Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[dude1394]

Unfortunately you haven't addressed crap. You've woven your little tale of intrigue like everything is so very cut and dry. It basically says stay the hell out of the middle east, is that about right? No matter that your ass is probably sitting very comfortably with some wealth because of the free flow of oil, shipping, trade etc.

Answer the question. Saddam goes into Kuwait.

1. What does Ron Paul do about it? Or alexademorous for that matter.
2. When Saddam after gobbling up Kuwait decides that the Saudi oil fields are right there for the taking..What does Ron Paul do then.
3. And since the Arabs really mostly hate israels guts, what does the US do about providing them with defensive weapons.
4. And of course the million dollar question, when saddam decides that unless we give up Israel and/or pay x amount for oil what does Ron Paul do about it?
5. And then not to mention that the soviets decide, hell Afghanistan is really,really close to Saudia Arabia and if I drop a nuke or two on 'em what the hell are they going to do anyway. I can make a killing if I have those oil fields as well.

I think I know the answers but just want to hear it.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Arne

Basicly this website compares how many results google can find if you type in any word, name, etc.

Okay, here's what you've got to do:

1. Go to www.googlefight.com

2. Enter the name Ron Paul in the little box that says "Keyword #1".

3. Enter the name of any other candidate in the little box that says "Keyword #2".

Then click the button "FIGHT".

P.S.: If you compare the number of results found by google yesterday to the number of today, you can see that its gone up. - Roughlyy 1.5 million more results found than yesterday.

The number of results found by google has gone up once again. 6.7 million results more than yesterday!

[chumdawg]

If you put quotes around Ron Paul, as in "Ron Paul," his numbers don't look near as good. Fred Thompson (with quotes) kicks his ass more than two to one.

[alexamenos]

I'll answer your questions, and then I have a couple of questions?

Answer the question. Saddam goes into Kuwait.

1. What does Ron Paul do about it? Or alexademorous for that matter.

I let Osama Bin Laden fight Saddam Hussein. If one kills the other we'd have just half the problem. If they kill each other then we've just saved ourselves all kinds of trouble.

2. When Saddam after gobbling up Kuwait decides that the Saudi oil fields are right there for the taking..What does Ron Paul do then.

Same answer.

3. And since the Arabs really mostly hate israels guts, what does the US do about providing them with defensive weapons.

Israel has nukes and they've shown plenty of ability to defend themselves, so I'd pray for them and wish them well.

4. And of course the million dollar question, when saddam decides that unless we give up Israel and/or pay x amount for oil what does Ron Paul do about it?

How much is "x"?

5. And then not to mention that the soviets decide, hell Afghanistan is really,really close to Saudia Arabia and if I drop a nuke or two on 'em what the hell are they going to do anyway. I can make a killing if I have those oil fields as well.

I would consider the Soviet's prior success (or lack thereof) in Afghanistan, when that nation was much stronger militarily than it is now, before I acted on speculation that the Russians might take over Saudi Arabia.

Here are my questions:

1. Do you think the United States should use it's military so that we the people can have cheaper gasoline?

2. Do the citizens of the United States have a moral responsiblity to spread liberal and secular values across the entire globe?

[Mavdog]

in today's world, isolationism is about as feasible as alchemy. one can't turn lead into gold, and we can't act like we are an island seperate from the rest of the world.

switzerland isn't able to preserve its neutrality because it's isolationist, its neutrality has been preserved due to its banking system allowing any despot/criminal to keep their riches safe and out of the reach of anyone but the account holder.

so, in answer to the above questions...

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

no, the american people do not have a moral responsibility to spread liberal and secular values, however we, as does every person in the world, do have the right to speak out for individual human rights, and we have the right to use our military power to act and prevent a worldwide conflagulation that would produce a weaker american economic level, and hence a lower standard of living for all americans.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

How is the latter statement different from the first?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

How is the latter statement different from the first?

the latter says nothing at all about "cheap".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the latter says nothing at all about "cheap".

so, the military shouldn't worry so much about keeping the price down, but just about keeping the supply up?

does that about sum it up?

if so, how is the latter different from the former?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so, the military shouldn't worry so much about keeping the price down, but just about keeping the supply up?

does that about sum it up?

if so, how is the latter different from the former?

first, the supply is not gasoline, it is maintaining free trade. that would be the flow of oil through international waters.

the price of the refined product, gasoline, is set by the trade between buyer and seller.

the military shouldn't interject itself into the terms of a buy/sale transaction, hence they would not be using their might to guarantee"cheap gasoline".

hope that "sums it up"...

[dude1394]

I'll answer your questions, and then I have a couple of questions?

Quote:
Answer the question. Saddam goes into Kuwait.

1. What does Ron Paul do about it? Or alexademorous for that matter.

I let Osama Bin Laden fight Saddam Hussein. If one kills the other we'd have just half the problem. If they kill each other then we've just saved ourselves all kinds of trouble.

Osama Bin Laden would fight Hussein for about a month, whereafter Hussein would gas all of the shia in the country and or (more likely) take saudia arabia where osama's family is, rape and torture his mother and father. The only countries that are in big danger from islamic terrorists are moderate ones. The ones that use gas for fun, don't have much of a problem. Ridiculous.

So your answer (and Pauls) is nothing. Okay..that's one.

2. When Saddam after gobbling up Kuwait decides that the Saudi oil fields are right there for the taking..What does Ron Paul do then.

Same answer.

Yes same answer, nothing.

Quote:
3. And since the Arabs really mostly hate israels guts, what does the US do about providing them with defensive weapons.

Israel has nukes and they've shown plenty of ability to defend themselves, so I'd pray for them and wish them well.

So short-sighted. They didn't have nukes in '67. They needed someone to help the only democracy in the region. So again, your answer is the same. You would do nothing and israel wouldn't exist.

Quote:
4. And of course the million dollar question, when saddam decides that unless we give up Israel and/or pay x amount for oil what does Ron Paul do about it?

How much is "x"?

X is 250/barrel for example. But I'm getting the gist of yours(and Pauls) answers...Nothing.

Quote:
5. And then not to mention that the soviets decide, hell Afghanistan is really,really close to Saudia Arabia and if I drop a nuke or two on 'em what the hell are they going to do anyway. I can make a killing if I have those oil fields as well.

I would consider the Soviet's prior success (or lack thereof) in Afghanistan, when that nation was much stronger militarily than it is now, before I acted on speculation that the Russians might take over Saudi Arabia.

You think that the Mujahadeen were successful without the US supplying them weaponry and keeping the russians from continuing through iran/iraq/etc.? More ridiculousness. Thank goodness the american people have a lot more sense than to elect Ron Paul.

Here are my questions:

1. Do you think the United States should use it's military so that we the people can have cheaper gasoline?

Define cheaper. How does going from 3 to 20/gallon in a day strike you? How does a worldwide depression and runaway inflation strike you?
It is in the strategic interests of the US to have access to energy, either oil or coal or whatever and to protect free-shipping to get it. If we were not willing to promote the free trade of that oil this economy would be a disastor as would most other industrialized countries.

But sooner of later someone wouldn't put up with it, they'd decide to take it by force and collect those dollars themselves.

Ron Paul would do nothing.

2. Do the citizens of the United States have a moral responsiblity to spread liberal and secular values across the entire globe?

No not really. It's a noble goal and when we do I have to applaud our values but imo it only makes sense when it's in our strategic interests. Like WW1, WW2, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq1, Iraq2 etc.
You can make a case that we could provide some peacekeepers but to be honest unless it's in our strategic interests, I'm usually not interested.

Now a strategic interest is to help our friends against their enemies. Taiwan for example, forgot about that one, guess taiwan's screwed by Ron Paul as well. Go be Tibet, Taiwan.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in today's world, isolationism is about as feasible as alchemy. one can't turn lead into gold, and we can't act like we are an island seperate from the rest of the world.

switzerland isn't able to preserve its neutrality because it's isolationist, its neutrality has been preserved due to its banking system allowing any despot/criminal to keep their riches safe and out of the reach of anyone but the account holder.

so, in answer to the above questions...

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

no, the american people do not have a moral responsibility to spread liberal and secular values, however we, as does every person in the world, do have the right to speak out for individual human rights, and we have the right to use our military power to act and prevent a worldwide conflagulation that would produce a weaker american economic level, and hence a lower standard of living for all americans.

Fine post mavie. Thank goodness the Democrat nominee also gets it as much as it pains me to think of President Hillary.

[alexamenos]

I think the distinctions you make a fairly irrelevant, but regardless I cannot agree with this:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system...

I tend to adhere more to the notion of Just War Theory, an ancient and valuable Christian tradition, which generally states that war is only justified for self-defense or to stop a grave injustice.

The wikpedia article on just war theory explicity states: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

"Maintaining commerce that protects the american economic system" is not, in anyway, a justification for war amongst folks who follow the lead of Aquinas and others of his ilk. So, you and dude may argue that our mid-east meddlings preserve the flow of a critical commodity (and I wholeheartedly agree with this contention), but I nonethless remain unpersuaded that this is justification for our actions.

Cheers

[mcsluggo]

the problem is that it doesn't take two parties to start a war... it only takes one.

I also believe that the biggest kid in the neighborhood has a moral and social obligation to tke it upon himself to serve some role in protecting the smaller kids in the neighborhood from bullies. However, this role takes some skill and restraint... it is very important not to become the bully himself, nor to coddle and protect snippy little kids that start BEG for a beating, figuring that they are protected.

[mcsluggo]

in that "it takes two" statement I am NOT talking about others picking fights with us (the US), but with each other. Iraq invaded Kuwait, another country. THe first Iraq war was ENTIRELY justifyable on many diffrent grounds, and was a clear instance where the US fighting made the world safer.

the current Iraq war....? A different matter.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the problem is that it doesn't take two parties to start a war... it only takes one.

I don't think I've argued otherwise, and I certainly don't disagree. I do argue that saying that a war is (in some way) beneficial for us is not the same as saying it is justifiable.

I also believe that the biggest kid in the neighborhood has a moral and social obligation to tke it upon himself to serve some role in protecting the smaller kids in the neighborhood from bullies. However, this role takes some skill and restraint... it is very important not to become the bully himself, nor to coddle and protect snippy little kids that start BEG for a beating, figuring that they are protected.

Exceedingly well said.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

....the first Iraq war was ENTIRELY justifyable on many diffrent grounds, and was a clear instance where the US fighting made the world safer.

I agree that the cause was just, but the subsequent economic embargo was a travesty of justice.

[mkat]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

it was flowing just fine pre-march 2003 if you'll remember. if anything, it's not flowing as well because of Iraq.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think the distinctions you make a fairly irrelevant, but regardless I cannot agree with this:

I tend to adhere more to the notion of Just War Theory, an ancient and valuable Christian tradition, which generally states that war is only justified for self-defense or to stop a grave injustice.

The wikpedia article on just war theory explicity states: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

"Maintaining commerce that protects the american economic system" is not, in anyway, a justification for war amongst folks who follow the lead of Aquinas and others of his ilk. So, you and dude may argue that our mid-east meddlings preserve the flow of a critical commodity (and I wholeheartedly agree with this contention), but I nonethless remain unpersuaded that this is justification for our actions.

Cheers

I'd assume that if one were a follower of the "Christian tradition" (as an aside, please let me know what Christian nations ever followed this supposed "tradition") the theory might make some smattering of sense.

however, our nation has the role, as (ideally) the leader of all that is good and decent in the world today, to be proactive in maintaining economic commerce which not only preserves our own standard of living as well as the social harmony we have enjoyed for so many decades but also preserves the ability of our allies to maintain their economic base.

hey, call me a mercantilist, imho it is the rising boat of mutual prosperity that is the antidote to nationalist conflicts.

I also don't agree that our invasion of iraq was about oil; our continued presence in the middle east surely is, and here is where ron paul has failed to understand his position is completely, totally at odds with our country's well being.

could one imagine what our economic climate would be if a) the price of oil doubled/tripled, and b) if the amount of oil available to our country was cut in half?

if you thought the 1930's were a difficult time, it would be as bad if not worse.

so yes, it is a constitutional obligation of our pres to do everything in their power to protect and maintain the standard of living we as a nation enjoy, and protecting the international flow of goods is critical to our economy and that goal.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...our continued presence in the middle east surely is (about oil), and here is where ron paul has failed to understand his position is completely, totally at odds with our country's well being....l.

like I said, saying that something is beneficial to me is not the same as saying it is justifiable...incommensurable paradigms, as it were.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mkat

it was flowing just fine pre-march 2003 if you'll remember. if anything, it's not flowing as well because of Iraq.

as one who was against the invasion of iraq, and as people who were on this board can attest was repeatedly attacked for that position, you will not find me defending that invasion.

the invasion was not to protect our national security nor our economic vitality imho.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

....the invasion was not to protect our national security nor our economic vitality imho.

After years of back and forth on Iraq I thought I had heard it all, but I haven't heard anyone say that they opposed the war because it wasn't for oil!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

After years of back and forth on Iraq I thought I had heard it all, but I haven't heard anyone say that they opposed the war because it wasn't for oil!!!

you still haven't.....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mkat

it was flowing just fine pre-march 2003 if you'll remember. if anything, it's not flowing as well because of Iraq.

Still flowing fine thank you. Just more bizness wanting it. More wealth and prosperity for everyone.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you still haven't.....

not that there's anythigng wrong with fighting wars for oil, right?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

not that there's anythigng wrong with fighting wars for oil, right?

How about fighting wars to avert a world-wide depression?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How about fighting wars to avert a world-wide depression?

see my earlier remarks to mavdog.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

not that there's anythigng wrong with fighting wars for oil, right?

well, yes, imo there is something wrong with "fighting wars for oil".

taking your previous comments on a "just war" and "justifiable war" below, you are fervently in support of george bush and his decision for the invasion of iraq due to the "injustice" that existed in that country, right?

I'm sure that you wouldn't show any inconsistentcy in your philosphical rationale...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, yes, imo there is something wrong with "fighting wars for oil".

Mavdog --

"fighting wars for oil" = "using our military might to maintain the flow of a valuable commodity"

it seems your aversion (or is it a lack thereof) to fighting wars for oil has more to do with how plainly the position is phrased and less with the substance of the position.

Perhaps we should begin again.....

Do you support "using our military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system (even if that commodity is oil)"?

taking your previous comments on a "just war" and "justifiable war" below, you are fervently in support of george bush and his decision for the invasion of iraq due to the "injustice" that existed in that country, right?

No.

I'm sure that you wouldn't show any inconsistentcy in your philosphical rationale...

And I'm likewise sure that any appearance of such inconsistency is due to a lack of understanding on your part. That you don't understand my rationale is of course understandable inasmuch as you are quite dismissive of the notion of Just War Theory in the first place.

Cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Mavdog --

"fighting wars for oil" = "using our military might to maintain the flow of a valuable commodity"

if you believe that it is, then clearly you believe that way.

why don't you define what you mean when you say "fighting wars for oil" and then we can begin to understand just what you're trying to say.

as for me, I'm not equating the two, as they are not the same.

it seems your aversion (or is it a lack thereof) to fighting wars for oil has more to do with how plainly the position is phrased and less with the substance of the position.

no, my aversion to "fighting wars for oil" is pretty easy to understand.

or so I thought...

Perhaps we should begin again.....

Do you support "using our military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system (even if that commodity is oil)"?

perhaps if you'd read the point without an attempt to colour it...

it's the "flow" and the "commerce" of the commodity, not the commodity.

we should NOT wage war to obtain the commodity. or wage war to force the holders of the commodity to provide it to us.

so in answer, even if that commodity is oil...

No.

And I'm likewise sure that any appearance of such inconsistency is due to a lack of understanding on your part. That you don't understand my rationale is of course understandable inasmuch as you are quite dismissive of the notion of Just War Theory in the first place.

Cheers

so there was no "injustice" existing in Iraq when the evil tyrant saddam hussein ruled?

and no, I do understand the Just War Theory, and my dismissal is merely a reflection that it is nonexistent in our world's history. so if you agree that it is merely a theoretical ideal we don't have much at odds.

i asked you to provide an example of its application, which you have so far failed to do. in fact, yes, I scoffed at the very idea that it was a "Christian tradition".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's the "flow" and the "commerce" of the commodity, not the commodity.

the distinction is duly noted. I don't think this justifies war, but the distinction is nonetheless noted.

so there was no "injustice" existing in Iraq when the evil tyrant saddam hussein ruled?

Of course there was....the question of whether to go to war somewhere is bigger than whether somebody somewhere is doing someone harm.

the Just War Theory, and my dismissal is merely a reflection that it is nonexistent in our world's history. so if you agree that it is merely a theoretical ideal we don't have much at odds.

It's no refutation of an ethical maxim to say that it isn't applied often enough. By way of analogy, I wouldn't say that ole law stating, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", is merely a theoretical idea because of the undeniable fact that murders occur more than once in awhile.

in fact, yes, I scoffed at the very idea that it was a "Christian tradition".

See, for instance, St. Thomas Aquinas, summa theologia, entitled something to the effect of "Is War always a sin?" St. Augustine of Hippo, I believe (I'm too lazy to actually read City of God), was the first to lay out the four criteria of just war. That takes us back to the 400's. I'd say that fairly well establishes it is an ancient Christian Tradition, notwithstanding the fact that Christians haven't been perfect in upholding the idea.

cheers

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, yes, imo there is something wrong with "fighting wars for oil".

I hate getting involved in political discourse, but I'm curious. What kind of car do you drive? How much do you drive and how much do you try to avoid driving?

In other words, are you living according to your ideology, or are you like Gore in that you consume all you want while encouraging others to cut back on and/or stop providing the very thing you're consuming without reservation?

[dude1394]

I think that mavie is supporting protecting the free flow of commerce. Not any particular commodity. It could just as well be corn that someone might need as oil.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think that mavie is supporting protecting the free flow of commerce.

yeah.....

I think in practice that distinction between protecting the flow of commerce and getting the commodity has varying degrees of difference, and sometimes the difference is rather small.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I hate getting involved in political discourse, but I'm curious. What kind of car do you drive? How much do you drive and how much do you try to avoid driving?

In other words, are you living according to your ideology, or are you like Gore in that you consume all you want while encouraging others to cut back on and/or stop providing the very thing you're consuming without reservation?

I have a very hard time correlating a conflict with the position of being against waging war for oil and driving a car....

according to that logic if we eat we should be in favor of waging war for food.

in answer to your question, I drive a 5 series, and I choose the 6 cylinder instead of the 8 primarily due to the gas consumption (and also due to the realization that i don't need to be tempted by that much horsepower..). I drive a lot, about 18,000 miles/year.

that has nothing to do with my "ideology", it has to do with my choice of vocation and style.

how is there ANY conflict of principles? there is none.

let's play scenario what-ifs: should the countries of the middle east say they weren't going to pump their oil, I would be adamently opposed to invading those lands to secure the flow of oil. If the crazyman of venezuela says he wanted to stop pumping oil, sobeit. no war to get hold of those barrels.

would this result in higher prices for oil? yes.

would this result in an economic ripple? yes.

would this be justification for waging war? no.

but, if the countries of the mideast were threatened by lets say Iran, who said these oil producing countries must stop selling their oil, and actually attacked a vessel in the gulf in an attempt to stop the flow of oil, then yes we would be justified in attacking iran.

[alexamenos]

Nice article on Paul in the current issue of The American Conservative.

Lone Star

Maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul finds that being right is the one thing his party won’t forgive.

by Michael Brendan Dougherty

At first glance, he looks like every other congressman in the Canon Building. His suit is dark. His tie is striped. He is convivial with his colleagues, who genuinely like him. But there is something different about Ron Paul.

You can hear congressmen when they walk down the hall, strutting their own importance. After all, there are regulations to be implemented, special interests to serve, a teetering American Empire that would collapse without their management. They wear black or cordovan leather shoes—captoes, wingtips, and brogues—clacking down the hall, their bellies full of medium-rare steak from Capital Grille. They are surrounded by ambitious interns and legislative aides. They fiddle with their BlackBerries. You can’t miss them tromping out of the elevators.

Ron Paul is easy to overlook. He takes the stairs; he does not have an entourage. You can’t hear him coming because he’s wearing plain black tennis shoes. In a bag he carries a can of soup that he will heat for himself in the microwave in his office. Beneath pictures of Austrian economists Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, he will eat his lunch alone and in peace.

What is the purpose of Ron Paul’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States? Some longshots run because their egos demand it. Others want to raise their lecture fees. Some run because they have plenty of money and nothing better to do. Following a flood of viewer requests, the Texas congressman recently appeared on Fox News to explain himself. His answer was buoyant though laconic: “I want to be president because I have this dream. I’d like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” His answer was also revolutionary.

Paul’s doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label “conservative” or “libertarian.” Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a “constitutionalist.” His philosophy is simple: “no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”

Naturally he opposes almost everything Congress does. The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.

When Paul does propose legislation, it is simple, direct, and radical. He’s compiled an impressive list of bills that remain ignored to this day. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

His cheerful consistency doesn’t end there. Paul not only votes against nearly all government spending, he has refused to be the beneficiary of it as well. As a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, he has delivered over 4,000 babies. He accepted no money from Medicare or Medicaid, often working for free for needy patients. With his support, his five children finished school without subsidized federal student loans. He has refused a congressional pension.

Monetary policy is the issue that brought Paul into politics in the ’70s. Having read deeply in the Austrian school of economics, he was incensed at Nixon for going off the gold standard and ran in a special House election in the 22nd district of Texas.

It still preoccupies him. Paul gave a thrill to surviving goldbugs in the first GOP debate this year when he referred to “sound money.” Since bimetallism and William Jennings Bryan shuffled off the political stage, widespread passion about monetary policy has been in short supply. But for Paul, the issue is still one that pits the people against the Beltway: “I think it’s very convenient for them [politicians] not to worry about it—whether they are spending money they don’t have for a war, whether you are liberal and like big welfare or a neoconservative and you like entitlements. They know somehow or another if the taxes come up short, there is a system, of course they know we borrow it and they complain about that, but I complain about the printing to pick up the shortfall. It’s such a serious problem.”

This is what he refers to as the “inflation tax.” With a paper currency, Paul says, “You get too many bubbles. And people suffer. Whether it’s the NASDAQ bubble or the housing bubble. It’s also the reason people are poor. … There is this transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle class to the very wealthy. And it leads to conflict. There are lots of people in this country who haven’t had an increase in real wages in 30 years. The Republicans deny it. And the Democrats say, ‘Well we need more taxes on those who have too much.’ They tax productivity to give it to others. I would not immediately close the doors on the Federal Reserve. But the doors may get closed if there is a monetary crisis. There are no paper currencies that last for a long period of time.”

While he lost his first re-election to a Democrat, Paul came back to win in a 1978 rematch, then won again in 1980 and ’82. He later lost a 1984 Senate GOP primary to Phil Gramm. Not wanting to be a lifelong politician, he returned to the practice of medicine full time. Tom DeLay won his seat.

Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988, “just to talk to about the issues” in his own recounting. He drew a meager 0.47 percent of the vote but found an enthusiastic following.

In 1995, he decided to run for the 14th Congressional district, which had been redrawn to include his home in Lake Jackson. His opponent, Greg Laughlin, despite being a recent Republican convert, received the support of the party establishment, including then Gov. George W. Bush. Paul’s return to congressional politics was based on the results of the ’94 Republican Revolution: “I thought, ‘Maybe they are serious and they will shrink the size of big government.’” Paul sighs recalling that burst of optimism, “but there was no truth to that.”

His second go-around in the capital focused on many of the same issues that animated his first tour. His principles never changed, though some of his libertarian supporters have been dismayed by his stands on trade deals and immigration.

While Paul considers himself a staunch free trader, he opposed CAFTA and deplored its predecessor, NAFTA. Paul explains, “I was on the side of the protectionists, and I’m not a protectionist. It’s not true free trade. It’s special-interest trade. It’s managed trade. … I didn’t like the trade deal because it was another level of government and a loss of sovereignty.”

On immigration, Paul finds himself on the side of restrictionists. On LewRockwell.com, Paul outlined a six-step approach: 1) Physically secure the border. 2) Enforce current visa laws. 3) Reject amnesty. 4) End welfare state incentives to immigrants. 5) End birthright citizenship. 6) Standardize legal immigration rules and waiting periods. When questioned by Reason about what he’d say to libertarians who disagree with him, Paul was brusque: “If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. — I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.”

Increasingly, foreign intervention has come to dominate the political discourse. “I had concentrated on monetary policy,” Paul said. “Over the years I’ve learned to tie that in with the war policy. You can’t fight wars without inflation. You never have a war without inflation. … The ’70s were hectic times. We had 15 percent inflation, interest rates went to 21 percent, we had the highest unemployment since the Depression. It came as a consequence of the philosophy of guns and butter. And of course the same thing exists today, except one thing is a lot worse: there are many more dollars circulating around the world, and we’ve lost our manufacturing base.”

Paul believes the Republican Party lost its way by not remaining the peace party. Recently, when speaking to a group of skeptical conservative journalists, he pointed out in his grandfatherly tone, “In 1952, Eisenhower ran as a peace candidate. In 1968, Nixon ran on obtaining peace with honor.” Paul also mentions that Bush won, in part, by touting a “humble foreign policy.” Even warmongers won elections that way: “Wilson ran on peace. FDR, same thing.”

When he is inevitably asked if he is running in the right party, Paul states plainly, “I don’t think the Democrats have any intention to change our policies in the Middle East. I want the antiwar position to be traditional, conservative, and constitutional and not only for the far Left. I don’t object to the Left being opposed to the war. But that Michael Moore image is not going to persuade housewives. I think a lot of Republicans have forgotten their traditional position of being antiwar.”

Making the antiwar message broadly appealing may be difficult for Paul because of his temperament. The exchange between Paul and Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina debate raised Paul’s profile nationally but was thought to have been the moment when Giuliani won the debate. After Paul explained that terrorists attack the U.S. not because they hate our freedoms but because they hate our policies, Giuliani rephrased his answer to suggest Paul thought America “invited” the attacks. He said he’d never heard such an idea and declared it “absurd.” Paul didn’t back down, but he gave a technical response about “blowback” that, while correct, didn’t connect with the audience emotionally. He was hit hard, and while he didn’t drop to the mat, he didn’t hit back.

At a press conference later, Paul presented a list of books to inform Giuliani that, indeed, policies do have consequences. On the list were the 9/11 Commission Report, Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, and Dying to Win by Robert Pape. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris appeared alongside Paul. The press conference underscored both the strength and weakness of Paul’s personality as a candidate: his professorial approach makes it difficult to dismiss his views as “loony,” but the academic style doesn’t motivate people to rally to him. His manner is always refreshing but rarely stirring.

When asked how he would confront his opponents’ charges, Paul’s answers are as straight and flat as a Texas highway. “The media would love it if you got real, real personal. But I just have trouble drifting from the issue itself. … I’m challenging them to think about policy. Nobody, liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats wants to challenge overall Middle East policy. It is sacred. There’s oil. There’s the neocon idea of spreading democracy. There’s Israel. You just shouldn’t dare challenge our eternal presence in the Middle East. So they attack the messenger in a personal way.”

When asked if any Republican constituents who had initially supported the war have thanked him for his foresight, he shrugs and says, “Some, but not too many. Someone told me once: ‘They never forgive you for being right. They’ll always forgive you for being wrong if you apologize.’”

Paul understands that electing him president wouldn’t by itself “reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” He is a realist: “You just can’t turn one switch and solve every problem. You have to build coalitions. I’d put a lot of pressure on Congress to live up to their responsibilities.” He does know what he can do on day one of the Paul presidency. His first act would be to begin cleaning up the mess we’ve made in the Middle East: “What you could do in ten minutes to send a signal to the world that things were going to be different is tell the Navy to turn around and leave the shores of Iraq. We have two aircraft carriers there, another arriving, and seven ships that just moved into the Persian Gulf. I would just tell them to turn around and leave. Tell the region that this isn’t my approach, and I’m willing to talk. I think that would immediately raise our standing in the world tremendously.”

It’s a vision that will inevitably be ridiculed as naïve by the imperial intelligentsia who helped American into this mess. But it’s also so noble in its simplicity that it is already causing Americans who are tired of the warfare state to look at this mild-mannered physician and see the politician they’ve always wanted: a man of unbending conviction, of proven fidelity to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

After his latest debate appearance, Ron Paul’s name leapt ahead of Paris Hilton in Google searches. Bill Maher, who had given him a tough time weeks earlier on his HBO show “Real Time,” became desperate to invite him back for this season’s finale, declaring “he’s my hero.”

Grover Norquist has said of the good doctor that in Congress “one Ron Paul is grand; and 218 Ron Pauls would be even grander; but 20 Ron Pauls could cripple the party since the usual half-steps toward less government and less taxation might not find support among the more ideologically rigorous.”

Fanatics, dreamers, and constitutionalists long for the day when hundreds of Ron Pauls disinterestedly discuss monetary policy and the philosophy of the founders each morning between the trees that line New Jersey and Independence Avenues. In the afternoon, they can go into the Capitol and maintain the Republic by leaving most of us alone. On weekends, they can fly home. We’ll even let them wear comfortable shoes if they want.

But until the day when scores of Ron Pauls overrun the Capitol Building in sneakers, we have one man who heats his own soup and fights for the Republic, not the Empire. If America elects him president, he’ll sit atop a bucking federal beast that withstood the taming of convinced small-government riders like Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. It would be a wild ride for the thin, unassuming Texan. He might never forgive us for putting him in the saddle.


June 18, 2007 Issue

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you put quotes around Ron Paul, as in "Ron Paul," his numbers don't look near as good. Fred Thompson (with quotes) kicks his ass more than two to one.

Check again, right now it's 5.1 million results for "Ron Paul" against 4.1 million results for "Fred Thompson"...

[alexamenos]

Interesting stuff here --> link.

It may be worth reflecting back upon at a subsequent point in time. It'll further be interesting to see whether some mainstream guys that are following Paul pretty closely will take note, Andrew Sullivan being a fair example and Tucker Carlson being another.

[Mavdog]

I find it incredibly ironic that a group calling itself "Iowans for tax relief" would purposely exclude the one republican candidate who is fervently in favor of tax relief, who has actually put forth an idea on how to change the taxation of our country, to actually provide "relief" to taxpayers (as much as I don't agree with him, I can agree that he does advocate true tax relief)

....perhaps they should adjust their moniker to "Iowans for more of the same".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

....perhaps they should adjust their moniker to "Iowans for more of the same".

I sent an email to them suggesting they call themselves "Iowans for Hillary." You may not find it that funny, but I thought it was hilarious.

edit --

I find it incredibly ironic that a group calling itself "Iowans for tax relief" would purposely exclude the one republican candidate who is fervently in favor of tax relief...

Ironic, yes, but I'm frankly not the least bit surprised. What will surprise me a bit is if a mainstream media type says something to the effect of, "isn't it ironic that the candidate who most fervently favors tax relief was excluded from a forum sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief?"

That's why I want to see if Andrew Sullivan, for example, makes an issue of it.

[dude1394]

One of (not the only) reason that I voted for Ross Perot back in the day was listening to the republican party rag him. You wan't to beat him, debate him and beat him, but don't try and cut him out, call him a nut etc.