Ron Paul brings substance to a poorly moderated debate

THE WASHINGTON TIMES COMMUNITIES
Thursday, September 8, 2011 - The Political Pro-Con by Conor Murphy

Although he did not receive nearly as much time as the so called front-runners, Ron Paul was the only substantive candidate on that stage. As always, Paul's arguments against a powerful federal government were well received by the debate audience as they always are. On the immigration issue, Congressman Paul was the only candidate with enough sense to realize that the problem can't be solved unless one looks at the cause, such as special benefits that immigrants receive. He also made the clever argument that if Republicans were against healthcare mandates, then they should be just as philosophically against mandates such as the minimum wage. While other candidates may have received more attention from the media and the debate moderators, none of them were able to refute any of Paul's claims about the economy or civil liberties. Dr. Paul, once again, had something that none of the other candidates had; substance. FULL STORY

Conor Murphy is a graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University with a degree in political science. As a former radio talk show host on WVCW, Conor hosted two popular shows, Murphy's Law and Son of the Revolution. You can read more of his columns in The Political Pro-Con at The Washington Times Communities.