Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I didn't mean to imply that you're in the liberal wing of the party. Should have worded that better. You oppose him because of his dopey foreign policy stances and I agree with you 100% on that.
However, there is a contingent here on FR who suffer from cognitive disssonance when it comes to President Bush, and have despised Paul since before the WoT for disagreeing with the President so often. All of these people also have a hatred for Tom Tancredo who is right on Iraq.
And as stupid as Paul's stances on the WoT are, I challenge you to find a congressman who is better than him on domestic issues. It's also worth noting that Paul is not a complete scumbag like most politicians, which is refreshing. I would hope you'd also agree that it is going to be great having Paul in the primary debates making Giuliani and McCain look like the Constitutional idiots that they are.
There's more than one bill at play here. The one in my link you replied to is the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002" voted on 12/13/2001. Ron Paul was the only 'No' vote. He was also the sole Republican 'No' vote on an earlier military appropriations bill. Barbara Lee's name is not included on the Texas roll. What state does she represent? I'm writing of Texas.
The other bill is "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" voted on 10/10/2002. Paul, again, was the sole 'No' vote.
Put me on the list!
Sorry about the mix-up. My sincere apologies!
Absolutely. I'm a Duncan Hunter supporter for '08, but I have a great respect for Paul's domestic positions, though I part ways with him on foreign policy. As I mentioned earlier, I'm thrilled that he'll be in the debates and have no doubt that he's going to make Rudy and John look like schmucks.
I often post Paul's weekly columns here on FR. I'll be sure to ping you to them when I do so.
As an aside, not a single politician in DC is straight. They are all looking for freebies or deals. I used to lobby there.
Nothing like a little Ron Paul in the afternoon to stir up the bushbots and pubbie True Believers. In reading through the posts, it's almost like someone recorded their talking points for them and they just cough them up on cue. They never respond rationally, they just keep repeating the same things over and over again.
I can't usually get past fifty posts of that sort before I have to go do something else for a while. I don't know whether to congratulate you, OrthodoxPresbyterian, or feel sorry for you. Anyway, your perseverance is exemplary.
Agreed. What annoys me the most is that in the past, he has voted "no" on resolutions simply because he disagreed with the concept of congressional resolutions in general. This one has me baffled.
You mean as OrthodoxPresbyterian was doing post, after post, after post...
Make fun of us who disagree with your libertarian/leftist agenda. The simple fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's vote siding with the Democrats in their non-binding resolution on Iraq took him out of the Presidential race once-and-for-all. Blabber and postulate all you want. There are far more here on FR that are disgusted by the 17 who voted with the Dems than will accept nuanced explanations such as Paul's, and yours. And you've lost us forever. Period. Paragraph. End of story.
Enjoy your ping list. You're whistling past the graveyard.
Ah....but Paul doesn't need you. All he needs is to mobilize those many Republicans and cross-over Democratis who agree with him on the war.
Let me second NCSteve's praise. You are fighting a lonely but effective fight here.
You're thinking of an early resolution (in late 2001), which essentially authorized the Afghan War (which Paul supported). The second resolution from 2002on Iraq had a number of dissenters, mostly Democrats but a few Republicans (including Paul).
Yes, that's the ticket. Run for office then tell everyone not in lockstep that they're not needed.
I sure hope you are one of his advisers.
Keep whistling. The graveyard is just around the corner.
I'm not a bushbot, I've voted for Ron Paul. But his abandonment of good Iraqi MPs like this one really irks me;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w
Then you have this wild accuastion thrown out;
"Iraqi Government is now a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists"
I found one Iraqi MP who is a convicted terrorist.
If you know of more list them, should be easy to come up with more than one if convicted Iaslmic Terrorists really do "dominate" the Iraqi government.
"Defending" Ron Paul's abandonment of good Iraqis with over the top accusations like "the Iraqi Government is now a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists" isn't doing the cause of Ron Paul for President any good at all.
Are you equally upset by Paul's "abandonment" of the "great" Iraqi MP, Al-Hakim and his cronies in the Badr Organization?
Maybe you should move to Israel and join the military...meanwhile, my family and I are Americans and, while I would happily support my son in defending America (hell...I would join him), I will not ever let him be sent off to defend Israel...or any other foreign country
Every nation has one obligation...to defend itself and its people
"Anyway, your perseverance is exemplary."
Accuracy however is another matter.
What good is perseverance without accuracy?
Let's have the list of the convicted terrorists dominating the Iraqi government please.
I never said anything of the sort. Ron Paul has potential appeal to many anti-big government folks, even a few here and there who continue to support the war.
I only said that he doesn't need you. Unless you subscribe to a hyper-drive version of the slogan, "vote early and vote often," I think he'll survive without you.
Let me be the first to say it: "Ron who?"
Isn't Al-Hakim a good enough example?
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.