I really like to listen to Michael Medved on the radio...except for when he disses candidates that he thinks cannot possibly win an election, when he denigrates people who think that the North American Union is proceeding apace, and when he belittles people as losers who want to belong to a political party other than the two major political parties in America.
Here's what he's said about Ron Paul (and Tom Tancredo, the only Republican candidate for President who hasn't been on the Medved Show yet) recently:
Two other also-rans in the Iowa Straw Poll, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, will no doubt continue their campaigns regardless of their non-existent chances of future success. Both men seek to publicize issues about which they’re passionate: a hard line on immigration for Mr. Tancredo, and an isolationist foreign policy for Mr. Paul. 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.
Imagine how surprised I was when he was actually courteous to Ron Paul yesterday on his show, who used to be a Libertarian, who Medved thinks can't possibly become President, and who knows the North American Union is moving forward.
By the way, Ron Paul is not an "also-ran". He is, rather, a completely new breath of fresh air, who has stimulated the grass roots of politics like no other since perhaps Ronald Reagan. He is, rather, a person who lets you know exactly where he stands (yet he refuses to get into the name-calling and denigration game) and how and why he has had these particular stands for quite some time, unlike some other candidates in the presidential race among both major parties.
Neither is Ron Paul an "isolationist". He is, rather, a voice of clarity that America's foreign policy for the last few decades has been a conundrum of "pragmatic" inconsistencies. A clear reading of American history brings to light that America would have experienced far fewer problems--and would have identified far fewer bogeymen as stones on which to grind the axe of burgeoning establishmentarianism--if we had promulgated democracy and liberty by example rather than by force.
The only point which became a sticking one during Ron Paul's amiable conversation with Michael Medved--the Security and Prosperity Partnership or the North American Union. Mr. Medved exasperatedly asked Congressman Paul which members of Congress were talking about the SPP. That's not the question to be asking. The question to be asking is, why is the SPP proceeding, and Congress isn't saying anything about it?
Other than that, they discussed:
- Congressman Paul's plans if he doesn't win the Republican nomination: He will concentrate on being re-elected to Congress.
- Who he's inspired by: He listed Jim Grant, an economist, as a possible Secretary of Treasury.
- Medved's respect for Mr. Paul, who, as an obstetrician, has consistently declined to perform abortions.
- That Medved, Paul, and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee all agree that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with freedom and withstanding tyrannical government.
- Mr. Paul's explanation that current laws granting monetary favors to the rich, and which transfer wealth from the middle class to the super rich, are not capitalism, but interventionism. Central economic planning is a failure, as evidenced by the inertia in the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina.