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:

[BnBlFlag]

I saw the Youtube video and was favorably impressed. But then again he’s my Congressman and I would hate to lose his voice in Washington. Of course, in the unlikely event that he would become President, I would be happy.

[Allegra]

He just insists that the Congress vote a declaration of war before we engage in one.

So. Since we are already currently engaged, how do you (or Ron Paul) suggest that we rectify this?

I'm up way past my bedtime now, but I look forward to the Kool-Aid inspired entertainment from a few on this thread that is sure to greet me in the morning.

'Night! :-)

[JanetteS]

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

Paul will have to settle for being an also ran in that race too. Kucinich is already guaranteed that nomination.

[longtermmemmory]

Of course suplivan will support distracting conservative with dead end candidates. Votes for Ron Paul are votes that ensure one of the prohomosexual candidates have a better chance for office.

[mysterio]

I like Paul’s policy of weighing each vote against the limitations placed on federal government by the Constitution. Agree with him or not, you have to respect that.

[Allegra]

Oh, OK! We had a miscommunication. LOL It was probably me...it's way past my bedtime.

I always thought you were one of the good ones. Glad to see I wasn't wrong on that. :-)

[California Patriot]

If we’ve “begun to tick off” Andrew Sullivan, we’re doing something right. Paul is a terrible representative for the limited-government cause. He’s also an embarrassment to Republicans.

[California Patriot]

Paul-Kucinich ‘08.

I could almost see it happening.

[JanetteS]

Eew. That’s not a pretty.

[DB]

That pretty well sums it up for me.

200 years ago America could ignore the world with little risk. Not today. In a time when a single individual with a nuke can take out the better part of a large city - you ignore the rest of the world at your own peril.

[billbears]

He was getting much praise here when he supported the failed Iraq war

And that's about it. A group, growing ever smaller, has determined you can't be 'conservative' unless you support the Iraqi police action

I wonder what some of these 'conservatives' will do when one of the big three comes out against the police action. Because it will happen. If they want any hope of getting elected, politically they will need to pay at least lip service to the issue. By September/October when most Republicans in Congress revolt on the issue (facing their own elections in '08), it will be an ever smaller group calling for 'staying the course'.

Now apparently it's not nice to say, it may not even be popular to say, but it's the truth of the matter like it or not

However Rep. Paul is the only courageous one in the lot because he spoke the truth when it wasn't popular. And that's one reason (among many) why he'll get my vote.

[McCloud-Strife]

Anyone not willing to fight terrorism on their soil and not ours is not a serious candidate and will not get my vote. ANYONE.

I don't care how conservative he is. If we don't fight them them we WILL fight them here and I am not interested in American Civilians dying by the droves again.

[DB]

The “surrender” back then was temporary.

The payola failed.

Jefferson went in with the marines and fixed the problem. It stayed fixed until modern times. Force worked and will work again.

[MARTIAL MONK]

Jeez you're touchy - and wrong. The Constitution was, in large part, a barrier to the abuses of the rights of the people by European governments. Preoccupied by the formation of these ideas, the founders failed to contemplate fully the nascent threats emerging in the Mediterranean. Had they done so, they may have provided a more defined and robust framework for future actions in the protection of American interests abroad. Jefferson's later actions (and other actions in our history) would not have had the Constitutional question lingering over them. The parallels are more than vague.

I believe that the Iraq war was a justified war but for none of the reasons given by the administration.

[longtermmemmory]

Interesting that the left wing media types only favor those who are generally anti war ...

[LdSentinal]

And that's about it. A group, growing ever smaller, has determined you can't be 'conservative' unless you support the Iraqi police action.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in going into Aghanistan either saying that Chevron wanted a pipelines to the Caspian sea.

If you want to vote for pond scum, then go for it.

[trek]

I can't speak for Congressman Paul, but I will give you my opinion. Since I assume you are speaking only about the war in Iraq I would support either of the following two options.

Option one:

Get a declaration of war. And then change the rules of engagement and order our soldiers to eliminate all hostile elements in the country. Kick out the reporters, kick out the lawyers and engage in unrestricted combat against the Sunni Al Qaeda and the Sadrist Khomeiniac forces and their civilian backers. Break the resistance in the country using all necessary military means like we did with Germany and Japan and then attempt to rebuild the country.

Option 2:

Declare the original mission fulfilled and withdraw leaving the Iraqis to kill each other as they please. Here is what I mean by original mission fulfilled:

WMD threat, real or imagined gone: Check.

Saddam and the Baathists removed from power: Check

Free elections held: Check

In a nutshell we gave the Iraqis a shot at setting up a better society, if they choose not to then that is their choice.

It's only a guess, but I suspect Congressman Paul is leaning towards option 2.

[The_Eaglet]

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

What would-be President said that "Israel `controls' our foreign policy?"

[The_Eaglet]

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

What would-be President said that "Israel `controls' our foreign policy?"

[mylife]

Oh Puhleeze. We dont need an idealist in charge.
We need someone that will get things done