Taking Ron Paul Seriously

The Atlantic Online ^ | May 11, 2007 | Andrew Sullivan

[Austin Willard Wright]

The condescension to and mockery of the sole Republican candidate who seems to care about individual liberty has begun to tick me off. Chris Matthews can be heard groaning "Oh, God," after Paul spoke of the "original intent" of the Founders with respect to the Constitution. And in the YouTube clip below, Rudy Giuliani actually seems to be guffawing after Paul's defense of habeas corpus. I'm glad Paul's supporters are fighting back on the web. He deserves more respect than he has gotten thus far, not least because compared to the pandering of his competitors, Paul actually seems to believe what he says. And what he says has more to do with conservatism than the crap the rest of them are peddling. Here's a clip worth watching again:

[MARTIAL MONK]

I was referring to the adoption of the constitution. However, the 1780’s WAS the first time that we surrendered to terrorists. We began paying ransom to Barbary pirates in 1784.

[nctexan]

"Do we really want a President who can’t see the difference between our ally Israel and our enemy Hezbollah and Islamic terrorists?"

I believe the DEM's answer to that is a resounding YES.

[The_Eaglet]

He voted for neutrality to avoid entanglements which lead government spenders to send our earnings overseas.

[DugwayDuke]

“Ron Paul is against illegal immigration. He takes a very strong position on this.”

I understand that Ron Paul is famous for voting against spending on activities that are not expressly authorized by the Constitution. Now I have two questions for you:

What exactly in the Constitution provides any power to the federal government to act against illegal immigration?

How does a staunch defender of the Constitution as Ron Paul justify spending resources on activities not expressly and specifically authorized by the Constitution?

[Valin]

Taking Ron Paul Seriously

Why?

[Allegra]

Let me make sure I understand you.

You're saying that because something vaguely similar happened over 200 years ago, it's OK to surrender to the terrorists in 2007?

Sad.

Really sad.

[The_Eaglet]

And saying Israel controls our foreign policy smacks of anti-Semitism.

Spare us the left-wing race card smear tactics, please.

[West Coast Conservative]

That's not why he voted against the bill though. He voted against it because he sees no difference between Israel and Hezbollah.

The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

Sounds like he is also calling Israel the real terrorists. The guy is a lunatic.

[The_Eaglet]

That is why Paul has been getting re-elected by bigger margins to his Congressional seat for 18 years - that is why Willard Romney is a former one-term governor. Paul re-introduced the Sanctity of Life legislation this year - fought against DR-CAFTA - which IMO Bush really could/should have vetoed, and would re-deploy troops to the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas . Limited federal government and sound money - non-intervention foreign policy, and allowing farmers to plant products that we now can only import (like fools) --- yep, there sure is ALOT to be done.

He championed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, too.

[The_Eaglet]

That's not why he voted against the bill though. He voted against it because he sees no difference between Israel and Hezbollah.P> Where did he say that?

[nctexan]

"and slaps you all silly yet again.."

Hey... don't hold back now... let it all out!

[trek]

"Unfortunately he’s willing to allow the islamderthal horde overrun the world..."

This old canard is manifestly false. Ron Paul is not willing to let the islamo-horde overrun our borders any more than he is willing to let the Mexican hordes overrun our borders. He just insists that the Congress vote a declaration of war before we engage in one. The reason for this should be obvious. It is to avoid the horrific backstabbing of the troops by the craven politicians of both stripes that we see playing out today. I can see no better example of the wisdom of the founders that Ron Paul speaks for than this.

[SaxxonWoods]

A few people will continue to take Ron Paul seriously until the primary voting starts. Then it’s over.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

No, you completely misunderstand the post and the article. Jefferson stood up to the Barbary Pirates. Do you know where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" comes from in the Marine Corps Anthem?

[trek]

" What exactly in the Constitution provides any power to the federal government to act against illegal immigration?"

I nominate this comment for the all time stupidest thing ever posted on Free Republic.

[West Coast Conservative]

So, you think it’s perfectly acceptable for a would-be President to say Israel “controls” our foreign policy?

[longtermmemmory]

A leftist exposing the real reason they even give ron paul any attention.

As this homosexual point out this “candidate” we have to remember he is for pulling the troops out.

Ron Paul is a sacrificial anode for those naive enough to think that someone who is less than 1% in the general voting population somehow has a tax cut before a democrat’s chance of being elected.

He is just vying for the ross perot crown of short kooky candidate.

[Allegra]

Jefferson stood up to the Barbary Pirates. Do you know where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" comes from in the Marine Corps Anthem?

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm not stupid.

You misunderstood the crux of my questioning.

Do you, as Ron Paul does, advocate the United States' surrender to Muslim terrorists?

[Vanbasten]

Not true. Paul maintains that the Iraq war was mistake. Spouting democrat talking points like WMDs, ‘no plan’, etc.

That gives me no confidence in his potential to be commander-in—chief.

Perhaps there wasn’t a declaration of war, but congress did vote their approval. and there hasn’t been formal declarations of war for decades.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

No! Not at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression . . . I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. (Psst . . . I was trying to help you, but maybe I misread the situation.)

I think I'd better go back to folding my laundry. . .