I feel like I've hit a roadblock while doing my canvassing as a precinct leader. I'm having a REAL tough time convincing people that our good Dr. Paul is NOT a racist.
Unfortunately, I can't provide them any proof that Ron Paul DIDN'T write those articles.
WHAT CAN I DO?
You cannot prove a negative. You can never prove that Ron Paul did not write something. Imagine showing them a picture of him not writing the letters. What would that prove?
What you want to show them is that he is innocent in the affair and what evidence to you have for that? Not so much I think. He is guilty and he has assumed "moral responsibility" whatever that is... It sounds like responsibility without consequence and that doesn't make much sense.
Instead you should focus on what you do know.
Ron Paul has writings that you can prove he wrote and he has speeches that you can prove he has said. All of those writings and speeches talk about freedom and liberty and individual responsibility.
You can point to the "black voters" debate and how Dr. Paul was the only one, who bothered to show up, that did not pander. Why didn't he pander? Because he believes that freedom is not an issue for any self identified subset of Americans but for America at large. He said the same thing he would have said to any other group of Americans.
Plus, these newsletters were known about since 1996. Why didn't Tavis Smiley bring them up? Why didn't Tim Russert bring them up? He is the guy known for asking the tough questions. They knew about these articles and they knew they were not written by Dr. Paul. Who ended up bringing this issue up? A yellow journalist who wanted to make a name for himself. Now the MSM can quote him instead of bringing it up themselves.
All of the above is really just window dressing thou...
Anyone who would reject Dr. Paul as a racist has to care about all people and what is best for them. I guess they would then have to look at the issues and what is best for minorities as well as America as a whole.
Would it make sense to reject a person over an innuendo about racism and instead elect a person who would continue racist policies that affect minorities to the largest extent?
The policies that will be enacted if Dr. Paul does not become President Paul would continue the status quo... What is the greater harm to the Americans who were written about in the news letters?
Prisons filled with non violent drug offenders... a large portion of those are
African American.
A welfare state that rewards non productivity and has broken the homes of millions of low income earning families that can bring in more money if no father is at home.
The idea that if you subsidize something you get more of it... What do we subsidize today and do we want more of it?
Also, government believes that more of the poison must be the cure so they try and fix racism with racial quotas that just encourage more racism and ensure that we always look at people as members of groups and not individuals.
Why would Ron Paul want would undo all of these bad policies that mainly hurt the people he is being accused of hating?
I think Dr. Paul showed amazingly poor judgment in letting these letters get published and in his defense of these letters today. That poor judgment could rightfully call into question his leadership ability. However, it should be weighed against the good and in the balance he is the best candidate in the field and he would be a great president. He has too long a track record of honor and honesty to let this one issue put him out of the running.
