Ron Paul Stands Alone
Ron Paul is lonely. The Republicans can’t stand his position on the war in Iraq and the Democrats can’t help but mock him as a loon. Does he deserve to be so alone? Yeah, probably Maybe. But it’s still nice to hear a Republican talk sensibly about the war.
Surely one of the highlights of the presidential primary debates held so far occurred back in mid-May, during the Republican debate in South Carolina: Ten-term Texas Congressman Ron Paul stood in front of a patriotic field of white stars on a blue backdrop and told Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler that the attacks of 9/11 occurred primarily as a response to U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked incredulously. “They attacked us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years!”
. . . “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it. They are already delighted that we’re over there, because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad that you’re on our sand, because I can target you so much easier.’ They have already … killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.”
And, boy, do the Repubs hate him for that:
Congressman Paul is the only Republican presidential contender who opposes the war in Iraq; in 2002, he was one of six House Republicans who voted against authorizing the use of military force. And he opposes our military involvement with such vehemence — both on the campaign trail and on the House floor — that critics have suggested he ought to run as a Democrat.
Run as a Democrat? Worst. Insult. In. The. Republican. Insult-o-saurus.
And there’s good reason the Democrats don’t like him either:
First elected in 1976, Paul has long opposed government intervention abroad and within the free market system. (His libertarianism doesn’t extend to many social issues: He’s pro-life and adamantly opposed to amnesty for undocumented immigrants and birthright citizenship for their children.) Paul votes against spending bills and new government tasks so frequently (even when the initiatives have sweeping Republican support) that his dissents have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”
But Paul does see the collapse of the Republican Party, and its principles:
“It’s not going to be easy,” Paul laughed. “I have to remind them of times when they actually supported small-government conservatism and took the position that we should be less adventuresome overseas.” Paul is not surprised to be the only antiwar GOP candidate, since he feels the party has taken its cues virtually entirely from the Bush administration for the past six years. “They pounded it into us that we had to do this or we were un-American,” he said. Paul believes that we cannot remain overextended abroad in part because we lack the money. “That’s something that’s very ironic,” he added, “that conservatives are digging a big hole for us financially, as well as getting us involved in these conflicts around the world that never seem to end.”
It’s also nice to have someone who actually knows what he’s talking about (to some degree), through having actually read the information available:
Paul cites hard evidence found in documents like the 9/11 Commission Report to support his foreign policy claims. The 9/11 Commission concluded that numerous statements from bin Laden prior to September 11th clearly expressed anger with our military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Following the South Carolina debate, Paul held a press conference in which he included the 9/11 Commission Report on a recommended reading list for Giuliani regarding foreign policy. Other books included Imperial Hubris, Blowback, and Dying to Win.
Great dig.
So, yeah, Paul is a nut — I can do without his hemp lectures, but at least he’s injecting some thought and humor into the (early) Republican primary fight.
[UPDATE 14 JUN 07: The bolded above is deleted. I agree with the comments below that my bolded statements aren't based on any factual argument (and I don't plan to attempt such at this juncture), and, thus, the bolded phrases above are extraneous, unsupported and disrespectful. Thank you for your comments, and I appreciate the information you are providing -- please continue to do so.]
[UPDATE 30 JUN 07: I wouldn't normally link to Burnt Orange Report (for personal reasons), but here's a rebuttal to many of the claims in the comments.]
Uh, what’s so nutty about industrial hemp? In fact, what’s so nutty about ending the oh-so-productive “drug war”? Indeed, what’s so nutty about, you know, gosh, following The Constitution? I think a lot of people are starting to feel pretty nutty themselves . . .
There are more important things going on in the world deserving of our attention than industrial hemp. I mean, really.
And Ron Paul isn’t the only person interested in actually following the Constitution.
No, he is not the only person interested in actually following the Constitution.
He just happens to be one of a handful of people in congress who even talks about doing so (and the ONLY one with a record of action to back his words), and the ONLY one of the currently-declared candidates for PotUS on either side.
But you’re right, he’s not the only one, just the only one with a chance of making sure anything of the sort happens.
Name some others that are running on a platform of following the constitution and that have a voting record to back it up - I’d be interested in having more options.
Yeah, there are more important things than hemp for sure, like energy and natural resources for instance. Oh wait, isn’t that what the whole debate over a non-psychoactive plant being illegal is all about? In the grand scheme of things, how much attention does Ron spend on opposing the illegality of a non-psychoactive plant? Not much, but it doesn’t require much time or attention to be opposed to something ludicrus.
What a nutcase?
Ron Paul IS the only person that is interested in following the constitution out the candidates that we have running. Please for the love of God and our Children, support and vote for Ron Paul. It’s high time people!!
I appreciate your comments.
I’m willing to be persuaded.
Didn’t mean to come off as abrasive, it’s just I’ve spent a fair amount of time researching Dr. Paul after hearing a few things that piqued my interest. Until now there hasn’t been a candidate for president during my voting career that garnered more than a lesser of evils vote from me. It gets frustrating to see his treatment by the mainstream media (for the most part) as a “wingnut radical with no chance” when all of my research seems to indicate he’s anything but that. At any rate, thanks for the article.
Ron Paul applies his principles to a wide variety of issues (see his current house activities), but the campaign priorities seem to be war, foreign policy, sovereignty, and taxes-budget-money.
When the Republicans issused a bill to give Ronald Reagan a $30k gold medal Paul voted against it and in his dissenting comments proposed instead that he and the other politicians pay for it out of their own pockets… That’s just the kind of principled man that he is. He’s a real statesman. His voting record for 30 years in and out of the House shows it. The criticism of him is just grasping at straws… The good doctor is the only one who can and will create positive change in the US government.
Please spend a little time learning about him and make an educated decision.
Viva Ron Paul!
You write:
“So, yeah, Paul is a nut — I can do without his hemp lectures…”
So, like yeah, the definition of a nut, then, is an intellegent, principled man who dares to have an opinion unlike your opinion. That you would smear him as a nut while not bothering to explain why his position is irrational is powerful evidence that your position is irrational and you are at least vaguely aware of it, and too cowardly to defend it.
No surprise. If you think your rights include monitoring and regulating the body chemistry of your neighbors, you are insane with fear. If you think you have the right to prevent them from growing an industrial plant because it resembles a recreational plant you disapprove of, you are not just insane, you are sadistic.
Thank you for your comments. After taking them into consideration, I’ve updated the post.
Do you have any idea how beneficial Hemp is? Seems like you’re pretty ignorant on the issue.
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0199/et0199s11.html
Popular Mechanics, in February 1937, predicted hemp would be the world’s first “Billion Dollar Crop” that would support thousands of jobs and provide a vast array of consumer products from dynamite to plastics.
I am curious about the validity of his statement about the US bombing Iraq for the last 10 years, but I agrees with everything else that he said in that particular statement about listening to the reasons for why the US was attacked. It has always killed me that so many people settled with the President’s statements about hatred for our freedom being the reason (as Giuliani restated after the debate, thus losing even more of my respect as a politician). It is such a dumbed-down way to explain it to the masses.
“GoRonPaul says:
14. June, 2007 at 17:00
When the Republicans issused a bill to give Ronald Reagan a $30k gold medal Paul voted against it and in his dissenting comments proposed instead that he and the other politicians pay for it out of their own pockets.”
And he also voted against providing relief to Katrina victims, including those in his own district. Did he at least propose an alternative? No, of course not.