Debating Ron Paul
By JB Williams
Aug 29, 2007
Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.
Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?
On the Issues - Not strong on life: Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) - Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) - Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Not strong on traditional Marriage: Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)
Not strong on crime and punishment: Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007) - Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000) - Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) - Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Not strong on fighting the drug problem: Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007) - Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) - Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) - Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options: Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001) - Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001) - Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998) - Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education
Not strong on national security and sovereignty: Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005) - Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005) - Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007) - Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007) - Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007) - Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) - Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency: Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) - Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) - Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) - Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Not strong on Second Amendment Rights: Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Not strong in the war on terror: We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007) - We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007) - Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007) - Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007) - When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007) - Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007) - Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007) - Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) - Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) - Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) - Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
It’s true that he voted correctly several times throughout his lengthy political career too. But then, so has Hillary and Teddy. Paul is telling folks that he has never voted against Americans best interests, to paraphrase. Does that look true above?
The question is - why are some self-styled Republicans supporting him and why are they willing to adopt the liberal practice of manipulating on-line polls and trashing other conservative candidates in order to promote what is clearly not a conservative candidate?
In 1992, a similar set of events were underway, both liberal-tarian Republicans with an isolationist national security outlook and a desire to end all federal spending not aimed at benefiting them personally, worked together with liberal Democrats who shared those same “all about me” values to promote a third party candidate named Ross Perot. Together, they seated President Bill Clinton with less than 47% of the popular vote, against the will of more than 53% of voters.
A friend and fellow writer recently pointed out that libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in.
Ron Paul provides a perfect example. Like Ross Perot, the notion of ending all “unconstitutional” international spending and reducing taxes is appealing to both liberals and libertarians. Withdrawing from the world for monetary reasons might prove to be deadly, but it will result in temporary reduced spending and eventually lower taxes and that is the real goal.
Ron Paul claims to be Americas “constitutionalist.” I’m a constitutionalist, a strong supporter of the American ideals so carefully crafted by our founders more than 200 years ago. So, why am I at odds with Ron Paul?
First, he’s not a constitutionalist, except when it serves his political agenda which is that of an isolationist liberal-tarian, not a conservative. When he is playing constitutionalist, as in the case of the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), he is a foolish constitutionalist. He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776.
He has recently stated that America should have “declared war” before going into Iraq, and I agree. But in October of 2002, March of 2004 and June of 2006, he voted against such a notion. He has claimed that the Hussein regime posed no national security threat to America, despite the many efforts by the Hussein regime to specifically threaten America over the years. He also ignores the fact that congress has failed to “declare war” in ever military action since WWII, though they authorized military action in every case except Kosovo under Clinton.
Ron Paul uses the pieces of the constitution that serve his political agenda, while overlooking the fundamental concepts throughout our founding documents, a right to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, security, sovereignty, morality, public decency and personal freedom.
So again, why are some Republicans willing to use extreme tactics like poll manipulation and fellow conservative candidate bashing in order to promote such a liberal candidate?
It’s easy to figure out why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul. He’s anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of “privacy”, pro- gun control, anti-trade and an isolationist who believes that America is the bad guy around the globe, rather than the generous beacon of freedom that has liberated more people than all other nations combined. He is a liberal of the blame America first, last and often sort. He is perfect for liberals who believe in all the same things… Only Cindy Sheehan or Jane Fonda can draw a bigger anti-war crowd.
Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.
At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.
Thankfully, he has never appealed to more than 3% in any legitimate national poll. Sadly, his supporters will continue attacking all real conservatives and manipulating all on-line polls to cause further confusion and divisions among conservative voters.
The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided. Hillary Clinton can not get 50% of the vote in a general election and Barack Obama can not get even 40%. Republicans must be divided for Democrats to win.
That’s what the Ron Paul campaign is all about… Just my opinion of course.
Got an opinion? Share your thoughts now.