Ron Paul, the Real Republican? (Announcing the Great Ron Paul Ping List)

Fox News ^ | February 20, 2007 | Radley Balko

[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

[MeanWestTexan]

"Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon."

Yes, that was weak. We should have gone in heavy, or not at all.

As a result of that weakness, Lebanon is unstable and a constant source of problems.

[TexasCajun]

Didn't Ron Paul just vote with the Democraticks on this stupid "Iraq Resolution"?

[lormand]

"Ron Paul is a man of principle, not a politician,"

Huh?

Does he not serve as a member of the US House of Representatives?

If so, then he is a politician.

You can think he is some god or something, but you can't take away from the fact that he is a politician.

[Ditter]

We used to live in Ron Paul's district and we still own a ranch there. We moved about the time he first ran for congress. Ron Paul was, and still is a NUT!

[Princip. Conservative]

Sorry but Ron Paul isn't my kind of guy. While he may have some good things about him, the fact that he's totally inflexible on so many things and prides himself in being the Lone Ranger on a lot of things (though by no means because he's the most conservative) has thoroughly disenchanted me with him.

[wideawake]

Reagan was right to pull out of Lebannon.

History proves that appeasing terrorists does not work.

He was not arguably, but demonstrably, wrong.

[capt. norm]

Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD, do you believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to provide military and financial support to a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of United States Marines in cold blood?

YES! I believe in finishing the job and not bailing out as we forced or troops to do in Vietnam.

Trying to twist the facts as you are doing will not hide the fact that you have joined the surrender monkeys and, in fact, are carrying their water for them.

When Paul drops out, your allegences are right in line with Hillary, so you'll still have someone you can support.

[lormand]

I don't answer stupid loaded questions which serve as an editorial to the one posing the question.

[MeanWestTexan]

Alas, loser Ron Paul is a Texan.

Albeit a TINO.

[M203M4]

IMO, he is right on everything except the war on Islamic fascism. I know he will not horse-trade on issues...his campaign does not stand much of a chance so long as he advocates cutting troop funding while armed forces personnel are in a theater of war. FWIW, I agreed with him right up until boots were on the ground in Iraq. Afghanistan, on the other hand, leaves a wide gulf between the two of us:

"Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight."

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan – much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an archenemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.
Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?

.

Within US borders, Ron Paul is exactly what America needs. On the other hand, his foreign policy views, for all matters other than trade, are not my own. Not wanting to start wars is one thing. What to do once we are knee-deep is another.

[JSDude1]

NO OFCOURSE I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, victory, and America, and was against the res, but on the domestic front I think Paul has a great philosophy. FOREIGN P. wise, not so much.. (that's one reason why I dont want on his presidential list yet..)!

[Austin Willard Wright]

A politician is someone who bases his votes on polls (and that includes Romney, McCain, Newt, and Guilliani). Ron Paul has never done this. I know he really gets under your skin, but the record shows that for him principle trumps expediency over and over again.

[beaureguard]

Please add me to the ping list.

[wideawake]

Just like Hannity and Rush who supported similar action during the Kosovo war right?

I don't much care what Hannity or Rush say or do.

They are just pundits who talk for talk's sake. I don't own their books, listen to their programs or go to their public appearances.

Ron Paul is a member of Congress and his idiocies have a real impact on this country.

Voting for that nonbinding resolution was the act of a traitorous coward, not of a statesman.

[TexasCajun]

Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican candidate who wants to get our troops out of harm's way and home to their families

Sorry, You can try to package Ron Paul any way you like, I ain't buying!

[WhiteGuy]

ok, able to be corrupted instead of already corrupt like cunningham.

what makes Dr. Paul specifically able to be corrupted?

[Calpernia]

read later

[Clump]

I don't think the terrorists would be smiling when; cutting taxes causes and deregulating industry causes our economy to triple in size; gun laws are repealed thus allowing for a truly armed populace capable of defending itself from the enemy within, etc.

Ron Paul cast a vote regarding Iraq because of his firm commitment to not support Islamic terrorists. Just because his vote was tallied with the Dems does not mean his rationale was the same.

His record in Congress on issues of life, gun rights, taxes, traditional marriage, and federalism has been consistent and flawless. Amazing how so many people here are willing to throw all those things right out the window so quickly.

[deport]

Ron Paul was, and still is a NUT!

---

What I've never been able to understand is how he continues to get elected over and over.

[Austin Willard Wright]

So you think that Hannity and Rush are "traitorous cowards" because of their stand on Kosovo? I answered yes to your question. How about doing the same for me?