Ron Paul maybe the last "real" Republican

[Tara_NM]

I watched Ron Paul on Bill Maher's HBO show last night and was quite impressed. He came across as what I call a real Republican rather than the neoconservative and/or religious fanatic types who have hijacked the party in recent years. I would NEVER vote Repub in 2008 for a variety of reasons but I was pleased to see someone from the rightwing show some sense for a change so I looked him up and this is what I found.

Dr. Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, spoke and voted against the Iraq War Resolution, and continues to condemn the US presence in Iraq, and what he charges is the use of the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He has also broken with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005,

Paul is pro-life but believes that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to ban abortion.

Congressman Paul's position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a Federal or constitutional matter and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

Dr. Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is affirmative to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?

In 2005 the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana.

In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress.

In order to restrict the federal government to its constitutionally authorized functions, Paul takes positions that are opposed by the majority of his colleagues.


Anyone want to share thoughts or information on any of the above?

[AX10]

1. Does he oppose the Christian Right's extremist agenda?

[deadmessengers]

Most of it, but not all

He's pro-marriage equality, and also in favor of religious freedom for all, rather than just the Protestant minority. Unfortunately, (and inexplicably) he toes the Repugnican party line on reproductive freedom.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tara_NM]

4. it appears so

I have done only the basic research on the man so far but I would say yes. Maybe he is not super out spoken about the opposition but considering he is personally pro life yet doesn't not feel he needs to force (through the courts or government) that everyone else in the USA to be without choice.

He seems to also hold a similar stance on gay marriage.

But keep in mind I am just learning more about this man so I could be mistaken but so far I like what I see.... at least for a Repub anyway ;)

[deadmessengers]

2. He's anti-choice

This is something that surprised the hell out of me when I found out, but Dr. Paul is against reproductive freedom. This is VERY inconsistent with his other political stances, which tend to fall on the side of more individual liberty, not less. I'm not sure why he's chosen to single that particular issue out for more and bigger government.

I tried to find something to document this on his website, but "the Google" tells me that the word abortion does not appear anywhere on ronpaul2008.com.

[Tara_NM]

5. where did you find that?

He is anti- choice? That isn't what I learned. Where did you read that... I'd be very interested to read it for myself if you have a link. Thanks!

[deadmessengers]

6. Nothing from the horse's mouth, unfortunately

As I mentioned in my comment, the word abortion doesn't appear on his campaign website. However, I was able to find these, which mention his anti-freedom position on reproductive rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul (mentions his antifreedom position, and provides a few reference links)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm (he voted to ban an abortion procedure)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html (This is the best source I can find: it quotes Dr Paul from a House floor speech where he says "The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty."

[Tara_NM]

10. hmm

interesting and thanks for links.

I guess for me as long as he isn't going to try and force his own personal prolife opinion on the masses through the courts I am not too upset/worried about it. From what I can tell thus far he has his own opinion on abortion but doesn't try to make everyone( through gov't intervention) live by his own choice or opinion.

To me that makes him much different( and better) than most Repubs and fundy Christians.

[deadmessengers]

14. I think that's just lip service, really.

I mean, he voted to take the choice of dilation and extraction (so-called "partial birth abortion") out of the hands of women and their physicians, and make it an exclusively Federal matter. If that's not forcing women to live by his opinion, I'm not sure what is.

[WileEcoyote]

24. I don't like Paul at all.

He gets one or two concepts correct and then goes to bed with the GOP caucas.

Don't think I spelled that last word right.

Anyway remember the lesson Spiro Agnew taught us: Better to vote for the worst of all democrats (Mahoney 1966) than any republican. Don't even vote for your mother if she is with the GOP!

[iverglas]

25. exactly -- as right-wing as they come

Can no one recognize "states' rights" -- and what that stands for -- just because it's dressed up in some slightly more modern finery??

For his anti-choice credentials, here are some handy references:

http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

by Congressman Ron Paul
Copyright 1981

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

... A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

...A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

... For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable. ...

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

During a May 15, 2007 appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus (which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights). He also briefly discussed his view of the proper role of the federal government and states in regulating abortion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

... For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition (upon the partial-birth abortion procedure) will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

... H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Paul is a piece of right-wing shit, and my Canadian eyes and ears simply cannot believe that anyone in the US could be so deluded as to think otherwise.

[libguy_6731]

32. +1

[Mz Pip]

3. I'm glad he's out there

though I'm not sure I believe in a non interventionist foreign policy taken to the level that Paul does. I do believe there are times when we do need to get involved in situtations where it's just not all about us. I'd be curious on what his position on Darfur is.

But he is talking about Iraq in a way that no other Republican is and for that I am thankful.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[NoPasaran]

7. I guess it's time to drag this out of the archives again

A 19th Century Vision

Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar. He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. (Washington Post, 7/9/06}

Race

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably-fleet-footed they can be.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“The Criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to fight the power, to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against The Man.’” {Victoria Advocate, 8/7/96}

“There is no such thing as a hate crime.” {Ron Paul: Political Action Report, 1/15/92}

Aid for the Needy

Paul has stated that a “free market provides for the poor...” {MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 10/24/88}

Aid for Hurricane Katrina Victims

NOTE: Paul’s own district, the 14th, has about 150 miles of coastline and was struck by Hurricane Rita a few weeks after Katrina inundated New Orleans.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?” he asks. “Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" {Washington Post, 7/9/06}

Health Care

Paul’s press secretary said that Paul believes that Medicare is “unconstitutional” but instead of scrapping it immediately, according to his spokesperson, he believes that Congress needs to “wean people off the federal pig.” {Victoria Advocate, 8/11/96}

“I am opposed to any form of government health insurance as I am opposed to the taxes, regulations, licensing requirements, and monopolistic practices, which keep health costs higher than their true market value.” {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

Social Security

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? …Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." {Washington Post, 7/9/06}

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.” {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

The Border

In the 1988 Presidential campaign, Paul argued that “the U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.” This would effectively militarize the Mexico-U.S. border. {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

“Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.” {Ron Paul Political Report, 3/15/92}

Burnt Orange Report

Ron Paul: keeping the :puke: in Re:puke:

[deadmessengers]

8. I am without words.

Does Bill Maher have even the slightest idea what kind of person he's giving a public soapbox to? WOW.

[NoPasaran]

12. Maher is an entertainer

He's had Ann Coulter as a guest in the past. And as much as I don't like Ron Paul, he's no Coultergeist.

[Tara_NM]

16. Coultergeist. - LMAO!!!!

That is the first time I have heard that term. Love it, LOL!!!!!

[DutchLiberal]

27. But Maher is also an opinion-maker. His words have great influence.

You just have to check the comments on only a few of his videos on YouTube to see how many people base their political ideas on what Maher says. If he calls Paul his "new hero" repeatedly, and only pays attention to Paul's stances on the War, undecided voters may well be lured into the Paul-camp instead of the Democratic camp. Maher has always been very critical of people who are religious nuts, like Paul, who said he believes there isn't a separation of church and state. Normally, I trust Bill for doing his homework, but this time, I'm not so sure. How can we reach Mr. Maher?

[Tara_NM]

11. well darn

and I had my hopes up too :(

I think alot of Repubs have bigotry going on within themselves( one of the many reasons I refuse to vote for a Repub, like EVER) but overall Ron Paul still seems the best of the bunch.

[SergeyDovlatov]

15. Don't lose hope Tara

I was appalled by those racist remarks at first, but a little bit of googling around alleviated my concerns:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

[AX10]

17. Sounds like Ann Coulter.

Not good.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaysunb]

9. He's not really a Republican...

He is and has always been a Libertarian...who couldn't get elected as such, thus his association w/ the republicans.

BTW, welcome to DU. :hi:

[sellitman]

13. The best thing about RP is he isn't bush.

after that its all downhill.

Another Conservative.

Ho-hum.

[Rambis]

18. My .02$

I think we need to look at the bigger picture. There are no "good conservatives" and "bad conservatives", they are all conservatives. They do not distinguish between "good liberals" and "bad liberals" being liberal is inherently (in their opinion) bad.
What we need to do is spread the word that the conservative movement has failed!
There is no such thing as a "true conservative" they should not be allowed to distinguish or separate themselves from the failure of the conservative movement.
Conservative= FAILURE! Nothing more nothing less.

[Tara_NM]

19. I disagree

I fully respect your opinion but I'm afraid must disagree with your comments.

My father was a "true conservative" in the sense that libertarians are conservative - i.e. the root of the word ofcourse being conserve.

Some examples: we had solar hot water waaaaay before anyone else in the neighborhood. He supported the small government ideals (he was a pull yourself up by boot straps guy) and highly valued liberty, privacy, equal rights and separation of church and state.

What is called "conservative" today has been slowly altered over the last two decades from it's real political meaning and has morphed into some sort of theocratic fascism combo. The "true conservatives" while few are still out there but most of them are now part of the green party.

We Dems have much in common with the greens, except ofcourse the small government stuff. Our (imho honorable and well placed) passion for social programs keeps us from being pro small government. But in many other areas I see us being pretty similar to "true conservatives"/ the green party.

The Republican party is what has failed, not conservatism. Republicans have failed because they as a group have abandoned the basic party principles of conserve, pro small business ( which is directly opposed today's pro corporate biz and hegemony agenda) and staying out of other people's private lives.

[lepus]

20. Do not confuse conservatives with neocons

I agree with Tara_NM

I am a conservative, always have been, I tend to vote for members of both parties locally and at the fed level. IMHO the conservative movement got hijacked by the neocons quite a few years ago. Many of us are jumping ship from the republican party after what we percieve as betrayal in many different actions. While the neocons may control the republican party, they cannot win without the true conservatives.

Fool us once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times ,,, Aint happening again.

RP is quite likely the only republican I would think of voting for, otherwise I will see who else is running.

[Dr_Funkenstein]

22. HARUMPH!!!

You said it...I was afraid to admit here that I too am a (fiscal) Conservative...but being a Conservative ACTUALLY completely removes us from the Republican party. As of this year, I am no longer a card carrying Repub. In fact, I'm so disgusted with <insert ANY current GOP topic>, that I didn't step away...I ran away. Ron Paul is not the polytician the rest of them are, thus he won't be elected. We will eventually get too fed up with polyticians to vote them in, and regain true power to the people when we stop voting against the "other guy", and FOR the right person, who will do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do.

[markiegreg]

23. That's not an entirely accurate

portrayal of the GOP. (IMO) There "were" two main factions within the GOP: the Taft/Goldwater libertarian slanted Republicans called conservatives ("free marketers") and the Rockefeller Big Business Republicans (corporatist) who used conservative rhetoric. The Rockefeller Repubs have ruled the GOP machinery since the 20's-30's. I would say, Goldwater was the only non-Rockefeller Repub to gain the GOP nomination since WW2. Reagan may have appeared as a conservative, Reagan's rhetoric was free market capitalism, yet his domestic policies came from the corporatist Rockefeller wing and his interventionist foreign policies were largely from an emerging new GOP faction, the neo-conservatives. Now, I think there are 4 factions within the GOP: Goldwater conservatives, Rockefeller Repubs, the religious right, and Neo-conservatives with the last 3 factions often aligned against the Goldwater conservatives evidenced by the way many Repubs, particularly those in power positions, treat Rep Paul.

[wordsaladwithranch]

21. deleted

redundancy

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[angryfirelord]

33. Geez, who dug this up?

I thought three year old threads were locked anyway? Anyway, I agree with NoPasaran's post which shows Paul's naiveness about 19th Century history. Look at what happened with the coal mining companies. We had:

• A free market currency called script, which could only be bought at the company store with inflated prices. No gold or silver here, that was only for the rich people.
  
• No workmen's compensation, so if you got injured, tough luck. If you died on the job, your body was dropped off at the company's rental house where you lived and your wife would either have to send her children in or find a replacement. If not, she would be forced off the property within 24 hours.
  
• The court system could be argued that it was privatized in that the judge and jury were usually bought by the coal company and did not represent the accused fairly. The company had no qualms about putting you to death if you decided to fight for better conditions, which is what happened to the Molly Maguires.
  
• Don't be poor either, the Victorian mindset was that if you were poor, it was your own fault. It wasn't until the later 19th Century that we saw organizations like the Salvation army appear.
  

Most importantly though comes from his understanding of business cycles. According to the Austrian school, there exists only one axiom with which to study economics, something they termed "Praxeology". The problem with this simple-minded method is that they essentially reject all empirical data, deeming it "statist" or otherwise irrelevant. They are usually quick to point out that all cycles are the fault of the central bank, yet they remain silent on the cycles that occurred before the Fed.

For instance, one of the earliest documented boom-bust cycles was the "Tulip mania" that occurred in the 1600s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

The 1800s in the United States is littered with recessions that caused some nasty downturns. One of them was called the Long Depression (known as the Great Depression before the 1930s), which started in 1873 and was the result of deflationary pressure due to a lack of demand of coins, something Austrians refuse to admit is a problem. Austrians always view deflation as a good force, even if history shows it always isn't.

However, the most critical portion of free market banking occurred in Australia in the 1890s. There, the economy experienced a large boom followed by a crash and a long depression. But over there, no central bank had been established and despite its much more free economy, it still did not recover very quickly.

So when Paul and libertarians claim that they know all of the answers to our economic ills, ask them if they really know our economic history or if they are just choosing bits and pieces of history.