I recently argued with some attorney-friends of mine that the recent slander aimed at Ron Paul (later disputed) was a ridiculous political trick made famous by the likes of Karl Rove. The article cites racist comments from Ron Paul affiliated organization newsletters of the 1980’s. Obviously slung mud as the campaign season heats up. Their concern was that I was shooting the messenger when I wrote the whole thing off as political trash. I think when the messenger’s intent is to feed the derailed system further into circumstantial twists of a fat mis-directed government and culture, maybe the messenger deserves the fate of “being shot.”
Lawyers are paid to argue. More specifically to win their clients argument for them because the official rules are too complex for them. Voting is a society’s way of arguing for a leader. Pundits, columnists, etc. lawyer complex facets into the simple argument of the election process that should quite simply be of character and priorities.
Maybe that is why attorneys see no problem with what should be a non-issue of dirty politics. His comment:
I got nuthin on this Ron Paul thing. I like what he stands for. But I gotta agree with the author that Paul prob is not a racist, but it’s inconceivable and inexcusable that he apptly DID NOTHING over the course of years to stop a foundation that he owned a piece of to stop publishing trash with his name on it. Other than apologize for his carelessness with how he let his name be used, he didn’t really do anything that we know of to stop it.At some point didn’t someone say, “Hey Ron that newsletter of yours is printing stuff that accused MLK of being a pedophile. You may want to check into that and see what’s going on over there.”?
Is it just me, or does that just try to justify large staffs on the taxpayers’ dollar making court issues and big government snowball. You can’t control what people say about you. Why hire a staff to try?
I believe if people live long enough, anything they say can be taken out of context to say the opposite of its initial intention. I don’t know if Ron Paul’s brand of common sense works at the level of a 300 million person population, but I’d bet that’s where his angle on states’ rights stems from. I believe him to be of good character, but that doesn’t always translate to the 300 million by the time the message reaches them.