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 do not believe that cutting off support to the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq (and, yes, Virginia -- Al Dawa IS in the Majority Coalition; heck, the Prime Minister of Iraq is from Al Dawa party!) will necessarily hurt their minority political rivals (the alleged "good guys").
Put simply, it is often the case that removing support from one rival, helps the opposing rival (becuase now his opponent has less financial support, etc.)
This may not always be the case, but I think it is at least as likely as your argument that Militarily and Financially supporting the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq somehow helps their minority political rivals!
"Here is some information on one our your "good guys."
Just when I thought it was as stupid as it could get you make this asinine comment.
No he is not "one of my good guys".
Since you OBVIOULSY missed it, this is the example I gave of one of my good guys;
MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w
Oh, not a personal attack at all. A personal attack would be to call you names. It's quite childish, in fact, to look for any pretense to run to the Forum Rules.
I believe in sunlight and I just want it noted for the record that you hang out at places like juancole.com, antiwar.com, etc., etc.
> He has taken Bush to task repeatedly for lying about his position on "nation building"
Contrary to the popular anti-Bush talking point, Bush never said in 2000 that if the US goes to war against a foreign enemy, the US should never invade and occupy that enemy. Bush was referring to "peacekeeping" operations in Somalia and Haiti when he criticized "nation building."
Lighten up, Francis!
Sheesh, what a grouch!I see by your post that you care not about facts, and your willingness to ignore them speaks volumes about your lack of coherent philosophy.
Only after one is able to read and understand the Constitution is one able to understand why Ron Paul votes the way he does.
I take it you live in his district? Then you have the right to vote him out of Congress, but you would still be stupid.
The Sadr folks in Al Dawa are moderates in some ways compared to the other main party in the government, SCIRI led by Al-Hakim and his Badr organization.
Take it as a complement, indeed.
Without Al-Hakim's support, the government you praise would collapse.
Okay. (shrugs)
Oh yeah, SCIRI is just a FINE group of sweetness-and-light peaceful democrats also. Wonderful folk.
This thread just happened to focus on Al Dawa. I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunities to hear from Ron Paul's attackers just how wonderful and trustworthy SCIRI are in future threads.
Bizarro World.
Oh horse manure. The smirking moron in the White House did that when he committed too few troops to the effort, declared victory too early, and then turned the whole fiasco into a "humanitarian" effort. You "war on terror" lemmings continuously squawk about patriotism and supporting the troops, but you're not willing to take the leadership to task for their stupidity in trying to use our military for purely political ends. A pox on the lot of you.
...not a stupid, ill-considered, objectionable non-binding resolution.
Nonsense. Paul didn't initiate the resolution. It came up for a vote and he voted on it. While I agree that non-binding resolutions are silly, as does Paul, the measure came up before the whole House. What was he supposed to do? His job is to be present and cast his vote on business before the House. Your jingoistic screeching lacks logic and holds those you don't like to a different standard than it does your beloved party droids.
Ron Paul is buddies with Alex Jones. Nothing else needs to be said. I used to like Ron a great deal. Now he has shown himself to be NUTS!
Yes, it is interesting that none of the pro-war folks ever want to talk about Al-Hakim and SCIRI, in fact, they were silent when Bush met with this thug prior to the surge.
He slammd Bush on the war right? Doesn't get my vote the traitor.
Um... aren't you a Rudy Giuliani supporter?
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber
Ever heard of google? Here's your answer. His name is Jamal Jafaar Mohammed. Need more. Go google.
Great. Target identified.
I think as soon as Sen John Kerry and Sen John Murtha are tried for treason we should go bring this guy back to Kuwait for his crime.
I'm not a diehard supporter of anyone right now. Is it true or not? Did he slam Bush about the war? Why avoid my question....?
I doubt Reagan would have been stupid enough to put our troops in a no-win situation like this one in the first place, much less keep them there.
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.