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 ...
See #36, and answer the question: Yes, or No?
Ron Paul is a terrorist-appeasing zero.
Reagan was right to pull out of Lebannon. If we had stayed in that mess, the marines would still be fighting in a futile nation-building effort to bring "democracy" to the Shi'ite masses of Lebannon.
Your question is based on a false premise.
How about the real question:
Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD: do you believe the Federal Government should:
(A) abandon those people of Iraq who put their trust in the USA (e.g., the Kurds) and our promises of support, such that no other people would EVER trust the USA again and (B) surrrender the people and oilfields of Iraq to the terrorists state of Iran, so as to help Iran dominate the Middle East, have more money to build nuclear weapons, and create an unstable venue and a bunch of desperate people for terrorists to exploit who will eventually come to the USA and kill us?
Yes, or No?
You are out of your mind!
Apparently your dictionary does not contain separate entries for "corrupt" and "corruptible."
Unfortunately for Ron Paul. I saw his speech last week. I am with you Patrick1.
YES, or NO? It is a simple question. What is your answer?
Just like Hannity and Rush who supported similar action during the Kosovo war right? It looks like you're going to have to string up some of your friends on the gallows too!
"Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon."
Yes, that was weak. We should have gone in heavy, or not at all.
As a result of that weakness, Lebanon is unstable and a constant source of problems.
Didn't Ron Paul just vote with the Democraticks on this stupid "Iraq Resolution"?
Does he not serve as a member of the US House of Representatives?
If so, then he is a politician.
You can think he is some god or something, but you can't take away from the fact that he is a politician.
We used to live in Ron Paul's district and we still own a ranch there. We moved about the time he first ran for congress. Ron Paul was, and still is a NUT!
Sorry but Ron Paul isn't my kind of guy. While he may have some good things about him, the fact that he's totally inflexible on so many things and prides himself in being the Lone Ranger on a lot of things (though by no means because he's the most conservative) has thoroughly disenchanted me with him.
History proves that appeasing terrorists does not work.
He was not arguably, but demonstrably, wrong.
YES! I believe in finishing the job and not bailing out as we forced or troops to do in Vietnam.
Trying to twist the facts as you are doing will not hide the fact that you have joined the surrender monkeys and, in fact, are carrying their water for them.
When Paul drops out, your allegences are right in line with Hillary, so you'll still have someone you can support.
Alas, loser Ron Paul is a Texan.
Albeit a TINO.
"Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight."
Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Were poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an archenemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.
Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraqs election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Irans worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Irans best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
Within US borders, Ron Paul is exactly what America needs. On the other hand, his foreign policy views, for all matters other than trade, are not my own. Not wanting to start wars is one thing. What to do once we are knee-deep is another.
NO OFCOURSE I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, victory, and America, and was against the res, but on the domestic front I think Paul has a great philosophy. FOREIGN P. wise, not so much.. (that's one reason why I dont want on his presidential list yet..)!
A politician is someone who bases his votes on polls (and that includes Romney, McCain, Newt, and Guilliani). Ron Paul has never done this. I know he really gets under your skin, but the record shows that for him principle trumps expediency over and over again.
Please add me to the ping list.
I don't much care what Hannity or Rush say or do.
They are just pundits who talk for talk's sake. I don't own their books, listen to their programs or go to their public appearances.
Ron Paul is a member of Congress and his idiocies have a real impact on this country.
Voting for that nonbinding resolution was the act of a traitorous coward, not of a statesman.
Sorry, You can try to package Ron Paul any way you like, I ain't buying!
ok, able to be corrupted instead of already corrupt like cunningham.
what makes Dr. Paul specifically able to be corrupted?
Ron Paul cast a vote regarding Iraq because of his firm commitment to not support Islamic terrorists. Just because his vote was tallied with the Dems does not mean his rationale was the same.
His record in Congress on issues of life, gun rights, taxes, traditional marriage, and federalism has been consistent and flawless. Amazing how so many people here are willing to throw all those things right out the window so quickly.
Ron Paul was, and still is a NUT!
So you think that Hannity and Rush are "traitorous cowards" because of their stand on Kosovo? I answered yes to your question. How about doing the same for me?
That's your team for 2008?
Yes, but what's he gonna do about 'Goball Hotting'?
It had the same effect on our troops and military capability...and I couldn't care less about his "nuanced" (a la Kerry) reason for voting that way.
The damage has been done and he was an accomplice.
"Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists who "
What about this Iraqi MP??
I've read that many Iraiqs feel this way, those are the ones we are there for.
I've voted for Ron Paul in the past but his willingness to hang guys like this Iraqi MP out to dry does not sit well with me at all.
Those people voted convicted Islamic Terrorists guilty of murdering hundreds of US Marines into Ruling Government office, such that Iraqi oilfields are NOW under the control of Iranian-backed Islamic Terrorists.
"Democracies" which vote Terrorists into Power are unworthy of US support.
So, having answered your question, you answer mine:
YES, or NO?
As a person who loves Israel (and has many family members there), Ron Paul's position to abandon Israel to the Arabs "because it is a mess over there" is particularly disheartening and wrong-headed.
White Flag Paul.....I'll pass.
Ron Paul and... whomever he picks for Veep, it won't be McCain.
Ron Paul would get us killed.
I would take your position much more seriously if you didn't misspell Lebanon.
How is he able to be corrupted?,p>He took a principled stand on term limits and pledged not to serve more than three terms.
He is now in his 6th or 7th term, I forget which.
I guess principle goes out the window for Ron Paul when he stands to benefit from violating his principles.
You didn't answer the question, you merely repeated your lie.
Sorry, Ron Paul is a cowardly, spineless White Flag Republican, and that "Republican" is stretching it.
The Iraqi government is thus unworthy of any further support.
You are now in that category and I'm enjoying the show.
The Ron Paul campaign has already 'peaked' and will soon descend even further into irrelevance.
The guy's a loon. Daffy Duck looks like a genius next to our orthodox FRiend.
Ron Paul could have voted "present". That he didn't is telling.