Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he's got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.
For example, I was very glad to see him in the first debate hosted by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. At one point, he asked about national ID cards. Oh yeah, good idea, fine, prudent thinking. Then the question got to Ron Paul, who had a big ol' "hell no" answer, invoking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Suddenly all these other Republican candidates are backpedaling as hard as they can. That was a valuable service to the public debate from Congressman Paul. I'm real glad he was there thumping that pesky Constitution.
I was also tickled with the early part of his performance in the second debate with Brit Hume on Fox. Hume came asking the candidates simply to name three programs they would eliminate to cut the budget. Tommy Thompson bragged on his 1900 gubernatorial vetoes, but couldn't come up with even one little specific tiny federal program that he'd publicly commit to eliminating. That was pretty much the deal with all the other candidates - except of course for Ron Paul. He had three whole cabinet departments that he'd be happy to shut down - education, energy and homeland security. Now THAT'S answering the question. And if you'd ask him, I bet he'd come up with at least a couple more whole cabinet departments we could eliminate.
Most of all though, he's a uniquely valuable presence in the Republican debates as the only anti-war candidate in the mix. He voted against the war in 2002, and he wants to shut it down NOW. It's highly valuable to the public debate to have a candidate on that stage willing to make a principled constitutional argument against not just the details of how the Iraq war has been conducted, but against the whole thrust of our aggressive military involvement all around the world. Ron Paul demands a basic re-examination of our whole approach to foreign policy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Pretty solid take on Paul. I think his contribution as a voice of truth could go beyond just the debates and put him in the VP slot. Anyone who took him on as VP would gain a hell of a lot of respect.
As for the attempts to get him out of the debates, it's uterly disgraceful.
Dave
2 - Timothy
"All the groovy tax cuts in the world won't do US much good if we're getting eaten alive by evil bastards because we're too principled to protect ourselves."
- So, I guess we should just throw away all our civil liberties so we can feel safe. I mean, since security is all that matters.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” - James Madison
"Any society willing to trade a little liberty for temperary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
3 - Aaron
Bless your heart. The current shallow political US media world is WACKO! The great thing with Ron is even if you don't agree w/ everything he believes in, everyone who isn't closed minded, is blown away by his sincerity and truthiness--he tells you exactly what he thinks like it or not. That's why so many democrats, liberals, real conservatives, libertarians, and young people are flocking to him. For the record he has said, "I DO NOT believe that our government planned and caused 9/11"--but he has pointed out that more money was spent investigating Clinton. In other words, there should be more investigation into what the CIA/FBI did know--as you may know, there were warning signs. I'm a conservative Christian - I was against the Iraq war from the beginning (not a "just war" and we were not attacked by Iraq) so I had given up on the Republican Party...He is really the only choice in the Republican party that stands against the policies that took us into war in Iraq. So---is it really that surprising that republicans and others who are worried about our aggressive foreign policy support the only guy with the guts to take the establishment on? I really do support Ron Paul, but, understandably-- for the reasons I stated, some folks feel that supporting Ron Paul sends a message to the GOP that not all of us support the failed policies of BUSH. (by the way, Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts (from Reagan Admin), Tucker Carlson, James Webb and on and on (all staunch conservatives) have said things similar to Paul on the war being a failure and causing more hatred for the US. (even before it started in 2002) Ron Paul is not the only real conservative left.
4 - Ron Paul Supporter
Your bait and switch tactic is pathetic!
Ron Paul is the ONLY person to vote for!
You talk about "Real World" like you are some expert and the rest of us are stupid. I am getting sick of reading stories like yours, that start out with great things about Dr. Paul to draw people in and then you end with your kill shot!
You my friend will lose this one, because this time WE THE PEOPLE will prevail and if we don't God help us because we will be chipped before the next President leaves office!
5 - Al Barger
Now Timothy, that comment #2 is just some hysterical nonsense, isn't it? You might want to start with peeling apart some distinctions between being willing to clobber people in foreign countries (which this article will tend to imply that I favor) vs suspensions of our civil liberties.
In fact, one of the reasons that I'm inclined to support some amount of what might be seen as foreign interventionism is that I'd rather fight them over there, which avoids tearing up our stuff, killing our civilians and needing to monkey with our civil liberties. Thus, I favored the Iraq war and opposed the Patriot Act.
Aaron, thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your careful listening to what someone is saying, rather than just jerking the knee.
Even where I would strongly disagree with Mr Paul, his honesty and commitment to serious principles make him worth considering.
6 - brody
Ron Paul would actually make us safer, by using his non-intervenionist foreign policy to stop inciting wars and attacks, and free up resources to use on national defense instead of national offense. He has said from the beginning that al-qaeda and bin laden are our enemies, and that we should hunt them down instead of wasting resources in iraq. Hillary would spread our resources thin, while Paul would focus on our real enemies. If Ron Paul is an idealogue, then how did you support him in 1988? He obviously still has the same views. You need to be deprogrammed from this "islamo-fascist" propoganda that Bush has been feeding you for the past 6 years. Non-interventionism does not equal isolationism does not equal non-defense of the country.
7 - Al Barger
Brody, I WANT to believe that Ron Paul would make us safer. But I don't see anything from him about what he would actually do to throttle the bastards who want to kill us. And how are we going to fight Al Qaeda without going into other countries? Everything I hear from Paul is all of what we can't do and have to stop doing. It takes a hell of a lot more than that.
Not that I'd be happy about President Hillary. I intended picking even the Hildebeast over Paul as a statement of how weak I think he is on defense issues.
In 1988, we hadn't been confronted yet with the spectre of Al Qaeda. These issues really weren't relevant. Further experience brings new data and consideration. It takes more than platitudes about non-aggression to deal with Islamists. At this point in 2007, Ron Paul's idealogical road map doesn't seem to be matching up with the actual territory in front of us.
8 - G
I believe you are misunderstanding part of Dr. Paul's take on foreign policy. He most certainly does not seem like a pacifist who hopes our enemies will just leave us alone if we leave them alone. He did, after all, vote for the war in Afghanistan and, on the House floor, critize the president and congress for not pursuing Osama bin Laden more aggressively. His criticism of the war in Iraq should not be misunderstood as a criticism of going after our enemies.
You believe he will pull all our troops home and do nothing to defend this country, from a series of 30 second answers on television? That is not what Ron Paul has stated in other media, where he has been less limited on time. To me, his message has been clear, and something to the effect of: We should go after the terrorists who attacked us, not create new ones in silly nation-building projects or unpopular foreign interventions.
Part of a non-interventionist foreign policy is placing the defense of your nation above defense of others. Therefore, it is not even compatible with retreat from all foreign theaters, if such an action would do harm to our national security. Its not so much a policy on the physical locations of our troops as it is placing America first. To me, this is much less of a "candyland" than our current policies, which seem to act with complete disregard for the reasons a growing number in the Islamic world want to blow themselves up to kill us in the first place.
I haven't seen another canidate who has argued as fiercely for the destruction of this nation's real enemies while at the same time trying not to repeat the mistakes which created them. I cannot see another canidate in the field who would be able to protect this nation like Dr. Paul, so he has my vote.
9 - James
Great article, and you had me right up until the "I would rather support Hillary" segment. I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but are you serious? If you thought Bush was a layup, Hillary would be the tip in. You would rather vote for a candidate who in no way believes in the constitution and bill of rights, capitalism, free market, self-determination and the ideals of the republic. A candidate who is clearly compromised, bought and paid for, former director of Wal-Mart, member of the council on foreign relation and the Bilderberg group. Mrs. "we're going to take from you and give to others, for the common good" socialist lawyer. You would rather vote for her over a perfectly good and uncompromised once in a lifetime polar opposite in both philosophy and integrity the likes of whom we have not seen before since the founding times because he might be a little too idealistic. If that is your position, God help us. Great rest of the article though.
10 - Dr Dreadful
"By the end of the Fox debate, there was already grumbling coming back from SC locals that Paul should be excluded from future debates. Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he would be circulating a petition to have Paul excluded from future debates."
But, but, but, I don't understand. I'm sure I read an article on Blogcritics the other day that said it was liberals who liked to stifle dissenting voices.
Mr Bambenek, any thoughts?
11 - G
Well James, in defense of his logic, who is commander in chief doesn't matter if the country gets blown to bits. Not that I believe al Qaeda wishes to destroy the United States, or has the capabilities to. Michael Sheuer presents his arguments with enough logic and support that I find it hard to disagree with him on that topic.
And I also agree with him that our choice may be between war and endless war. The later I think could unfortunately happen if we do not move towards a more non-interventionalist policy and stop the radicalizing more of the world's muslims against us.
12 - Mike
I agree with the comments made by G. Too bad there is no response from Barger. Hmm....
13 - James
Wow, Hillary sure is benefiting from the fear-mongering typically attributed to Bush. Who says the US wil be blown to bits if Paul is elected? Paul would focus and direct the full resources of the US to pursuing the REAL terrorists instead of pissing off other countries by building bases in them, both activities creating LESS terrorists. Maybe then so many of them would not want to kill us so bad, but if they did (which I'm sure plenty of them still would), our citizens are armed and dangerous too. I think that we can deal with such a threat without giving up what liberties and monies we have left, but if not, give me liberty or give me death.
14 - Bill
Here's a good bit by Ron Paul himself about the Iraq war just posted today: Fixing What's Wrong with Iraq. In it he explains that he was against the war because it was about enforcing UN resolutions and he doubted the WMD claim. However, he lays responsibility at the feet of Congress for it because he says it gave the President the authority to decide whether to attack Iraq rather than outright declaring a war against Iraq. I believe this was so the members of Congress could partially absolve themselves of being responsible should Iraq be attacked. Ron is saying it is Congress' duty to declare war rather than say, "if you want to, go ahead, if not, fine". He says that both military objectives outlined in the authorization have both been met and now the authorization is null and void. So he has now introduced a bill to sunset the authorization in six months which gives Congress time to decide what to do, whether to formulate new goals, let the authorization run out, etc.
"Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later."
I have found that reading Congressman Paul's speeches are very insightful. I believe he would make the best President because he respects the authority laid out in the Constitution. He once said that we should declare war, fight it, and win it. His criticism of Afghanistan I have read in his speeches is that we didn't send in enough troops to get the job done properly. We didn't secure the country and prevent the various factions from warring with each other. I think he would be a strong leader, not an idealogue.
In his Austin fundraiser speech, he says that even though many people want to draw down welfare programs immediately, it's a dream because it can't be done. People have been on the system for generations. It is impossible for them to be kicked off immediately. Thus, he acknowledges, practically, not idealogically, that they need to be weaned off the system.
I was swayed by your article at first as I've been seriously debating his foreign policy stance but then when I look at what he says, I have been moved back towards him.
As to foreign policy, I believe he would respect the ruling of Congress in matters of declaring war. This to me seems to be indicated in his speeches before the House. He recognizes his Constitutional duty as President. We must honor the rule of law and the law above all other law in this country is the Constitution. The Constitution was provided for our protection from enemies here and abroad. Ron Paul respects it, heck, he seems to practically treat it like a religious document. If Congress declares war, I fully believe he would execute a war to win it.
15 - Jared
Thanks for the article. One thing I would like to point out.
"Ron Paul presents a strong classical conservative isolationist or libertarian point of view..."
I don't see Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist, but certainly not isolationist. Ron Paul believes in open fair trade with other countries, with out traditional isolationist barriers that are designed to protect special interest groups.
16 - balance
"The basic point is that we'll leave you alone if you'll leave us alone."
that's not what he's saying at all.. the point is to not create enemies where there none before - not appease current enemies... the moderates in Iraq are being pushed towards being enemies because we are there - if we were not there, then they would actually be an asset to us - speaking and teaching moderation..
it has nothing to do backing down from an enemy, it's just acting wisely to effectively defeat that enemy once and for all.
17 - balance
it's acting Righteously - to not give reason to terrorists.
18 - Mr. Sensible
Ron Paul speaks his mind, and doesn't pander to the voting power. This is somehow bad? Isn't it exactly what Americans have been SCREAMING for, for the last several decades?
Congressman Paul's previous district in Texas was 90% farmers, a rural district of farmland. This guy had the stones to vote DOWN government farm subsidies, because he knew they were bad for the mom and pop farmers and catered to the corporate farmers. In our twisted "real world", this would have ushered him right out of office in a hurry. But did it? NO. He was re-elected with a 61% approval margin, because he told the farmers straight up how the subsidies were not in their best interest. I applaud this intelligent man and his no-fear approach to doing what is RIGHT. Do the RIGHT thing, and people will follow.
I will come voting day. 1 vote for Ron Paul, sealed and in the bag.
19 - James
Ron Paul in 2008!!!
20 - Flycatcher
We've all heard the old saying: you catch more flies with honey.
Ron Paul understands this in his approach to foreign policy. Do you win the hearts and minds of other countries by occupying them? By using incredibly destructive force? By proving to them that you can smash their a$$es into oblivion with your superior weapons technology if they don't comply to the "American Way"? Let's break it down to simple terms. In what I know from training dogs, this method of training-- the "I'm the boss and will hurt you if you don't do my bidding" approach-- produces fearful, reactionary, and unpredictable animals. Every single time. Guess what builds trust and comraderie with an animal? Rewards and approval.
Foreign policy is absolutely no different than training a companion animal. You trade with them, you keep your word, you let them live and breathe and make their own decisions, all the while offering positive incentives to behave well. That's all animals really want, and it's all human animals want as well. They want control of their own destiny, a place to call their sovereign home, and assurances that they can trust their neigbors.
Ron Paul wants to keep America out of other nations' business, let them breathe and live and make their own decisions. It is the very basis of the Constitution to "live and let live". If folks would pull their heads out and understand that the reason terrorists come after us is NOT that we are free, but because we are physically and mentally abusive "nation owners" stomping all over territory we have no right to, then our foreign policy would change for the better overnight.
Vote Ron Paul. Save America, Save the World.
21 - Daedric
Ron Paul used historical facts behind what he says, he does not ignore reality like you so blindly suggest. Also, he asked to re-examine our policies, and it does not mean he supports the U.S. to pull out of every place in the world. He believes in dialogue, and on Congress' take on issues. Most of your take on Ron is just wrong, and really stupid. I'm not sure if you actually comprehended what he said, so definitely should not write about it.
22 - Marc Scott Emery
Al Berger reveals himself to be a hypocritical fool when he says he would vote for Hilary Clinton over Ron Paul.
Ayn Rand would hit him upside the head for such collectivist fatalism.
23 - James Aragon
I am trying to find it, but in an interview on a major network Ron Paul indicated that he still supports finding Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. This is not soft or weak. Leveraged power instead of brute global force; that is Ron Paul.
24 - klowe
"Also, is it a matter of principle that we would have no right to militarily prevent Iranian mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb?"
If we were all that concerned about Iran's mullahs getting a nuclear bomb, then why did Halliburton sell an Iranian company key components for a nuclear reactor in 2004?
25 - Carrie Duffield
Good article, but Ron Paul was for invading the terror camps in Afghanistan and taking out Osama. He believes that was justified and authorized that use of force. Then, he said Iraq was the mistake. You seem to forget that when you claim that he would never defend the US.