Election 2008 - Dr. Ron Paul
Dr. Ron Paul has tapped into the approximately 15% of the nation that is fed up with business as usual. I see his supporters as the Kinky Friedman type of voters from Texas’ last Gubernatorial election. (Disclaimer and disclosure: I voted for Kinky Friedman.) This is the fraction (and possibly “faction,” as well) of voters who don’t like any of the other choices, want something done in their interests instead in the interest of the politician, and like a candidate who says what he thinks. These are a few of the things that Ron Paul has in common with Kinky Friedman.
Ron Paul was born in Pittsburgh, PA, August 20, 1935. He is a physician, specializing in Ob-gyn. He was a US Air Force Flight Surgeon during the Vietnamese War. This makes him another American Hero, by default, if not with the strong credentials that McCain holds. This service means that Dr. Paul passes my litmus test: He is a patriot. Say what you like about him, his motives in running for president are obviously to do what he thinks is best for America.
Dr. Paul ran for president in the 1988 election under the Libertarian banner. Once again, I mention that these are the folks who hang out outside the Harris County Courthouses calling for the impeachment of whatever office holder is currently in office. I happen to be mostly libertarian myself, but resent these people for driving sane people away from even looking in to the Lib. party. Frankly, I wish they’d just go away.
Libertarians, including Dr. Paul, feel that less government is the best government. I happen to agree with this position. Dr. Paul says all the right things in regards to domestic policy. He is for lower taxes, less government intervention, and more freedom. He votes Constitutionally, meaning that he looks at the Constitution for the United States of America, and if he can’t see a justification for the legislation in that document, he votes against it. I wish all of our politicians did the same.
Dr. Paul, though, loses my vote when he talks about foreign policy. I don’t know who his advisors are, but whoever they are, they are doing a poor job in this area. Dr. Paul would do well to just shut up, rather than continue to blame America for being attacked by Islamic terrorists. He recently stated that Benazir Bhutto’s killing was also fomented by US foreign policy and his basic foreign policy is for the US to be “neutral.” This sounds great in theory, but I don’t know how well it will work in practice. For one thing, we need the cooperation of other governments to forward deploy our equipment, as well as support our troops outside the US.
The above video is Dr. Paul stating his foreign policy views himself. I think the term “fantasy world” comes in to play. Dr. Paul’s insistance that “if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone” (paraphrased), shows a disconnect with reality. Abandoning Pakistan and Musharraf just about guarantees that nukes will be in Al Qaeda’s and the Taliban’s hands within a year. I don’t happen to like that possibility.
Dr. Paul is 100% right in his domestic policy views, and 95% wrong in his foreign policy views. He’ll get my vote before McCain or Hillary will, if that’s my only choice(s). I want a safe America for my children, but I also want some value for our foreign aid dollars. I think we’d see a lot of US terrorist attacks if he were in charge. He’s just not thinking right on this very important issue.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:41 am
National Review (12/17 issue) has an interesting column by Jonah Goldberg about Ron Paul’s foreign policy and the previous debate over his position. After WW II, conservatives split over what to do about Soviet aggression. The Buckley view saw Soviet aggression as a real threat to our survival “and this means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration”. Murray Rothbard argued the Cold War was a con job to expand “statism” and “paved the way for a takeover of American conservatism by defenders of Truman’s “imperialist aggression”".
The column ends with ; “The Rothbard-Paul vision was rightly defeated during the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, it seems not only fair but wise to give it another hearing-and if it can’t be defeated on the merits, it deserves to win”
December 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Good stuff Wino and great points. Next time post a link on my blog
Now I have to plagiarize your work.
Squawk
December 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am
gto,
I would agree with having the debate, if we were now talking about the Chinese military build-up. In this case, though, we were attacked on our soil. Unless and until that threat is completely eliminated, I’m willing to continue our foreign excursions.
The problem with the above, as I see it, is that Dubya isn’t doing what is truly necessary. He may just have a longer view, but it is nearly certain that if Hillary, Obama, or Dr. Paul wins, we’ll abandon whatever progress we’ve made.
Until we’re hit again. I don’t want to shirk our responsibilities today, only to force my children or grandchildren to take care of it tomorrow. Dr. Paul has this right on taxes and spending. Why can’t he see the same threat from terrorism that he sees from excessive spending and borrowing?
Squawk,
I didn’t want to overly blog-pimp. It was just that I had minutes earlier posted the Dr. Paul thread before I saw yours.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am
(off topic)
LOL y’all can blog pimp, post long arsed comments whatever you wish on my blog.
Back on topic:
Ron Paul drives me nuts. Like yourself I agree with about 90% of his ideas. But damn what good does it do to be free when you are dead?
Cheers.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I have two beautiful grandaughters 5 and 3. I don’t want them to face terror on the scale Alqueda wants us to fear. This Islamist movement is deadly. Dr.Paul is blind.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I don’t agree with RP’s proposed foreign policies but he is stating why and what he wants to do. One (or more) of the candidates should argue why RP is wrong and what they would do instead. This is a chance for some one to outline why staying is better than leaving. RP is up for the fight, some one take him, or at least his ideas, on.
Just my opinion, but such a debate needs to consider where conventional forces should be maintained (vs China) and smaller non-conventional forces (vs terrorists).
As for dubya, I dunno what to say. The indecisive funk he seems to be in is not helping. (Hint for getting out of a funk, stop opposing the will of the people and lead them.)
December 30th, 2007 at 8:46 am
gto,
The president has most of his power in foreign affairs, especially military affairs. Domestically, the Congress has most of the power. Therefore, a presidential candidate with a good domestic policy but a bad foreign policy is worse than a candidate with a bad domestic policy and a good foreign policy.
Signed,
Wino on the Mrs’ computer
December 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Amen Wino, I would ALMOST take (not really) the 18% interest rate (Jimmy Carter) here, which I did when we bought our house in 82′, as long as the President was willing to kick A$$ (Duncan Hunter)overseas. Ron Paul is not the person to fit that bill.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Excellent write Wino. It seems we are morealike in our beliefs than I knew before.
I am saddened that RP cannot be voted for due to his foriegn policies and beliefs. He reminds me of the Jessica Rabbit looking toon in Toontown in the movie Roger Rabbit. From the back the wolf thinks, “Perrrrrrfect” but then the foriegn policy shows up.
I think I am undecided, but my favorite candidate is definitely out (RP), and I cannot decide between the rest so I guess I will just vote for Newt so far.