Today's Columns: The Limits of Ron Paul
WSJ: Randy Barnett explains why Ron Paul doesn't speak for all libertarians, especially when it comes to American foreign policy. "Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war?" he asks. "The simple answer is 'no.'"
USA Today: DeWayne Wickham criticizes anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan for her plans to attempt to unseat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if the congresswoman doesn't move quickly to impeach President Bush. "As bad ideas go, this one is a real loser," Wickham writes.
NYT: Bob Herbert explains how presidential candidate Barack Obama is addressing an issue that the national media have largely overlooked: the murder of dozens of Chicago public school students since last September. "It's important, he said, that Americans reach a mind-set in which 'we care just as much' about the children slain in Chicago as those killed at Virginia Tech," Herbert writes ... Karen Houppert discusses a new pill that promises to eliminate women's periods, and asks whether menstruation is so terrible that it needs to be cured. "Gird yourselves, women," she writes, "for a barrage of advertising and research highlighting the debilitating effects of periods and the joys of menstrual suppression."
Plus ... David Brooks on why President Bush's self-confidence "is the most remarkable feature of his presidency."
WaPo: Anne Applebaum argues that our current Iraq war debate could use "a dose of humilty." "More to the point," she writes, "what is missing is the recognition that every single one of [the plans to end the war] contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe" ... E.J. Dionne explains the steps Congress could take to help spur the rise and influence of small-donor campaign contributors.
Plus ... Eugene Robinson on why he just can't seem to get angry over Barry Bonds.
By Rob Anderson |
July 17, 2007; 9:18 AM ET
Previous: Today's Editorials: Iraq War Incompetence |
Next: Today's Hot Topics: Church Abuse Settlement, North Korea and Schip
Posted by: Who Says Ron Paul Speaks for all Libertarians? | July 17, 2007 10:02 AM
why these attacks on Ron Paul? Perhaps the mainstream war hawks on the right are afraid of criticism from a source a little too close to home. It seems that everyone who disagrees with the war is soon branded as a kook, mentally disturbed, or uninformed. The Nazi's used the same tactic on their critics and then they just followed an easier path and rounded them up and shot them. Get a bulletproof vest Dr. Paul and get it fast.
Posted by: rlipka | July 17, 2007 08:16 PM
IF THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN FIND NATIVE ABOUT RON PAUL, THEN WE MIGHT HAVE GOOD MAN FOR PRESIDENT, THANKS HELPING ME MAKE UP MY MIND I'LL VOTE FOR RON PAUL.
Posted by: RICHARD SHADE | July 18, 2007 03:39 AM
George Bush is most likely heavily medicated. That is why he is so cheerful. And it is an odious component of his presidency: to be so cheerful in the face of so much death and distruction.
Posted by: | July 18, 2007 12:20 PM
Randy Barnett has made it a point to clarify that Ron Paul does not speak for all libertarians in regards to foreign policy. For those who are not familiar with libertarianism, some additional clarification is in order. No libertarian, including Mr. Barnett, speaks for any other libertarian on anything. Libertarian principals determine positions -- or rather, the correct application of those principals do. It is up to the individual though to make that application honest and objective, something that I'm not sure Mr. Barnett has himself done.
Posted by: Stephen B. | July 30, 2007 11:05 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
I'm confused why Mr. Randy Barnett would need to "clarify" that Ron Paul does not speak for all libertarians based on his view of the Iraq War (which was conducted under false pretenses, by the way).
Republicans believe in right to life, little government, lower taxes, marriage between one man and one woman (etc...) yet, not ALL republicans believe that way. Do we really need to start handpicking out people from parties to state they do not speak for that party when their views differ from the status quo? The timing of the opinion is of interest, I'm assuming it is because Dr. Paul is gaining momentum.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate I have seen which stands for what America was built on. (The Constitution). You know, that pesky little thing that has been trampled all over on. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can bring this country out of the hell-hole past politicians have gotten us into.