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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There's *too* much excitement about Ron Paul. I've even heard people call into some progressive talk shows and root for him.
I'm glad that the hosts of these show usually point out that while his views on the war are to be commended, he is FAR from progressive on most other issues.
In fact, he's radically anti-government (eliminate the FDA, EPA, etc).
I hope people who are fed up with both parties don't turn to Paul thinking they are finding some sort of middle road...
theyoungtu
Give me a quote from Ron Paul saying he would eliminate the EPA and/or the FDA...
There is no exact quote where Ron Paul says "I will completely eliminate the EPA and or FDA".
There's also no quote from George Bush that states "I plan on cherrypicking intelligence and scaring people about WMD's to go to war with Iraq".
But what Ron *has* said, explicitly and implicitly is clear enough.
Furthermore, there are a lot of ways to effectively neuter something without completely eliminating it.
You can ignore, defund or underfund an agency, and or promote legislation that severely limits or overrides the power of, say, the EPA without literally "eliminating" it.
But yes, for all practical purposes (aka, relevant purposes) you've essentially eliminated it.
en.wikiped
Ron Paul would eliminate sovereign immunity. Then we would not need the EPA.
"Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity."
http://www
Did you know that the FDA is trying to get a regulation passed that would force all almonds made in California pasteurized? The chemical that they used for pasteurization has been banned in Europe and many other countries. The FDA served its purpose back in the day, but now it hurts us more than it helps.
The FDA, EPA does more harm that good. The Libertarian solution would be legal action, the courts, and no Government licenses to protect big business from paying for the damage they do.
We have this thing called the constitution.
Ron Paul has a copy.
The political spectrum in the country has been narrowed to the point where if you don't vote for Ron Paul, you get politicians cut from the same cloth. The GOP and Dems made laws to make it hard to give money to Ron Paul, but easy for them to take quid pro quo bribes off of lobbyists and from companies. The military industrial complex and the GE/Murdoch/Empires own the media and they own the Dems and GOP, and this is a last chance for change.
I agree.
Our last chance for change is NOT to elect a radical libertarian, but rather, to push for *publicly funded elections*, period.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
