Hold the Mayo

July 06, 2007

Where's the Principle?

Word on the election fundraising wire is that Congressman Ron Paul has raised more money than Seantor John McCain.

Fantastic. This is great news.

Not for what it says about Paul, but for what it says about McCain. Ron Paul never had a shot at the GOP nomination. And McCain was a contender. And it is the was that brings a smile to my face.

But Ron Paul blew a chance to state and defend the principles he claims to hold. Following the announcment, Reason reporter David Weigel asked Paul:

What do you think of John McCain saying he might take public financing?

Instead of pointing out why on principle he opposes and is not taking public financing, Paul responded:

He must need it. We don't need it.

Here's the video so no one can say this is just anti-Paul spin.

Why give an answer that implies that if he needed public financing he would take it, when he had a perfect opportunity to talk about the limited Constitutional role of government? Why just make fun of McCain when you can slam him for his statist extra-Constitutional actions?

All we hear is politics - not principles.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:58 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment

1 Steve,

I wouldn't construe it that way. Why would he take public money for his campaign when he won't even participate in the lucrative Congressional pension plan?

That dog don't hunt, Steve.

Posted by: wayne at July 06, 2007 10:27 AM (Z3mOs)

2 He did not say he would not take public money because he does not believe that the public should be paying for campaigns. He said he doesn't need it.

What will he say when he does?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 06, 2007 10:35 AM (Z3kjO)

3 Stephen,

This is a bit of a stretch. The man is so principled that he delivered babies for free instead of accepting the woman's Medicare because he doesn't believe in government-run healthcare.

With a 40-year career of being almost devoutly adherent to his principles on the role of government, I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt on a semantic ambiguity in an on-the-sidewalk quickie interview.

Trust me, Ron Paul would much rather lose than take matching funds.

Posted by: Buckwheat at July 06, 2007 05:25 PM (jP57f)

4 Well said Buckwheat. I second that one.

Posted by: Wayne at July 08, 2007 05:19 AM (GR8ME)

5 Buckwheat and Wayne,

I actually have little doubt that Paul, on principle, would not accept public campaign funding. I actually don't see any semantic ambiguity in his sidewalk statement. What I see is a blown opportunity.

Given a softball question like that, a candidate with the espoused principles of Ron Paul should have knocked it out of the park. A much better, and more stinging answer, would have communicated something like "I have principles he doesn't." Which given that he was talking about McCain that would have been perfectly accurate.

He could have, and should have, focused on the differences in principle rather than need. It should have been automatic.

He had a made to order opportunity to advance his position and he blew it. You can't do that and hope to have a prayer of wining this campaign. You can't do that and hope to have a prayer of getting out of the "third tier."

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 08, 2007 05:33 AM (Z3kjO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment