Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Principled Ron Paul challenges GOP orthodoxy
Capital Times ^ | 5-12-11 | John Nichols

Posted on 05/12/2011 4:15:33 PM PDT by SJackson

Even analysts who disagree with Texas Congressman Ron Paul on the issues recognized last week that the principled libertarian turned in the ablest performance at the first Republican presidential debate.

Indeed, as Paul prepares to mount his third campaign for the presidency, he does so from a dramatically better position than at the beginnings of his previous bids.

In 1988, he was a Libertarian shouting from the political wilderness about the supposed sameness of Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis.

In 2008, he was a maverick Republican wedged into debates with a crew of credible contenders such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. He got notice, mostly from Giuliani, who objected that a dissenter from GOP economic and foreign policy orthodoxy had been allowed on the debate stage. But again, Paul was denied the sort of coverage and respect accorded contenders who echoed the party line dictated by Dick Cheney and the neocon taskmasters.

In 2012, Paul runs as an increasingly iconic Republican with a good many more allies inside the party and a claim to fame that most of his fellow contenders for the GOP nod lack: a job as a congressman that places him in the thick of national debates. Perhaps most significantly, he uses his position in Congress to embrace positions that, while at odds with Republican leaders, raise the concerns of millions of Americans from across the ideological spectrum.

That does not mean he is going to secure the Republican nomination. The Grand Old Party does not have a history of nominating candidates who take stands that unsettle the Wall Street bankers and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab — and kindly pick up some bills for the Democrats as well.

With that said, however, there are plenty of reasons why progressives might welcome Paul to the 2012 race.

One need not support the man or his overall platform — which deviates from classic libertarianism on some vital social issues and which features an antipathy toward entitlement programs that makes Paul Ryan sound like a liberal — to recognize the value added to the Republican presidential debates, and the broader discourse, by a candidate who:

1. Has consistently opposed the undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, siding with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in struggles to hold Democratic and Republican presidents to account for unlawful and unnecessary war-making.

2. Has worked alongside Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., to make the case for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget.

3. Has regularly voted with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and other labor-aligned Democrats in opposition to free-trade pacts that leave workers jobless, shutter factories, batter working-class communities and make a mockery of democratic governance in the U.S. and abroad.

4. Has joined former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Michigan Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in raising all the right questions about the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and abuses of civil liberties.

5. Has partnered with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the chamber’s steadiest advocate of economic justice and social-democratic ideals, to demand transparency and accountability from the Federal Reserve.

6. Has sided with Kaptur, Feingold, Sanders and other critics of bank bailouts that were backed by both President Obama and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate.

7. Has mounted a stronger defense of WikiLeaks and press freedom than any other member of Congress — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

Ron Paul is not a progressive. He takes stands on abortion rights and other issues that disqualify him from consideration by most moderates and liberals. But he cannot be dismissed as just another robotic Republican. Indeed, he is more inclined than Barack Obama to challenge Republican orthodoxy on a host of foreign and fiscal policy issues. As such, he brings a dimension to the presidential race that would otherwise be missing. And, at some point in some debate, he is going to face the supposed front-runner in the field — who avoided last Thursday’s clash in South Carolina — and he is going to make Mitt Romney scream.

John Nichols is the associate editor of The Capital Times. jnichols@madison.com


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birdsofafeather; johnnichols; paulkucinich12; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: truthfreedom

I dont agree with all of what Ron Paul says or stands for. but I do agree with his finacial and forign policy ideas.

Bring our troops all home, secure our borders, mind our own business, pay our debts and eliminate regulation.

Sounds good to me.


41 posted on 05/12/2011 6:17:33 PM PDT by Chickensoup (The right to bear arms is proven to prevent government genocide. Protect yourself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
What is not practical is saying that this nation is so broke that we have to charge vets for their medical care and gut medicare and social security, raise taxes at the same time we are borrowing money from the red chinese and sending it overseas in the form of “aid.” THAT is not practical nor is it intelligent.


Amen!
42 posted on 05/12/2011 6:19:59 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: andyk

People here who bother to post anti Ron Paul stuff on Ron Paul threads either don’t understand the difference between Federal and State Law, or they’re intentionally ignoring that very clear difference.

They aren’t tea partiers, they do not believe in Limited Constitutional Government.

Tea Partiers argue that the Federal Government does many things that the Constitution does not explicitly say they can do, and the tea partiers want them to stop.

The Anti Ron Paul people do not seem to have any real problems with the Federal Government doing too much. They’d prefer Big Government in the areas that they want Big Government and they might want less in other areas that they’d prefer to see less.

Democrats know this, and never tire of pointing out the many many cases of Big Government that Republicans support.

We’re against the “nanny state” but the DEA is fine, say Big Government Republicans. And Democrats point and laugh at us, and moderates, undecided voters, Independents, understand what they’re saying.


43 posted on 05/12/2011 6:28:31 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
"Why do you feel the need to treat our ally as if it possesses neither the ability nor the will to defend itself?"


I think that treating Israel more as a partner in the WOT than a dependent child would actually strengthen her ability to defend herself. We still could share intelligence and military technology even if we did not continue aid. Israel's economy is strong enough now that it does not need our aid. That aid comes with pressure to follow our lead in the foreign policy arena, which sometimes actually hinders Israel's ability to secure its own security interests.
44 posted on 05/12/2011 6:29:42 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

I do not support Ron Paul being elected to anything but I do support fedzilla being returned to it’s Constitutional bounds.


45 posted on 05/12/2011 6:33:58 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Ron Paul does not a popular foreign policy with freepers. I’m not going to argue that.

It could be argued that historically, Republicans, Conservatives were always the ones arguing against foreign policy adventures, but most here are either the newer “conservatives” who got tired of Trotsky, and thought that it would be best for both parties to agree to war all the time.

Or, they’re people who have bought that argument and are either too young to remember that Republicans were always less interventionist than the Democrats, or they’re old, but have forgotten that.

Most of the other attacks on Ron Paul are typically distortions or outright lies.

The most honest attacks on Ron Paul are simply honest attacks on Conservativism.

We have too many people completely dependent on the Federal Government that if we were completely dismantle it, the consequences would not be pretty.

The counter argument to that is simply to argue that it wouldn’t happen, even if Ron Paul was elected.

Ron Reagan wanted cuts, big cuts the way Ron Paul does, and Ron Reagan tried, but it didn’t happen as great as the real Conservatives wanted. Because you can win in a landslide, but you still have to deal with the Dems and the RINOs.

I trust Ron Paul more than anyone to make the cuts. If anyone could at least keep the FedGov from growing, it’d be Ron Paul.

He really wants so much less Fed Gov than anyone else.


46 posted on 05/12/2011 6:41:28 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: South40
Paul is a pro-heroin surrender-monkey who blames America for terrorist attacks against her.

... who said in a recent interview he wouldn't have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden... that we should've worked with the Pakistani government.

Wrong Paul... Wrong on foreign policy... Wrong on the fight against terrorism... Wrong for America.

47 posted on 05/12/2011 6:50:57 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Imagine.... a world without islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Most of the other attacks on Ron Paul are typically distortions or outright lies.

Care to defend that statement he made on killing bin Laden? He foolishly thinks we should've worked through the Pakistani government. Paul may be acceptable on some fiscal matters, but on foreign policy he'd be an unmitigated disaster.

48 posted on 05/12/2011 6:53:32 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Imagine.... a world without islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
If RuPaul was president Osama bin Laden would still be alive.

Thankfully, his drug-addled supporters, while vocal, fall far short of mustering up enough support to make him a real threat.

49 posted on 05/12/2011 6:58:25 PM PDT by South40 (Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
I agree.

I know that this is bizarre but a Trump Paul worldview might be interesting.

50 posted on 05/12/2011 7:56:17 PM PDT by Chickensoup (The right to bear arms is proven to prevent government genocide. Protect yourself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Did we get involved in a long, protracted war in the Sinai in ‘67? No? Why is that? Could it be because the Israeli military is the baddest of asses on the planet and can more than take care of themselves in a fight?

In 73 the Israelis were on the brink of losing and we had to airlift them military supplies to keep them from being overrun. They're hardly invincible.
51 posted on 05/12/2011 8:03:35 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Our Joe Wilson can take the Dems' Joe Wilson any day of the week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Who’s the guy in the third pic with LRon?


52 posted on 05/13/2011 1:44:09 AM PDT by DangerZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Be careful all ye whom mock the Paul of Texas. The Left is salivating at the idea of capturing his base...


53 posted on 05/13/2011 1:50:46 AM PDT by Gene Eric (*** Jesus ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

>> 4. Has joined former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., ... in raising all the right questions about the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and abuses of civil liberties.

Feingold, big-ass hypocrite who, at the time, had no problem looking the other way while his team began the pillaging of our liberties.


54 posted on 05/13/2011 1:56:36 AM PDT by Gene Eric (*** Jesus ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DangerZone

Adam Kokesh, military deserter and traitor.


55 posted on 05/13/2011 6:05:20 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
If Paul really wanted to do some good he would switch parties and run against Zero in the Dem primary. He might be able to pull in enough votes to keep Dem voters voting in their own primaries and not screwing around with ours.

Seriously though, if there is no serious competitor for Obama next year and so many of our primaries remain open, conservatives are in for a major hosing. Say "hello" to the Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney.
56 posted on 05/13/2011 12:59:09 PM PDT by DangerZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: South40
Could you provide a quote of mine wherein I said RuPaul encourages the use of heroin?

Sure, no problem. You said:

Paul is a pro-heroin surrender-monkey who blames America for terrorist attacks against her.

Maybe I am not looking carefully, but I have not seen Paul campaigning to promote heroin use. However, he does believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction over such matters. When asked by detractors, their favorite question of whether he favors the legalization of heroin, he is required, by intellectual honesty, to say that the federal law making its use illegal is not constitutional.

I just personally think it's a stretch for you to imply that calling him "pro-heroin" is not the same as saying he encourages use of heroin. It seemed to be the gist of your phrasing.

It's hard to tell, so I'll ask: do you believe that the constitution gives congress the power to make the purchase or use of products, whether drugs or lightbulbs, illegal for citizens of the states?

Maybe Paul has said something different recently, but what I have seen in the past of him believes that drug laws should exist at the state level. I personally agree with that because it's the only place they're currently legal under supreme law. IMHO, of course.
57 posted on 05/13/2011 5:06:07 PM PDT by andyk (Wealth != Income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Whether it is a good or bad idea, America is not ready for legalized heroin. It is hardly one our pressing issues at the moment and popular support for such a thing simply does not exist. Look, the potheads in California couldn't even get weed legalized - and that is in loopy CA.

I am not so concerned about whether it's good or bad that congress is violating the constitution - just that it's being violated. Unfortunately, even Scalia has disappointed on this one.

From what I've read of Paul, he has no problem with drug laws at the state level, where the power and jurisdiction over individuals exists. Granted, I think he would oppose it in his own state, but he would admit that drug laws in other states were none of his business.

That's certainly a perspective I can appreciate.
58 posted on 05/13/2011 5:13:16 PM PDT by andyk (Wealth != Income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
So someone who wanted to legalize burglary should not be counted as ‘pro-burglar’?

I'm sorry, but it's possible to use drugs without harming another. It is absolutely impossible to burgle without harming another. You can't compare the two.

However, this is not about heroin, it's about the federal government overstepping its bounds and passing unconstitutional laws.

There is no difference between this, and the fact that incandescent bulbs are soon to be banned from manufacture, inasmuch as the power that congress is usurping in order to make the laws is considered. It's about the loss of liberty.

I would be surprised if heroin were legal according to your state laws, so why the worry?
59 posted on 05/13/2011 5:25:57 PM PDT by andyk (Wealth != Income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
They aren’t tea partiers, they do not believe in Limited Constitutional Government.

Word.
60 posted on 05/13/2011 10:21:28 PM PDT by andyk (Wealth != Income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson