Skip to comments.History- Ron Paul "I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies" [ of GOP & Reagan ]
Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Libertarian Party's Ron Paul Sends "Dear Frank" Letter
from the Libertarian Party News, March/April 1987
Following is the text of a letter sent to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of
the Republican National Committee, by Ron Paul, former member of Congress
from Texas and now a member of the Libertarian Party.
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter.
My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise
philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast
my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.
Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was
going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974.
Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied
to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited
government, and balanced budgets.
Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a
Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the
U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide
its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still
exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents
a danger to our constitutional system of government.
In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the
four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other
Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the
Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.
Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing
deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party
of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated
red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill,
although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic
growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent;
Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to
four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit.
But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government
spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the
federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.
Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter,"
the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and
Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the
spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been
legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was
tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about
his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile
effort to hold on to control of the Senate.
Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of
Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less
secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's,
Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign
intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for
foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments
abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial
Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President
and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-
item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of
California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President
he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending.
Instead, he has encouraged it.
Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees
to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation
than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit
increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and
America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over
Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when
he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to
abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.
Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the
Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial
privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to
conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people
really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at
one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a
clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive
"lie detector" tests.
Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more
arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has
"sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their
substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the
President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend
the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the
IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more
revenue for the government to waste.
Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan
disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal
funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with
the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given
us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate
military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming
foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our
personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and
out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be
carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the
Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in
the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called
them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government.
It has become big government's best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which
Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is
no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of
government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is
ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my
MR. RUSSERT: You're running as a Republican. In your--on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim: "Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in" '76. There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world.
"I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration." And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: "Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'"
REP. PAUL: Well, I'll bet you any money I didn't use the word traitor. I'll bet you that's somebody else, so I think that's misleading. But a failure, yes, in, in many ways. The government didn't shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, "All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government." That's not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size. Completely different. I think that--matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure. And so there--he--you know, he...
Paulistinians...the libtard wing of the libertarians...
Paul’s words speak for themselves...he despised Reagan.
He never got conservatism and he never will. He’s an old kook.
I’m waiting on Ron Paul to disassociate himself from Code Pink.
Still waiting; still not hearing anything but crickets chirping.
Note ALL those pictures were taken PRIOR to Doctor Demento’s badmouthing and denouncing President Reagan.
Ron Paul has a point when he criticizes the economics of everyone including that of Reagan. However, Ron Paul is a ZERO on foreign policy. Having said that, he is still better than the pro-terrorist RINOs like JOE BARTON who are part of the Pakistan Caucus. At least Ron Paul is a zero on this front. The members of the Pakistan Caucus can never be forgiven as they have a negative effect . Pakistan’s parliament just yesterday held a prayer meeting for Osama bin Laden.
"Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit ten times greater than what we had with the Democrats. It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_1988
You got that right. Very well said.
Ron Paul with owners of Storm Front a White Nationalist site.
Ron Paul with owners of Storm Front a White Nationalist site.
Seeing those pics reminds me just what a wonderful personality Dutch was.
I really miss him. Just knowing he was around gave us a Conservative bedrock.
Isn’t this guy pushing 80? Perhaps it’s time for him to retire. We don’t need a has been.
Do you agree with his gays in the military vote and position?
Do you agree with his opposition to AZ’s SB1070?
Note: Photos were taken before the Gipper was aware that Paul was the sort of twit who blames america when someone drives a kiloton of combat power into lower Manhattan on a Tuesday morning.
RINOs: viruses infecting the republican party
There are a variety of viruses infecting the republican party, and some of them are easily identifiable:
Ron Paul, Romney, McCain, Mike Huckabee, and a bunch of others...
1 Picture = 1000 words
4 Pictures = 4000 words
You didn’t read the article did you?
Ron Paul was upset because the Federal Government was not made smaller.
What might strike you as interesting is that Ron Paul was saying exactly the same thing 24 years ago as he is right now.
He was saying Reagan wasn’t Conservative enough, and that the Republican party wasn’t Conservative enough.
It’s almost like he was calling them RINOs.
My agreement with Ron Paul is on the very narrow topic of economics. He is right on this topic. That is about it.
My agreement with Reagan's policies is much broader, but it is not on his economic policies. Why not agree that Ron Paul is right on one topic? If we do not show the ability to discern the mistakes of James Baker and Milton Friedman (central planner of paper money and interest rates), we will continue to have a government-controlled economy.
If you ask me which points I feel very strongly against Ron Paul, there are many, but I would put inaction against Islamofascism at the top. I know that it is different topics that rankle different people. Even though it is his opposing his foreign policy that is important to me, what gets me is that many Republicans who claim to be conservatives get a free pass when they are not merely for inaction against Islamofascists, but actively support it by lobbying for Pakistan and other Islamofascist countries. That is the point I was making.
they aren’t conservative enough, so lets all support RON PAUL and shoot heroin, allow gay marriage, smoke dope, allow sexual revolution, ban the Christians and the Bible from public use...
Yeah, WE weren’t CONSERVATIVE enough for Ron Paul
Has Ron Paul ever apologized for supporting Adam Kokesh and Code Pink??
One word: Goofball.
Ron Paul’s and your false claim of what Reagan did.
I have always thought Ron Paul was bad.
But his rant resembles far too many at FR directed at George w bush.
"I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy."
Dr Ron Paul in his letter to RNC Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf.
Somewhat of a stretch, but not a huge one.
You are trying hard, admirably so, to find Ron Paul quotes you don’t like. This is almost one of those, but you have to twist it around a bit to get it to say what you want.
Ron Paul has a long career, you can find something better.
Another thing to focus on is do you agree with what he is saying. And some you might agree with and some you might not.
“the exaltation of international banking” - well, I honestly can’t recall if international banking was exalted in the 80s, but I’m against the exaltation of international banking.
Ron Paul was disappointed, because he was hopeful. With Bushes, you know you aren’t going to get Conservativism. If a Bush is pretending to be a Conservative, you know he’s lying. But Reagan was a Conservative, so there was the best hope of actually making huge cuts in government in decades.
It’s just a cut and paste of what he actually said, instead of what the headline said he said.
Trying to be accurate.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said Ron Reagan was bad for the nation and a failure .
Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats,
Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. It didnt take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.
Ron Paul is crazier than an outhouse rat! This evening when I heard him on TV in an excerpt from a recent interview stating that it was wrong to kill Bin Laden, I knew that his campaign was over before it even started. Because it proved to me that he has not sought the mental help he so obviously needed the last time he campaigned. He almost makes Ross Perot seem normal!
Once again, a lot of energy will be expended trying to pretend Wrong Paul is a major contender.
And once again, he’ll prove to be nothing more than a low single-digit also-ran.
They’re real pictures, not photoshops. The antiPauls love their photoshops.
The truth is that Ron Paul was disappointed by the results of the Reagan Era - not conservative enough.
Ron Paul wanted much less Federal Government then, and now.
Do people want much less Federal Government now? Some yes, some no.
Ron Paul with owners of Storm Front a White Nationalist site.
Yes the linking of Ron Paul and Ron Reagan is false.
It’s always interesting how you Paulbots just manage to skip over everything being posted about him that is irrefutable and that is very unflattering as though you didn’t see it.
Reagan is easily the best President since the Founding Fathers, but Ron Paul has a legitimate criticism. Reagan could have been more fiscally conservative.
Ron Paul is consistent, and he was right about deficits way back then.
I have never heard of a connection between Ron Paul and Code Pink.
You are right, the problem is knee jerk Republicans think he was the “cats pajamas”, when he was nothing but a nice man, with a lot of wrong policies. The biggest of all was his belief that we could spend more than we took in, and grow out of debt. Reagan was the Father of the debt bomb facing us now, with Bush I nursemaiding it along, GW expanding the casing, and 0bama loading plutonium into the pile. How Republicans at the very top of govt, can claim to be the party of small govt with a straight face, is evidence of good acting.
Go TEA party, tear the Republican party to the ground, and build it up as a true Conservative defender of our Constitution.
I read it, I just don’t think it has the relevance that you do. I’ll say that those would be some sentences that you could use if you wanted Ron Paul quotes to use against Ron Paul. I certainly would prefer that certain quotes not have been made. But once that’s said, ok.
Ron Paul felt that the results were insufficiently conservative.
So do I.
Because if you don’t, if you think that there can be no more Conservative than Reagan, or the Reagan Administration, or the Reagan Era, than you’re saying that the Budget can’t be cut. Government Spending can never be lowered.
Because when you actually look at it, Government did grow. I’d blame the Democrats for that, more than Ron Paul did back in the late 80s, but I want a much much smaller Federal Government, bound by the Constitution, and so does Ron Paul.
He did back then.
He thought that Reagan was going to abolish the Department of Education. It didn’t happen. That made him disappointed. Same with the Department of Energy. He wanted it abolished, he thought it would be abolished.
If your goal is to abolish the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and you don’t, were you a “success” at that? Or is there another word? What would be that word be?
Another thing Paul lied about?
Why don’t you call those that support Ron Paul, Ron Paul supporters instead of names? You do know ridicule is the political weapon of choice for the lefties, are you a Progressive Republican?
I also have a picture that was taken when Barry Goldwater introduced me to John McCain, but that does not mean I supported the crazy one. I just like the picture of Goldwater, but I bet you also dislike him, because he was not a surrender monkey like cut and run. (Him being Goldwater, not McCrazy)
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed. Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
It doesn’t matter if there are earmarks in a bill - IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR THE BILL.
Ron Paul doesn’t vote for the bill.
That’s a bad bet on your part.
But your biggest argument against Ron Paul is a lie, so it doesn’t surprise me that you are guessing wrong about me as well.
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.