talk about loving the World!! :) As far as heroin goes legalization might hurt the profits that the US government is making off guarding the poppies in Afghanistan and then flying them out to all corners of the earth but (oh gosh) that is only a conspiracy theory. (A conspiracy theory is any piece of news harmful to the US government that goes unreported in the US but is an open secret in the rest of the world.)
Second, Paul has never said that he "wants Iran to have a nuclear bomb." He has said that he understands the strategic reasons they might want one and that starting a war in the mideast again to root out the Iranian bomb is a catastophic strategic error for the United States. This might be wrong in terms of its reasoning (although I think not) but it is certainly not "crazy". It is exactly the way an American President should be thinking in a strategic way about foreign policy. "Crazy" policies are those of the other Republicans and of Bushobama who turn the issue into an emotional stand-off that closes off most opportunities to solve the problem short of entering the darkroom of war.
So, while I certainly don't endorse everything that was ever written in some Paul newsletters, I think his candidacy in 2012 has been a refreshing change from the elementary, hidebound, party oriented campaigns we have seen so much of in the last few decades. IT HAS STIRRED THINGS UP BABY!!! It has been a remarkably well-run and disciplined campaign whose themes of non-intervention abroad and constitutional individualism at home are the exact opposite of the racism and insanity that he is accused of.
And songs combine the two (this song is fornicating brilliant/smash the Left Right paradigm)