LITTLE ROCK — It's long been contended that none of the brilliant statesmen who crafted our founding documents could be elected to high public office today because they wouldn't pass muster with any of the special-interest groups or, more particularly, the media those groups influence.
Well, we might just have a test to that theory in this presidential contest.
Item: Dr. Ron Paul. Not heard much about him? If you're a network news junkie, no wonder. Any television coverage would only be a sound-bite, probably derogatory.
The media excuse for ignoring him is that Paul consistently does poorly in the normal political polls conducted through telephone surveys. If he were truly a fringe candidate, lack of polling numbers might justify a cold news shoulder. But he has consistently finished high in party straw polls and debates.
He came in first in seven of nine straw polls held in the past month, and took either first or second place in 23 of the total 37 straw polls taken since June. He has participated in seven Republican debates and, by whatever measuring method the sponsors chose, won five of them, sometimes by staggering margins.
In the first debate on May 3, Paul won MSNBC's on-line poll. On May 15, Paul came in second in Fox News text messaging voting by the audience. On June 5, he won the on-line CNN poll in all but two categories, "Snappiest Dresser"(Mitt Romney) and "Most Disappointing Performance" (Rudy Giuliani). On Aug. 5, he won the on-line ABC News poll by getting 63 percent of the vote, eight times more than runner-up Romney. On Sept. 5, he won the FOX News public text messaging poll. On Sept. 17, he finished second in an immediate straw poll of 340 delegates after the "Value Voters" debate. (Mike Huckabee was first.) On Oct. 9, on the question "Who won the debate?" Paul received 74 percent of the votes on the on-line CNBC poll. And on Oct. 21, he won the FOX News viewer text voting.
A debate record like that ought to garner big headlines. Instead, all Paul gets is discounts and disclaimers.
Most of the "news" about Paul has centered around his campaign as a fluke, fueled by technological trickery. FOX News commentator Sean Hannity guffawed on air about Paul's fans "stacking" the text message results, apparently unaware that the cellphone polls disallowed multiple votes from any single phone number.
The notion that Paul's supporters are more ardent has even been presented as a criticism. Why isn't a candidate who energizes his base at a higher level than others newsworthy? Here's a novel concept: Maybe the reason Paul is trouncing the "serious" Republican contenders in debates is-his ideas. Or more accurately, his fidelity to the Founders' ideas. This physician, congressman and presidentialcandidate is a man after the Founders' own hearts.
Some ridicule Paul as a radical because he honestly, literally believes we should reduce and restore federal government as envisioned and outlined in the Constitution.
He's a big 10th Amendmentfan. That's the most ignored item in the Bill of Rights, the one that reserves undelegated powers to the states or the people. Paul's proposed We the People Act would forbid federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, public display of religious symbols and the like, topics the Founders undoubtedly never intended to be decided at the national level, much less see the light of day in the Supreme Court.
Having an M.D. in the White House, with firsthand experience in health care and its looming issues, might not be a bad idea, either. Paul's refusal to acceptMedicare and Medicaid while practicing is principled, not to mention inspiring.
He also is faithful to Washingtonian non-interventionist foreign policy. He's been smeared for allegedly saying in one debate that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks. But those were the moderator's words. This is what Paul said in retort to that suggestion: "If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem." Which makes perfect sense to me, and probably millions of others.
Serious authorities on the Mideast situation confirm Paul's position. The 9/11 Commission Report included a list of reasons given by Osama bin Laden himself in his 1996 fatwa for attacking America, which were, in order, American involvement in the Midde East, Palestine and sanctions on Iraq.
"We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live," Michael Scheuer, a former CIA bin Laden specialist, told CNN.
That doesn't jive with the official Republican party line, however, and its bankroll for PR spin dwarfs Paul's. Which brings up another admirable aspect of this constitutional, Jeffersonian throwback-his fund-raising.
Unlike everyone else running for president, some 96 percent of Paul's contributions come from individuals. Half come in donations of $200 or less. People who actually get acquainted with him and his fresh, 220-year-old ideas also seem to get behind him.
Even his campaign is aptly named. Paul's performance may well tell us whether there is "Hope for America" yet as originally conceived by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al.
All those luminaries are relegated to the eternal silence of the grave, but if they could cast a voice lifeward, I think they'd endorse Ron Paul.
———◊-———
Dana D. Kelley is a free-lance writer from Jonesboro.
Editorial, Pages 23 on 10/26/2007