At no point would he be lying about his positions. He would just be controlling the way in which he answers to suit his target audience.
Do you think heroin should be legal? No. --> He could answer as if he is being asked about what he personally thinks.
You think prostitution should be legal, right? No. --> same thing
He personally thinks both prostitution and use of dangerous drugs are wrong behaviors (as do I), but I don't think he believes either, if conducted peacefully, should be illegal. He's said as much.
He doesn't need to simply say "yes" either, of course. He could say something like, "I do believe drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, has created massive amounts of violence, enriched gangsters, and destroyed families. Like alcohol abuse, we should recognize that drug abuse is a sickness and moral weakness that is best addressed by community and family intervention as well as medical treatment. Ultimately, though, I believe it's up to states to form their own policies on this issue, with which I, as a federal congressperson or president, would not interfere."
Recently you said that you thought it was bad that we got Osama. No I didn't. --> He is being asked about if a quote is accurate.
Yeah, I agree with you there.
Maybe I am explaining myself wrong. I'm saying it is about the packaging.
I know, and I understand that your motivations are good, but I don't think it's right or expedient to sell liberty to people by disguising it as more tyranny.
For example, I tell pro-life people that he would be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. I simply don't mention that it has anything to do with federal jurisdiction.
Fair enough.
I tell pro-choice people that he wants the government out of our bodies. And I don't mention the Roe v Wade thing.
That seems like a stretch to me .... he is pro-life after all, just on a state level.
Why offer them more information than they ask for? Especially when votes for Ron are on the line. And no I am not ok with him saying "anything" to get elected but you would have to be pretty naive to think that we shouldn't market our candidate.
I agree with choosing words carefully to make liberty palatable -- but I don't want to pretend to support tyranny in order to get the support of those who want tyranny.
Trust me, I am bursting at the seams to shout "Ron Paul would pardon all non-violent drug offenders!!"... but that is not helpful right now.
Fair enough
It sounds a lot like some want Ron to run an educational campaign.
Touche. To be honest, I consider the real battle here to be over the hearts and minds of the people. Observe how far the debate has shifted in the direction of Ron Paul's bold 2008 platform, which was highly unpopular at the time.
Yes, we should be politic in the way we choose to present the message -- but the message has to be principled, and pro-liberty. These days a bold, often unpopular stand for what's true and right is a real breath of fresh air -- it's why RP is different.
