Posted on 05/12/2011 4:15:33 PM PDT by SJackson
Even analysts who disagree with Texas Congressman Ron Paul on the issues recognized last week that the principled libertarian turned in the ablest performance at the first Republican presidential debate.
Indeed, as Paul prepares to mount his third campaign for the presidency, he does so from a dramatically better position than at the beginnings of his previous bids.
In 1988, he was a Libertarian shouting from the political wilderness about the supposed sameness of Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis.
In 2008, he was a maverick Republican wedged into debates with a crew of credible contenders such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. He got notice, mostly from Giuliani, who objected that a dissenter from GOP economic and foreign policy orthodoxy had been allowed on the debate stage. But again, Paul was denied the sort of coverage and respect accorded contenders who echoed the party line dictated by Dick Cheney and the neocon taskmasters.
In 2012, Paul runs as an increasingly iconic Republican with a good many more allies inside the party and a claim to fame that most of his fellow contenders for the GOP nod lack: a job as a congressman that places him in the thick of national debates. Perhaps most significantly, he uses his position in Congress to embrace positions that, while at odds with Republican leaders, raise the concerns of millions of Americans from across the ideological spectrum.
That does not mean he is going to secure the Republican nomination. The Grand Old Party does not have a history of nominating candidates who take stands that unsettle the Wall Street bankers and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab — and kindly pick up some bills for the Democrats as well.
With that said, however, there are plenty of reasons why progressives might welcome Paul to the 2012 race.
One need not support the man or his overall platform — which deviates from classic libertarianism on some vital social issues and which features an antipathy toward entitlement programs that makes Paul Ryan sound like a liberal — to recognize the value added to the Republican presidential debates, and the broader discourse, by a candidate who:
1. Has consistently opposed the undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, siding with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in struggles to hold Democratic and Republican presidents to account for unlawful and unnecessary war-making.
2. Has worked alongside Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., to make the case for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget.
3. Has regularly voted with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and other labor-aligned Democrats in opposition to free-trade pacts that leave workers jobless, shutter factories, batter working-class communities and make a mockery of democratic governance in the U.S. and abroad.
4. Has joined former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Michigan Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in raising all the right questions about the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and abuses of civil liberties.
5. Has partnered with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the chamber’s steadiest advocate of economic justice and social-democratic ideals, to demand transparency and accountability from the Federal Reserve.
6. Has sided with Kaptur, Feingold, Sanders and other critics of bank bailouts that were backed by both President Obama and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate.
7. Has mounted a stronger defense of WikiLeaks and press freedom than any other member of Congress — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.
Ron Paul is not a progressive. He takes stands on abortion rights and other issues that disqualify him from consideration by most moderates and liberals. But he cannot be dismissed as just another robotic Republican. Indeed, he is more inclined than Barack Obama to challenge Republican orthodoxy on a host of foreign and fiscal policy issues. As such, he brings a dimension to the presidential race that would otherwise be missing. And, at some point in some debate, he is going to face the supposed front-runner in the field — who avoided last Thursday’s clash in South Carolina — and he is going to make Mitt Romney scream.
John Nichols is the associate editor of The Capital Times. jnichols@madison.com
What a waste of bandwith for a clown who would vote for Dennis Kucinich over McCain, but pretends to be a Republican because, well, running on the nutball (supporters can pick which nutball party he belongs in) party primary ballot doesn't provide the same money bomb opportunity. But I couldn't resist a John Nichols endorsement, though I fear only us northern midwesterners know his political leanings.
Yes, I bet you can, and so can I.
But it’ll be months, and I’m sure you’ll miss some days, as will I.
It will get boring after a while for the both of us, but we’re both dedicated.
I've always thought of Paul as "our" Dennis Kucinich.
I really don't mind Paul running for President, but he should be honest about it and run as a Libertarian. I also don't mind hearing his views as he does make a few good points here and there, but another presidential campaign means we are going to be subjected to his paulbot pot head, peacenik and truther spammer brigades annoying everyone on political, gaming, weather, business, etc, forums throughout the world.
This year’s slogan? How about “Ron Paul, a Harold Stassen for the 21st Century”.
Nice angle throwing in the comment about the vets, though. Too bad for you I've been part of many campaigns and am acutely aware of how such rhetoric is used to try to influence the mind of an audience. Usually, it's talk about kids, schools, police and fire. The vet angle was a nice change, though. I'm all for funding vets and do so both voluntarily and involuntarily. What I don't want is yet another costly war, one that would surely take place should we follow RuPaul's lead and abandon Israel.
Whether it is a good or bad idea, America is not ready for legalized heroin. It is hardly one our pressing issues at the moment and popular support for such a thing simply does not exist. Look, the potheads in California couldn't even get weed legalized - and that is in loopy CA.
There are lots of intellectual (and very interesting) arguments about whether the drug war is a good or bad idea, but this exposes Paul yet again to his fundamental problem - he is a libertarian. The Republican party is a conservative party, not a libertarian party.
So Paul is simply running for President in the wrong party. Now, that wouldn't necessarily be so bad if his running as a Republican meant that when he lost the nomination we could count on most of his supporters to vote for the Republican nominee, but we both know they wont. A large chunk of, perhaps most, paulbots probably go on to vote for libertarian or downright liberal candidates and the Democrat for President. He and his supporters are really just using the Republican party to push his message and to keep his endless presidential campaign going. There is very little value for Republicans, a traditional conservative group of voters, in having Paul in the party at all.
What you don’t seem to understand is that IT IS NOT ABOUT THE USA, never has been never will be.
American money is to be spent where other folks decide, really.
It is about that other place which trumps everything else.
You know what, the only one bringing up Israel is you. I am saying stop sending money that we do not have overseas. To ANYONE. You are whining about Israel, an ally that has proven time and again possesses more than enough ability to defend herself.
Why would we be spending money in a war? Did we get involved in a long, protracted war in the Sinai in ‘67? No? Why is that? Could it be because the Israeli military is the baddest of asses on the planet and can more than take care of themselves in a fight?
Why do you feel the need to treat our ally as if it possesses neither the ability nor the will to defend itself?
‘He’s not pro-heroin use - that’s just the favorite example his detractors use when asking him questions about the federal government’s power under the constitution’
So someone who wanted to legalize burglary should not be counted as ‘pro-burglar’?
What the idiot did say was he was for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.”
Does that equate to an encouragement of heroin use? I never said so. But I do think he's a nutjob who's not satisfied in his current capacity. That's too bad for him, as I am 100% convinced he will never be POTUS. Nor should he be.
Paulbots use the "end foreign aid" demagoguery as a populist way of pushing their isolationist agenda. It's very much like the Democrats current push to "end oil company subsidies" to effectively raise taxes and spend more money on social welfare programs. There are arguments we can have about both those things, but we know the real agenda. They aren't fooling anyone.
And again, this highlights why Paul is running in the wrong party. As a conservative I am all FOR foreign aid to Israel (and others when it is used effectively). I believe as you do (and most conservatives) that Israel is a bastion of Western decency in a part of the world that is otherwise a backward cesspool. Israel is the tip of the spear helping to hold back Islamic radicalism, and as such I can never support cutting off foreign aid.
I am bringing up Israel because it is one example of how loony RuPaul is. She lives with the daily threat posed by oil-rich muslim countries who want nothing more than to wipe her off the map. She needs our help. You can believe that or not, I really don’t care.
lol!
Yes, I will be posting this pic in every thread.
Ron Paul thinks that State Laws are sufficient to take care of whatever heroin problem we might have.
He doesn’t think we need an additional expensive Federal Bureaucracy to handle something the states can handle.
Some Conservatives think we should have a Smaller Federal Government. Ron Paul is one of those people.
You seem to believe in a Larger Federal Government. And you also think that somehow makes you Conservative.
We’re broke. You can believe that or not. I really don’t care.
True enough. And you are right again; RuPaul should be seeking the Libertarian Party nomination because he is a libertarian. He's definitely not a conservative.
He even said so this week here in Iowa on a local radio talk show. The guy is nuts.
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.