Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ha! What spin one weaves. Well, if he doesn't need me then he doesn't need any of the other nay-sayers who have posted here. And I can assure you they'll read your comment as such.
Of course, time will tell regarding Paul's chances. But I'll wear my anti-Paul hat proudly after putting up with the drivel on this thread.
Let me second NCSteve's praise. You are fighting a lonely but effective fight here.
Not so lonely, gentlemen. Not so lonely.
In one day, counting GRPPL sign-ups on the thread and by FReepMail, I have already nearly-doubled the list of FReepers who have signed on to the Ron Paul supporter list we started in the Religion Forum.
In one day.
One of the great things about Rudy, McCain, and Romney all being in the race is... liberal Republicans have three condidates to choose from. Three candidates to split the liberal and "moderate" GOP vote. Whereas Ron Paul supporters might also like Tancredo or Hunter, we know that our guy is the guy, number #1 with a bullet, for Constitutionalists.
I don't necessarily disagree at all, although the scriptural references are a bit above my pay scale.
Going to Israel Thursday, actually.
Nephew getting married to a cute little Ashkinazi girl he met in artillery school. Didn't make 'em like that in Ft. Rucker.
So is Ron Paul's political director, with whom I speak occasionally (she is PCA, I am OPC). So is his former chief of staff, and other former staffers.
It's a little-known fact that Ron Paul has a decades-old habit of surrounding himself with Calvinist top advisors. We're the "in crowd" in his office.
The Black Regiment marches again.
I'm not really religious but I would strongly support a Ron Paul presidential campaign. Should I be on this ping list, or is it more for his religious views?
Thanks for the post, BTW. It's been an eye-opener - I like Rep. Paul even more after reading some of the details of his platform.
Thanks for spilling the agenda. You and the others here who have been so adamantly pro-Paul are actually staff workers. I thought there was something that was unusual about this thread, especially your refusal to answer direct questions. Now I know.
And thanks for telling me on behalf of Ron Paul (yes, I'm including Austin Willard Wright as one of your henchmen) that I, a voter, am not needed. I'm going to get that message out to the masses in spades. I guarantee that.
Actually, I'm glad to see that you and Wright are on staff. More like you and Paul's ship will be sunk in no time.
Ron Paul Voted with the left wing anti war bunch.
He and Hillary have a lot in common.
The both want the Islamofascist to win.
No thanks, I will vote for the only Conservative running, Duncan Hunter
"Thanks for spilling the agenda. You and the others here who have been so adamantly pro-Paul are actually staff workers."
Caught that, too.
Wonder if there is a campaign law violation, here?
Worth reporting, just because I don't like him.
Actually, he didn't. The text does not specify "Afghanistan".
Ron Paul voted for the AUMF against the 9-11 terrorists because "To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.... The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable." Ron Paul, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm
However, while it may not be possible to declare war against "a group that is not a country", Iraq is a Country -- and the Constitution provides clear details on how the United States is to go about making War on a Country. Specifically, Congress is to issue a Declaration of War, as Ron Paul advocated.
You should be on the list... I've got you signed up.
The Great Ron Paul Ping List is intended for all supporters of Ron Paul, not just adherents of any particular Faith.
I don't know about that. But the entire thread; especially the way it was presented, was just too pat. Then, when confronted with questions, OrthodoxPresbyterian would just post the same outtakes from his post in reply without really answering anything.
IMHO this is NOT the way a campaign should go about wooing voters. These guys were way too confrontational when someone came out against their candidate. Instead of trying to bring them over to their side they attacked.
Now we know OrthodoxPresbyterian is on the team and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that others like Austin Wright are also. Especially after his telling me my vote isn't needed. That's a great way NOT to win friends and influence people. I wonder if Paul knows what these yahoos are up to? My guess is he does, and that's another nail in his political coffin.
Ron Paul does not office out of Oklahoma (where I live and work), and I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of his staff. I have never even lived in Texas.
My statement to "IronTank", who is a Calvinist like myself, referred to the fact that Calvinists are strongly represented in Ron Paul's office.
Here, I'll try to make it more clear to you: "We, Calvinists, are the 'in-crowd' in his office." Does that make it clearer?
"The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable."
The resolution didn't specifically mention Afghanistan, but everybody knew at the time that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was harboring al Qaida and the US was going to attack Afghanistan. However, the proposed resolution on Iraq was the only option Congress was offered in that instance, and Ron Paul gave a speech in Congress where he made clear he was against going to war against Saddam Hussein.
Well, we'll find out.
Ronnie has met me before. Asked me for money, even.
The Republican circles in Texas are very, very, small.
BTW...I am also a Calvinist
So is Ron Paul's political director, with whom I speak occasionally (she is PCA, I am OPC). So is his former chief of staff, and other former staffers.
It's a little-known fact that Ron Paul has a decades-old habit of surrounding himself with Calvinist top advisors. We're the "in crowd" in his office.
The Black Regiment marches again.
I suppose as a good Missouri Synod Lutheran my support wouldn't be wanted anyway.
Very sloppy writing on your part, and yes, it does make it clearer. It also makes clear that non-Calvins need not apply. Thanks for the further insight to a train wreck about to happen.
You don't make points here by using liberal language and tactics.
"However, while it may not be possible to declare war against "a group that is not a country", Iraq is a Country -- and the Constitution provides clear details on how the United States is to go about making War on a Country."
Then what about Afghanistan? It is a country too.
How he would have voted if the Congress had considered and adequately debated a Constitutional Declaration of War as Ron Paul proposed? If the Congress had performed its Constitutional duty?
You don't know that, and I don't know that. What we know is that Ron Paul did introduce an alternative to the "Resolution", and that was to Constitutionally Declare War. How any GOP Representative would have voted on a Constitutional Declaration of War is but a phantom of your imagination, because Congress elected not to follow the Constitution as Ron Paul advocated.
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.