Ron Paul, my new favorite Democrat

No, that wasn't a mistake. Yes, I know there's an "R" next to his name. Hear me out.

So far it's been a hell of a millenium for moderates.

I came into this millenium as a conservative Republican. I came out of Bush's first term as a conservative Democrat. Most would call me an independent, and that's how I register, but things being what they are, the Democrats can count on me for exactly 465 more days. On election day I'll be thinking about more than just Bush for the first time in years, and all bets are off.

I, and probably many others with me, have a problem on my hands. I don't trust Hillary Clinton and I don't think Obama or Edwards is going to save me from her. (Anyone who finds hope in another democratic candidate probably hasn't checked the polls, no offense).

I'm shopping for a Democrat who will still be in the running if Hillary wins the Democratic Primary, and since Joe, "don't know when to quit" Lieberman isn't running, I'll have to settle for a red one.

Here's the punchline for those of you who haven't already clicked "reply" to tell me what an idiot I am: "Doctor No", Mr. Conservative, is everything I'm looking for in a Democrat.

He didn't vote for the war in Iraq (unlike certain Senators from New York I might name).

He didn't vote for homeland security.

He's strong on the Constitution, which is something we will need even more desperately than mere opposition to the previous administration's policies come 2008.

He practically supports a woman's right to choose (he opposes it, but acknowledges that the federal government can't do anything about it without a constitutional amendment, which would leave the matter in the hands of the states).

He can acknowledge the rights of ethnic minorities, homosexuals and others without going overboard and falling into outright patronage of voter demographics.

He won't raise my taxes. (Nor will he cut them or foolishly and dangerously abolish them, only because he won't have the votes in the Senate to do so).

He's talked about getting us out of South Korea.

He's talking about ending the war on Drugs.

For all the people who like to talk about the inequities of our criminal justice system, he's the only one really talking about making changes, namely taking control away from judges and putting it in the hands of juries.

I don't want to give you the wrong idea; I've got some serious problems with Ron Paul. I disagree with him on the place of religion in politics, I disagree with him on taxes, I disagree with him on the environment, on Healthcare, on school vouchers, on his nearly pacifist views, etc.
But considering the field right now, Ron Paul balanced by a Democrat-controlled Senate is easily one of the three best results a guy like me could hope for in this election.

If you can't get everything you want, pit an insurgent Republican against the Democrats, you'll get a few of the big things, and then the process will bog down and there will actually be a hint of drama and uncertainty to the evening news for the first time in years.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I don't want to give you the wrong idea; I've got some serious problems with Ron Paul. I disagree with him on the place of religion in politics, I disagree with him on taxes, I disagree with him on the environment, on Healthcare, on school vouchers, on his nearly pacifist views, etc.
But considering the field right now, Ron Paul balanced by a Democrat-controlled Senate is easily one of the three best results a guy like me could hope for in this election.

I'm interested in what specifically you don't like in these areas (not sure where you are going with this thread, so figured I'd ask about this).

Thanks

Ron Paul is certainly not a Democrat. He's pretty much a true libertarian which is practically the polar opposite of a Democrat. He wants a small government, Democrats want a nanny state.

DJ- I get the impression you didn't read the whole post.

Jethro- here's where I'm going: Ron Paul ironically isn't a bad option for people like myself who aren't as conservative as he is, because his brand of conservatism gives him credible, principled opposition to several of the most egregious failures of the Bush administration, and assuming that the Democrats retain the Senate, the less agreeable elements of his conservative views would be very difficult for him to implement.

With some of the Republican field out there it's hard to be sure that the injuries that Bush has dealt the constitution will be repaired. Even with the democrats in control you don't get the same constitutionally principled brand of opposition that you get from Ron Paul (not to mention the less agreeable portions of the liberal agenda they would be able to pass).


The particular nature of my disagreements with Congressman Paul are not as relevant to the topic as the above, and if there is to be a debate on them I would prefer to have that debate elsewhere, but in brief, income taxes need to be heavily simplified and reformed but not abolished, healthcare will not be fixed by the government simpling throwing up its hands and saying "do whatever you want", and certain measured uses of force that Paul has opposed (Darfur for instance) were advisable in my view.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
DJ- I get the impression you didn't read the whole post.

Yes I read your whole post. I still don't think you should be calling him a Democrat, even just your Democrat.

You're taking it too literally DJ. You say tomato, I say democrat, euphamistically.
If you read the whole post you should be able to get the irony- there are a lot of voters out there who will be looking for the right person to reverse some of what Bush had done, and the presumption tends to be that the obvious choice will be a Democrat. Oddly, depending on exactly which issues a person is most ticked at Bush about, the answer might in fact be, as you put it, the polar opposite of a Democrat.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by The Vagabond]

I just don't think you should be throwing around such a hurtful loaded label like "Democrat" so haphazardly.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I just don't think you should be throwing around such a hurtful loaded label like "Democrat" so haphazardly.

I grant you that anybody who labels themselves as a member of either party does so at their own risk depending on what neighborhood they are in, but I'm sure that anybody who percieves this as name calling will consider it a reflection on me and not on Congressman Paul.

Remember the good old days, when it was just people from LA who had to be careful about wearing red or blue?

Vagabond,

I can relate to your political moves and feelings; however I do not have the same concerns as you that you stated as "serious problems with Ron Paul" Perhaps I am not as well informed as I should can you direct me to some thing you have read or lead you to these concerns. If this is your collective opinion or your drawing from experience simply state that and I would be happy with that. Thanks

Curious if you watched the video of Ron @ Google it is rather informative on his stance and political beliefs. Here is the video incase you have not watched it I recommend it.



[edit on 17-7-2007 by GameSetMatch]

[edit on 17-7-2007 by GameSetMatch]

There are many people around here who have followed Ron Paul for longer than I have and know considerably more about him than I do, and for the most part I would defer to them for matters of fact (I believe a lot of the info on him is spread over several threads around here).

A cursory but reasonably well sourced overview of his positions is available on wikipedia.
here.

On the subject of separation of church and state, Congressman Paul wrote in his "Texas Straight Talk" column,

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

To make a very long and irate rant very short and civil, I will say that a quick glance at Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and other writings of both Jefferson and Madison blows his interpretation right out of the water. In fact Madison used the words "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), and "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams). Preferential treatment of a single religion is not less egregious than the prejudicial treatment of others, and his characterization is either ignorant or dishonest. Were more relevant constitutional rights not under more pressing threat, he'd be off my list over this.

I applaud Mr. Paul for never having voted to raise either taxes or his own sallary, however I feel that he goes to far in wishing to abolish the IRS and the income tax. The requirements of our time necessitate a level of spending that would be difficult to sustain without some derivative of the current tax system. Extensive reforms would get my support, but anybody who wants to sell me on outright throwing the current system away had better have a real bang-up idea for what will replace it. I could stand to see more from him on this, but I tentatively suspect that he will be too radical for my taste.

His property rights and market effects approach to environmentalism seems like a copout to me. He was right to try and remove subsidies from oil to level the playingfield but that isn't enough. He says the market will decide which alternative fuel wins out, not the government. For the government to stimulate the market by researching and investing its capital in the area that research indicates to be best is not taking anything away from the market. We don't have 20 years to wait for oil supplies and interest rates and patents etc to make the market right for private investors to muster the capital and the cajones to take on big oil. We have investors right now who have the motive to take the risk- taxpayers who want their kids to breathe free in the future.

I believe that if the government let's go of healthcare and let's the market do whatever it wants that prices are going to go up and service is going to decline because we are talking about a scarce commodity. This is not widgets coming out of a factory where you can cut prices and up production and make the same amount of money while gaining market share on your competitors. This is the work of a hard to enter profession using expensive, highly specialized equipment to do things that EVERYBODY needs. Demand is incurably higher than supply by a very large margin and that means high prices, period. We've got to do what hospitals do when there are too many victims: triage. We need to screen demand on a need basis, we've got to carefully plan to maximize supply, and we've got to reduce care to an at-cost basis by taking public ownership of the industry, with every taxpayer as a shareholder and their profit motive measured in terms of service rather than dollars. Innovation will not be effected because innovation ultimately comes from individuals, not the structure itself, and that means that merit-based pay bonuses can provide innovation while still cutting costs.

I disagree with him on his views that public schools should face competition either in the form of vouchers taken out of school funds or in the form of tax credits for the same purpose. It's a simple matter of economies of scale. Once you build a school for 3000 students, you're stuck with that school. Now if 10% of the student population takes the tax credit or the voucher and leaves, you've got the same school with 2700 students, and almost exactly the same funding needs, but they've lost 10% of their funding. In essence, it increases the unit cost of diplomas.
Our education system needs to become more uniform and efficient, not compartmentalized and subjected to exceptions for the fortunate.

Last but not least Ron Paul, as I understand it, does not believe in violence except for the explicit purpose of self defense. This is commendable. The problem is that I believe in international law, and I believe that force is foundational to law. If we didn't have cops, what kind of protection would our laws offer? I like him because I think I can count on him to get us out of Iraq, but at the same time I wouldn't want him if things were different because I couldn't count on him to get us into a fight that really needed fighting.

Once America has removed the plank from its eye (Iraq) and made amends for this tremendous lapse, we will eventually have to resume our former character, which we displayed in rallying friends and rivals alike for an international response to the invasion of Kuwait.

An American president has got to be willing to set an example if he has any intention of advancing the cause of international law and peace. To do that, an American president must not be afraid or unable to make a case to the world when it is time to fight, even against a mighty foe, or even against a friend.

Until the day comes when America is willing to stand with Russia and China in opposition of an Israeli crime, and China is willing to stand with America and Britain in opposition to an Iranian crime, or 4 members of the security council stand together against the crime of the 5th, regardless of who it be- until the precedents have been laid down to create such commitment to international law, we will always be kidding ourselves when we speak of the cold war in past tense. We have precedents to set, starting small, with conflicts like Darfur, by using every bit of leverage we can muster to achieve international sollutions, even if it requires a UN Military commitment, and if I wasn't more concerned about simply ending our own current violation of international law, I would have a hard time supporting a candidate who couldn't step up to the plate on that.

I've been extremely long winded on these issues and I appologize. It wasn't my intent to make this thread about those things, but when I'm gonna explain something I have a habbit of going all out.

All that being said though I have to reitterate, he's not without his merits. There isn't a candidate out there I wouldn't have any problems with, and I'm strongly convinced that facing Ron Paul and a Dem senate, I'd get the things I want the most with a relatively low amount of fallout attached to it.

To the OP, GREAT JOB!!! That is one of the best dissertations on Dr. Paul from a Democrat(self professed) yet. And I agree with you, I am an Independent Conservative that never voted for ANY BUSH EVER, they were always evil, I also don't vote Gooniani or thompson or whatever flavor of the day they throw at us. I think the Dems are in the same boat as the Reps as far as the trash they throw at you. I am Voting Dr. Paul if I have to write him in, and I would encourage everyone to do the same.

Thanks for your great and reasoned post on why Dems should look at Dr. Paul

I like ron paul, I donated a 100 bucks to him and will continue to donate. He also has my vote.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There are many people around here who have followed Ron Paul for longer than I have and know considerably more about him than I do, and for the most part I would defer to them for matters of fact (I believe a lot of the info on him is spread over several threads around here).

A cursory but reasonably well sourced overview of his positions is available on wikipedia.
here.

On the subject of separation of church and state, Congressman Paul wrote in his "Texas Straight Talk" column,

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

To make a very long and irate rant very short and civil, I will say that a quick glance at Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and other writings of both Jefferson and Madison blows his interpretation right out of the water. In fact Madison used the words "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), and "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams). Preferential treatment of a single religion is not less egregious than the prejudicial treatment of others, and his characterization is either ignorant or dishonest. Were more relevant constitutional rights not under more pressing threat, he'd be off my list over this.

You're taking it too far. He's simply saying our founding fathers were religious people and they most likely wouldn't like to see the hostility toward religion now days. If you don't think they were influenced by their religion, then how do you explain the multiple references to god in the declaration of independence?
He's not advocating a theocracy and his religious views certainly don't conflict with the constitution. So what is the problem?

Last but not least Ron Paul, as I understand it, does not believe in violence except for the explicit purpose of self defense. This is commendable. The problem is that I believe in international law, and I believe that force is foundational to law. If we didn't have cops, what kind of protection would our laws offer? I like him because I think I can count on him to get us out of Iraq, but at the same time I wouldn't want him if things were different because I couldn't count on him to get us into a fight that really needed fighting.

Why exactly do you say you wouldn't count on him go get us into a fight that really needed fighting? He did authorize the use of force against al-Qaeda and if there is a country that is really a threat to our national security, you can bet your ass he'll declare war and go in with everything we've got.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by NuclearHead]

I see what you're saying Nuclearhead, but it's right there in black and white that Paul said there is no basis for a rigid separation of church and state.

That goes considerably further than to say that the founders were religious and would dislike hostility to religion. That is to say that there is nothing completely forbidding the government from preferentially funding activities by particular religious sects (which it has been attempted and even done under the Bush administration) forbidding the expression of certain faiths by members of the armed forces (in practice against wiccans until recently).

This contradicts both the letter of the law and written evidence of the intent of the founders in penning that in our constitution. There is a considerable difference between invoking rights which are inherent to creation and taking actions which materially benefit a particular religous establishment.

Furthermore, the fact that he perceives government has hostile to religion seems to indicate an unreasonable notion of what religion is entitled to.

Our government builds chapels on military bases and pays clerics for our troops (and although I am an antheist I support this so long as arrangements are made for any faith to enjoy equal use of resources made available for the benefit of troops who choose to exercise their faith). I see no hostility there.

Our government prints "In God We Trust" on our money, and I'm cool with that too because it's general and does not compel any action or practice by anyone. I see no hostility there. Ditto the pledge- I support a students right to abstain from saying it or to say it sans God- but I'm cool with it if others want to say under God.

Our government allows prayer in schools on private time without expenditure of government resources. Again I'm cool with that and I see no hostility.

Our government is funding religious non-governmental organizations in Africa as part of the Bush aid package to Africa, which is anything but hostile and completely unacceptable.

Our president wants to inject a religious concept of our origins into science classes. Science, last I checked, deals in what can be proven. If they've got beef with evolution, fine, put the "theory" disclaimer there, but trying to get rid of something that has some supporting evidence behind it even while demanding the right to teach our kids something which by its very definition is not even subject to scientific evaluation in a class that is all about teaching kids not the end-all-be-all answers but how to evaluate probable answers based on evidence?

Bottom line, it's a fact of political life that athiests need not apply- and yet we've got a guy telling us that religion faces hostility from the government?

So I'd be very interested in hearing Mr Paul explain this hostility he senses.
Is it the opposition to government funding of religious-based programs? I presume not because Mr. Paul himself has said that using vouchers to fund parochial educations would give the government unacceptable authority to review them- so he must realize its in everyone's interest for the government and religion to keep their finances wholly separate.

Does he consider it hostile for the courts to give the ACLU its day in court? I admit that the ACLU sometimes champions causes that bear little resemblance to any concept of liberty with which I am familiar, but I don't consider it hostile for the court to hear them out before throwing out any cases which aren't reasonable. He's an educated man and is renowned for his zeal for the constitution, so I don't believe that can be it.

To be frank, I suspect that he's playing to a popular perception among Christians (instilled in them by politically ambitions ministers in the tradition of Pat Robertson at times) that they are somehow under siege from the powers that be, because they are an important republican constituency and he has to identify with them to win, even though he probably understands in his heart that Christians have as much if not more good than harm coming to them from violations of the establishment and free exercise clauses.


I want to close just by making sure I'm not misunderstood. I do have a beef with religion. I think it's ridiculous, has done at least as much harm as good in this world, and is one of the most dangerous forces humanity will ever know, right up there with racism, because it deals in absolutes not governed by reason.

However I want to make it very clear that I have no interest in being like the people I am so offended by, and therefore I would never wish to oppress religion. Your religious freedom ends at my nose. Up until that point, practice whatever you like, however you like. Come up to me on the street and try to tell me the good news and I'll be very polite about telling you I'm not interested and I'll wish you good luck in your ministry. I may even hear you out for a few minutes for your benefit- I had a book of Mormon on my shelf for years because I took it to humor one of them and I have a moral aversion to destroying books- I'd still have it but it disappeared during a move.

All I'm saying is that the rules exist to keep things fair, and they have to be rigidly adhered to so that minor habits of violation do not grow into big ones. Where the government has to deal with religion, it has to deal with all faiths equally. Where the government doesn't have to deal with religion, it should avoid doing so to the best of its ability, as the two occupy seperate realms. I get very very worried about people who I don't feel I can trust to abide by those basic principles.

I can understand why some people would assume that my position grows entirely out of a desire to remove religion from my earshot, because there are people like that out there, but I am not one of those people. Those people are taking all the fun out of being an atheist. If I wanted to worry about converting people and making them live the way I thought was right, I'd start going to church again.

Sorry, but I am afraid I don't have the time to go through all that post in detail right now. However, I will point out this out:

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

www.lewrockwell.com...

He's a very old school guy and our country has gone through a lot of changes in the last 50 years. It is just natural that he, being the conservative he is, would feel threatened by this. Especially when you see so much hostility nowadays against Christianity and political correctness all over the place.

I want to close just by making sure I'm not misunderstood. I do have a beef with religion. I think it's ridiculous, has done at least as much harm as good in this world, and is one of the most dangerous forces humanity will ever know, right up there with racism, because it deals in absolutes not governed by reason.

I'm not a religious person, but I do acknowledge our religious background and traditions, and I don't think we should simply throw them overboard.
You seem very skeptical about religion and I don't have a problem with that. However, it does seem to me like your views on religion are making you take this a little too far and I think you should understand Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist and he wouldn't do anything that contradicts the constitution. That alone should ease your fears.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by NuclearHead]

Normally you are exactly right- I would consider his proven dedication to the constitution to be an excellent failsafe against most idealogical differences I have with him.

I think he can be trusted to mean what he says about gay rights and abortion moreso than any moderate Republican because he cites constitutional grounds for his assertion that there shouldn't be federal laws targeting these issues, whereas many moderate Republicans seem to try to stand on both sides of the issue and its anyones guess which way they'll actually vote.

When it comes to separation of church and state however he has stated an incorrect interpretation of the constitution, so I dont know if his adherence to the constitution will help.

I don't really have a hard time with Christmas decorations, but by the letter of the law let's face it, it's a Christian holiday and the government, by the letter of the law, is not allowed to support it materially. Saint Nicholas has been heavily secularized by commercial interests, but is a religious figure associated with a religious holiday.

I don't see why we make a culture war out of following the rules. The rules are very clear. If government would follow the rules to begin with and leave religious holidays to private interests then the PC Nazis would lose their lawsuits and there would be no serious culture war.

The root of the problem is that government has given religion something, something trifling and unimportant I might add, that it didn't have a right to give them, and now people are incensed when the government can't keep giving it to them. It's a problem of pride that never had to exist.

It doesn't make me feel better that something so small and easy to get around makes Ron Paul feel threatened. I can get past it temporarily as he has some more important traits, but I'd like him a lot more if he'd said something more to the effect of, "we have a separation of church and state, not church and society." That implies a more moderate view on the whole issue and I'd be inclined to agree with him.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, that wasn't a mistake. Yes, I know there's an "R" next to his name. Hear me out.

So far it's been a hell of a millenium for moderates.

Vagabond,

You wear me out! You write so much! All the time! LOL

And you're so damn dead-on.

People reading this: when I was elected to the PTS council, Vagabond was my first choice to be my "second".

You write so much, Vagabond, I often don't have time to respond. But you are dead on with your comments.

Democrats that vote for Hillary are damning Democrats (and America) to wandering the political wilderness for God knows how long; maybe eternity.

Its time for new blood. For my money its GORE/OBAMA. Win effin' win.

They would obliterate Hillary and we'd have a president who knew what side of the toast the butter was on before it was served, if you catch my drift.

No one's bought there; no one's sold. Only serving.

As for Ron Paul, I will vote for him (PROUDLY) in the Republican primaries and hopefully then go on to vote for GORE/OBAMA. (Unfortunately, the odds of the GOP allowing Ron Paul to be the nominee are astronomical).

Peace out.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't want to give you the wrong idea; I've got some serious problems with Ron Paul.

Even I think some of his ideas are nutty; but guess what, with the machinery (institutional restraints) in place, there isn't much President Ron Paul could do to obliterate many of the things he's said he would get rid of (Education Dept., IRS, Fed Res). The truth is, even if he was the president, he could not just go abolish that stuff. It wouldn't happen. No freak out needed.

My original point exactly. I've been caught up in my idealogical problems with him more than I intended to be when I started the thread.
At the end of the day, he's mostly harmless without a staunchly conservative congress.

As far as I can tell, the worst thing that we'd get out of Paul is a 5th conservative on the SCOTUS if John Paul Stevens dies, and that's never a certainty. In Souter's first year he moved in virtual lock-step with Scalia- about 85% of the time. Now he's considered part of the liberal faction.

Can anyone think of anything worse that I'm missing that might come out of Paul versus a closely split but probably Democrat-controlled congress?

Ron Paul is not a scary candidate. He's the most rational (at least, on the GOP side of the house).

His ideas seem radical; but check into them. They are nothing more than fundamental beliefs - in the system the founders created.

Its not sophistry, or black majik. Ron Paul just wants intelligent, relevant leadership and fairness - across the board.