0 votes

Need Help..What did Ron Paul say about Beet Sugar Subsidies Last Night?

Did he sell out? Please explain.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He was asked about the

He was asked about the everglades. Here is the transcript: http://wapo.st/xsnE6J


Congressman Paul, Florida's Everglades provide one in three Floridians with their drinking water. It affects thousands of jobs. Right now, there's a -- there's a joint federal-state program to save what's left of the Everglades. Would you commit to continuing that federal financing of the Everglades preservation?

Ron Paul

Sure. I -- I don't see any reason to go after that. I would still look into the details on whether that could be a state issue or not.

But with all the wars going on, and the economy is in shambles, as it is, and the unemployment, to -- to worry about dealing with that program, we could do it in a theoretical sense. But I would see no reason to, you know, complicate things. But I wouldn't have any desire to interfere with that.

It was a good answer, but man he had a golden opportunity.

He should have then gone into, or even began the answer with:

"This brings up a common misconception about me. While I do focus heavily on reducing the size and scope of government, and I want government to stick to its Constitutional limitations in Article I § 8, I know we can't get there overnight. I know there are some things that are more important than others to cut first. Some budget items, like this one, are literal drops in the bucket in the big scheme of things. And cutting them right off the bat would do more harm than good. While I am philosophically inclined to prefer State only action on such issues, I'm practical and understand you can't change everything at once. We need to cut the big things first - like overseas empire spending. Reduce our Department of Defense to DEFENSE only - not offense, and use the savings to shore up Social Security and Medicare for those who are already dependent on them. So yes, I'd leave programs like this alone. Though eventually, I'd like to help Florida work it out where they don't need Washington's help on this."

That's a 48 second answer folks. (I timed it) With a little practice and more concise wording, you could say the same things and get it down to 30 seconds. He could then add more material to make it a minute if he wanted to or more for when he has such an opportunity.

Why is this answer better than what he gave?

Because it accomplishes several things:

#1 - it frames the answer and the question in the context of people being fearful of his budget slashing ways. It shows he isn't nuts, but rather very pragmatic. By doing so on this question, the implication is his answer would be similar on other questions. If asked again on another program, his answer needs to be the same, while pointing out he's already answered this before.

#2 - It ties in the issue of defense vs. offense thus showing how our foreign policy is intimately related to our financial situation. They are not to be taken in a vacuum.

#3 - He makes it clear that he wants to protect SS and Medicare (and by implication other entitlements) for those who already need and use them. (NO MENTION - on purpose - of eventually ending those programs. People don't understand that part, stick to "shore them up.")

#4 - He lays out the case that our guiding principle should be Art. I § 8. And makes it clear that in principle, this is NOT an area for Fed involvement.

#5 - He shows that his goal is to create an environment where the States can once again handle their own issues. If he has more than 30 seconds, I'd add a statement or two about how getting the Feds out of the issue, frees up the State to handle it the way they think is best rather than following D.C. Dictates. Something specific about that policy would help and it would show the voters there he KNOWS about THEIR problems. Someone in the campaign should be assigned to every state (if not a team in each state) to research local issues so they can take positions on them.

#6 - He shows that he is not interested in making people's lives tougher than they already are by his budget cuts. He shows that there is plenty of room to cut without that pain. The pain will come later of course (you don't say this) but it will be less so after we've already removed the elephants in the room and had time to adjust with a stronger economy because of it. We may even work our way naturally out of other issues that way. (that part can be an additional comment or two if more time is allowed for the response)

Has Ron said or alluded to all of this before?
Yes, but not all at once, not in one place, not all in 48/30 seconds, and not all in the same debate in this context on the same question.

THAT is critical folks.

This is not a college lecture or a stump speech where Ron has tons of time. We know this, he knows this.

Why he doesn't practice and think up such answers ahead of time to use in this fashion, I have no idea.

Many people ONLY watch the debates. They don't watch cable 24/7 or listen to every radio show. They don't check DP to see every interview like we do. It's hit and miss for them (mostly miss) and so if they don't see Paul discussed on the national major network evening news (or even the cable news) and they don't see him make these points in debates, they don't know this is his position.

It is a huge mistake to not see the debates as the ONLY free press Ron will get and to not use it to its maximum advantage.