Does Ron Paul Have A Chance?
I didn't get to watch the debate (I have several pretty crushing deadlines now), but I heard a bit of it on the 11 o'clock news...with political consultant Sherry Bebitch Jeffe saying it wasn't a debate, but the political version of speed dating.
I read that three of the candidates don't accept evolution -- Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee. Jeez, if these guys get anywhere near having a chance, how embarrassing is that for the level of rationality and modernity in this country. (To think people call Europe "the old country.")
Anyway, from one of the snippets I saw on the news, I was pleased to see they included libertarian Texas rep Ron Paul, who was the single person they showed talking sense. Is it possible Ron Paul has a chance of getting elected? Here's an excerpt from one of his columns, "Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again," from LewRockwell.com:
What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible.Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war-funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
More Ron Paul columns at this link. Here's another excerpt -- from his statement on the Iraq War Resolution before the U.S. House of Representatives on March 7:
The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. And it’s all done under the slogan of “supporting the troops,” even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.Every problem Congress and the administration create requires more money to fix. The mantra remains the same: spend more money we don’t have, borrow from the Chinese, or just print it.
This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke.
Interventionism always leads to unanticipated consequences and blowback, like:
-A weakened, demoralized military;
-Exploding deficits;
-Billions of dollars wasted;
-Increased inflation;
-Less economic growth;
-An unstable currency;
-Painful stock market corrections;
-Political demagoguery;
-Lingering anger at home; and
-Confusion about who is to blame.These elements combine to create an environment that inevitably undermines personal liberty. Virtually all American wars have led to diminished civil liberties at home.
Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution.
That Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a roadmap to restore our liberties and change our foreign policy. This is critical if we truly seek peace and prosperity.
Who is Ron Paul? His bio here:
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
And here are some of his beliefs:
-Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
-Property should be owned by people, not government.
-All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
-The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
-Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
-The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
I don't like his position on abortion, but I'm with him on a number of the other issues. Does a libertarian finally have a chance, if even a snowball's chance? At the very least, some of his beliefs might get aired to Americans who aren't all that familiar with libertarianism, and who are disenchated with Democratic and Republican sleaze-and-stupidity-as-usual.
Of course, it's my belief that Newt Gingrich will end up being the Republican candidate. Smart of him to stay out of the loser pack at the moment by not declaring.
Apparently one of his beliefs is that the government is not responsible for national security, or that said security can somehow be maintained without either fighting wars abroad or intruding on civil liberties at home.
Which means his response to the next 9/11 will be nuclear. Because that's the only response that's compatible with his views.
Oh, and there WILL be another attack in the US in 2009, regardless who wins the election. What's Ron Paul's plan to deal with it?
brian at May 4, 2007 4:19 AM
"Oh, and there WILL be another attack in the US in 2009, regardless who wins the election. What's Ron Paul's plan to deal with it?"
Brian, is there something you're not telling us? Like, how do you know there will be an attack in 2009? In the US? By whomever? Whose team are you batting for? Or are you just speculating?
Flynne at May 4, 2007 5:44 AM
Also, you do not combat faith based initiatives (religious inspired terrorism) through fear of future faith based initiatives. It is reckless.
Learn from the mistakes of the current POTUS. Adapt and change policy. More militarism isn't going to solve the problem of Islamic based terrorism. The British learned this from the 1870s in the Sudan and northern India. Dealing with the IRA and now successfully infiltrating terror cells with MI-5 agents.
By the way, the leading WAR candidate is Senator Hillary Clinton.
Joe at May 4, 2007 6:09 AM
Brian, I believe what he's against is fighting wars abroad against sovereign nations that didn't attack us. I'm with him on that. Do you really think Iraq, with all the hundreds of billions of dollars it's costing us, is making us safer...or breeding more terrorists?
Do you see the intrusions on civil liberties at home as helping catch terrorists? I posted about my friend Zak, who was kept out of the country for three months because his name was one initial off from that of a terrorist who also went to London School of Economics. They could have just rung his agent in Los Angeles, or checked out the movies he's written to see he's not the same person. Nope.
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2007 6:16 AM
Here's a link to a piece by Paul on how occupation of foreign lands seems to cause terrorism in ours:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2007 6:19 AM
Amy,
I have the video of the debate at my site. (Most of it anyway.) There is also edited video with just Ron Paul's questions and answers.
miche at May 4, 2007 6:28 AM
Exactly, Amy.
Ever since the Iraq invasion, Islamic based extremism has increased in various 'friendly' nations among the M.E. The rise of violence in Egypt alone should be studied. The rate of shootings and bombings has increased since 2003 and has been consistent every year.
Every time there is a huge military adventure in the M.E., it creates a 10 year spike of Islamic extremism. Gulf I in the 1990s.... A.Q. is established and the fatwas against the USA keep rolling out. Gulf II... more forms of extremism.
Joe at May 4, 2007 6:47 AM
Ron Paul is a Grade A kook. He buys into every fringe conspiracy belief under the sun, from "nobody really has to pay taxes" to "the globalists are trying to force America into a harmful EU-like alliance with Canada and Mexico" to "we need a new investigation into 9-11" (because, of course, that whole story about Islamic militants crashing hijacked airplanes into buildings is just silly).
Yes, his platitudes about minimizing the role of government and ending the pointless Iraq war look nice. But dig a little deeper and you'll find someone it's scary to think is in Congress.
For example, google the phrase "Ron Paul on Guns, Money and the New World Order" and read the article with that title on conspiracyplanet.com. Or any of a thousand other articles he's written or interviews he's done; he's not shy about sharing what he really believes. (For real fun, include the word "Zionist" in your search.) Then come back here and tell me this guy deserves consideration for anything other than a one-way trip to a mental institution.
Gary S. at May 4, 2007 7:02 AM
Ron Paul says: "The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's."
But he's supposedly pro-life. So why would he care if women had the right to abortions? Isn't that rather contradictory? Guy doesn't seem to know his arse end from his elbow. Kook, indeed. And then some.
Flynne at May 4, 2007 7:21 AM
I would be very surprised if we hear anything more (on the national stage) from/about Rep. Paul. The guy cannot even break the $1 million mark for fundraising.
As to his views, yes he is a libertarian, mais he is so far out there that he will never get anywhere except within his own congressional constituency. He cannot even gain enough attention/credibility to influence even the second tier candidates.
Personally (as a strong Republican), I would be sorely tempted to vote for the Democrat nominee in the fantasy scenario where Rep. Paul were chosen as the republican nominee. On some issues he is SO far out there that he gives me the heebie jeebies...
André-Tascha at May 4, 2007 7:30 AM
It seems like we all have such a low opinion of our elected officials. Why do we keep electing them?
Rodger at May 4, 2007 7:40 AM
Rodger: because the smart people stay out of it...
André-Tascha at May 4, 2007 7:47 AM
Rodger,
A vast majority win elections through low voter turn out and the candidates appeal to very active political pressure groups.
Read any of the popular political books 'written' by the assortment of the Presidential candidates from both parties. The books are filled with empty slogans that will make the reader feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but forget the one important aspect on the lack of specific details on achieving these goals.
My views on the 2 parties are quite simple: I dislike Republicans, but despise the Democrats. What does that make me? Someone who has lived in Washington DC for a number of years.
Joe at May 4, 2007 8:05 AM
Ron Paul would not criminalize abortion; he would bring it back to the states. I am very pro choice and I think Paul stays out of it appropriately. He voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
miche at May 4, 2007 8:07 AM
He stupidly takes the right of the individual down to the cellular level. While he gives the right to the states, I think that will be medically dangerous for girls and for women without means. Moreover, just because he voted against the restrictions doesn't mean others won't overrule him.
I don't love everything about this guy, but I would like to see government run, economically speaking, as if lawmakers are spending their own money not other people's. If you ran your own fiscal life the way our government runs yours, you'd be slinking out of bankruptcy court right now while wearing a barrel.
I'd also like to see more responsible policy about when we intervene in foreign conflics (or start them). We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, and what's it gotten us except more terrorists?
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2007 8:23 AM
Well, Paul will be smeared by beltway libertarian bloggers for his views on the Civil War and his close association with LewRockwell.com. A few months ago, Virginia Postrel attacked the libertarians who hold favorable views towards Rothbard, Mises and Rand:
http://tinyurl.com/2s2ruv
The problem with libertarians* who defended states' rights had the mistake of attaching unpopular causes through out US history. Slavery during the Civil War. Jim Crow laws during desegregation and the early civil rights movement. The cause for states' rights is just, but the issues behind them were complete blunders.
***I'm using the term 'libertarian' as a general label for the particular historical movements of the period that supported state power over the federal government. No one specific.
Joe at May 4, 2007 8:32 AM
I certainly don't agree with Ron Paul on every issue but he was my favorite on the GOP panel.
miche at May 4, 2007 9:25 AM
I would like to see government run, economically speaking, as if lawmakers are spending their own money not other people's
Ha! Ha! Ha!
When I informed a friend of mine who is a Republican Member of the California Assembly (and a fiscal conservative) that per resident (including homesless, illegal aliens, etc) spending by the state of california had gone up by just under 70% since 1994 and that I sure as hell had not seen 70% better roads, schools, jail capacity, etc., his response was that the spending was valid.
Well, what did we get for that increase in spending? (crickets chirping)
This is a bloody member of the assembly - those who spend our tax dollars...
André-Tascha at May 4, 2007 9:25 AM
I find it has to do more with the party structure and maintaining access than solutions solving real problems.
It goes back to a famous saying of one of the worse POTUS*, James Buchanan: "The office (POTUS) is not fit for a gentleman."
Another GOP contender who is laying low besides Gingrich is the Vice President.
***The list may have a new member after 1/21/09.
Joe at May 4, 2007 9:42 AM
and don't forget the one that I am holding out for: Fred Thompson...
André-Tascha at May 4, 2007 9:55 AM
Same here, A.T. Just his service as co-chief counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee alone qualifies him in my book for POTUS:
1. He was responsible for Senator Baker asking the question: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
2. He asked the question: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"
One of the few people with integrity. Also, he can attract many of the Reagan Democrats.
Joe at May 4, 2007 10:12 AM
Joe: Amen.
André-Tascha at May 4, 2007 10:20 AM
Listen, love this stuff to death, but can I just say? It's only early May.
2007.
Do whatcha needta do, but it can be very difficult to maintain an erection for eighteen months.
By all means, be sure and let us know how it's going.
Crid at May 4, 2007 10:34 AM
Oh Lordy - I'm with you Crid. I can't stand the thing for two months much less 18.
Jon at May 4, 2007 11:57 AM
Well, the second Mrs. Thompson is pleasing to the eyes and will help anyone with E.D. for the next 18 months.
http://tinyurl.com/266wwa
Joe at May 4, 2007 12:19 PM
Meh. This part of the presidential-race season is like the week before the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, where all the Coastal Carolinas and Eastern Washingtons of the world rejoice in their chance to play for the biggest prize of all -- before being brutally defeated by the real contenders, and quickly forgotten.
Sorry for the sports cliche, but I think it fits here.
Gary S. at May 4, 2007 12:21 PM
the answer to your question in the title of your piece is "no."
moe99 at May 4, 2007 12:55 PM
WOW I never imagined a politicos wife quite like Mrs. Thompson.
PurplePen at May 4, 2007 1:17 PM
Flynne: What makes me so sure? Pattern Matching. 1993, new president, WTC attacked by Al-Qaeda. 2001, new president. WTC and Pentagon attacked by Al-Qaeda. 2009, new president. WTC may be gone, but Al-Qaeda isn't. The probability of an attack approaches 1. I said at the start of this whole "War on Terror" that Bush had until 2008 to dismantle AQ. He hasn't. They will attack. Hopefully Hillary has bigger balls than George.
Amy: If Ron Paul believes the crap from antiwar.com about Islamic terrorists only attacking us because we "occupy" their land, then he never heard of Qutb or the Barbary Pirates. Come on, with an inspiration like Qutb, do you think the Islamists NEED another reason to justify attacking us?
Iraq wouldn't have become a breeding ground for terrorists if we'd fought it like we meant it. Go in, flatten a bunch of shit, and the moment that Iran and Syria start interfering, point a gun at them and say "back off or you're next". If it hadn't been for the need to keep the oil market stable, we could have plunged the entirety of the middle east into a new dark age in a matter of weeks. One from which they would never recover. And they'd be without the source of their funding.
But cutting off that source of oil would get China and Europe to declare war on us, so that was never an option. I still think Bush took the wrong approach to Syria and Iran. At the first sign of evidence of their involvement in funding and arming terrorists, we should have smacked them down.
brian at May 4, 2007 2:08 PM
> the second Mrs. Thompson
> is pleasing to the eyes
Um...
What would be the psychokarmic implications of having a fake pair of tits in the White House before we had a real pair of tits, you know, really in the White House?
Crid at May 4, 2007 7:19 PM
Brian,
First of all, no matter what a bunch of hell-bent terrorists do, there is no moral justification for plunging "the entirety of the middle east into a new dark age in a matter of weeks. One from which they would never recover."
Holy balls, that's pretty scary talk. Does that make you feel a little bit safer to say really tough things like that?
Also, with regards to "smacking down" Iran and Syria, what do you have to say about the CIAs history of funding al-Qaeda throughout the 80s?
Unfortunately, the U.S. has a long history of sponsoring terrorism when it suits our international political agenda.
Let's stop with this tough guy talk. We can't possibly think we're going to get away with NUKING Iran, an option which none of the mainstream candidates (on either side) are willing to take off the table.
Swift, tactical regime change is one thing, but nukes kill a lot of completely innocent people. Same thing goes for economic sanctions, which ultimately only help the tyrants of these countries, while the innocents starve.
Ron Paul is a good man, and our country needs to go on a new path.
Chad at May 7, 2007 6:05 AM
Given Ron Paul's view on religion, I'm surprised that
Amy seems to like him:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state
has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the
writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary
...
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Ron at May 8, 2007 7:56 PM
Ron Paul is our only chance. It's not that hes so cool or that you see him on TV more. He is honest, his record proves it.That is a rarity nowadays in politics. Furthermore, ANYONE that decides who they will vote for based on abortion rights is a bonafied idiot.There are bigger fish to fry. Ron Paul is not in favor of abortion, that makes sense since he is a doctor and has delivered babies into the world. At the same time, he is too honest to propose some federal ban on it. That in itself shows character methinks.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071218.html
FREEEEDOM at April 23, 2008 8:22 PM
Leave a comment