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
I dont agree with all of what Ron Paul says or stands for. but I do agree with his finacial and forign policy ideas.
Bring our troops all home, secure our borders, mind our own business, pay our debts and eliminate regulation.
Sounds good to me.
People here who bother to post anti Ron Paul stuff on Ron Paul threads either don’t understand the difference between Federal and State Law, or they’re intentionally ignoring that very clear difference.
They aren’t tea partiers, they do not believe in Limited Constitutional Government.
Tea Partiers argue that the Federal Government does many things that the Constitution does not explicitly say they can do, and the tea partiers want them to stop.
The Anti Ron Paul people do not seem to have any real problems with the Federal Government doing too much. They’d prefer Big Government in the areas that they want Big Government and they might want less in other areas that they’d prefer to see less.
Democrats know this, and never tire of pointing out the many many cases of Big Government that Republicans support.
We’re against the “nanny state” but the DEA is fine, say Big Government Republicans. And Democrats point and laugh at us, and moderates, undecided voters, Independents, understand what they’re saying.
I do not support Ron Paul being elected to anything but I do support fedzilla being returned to it’s Constitutional bounds.
Ron Paul does not a popular foreign policy with freepers. I’m not going to argue that.
It could be argued that historically, Republicans, Conservatives were always the ones arguing against foreign policy adventures, but most here are either the newer “conservatives” who got tired of Trotsky, and thought that it would be best for both parties to agree to war all the time.
Or, they’re people who have bought that argument and are either too young to remember that Republicans were always less interventionist than the Democrats, or they’re old, but have forgotten that.
Most of the other attacks on Ron Paul are typically distortions or outright lies.
The most honest attacks on Ron Paul are simply honest attacks on Conservativism.
We have too many people completely dependent on the Federal Government that if we were completely dismantle it, the consequences would not be pretty.
The counter argument to that is simply to argue that it wouldn’t happen, even if Ron Paul was elected.
Ron Reagan wanted cuts, big cuts the way Ron Paul does, and Ron Reagan tried, but it didn’t happen as great as the real Conservatives wanted. Because you can win in a landslide, but you still have to deal with the Dems and the RINOs.
I trust Ron Paul more than anyone to make the cuts. If anyone could at least keep the FedGov from growing, it’d be Ron Paul.
He really wants so much less Fed Gov than anyone else.
... who said in a recent interview he wouldn't have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden... that we should've worked with the Pakistani government.
Wrong Paul... Wrong on foreign policy... Wrong on the fight against terrorism... Wrong for America.
Care to defend that statement he made on killing bin Laden? He foolishly thinks we should've worked through the Pakistani government. Paul may be acceptable on some fiscal matters, but on foreign policy he'd be an unmitigated disaster.
Thankfully, his drug-addled supporters, while vocal, fall far short of mustering up enough support to make him a real threat.
I know that this is bizarre but a Trump Paul worldview might be interesting.
Who’s the guy in the third pic with LRon?
Be careful all ye whom mock the Paul of Texas. The Left is salivating at the idea of capturing his base...
>> 4. Has joined former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., ... in raising all the right questions about the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and abuses of civil liberties.
Feingold, big-ass hypocrite who, at the time, had no problem looking the other way while his team began the pillaging of our liberties.
Adam Kokesh, military deserter and traitor.
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.