I’ve mentioned Ron Paul before in my previous entries, as you may know. But I’ve noticed that some of my friends are taking an interest in “Congressman No.” And why not? He’s a guy that seems to have strong convictions about the Constitution and believes in small government. What’s not to like? Is Ron Paul right for this country? If not, is it his fault or America’s?
What you may or may not know about Ron Paul is that he is a libertarian, a party which holds some Republican stances but with relative indifference to social issues. In fact, Dr. Paul actually ran for President several years ago on the Libertarian ticket. Evidentally, he’s got some type of political tendencies or else he wouldn’t have “defected” to the Republican party. However, he has been quite successful running as a Republican in his district in Texas.
Enter his interest in the national arena. Congressman Paul has historically voted No for most of the legislation in Washington that has come his way, deeming most of it “unconstitutional.” And who is to say that he’s wrong? Our founding fathers could have never conceived of some of the legislation that has passed in recent times (Civil Rights Amendment, Voting Rights, etc.). Let’s face it, some of our founding fathers never intended for anyone other than white male landowners to remain in power. But that’s another matter altogether.
No one can dispute Paul’s constitutional zeal. And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think America needs more people like Ron Paul championing the cause of constitutional values. But that’s just it. There aren’t. Even though Ron Paul may have some respectable support in his campaign, the fact remains that America is not prepared for someone like him to be President.
It’s hard to sell Americans on cutting major departments like the Department of Education, Dept of Transportation, the EPA, and things like that. For all we know, he may eliminate the CIA and the Pentagon! Furthermore, he seems to be a staunch isolationist. As seen in the second Republican debate (I think that’s when it was), he believes that America is in some way responsible for 9/11 because of our foreign policy. He does make valid points regarding our support of Israel and our involvement in Iraq. But he doesn’t stop there. He seems to think that we don’t have any business in the Middle East at all. That’s the problem. America can no longer afford to ignore that we face Islamic jihadists that hate us and want to eliminate us and our allies no matter where we are. Americans cannot and will not support someone that is weak on terrorism.
It seems almost cruel to point to the dwindling poll numbers that Paul faces nationwide and in key primary states. Besides, even my own favorite Mitt Romney is 3rd if not 4th in most national polls. But obviously, they cannot be ignored even as early as we are into the election process.
Let’s not forget his connections to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Things like that make Americans a bit more uneasy than somebody being Mormon or getting divorced twice (I’ll let you draw the lines to the respective candidates).
Now for a recap. What will keep Ron Paul away from the Republican nomination, much less the White House? His lack of being a true Republican, his abolish-crazy intentions, his short-sighted views of government, his weakness on terrorism, and a lack of popularity. Now there’s nothing wrong with wanting small government and keeping to constitutional ideals, but we as a nation have progressed since our founding fathers formed this nation. We may not have always progressed in the right direction, but we have made progess nonetheless. And the status of this nation being what it is, we are not ready for a candidate like Ron Paul. That may not necessarily be his fault, but the fact remains and as a result, he will not win the Republican nomination nor the presidency in 2008.
June 24, 2007 at 12:33 pm |
I have to take exception to some of what you posted. “he seems to be a staunch isolationist” not true. Dr. Paul believes in free trade, travel and peaceful, friendly relations. What he doesn’t believe in, is having military installations (750 of them at present) in 130 countries. That is very costly and unnecessary.
“America can no longer afford to ignore that we face Islamic jihadists that hate us and want to eliminate us and our allies no matter where we are. Americans cannot and will not support someone that is weak on terrorism.” Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and he is furious we have not killed/captured Bin Laden yet. I have studied numerous statements from Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, Zarqawi, etc. and do not see any rhetoric about fighting over here. I think it’s sensationalist and unfounded to believe they are interested in bringing their Jihad to America. I think 9/11 was orchestrated to make a point, and I don’t believe we would allow that kind of thing to happen again. Ron Paul wants to strengthen border security and National Security, not weaken it.
“Things like that make Americans a bit more uneasy than somebody being Mormon or getting divorced twice ” Wrong again. Having a friend with crazy ideas and BEING the one with crazy ideas (Willard Mitt Romney) are two different things. Anyone who believes Joseph Smith actually met with God and Jesus in the woods, got two golden plates from the Angel Moroni, then translated these golden plates with magical stones in a hat, and was told by God he had to secretly marry teenage girls behind his wife’s back….well, you need counseling. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in 9/11 conspiracies, he has friends that do. Big difference. Also, a tendency to get divorced shows you have trouble being committed and you don’t have trouble lying and cheating to get your way. Those aren’t qualities we want in a President.
Ron Paul is VERY popular, even though polls don’t reflect that yet. A friend of my father (mormon) went on a trip to Europe, and he got so tired of people asking him questions about Ron Paul, he pretended not to know who he was! Also, look at the fact that Ron Paul has 10,000 more supporters on myspace than your boy Mitt.
Ron Paul will have raised at least 3 million by the end of this month. That may not seem like much, but he only had 640,000 at the end of March. This is a good indicator of his growing popularity.
Jimmy Carter polled at 1% and 2% all through 1975. In the last Gallup Poll before Iowa, he only had 4% of the Democratic vote. We know what happened in 1976.
And in what way is Ron Paul not a true Republican? Ron Paul didn’t “defect” to the GOP. He was Republican in the 70’s. I don’t understand what your argument is there.
Ron Paul is going to win this nomination, wait and see.
June 24, 2007 at 2:49 pm |
We should do business with Middle East – trade and be friends. Not occupy, not bomb, etc. Ron Paul suggested alternative and much more effective to fight Jihadists. The “War on terror” breeds new jihadists every day. Dont you see that?
Note that non-interventionism and isolationism are different things, See here directly from Dr. Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UydCZJeQPPQ
BTW the connection between Ron Paul and 9/11 “truthers” is one single interview, when these wackos approached Dr.Paul and spent 44 seconds talking with him. He said basically that if there is some bipartisan action looking into specific details of 9/11 CR, he is willing to work across the party boundaries. That it.
June 24, 2007 at 3:15 pm |
Don’t believe it for a minute!!
A local DJ, Jan Michaelson of WHO news talk radio has been handling the latest supporter focus in Des Moines Iowa. In one afternoon/evening….they documented over 17,000 server requests to download the broadcast coverage concerning Ron Paul.
17,000.
http://www.ronpaulaudio has recorded over 60,000 server requests on it’s website that’s only been online for 1 MONTH! (I know….I’m the host!)
Let’s start talking about EXPONENTIAL CURVES and more than 500 Days left before the 2008 Election.
Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
June 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
Ill-informed smear job.
June 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
I must take issue with your article. I believe Ron Paul is the ONLY non-short-sighted candidate. He doesnt offer any quick fixes or slogans to rile people up. All other candidates do. You can’t fix back pain with ben gay, you fix it by discovering what movements you make cause the backpain. Working for special interests is not a long view of how to operate the country. Every candidate is in the pocket of many many lobbyists and special interests. I might add that “Islamic Jahidists” only exist in the modern world because of what we have done to their societies; make no mistake of that. Do you blame gangs in south central LA on their mothers or film/tv violence? Do you blame the existence of the drug infested ghettos of our cities on drug dealers? Do you blame the existence of crack cocaine on a curiosity and need to get more high in a more dangerous manner on a consumer need?
Without asking real questions and finding real answers, you do no better than politics as usual, which is to say a lie, attack the truth as insults, and blame the cause of obvious social problems on a nameable scapegoat that the majority of the population can agree to hate.
June 24, 2007 at 5:25 pm |
You might be surprised at the dwindling popularity of your point of view that America isn’t angry enough at unjust wars, unjust taxes, and spying on US citizens to massively vote in Ron Paul – the one candidate who can and will change course.
June 24, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
Bredan, thoughtful essay there but I believe you’re wrong on a few points.
1. Ron Paul has stated numerous times that there must be a judicious transition period to drastically smaller government – he would not eliminate departments with one stroke of the pen and couldn’t even if he wanted to.
2. He’s not an isolationist, he’s a non-interventionist. And a vote for him is not a vote to let the terrorists win (he’s arguably stronger on the actual terrorists than Bush) nor even necessarily to back out of the Middle East.
3. The 9/11 conspiracy thing has been thoroughly discredited. He has no connections to any of those groups.
June 24, 2007 at 6:07 pm |
‘America can no longer afford to ignore that we face Islamic jihadists that hate us….Americans will not support someone that is weak on terrorism’ –
Will you please wake up? the drivel about islamic jihadists just shows that you have fallen for the government’s ‘boogeyman plan’ to scare you into submission . a vote for any candidate OTHER than ron paul – i.e. democrat, republican, left, right, conservative, liberal, ultimately equals more of the same.
More of the same is EXACTLY what we can no longer afford.
i think ron paul’s foreign policy changes would help out a lot with so called ‘terrorism’ and maybe ron paul’s administration would even bring the bush family business partner and vacation buddy -osama bin laden- to justice…lord knows george w. never wiill!
June 24, 2007 at 7:20 pm |
Ron Paul is the only true Republican if you read the full platform of the party.
We should abolish the dept of education because it’s nothing more than an arm of the UN – I know, I worked in public schools for 35 years.
His views of gov’t are not short-sighted, they are CORRECT.
He is strong on defense and terrorism, just not for starting wars without reasons.
He is also the MOST popular candidate in NH and on the internet on any social networking that exists…and won most all the polls after the debates. He had more people at his rally in NH than Barack Obama!
He is a staunch advocate of free trade so how is that isolationism?
And finally, to your MOST ill-informed statement that he has ‘connections to 9/11 conspiracy theorists’, I will say this. He has NO connections to them any more than all the other candidates have, when they are questioned by these students who have free speech. It’s just that unlike Giuliani, he doesn’t have them arrested for asking the question! I was standing right next to Ron when those students in the video asked him about it, and Malkin made a big deal out of it stating that he ‘met’ with them. He did nothing of the kind. I held a house party and they showed up, were polite, so I let them in.
Please research your facts a little better before you go spilling your guts on a blog.
Thanks.
June 24, 2007 at 7:23 pm |
Mr. Pace,
What you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent blog were you even close to anything that could be considered an original thought. Everyone in this blog is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may G-d have mercy on your soul.
1) Ron was a Republican before he was a Libertarian. He was one of the first six Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan (way before Ronald Reagan was cool) It was his dissatisfaction with the direction of the Republican party in the late ’80s that lead to his running as a Libertarian.
Even as a Libertarian, some of Ron Paul’s positions were out-of-sync with the LP (immigration, and abortion come to mind.) Interestingly enough, the chief complaint against Dr. Paul when he ran in ‘88 was that he wasn’t a libertarian, but a Republican in LP clothing.
2) Civil Rights Amendment, Voting Rights, are not Legislation they are Amendments While our *founding fathers* may have intended only White, Landowning, Males, 21 years of age or older to have the vote, our *Constitution* has an amendment process which was dutifully followed to extend the right of voting to: all races (13th), All citizens (14th), Women (19th), and those old enough to fight and die in our armed forces (18th). To my knowledge, Ron Paul does not dispute these properly ratified amendments. To suggest that Ron Paul supports only a narrow, pre-1800 view of the Constituion, is to distort the meaning of the word Constitutionalist beyond all recognition.
However, the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to legislate in areas such as Public Education, and there has never been a Constitutional Amendment granting such. The Dept. of Education, like the Department of Education, the Dept of Transportation, and the EPA, have never been authorized by any amendment to the Constitution. This is why Ronald Reagan ran on a policy of eliminating the DoED and “Sowing salt upon the earth where it stood.” That Republicans passed the despicable “No child left behind.” act only proves Ron Paul’s point about the GOP having lost it’s way.
3) Just because Ron Paul is for the elimination of certain Depts, does not mean those depts will automatically be abolished upon his election. We will still have a house of Representatives, and a Senate, and they would have to pass legislation to abolish these Depts. before Ron Paul could sign such legislation. Ron Paul has never suggested, to my knowledge, that the Pentagon or the CIA is unconstitutional, or should be abolished.
4) Ron Paul is NOT an *isolationist* he is a *non-interventionist*. There is a huge difference between the two. An isolationist wants nothing to do whatsoever with other nations; Ron Paul wants to have free trade, and diplomatic ties with other nations. A non-interventionist wants to keep out of the internal affairs of other nations (and keep out of the wars between other nations.) To be against Ron Paul, one has to be an interventionalist, and go about policing the world. I think most Americans are quite sick of that job, and the costs that go along with it.
5) Ron Paul DID NOT say that America was *responsible* for the attacks on 9/11. That is a blatant lie. Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he thinks the responsibility belongs to the 19 muslim extremists who hijacked those planes. This is a charge that Michelle Malkin of Faux News has made, and she has been forced to retract it with an appology. Julie-Annie and Faux News have deliberatly and cynically distorted and demagouged this issue.
What Ron Paul say is that America’s *interventionist* (in the internal affairs of other nations) Foriegn Policies have contributed to the hatred of America, that Obama bin Laden and other terrorists use to recruit followers. This is called “Blowback” by the CIA, and Dr. Paul’s view was ratified and confirmed by Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit.
6) Ron Paul is not weak on terrorism, he wants to reduce Al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit new soldiers, and protect our borders to prevent others from entering the country with intent to do us harm.
7) Ron Paul’s poll numbers are not dwindling, they are climbing (which goes a long towards explaining pathetic hit pieces such as yours, IMHO) In March and early April, his poll numbers were 0%, in late April and early May, 1%, in June, he is polling at 2-3%. In NH on May 17th, he got 4% in a poll. On the internet, he wins nearly every poll hands-down. After the second debate, he came in second on Faux News’ own text-message poll (a poll which is immune from any kind of “spamming” due to caller ID) Ron Paul’s problem is not his message, it is that not enough poeple have heard the message.
Let’s recap: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CHARGES ARE STRAWMEN OR GROSS DISTORTIONS OF DR. PAUL’S RECORD and position You have defamed someone, whose shoes you are not worthy to shine, you should be ashamed to call yourself a blogger. At best you are a repeater of untruths.
Next time do some research and don’t just trot out talking points from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin.
Later.
June 24, 2007 at 7:24 pm |
It is false to say that libertarians have an ‘indifference’ to social issues. They are convinced that individual liberty is the highest social good and that coersion is both immoral and counter-productive.
There is a well-known difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Ron Paul is against coersive intervention. Note the pattern yet?
Hinting that Ron Paul would eliminate national defence is ignorant or dishonest.
Ron Paul has no “connections” to conspiracy theorists. That he speaks to people does not mean he has a connection.
His views on government are hardly short sighted. Abolishing useless and tyrannical government “departments” is not crazy. Fighting terrorism by leaving other countries alone is not weakness, it is wisdom (and morality).
He is unpopular with little bullies who like power or who like to be led by powerful bullies, but his popularity is growing.
Lying about Ron Paul and dismissing him are the only wheapons his detractors have. That is why he continues to gain in the polls.
June 24, 2007 at 7:28 pm |
Ooops, I meant Osama bin Laden, not Obama.
My sincerest appology to Sen. Obama, his family, staff and supporters.
It was not my intention to suggest that Sen. Obama is connected in any way to Osama bin Laden, Muslim extremeists in general, or Al-Qaeda in particular.
Sorry,
Kevin Houston
June 24, 2007 at 7:28 pm |
My second choice after Ron Paul is Romney as except for his Iraq War views I believe he is our second best choice for President. Let us hope Ron Paul doesn’t become president under the circumstances shown below:
Read How Ron Paul Became President
A fictional case study about how a future terrorist attack against the US and the Bush administration response elects Ron Paul as President.
Learn what could happen when the United States is hit by another terrorist attack by Islamic extremists that creates an extreme response by Washington in The Final Presidential Executive Order at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm
This is from a new free online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” & the over reaction results in the election of Ron Paul as President, not in 2008 but in 2012.
June 24, 2007 at 9:26 pm |
Braden, we’ve known each other for a long time now… and I just wanted to let you know that if good ol’ RP wins this thing, I am making a promise to you now that you will never hear the end of it.
June 25, 2007 at 5:11 am |
Let me just apologize for my earlier comment. It seems you are sincere, and interested in a constructive debate. I apologize for my short comment.
July 26, 2007 at 3:24 am |
Ron Paul said he believed in talking to other nations not forcing the countries to see the way the US government wants. That tells me, he will talk trade and things that would be mutual beneficial to both parties. Weak on protection, come on give me a break. He wants to get Bin Laden. Most of the agencies in the government just eat up tax money and goes nowhere.
July 26, 2007 at 3:34 am |
He’s definitely weak on protection and his record proves it. He says he wants to get Bin Laden but he hasn’t articulated a plan to do it. His website says virtually nothing about it.
February 7, 2008 at 10:35 pm |
[...] Ron Paul and His Supporters: It’s Over! Back in June of last year, I wrote two posts about why Ron Paul wouldn’t win the nomination. I was met with a flood of reponses ranging [...]