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 ...
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.