Contact UsFacebookTwitterRSS FeedShare
The Moral Compass does not support Ron Paul
The Moral Compass explains why Ron Paul should not be a candidate for president.
Published 1/30/2012
Comments (0)

I really want to like Ron Paul. He is my kind of Republican. One willing to buck the trend, think outside the box, and other clichés.

But there is one thing that keeps The Moral Compass from supporting Paul.

No, I am not talking about his desire to cutback our nation’s drug laws. The Moral Compass isn’t too concerned about that. And I am not talking about Paul’s annoying legion of overzealous college fans, who treat his words as Gospel – namely because they want those lessened drug laws.

The Moral Compass can forgive Paul for those faults, but there is one thing that cannot be forgiven so easily: bigotry.

Paul’s campaign has received much support from certain fringe members of our society. Groups that normally have no place in our country’s mainstream politics. Anti-Semites, militia groups, white supremacists and revolutionists support Paul for his small government rhetoric, desire to cease aid to Israel and a shady set of newsletters attributed from Paul’s past.

Before Paul was a presidential candidate, he was a Texas doctor and congressman. It was during the 1990s that a series of newsletters attributed to his company, Ron Paul & Associates, began publishing controversial remarks, written in the first person, about African-Americans, Jews and homosexuals. Furthermore, the newsletters advocated militias search their ranks for federal agents and remove them.

Paul has since denied writing or reviewing any of the newsletters. Former employees have said that is false, that Paul oversaw every aspect of the company responsible for publishing the newsletters. They admit he did not write the controversial remarks, but did approve of their publication on his behalf.

One thing that Paul cannot so easily take back is his opinion on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In May 2011, Paul told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he would not have voted for the landmark act.

Paul’s weak attempts to explain his reasoning for not supporting the Civil Rights Act doesn’t help him repair his image. Combined with these past publications bearing his name, it adds up to something The Moral Compass cannot abide by.

Paul has disavowed supporting the ideology of the fringe elements supporting his campaign, but he has not disavowed their support of him. He has continued to accept their contributions and donations to his campaign.

For The Moral Compass, this is unforgivable. Politicians are well-known for exhibiting “anything goes” methods of winning campaigns; grabbing supporters anyway they can get them.

Paul is supposed to be a different candidate, someone who breaks the mold. Instead, it turns out he is using the same old tactics found elsewhere. Only you don’t see Mitt Romney accepting support from gun-toting, government-hating racists like Paul is.

Until next time, don’t do anything The Moral Compass wouldn’t approve of.

Leave the comment here:



Sign up for breaking news