Strange Bedfellows To Say The Least

Ron Paul endorses Alaska Congressman Don Young (R., Bridge To Nowhere):

Former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has endorsed Don Young in his bid to win an 18th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Paul, the 72-year-old congressman from Texas whose maverick presidential bid drew wide support in Alaska, sent out a letter to his supporters here urging them to vote for Young.

“Don and I have served together in Congress for many years, and I consider him a friend,” Paul wrote in the letter. “Don has been an outspoken voice against environmental extremists over the years and has strongly opposed the types of federal regulatory overreach advocated in the name of environmentalism.”

Paul and Young are a bit of an odd couple. Paul is a fiscal conservative; Young believes in earmarking federal dollars for Alaska wherever possible. Paul opposes the Iraq war; Young supports it.

And Young is being opposed by a guy who sounds a heck of a lot better than the King of Pork.

But, then again, Congressman Paul hasn’t really acted like he thought earmarks were a bad idea either.

Freedom Democrats isn’t pleased about this at all:

Ron Paul is very quickly burning any and all credibility he has as a figurehead of the small government movement within the Republican Party. He’s backing a pork-barrel and Mike Huckabee-endorsed Republican over a small government conservative, Sean Parnell, backed by the Club for Growth. Almost all of the scenarios discussed here at Freedom Democrats for the resurgence of true small government conservatives depended on an alliance of sorts between the Club for Growth and the Ron Paul Revolution. Now, we instead have growing signs of an alliance between Mike Huckabee’s Christian conservatives followers and the Ron Paul Revolution. This is sham limited government conservatism. We’ll get a party that will continue its social, cultural, and religious intolerance despite cries of “FREEDOM!” at the top of their lungs.

I’ve read elsewhere that Ron Paul has generally refused to endorse any candidate running against an incumbent Republican Congressman, even ones that describe themselves as “Ron Paul Republicans.”

Frankly, I don’t understand the logic behind it.

H/T: Club For Growth

  • uhm

    Where are all the Ron Paul supporters?

    It is odd that all this stuff about the endorsement comes from the article. I googled and didn’t see any others.

  • Gabe

    Earmarks do nothing to cut spending if the govt were to eliminate them. It would merely give the power to decide where to spend the money to the executive branch. Exactly where it doesn’t belong. A congressmen’s job is to see to it that the tax payers of a district allocate their own tax dollars to projects in their area that they have “lobbied” for. All the “earmark” talk is just spin. Paul is against higher taxes, but logically he would never give the power to control his districts cash to the executive branch.

  • Doug Mataconis


    That still doesn’t explain why he’s endorsing a big-government Huckabee-supporter like Young over a real libertarian Republican like Sean Parnell.

  • Bill Starr

    Why should tax dollars that end up back in a particular district even go through Washington (with the political brokerage of the bureaucrats deducted)?

    Seems that all worthy local projects ought to be funded with state or local taxes (or private charity), with a corresponding reduction in our federal tax burden.

    Bill Starr
    Columbus, Indiana
    Wed, 20 Aug 2008, 6:42 pm EDT

  • oilnwater

    i think doug is secretly in love with Paul. either that or he’s that guy in the basement with automatic weapons and Paul’s picture with black marks and x’s all over it.

  • Doug Mataconis


    I’m just wondering why the self-proclaimed taxpayers best friend is endorsing the the King of Pork

  • Gabe

    I would like to know why he’s endorsing this guy as well. I have done my research on most of the other canidates and I don’t think this is the beginning of ‘BIG GOVT PAUL’ or a shift of any kind on Paul’s part.

    Even so, I cannot wait to write Ron Paul in for President. Not because I’m crazy, not because I think he’s PERFECT, and not because I hate all the other guys. But because he is the only one, in my opinion, who is actually going to attack issues at home that need to be addressed. I can understand the patriotism of some that believe the war on terror is an epic battle between good and evil. I think its important to understand that it doesn’t matter whether you believe its right or wrong to be at war because we cant afford it.<(FACT) Billions on top of billions of dollars coming out of our pockets to destroy and then rebuild the same bridge in Iraq. Our country is going to fall apart without some serious steps being taken in our govt to change the way it is run. Ron Paul (whether he endorses the king of pork or not) is neither wolf nor sheep.

  • oilnwater

    “oilnwater, i’m just obsessed with Ron Paul.”

  • thomasblair

    I’m just wondering why the self-proclaimed taxpayers best friend is endorsing the the King of Pork

    This was pointed out to you, but you chose to ignore it.

    Eliminating earmarks has nothing to do with reducing spending. If the money weren’t earmarked for a specific project, the executive branch would allocate the funds.

    Reducing spending is about shrinking those 12 big-ass regular and assorted “emergency” appropriations bills, not about removing the labels on the money within them.

  • Doug Mataconis


    Earmarks are the reason why the war against government spending is doomed to fail.

    Unless the ability of politicians to deliver pork to constituents is eliminated, there is no realistic prospect of reducing the overall size of government.

    It’s that simple.

  • Jeff Molby

    Doug, the real money/power involves regulations, not earmarks. Congress can trash any industry at will with the passage of a single law. That’s the kind of stuff the real money fights for and against.

    The direct handouts like earmarks are for the small-timers. It’s still not good, but focusing on that is like trying to eliminate steroids in baseball by cracking down on guys in the low minor leagues.

  • Jeff Molby

    Having said that, the endorsement still boggles my mind. Alaska is the kind of place where a libertarian can do well, especially since Young is so vulnerable.

  • Doug Mataconis


    Boggles the mind to say the least.

  • freewheeler

    I have been a pretty big Paul supporter. He has more or less introduced me to the ideas of libertarianism and I have since run with it on my own. However, if nothing else, this deserves an explanation.

  • Gabe

    On the surface a lot of Paul’s decisions seem out of step with morals and policies that mainstream politicians embrace. Such as the vote against presenting Rosa Parks with a medal for all her equal rights achievements. But when you dig deeper you understand that using Taxpayer money to get a medal for one person, no matter how deserving, is against the constitution.

    He added that he was in favor of pitching in money with other congressmen, from out of their own pockets, to buy a medal to present to Rosa Parks. No one took him up on the offer. Taking from one person (us-the taxpayers) and giving to another person (Rosa Parks) is unconstitutional.

    Just noting that everything is not always as it seems.

  • Doug Mataconis


    In this case, Paul’s endorsement of a pro-war, neo-conservative, big government, pork barrel politician seems out of step with his own professed principles.

    As others have said, either an explanation is in order or the value of a Ron Paul endorsement to a pro-liberty Republican pretty much has gone down the toilet.

  • Gabe

    I’m afraid you may be right

    People commenting this article were pretty confused as well