Posted on 11/01/2007 11:36:05 AM PDT by SJackson
Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. His popularity on MySpace and YouTube is now legendary. It helped him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year's fundraising cycle. Even some among the media elite — on both sides of the aisle — can't resist his charm. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gets downright giddy over Paul. And liberal Hardball host Chris Matthews (who cut his teeth under big government, East Coast Democrat Tip O'Neill) has declared of the libertarian from Texas: "He's my guy! I love Ron Paul!"
But do people understand what Paul really stands for? Like every siren song, his policies are fraught with danger. Let's take a look:
1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul's thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
Well, it’s because Paul (and Tancredo) is the candidate that GWB most opposes. He would campaign for HRC before he would Paul.
Me too. I agree with very little of Paul’s foreign policy, and violently disagree with a lot of it, but on getting us the hell out of the UN and the UN out of here, I agree with him 100%. Let them build a new headquarters in Mogadishu or Port-au-Prince.
}:-)4
Definitely the U.S., but probably even the rest of the world, too.
Yes, even Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc., etc., etc.
I suspect there are more of us than you realize.
Ron Paul is starting to remind me of another “R.P.”...Ross Perot.
I was thinking about changing my tag line.
It doesn’t change the fact that many were disappointed with GWB stubbornness in refusing to close the border and timidity in prosecuting the war. However much we bitch and moan, the other two choices would have us facing a whole different future.
Hit piece on Doug’s video.
Paul’s not going to win, and many states won’t have a significant effect on the nomination. So it would be perfectly reasonable to vote for Paul in the primary to send a signal to the Republican party and express disapproval of Bush’s high-spending approach.
Show of hands?
You are correct about the constitution.
Here’s the thing. Paul supporters love him because he wants to get rid of the federal reserve, end welfare, end the tax system we have, abolish all federal bureaucracies and never spend a dime on the military. Okay, fine. Basically what it seems they want is anarchy. Paul has a better chance of accomplishing those things in Congress, because the president has NO POWER to do any of that! And Paul has zero, zip, nada support from anyone in Congress.
This is all really ridiculous. It’s kind of like giving Lincoln credit for setting the slaves free. Nonsense, he had no power to do that. He confiscated the property, slaves,as as an asset of the enemy in war as the Commander in Chief. To do what they think Paul could do would require Marshall Law or a declaration of war. Is that what they want?
My thoughts on Ron Paul today.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/
I used to love to watch Ron Paul and his analysis of all things constitutional. I learned a lot from Paul. I agreed philosophically with him about many things. I appreciate the spent time he’s spent in Congress. Most of us ‘conservatives’ used to say it ought to disqualify a guy from running for one office while trying to stay in another office at the same time. There are several besides Paul who’d be eliminated on that alone, in the ‘good ol’ days’.
A a few years ago, he started going in some strange directions. To name a few:
He voted for MFN for China and where he got his opinions on that I’ll never know.
I kept waiting for him to address immigration with some force. Ron was famous for his ‘Special orders’ speeches. Don’t recall ever hearing one from him on immigration. If it was recent, I may have missed it. He finally did just recently realize it’s an issue that matters, like most of the candidates. That puts Paul in their same disqualification category , in my opinion.
The war isn’t the only time he’s sided with the admittedly socialist wing of the democrats. His white flag surrender routine started reminding me of Cynthia McKinney. By the way, has Rep. Paul ever been to Iraq? Not that I can find, in fact Paul brags here about never traveling outside the country!
One thing you may take notice of is that many of his supporters were never really interested in the border invasion in the first place, or blindly approved of it. With him being on that border from Texas, he should have been in this game a lot sooner and stronger. He had to be keeping someone happy on that. Maybe himself. Ideologically Libertarians believe in open borders. And just because they reworded their platform this year doesn’t change that fact. And just because Ron Paul runs as a Republican when he’s really a Libertarian, but couldn’t get elected in that party, doesn’t change the fact that you’re getting a Libertarian if you vote for Paul. Are you really ready for that?
The other supporters who appeared to be strong on border issues that think he’s the be all and end all, I don’t know what to tell you. They don’t want to see it. Ten years ago Paul might have been ready for prime time.
And then he earmarks millions for the Nafta super highway? WHY? Why come out and declare a day to honor the ‘religion of peace’, Islam? WHY? Because of the Constitution?
More than anything else, the Constitution is about balance. Extremism and pushing an idea in what one may consider a good direction can be devastating for generations when it goes too far. Paul talks a good ‘Constitution’ game, but he forgot about balance. Some times you have to balance policy with reality. Idealism will only get you so far.
To follow up, here is a snip from a blogger:
“Ron Paul is very good at telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Ron Paul is very good at objecting in order to establish the “chance for peace”, but he has no plans for war.
Was the United States of America founded on plans for peace? No. It was forged in war. We may hate that fact, but it is one that has to be understood. Freedom is the reward for blood, sweat and tears. It is a costly goal. This is why it has been so rarely had in the history of the world, and why the U.S.A. is a shining example of what is possible if only people have the courage to act in their own defense and retain the wise leadership to take them towards a higher standard. The existence and determination of the United States is the only reason that Freedom exists on the Earth today.
So, someone like Ron Paul irritates me especially, because he proposes himself to be a conservative, but in reality he is a political spinmeister with some very liberal slants. Having a liberal agenda is not all bad — I myself have what many would describe as liberal views — but a liberal agenda when it comes to war, I can not abide.”
:-(
I posted this just after reading Doug's YouTube ranking on his PETER Paul video, etc.
Got to stop doing this...
Many of his advocates are silly - however the slobbering incoherence many of his opponents are reduced to in attacking him says much more about them than it does about his policies. You're right: the whole thing is an entertaining spectacle in a Republican primary contest that would otherwise be extremely dull. ;)
Yep!
Reminds me of snake handlers with the Bible.
I was desperately racking my brain for the connection. I think I strained something.
Conjures up a bad visual, doesn’t it?
Yep. Paul has a number of flaws (e.g. his goofy gold-bug notions), but he’s the best available vehicle for informing the neocon faction that their 15 minutes are up.
Exactly. A Pat Buchanan for the 21st century.
Me.
NOOOOO!
I just canceled another month of Premium channels on my cable!
What will I do for entertainment?
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.