Who is Ron Paul?

[JB88]

Originally posted by scottydawg


Who is John Galt?

hands scottydawg a handrolled cigarette with a $ on it.

[Hap]

Thanks for the link to the Paul interview.  Listening to it now.

Other than hearing a few here mention his name, I don't know anything about him.

It'll be nice to learn about someone who very well may be worth learning about.

I also agree with whomever said accepting ineptitude at the Presidental level is unacceptable.  Being one of 300 million, one can try to learn about the people and their policies.

The "beauty contest" of politics really hampers things.  Saying stuff that will appeal to folks instead of saying truthfully here's what I think is best.  If you disagree, don't vote for me.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Hap
Other than hearing a few here mention his name, I don't know anything about him.

It'll be nice to learn about someone who very well may be worth learning about.

here's what Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has to say about him... (this was after the first debate...)


Muth's Truths
May 6, 2007

THE GOP'S RODNEY DANGERFIELD
The ten announced GOP presidential candidates gathered at the Reagan Library last Thursday to show off their stuff for the first time to a generally disinterested nation.  Without dwelling on the relative merits of the field or how they handled themselves at what can only loosely be described as a "debate," I do want to talk about the one candidate who is deserving of far greater attention by Republicans, but who has, to this point, gotten the least respect.

Congressman Ron Paul.

The GOP debate was broadcast on MSNBC, and an online post-debate survey of over 50,000 people conducted on the network's website clearly showed Ron Paul came out ahead.  Yet one post-debate columnist referred to the congressman simply as a "gadfly," and a Fox News pundit who published a wrap-up assessment this weekend didn't mention Paul at all.  I'll return the favor by not mentioning the pundit's name, but he wrote about three of the other nine candidates using words such as "losers," "dull," "unattractive," "boring" and "bland."

So maybe Paul should be thankful for small favors.

But Ron Paul's candidacy deserves far greater attention and consideration by national Republicans who have clearly lost their way.  GOP leaders in Washington who are still shell-shocked over the shellacking they took last November should stop scratching their heads and asking "What happened?" and start listening to Ron Paul.  His campaign is all about the reasons so many limited-government conservatives stayed home or voted for a non-GOP option last fall.

For those of you who don't know much about Congressman Paul, here are a few facts: He's a doctor.  He's run for president before; in 1988 as the nominee for the Libertarian Party.  He's solidly pro-life and makes a Constitution-based argument for his position.  He's also earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Washington because he won't vote for any bill which isn't authorized by the Constitution.  As columnist Joe Sobran notes, "When the House votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the 1."

Indeed, the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.

Jefferson wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."  Goldwater famously wrote, "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."  Paul explains on his website that he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."  Birds of a feather.  Peas in a pod.

And for all the candidates trying to position themselves as the one, true heir to the Reagan mantle, John Fund of Political Diary reminds us that "Dr. Paul has been in and out of Congress since 1976, when he was one of only four GOP House members to endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford."

This bears repeating: "One of only four GOP House members to endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford."  In other words and to borrow a phrase, Dr. Paul was a Reaganite long before being a Reaganite was cool.

This is a "gadfly"?  This is a Republican who warrants no mention?

Consider Ron Paul's position on Iraq.  He's unique in that he was against the war before he was against the war, unlike all the Democrats (save Kucinich) who were for the war before they were against it.  But also unlike the Democrats, Ron Paul's opposition to the war is rooted in our nation's founding history, not political expedience or pacifism.  In explaining his consistent anti-war position, Dr. Paul notes the non-interventionist policies of the Founding Fathers.

Wasn't it that early-American "gadfly" George Washington who warned our fledgling nation not to "entangle our peace and prosperity" in the affairs of foreign nations?

When asked during Thursday's debate if, as president, he would to phase out the IRS, Rep. Paul responded, "Immediately."  But he added that "you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be," noting the IRS will be around as long as citizens think "government has to take care of us from cradle to grave."  That might be the sign of a "gadfly" to liberals and Democrats (but I repeat myself repeat myself), but it is quintessentially conservative and what was once, long ago, quintessentially Republican.

When asked "yes" or "no" on the emotional issue of embryonic stem cell research funding, Paul remained consistent and constitutional, responding that "Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution."  How Jeffersonian.  How Goldwateresque.

When asked whether or not he trusted the mainstream media, Rep. Paul responded: "Some of them.  But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet."

On the notion of turning America into a "Papers, please" nation, Rep. Paul declared, "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about."

And showing he's not all wonk and no play, when asked if Bill Clinton being back in the White House would be a good thing for America, Paul deadpanned, "I voted to impeach him, so..."  Laughter all around.

In announcing his presidential campaign earlier this year, Paul said, "I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong direction."  That assessment is unassailable.  It's also the reason why so many conservative Republicans are cutting up their GOP membership cards and re-registering as independents or with third parties.  If national Republicans want to stop this bleeding of grassroots support, they'd better start giving the viewsand presidential candidacyof Ron Paul a lot more respect.

[Toad]

I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure. The more debates the better for him; he's the only one that comes off as a man of principle and his principle is the Constitution.

I think I'll even toss a few bucks his way.

I still think he's a long shot but it is refreshing to be thinking you want to vote FOR someone rather than the routine necessity of having to pick the lesser of two weasels.

[Charon]

I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure. The more debates the better for him; he's the only one that comes off as a man of principle and his principle is the Constitution.

The mainstream media is working to ignore him I believe CNN and FOX thought they had a "gotcha" moment, but he has handled their pointed attacks head on. The republicans, at least some leader of the Michigan party, are looking to have him excluded from future debates.

He's really not with the program, and the usual round of party hacks from Rush to Fox seem to be a bit perturbed that people are starting to pay attention to him since they are part of the program/problem themselves. Ron is bad for business. But, the time may be right, especially with the next great bipartisan Illegal Amnesty bill heading our way ASAP.

I may throw some money his way myself. Frankly, with a little organization we might be able to bypass the MSM on this one. If everone who attended a fourm with an "oclub" brough him up, it could bypass the spin that they are trying to swift boat him with.

Charon

[Xargos]

I love reading Charon and Seagoon post's, they both write so well.


Ron Paul is looking better and better.

[Gumbeau]

Ron Paul has positions that directly contradict themselves.

He also claims to be a strict constitutionalist while proposing stuff that would require amendments.

At a cursory glance he has some interesting and attractive positions but the entire package taken together points in a completely different direction.

I've read everything I have come across that he himself has said or written.

Some single issue stuff is good but, again, if you list his stance on all the issues it looks pretty goofy.

His rants about Congressional War Declarations are particularly misguided and show a lack of appreciation for what the Constitution is ultimately addressing.

[Toad]

Well, give me some examples of the contradictions. I am always willing to learn.

[Xargos]

I think some people a afraid to loose their meal ticket.

[Rolex]

He's the only candidate who doesn't look and sound like a smarmy politician to me. The rest of them in both parties make my skin crawl. These days, that might make a winning slogan.

"Vote for Paul; he doesn't make your skin crawl!"

He's consistent and isn't pandering to any group. He's intelligent, articulate, rational and speaks to people like an adult. I don't think he's going to appeal to the ignorant and simple-minded demographic of voter, though. There's just too many of them crawling around.

I worry about the special interests that are the puppetmasters of the nomination and election process. We've already seen that they can easily sway the ignorant voter - the single largest constituency - with distortions of his positions.

[SteveBailey]

After his comments about 9/11, Ron Paul is done.. stick a fork in him done.

[Sandman]

He's also not a neo-con.

[Toad]

I think if Paul is allowed to debate again, they'll bring this recent Iraq statement up again.

He'll be ready to explain it and it will sound more cogent than anything Rudy has said so far.

He's done if they can force him out of the debates. If they leave him in, I believe the other 9 are going to lose ground.

Even though Rolex is probably right, I still feel that people know the truth when they hear it. They also have highly developed bullshirt detectors which works against the other nine. They can easily recognize a politician dancing around a question without answering it; that also works against the other nine.

Which of these do you think is bullshirt or an attempt to dance around an issue?

Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
 

How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
 

I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.
 

I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.
 

I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest.
 

Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
 

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
 

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
 

The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
l

The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.

Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.


War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
 

When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
 

You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws.

[DiabloTX]

I've been an admirer of Ron Paul for some time now.  I have to, he's my 14th Congressional Representative, an area whre I live, up to last month.  

My only concern with Mr. Paul is his age.  He'll be 72 in August.  Not an overwhelming concern mind you, but a concern none-the-less.

[Dadano]

Originally posted by Gumbeau

At a cursory glance he has some interesting and attractive positions but the entire package taken together points in a completely different direction.

Elaborate please.
Thanks.