Election '08

[criddic3]

August 01, 2007

Ron Paul: Idea-Driven, Decent, Unworthy
By Mark Davis

Some say that after eight years of President Bush, the nation would not elect another Texan or another Republican. But Ron Paul shatters both stereotypical definitions, simultaneously bringing him waves of criticism and armies of new fans.

He has no chance of winning the 2008 Republican nomination, but unlike, say, Tommy Thompson or Sam Brownback, he seems to know that and even admit it. Ideas are what matter to the congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, and those ideas have won him 10 elections from a voter base that admires his curious blend of social conservatism, populism and libertarianism.

That libertarian streak, in particular, gives me much to admire about him. He opposes gun control and abortion like most mainstream Republicans, but he brings a special courage to his passion for cutting the size of government by as much has half. Republicans talk a good game about making government smaller but have abjectly failed. They generally advocate less government than, say, Democrats, but the old joke is still true: What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? You'll get bigger government under either, but the Republicans will tell you they feel terrible about it.

Dr. Paul's genuine devotion to profoundly smaller government - and, thus, profoundly lower taxes - earned him the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nomination and the half of 1 percent of the vote that usually goes with it.

Nonetheless, I share his dream that one day Americans will realize that government should do no more than the limited list of tasks clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Until then, you can find him speaking to groups of schoolchildren too young to vote, hoping to spread the honorable concept of such limited government into future generations.

This is a small part of the portrait of Ron Paul that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he is a gentleman cut from the finest human cloth. He is unfailingly polite, carries none of the condescension or affectations that power can often bring, and he still seems to have the aura of genuine caring that led him to deliver babies for free for needy Brazoria County families back in his obstetrician days.

So let us stipulate that Dr. Paul may be one of the more decent people ever elected to Congress. Now to the issue of his run for the White House, where the news is not so happy.

And not because of his meager chances. Plenty of good, smart people have no realistic chance of reaching the Oval Office. The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense.

For example, there is a corner of American economic thought that is skeptical of the Federal Reserve and laments our departure from the gold standard, now obsolete across the globe. But the Ron Paul take is that the Fed and its various chairmen have acted as sinister puppeteers doing the bidding of an ill-defined elite.

This John Birch-style conspiracy geekdom has sparked appeal among the disaffected of all ages, especially twentysomethings ripe for the artificial know-it-all vibe that often accompanies three to six years of adulthood.

File all that under disturbing quirkiness. But it is the Ron Paul take on fighting terror that makes him unfit for even the briefest consideration for the presidency.

In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. "We've been over there," he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."

We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win.

Joined by a host of Democrats who clearly do not view America as "the good guys," Ron Paul has shown he is one of many otherwise respectable Americans wholly unworthy of the White House.

Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. His e-mail address is [email]mdavis@wbap.com.[/email]

[Damien]

By the same token, I would not follow the gov't over a cliff if I felt they were lying to me. I don't believe that President Bush has, and so I've continued to support him.

Don't forget to pack your parachute! :p

[criddic3]

God! You are so thickheaded. I'll bet the people you claim to be your friends on MySpace hate you. You will argue black is white, because your government told you it was.

Most of the people on my myspace page are from real life and not on message boards like this one. I worked with most of them and they know me personally. We hang out sometimes. We don't often discuss politics. But when we have, no one has expressed outright disgust with my political beliefs. In fact most of them are fairly uninterested in politics as a topic all-together. Most people tend to be. But they respect my positions. One or two of them do like discussing politics and I have enjoyed the talks we have. We may disagree. For example, my friend Liam voted for John Kerry in 2004, but he didn't do so out of hatred for Bush. So he respects that I like Bush, and I respect that he voted for Kerry. However, we agree on some basic issues.

Message boards are not necessarily the best place to hash out honest debates about politics I gather, but without a variety of opinions, it would be pretty lame. By the same token, I would not follow the gov't over a cliff if I felt they were lying to me. I don't believe that President Bush has, and so I've continued to support him.

[Sabin]

Just for my own pithy sense of masochism and validity (they tend to coincide these days): could I have been any clearer?

[99-1100896887]

God! You are so thickheaded. I'll bet the people you claim to be your friends on MySpace hate you. You will argue black is white, because your government told you it was.

[criddic3]

That's fine with me. I really don't know what you wanted from me. I discussed why Ron Paul might seem like the ideal Republican to you, and I said why I felt he would not be the ideal Republican for the times. I didn't do it in-depth, but really why would I need to? If this is your way of excusing yourself from all future conversations with me, that's really okay with me. I mean, it's a little extravagant to go through the trouble of creating an argument that doesn't exist, but hey it makes you feel better about yourself.

[Sabin]

OKay, maybe I need some guidlines then.

Are we talking traditional Republican, as in Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? William McKinley? Dwight Eisenhower? Barry Goldwater? Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Either Bush?

ARE YOU DISABLED! WHAT THE FUCK MORE DO I NEED TO TELL YOU, RETARD? I'VE TOLD YOU SO FUCKING MANY TIMES!

Yes, I'm really this angry. I know we've talked a few times and I'd like to think I've been level-headed with you over the years but what the fuck is wrong with you? You know what I'm asking you!!!

REPUBLICAN! REPUBLICAN! FEDERAL VS. STATE! MIDDLE SCHOOL VS. LITTLE BUS!

GEORGE W. BUSH = NEO-CONSERVATIVE IN THE IMPLIMENTATION OF "CONSERVATIVE VALUES"...WHICH IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
RON PAUL = TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE IN THE STRICT EMPHASIS OF THE POWER OF THE STATE OVER ANY IMPLIMENTATION OF FEDERAL LAW!

If you are talking about low-taxes, limited government and strong foreign policy, many of the people I've listed above would fit the mold in some form or other. The traditions of the party have changed dramatically over the years. I suspect they are going to change more so in the next few years, too.

NOT THE ARGUMENT!

I don't care if Ron Paul adheres to some of the stricter codes of a traditional Republican, which in many cases he does. I do care that he is out-of-step with the party on the current stances on foreign policy. Particularly on Iraq.

NOT THE ARGUMENT!

Why are you so eager for me to give credence to your view of Ron Paul as the Ideal Republican?

Because it started out as an intelligent conversation. I promise you, it did. It started out as a conversation I seriously wanted to know your opinion about, but you just kinda took a shit on the floor.

Is there such a thing as an Ideal Republican? I guess the current ideal is still President Reagan.

Not my argument. Still not getting it. Kind of amazing. I'm talking about State vs. Federal. The motherfucking basis for your party not the President that incites you to arc a load the furthest onto your closeted chest.

But that doesn't mean that Ron Paul would fill those shoes, anymore than Fred Thompson. I don't think it's wise to cling to one image of what it means to be a Republican. Certainly, the three basic notions mentioned earlier (low-taxes, limited gov't and strong foreign policy) have been invariably included in the platform for a long time.

Show of hands? Anybody? Anybody?

I don't really know what you want me to say. Maybe I'm just too dense.

Seriously, don't worry about it. I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I don't care anymore. I know you're not going to understand this, but I tried. If nothing else, Algernon, I tried.

Fool me twice, dude, and fill in the blank...



Edited By Sabin on 1185263220

[criddic3]

Because he doesn't share a hard-line on foreign policy, which has been the basis for the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. At least that how it sounded in the debates. He was the only Republican candidate who actively voted against the Iraq War resolution of 2002, along with four others from the party, despite introducing legislation to formally declare war (not a bad idea, but one he said he would not vote for himself.)

I'm staying calm...

Honestly? Asking the questions in bold maybe was just a little condescending and I'm going to extend an olive branch and say that I'm sorry for using the language and tone that I did. Sorry, Criddic. I'm going to have to keep using it though, and I'm sorry for that too.

STAY WITH ME CRIDDIC. WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE, BUDDY! JUST YOU WAIT!!!

Because he doesn't share a hard-line on foreign policy, which has been the basis for the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan and the Cold War.

THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL! THAT WHICH EPITOMIZES - which is to say, that which can be taken in the abstract - WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A REPUBLICAN!

NO CURRENT TRENDS!

POWER OF STATE VS. POWER OF COUNTRY!

HOW IS RON PAUL NOT EXACTLY WHAT CAN BE POPULARLY DESCRIBED AS A REPUBLICAN?...

...AND DON'T SAY IT'S BECAUSE HE'S NOT POPULAR WITH VOTERS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND YOU KNOW IT.

Also, I don't care to hear your opinions on Guiliani in this post. You can just relax and answer the question. Really, I've made it easy for you.

OKay, maybe I need some guidlines then.

Are we talking traditional Republican, as in Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? William McKinley? Dwight Eisenhower? Barry Goldwater? Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Either Bush?

If you are talking about low-taxes, limited government and strong foreign policy, many of the people I've listed above would fit the mold in some form or other. The traditions of the party have changed dramatically over the years. I suspect they are going to change more so in the next few years, too.

I don't care if Ron Paul adheres to some of the stricter codes of a traditional Republican, which in many cases he does. I do care that he is out-of-step with the party on the current stances on foreign policy. Particularly on Iraq.

Why are you so eager for me to give credence to your view of Ron Paul as the Ideal Republican? Is there such a thing as an Ideal Republican? I guess the current ideal is still President Reagan. But that doesn't mean that Ron Paul would fill those shoes, anymore than Fred Thompson. I don't think it's wise to cling to one image of what it means to be a Republican. Certainly, the three basic notions mentioned earlier (low-taxes, limited gov't and strong foreign policy) have been invariably included in the platform for a long time. I don't really know what you want me to say. Maybe I'm just too dense.

[Damien]

But he seems pretty forthright, is all, and he's not a fanatic nor a raving capitalist flunky. That sets him apart from the rest.

I agree Johnny -- he's the best of a particularly rotten lot.

[Johnny Guitar]

A recipe for cherry coke salad here. I've never had it. The recipes from a Google search seem to indicate that the cola isn't itself "Cherry Coke."

I'm not too surprised by Paul's stances on gay marriage and immagration. Certain forms of traditionalism can do a lot to check libertarianism, keep it from being the market-worshipping center of a person's political thought.

Like I said, I wouldn't vote for him. Even if he were all for gay marriage, on libertarian grounds, I still wouldn't vote for him. But he seems pretty forthright, is all, and he's not a fanatic nor a raving capitalist flunky. That sets him apart from the rest.

[Greg]

From what I know, Paul also deviates from traditional libertarianism in that he supports very harsh anti-immigration legislation.

He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad.

Velveeta cheese fudge sounds may be okay; but, unless it's some sort of fruit salad, Cherry Coke salad sounds absolutely disgusting.

[flipp525]

As if marriage needs to be "defended" against gay people. I think it's really under attack by heterosexual people who've reduced the institution to its current sham (see Britney Spears, for example). I've only recently, within the past five months, met someone who I can honestly say, for the first time ever, I could marry and be with for the rest of my life and never go after another guy. I think that’s why I've been more vehement lately on the subject.

And I have no time anymore for these wishy-washy stances on gay issues. You're either with us or your against us. There's no middle ground anymore as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to take the few precious scraps thrown at me by well-meaning straight people like I'm some sort of Reconstruction-era ex-slave. It's dehumanizing and pathetic.

[Damien]

Paul is surprisingly not good on gay issues, which you'd think would be a no-brainer for a strict libertarian. Although he's against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he says he would have supported the Defense of Marriage Act had he been in congress at the time, and he doesn't want to do away with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Barry Goldwater, on the other hand, was completely gay-friendly (so I guess criddic wouldn't have liked Goldwater either).

[Johnny Guitar]

From the NY Times:

There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home. But there is also something cosmopolitan and radical about him; his speeches can bring to mind the World Social Forum or the French international-affairs periodical Le Monde Diplomatique. Paul is surely the only congressman who would cite the assertion of the left-leaning Chennai-based daily The Hindu that “the world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony.” The word “empire” crops up a lot in his speeches.

This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine.

My impression, having done very limited research, is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with even an ounce of integrity. I mean, I'd never vote for him, but here's what seems like an honorable enough man, an honorable enough opponent (normatively speaking). Frankly he's better on a lot of foreign policy issues than a lot of the Democrats. Which isn't saying much. But he definitely does represent a face of a more traditional (also more classically liberal, more intellectual respectable) line of Republican thought. Thus one can see why Criddic doesn't like him.

[Sabin]

Because he doesn't share a hard-line on foreign policy, which has been the basis for the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. At least that how it sounded in the debates. He was the only Republican candidate who actively voted against the Iraq War resolution of 2002, along with four others from the party, despite introducing legislation to formally declare war (not a bad idea, but one he said he would not vote for himself.)

I'm staying calm...

Honestly? Asking the questions in bold maybe was just a little condescending and I'm going to extend an olive branch and say that I'm sorry for using the language and tone that I did. Sorry, Criddic. I'm going to have to keep using it though, and I'm sorry for that too.

STAY WITH ME CRIDDIC. WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE, BUDDY! JUST YOU WAIT!!!

Because he doesn't share a hard-line on foreign policy, which has been the basis for the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan and the Cold War.

THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL! THAT WHICH EPITOMIZES - which is to say, that which can be taken in the abstract - WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A REPUBLICAN!

NO CURRENT TRENDS!

POWER OF STATE VS. POWER OF COUNTRY!

HOW IS RON PAUL NOT EXACTLY WHAT CAN BE POPULARLY DESCRIBED AS A REPUBLICAN?...

...AND DON'T SAY IT'S BECAUSE HE'S NOT POPULAR WITH VOTERS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND YOU KNOW IT.

Also, I don't care to hear your opinions on Guiliani in this post. You can just relax and answer the question. Really, I've made it easy for you.



Edited By Sabin on 1185132792