RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul: Crazy Or Crazy Like A Fox
by Doug MataconisThe Politico is out today with an article that suggests its the latter:
Ask a random Paul supporter why she’s willing to spend time and money on this particular candidate.
Odds are, she’ll argue that Paul is that rare man of principle — the full-color version of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That’s far from the whole story.
Yes, Paul is more principled than most politicians.
He seems to really believe in his small-government message. He’s also a 10-term congressman who has beat long odds.
Paul won three elections as a nonincumbent, twice knocking off sitting congressmen.
Protest candidacies are fun but fleeting; to hold a seat, you have to convince voters you’re doing something for them.
So Paul put together a staff that is known for its robust constituent service.
Paul wants to abolish Social Security, but retirees in his district whose monthly checks go missing know that they should call their congressman’s office.
Paul also votes against most spending bills but makes earmark requests, which are occasionally awarded.
His supporters can try to explain away items such as the earmarks by saying that is the unfortunate price of doing business in Washington.
That may be true, but it’s a price Paul has been willing to pay.
To be fair, as a Congressman, it doesn’t seem like Ron Paul has come anywhere close to Pork Kings like Don Young of Alaska or Robert Byrd of West Virginia. And there is, I think, a difference between assisting constituents in obtaining government benefits to which they are legally entitled under existing law, and using your power in Congress to send federal money to favored contributors. While Congressman Paul has clearly done the first, as any good Congressman should, I don’t think there’s any real evidence that he’s done the second.
But the point the article makes here is that Ron Paul has been a much more effective politician than he’s been given credit for up until now. The fact that he has been elected as a non-incumbent three times, and knocked off a sitting incumbent twice, should be evidence of that. He’s built up alot of good will among the people of his district, and that has helped him election after election.
The article goes on:
Paul approaches domestic politics with a mix of William Wallace-like rhetoric and more pedestrian considerations. In theory, he wants a government the size of a lima bean.
In practice, he would meet entitlement obligations for old folks while telling kids that they’ll have to pay their own way.
He says that he’d like to scrap the Internal Revenue Service and “replace it with nothing” (to wild cheers from the crowds) but that he could live with a national sales tax.
Normally a consistent federalist, Paul voted for a national ban on late-term abortions.
Paul may be wrong — rhetorically or programmatically — about a whole number of issues, but he’s not nuts. He also has a better knowledge of practical politics than he would ever like to let on.
Whether that will be enough to make a big impact on the national stage is still an open question. It is clearly going to be an uphill battle for him to even be considered among the top-tier GOP candidates notwithstanding this week’s fundraising numbers.
The other interesting thing to note, of course, is that the dismissive coverage of the Paul campaign from the media is coming to an end. At least for the moment, they are covering him seriously. Let’s see what comes of that.
There are certain areas where Ron Paul doesn’t tow the libertarian line. Pro-life is one, but more importantly is his stance on illegal immigration. Most libertarians believe in free flowing borders. Not Ron Paul. He is strongly against illegal immigration.
Comment by David G — October 4, 2007 @ 10:27 amWhat’s most important is, in favor of open government and transparency, that Paul has RELEASED the information on “ALL” his earkmarks.
Who else has released all their earmarks?
Steve
Comment by Wiseburn — October 4, 2007 @ 10:28 amDavid,
And along with trade, I think immigration is one area where Paul is generally wrong.
As far as abortion goes, I disagree with the idea that there is a single libertarian position. It depends on ones view of when life begins and, depending on the answer to that question, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 4, 2007 @ 10:31 amhttp://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com
Comment by Peter — October 4, 2007 @ 10:49 amPaul always votes based on the Constitution. Thus, he votes against unconstitutional spending. But bills with unconstitutional spending pass all of the time.
Thus, by including earmarks, he represents his constituents in making sure that they get their share–if the bill passes. But he himself still votes against the bill. I don’t see that this represents any compromise in principle.
And as you say, “Ron Paul has been a much more effective politician than he’s been given credit for up until now.”
Comment by Cathy — October 4, 2007 @ 10:50 amMost libertarians believe in free flowing borders. Not Ron Paul.
Actually if you listen to him, he is all for open borders. He’s sides more with Milton Friedman on the subject, in that illegal immigration is incompatible with a welfare state. Dismantle the wealth transfers and I’m sure RP will change his stance.
Comment by Jeff P — October 4, 2007 @ 10:56 amI consider myself to be a conservative democrat although I’ve recently switched to unenrolled. Dr. Paul is the closest anyone has come to a perfect presidential candidate for me. He and I agree on issues 90% of the time. I’ve had the opportunity to vote 5 times for president and each time I felt like I was choosing the lesser of two evils. Not so with Dr. Paul.
Comment by Ted — October 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am“In practice, he would meet entitlement obligations for old folks while telling kids that they’ll have to pay their own way.”
Ron Paul recognizes the practical side of it, that “We’ve taught generation upon generation to be totally dependent on government” and that “you can’t just get rid of every government program”. His plan would be a gradual process, “taking care of those who are dependent, until they can be weaned off”.
Also, regarding Social Security, he thinks we should at least try to meet our obligations–while of course, not trying to continue it in perpetuity. One thing he would make sure of is that funds for social security would never be used for anything else.
Comment by Cathy — October 4, 2007 @ 11:04 am“…Most libertarians believe in free flowing borders…”
Absent the welfare and warfare authoritarian state that we still refer to as the United States of America, border security would be moot as it has always been. They come for our welfare state [public schools and health care] and never assimilate contributing significantly to the Balkinization of America…
Comment by Leland Thomas Faegre — October 4, 2007 @ 11:16 amDavid,
Abortion is not a litmus test for libertarians. The libertarian position on abortion depends on where you believe life begins. If a libertarian believes life begins at birth, they’re generally pro-choice. If they believes it begins at conception, they’re generally pro-life. Neither position on the issue invalidates their libertarian credentials.
Paul has stated that he is anti-immigration only because of the existence of a welfare state. Otherwise he’d be for open borders. Frankly, I think that his policy is simply using one bad policy to justify another, but I can see his point and it’s in line with libertarian values.
Comment by UCrawford — October 4, 2007 @ 11:19 amTed,
Check with your state. In many states only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary for president. Here is a link to find out: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/primary-and-caucus-information/
#
Ted said: I consider myself to be a conservative democrat although I’ve recently switched to unenrolled. Dr. Paul is the closest anyone has come to a perfect presidential candidate for me. He and I agree on issues 90% of the time. I’ve had the opportunity to vote 5 times for president and each time I felt like I was choosing the lesser of two evils. Not so with Dr. Paul.
Comment by Kit Maira — October 4, 2007 @ 12:20 pmComment by Ted — October 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Dr. Paul has explained the earmark thing before. He makes earmarks and approves of their use because they make the money transparent. Before they were used, there was less accountability on where the money was going but it STILL WAS SPENT. He votes for adding earmarks to bills with fuzzy numbers, while the bills are being written, but usually votes against the resulting bill.
Comment by Jason — October 4, 2007 @ 12:43 pmThe media is not covering him seriously at all. He may be be getting more coverage but they still attach lines like “fringe candidate”, and “long-shot”. I can imagine the headlines if RP wins the nomination, “Long-shot candidate Ron Paul wins Republican nomination”.
Comment by brody — October 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pmHe’s getting good coverage for a candidate who’s registering 4% support in the polls. If he wins the nomination he’ll have more than 4% support and will get better coverage.
Comment by Bob — October 4, 2007 @ 2:21 pmIt’s going to be an uphill battle for us Ron Paul supporters but that’s why we need to organise and pour all of our resources into supporting him and spreading the message. Don’t rely on the herd media to eventually come around.
Recently, the word “contrarian” has become a popular derogatory label used by the herd to describe anybody with an opinion that diverges from the mainstream. It’s incredibly sad that the mighty US of A has reached such a point that exercising the right to state a differing opinion is frowned upon. The MSM has no concept of journalistic ethics and standards. We live in a country that is dominated by the celebrity and entertainment and appeals to the lowest common denominator of intellect.
However, therein lies the strength of Ron Paul’s supporters. They’re intelligent and passionate about their candidate whereas the mindless herd that follows the herd media has no passion to drive them to support those prepackaged candidates.
Comment by RonPaulRocks — October 4, 2007 @ 5:17 pmThey come for our welfare state [public schools and health care] and never assimilate contributing significantly to the Balkinization of America…
Who I hire or rent to is none of your fucking business, whether or not he or she joins the Borg.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — October 4, 2007 @ 7:25 pmKit Maira, thanks for the link to the:
Comment by Christopher M Early — October 5, 2007 @ 3:08 amI didn’t know that was posted on his site!
Kit Maira, thanks for the link to the http://www.ronpaul2008.com/primary-and-caucus-information/ I didn’t know that was posted on his site!
To any moderator: Referenced images show up in the preview, but not on the post.
Comment by Christopher M Early — October 5, 2007 @ 3:13 amRon Paul Reels In $5 Million; Thanks To The Internet….
I’ve said from the beginning that you can’t count Paul out completely, in the end he has almost no chance but he has as much of a chance as the others on the lower end of the ladder. Paul’s popularity simply shows the disdain towards …
Trackback by The Daily Conservative — October 5, 2007 @ 7:27 pm