Skip to comments.Why Obstetrician-Gynecologist Ron Paul Should Not Be President Of The United States (Vanity)
Posted on 01/06/2008 6:42:04 AM PST by joeclarke
I know many Paul Bearers, and they are Christian - as most everyone, except Democrats, are now confessing to be. To say they are overly enamored with Ron Paul is an understatement as they think he is just an apocalypse shy of being the Second Coming. Ron Paul is the only "Constitutional" candidate, they claim, and he wants to High Tail It out of Iraq, eliminate the IRS, withdraw from the world, and kill welfare payments including Social Security and Medicaid. Who could ask for anything more?
Ron Paul does have more reasonable ideas such as "really doing something" about the Mexican border and illegal aliens, the NAFTA Highway, abortion, and other points I cannot think of right now. However, his lack of military and geopolitical depth as well as his "no-tax" plans have attracted such peaceniks as Potheads For Paul, Strippers For Paul, the Google people, Johnny Rotten, and other constituents not traditionally known for having a Christian ethic. Why does Mr. Paul attract stripping, pot-smoking folks who might enjoy the Sex Pistols music - as well as church hymns?
Mr. Paul does have that pariah messianic presence which Ross Perot exuded - before his crackpottedness surfaced even as he took 20% of Republican votes away from the general election, thus allowing Bill Clinton to be ushered into the Oral Office for just enough time to subvert all that was called holy in America.
Ron Paul's trouble with the military probably stems from his professional involvement with women. As a man who has delivered thousands of babies, and participating in the miracle of child birthing, he must be naturally resistant to sending this same infant to battle and possibly death. I mean that as a compliment. I have observed former military doctors, corpsman and medics who have this similar disposition. They are so up close and personal to the ravages of war that they are predisposed to be vigorously opposed to military conflict, no matter how necessary. Incdentally, Ron Paul, for all of his compassion, refused to medically treat patients who were on Medicaid and Medicare. I have seen no conclusive evidence that he would help such people for free so that he would not have to charge "the government dime." Medicaid and Medicare just would not pay him enough.
Ron Pallbearers also tout him as the only candidate that is "Constitutional." Some of their reasoning is sound, but one of Paul's more frequent mistakes is calling the Iraq War invalid because the U.S. did not declare war according to the Constitution which demands that Congress shall declare war. Well, Congress has voted on two resolutions to combat Saddam and eradicate Iraq of most of the extreme terrorists. The Constitution does not declare in what exact format Congress shall declare war, so two resolutions to go to war should be enough to satisfy the Constitution. The U.S. had planned to oust Saddam even during Clinton's reign for many more reasons than just WMD. Pauliacs and Democrats constantly ignore these historical facts. Ron Paul has no problem with leaving Iraq high and dry, as well as so many other struggling and fragile democracies around the world.
Under President Paul, Israel would be more at the mercy of their surrounding Islamic enemies without the assistance of the United States. Ron Paul states that the U.S. is "interfering with Israel's sovereignty" by HELPING her!! So, lets not aid Israel so she can retain her sovereignty and then be quickly driven into the Mediterranean by Islamo Fascists. Mr. Paul must also believe that we interfered with Vietnam's sovereignty by fighting the Communists who now have such oppresive control in Nam. He must also object to the post WW II treaties, such as SEATO, in which the United States and other freedom loving countries decided to protect, as much as possible, far flung countries from Communist takeovers. It worked fairly well in Korea and elsewhere until communism took over the Democrat Party left and its media. Ron Paul does not understand that if the United States does not win friends and influence people with money (as with Arab countries and Israel) and with and occasional rattling of the sword (as in Iran and Korea), there will be less incentive for these countries to heed America's nonimperialistic desires. If you are of the hate-America-first crowd, then nothing the United States does can gain the respect of international countries. In fact foreign countries, such as Venezuela, have developed a hatred with the help of the American media. We are so hated according to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, CNN, Hollywood, academia, the New York Times and others. No wonder we are despised, as the lib press damns everything President Bush does.
Ron Paul recently questioned the attendants at one of his Meetups and mockingly asked them if anyone really believed in the Domino Theory which was one of the motivations for fighting communists in Vietnam. The answer was "no" despite the fact that Laos and Cambodia were also claimed by fascists after the U.S. left Vietnam hanging in the lurch. Worse of all, the U.S. itself became another Communist domino since the 1970's takeover by the libs who are so much closer to totally communizing the United States during this presidential election of 2008 than ever before.
Some of RP's scarier statements include: "It would only take a few nuclear submarines to protect the U.S." When responding to Huckabee's Christmas commercial which displayed a floating cross, Ron Paul said, "Fascism has often come draped in a cross." [When did that last happen, Ron?] Ron Paul was also asked which Democrat most resembled his own platform [not just the Iraq war issue] "Dennis Kucinich," was his answer. Nothing more can be said about Ron Paul's candidacy. He's outta here.
it was uplifting to hear about “our war-mongering foreign policy” on a Republican debate
We have a Huckabee proud of progressive taxation (Leno Show) and open borders, but willing to do whatever CFR tells him to do on the global front—and a Ron Paul who wants the rest of the world to take care of itself. Difficult choice.
Funny you say that because Bush and most other Republicans running for the nomination in 2000 said the same thing about Clinton and the Democrats at the time.
“Ron Paul states that the U.S. is “interfering with Israel’s sovereignty” by HELPING her!!”
Ya know, I heard his high-pitched whine when I read that line. Now I need to turn on some music and try to forget it.
I’ve gone from Rudy to Fred, looked at Mitt, don’t like what I see; Huckster is a joke, McCain was one of the Keating Five, and he was coauthor of McCain/Feingold. Can’t be him.
I am down to taking a hard look at Ron Paul; might end up voting for him in my state’s primary. At least he’s consistent.
Don’t really care for any of these folks. Except for Paul they are nothing but professional politicians who change their positions whenever it suits them.
At least Paul is consistent.
Has Dr. Paul (OB-GYN) ever performed an abortion?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president (Al Gore) and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
Doubt it, since he’s Pro-Life and anti-Roe vs Wade.
I couldn’t believe it in the debate when he blamed America for 9/11 because we had an air base in Saudi Arabia.
The guy’s a loon.
Ron Paul stands about as much chance of getting elected as I do.
There is a difference between blaming America and pointing out something that may cause a crazy radical person to get upset with us and wish to kill us. And he actually said that AQ listed that base as one of the reasons for the attack.
I hardly think Fred's professional pol. He's also been very consistent and lines up best with Reagan (other than Duncan Hunter, who for some reason cannot get any traction).
Do what you want in the primary, but a vote for Ron Paul in the general election is half a vote for the Dems.
LOL Quote of the week.
“Except for Paul they are nothing but professional politicians who change their positions whenever it suits them. At least Paul is consistent.”
Ron Paul is a professional politician and inconsistent.
Earmarks? Ron says he votes against them because they’re un-Constitutional. Yet, Ron proposes as many earmarks for his district as any other politician.
Use of Force Resolution. Ron voted against the Authorization to use for in Iraq because it was un-Constitutional not to declare war. Yet, Ron voted for the Authorization to use for in Afghanistan.
Ron is just as much a politician as the rest.
He seems to understand that using our stolen tax dollars to bribe and threaten other nations is not only immoral, but impractical.
Candidates such as Ron Paul and their supporters always bring home to me, how ignorant people are of the workings of the American Republic.
It is all well and good to have a President that perfectly mirrors your beliefs, but if those beliefs are not mirrored by a sizable percentage of people and their representatives, very little will come of it.
Let’s say R.P. became President. He would NOT eliminate the IRS? Why, because its not within the President’s power.
Actions come from political movements, not Presidential decree. That is not to say Presidents have no power, just that they can do almost nothing by themselves.
“As a man who has delivered thousands of babies, and participating in the miracle of child birthing, he must be naturally resistant to sending this same infant to battle and possibly death.”
That isn’t the real reason. RP belives the federal government is the real threat and that the only way to reduce that threat is to reduce the size and power of the federal government. RP belives that governments grow in power by exploiting war to increase their power. IOW, he’s against the war because he’s against the federal government.
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.