Posted on 07/02/2002 10:33:47 AM PDT by eshu
WASHINGTON--Rep. Ron Paul doesn't mind if his colleagues in the House of Representatives call him "Dr. No."
The Texas Republican says his habitual votes against bigger government, including one he cast this week in opposition to a "morphed" child pornography bill, will preserve the vibrancy of America's technology industry.
"The danger is that if they're allowed to get in the business of regulating the Internet, who knows what will happen next?" Paul said in an interview.
A 66-year-old medical-doctor-turned-politico, Paul has voted nay on proposals to prohibit Internet gambling, ban Internet sales taxes and restrict online sales of alcohol. He denounced the USA Patriot Act, which Congress approved as an anti-terrorism measure last fall. Two years ago, Paul was the only House member to vote against a bill requiring that e-mail spam sport correct return addresses.
On Tuesday, Paul became the sole Republican to oppose the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act. The measure, which has garnered the enthusiastic support of the White House and congressional leaders, restricts computer-generated images of nude minors that are "indistinguishable" from the real thing. (Congress is responding to a recent Supreme Court decision that slapped down a similar 1996 law, ruling it ran afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.)
"I thought it was weak in that this was not dealing with the issue of violence toward kids," Paul said of the new bill. "It was virtual porn, a bit of a stretch. If you're going to protect children--which we should do--it should be done at the most local level possible."
Paul is a rarity in Congress: A true libertarian who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, a limited federal government and free markets. That doesn't make him too popular around town--but Paul says that since he chooses his votes based on deeply held principles, not campaign donations, at least lobbyists leave him alone.
| "The danger is that if they're allowed to get in the business of regulating the Internet, who knows what will happen next?" --Rep. Ron Paul
|
"My allies come and go," Paul said. "On civil liberties and some of the anti-war issues, they're more on the left. When they're good hard-core economic issues, I'll have allies on the Republican side, like Jeff Flake of Arizona."
A spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the sponsor of the "morphed" porn bill, said Paul's nay vote was expected. "He would say he votes on his principles," said Smith spokesman Brad Bennett. "It's not surprising to see that vote. It's not as if, 'Oh my goodness, Ron Paul voted against this?' Obviously you anticipate it."
There isn't any honor left in Washington anymore; the only way to get things done there is to play the "game", which is scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. (you just have to play it so that your back gets scratched more, without the other guy realizing it) In other words, just because you vote for a guy, doesn't mean you trust him further than you can throw him, or think he's the second coming of Jesus, morally speaking. You VOTE for someone because you think he'll get the job done, and not be trampled by the opposition!
That one sentence sums up the whole problem with DC. It reinforces my view that CFR is a sham and nothing but an "incumbant protection act". The system isn't corrupt, the career politican's are (of both parties).
Lobbiests lobby because they know they can buy the votes of politican's. They don't bother with Paul because it would be a waste of time. They can't buy his vote. I'm sure there are one or two others like this also (but I couldn't say who). But the fact is, most of the DC politicians are on the take. They pass laws to benefit these lobbiests interests at the expense of the rest of us.
While McCain and the rest of the democans/RINO's (along w/a significant amount of republicrats) believe the fix to the problem is to encrouch on my first amendment rights (CFR), my fix to the problem would be to vote every one of the son's of beehives out of office and replace them with non-career politicians.
Ah if I was King for a day :)
RLTW
Semper Suo
Sounds like a "libertarian" sort of guy. Like some other "libertarian" sort of guys :).
Of course, if he had tried running some child porn past any of the founding fathers, they'd most likely have strangled him.
That you would even think that Dr. Paul would ever touch or distribute child porn shows your complete and utter misunderstanding of him and his political philosophy.
And the Founding Fathers would have sent the local Sherriff to round up child pornographers, instead of sending Federal Marshalls or the FBI. And they would have strangled those in the current Congress who voted in favor of criminalizing those things the Constitution gives Congress no authority to criminalize, because a Congress that oversteps its bounds in that way is a far greater danger to life, limb, property and children than any pornography or "controlled substance."
You mean like bringing home the pork? Hurrah for him then! No, Paul may not have brought the home the pork, but then, he has always been outspoken his Constitutional views, so his constituents should not have expected pork.
If more politician's would follow Paul's examples to shrink the size and scope of the federal government, there would be more money at the state and local level and the D.C. politicos would not have to "bring home the pork" because the pork would never have left the local and state level in the first place.
You VOTE for someone because you think he'll get the job done, and not be trampled by the opposition!...
In your view, what is the job of our federal representatives and senators? What job do you want them to get done that Paul is not doing?
I'm asking because in my view, Paul is the only politician in DC who is actually fulfilling his oath of office. The rest are playing political power games with their votes in effort to increase their own political viability. Paul is doing his job by voting against bills that fall outside of the Constitutional authority of Congress.
That's my take on it anyway. Of course that and fifty cents will get ya a cup of coffee. :)
RLTW
Semper Suo
Yeah, me too - I would vote for him in California if I could...
Paul is correct. Like most federal bills, the bill he voted against was a feel good bill that did nothing to address the problem.
What will address the problem though is to have volunteers work with local law enforcement officials to surf the web and track down these child porn web sites. Once they find one, obtain as much IP information as possible, as well as any other contact info that may appear on the website. Then either have everyone turn in the information to the feds for further investigation, or better yet, have the locals investigate the info themselves and then contact the local law enforcement officals in the town the web site originated from. Then local law enforcement in that community will deal with it. It's called individual and personal responsibility.
RLTW!
Semper Suo
What are you talking about? Paul received well over 50% of the vote in 2000, when he was reelected, and I'm not even sure he has an opponent this year. You're pretty clueless, the whole problem in congress is that people don't vote their conscience. We need about 400 more Ron Pauls in the House.
Thus, it is not always a sign of corruption when a politician accepts money from an interest group. Sometimes, it's merely an indication of principled agreement.
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.