Thursday, May 17, 2007

Ron Paul - The Man, The Myth, The Cryptkeeper

This is an open forum for all those who support Ron Paul of believe he "won" the Republican debates.

I have to ask the question - why do you like him? And I pose this question to you because, as Republicans, I'm assuming you're not aware of the hypocrisy in supporting a candidate because he's anti-war, but still claiming the Democrats are soft on terror because they are anti-war. When the Democrats go against the administration, the right wing boos and hisses, but when this Republican (actually Libertarian) congressman goes against the administration, people refer to it as "leadership qualities." Other than that, there are no real differences between him and the other candidates. Oh, except that he wants to abolish the IRS. Because, apparently, taxes are bad. Okay then.

Obviously I'm bias against Ron Paul - and really all of the Republican candidates - but, barring that, I would like someone to answer the question honestly:

Why Ron Paul?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I actually agree with Dennis Kucinich on the war in Iraq, I just think his economic policies are mistaken. Paul is actually more extreme in fiscal matters than I am (though closer than Kucinich), but I realize that it's Congress that approves funding, and the President has the power to veto it.

Four (or better yet, eight) years requiring a 2/3rds supermajority for every spending bill would probably bring us closer to a balanced budget than a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Thus, I prefer the lone anti-war candidate on the right to the two on the left.

Anonymous said...

A more realistic probability is that the people who are supporting Ron Paul are the old anti-war conservative base who voted for Bush in 2000 based on his own anti-war and conservative policies. Now they've gotten neither, and have shrunk from the GOP as a result.

The people who love Paul are mostly not Republicans. They're either libertarian-leaning internet users, actual libertarians, anti-war dems, Republicans who have registered as independents in protest of the Neocons draining the life from the party, and the few actual Sen. Taft-esque conservatives that have remained in the party.

As for why I support Ron Paul, I was coming from a point where the Libertarian Party was more interested in their own demagogeury and ideological purity than changing the country. When Republicans and Democrats had combined into a massive War Party, and no 3rd Party or Perot-esque independent was providing any real alternative. I learned about Ron Paul through the internet, and knowing that there's at least one principled man in Washington who actually respects the constitution has been enough to keep me interested in politics and donate to his campaign. I actually intend to register as a Republican so that I can vote for him in my state's primary assuming he's getting this far.

Straussian Neoconservative ideals have been revealed as pure bunk in their imperialist practice, and its proponents have also been exposed as the Big Government socialists that they used to be before the Anti-War Movement changed the face of Lyndon Johnson's party. Americans and particularly Republicans are waking up to the fact that they've been had, and have swallowed the sound bits and talking points spoon-fed to us by the media and their talking heads for too long.

If there is an "other" which seeks to destroy our way of life, we are the ones who have created it. That is what Paul is saying when we are executing an ineffective foreign policy, and it's precisely why Democrats are just as wrong as Neoconservatives on this issue, as they think foreign interventionism is just when it's for an underdog.

Interventionism can only ever be justified as an act of self-defense, and we have no business entangling ourselves in the affairs of people that live in a medieval mindset.

War is never a last resort for the political establishment, yet Ron Paul takes Washington's statements to heart. That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul.

-Bradford C.

carlivar said...

It's very simple for me. I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. That's Dr. Paul. Really, Dr. Paul is more in tune with the ideals Republicans have classically supported: non-interventionism, low taxes, strong national defense (within our borders, NOT offense), limited government / anti-bureaucracy.

I simply don't understand when things changed so that Republican = pro-war, Democrat = anti-war. That doesn't make any sense to me. How is it a partisan issue? What about the 11 Republican congressmen that met with Bush on 5/9 and told him he's lost all credibility on Iraq? No, Ron Paul was not one of them.

It's also quite clear that Christian fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party. Many folks that identify with the Republicans for their CLASSIC platform (think Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater) are fighting this.

America has a beautiful Constitution and I wish we'd follow what it says. That's why I support Ron Paul. Oh, he's also one of the only politicians against a National ID.

Anonymous said...

A Joe Sobran passage can say it better than I can:
"Paul, a pro-life medical doctor, is a genuine political maverick. When the House votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the 1. He really fights for the principles other Republicans only pretend to stand for, and does so with carefully reasoned explanations of his positions.

In essence, Paul appeals to that subversive document, the U.S. Constitution, long since abandoned by both major parties, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court. He tests every proposed law by asking whether it exercises a power authorized by the Constitution. The answer is seldom yes.

Many years ago Paul told me, with his affably ironic smile, that he felt more pressure from his fellow Republicans than from Democrats, because the Democrats weren’t embarrassed when a Republican voted like a real conservative, but the Republicans were. Showing up his own party has been the story of Ron Paul’s career. No other Republican has voted against President Bush as consistently as he has.

Paul isn’t flamboyant or defiant about it; his style is quiet and reasonable, not combative. Being a maverick isn’t a pose for him. It’s a matter of conscience and logic."

Librocrat said...

Thanks guys. I see your points. Obviously, I'm not a fiscal conservative - so he's less appealing to me. But it's been hard for me to understand why a Republican base that is still filled up with "loyal Bushies" can like him so much. If I'm not mistaken, though, most of you are generally Republicans-turned-somewhat independents.

You will all admit, though, that it is not often where one meets a fiscal conservative social liberal anymore (which seems to be his base, in some sense). If Ron Paul becomes the GOP candidate, it will be hard for him to win, even though he is still conservative on most social matters.