Esquire profile on Ron Paul will be in May issue - preview here

[sailingaway]

Must Read Esquire profile on Ron Paul will be in May issue - preview here

I'd have put this in general politics but I didn't want it to 'get lost' and drop off the page.

Here's a substantive introduction which actually gives you some flavor of his personality:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-quotes-5593289?src=rss


http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511


And here is the profile http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511

Ron Paul: The Founding Father

He is a constant in a changing world, an emissary from an older America. A self-styled constitutional purist, he has for forty years been a voice in the wilderness. But now he has sparked a movement that has put him at the center of the struggle over what kind of country we want to be. But is America ready for his radical vision?



Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511#ixzz1KA2FNfVT...

Mind you, the lead in language on the teaser suggesting Ron has 'been crazy so long he's starting to make sense' is a little irritating..

(Unfortunately, it discusses his philosophical view (e.g. NO food stamps) and doesn't distinguish that from his current political agenda. They are making him as radical a purist as they can, while at least giving him the respect of being sincere.)

... and how he could do a whole profile of Ron and still think he named Rand after Ayn Rand....(shakes head)

 

[acptulsa]

Mind you, the lead in language suggesting Ron has 'been crazy so long he's starting to make sense' is a little irritating..

Do you really? I've been retorting 'crazy' with 'like a fox' for so many decades, to hear that Esquire is aping that meme is music to my ears! Beautiful!

 

[sailingaway]

Do you really? I've been retorting 'crazy' with 'like a fox' for so many decades, to hear that Esquire is aping that meme is music to my ears! Beautiful!

I'm stealing that response....

 

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul is the most important politician in America today because he's the rare politician — maybe the only politician — who always says exactly what he really believes.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm stealing that response....

Honored.

 

[sailingaway]

well, except for the part where it implies that Jesus wanted the GOVERNMENT to take care of people, removing the potential for individual grace, which I find astonishing, but I suspect that the person who put the chart together has little concept of Christianity....

Their clear point is how radical it all is, of course, being liberals.

 

[frasu]

good article to send around to friends and family... maybe long but a lot of good insides.

 

[specsaregood]

Page 2, pissed me off though.

 

[sailingaway]

Page 2, pissed me off though.

Yeah, there were definitely those moments.

 

[TNforPaul45]

Fantastic article!

 

[specsaregood]

Fantastic article!

Really? Saying the new deal policies made things worse is just "revisionism"? And the central bank is the reason our country became rich and prosperous?

 

[sailingaway]

Really? Saying the new deal policies made things worse is just "revisionism"? And the central bank is the reason our country became rich and prosperous?

It's like the longer article for GQ on Rand, the one that doesn't get all peculiar about Aqua Buddha (that nugget was released early). It gives the Dem view which has a fascination and admits to charm, but is entirely through the superiority lens of the leftist view.

But a REPUBLICAN reading this is going to have more problems with the long haired white guy with dredlocks commenting loudly on Cheney's draft history than they are going to buy the 'revisionist' characterization of Ron's take on the New Deal.

I think it's a positive. I'm pissed about them making it look like Ron is the enemy of Jesus on their chart, though.

 

[TNforPaul45]

Really? Saying the new deal policies made things worse is just "revisionism"? And the central bank is the reason our country became rich and prosperous?

Specs I skimmed the article then commented. Obviously I dont agree with the "revisionism" line, and several others in it. I'm glad you pointed that out to me.

I am happy that 1. An article was published about him at all and 2. It had a general positive tone. Now of course, everyone who will read that article will view it through the lens that they use to view the man. Some will see it and see "see? He's old and crazy" and people like us wills ay "It's got a few problems, but it does paint him in a generally positive light."

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can politely refute the inaccuracies in it, but lets positively respond to a generally positive article about Paul.

 

[TNforPaul45]

I guess what I mean is: This article is evidence that we are making some progress, so it encourages me. They didn't immediately dismiss paul's ideas with overly long and snide paragraphs. This mention of his was not a dismissive blurb in another article about Romney or Huckabee, or etc.

They tried to show Paul in as positive a light as they knew how. Baby steps, people. We can run but the mainstream political mass can only crawl.

 

[sailingaway]

They pointed out that the Johnny come lately GOP are hypocrites.

I don't like their use of 'revisionism' but I do like their invention of 'revirginization'.

 

[specsaregood]

Specs I skimmed the article then commented. Obviously I dont agree with the "revisionism" line, and several others in it. I'm glad you pointed that out to me.

I sorta figured as much. I just wouldn't call it a "fantastic" article.

This article is evidence that we are making some progress, so it encourages me. They didn't immediately dismiss paul's ideas with overly long and snide paragraphs.

I think they slipped the snide comments/disinformation in there because they wanted to be dismissal BUT did not want to risk evoking the intellectual ire of the Ron Paul supporters, many of whom would be more than happy to write dissertations on why they are incorrect.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Good piece. Forwarded.

 

[prmd142]

lol at newt gingrich in that map....

 

[Shane Harris]

yeah i dotn like how they slide in and just imply that ron would rather we be poorer and smaller. grave misunderstanding of the constitution and the facts on their part. they imply that the states arent important because they only got the one insignificant 10th amendment lol maybe if they read that amendment theyd see it is more open ended than any of the others.

 

[Chieppa1]

Calm down people. This a good article. Its in Esquire. Why do some people on here expect it sound like it was written by Jack Hunter or Thomas Woods? We need some rational focus this time around please.