Ron Paul: The Real "Rock Star" of the Right

Who would believe that the candidate generating buzz and excitement on the 2008 Republican presidential campaign trail is a seventy-two year old medical doctor from a small town in Texas?

Who would believe that a libertarian who is calling for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from not only Iraq but from all of the Middle East has a large following among younger voters?

Who would believe that a man calling for a return to the gold standard and who favors no entangling alliances would be raising a good deal of money on the Internet?

Is Congressman Ron Paul surprised by his new popularity?

When I asked him that question before he spoke to a crowd of nearly 200 people at my Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at Johns Hopkins SAIS on September 12th, he replied, "I am a little bit surprised by my popularity. I was skeptical about running for president at first."

Why do people drive five hours to hear him speak as they did for his speech at Johns Hopkins and why do people hand him books on the gold standard to autograph?

Congressman Paul says, "Young people like my non-intervention policy and they like my personal liberty views as well."

The native of Pittsburgh who served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s told me "I am not a pacifist".

But, he is a believer in non-intervention by America abroad. "Intervention is not beneficial to us," he said in our interview.

Rep. Paul is a strong believer in "a return to constitutional principles" and wouldn't ever go to war unless Congress voted a declaration of war in the future.

The Texas Congressman speaks his mind and has great faith in his views. In addition to his anti-war views it seems as if he is developing a strong group of supporters who see him as honest and true to his principles.

Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.

He also had some suggestions for arming civilians to capture Bin Laden that seemed a bit unusual to say the least.

Rep. Paul is causing a stir in the 2008 presidential race and he is raising money. His chances of winning the Republican nomination are nil but perhaps with his strong and vocal group of supporters he might run as an Independent candidate in 2008 although he says he will not.

His old-fashioned views which he says are "Old, Old Right positions of the 1950s" are attracting a crowd of supporters that run the spectrum from liberal Democrats to anti-war Independents to people who just like his honesty and anti-intervention views.

As he says, "You don't have to be warmongers to be conservative".

He may not be an enigma. He may not be your average Republican candidate for president. He may not be saying anything that is particularly new or radical.

But, Congressman Paul is certainly adding some needed excitement to the 2008 presidential race. In my last column I said Americans are looking for excitement in their presidential candidates. To his many hardcore supporters the Texas doctor is providing that excitement.

I was astonished at the intensity of his supporters in our audience. I was amazed at their lengthy emails to me saying what a breath of fresh air he is in the presidential race.

So more power to the honest, anti-war, anti-intervention, pro-gold standard, pro-Constitution candidate from Texas who states, "It is not my responsibility as president to attack other countries".

He has struck a nerve and has found support among some voters looking for answers to our problems. He seems like a gentleman who, speaks sense and also nonsense, while attempting to solve the problems of our day.

Congressman Paul is certainly interesting, entertaining and a student of history. I look forward to following his comments along the campaign trail.

Comments

[xdream]

What a great article! You sir should be commended the first writer to not only talk about Dr. Ron Paul, and not low ball him, but to even have an article on him at all! The censorship of the corporate owned media is despicable! How can the watch dogs become the lap dogs? Also, some of the writers comments need to educate themselves on what is really going on. We are losing our country as we know it. There are two candidates: One is Congressman Ron Paul, and the other are the Imperialists who want to conquer the world. Every other candidate wants "pre-empitive" war to make sure those countries can't defend themselves from our invasion. You people need to wake-up and understand before it's too late. Remember the Constitution and its message of freedom and liberty is NEW! Tyranny, and despotism, and dictatorships are outdated! They've been around since the beginning of civilization. And, Ron Paul does NOT want to get rid of the EPA nor the FDA. He wants to get the Bush appointees out of them. He is for smaller government! That means getting rid of the Federal Reserve. Which is about as federal as Federal Express. We are going down people! We need to fight back and return our beloved country to the rights and freedoms as proclaimed in our most precious of documents; the Constitution. That same document that our elected officials and our military took an OATH of office to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Read it. Know it. Love it! It's our last chance.

[kyliepoo]

Ron Paul is the best candidate out of all. Kucinich wants to enslave the people in their own country through its government. Ron Paul is the only one that has proven himself the strongest to uphold our constitution.

[OrvilleHLarson]

I think the reason Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy resonates with people is because they sense he's the real deal. He's an unusual public official: He went into politics because he believes in issues and ideas, not because he wants to make a career living off the taxpayers' dime.

He's never accepted Congressional pay raises; he doesn't junket around the world on the taxpayers' dime; and he doesn't participate in the Congressional pension system.

He's a Constitutionalist. He thinks the words in that document are the blueprint for the American government, and that it's time to get back to first principles.

He's for nonintervention in foreign affairs. He's against fighting endless war(s) to make the Middle East safe for Israel.

[LibertysLegacy]

Overall, good article.

Why you felt the need to throw in this;

"Some of his views make sense and some of them seem to be nonsense. His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement."

I can't imagine. You cant envision a theory of "blowback?" Or "for every action, there is an equal and opposite, reaction?" You can't just go romping all over the globe stepping on people and then expect them to treat you with respect and civility.

[UTDougB]

'His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.'

C'mon I call out BS. Either someone edited your post or you're just toying with us. How could someone in your position even make such an absurdly provocative statement with no explanation and no clarification?

What part of his assertion do you find preposterous? Can you *prove* that our overt (and covert) actions and propaganda in their nations of origin had *nothing* to do with their current political beliefs. Do you challenge the fact that we've been conducting such military operations for 50 years?

How on earth could a thinking person call such a statement *preposterous*? Even if you disagree with his assessment, an unsupported assertion like that is well . . . 'preposterous!' (lol). [at least I'm willing to tell you why :)]

[lucid]

True enough UTDougB.

"If you keep throwing rocks at a wasp's nest eventually you will get stung."

Amazing how common sense is so simple and easy to understand. Or is it?

[godlessclif]

The right probably wants us to prove Arabs wouldn't have attacked us. If we can't prove they wouldn't then they will assume Arabs would have.

Just like they ask us to prove there is no God.

[zygote]

[quote]His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.[quote]

If its a preposterous statement why not enlighten us to why? Its very unfair for you to make such a comment without shedding any light on your higher wisdom.

Apparently anything that doesn't tune in with your preconceived ideas must be preposterous. Apparently your as bad as them. And we all know who them is.

[quote]His chances of winning the Republican nomination are nil [quote]

want to give me a million to one odds?

want to give me a thousand to one?

why dont you open a sportsbook and offer anything better than the 8 to 1 currently offered for him to win the presidency.

[quote]pro-gold standard[quote]

this is somewhat misleading. He doesnt support a return to the old gold standard or a variety of it. He wants to introduce monetary competition by removing the monopoly on the printing of bank notes. Thats it. He also supports removing the federal reserve, and both propositions after any fair and open investigation is an obvious positive move.

[quote]He also had some suggestions for arming civilians to capture Bin Laden that seemed a bit unusual to say the least.[quote]

if you want more of the usual then vote for the candidate that has taken the GWB route.

[Pyrum]

Thanks for pointing out Ron Paul's odds! http://www.gambling911.com

[Doofus]

I'm telling you, it's time for...

Paul/Kucinich - Tag Team 2008 - The Terrible Two!

And don't you just know that it's true!

[mickrussom]

Id say those two are the best two.

[gerontion72]

'His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement.'

Really? Why? You don't explain. Maybe because your statement is preposterous?

[Kissydee]

I am dumbfounded as to the left's support of Paul. Yes, he wants to get us out of Iraq. Yes, he's the only candidate with the guts to say that 9/11 happened because of our policies. He's also a pro-lifer who wants to get the US out of the UN, dismantle most of the regulating bodies in government, and let corporations and "the market" regulate themselves (and we all know how well that works). People should check their facts before they open their mouths.

And I have to disagree with the author, "His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement." I agree with Paul on this, with the addition that our support for Israel is another huge factor in creating terrorists. We should have been discussing this since 9/11 but naturally, haven't, because the American people are stupid enough to believe that we were "attacked for our freedom."

[Pyrum]

There are some qualities ALL Americans embrace: honesty, integrity and a sincere commitment to uphold the Constitution. Many Americans from all walks of life are also appalled by the way our civil liberties have been yanked out from under our feet. What other candidate besides Ron Paul is likely to restore them?

Lies divide and truth unites.

[mickrussom]

Go visit a VA hospital and see how good government run hospitals are.

There are things like "UL" and other regulatory commissions that can do good things.

Ron is not setting out to suddenly dismantle government, just get rid of the fat and pare down on what it should be, and question it. There still will be a house and senate, you know, he is the least-dictatorish of all the candidates.

[papasalas]

I agree. I think conservatives who are not supporting Paul are probably making a mistake. He's by far the best candidate the GOP has to offer. His views on foreign policy are much better than those of the rest of the republicans and his reading assignment for Giuliani was priceless. Maybe they are turned off by all the conspiracy theorists who are supporting him?
On the other hand, if you are a progressive and a Paul supporter, you haven't done your homework. The notion that supply and demand alone will solve all of our problems is, at the very least, a serious underestimation of human greed. RP is NOT a progressive. He is a real conservative.

[Pyrum]

Could someone please let me know what "progressive" means? Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, "progressive" is a euphemism for "socialist." I agree if someone is a socialist and supports Ron Paul, he or she hasn't done the homework.

[godlessclif]

You are surprised the left is attracted to freedom? Stop reading Friedrich August von Hayek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
and read some Herbert Marcuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

Let the left tell you what the left believes, not some right wing neocon propagandist.

[willers32]

You said "His assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement."
Obviously, you've not been paying attention. Last May, Rudy Giuliani tried to say that Ron Paul's ideas on the causes of 9/11 were "absurd." A few days later Ron Paul called a press conference with Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. Scheuer backed up everything that Ron Paul said regarding the causes of 9/11.
Ron Paul went on to give Rudy a "summer reading assignment" that included the official 9/11 Commission report that said pretty much the same thing.
We have been intervening in the middle east directly for 50 years and indirectly for another 50.
The attacks of 9/11 were blowback against our own policies over there. Our own CIA said so.
I would strongly advise getting your facts straight before criticizing Ron Paul. That is unless you want to learn about blowback first hand.

[RickTheScribe]

I'm glad to see that some others have questioned that particular comment. To say that Paul's suggestion that we would not have been attacked if we hadn't been meddling in the Middle East the past 50 years is "preposterous" is akin to saying "they hate us because of our freedom." If we had been letting the folks over there run their own affairs and not exploiting them for their oil all these decades, they would have had no reason to really give a crap about what we were doing. A nice blog overall, Mr. Guttman, but I'm not sure what you're thinking on this point. It's simple common sense.

[Dadoftwins]

Ron Paul is the only authentic conservative running for president. The other republicans don't even know what the principles of the Republican party were before the party was hi-jacked by the bible bangers, right to life movement and the imperialist neo-cons. They should read a biography on Sen. Robert Taft to discover true conservatism. God bless you Ron.

[mickrussom]

He is the only candidate with a 20+ year record that proves he believes everything he is talking about in his campaign. The rest of the candidates are politicians that change positions based on polling.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Ron Paul is only running in 08 because he was talked into it by so many people....After his loss of the 88 election he was never to run again. The people changed his mind. He truly is humble...It is not an act.

[godlessclif]

Most Republicans these days are ex-Dixiecrats like
Strom Thurmond, not conservatives.

[Pyrum]

Good to see you acknowledge the excitement Ron Paul' campaign generates! Overall this is a good post, but maybe in your next post you can explain how his assertion that "If we hadn't had troops in the Middle East for the last 50 years terrorists wouldn't have attacked us on 9-11" is a preposterous statement. We weren't attacked because we stand for freedom, we were attacked because we DON'T stand for freedom, but claim we do.

[godlessclif]

Why do you think they attacked the oil and currency commodity brokers in the World trade center?

If we had not been stealing Arab oil for the last fifty years what would their motive be for 9/11???

[rwoodsathome]

Generating buzz with whom? The clinically insane maybe. The progressives, maybe. But certainly not among adults.

He's generating the same buzz as Ross Perot - all gas. Eventually, he'll get mad. Pickup his marbles, huff and puff about the world being unfair, and go about collecting earmarks for his district.

[Pyrum]

Comparing Ron Paul with Ross Perot is ridiculous! Ron Paul has been a congressman for the last ten years, and Ross Perot wasn't even a politician until he decided to run for president. Ron Paul is running his campaign on a shoestring (although his grassroots supporters have given generously) and Ross Perot was independently wealthly. Ross Perot never generated the excitement Ron Paul has, and no one would even have heard of Ross Perot if he wouldn't have been able to afford to pay for his own commercials!

Perhaps you'd like to discuss your dislike for Ron Paul based on his positions on the issues instead of an absurd comparison?

[mickrussom]

You ad hominem attacks on the people who believe in Ron Paul are puerile at best. You don't even go after any stated policy or come up with something better.

[dexxjones]

adults? LOL you made a funny. would these be the same alleged adults who were coming to the white house to bring integrtiy back? excuse me whilst i fall off my computer chair laughing.

if hillary gets the nomination i will vote for ron paul. and i am a liberal democrat.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Ditto.

[godlessclif]

You think the thugs can chase Paul away by threatening his children like they did to Perot.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Ron Paul does not accept earmarks for our 14th district. Never has....
In fact, he returns a portion of our yearly budget back to the treasury every year....
But then again, you didnt know that because you dont check facts.

"collecting earmarks"? link?
Go back to the woods

[rich1107]

Ron Paul is just another "Trickle Down" Laissez-faire capitalist. In other words a snake oil salesman.

[zygote]

Do you see only black and white?

how does what you say square up with the fact that he wants to end oil subsidies and stop all foreign intervention around oil?

[rich1107]

Communism sounds good "on paper". Explain to me how his Austrian School economics work in our world?

[mickrussom]

Hardly. His monetary policies would help preserve the purchasing power of all the dollars you save and earn. The current system, be it run by Democrats or Republicans, will leads to extreme debt and deficit, and the USA will no longer be a superpower given the blood-letting of money going on right now via the military industrial complex.

[oldpotsmuggler]

One way to look at this race is that Dennis Kucinich is sort of a thinking mans Ron Paul (could either handle the actual job of being President?). Ron Paul seems far more fit to lead the world that existed 100 years ago than the one we now have. In fact, if we were all to adopt his view of "Constitutionalism" we would have no choice but to get The Second American Constitutional Convention under way immediately. I believe that our current Constitution is sufficient to function under in the modern world, but that we can make it better. Ron Paul would stick us with a world where our government is both too big and too small to be able to adequately function in our current society. His view would be so disruptive that he would literally shut the country down in the process of trying to redesign it to his "vision".

[Dadoftwins]

Dennis Kucinich is a career politician without a brain in his head. Ron Paul is absolutely correct about adhering to the constitution and non-interv­entionism. Don't forget the first time we started a war without a constitutionally approved act of war was Vietnam and we have been sliding ever since, Iraq I and II. A second constitutional convention may not be a bad idea, the first one allowed slavery and didn't permit women to vote. Maybe we can settle some long simmering questions with a new convention.

[zygote]

"Ron Paul would stick us with a world where our government is both too big and too small to be able to adequately function in our current society."

I dont understand how this makes. Can you please explain further?

[oldpotsmuggler]

He believes in giving the power to the states to control things like the abortion decision, and that no level of government has the power to take care of regulating at least some of the things that need to be regulated to keep the environment and the economy healthy. The concept of collectivizing human affairs for the benefit of all of us goes against the grain of his interpretation of the Constitution.

(He is absolutely right about ending abuses of our use of our military, but little of anything else he favors has near the same level of polular support.)