Posted on 05/30/2007 4:44:20 AM PDT by BGHater
As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Rep. Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit the Texas Republican a few months ago and was pleased to see he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.
At that time, I did not know Ron planned a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. When I later learned of it, I thought he was being hopelessly Quixotic -- tilting at windmills. I thought Ron's views about limited constitutional government and nonintervention in the affairs of others nations were hopelessly out of step with the vast bulk of Republican primary voters.
On the war, these voters remain solidly in the George W. Bush camp -- willing to defend the war in Iraq to the bitter end and highly intolerant of anyone who raises doubts about its wisdom or continuation. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani exemplified this attitude in the debate two weeks ago when he demanded that Ron apologize for his antiwar position.
However, significant cracks have developed in the wall of conservative support Mr. Bush enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Today, much is known about the lack of verifiable evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), about how the White House bullied those urging caution into reluctant support, and thoroughly screwed-up the Iraq occupation. Even Arizona Sen. John McCain, still a strenuous war supporter, has become outspoken on Bush's poor management of it.
Consequently, more than a few conservatives have gone over to the antiwar side. Unfortunately for Ron, they are mostly former Republicans today, unlikely to vote in a Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I don't think that we did. As you might recall, one of W.'s planks in the 2000 election was that he wanted to put an end to the "nation building" policies of the Clinton administration.
I'm not saying that Paul is totally right, but I think he is closer to right than wrong. I think we have a lot of flawed policies in the Middle East that need to be re-thought.
Thanks. Very informative. Now the strategy is clear. The author knows Paul can’t win and wants Hillary elected.
Its all about dividing votes to crown Her Heiness.
Or maybe he supports that US Constitution he takes an oath to defend and believes (correctly) that none of the above issues are issue for the federal government...your post is typical of so many though...makes me wonder how many Americans have ever even read the Constitution
Your point is?
The "L" word that got left out was Losers.
I was trying to be polite.
If you missed my point, there's nothing to be gained in my trying to explain it to you.
Matthew 7:6
laotzu: If you favor an antiAmerican antiwar substitute for American foreign policy as do paleoPaulie and Weepy Walter Jones, then expect to be insulted (or more accurately to have your failings noted). You have earned it. Contrary to the imaginings of liberals and their libertarian cut and run allies, there is no right not to be criticized.
Internationalism is a policy that would primarily suck up to the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, and the like, begging their permission for America to breathe. INTERVENTIONISM is a policy whereby we send our troops and military forces where we want, when we want and for whatever purposes that serve us whether internationalists like it or not. Try to learn the distinction and stop insulting interventionists by mislabeling them as Wilsonian or internationalists.
PaleoPaulie, Weepy Walter Jones, Bruce Bartlett and the cowardly delusionists of the libertoonian "right" are no better than Neville Chamberlain. They are a disgrace and their resistance to conservative policy should NEVER be forgotten.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Ron Paul cannot win, And that the Paul folks are wasting time, energy, and money on a loosing cause while Hillary measures for drapes in the White House.
Nin-kasi makes a good point. Paul appears to be anti-gun in these votes. I find that troubling. Your reply bothers me too - You Ron Paul folks claim to be the only people who have ever read the Constitution and evoke words like “Liberty” as if Ron Paul invented it himself. These “Holier than Thou” attitudes you all exhibit are getting really old and shop worn.
I don't know whether you've ever read the Constitution or not but I don't know how someone who has read it or has read the Federalist looks at those votes and concludes that it must mean Ron Paul is anti-gun. I would think the first thing any constitutional conservative would think is...of course he opposed it...the federal government has no authority in those areas
Ron Paul has opposed every federal gun law...both because they violate the Second Amendment and, more importantly, the federal government has no police power authority to regulate guns under the Constitution. He sponsored the Second Amendment Restoration Act which would have repealed every existing federal gun law. But tort reform is a state issue...not a federal issue as Paul noted when he opposed it
Congress tramples the Constitution in its rush to block frivolous lawsuits
Sorry to sound holier than thou...but I just wish more people understood that the federal government has very limited powers under the Constitution and, even though we might support some federal law as good policy...if its not auithorized under the Constitution, it has to be left to the states. If more congressman recognized that, America would not be saddled with this massive entitlement system
Bruce Bartlett is out of step with the Constitution and the Americans who appreciate the limits it places on the central government.
If Bush were running there might be something in this: someone might force him out of the race. But it wouldn't be Ron Paul, who's more like John Ashbrook, who challenged Nixon in 1972 with little result. And in any case, Bush isn't running this time.
When they finally did win a Presidential election they elected Jimmy Carter, a man who was NOT from the Eugene McCarthy/George McGovern wing of the party.
True, but if you leave out the McGovern legacy you can't describe today's Democrats accurately. I was going to say that the party today looks more like McGovern than Johnson or Carter. That may be going too far, but McGovern definitely left his mark on the party.
McCarthy was a rare fish, though. He thought less of capitalism, but also much less of government, than most mainstream politicians of either party. He had a cockeyed libertarian side, which explains why he left mainstream politics for third party efforts.
For better or worse, one could see a parallel between Paul and McCarthy in their quixotism. But Paul will leave much less behind than even McCarthy did.
Wilsonian internationalism is just one form of interventionism...sorry you’re insulted but can you name a single use of the American military since the end of the Cold War that was not taken under UN authority or taken to enforce some UN resolution?
When government bureaucrats in Country A decide they need to overthrow a dictator in Country B (on the other side of the world) and replace him with a ruler that will be friendly with both Country A and Country C...and then they sell their plan as a crusade for democracy and the liberation of the people of Country B...and because Country B is violating UN resolutions...I would say Country A’s policies are both internationalist and Wilsonian...and premised on a very neoliberal (not very American) idea...that government central planners should be trusted to engineer political societies according to plans drawn up on paper
Nin_kasi,
Your post shows a complete ignorance of the guiding philosophy of Ron Paul. Paul votes against every single bill where Congress oversteps the authority it is given in the Constitution. Fred Thompson recently blogged that he is proud of some of his 99-1 votes because he was voting on the principle of limited government. Congress (and the courts) should restrain themselves and govern within the limits of the Constitution.
I find it most amusing that so-called conservatives want strict constructionists on the supreme court but call the one strict constructionist in Congress a nut.
Incidentally, Ron Paul is the most pro-second amendment person in the US government. Were you to look up his history instead of making ignorant attacks, you’d know this. Here is H.R. 1096, a bill recently introduced by Ron Paul:
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans
HR 1096 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1096
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.
Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.
(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’; and
(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes’.
(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’.
(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes’.
(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,’.
(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community’.
(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and’.
(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)’.
(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes’ and inserting `lawful purposes’.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.
(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-
(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).
(2) Section 924 of such title is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)’ and inserting `or (f)’; and
(B) by striking subsection (p).
(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
I believe Kosovo was a NATO action, not UN. Not that that makes it right.
As a reluctant fan of his over the years, I understand that his foreign policy positions are abundantly complex and draw on an alternative view of American exceptionalism since the Cold War, namely the foreign policy of Taft. I find some of his views on Letters of Marque and Reprisal to be worth a look at, and I'm sure he has some worthy ideas for eliminating foreign aid.
But he is so utterly inept at conveying his positions that on television he sounds like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore. I wonder if there is anybody with political experience running his campaign; they had to know that even hinting at the fact that we deserved 9/11 was a political iceberg. It makes him look like he doesn't even want the nomination, which in turn makes him look like a clown to any political outsider who watched the debate.
Ron Paul can kiss me”where the sun don’t shine”!
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.