You picked a pretty bad paragraph to make your point. It mixed the points of attraction for Paul with a passing mention, not specific at all, of his downside. I should be fair. You didn't pick a bad paragraph, you picked a bad article. That paragraph was emblematic of the piece as a whole. It's a discussion of some of his perceived strengths with a passing mention of his weaknesses, with little or no discussion of those weaknesses. Throw in the Matrix quotation and some bad history and you've got trash masquerading as serious analysis.
..."point" was that, the one about "the newsletters" not being mentioned that you previously acknowledged:
"Granted, the newsletters are not specifically mentioned in the paragraph. Given that they are a constant presence on DU, I would hope you could forgive me for mentioning them."
"The piece doesn't reject him on civil liberties. The piece essentially says "yeah, he says good stuff about this, but he says bad stuff about other stuff but I'm too lazy to develop a coherent argument to refute the bad stuff." I could get that from the man in the street. Kos occasionally has good articles, but that one sucked. Period."
No "period." The piece specifically contrasts Paul's opposition to the war and his objection to the war on drugs as coming to the same conclusion for the wrong reasons. Specifically, Paul's position is no intervention whatsoever.
If you want to argue that he could have made his point with a stronger argument, fine, but you cannot argue that he didn't try.
You have a comprehension problem. I've never defended Paul on anything. When I speak of him, I use very specific language. I talk about his points of attraction for the left and the country at large and his perceived strengths. I use those phrases for a reason. I use them so no one will misunderstand my critique of how he's been attacked. I think it's short-sighted and far too personality focused, which is a general failing of modern politics as it is. You can spend all day attacking Ron Paul the man, but unless you actually attack his positions separately from him, it does no good. When I mention Barry Goldwater, I do so for a reason. He lost in 1964 by the largest landslide in popular vote history. His ideas are still here. Effectively, the battle was won and the war was lost. The same can happen with loony old Ron Paul if people choose to worry about the present while blinding themselves to the future.
What does that have to do with the piece?
You're awfully defensive. I said nothing about you having "defended Paul on anything."
You said: "There is only one issue that I think makes him attractive to the left, though it underlies multiple issues. That is civil liberties. He constantly speaks about a "loss of our freedoms" to the encroaching power of government. The attraction of this is no surprise."
And I responded:
So you're rejecting the piece on the basis that it isn't well-written and offering up justification for the very point the piece rejects?
= new reply since forum marked as read