When it comes to Republicans for the 2008 nomination, I have been trying to decide between John McCain or Mitt Romney for my endorsement. However, I've been hearing, through the internet grapevine, about a certain libertarian Republican named Ron Paul, a 10th-term representative from Texas. There is a lot about this surgeon-turned-congressman that I like.
• He favors abolishing the income tax as well as the Internal Revenue Service. He has battled for repeal of the 16th Amendment (which authorized the income tax) and the National Taxpayers Union has consistently given him a score of 100% every year that he's been in Congress, the surest sign that Paul has a conservative voting record on how tax dollars were spent.
• Paul has proposed term limits and refused junkets or other Congressional perks. The organization Clean Up Washington reports that Paul is one of the more unlikely members of Congress to accept money from political action committees, lobbyists or donors.
• Paul opposes any European Union-style integration of North America (a.k.a. the North American Union proposition) and he is an advocate for strong border control. He voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and supports amending the Constitution to cease the practice of conferring automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal non-citizens.
• He faithfully adheres to his principles that "Rights belong to individuals, not groups," that "property should be owned by people, not government," and that "government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges." As such, Paul supports true equality in the form of meritocracy, and opposes the welfare state and the culture of victimization. Paul believes that "the lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's."
• Paul favors overturning Roe vs. Wade and devolving the issue of abortion to the states. He realizes that it is politically impossible to ban abortion or make it illegal on a Federal level, but if the individual states are left to decide the issue for themselves, the tide may turn against the practice of abortion if the majority of states criminalize it. There can be no sea-change of opinion on this matter, it must happen gradually.
• Paul opposed the War in Iraq, but that didn't necessarily mean he opposed the toppling of Saddam Hussein. He simply wanted a Congressional declaration of war to legitimize that invasion. In this, at least Paul is consistent. He also, along with 17 other members of Congress, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton for not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before launching the War in Kosovo. Although I disagree with his take on the Patriot Act, which he opposed, at least that is consistent with his libertarian beliefs. I believe that if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. But Paul believes it constituted an assault on civil liberties as well as having increased federal expenditure, which I can respect.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - MarkCinPhx
Thank you for a great article. I hope your readers take some time and look for more information on Dr. Paul. They can start at Ron Paul 2008.
2 - The Oak
Thank you for taking a second look at the candidates. If others would really read and learn WHO they are, more would be attracted to a true statesman in the running named Ron Paul.
3 - Rudy G
"...they hate us for our FREEDOMS!"
4 - Darryl Harrington
I've been reading in the more objective and investigative news media that the 2008 election has already been fixed. The corporate-owned mainstream media is simply creating the illusion that Ron Paul stands no chance against the neo-conservatives. Anyone in their right mind already knows very few people actually support the neo-conservatives -- so how can they be leading the polls and why do they get such amazing press coverage? Nobody likes these guys, but the media is pushing them on us at every chance! The neo-conservatives seem to have unleashed their own jihad or "religious war" upon the American people, in order to make a big play for the ultimate power grab. This war of theirs excuses any unethical behavior, because for them, the win is too important. What's the win? Unelected international bankers get to be our new rulers. This will be great for big business. It will lousy for the individual. This is communism, at its heart.
5 - Chris Fountain
Mr. Manning,
I concur in thanking you for taking the time to look closer at Rep. Paul as someone you could possibly support for President. I think a great many Americans, if they do the same, will also find a certain simple, yet powerful, wisdom to his convictions.
The Internet, as has been said by others, is allowing us to bypass soundbite politics and get to the core of these candidates in a way that was not previously possible. Ironically, Rep. Paul's message has had to bypass both both the 'Left-Wing' MSM as well as the scathing derision and marginalization of 'Right-Wing' talk radio.
While we certainly can't expect everyone to agree with Rep. Paul, I just pray that every voter will at least consider his record and convictions before making their decision.
6 - John S.
The American people need to question Murdoch, AOL-Time Warner, Ted Turner, and all the rest -- these men are pivotal in the plan to hand the election to a pro-war neocon. The OBVIOUS evidence before us is this -- 70% of the American people disapprove of the Iraq war and want OUT! How is it possible, then, that pro-war candidates are leading so much in the polls? Anyone who asks this one question will already see that the election is being served up on a silver platter, fixed perfectly with garnish, for the American people to swallow. The question is -- will we swallow it, though?
7 - Stephen C
Great points regarding Ron Paul. He's not the only candidate who's been swept under the rug, either. I worry that people vote party line, or for whomever they recognize rather than for the person whose beliefs are best for the country.
Personally, I'm doing everything I can to support Dr. Paul. This is the first time I've found a candidate worth getting excited about.
Visit the Ron Paul Library for more information about his views on every issue.
8 - Steve
Thanks for giving Ron Paul some ink. He is the only one telling the truth about the issues here. The others are simply bowing down to the coming of the Orwellian State that Ron Paul is trying hard to both warn us about and move us away from.
9 - Nick
It has been reported that Ron Paul is taking the internet by storm and that he is at the top of Technorati who has confirmed they are not being bombarded solely by a few Ron Paul supporters, but by the internet surfing public at large. Why then, does that news item, his internet success, not actually make the evening broadcast news, Fox News, or CNN? They don't want hinm to win! They pay the FCC license but they also receive tremendous benefit from it. Ron Paul would probably eliminate that agency and the big boys could then be challenged by anyone with a radio frequency for your attention. Of course, those same networks are also owned and operated bu huge corporations that have their hand in the political mix for everything from energy to cough cyrup. Those industries have their own unnecessary agencies granting them privileges. The ironic part of this is that Ron Paul is a free market hero. The companies with the cash would be able to do more to make money, including hiring more workers, diversifying their portfolios, etc. The problem is they want money and power instead of just money. Now they have it, with Ron Paul, they wouldn't. Of course, that's exactly why he should be President...among other things.
10 - Dave Nalle
As someone who is on most of the Liberarian and Liberty Republican mailing lists, I have to point out that Paul's success in internet polls is almost entirely manufactured by a small cabal of a few hundred fanatical supporters who just vote for Paul over and over and over again.
The reason the media isn't reporting this internet 'success' is that they are skeptical of it, aware that it's essentially manufactured, and don't appreciate having their online polling gamed by special interests.
Admittedly, there's some fairly intense interest in Paul, but more traditional polls reflect the truth more than online polls do. He's still hovering around 2%, even if it's a very enthusiastic 2%.
Dave
11 - bret
Dave Nalle -
We have over 1k members at ronpaulforums.com, only ONE forum among many. That right there disproves your silly, idiotic statement about "a few hundred fanatical supporters." A few hundred showed up at the Phoenix Airport, AND the Kansas City thing, AND the Colbert Report thing. Are you suggesting these are the same few hundred? Get real. Putting "libertarian" and "liberty party" in your comment does not make you credible.
12 - LPM
Ron Paul's candidacy, if nothing else, will hopefully bring about some serious and reasoned discussion regarding the correct and moral position that the federal government should take in all of our lives. The Constitution and founding fathers were pretty clear on all these matters, and unfortunately their advice (most folks seem to consider the Constitution as a 'guide' to be followed when convenient) is not only disregarded, but there doesn't even seem to be debate on the underlying principles. It is morally wrong for any human to steal, rape, and murder another human being... and this is true for groups of folks also. Just about every government action violates these simple and universal principles of basic human interaction.
13 - Holly
It is always interesting to hear what other people think of Ron Paul's position on the issues.
I don't know why David Nalle thinks there is a Ron Paul conspiracy. It is absurd. Attend one of the thousands of Ron Paul meetups around the country, and see for yourself. People are interested and excited. There is an opportunity for real political change.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Bret, I hate to play devil's advocate*, but Dave's presence on those libertarian mailing lists brings up a good point: just because 1000+ people are on the Ron Paul forum does not mean that every single one of those 1000+ is going to vote for him.
Still, he is creating an interesting buzz, not least here at BC. A lot can happen between now and November 2008.
Especially bearing in mind Bloomberg's announcement yesterday that he's leaving the Republican fold, possibly paving the way for a tilt at the presidency himself. Both major parties are now wetting themselves, convinced that he will take away crucial game-winning votes.
*Actually, that's not true. It's kind of fun.
15 - Dena
Thanks for the Ron Paul article. I've been a registered Republican all my adult life and am so disgusted with what the party has become. I am an ardent supporter of Ron Paul and, by the way, I have never been involved in spam (wouldn't know how to if I wanted to) and I have nver voted more than once in any on-line poll. Thanks again.
16 - Chris Finkler
Thank you for your positive assessment of Ron Paul; promoting awareness of the candidates is a good thing.
I would like to challenge your take on the Patriot Act, however. True, if you have nothing to hide, it may not directly affect you. But it throws concepts such as individual privacy and innocent until proven guilty out the window.
I personally view any loss of freedom as always something to fear. The Patriot Act has already started a downward spiral, leading to more restrictive legislation such as the Military Commissions Act.
Watching Andrew Napolitano's "Civil Liberties in Wartime" is a must before taking a position on this issue.
17 - Bruno
Iowans for Tax Relief not only did not extend an invitation to Dr. Paul to participate in its co-hosted debate planned for June 30, but also that it *will not* extend an invitation to him. Mr. Edward Failor, an ITR officer, refused to explain to Lew Moore why his organization adopted this stance; Steve Sheffler of the Iowa Christian Alliance has yet to answer for his organization's participation in this matter.
I find this disheartening considering the fact that they are choosing to exclude the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of the MSNBC, Fox News and CNN polls after two previously televised Republican presidential debates.
I changed my party affiliation to Republican in order to participate in the California presidential primaries so that I may support Ron Paul.
18 - Michael Wagner
Wow! "as long as you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear from the PATRIOT act?" Yeah, at least until writing a blog that is critical of the administration is defined as a "terrorist" activity.
Remember, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation ruled by men.
If we have to depend on having the "right guy" in office, the guy who promises not to abuse the power, we've already lost. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the "right guy" under the wrong circumstances will use whatever power is on the books to further his goal. If you happen to be in the way, the PATRIOT act is broad enough that YOUR activity can be defined as dangerous to the regime and YOU will be taken. You will then have no trial, no charges will be laid against you, you will have no access to an attorney. You will simply disappear into the gulag.
The only answer is to repeal the act, or better yet get it declared unconstitutional. This act is very similar to the Sedition Act, passed under President Adams. Jefferson considered it unconstitutional and wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in defense of his postition. You might try reading them.
For now, let's get Ron Paul into the White House, and elect some Congressmen who will support him.
Then, and ONLY then, will we have a chance of preserving Freedom in this country.
19 - Davy C Rockett
Ron Paul attracts Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents.
I myself will write in his name if he doesn't win republican nomination in 2008 general election.
With over 9 trillion in debt, government running defecits, more intrusive big gov, Ron Paul is what we need right now.
Failing foreign policies making America unsafe. Open borders and amnesty, we need to wake up and start protecting Americans, not the politicians and their special interest.
Ron Paul is not bought by special interest destroying our country. He is for Americans and the Constitution first.
20 - goldenequity
Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework. NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological order.
Audio Just Posted: Ron Paul's Campaign Chairman Kent Snyder faces off with Ed Failor Chairman of Iowa Tax Relief org. on WHO Newsradio Jan Mickelson's call-in.
21 - FatDrunkAndStupid
Actually Ron Paul did oppose the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Ron is a non-interventionist. He takes the Washingtonian view that the US should remeain aloof and neurtal in its dealings with the world. He did argue that if the US was going to go to war with Iraq, they should at the very least have the decency to do it under a declaration of war rather than a UN Resolution or a Presidential Whim, but Paul himself would never have voted "yes" on said Declaration.
22 - Dave Nalle
The OBVIOUS evidence before us is this -- 70% of the American people disapprove of the Iraq war and want OUT! How is it possible, then, that pro-war candidates are leading so much in the polls?
Wow, you need to learn how to read polls. The key thing to look for is what the question asked ACTUALLY is, not what someone told you it was, and you also need to look for the actual breakdown of opinion, not someone's later interpretation of it.
For example, your 70% may have come from the most recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, which CAN be interpreted as saying that 68% (rounded up to 70 in casual conversation) want us out of Iraq, but in fact the question asks:
"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"
And the answers are:
Withdraw Right Away: 25%
Withdraw Within a Year: 43%
Stay as Long as it Takes: 26%
Unsure: 6%
You see that big 'unsure' number? That's an indication that a lot of people didn't like the question. A lot of them probably wanted to answer something like 2 years or 3 years, but they weren't offered that, so they took the 1 year option or picked unsure. But even putting that aside, only 25% want us to pull out right this second. The largest group think at least some more time is needed.
While you could choose to read this poll as 68% want to pull out of Iraq, it can also be interpreted as 69% think that US troops need more time in Iraq.
Which is right?
Dave
23 - MCLA
"I believe that if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear from the Patriot Act."
Wow! That sure warmed me up to Big Brother!
Cheers!
MCLA
24 - Tim
On the world front i agree with Paul. America is not responcible for other countries. If a ligitimate friendly government ask for our help ok, but don't shove help down their throats.If we get attacked, take names,kick ass, return home.There is enough hostility in the world without going and looking for it. Show us the weapons of mass destruction. Show us the fence.If there was another good reason then tell me that, but don't take us for mindless idiots.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, Clavos, you need to look for the actual breakdown of opinion, not your own later interpretation of it.
So, if we examine the actual poll numbers, we find that:
- 4% wish MCH to pull his head out of his ass straight away;
- 16% wish him to pull it out within a year;
- 7% thought he should take his time pulling it out, as it was probably nice and warm in there;
- 22% were unsure about MCH's ass (and who can blame them);
- and by far the largest number, 51%, said that they would rather go to the pub and not think about what MCH should do with his head.
In the same poll, 100% of stray dogs stated that the thought of Dave jacking off put them off their dinner.
For the free civics lesson - you're welcome!