Medved says Paul is a one-issue candidate…

The title says it all. Michael Medved, blogger at Townhall.com, argues that Paul is a one-issue candidate. What is that one issue? Isolationalist foreign policy. Of course, the very first thing to point out to Medved is that Paul never uses that word about himself. I have heard him often say that there is nothing isolationist about trading with countries and befriending other countries. On the other hand, neo-cons want to bomb other countries and isolate themselves from other nations by supporting their enemies and then years later by supporting the enemy of the enemy. If you follow thus far, Medved and his group of neo-cons are the true isolationists.

Though in complete disagreement with Medved’s assessment about Paul, let me point out one helpful analysis he makes concerning other candidates in his most recent article. Medved believes that for Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to continue their respective campaigns is insanity. He argues that their efforts at the Iowa straw poll bore no fruit despite their honorable reputations. So Medved calls Sam and Duncan to say good-bye. He writes:

…that leaves a much more focused campaign where the GOP candidates no longer resemble the seven dwarves (you can draw your own conclusions as to the identities of Grumpy, Sleepy and Dopey). With Brownback and Hunter gone (soon, please!) that leaves the two single-issue candidates (Paul and Tancredo) and five serious contenders: Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney – and Huckabee.

Medved then urges that the Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo campaigns continue since they are one-issue candidates. And of course, Medved has his own selfish reasons to see Paul and Tancredo continue in the race:

Their continued campaigning can actually provide a public service: demonstrating that their angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives draw scant support within the Republican Party.

We can always expect pure motives from the folks at Townhall. But what Medved forgot was that the comment section was open for readers like you. Further, when you write such a dishonest piece, you can expect corrections. Hence, here are some corrections offered humbly to our kind blogger Michael Medved from a few fanatic and fringe Ron Paul supporters. First there is this excellent analogy with European nations:

 

Should it be considered isolationist to promote free trade yet remove ourselves from the foreign entanglements of the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?
Do people consider the Norwegians, Swedes, or the Dutch to be isolationist because they don’t have a military presence in 192 of 212 other nations and merely rely upon free trade?
Michael, there is no speculating who’s desktop you take your marching orders from, too bad your loyalties weren’t closer to home as you are a decent writer.

Then, there is this list of 12 items that have been defended and proclaimed by Ron Paul in these last 3 months:

Why don’t you actually research a candidate’s position before you write about it? Or at least use a dictionary before using words that are too big for you like “isolationist”…

First, there is a BIG difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, NOT an isolationist. In Webster’s dictionary, isolationism is “a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries”. Ron Paul is NOT against trade between countries and he is NOT against peaceful negotiations with other countries. He’s also not afraid to go to war … as long as the Congress declares it AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION! He just doesn’t believe that we should police the world, overthrow governments in third world countries, and give OUR TAXPAYER money to every country looking for a handout. Simply put, he believes in putting the interests of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST and the interests of other nations second. It’s about time someone in our government started representing the people!

Second, how exactly did you decide that Ron Paul was a one-issue candidate. Let’s see, aside from bringing our troops home he stands for…

1. Reducing the scope of the federal government
2. Drastically cutting government spending
3. Eliminating the income tax
4. Reduce the national deficit and debt
5. Eliminating wasteful government agencies like the IRS, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, FEMA
6. Using our troops to actually defend and secure our borders
7. Stamping out illegal immigration and amnesty
8. Allow young people to opt out of Social Security
9. Repeal the Patriot Act and give Americans back their rights to privacy
10. Keeping the internet unregulated
11. Stamp out NAU, NAFTA, WTO
12. Fight to reverse Rowe v. Wade

Shall I go on???

Maybe Ron Paul should be a 12-issue candidate?