and he's still smilin' after all these years:
Posted on 05/25/2007 9:02:17 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
By Bill Steigerwald
May 25, 2007
The last time Ron Paul ran for the White House, he came in third behind George Bush I and Michael Dukakis.
Not a bad showing for the Pittsburgh-born medical doctor who has been elected nine times to the U.S. House of Representatives since 1978 as a libertarian Republican in a mostly rural district on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Unfortunately, when Dr. Paul ran for president in 1988 it was atop the Libertarian Party ticket, which is why his vote total -- 431,750 -- was about 48.5 million behind Bush I's.
For the 2008 election, Paul isn't taking the obscure third-party route. He's seeking the Republican nomination.
Paul, 71, is not your typical modern Republican. "I call myself a constitutional Republican," he said recently. "Some others call me a libertarian Republican, which is OK, too, because I believe the Founders were very libertarian.
"They wanted a very limited government and they emphasized individual liberty. In many ways to me that's a traditional Republican, because there was a time when Republicans stood for smaller government and actually stood for nonintervention overseas."
Paul is in the race for real. He's already made trips to Iowa, Arizona, Nevada and New Hampshire. His campaign is plugged into the Internet and well on its way to raising its first million.
Most of the eight other announced Republican presidential wannabes have lots more money and name recognition. But Paul has one big advantage over all of them: He's pure on policy and not a flip-flopper.
For his entire career he's been a consistent exponent of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets and a return to the gold standard. He's steadfastly been against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.
He voted against the Patriot Act. And on immigration he's for strong borders and against both amnesty and welfare for illegal aliens. Having delivered more than 4,000 babies, he's always been pro-life and pro-family.
Paul has faithfully voted his libertarian principles in Congress, where he is known as “Dr. No” for his principled, often lonely dissents. Don't blame him for the warfare/welfare state: As his campaign site, ronpaul2008.com, boasts, he's never voted for a tax raise or an unbalanced budget and never voted to restrict gun ownership, raise congressional pay or increase the power of the executive branch.
Sadly, none of his fine qualities matter because, even as a Republican, Paul is a marginal candidate with a near-zero shot of becoming president.
Paul is realistic about his chances. But he also knows miracles happen in politics. Thirty years ago, he was absolutely convinced he could never become a congressman running on a platform of maximum freedom and minimum government. "Yet I surprised myself and won that and then continually won re-election with bigger margins, so I'm convinced the message is very, very strong."
Today's alternative media make it much easier for candidates like Paul to get their esoteric messages out. But marginal candidates by definition are trapped in a cruel Catch-22: Because they are marginal, they are ignored by the major media -- so they stay marginal.
But Paul's been around long enough to know winning isn't everything. As he says, "The goal is to win. If you can't win, you want to do the very best that you can and have an impact." Let's hope he does on on his less principled fellow Republicans. They -- and the country -- need to be reminded how far we've strayed from our core constitutional values.
Bill Steigerwald is an associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Send e-mail to bsteigerwald@tribweb.com.
Respectfully disagree with his foreign-policy views a little, but there's no need to call him a "kook" or a "nut". He is far from it.
The nerve of you people, trashing a man who has stood up for the Constitution day in and day out.
Give them time - the liberal republican guiliani loving pro war faithful will be frothing at the mouth at any mention of Ron Paul.
Surf over to DU, KOS, of SmirkingChimp, you will see the exact same type of mindless ignorance.
Birds of a feather? Perhaps, unable to think for themselves? Certainly.
However, since he’s running as a Republican, I have to say I was offended by his implication that we deserved the 9/11 attacks, which he made during the debates. Comments like that sound crazy, naive or stupid. Take your pick.
And yes, I disagree with Paul's foreign policy views. And I disagree with this Wilsonian 'spreading democracy' garbage too.
Ron who?
I don’t think he should be insulted either. I think he’s drawn the insults for two reasons:
1. His ill-considered statement during the second debate when he tried to explain why he thinks Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. What he said got spun into “we deserved it.” That’s not totally accurate, but it’s very easy to take what he said and make that leap.
2. The fact that he’s a little too closely associated with the repulsive 9/11 “truther” movement. He’s not a truther, as far as I know, but he’s been videotaped talking with them and expressing interest in their viewpoint that 9/11 was an “inside job.”
Domestically, Paul is right down my alley as a small-government, strong-border, pro-life Republican. But IMO his foreign policy is well past naive and straight into dangerous in the modern world. Disengagement is wonderful in theory, but it’s not happening now. If we leave now, it’s a victory for the Islamists.
}:-)4
I don't just disagree with his foreign policy views a little. I disagree with them wholeheartedly, unabashed, and vociferously. Any man who seriously asks "What would Taft do" shows that he has no business trying to be president in a post World War I world.
Ron Paul is better prepared for the Presidency than Ruby Ghouliani.
That's great, but he can't claim the "libertarian" the way he does if he supports border and other types of enforcement. Libertarians support "the free movement of labour without government restrictions", i.e. people ought to be free to go wherever they think they can get the best deal for their work, even if it means flooding other countries.
Having delivered more than 4,000 babies, he's always been pro-life and pro-family.
IIRC, doesn't Ron Paul basically take the same sort of "I'm personally against it, but I think it should still be legal" approach that Giuliani does?
He is 100% pro-life, 0% rating from NARAL. Quote, “if you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” His view is that one should oppose abortion because abortion is an act of aggression against a fetus whom is alive, human, and possesses legal rights.
You have disingenuously left out the other half of the libertarian border argument that there should be NO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES ie no free school for the ninos, no free medical care, no free dental care, no assisted housing, no food stamps etc. for the illegal immigrants That they have to sink or swim on their own. Since the usa is a welfare state (just ask the 80,000 Katrina "refugees" still sucking welfare assistance in the Atlanta area), then closing the border and deporting them is the second best solution.
I am disappointed in our current President who sells us on fear and then turns around with a free pass on amnesty. President Bush should know those who live by fear, die by fear.
Didn't need to, since they aren't pertinent to the debate. Libertarians think that it's perfectly fine for gadzillions of "undocumented workers" to come here if they think they can get more money than they can in Mexico. In fact, if we want to tak about the libertarian view of government in the immigration debate, then let's not forget that they also think the government shouldn't be able to tell businesses that they can't hire illegals, and they certainly don't think we ought to fine businesses for doing so. When you get right down to it, libertarian views on immigration would essentially negate American sovereignty.
Pro-Life Politics?
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The Terri Schiavo saga has made millions of pro-life Americans understandably upset about the state of our culture, our courts, and our legislatures. Many worry that legal niceties have trumped morality, leading us down a slippery slope that cheapens life.
My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.
Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics. As law professor Butler Shaffer explains, politics is about obtaining power over the lives of others through government force. Thus politics is a rejection of the sanctity of life. So it is a mistake to assume that a pro-life culture develops through political persuasion or government power. Respect for human life originates with individuals acting according to their consciences. A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government. History teaches us that governments overwhelmingly violate the sanctity of human life rather than uphold it.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.
March 29, 2005
Eh, I'm not so sure about all that. His record seems a bit mixed. He supported the PBA ban, opposed using US foreign aid to fund "family planning" with abortion, and opposed ESC research. On the other hand, he also voted against a human cloning ban which would have much the same effect as ESC research, from a life position. He also voted against laws that would prohibit transporting minors between states to get abortions (i.e. people trying to help our daughters get abortions behind our backs), and also voted against a couple of bills that would have made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of another crime (i.e. the fetus would be treated as a full human being, against whom it is a crime to harm). While the GOP's Liberty caucus says that he is a very pro-life member, this seems only to be partially the case.
If Fred Thompson had this same record, people would scream from the rafters about what a pro-abortion RINO he was (I mean, look what they did with one quote he gave to a reporter back in 1994). Why does Ron Paul get a pass?
That's the impression I get of a lot of Ron Paul opponents on here...no thought on the issue of Iraq...only "liberals say they're against it...therefore, I must be for it" Not much subtance in that "analysis"
In fact, those who support open borders do so only if there is no welfare state magnet to draw the dregs from other nations.
You anti-liberty folks keep saying this, but you don’t have the evidence to support it.
I don’t know any libertarians who support allowing Al Qaeda goons to waltz in.
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”
—Ronald Wilson Reagan
First and foremost, Ron Paul expects when a congressman puts his hand on a Bible and takes an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States"...that he means it...Here is some Constitutional Law 101...the federal government has no powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution...whatever you may think of the laws you're citing...the feds have no authority to pass such legislation...not that that seems to bother almost every other Congressman...but abuse of power and violating the law (which Congress is doing every time it passes unconstitutional legislation) should be grounds for impeachment
You anti-liberty folks keep saying this, but you don’t have the evidence to support it.
Pretty much every libertarian I've known believes in open borders and the "free access to labour markets".
I, on the other hand, believe that the members of the Commonwealth ought to have the choice as to who they allow in and who they don't. You know, Lockean commonwealth ideology, and all that.
I don’t know any libertarians who support allowing Al Qaeda goons to waltz in.
They may not, specifically, but the end result of their ideal would be exactly that. That's the problem with too many libertarians, though. They allow theory to trump reality.
How come?
You have a problem with that?
im a Paul support actually.
someone suggested that Paul was not for making abortion ilegal.
I see. sorry.
Like I said disingenuous.
Um, no. Actually, the transport of minors law was a legitimate application of the commerce clause (Art. I, Sec. 8).
A strict reading of the 14th Amendment, Sec. 1, would seem to indicate that no state shall deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (strict because this extend beyond those who are specified as "citizens" in the primary clause). Now, if Ron Paul is committed to the belief that a fetus is a person who has natural rights, then one would think that he'd apply this constitutional proviso to the defence of the life of the unborn.
A human cloning ban - I would agree that this is not the province of the federal government, so I suppose I could give him a pass for this, except that he also voted in FAVOUR of the ESC research ban, which is ALSO not the province of the federal government, so he seems a bit double-minded when it comes to the 9th and 10th amendments, at least on this issue.
I also didn't address the laws of gravity, or the gross national product of Guatemala in my argument, either. This was because they weren't pertinent to the debate.
Personally, I think you just don't know what "disingenuous" means.
Because the oceans are no longer the barrier to invasion that we once thought they were in the middle Industrial Age.
And now, the world is full of enemies with large navies and troop carriers that are poised to invade us?
“The nerve of you people, trashing a man who has stood up for the Constitution day in and day out.”
HE BLAMES HIS OWN COUNTRY FOR AL-QAEDA’S ACTIONS. To hell with him. And most of his followers ARE nuts.
Paul is certainly getting to be the go-to guy for the lefties.
I think the term you were looking for was:
Paul is certainly getting to be the go-to guy for the Constitutionalists.
No, he didn’t. But thanks for repeating Rudy’s “Big Lie” about what he did say... Kinda helps out you as just another Rudy Pooter...
See what I mean? Pre-technology thinking.
You've heard of airliners, haven't you? You've heard of terrorists who'd like to smuggle WMDs in shipping containers, right? You have heard the term "asymmetric warfare", yes? You can't possibly be so stupid as to think that the only way someone who wants to harm the US can or will do so is by rolling up on our coast with a troop ship, I hope. Get your head out of the sand and start thinking 21st century.
21st century my eye... Next you'll be saying the Constitution is an outdated document...
How does this translate into our having to mess around in everyone elses business? It would usggest to me precisely that we should not mess around in other peoples business.
His views on the Second Amendment alone disqualify him as a "lefty" politically speaking...
Because of the fact that, as hard as many may find it to believe, there are people out there in the world who want to mess around in OUR business, regardless of what we were to do. We can either deal with them proactively, or we can react when they blow a black-market nuke in Phillie harbour.
Conversely, if Ron Paul's non-constitutional views on foreign policy were in place, we'd have a lot more 9-11s.
Why can't we simply let others be until they do strike and then unleash absolute, utter destruction on their countries. I don't care who takes over after we're gone. I would have liked to have seen us go into Afghanistan, unrepentantly raze the whole place, and leave. If the simple message is that we're not to be messed with and in kind we'll return the favor, why can't that act as a deterrent?
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
You obviously aren't interested in facts. Forget I said anything...
You’re misunderstanding - he’s not a lefty but he’s “their conservative.”
Because I don't particular want to see thousands more dead Americans in our cities before we react to a threat. I approach foreign policy in this area much the same way I approach personal threats. If some guys says he's going to try to punch me, I will punch him first. I think the US should do the same. It is insane to wait until after a terrorist attack to do something about the regime or the region which is supplying, training, and arming terrorists. You terminate the regimes, and you terminate the terrorists themselves wherever you can find them.
For the record, however, I would agree with you about "nation building". I don't care about, and think we shouldn't bother trying, to "spread democracy".
I’m not bashing Paul, but I have a problem with him calling himself a a Conservative. He is a Libertarian. So if he wants to be President, let him run as a Libertarian candidate and stop trying to fool people into believing that he is a Conservative.
Um... so? Zell Miller was “my Democrat” for a while there. What’s your point again? Other than trying desperately to slander Dr. Paul that is...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.