posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:05 PM
You know what always makes me laugh as far as the 2012 campaigning is concerned? Bachmann's complete and total lack of grace in everything and
anything that she does. How could it have possibly seemed like a good idea to come out and accuse Sorenson of taking money to join the RP campaign
when she had no evidence that that ever occurred? Especially with her credibility and base of support as small as it is. And then her political
director comes out and says that, no, Sorenson did not take money. Could that woman do any more to undermine her credibility?
On an unrelated note, people keep bringing up Ron Paul's lack of congressional success as a reason not to support him. People who do this: please
understand that being a congressman is not like being a doctor. He is not working alone to save a dying patient (or, in our case, a dying country). He
is working alone to save a dying patient while hundreds of other "doctors" are crowded into the same room trying to kill the same patient. Yes, this
metaphor strains credibility, but I think you'll take my meaning. His personal efforts are failing because of the number of congressmen working
against him, not because of any personal weakness.
He would have a higher "success" rate if he supported the ideas that were politically popular rather than those which he actually believed in. He
would have a higher success rate if other congressmen actually shared his beliefs. If anything, his poor success rate demonstrates his persistence and
consistency in the face of adversity, not some weakness of character or lack of skill as a politician.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation with two congressmen, A and B. A has introduced five pieces of legislation, all true to his political
convictions. None of them have passed. The country has not been changed. B has introduced five pieces of legislation as well, mostly influenced by
party politics and under-the-table dealings. Two of them have passed. The country has changed...for the worse. Is B better because of his higher
success rate as far as passing legislation is concerned? Or is A better because he stuck to his positive political convictions in spite of their lack
My point is, quite simply, that numbers don't tell us everything. If you see that Ron Paul has been nearly ineffectual as a legislator and use that
as grounds not to support him, you are missing the point. It is important to look into the reasons behind his lack of legislative success and into the
nature of the legislation he has introduced. I'm not even giving my unreserved support to Ron Paul, here. But his congressional record, examined
numerically, is a foolish and illogical reason NOT to support him.