Skip to comments.Ron Paul, the Real Republican? (Announcing the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"Iran won't fall into chaos. It is a cohesive nation whose people identify strongly as Iranian."
That's fine. Probably better. The point is to destroy the means of production of nuclear weaponry.
"The price of oil, btw, will skyrocket."
Maybe. At the $70 range, oil shale, secondary recovery, and the like start putting downward pressure on the price, making Iran's supply shock irrelevant. So $75/80 tops, then drops down to $high 60's or 70. (Oil pricing is a large part of how I made my money.)
"And unless you're willing to bomb the place into glass (and we aren't), all the bombs and planes in the world won't hold territory."
Specifically not the stated intention. The stated intention is to destoy manfacturing capability. No need to occupy land for any extended period.
The Fox News parallel article specifically quotes several persons regarding the ability of 2 tonnes of low-enrinched Uranium of this type being made into at least one fission weapon.
The 2006 NYT articles are similarly clear on Saddam's clear, on-going, progress toward an actual weapon.
And let's address the immediate point as well, shall we?
With the Saddam regime deposed, just WHO is the enemy at this point? The Sunnis, most of whom are fleeing into Syria and Jordan, or the groups we've enabled as the de facto rulers of the country, the Shi'ite militias allied with Iran? That is our problem: an escalation of the war against al-Sadr and others only further isolates that bunch we call the Iraqi government, holed up behind a mile of barricades inside Baghdad.
Can't parse that.
Don't need to his vote 'for' the congressional non-binding resolution on Iraq was a prelude to 'binding him [the President] with resolutions designed to please
our UN detractors leftist blogs and socialists'.
You're not going to win here. Your man has failed conservatives and appears a non-starter.
Keep pinging the Thread, and help to continue the Ron Paul groundswell. Ron paul for President!
In my dreams, I see a Ron Paul / Walter Williams ticket. Add me to the ping list, please.
He voted AGAINST both our troops and victory. He's finished.
Yah? So what? I think a lot of Obama's beliefs are principled and fit into his warped idea of what the Constitution says. I still won't vote for him.
Now, the issue is:
(A) honoring our word to the Kurds, et al, who trusted us, (if for no other reason, so that other will trust us in the future);
(B) not allowing Iraq to become a chaos s-hole like Somalia and/or Afganistan, which breeds jihadis; and
(C) not allowing Iran to take over Iraq, which it would do if we let things run the course.
But Ron Paul's and Jack Murtha's cut-n-run approach is not the answer.
The Saddam regime has been deposed and its members dead or shortly to be so. What would you define as "victory" at this point? What's your metric for its achievement?
Ron Paul will probably get fewer write-in votes than Patrick from Spongebob.
Sheesh, are YOU ever naive!!! This is Free Republic, where anything less than building a new Maginot Line and expelling 12 million plus illegals is "open borders." Get with the program. Oh yeah, anything that does not expel all immigrants here illegally is "amnesty".... whoops, "shamnesty." The idea that someone might pay a fine in the process of becoming illegal is just too difficult a concept to get into the blocks of wood substituting for heads around these parts.
That is a Constitutional position, and is one which I support.
Also, Ron Paul did vote to authorize military force in Afghanistan after 9/11 and he never called for a declaration of war then.
"Ron Paul will probably get fewer write-in votes than Patrick from Spongebob."
Of course, Patrick from Spongebob is not a cowardly supporter of terrorists.
You're on. I've already got a big Ron Paul list from running the GRPPL thread on the Religion Forum... but, the more the merrier!
Blasting the whole damned country into oblivion. That's my definition of victory.
Then we shouldn't be so foolish to give our word to people who wouldn't do the same for us. In any event the Kurds can take care of themselves. And I actually agree to an extent. We can wait out the Sunni-Shia civil war in Kurdistan as well as Kuwait and Qatar.
Iraq is already a training ground for jihadists, and continued occupation won't change that. By the way, the outcome of imperial wars is for some of the natives to repatriate to the mother country. The same thing is going to happen here, and the odds are near certain we will import a terrorist cell.
Iran already operates with a relative free hand in southern Iraq. Again, an additional 20,000 troops in the Sunni region won't change that. (We don't dare step heavily in the areas controlled by Shi'ite militias, as they enjoy broad popular support.)
No good solutions at this point, frankly, which is what some of us were saying from the start.
Hey guys! Check out this thread! It's a real hoot!
Then he flip-flops and votes with Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha.
What a hypocrite.
I don't have all the answers on the immigration question, but the Libertarian Party is unambiguous in its support for open immigration. The Libertarians would let a billion Chinese come to the US.
That's at odds with the Bush administration's goal of establishing secular democratic rule in Iraq.
IOW, it ain't gonna happen, so what's your Plan B?
What is the Republican Party's, and more specifically, the Bush administration's, position on immigration?
Gee, imagine that! We are all for rule of law, except when it comes to something inconvenient to US. Then we treat the Constitution just about as disrespectfully as some feminist looking for "penumbrae" for "rights of privacy."
Ron Paul is a principled man who, amazingly enough, takes SERIOUSLY his vow to uphold the constitution. He is one of the few who do so, and clowns on Free Republic who want to throw him under a train and load up with invective because he does so are barely sharp enough to get in out of the rain.
I can understand someone who understands Ron Paul's votes and their basis (including the fact that he offered an alternative bill to GO TO WAR), and then offers reasons why they believe his actions are either unconstitutional or how he could maintain fealty to the constitution by doing X. What I do not understand is a bunch of meatheads who are mirror images of the ravers over at DU, saying the most vicious things about a man who is probably the most faithful man to his vows in DC (it is a short list).
You don't consider OB/GYNs to be real doctors?
I'm not here to speak for the Republican Party or Bush, but AFAIK the Republican never advocated repealing all immigration laws.
Uh, I'm not so sure. I did a search for 2001 house bills under the key word 'Military' and the closest I came up with is the below link...
This page gives the vote totals. If you scroll down to the map and click on Texas, you'll see that Ron Paul voted against this bill. None of the other bills seemed to meet the criteria of 'military force'. Even this one is not the best hit.
If you have information on some other, more pertinent bill, I'd appreciate it's link.
The liberal wing of the GOP threatens this every two years, and he always wins in a landslide. Sorry, but Paul's seat is his for as long as he wants it.
I thought Barbara Lee was the only dissenter and I remember Lee's nay vote getting significant publicity.
Would you like to be on the Ron Paul ping list?
What a hypocrite.
That's what I was trying to point out. Only you did it in a much clearer statement. Thanks!
BRB... Gotta step out for a bit.
But, he's for term limits isn't he? Or is he too good for term limits. Either way, I'm brin'in out the stick for him. It's the woodshed for that ol'boy. Liberal wind of the GOP...you don't have the manhood to say that to my face youn'un.
wind = wing...
"Iraqi Government is now a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists"
"Al Dawa AS A PARTY are condemned by their own claims of responsibility for Anti-American Terror:"
Different tune, why? Because the list of convicted Islamic terrorists dominating the Iraqi government is only one name long??
If there are more list them - or retract your original statement; "Iraqi Government is now a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists"
You are not doing Ron Paul any good by miving goalposts like this.
I didn't mean to imply that you're in the liberal wing of the party. Should have worded that better. You oppose him because of his dopey foreign policy stances and I agree with you 100% on that.
However, there is a contingent here on FR who suffer from cognitive disssonance when it comes to President Bush, and have despised Paul since before the WoT for disagreeing with the President so often. All of these people also have a hatred for Tom Tancredo who is right on Iraq.
And as stupid as Paul's stances on the WoT are, I challenge you to find a congressman who is better than him on domestic issues. It's also worth noting that Paul is not a complete scumbag like most politicians, which is refreshing. I would hope you'd also agree that it is going to be great having Paul in the primary debates making Giuliani and McCain look like the Constitutional idiots that they are.
There's more than one bill at play here. The one in my link you replied to is the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002" voted on 12/13/2001. Ron Paul was the only 'No' vote. He was also the sole Republican 'No' vote on an earlier military appropriations bill. Barbara Lee's name is not included on the Texas roll. What state does she represent? I'm writing of Texas.
The other bill is "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" voted on 10/10/2002. Paul, again, was the sole 'No' vote.
Put me on the list!
Sorry about the mix-up. My sincere apologies!
Absolutely. I'm a Duncan Hunter supporter for '08, but I have a great respect for Paul's domestic positions, though I part ways with him on foreign policy. As I mentioned earlier, I'm thrilled that he'll be in the debates and have no doubt that he's going to make Rudy and John look like schmucks.
I often post Paul's weekly columns here on FR. I'll be sure to ping you to them when I do so.
As an aside, not a single politician in DC is straight. They are all looking for freebies or deals. I used to lobby there.
Nothing like a little Ron Paul in the afternoon to stir up the bushbots and pubbie True Believers. In reading through the posts, it's almost like someone recorded their talking points for them and they just cough them up on cue. They never respond rationally, they just keep repeating the same things over and over again.
I can't usually get past fifty posts of that sort before I have to go do something else for a while. I don't know whether to congratulate you, OrthodoxPresbyterian, or feel sorry for you. Anyway, your perseverance is exemplary.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is that in the past, he has voted "no" on resolutions simply because he disagreed with the concept of congressional resolutions in general. This one has me baffled.
You mean as OrthodoxPresbyterian was doing post, after post, after post...
Make fun of us who disagree with your libertarian/leftist agenda. The simple fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's vote siding with the Democrats in their non-binding resolution on Iraq took him out of the Presidential race once-and-for-all. Blabber and postulate all you want. There are far more here on FR that are disgusted by the 17 who voted with the Dems than will accept nuanced explanations such as Paul's, and yours. And you've lost us forever. Period. Paragraph. End of story.
Enjoy your ping list. You're whistling past the graveyard.
Ah....but Paul doesn't need you. All he needs is to mobilize those many Republicans and cross-over Democratis who agree with him on the war.