Conservative Donnybrook

The question was: How can we repair the infrastructure of America?

Ron Paul’s answer was: “The infrastructure problem in this country is very, very serious. We as Americans are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas. We are taxed to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas, while our bridges are falling down in this country. The country is going bankrupt and we can’t afford this. We need to take care of ourselves. We do not need to sacrifice one thing more. We just need to take care of ourselves and get the government out of our lives and off our back and out of our wallet.” Applause.

Ask yourself if Congressman Paul’s answer was responsive in any way to the question posed? One would have thought that here was an opportunity where Ron Paul could finally advance a proposal where the government might have something to offer Americans as opposed to his constant mantra of “that is for the States under the Constitution,” or “bring our troops home now.” After all, highways, bridges, tunnels, waterways, in short, infrastructure is squarely within the province of the federal government. If the Commerce Clause means anything, it means that the federal government is authorized to regulate and maintain these things. I agree with some of our commenters that current Commerce Clause jurisprudence is a mess and a joke (Wickard v. Fillburn? Raich v. Gonzales? Are you kidding me?). Why did Ron Paul punt this question? Continue Reading »

Okay. I admit it. I have been living under a rock for the last couple weeks. I am only tonight catching up on the latest presidential debate. In fact, I have made it to question 5 and am going to bed, so in fact, I will be finishing this project up tomorrow. However, having watched the first 5 questions, I have a question. It is fortunate that we have so many Ron Paul supporters (I was going to say Kool Aid drinkers) in our reading audience. Prior to the question below, no other candidate received any sort of applause for one of his answers, but yet Paul gets a somewhat spirited round for this answer. Why?

My theory is that people come to these debates for the specific reason of giving Ron Paul applause, no matter what he says. When the questioner, in this instance, asked his question, I actually felt bad for Paul. And, when Paul began answering it, my first impression was that every other candidate on the stage was saying to himself, “Thank God, no body asked <em> me </em> that question. And yet, when Paul finishes his answer, he gets applause. It didn’t seem to me to be that good of an answer (I’ve heard Paul offer WAY BETTER answers at other debates before). So the question is: Why?

Is this why these people showed up?

Would they have given him this response regardless of his answer? I begin to think so.