Ron Paul…The Man Who Will Determine Obama’s Fate.
Today we analyze our 6th of the republican presidential candidates, Congressman Ron Paul.
First, your collective Facebook scores using the Ex. 18:21 four-part test:
Able = 1.4 out of 3
Fear God = 1.7 out of 3
Honesty = 2.2 out of 3
Principles over Politics = 2.2 out of 3
Dr. Paul so far places second to Santorum for the best overall average score so far (Perry has not been tallied yet. If you saw my initial post with higher numbers for Paul, I apologize, but I had not adjusted the formula in Excel for the extra number of votes he got so the average was based on the wrong number of votes). He had more maxed out 3’s than anyone…further evidence of the devotion of his fans. I would rank him just as high on honesty and principles over politics. But when it comes to his ability and fear of God (Biblical worldview), my view is completely different than most folks who voted in our survey.
I have a lot of friends that are Ron Paul supporters. These are extremely smart, very patriotic, hard working, salt of the earth Americans. They are
not the in your face, fanatical, kool-aid drinking, “if you don’t like Ron Paul you are a member of the trilateral commission flying black helicopters spying on my pot growing green house,” over the top, lunatics that most people think of when they think of Ron Paul zealots (otherwise known as Paulbots, Paulistas, etc.). There are plenty of Ron Paul fans that fit that description and have hurt his reputation and campaign more than they have helped it…but he has never lifted a finger or said a word to discourage the more vehement, radical actions of those fans (at least not that I know of). Worse, his anti-national security, blame America first rhetoric has become far worse over the last few years precisely because of the number of conspiracy theorists giving him support.
Back to my friends that are NOT the crazy ones. They support Ron Paul for very good reasons, the same reasons I supported him for years as my Congressman. They LOVE his bluntness (as do I), his willingness to say what he believes no matter what the cost, his steel backbone which shown every time he was the lone dissenting voice in a House vote of 434 to 1, and his “non-politician” appearance. He is about as much the opposite of “slick” as you can get and his almost nerdy normalness is refreshing to a nation sick and tired of the smooth talking, insincere, empty suits that fill our state and national politics.
Dr. Paul has been screaming about the wasteful spending of Washington and the abuse of the Federal Reserve for decades. While I do not agree with him 100% on his FED reforms, I’m at about 98%. (the only real difference is that I believe just as strongly in free markets, but also know that they have booms and busts even without the micromanaging of interest rates and money supply…but like Dr. Paul, I also believe the market would make better decisions than the government).
Ron Paul is a one of a kind. Before I give you my bottom line assessment of his candidacy and the Paulistas start sending me hate mail, you should know that I have had dinner with Ron and Carol on multiple occasions, use to do joint campaign events with them (He was my Congressman when I served as a state representative) and even served on his committee to choose military academy appointments.
I love Ron Paul’s positions and backbone on many issues, but republicans nominating Paul would be handing the White House back to Obama with a big red bow. He is going to do well in Iowa only because no one has attacked him yet. As soon as people find out some of his more radical positions (legalizing drugs, practically cheering for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, those racists and anti-Israel newsletters, etc.), he will drop back down to 10 or 12 percent and I’ll be surprised if he gets any more than 8% in any other state when the actual primary voting begins.
Three reasons why Ron Paul will not be the republican nominee:
- His isolationist views are not new to American politics, but they are not at all popular enough for him to win a national election (either in the primary or the general). Sure, lots of people initially nod in agreement when he delivers a one liner about “we should bring our troops home from the border of Pakistan and secure our own borders” or “we need to stop spending money interfering with other nations and take care of our own fiscal crisis.” That sounds great and we can all agree in principle, but as the campaign continues and people find out what that actually means in Ron Paul’s world, his support will wane to only those few that are naïve enough to think that the radical terrorists will suddenly leave America alone if we just withdraw into our borders. That view ignores their underlying motivations. One only has to go back to the first war against radical Islam (Barbary Pirates) to find them attacking our merchant ships for no other cause than their reading of the Koran. Any candidate who blames 9/11 on America does not understand history, does not represent anywhere near a majority of Americans, and should not be president.
- Everything negative I said in my review of Santorum regarding his communication style can be multiplied three fold for Ron Paul. Unless you already have libertarian leanings, it is very difficult for Ron Paul to win your vote because he is so whiney and negative. It doesn’t matter how right he is if people tune him out. 90% of the people in a general election will tune him out and never listen to his arguments. He fails the “able” test completely because he is unable to communicate effectively and appealingly in such a way as to move enough people to action to win a national election. Yes, his style moves a small percentage to new levels of committed action; and that may well move the entire nation as a whole towards the issues for which he advocates, but it will not come anywhere close to enough people to elect him.
- If Ron Paul had lived in the late 1700’s, he would have loved the French Revolution far more than the American Revolution. He wants to separate religion and moral values from public policy and it simply cannot be done. Someone’s values are going to determine the policy issues. When the French killed or kicked out all the priests and tried liberty without boundaries, it led to complete chaos and the near destruction of the nation. The American Revolution was very different. It was based upon the idea that liberty is a gift of God and must be lived out with a respect for the source of that freedom; which means there are, in fact, boundaries and society does have a responsibility to say no to certain actions. It’s easy to be a pure libertarian and say government has no place in ANY moral decisions, but just ask the thousands of French killed at the guillotine how the absence of morality worked out for them under the Jacobins. Here in America, we have been getting our own taste of the destructive results of the influence of Rousseau as the secularists have moved us more and more towards the idea of everyone doing whatever seems right in their own eyes. The only thing wrong is to actually speak with moral clarity and say that something is
wrong. Though Ron Paul would say he does not believe in moral relativism, his political philosophy embraces it for the nation. For all his talk of respecting the Constitution, he would have been a dissenting voice among the Founding Fathers and their basic ideas about freedom.
So if Ron Paul cannot win the nomination, why will he determine Obama’s fate? If Ron Paul supports the republican nominee, no third party candidate will gain enough momentum to be the Ross Perot of 2012. But if Ron Paul runs third party or endorses a third party candidate, it’s a virtual guarantee that Obama will be re-elected, albeit with only about 42% of the vote.
It was my impression that Ron misled republican voters in 2008. He knew that republicans were hesitant to support him if he was willing to bolt the party later, so he was asked in the debates if he was going to run 3rd party and he said no, but then he left the team anyway and turned around and supported a third party candidate.* It wasn’t that big of a deal in 2008, only amounting to 0.15% of the vote (that’s only one out of 667 voters!). But in 2012, with the fickleness of tea party voters looking for the non-politician, Ron Paul as a third party candidate could get 10% to 15% or a Ron Paul backed candidate could get 3% to 5% and it will spell certain victory for Obama in the key toss up states, giving him re-election.
Whoever wins the republican nomination would be foolish to dismiss Ron Paul and his supporters as wackos or the fringe. The republican nominee MUST give Ron Paul the praise he deserves for championing important issues, engaging new people in the process, and running a very good campaign. The nominee should find a way to include Ron Paul in the new administration and bring his supporters onto the team for the general election, rather than kicking them to the curb and setting up a third party candidacy.
If he is given the respect he deserves and the opportunity to influence economic policy, I believe Ron Paul should, and would, choose the good of the nation over his own gain.
I know Ron Paul is a patriot.
I pray that his patriotism will trump his ego and he will choose to back the republican nominee in order to save our nation from the devastation of four more years of Barack Obama.
*I have modified this from the original post. Even though I did not use quotation marks, some took my interpretation of Ron’s 2008 remarks to be a direct quote, but it was not. It is what I believe his message was intended to be based on the context of the questioning before his answer. The modified text should be more clear.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
29 Responses to “Ron Paul…The Man Who Will Determine Obama’s Fate.”
Got something to say?
Latest Articles
Get Connected
I skimmed your post first, and promise I will go back and read it thoroughly, but I want to ask you right away about two things that jumped out at me:
1) “practically cheering for Iran to have a nuclear weapon”
Rick, this is more hyperbole than I could have thought one person could muster. He said (only slightly paraphrasing) “of course they want that – if you were in their shoes, you’d probably wnat one too”. I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing him at all here, but you have strayed well into bearing-false-witness territory with your characterization.
2) “Ron went back on his word in 2008. He promised to support the republican nominee, then turned around and supported a third party candidate.”
Please document this. I followed Dr. Paul very closely in 2007 and 2008 (and since, for that matter), and I NEVER read or heard him promise to support the eventual GOP nominee. In fact, several times I heard him say that he could not guarantee that or did not think that likely. Now, I may have missed something, I will admit that. But I would be shocked. Please explain your basis for this statement so I can see where you’re coming from.
I was just about ready to give you Kudos for being the Constitutionalist I believed you to be when I voted for you….just about. Then you decided to listen to mainstream media. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. All of his positions on this are backed by scripture.
“Well intentioned pastors and congregations alike have in recent years rallied around candidates that project a doctrine that is pro-interventionist, but as Jesus warned, “the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of light” (Luke 16:8). The tendency to believe that, by default, God’s position is to “bless” the military actions of the United States or Israel in conflicts against “unbeliever nations” lacks both spiritual and worldly acumen. In 2 Chronicles 35, the Scripture records that King Josiah attempted to obstruct Egyptian Pharaoh Neco – a Gentile operating under the influence of God for purposes unstated. When Josiah and his forces believed by default that they would – as so many times in the past – be able to brush aside Neco’s armies, Josiah was killed and his army routed in battle. The default belief that the United States and Israel are somehow always acting in God’s endorsed interests and the so called “Axis of Evil” states are always acting against God is simply not correct in light of this Scripture and others.
As the United States engages in more and more wars abroad, these actions tend to embitter the populations of countries invaded by America’s military and it gives enhanced legitimacy to hardline governments in places such as Iran and terrorist recruitment around the world. In fact, following 9/11 Tehran made overtures of peace and rapprochement towards the United States, but the Bush Administration’s aggressive “drain the swamp” attitude which rejected Iran’s offers helped justify the removal of the Reformists from power and the election of the more hawkish Ahmadinejad. Christians should not take pride in pushing enemies to become deeper enemies; if anything, the doctrine of Christ is a diplomatic model which seeks to bridge differences and unite both individuals and nations alike “for all are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
The best course of policy for any “Christian” presidential candidate then is not to advocate proactive regime change by military force or by seeking to forcefully disarm nascent nuclear states but rather to rely on diplomacy and the grace of God through prayer for “He makes wars to cease” (Psalm 46:9).” (http://faithpolicy.wordpress.com)
As for Iran having nukes, the actual IAEA report shows that no uranium is being enriched at this time. Does that mean that they won’t ever do it? Probably not. BUT every country has a right to defend itself…yes, even Iran. Does this make us uncomfortable? Sure! As long as they use the weapons that they have for defense and not offense, then they are entitled to them…just like Israel, Russia, and yes, us. Newt Gingrich was touted 15 years ago as applauding the Chinese gov’t for having stolen nuclear secrets from us. He said he he congratulated them on stealing them because they have a right to defend themselves. Well, the same argument can go for Iran as well.
Ron Paul is a great speaker. I do not find him to be whiney or negative. He has been trying to get people to wake up for 30 years. I think after 30 years of being ignored, I’d be a little edgy with my message, too. People NEED to listen. The time to wake up is RIGHT NOW! Look at what they are doing in Washington!! ALL of our (TX) Senators and Congressmen and women passed the National Defense Authorization Act. These people we put in there to uphold the constitution and protect our rights and they turned around and MURDERED the Constitution!! How much more wool over our eyes do we need before we stand up and say, “Enough is enough!!” ? The Tea Party has been over run with RINOs like Rick Perry that will say anything to get into office. If you truly believe in our Constitution, sir, you should be shouting from the roof tops for people to vote for Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that wants to return our rights to us, REALLY cut down big government and our national spending, and bring our troops home to DEFEND US not every other country in the world! Do you realize how THIN our military is stretched right now? What would happen if we were attacked on our own soil? Our guys are everywhere BUT HERE! Please, in the name of our constitution and our freedom, stop listening to what the RNC wants you to believe and WAKE UP!! I KNOW you are a good man, but even you are being fooled. Pray about it. Ask God where your vote should go…and do it with an open mind and an open heart so you can really HEAR what He says.
Israelis love Ron Paul. GOOGLE: Settlers of Samaria From Israel: Vote Ron Paul…
Extract: “You get hooked on Ron Paul and you desperately seek more and more, any video you can find from the past, any speeches you missed, anything he said that you haven’t heard yet, even though you’ve heard it a thousand times already in different words. You can’t help yourself. The voracious hunger to be able to use your God-given freedom takes you over entirely. It’s like you suddenly realize you’re human and the Divine Image with which God created you comes alive and catches fire.”
GOGGLE: Israeli newspaper, Haaretz: Published 01:23 29.12.11
Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel.
Extract: “Pardo’s remarks follow lively a public debate in recent months over a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. One of the figures at the center of this public debate has been Pardo’s predecessor as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan… He has also criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, accusing them of pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran, and warned that such an assault would have disastrous consequences.”
Some Christians need to be more robust in their research. They accept the hysterical cries of a Bachmann or Santorum far too easily. Christians like myself, had a little talk with Jesus, who told us: “Blessed are the peacemakers. Do good them that hate you. Do not repay evil with evil. Bless those who curse you.” Ron Paul’s platform. What an endorsement!
Ron Paul appears to be the only republican that can beat Obama. The other candidates are too extreme for mainstream. Ron Paul is the only candidate to bring in independents and democrats, and actually has won polls against Obama.
Your article should end by saying the GOP should be getting behind Paul so Obama does not get elected. Americans are so tired of being lied to and ripped off by their politicians. I am only voting Ron Paul even if he was to endorse another candidate. Maybe you should plead with Romney not to run third party.
P.S. Your “facts” are off on what Ron Paul supports. I am sure you were not trying to skew anyone and would like to make corrections.
Wow. If you think that the republican nominee other than Ron Paul will “save our nation from the devastation” of Obama you are so misguided that is is truly sad. The devastation will only continue in one form or another.
I absolutely disagree with your claim that Ron Paul would have favored the French Revolution over the American Revolution. I challenge you to read Rushdoony and Otto Scott on the French Revolution as it should become clear to you that the major difference between ours and theirs was the fact that the French Revolution was bent on centralization of power and, indeed, went into Vendee in order to “pacify” that Christian stronghold precisely because the people there defied the attempts of the revolutionary government to force a submission to central authority. The King had not even presumed to have that kind of authority over Vendee. The American War of Independence was a war to maintain and save the decentralized nature of the colonies from a Parliament that the colonies had never considered as having authority over them. So decentralized were they that the counties held more power than colonial-level authorities. Just like Ron Paul, the Colonies believed that the greatest authority should devolve to the smallest entity, with the supreme authority over all being God. Read Rushdoony’s The Nature of the American System on that point. Ron Paul’s positions are completely consistent with the purposes of the War of Independence and the founding fathers’ beliefs in decentralized authority. I would submit that all of the other candidates, in their endless quest to empower the federal government to the detriment of the local and state authorities and to further centralize that power in the executive branch, are far closer to Robespierre in their inclinations than to our founders. In other words, the others are the Jacobins, not Ron Paul.
Well you must have slept through your civics and logic classes. Also you distort everything!
An easy example is the “isolationist charge” It is PRECISELY the ones who want to bomb that are isolationists. People who run around sticking guns in peoples faces because they don’t want to live a certain way are the ones who become isolated. It is the bullies that are isolated, and it is the peace-making friendly people who are worldly. It is the bully that is avoided by good people. It is the bully who is resisted every second he is not on watch.
Ron Paul is THE true man of international relations.
Since when did peaceful exchange become “isolationist”
You, my son, need to go and get an education, because it is clear that your mom did not raise you correctly to even know the difference between right and wrong.
Yawn…ing…zzzzz
Ron Paul supported a 3rd party candidate in 2008? Which one?
Neville,
1) Did you watch the debates? He absolutely defended Iran’s right to a nuclear weapon and made us look like the nuts for saying they should not have one. He was, in fact, cheering for them to have one.
2) He was asked in the 2008 debates and I watched him say he would not run or support a 3rd party candidate.
Rick
Jenny,
Been praying, been asking, been doing a lot of research…but have not at all been doing what you accuse me of…I don’t listen to the RNC and I’m not naive. My opinions may be very different than yours, but they are based on a lifetime of research and being on the front lines of these fights and knowing most of the players. All I offer in these blogs is my opinion. I welcome your rebuttal and readers will see it hear, but let me assure you that I am not a talking points or mouthpiece outlet for anyone, especially the establishment, I’m a thorn in their side!
I completely agree with some of your comments and I completely agree with many of Ron’s positions (which I said in the blog), but when as soon as I point out the things that I disagree with him on, his supporters suddenly think I’m anti-constitutional…It’s ridiculous. I can’t even allow most of the Ron Paul supporter posts that come through because they are nothing but ignorant insults. At least yours is coherent and rational and makes some good arguments and you limit your assumptions (like the RNC comment).
I’ll keep praying and asking, as we all should.
Rick
My comments are not based on anything at all that Bachmann or Santorum have said, they are based on my own research and on what Paul himself has said.
Show me a fact that is wrong and I will gladly correct it.
Jerri, you missed the point. The Rousseau comment I made was intended to be a clue that what we are talking about here is moral relativism vs. moral absolutes, not the political structure. If I wanted to talk structure, we’d talk more about Locke and Montesquieu. I agree with you that Paul would agree with the founders with regard to political structure, but political structure comes AFTER basic philosophy about duty, rights, responsibilities, and standards of morality. That’s where Paul sides with the Jacobins and moral relativism and why Washington was right to say “religion and morality are indispensable supports of political prosperity.” He went on to say “in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who works to subvert these pillars.” Paul’s disconnect of trying to separate issues of morality completely from government is the major flaw in pure libertarianism. Rick
Chuck Baldwin. Public endorsement.
You commented…
“I can’t even allow most of the Ron Paul supporter posts that come through because they are nothing but ignorant insults.”
yet you say…
“(otherwise known as Paulbots, Paulistas, etc.)” <- insulting
"he is so whiney" <-insulting
"I pray that his patriotism will trump his ego" <-insulting
“Rick said (on January 2nd, 2012 4:17 pm)
>Neville,
>1) Did you watch the debates? He absolutely defended
> Iran’s right to a nuclear weapon and made us look like
> the nuts for saying they should not have one.
> He was, in fact, cheering for them to have one.
You bet I did, Rick. The only debate/forum I have not watched was the Personhood Forum, because our family had a medical emergency and I couldn’t find an archive of it when I looked (but haven’t looked recently)
What is a “right” on the world stage? I suspect if you pinned down most of the real thinkers on stage (Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, Huntsman) they would all say “Of course, technically, Iran has a ‘right’ to build whatever it wants, including weapons. It is how they use them that is the issue, and we the USA can not feel safe in a world with a nuclear Iran.” The argument here is not whether we WANT the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, but whether as a sovereign nation they are within their “rights”, under moral and international law, to have one. Those are two very different things.
As an example, I would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable if the Mexican government built or purchased nuclear weapons, due to their apparent impotence against organized crime in their country. But, if Mexico decided that they were so scared of (say) Venezuela that they started building A-bomb facilities, would/should the USA send bombers across the Rio Grande to destroy those facilities?
As for the claim that “He was, in fact, cheering for them to have one”, that is pure hyperbole. In FACT, he did no cheering or congratulating at all. He stated the obvious – it is perfectly understandable for a nation in a region of unrest, with most of their neighbors being fair-weather friends or enemies, to want to be on equal military footing. Whether we want to see them reach that goal is a different matter.
> 2) He was asked in the 2008 debates and I watched him
> say he would not run or support a 3rd party candidate.
Again, if you have proof of that, please provide it. I have turned up many instances of him saying (carefully) that he “had no plans to do that (run 3rd party)”, and that he did not think he could support any of the other GOP candidates, and he even finally came out and said he definitely would not run on a 3rd party ticket (and requesting that his name be removed when Montanans nominated him without his consent). Nowhere have I found any record of him saying he would not support a 3rd party candidate.
So, I ask again, if you have verifiable (newspaper reference, video clip, etc.) evidence of that, PLEASE provide it. I cannot stomach a liar (which is why I didn’t support McCain and cannot support Perry), and I have never found Ron Paul to be a liar. But you say you have proof, and that would be a really BIG DEAL to me. If you provide it, I promise I will buy you dinner and eat my words.
Rick, you are completely offbase with the Rousseau and moral relativism remark. First, political structures follow philosophy and Ron Paul’s philosophy is not consistent with the idea of a Social Contract posited by Rosseau. Rossueau spoke of compelling men to be free by statist coercion-. Freedom meant freedom from “all personal dependence” on anything but the state–thus freedom from dependence on the family, the church or any other non-statist association. See page 206f of his Social Contract. That is a diatribe for centralization of power in the state. Ron Paul does not believe that, which is why he says that the family and church should be responsible for welfare–and also speaks often of personal responsibility. In other words, he believes in restoring authority to the other governing entities created by God, the family, the church, the self-governing man.– Rousseau said: “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men, and absolutely dependent upon the state: Which operation is always brought by the same means; for it is only by the force of the state that the liberty of its members can be secured.” To say Ron Paul has that philosophy is utterly absurd. Second, Ron Paul is not a moral relativist. He does not say that all behavior is equally moral. He believes that many laws that would prohibit immoral acts, such as murder of babies in the womb, are best handled at the local and state level, which is the approach our founders prescribed in the Constitution. To jettison those constitutional prescriptions is lawless. However, he also understands that some sins can be punished only by God and that the transformation of unregenerate men can be effected only by the Holy Spirit, which is why he discusses the fact that some laws can never be truly enforced by man without caging us all. That belief is completely in line with what John Howe, Cromwell’s pastor, said about those who think that redemption can come from man’s fiat. “There is as great an aptness to trust in other means and let out our hearts to them. An arm of flesh signifies a great deal, when the power of an Almighty Spirit is reckoned as nothing.” Ron Paul does not reckon that the Almighty spirit is nothing and that the arm of man should be used, and he realizes that the only One who can create by fiat is God. Ron Paul’s worldview is biblical in that and many other respects, and applies in all areas where he speaks of policy, like the monetary system, inflation, debt, limited government. All of those are addressed by the Bible. It is quite unfortunate that none of the other candidates even come close in this respect.
Ok, how much did Rick Perry pay you for this dribble?
Lol
“He is going to do well in Iowa only because no one has attacked him yet. As soon as people find out some of his more radical positions (legalizing drugs, practically cheering for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, those racists and anti-Israel newsletters, etc.)”
Only because? Sir, I disagree. The legalization of drugs was brought out in the last elections, as well as early GOP debates. He got silence when he said he was for legalizing drugs, but roaring applause when he explained why.
Ron Paul should have screened his newsletters better. But this 20 year old issue has already been “brought to light” by many members of the media (4 years ago too, I might add) and the other nominees. One of those nominees, Newt Gingrich, you have said we should forgive for his past. Should not Ron Paul be forgiven for a dangerous omission in newsletter articles that he didn’t pen?
“those few that are naïve enough to think that the radical terrorists will suddenly leave America alone if we just withdraw into our borders.”
This, sir, is a straw man argument. I do not believe he has ever said they would “suddenly leave America alone”. As Greg Duncan said, “America is the worst country in the world, except for all the others.’ I reference this to say that neither a policy of invading and maintaining a armed military presence in multiple countries NOR a policy of non-interventionism will keep all terror attacks from happening. However our multiple illegal wars and insulting “right to be here” military presence all over the world does bring blowback. Who, sir, gave us the authority to (as my favorite candidate has so often said) “police the world”?
Constitutionally speaking, by his own admission, Dr. Paul would not block congressionally declared wars. Is this not a win, constitutionally speaking?
“Any candidate who blames 9/11 on America does not understand history, does not represent anywhere near a majority of Americans, and should not be president.”
I am surprised at this statement. I am inclined to think that you haven’t actually listened to Ron Paul’s statements in regards to 9/11 with open ears, or you are so OK with him not being the nominee that you are OK with repeating the straw man arguments of the major media. Ron has been asked why he “blames America”, and he has explained that he is not saying that it was America’s fault directly, but that our actions had consequences. You wouldn’t argue that if you insulted a psychopath and he did terrible things to your wife that you were responsible for the terrible events. However, you wouldn’t deny that there is an indirect cause and effect insomuch as if you hadn’t insulted him, it probably wouldn’t have happened. We could make the argument more relevant, and say that the psychopath believed it was his responsibility to do these things to Texans. However, the discussion isn’t about whether or not there are other motivations, the discussion is about whether or not our actions had repercussions. Are the CIA wrong about blowback?
“If Ron Paul had lived in the late 1700’s, he would have loved the French Revolution far more than the American Revolution.”
Since you are so close with him, would you please ask him? And then listen to what he has to say, regardless of your existing beliefs about the subject?
“He wants to separate religion and moral values from public policy and it simply cannot be done.”
As an evangelical Christian (so you know where I’m coming from), I question your line of reasoning on this whole point. Now I know you have strongly held views about this topic, but I’d ask for your ear for a moment. I say that government is force. If policy is set and individuals violate it, the government will either fine the person or attempt to imprison them (assuming they get a trial – NDAA – sheesh). If the citizen refuses to pay the fine, they can be jailed for the “offense”. If the refuse to go to prison on either account, they will be violently forced to. If they defend themselves against their aggressors, they will be charged with further crimes and the violence would be equal or greater than if they resisted only.
I have never read a verse where God authorized the establishment of a human organization of force to make all people, Christian or not, adhere to Godly principles. If I remember right, he gave us free will because he wanted us to be virtuous. Virtue cannot be obtained when there is no choice.
It is for the above reasons that I agree with Dr. Paul. It should be noted that Dr. Paul has never said the he would restrict the states rights to legislate morally. However, as you well know sir, the constitution offers the Federal Government very little authority in regards to which crimes they have authority over, so long as there is no dispute between states. Ron Paul is running for president, an office that constitutionally speaking, has very little authority in regards to moral legislation.
“I pray that his patriotism will trump his ego and he will choose to back the republican nominee in order to save our nation from the devastation of four more years of Barack Obama.”
Sir, because of the both-sides-of-the-fence sitting and the unconstitutional power that the other top tier candidates have expressed that they believe they have in regards to war, I do not see any of the nominees except for Paul being an end to the Obama madness. In the only poll I saw on the subject, Dr. Paul was polled as having the only chance of beating Obama in Iowa. Mitt Romney is on both sides of the individual mandate for healthcare. Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong’s 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. His executive order regarding HPV vaccinations is appalling. Newt Gingrich is on both sides of so many issues I can’t believe it. Santorum’s gun rights record is terrible!
Penny, hey there! Hope you are doing well! The answer is a big fat ZERO! And I’m paying my own way to Iowa to help at the caucuses. Rick
Neville,
I don’t have time to go back and watch all the debates from 2008, but I know that in his efforts to win republican support he gave the impression he would not run or support a 3rd party candidate. Whether he parsed words the way you describe in your response, I really don’t recall. However, since you have to pledge not to run 3rd party in order to get on the ballot in many states, he knew he was not able to run, so I think his language is stronger than you are remembering, but perhaps weaker than I’m remembering…the point is that he led republicans to believe he was sticking with us and I hope he does so this time.
Rick
[I just re-read my comments below and I think they sound rather harsh, certainly more harsh than your own response. I am really not wanting to be harsh, but I believe your statements have strayed far over the line of truth and have broken the ninth commandment, which (especially on such a public stage) is a really really big deal. I don't know how to water down my rhetoric and still get the seriousness of my point across so I am going to have to leave it alone and ask you to understand.. -neville]
Rick, it sure sounds like you are backpedalling now. If you’re going to make a public statement calling the man a liar, then you should MAKE the time to check it out.
You have gone from ” I watched him say he would not run or support a 3rd party candidate” all the way to “gave [me] the impression”. It appears to me that your avowed pragmatism in voting colored your perception of what was said and you heard what you wanted to hear. I am not a pragmatist. In fact, I believe my duty is to vote for the most godly and best qualified candidate, and if a miracle is required after that then I know how to pray for that. I stand with John Quincy Adams, who said “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”
You are the only person that I have ever heard say they had the impression that Paul categorically said he would support the 2008 GOP nominee, and I know VERY many people who were listening carefully every time that subject came up. I was one of them.
Any particular state’s ballot access requirement is a total red herring – only a tiny handful of states have “sore loser” laws that affect Presidential elections, in some cases timing of the primary makes it a non-issue and in some it only governs running as an “independent” (“Declared Party” candidates are not restricted, and in some, even “fusion” candidates are allowed). Paul did not close off his option, but honestly stated (many, many times) that he had no plans or intention of going the 3rd party route.
Among ardent Paul supporters who would have been shocked at a pledge to support a theoretical GOP nominee when he so vehemently disagreed with the other candidates’ stated platforms, there was no such shock. I claim that it was because such a pledge never happened. Unfortunately, it is effectively impossible for me to examine every word that came out of his mouth in 2007/2008 and therefore I cannot actually prove your statement wrong. I can provide plenty of contrary evidence, but that is not a proof. You, however, are calling Paul a liar and a turncoat based on what you now admit is really something that you only think you recall inferring a certain way. That is not proof, and it is certainly not sufficient evidence on which to impugn someone’s character.
You have slandered the reputation-for-honesty of a good man. You need to either back it up with fact, or recant. I would not be surprised if people did this same (vile, unfair) thing to you in your race for the Texas Supreme Court. If I knew for certain of someone doing that to you, I would come down on them just as hard. It isn’t right. It isn’t Christian.
Tyler, forgive me for just now getting your post up…I’ve been traveling! You raise some good questions, but it’s almost 2am for me and I don’t have time to answer all of them, but if you’ll forgive the impersonal response, I will re-post here what I have said about several of the questions you raise:
You actually make my point for me when you say you can’t have liberty without choice…that is the secular libertarian view shared by the french revolutionaries. It is the Rousseau philosophy that EVERYTHING is within your choice, including the choice to do wrong, even when society has deemed that wrong choice unacceptable. Should you have the “choice” to murder your child in the womb? How about the “choice” of a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old? What about your “choice” to parade nude on the public sidewalk or beach in front of my kids? The real question is when does something cross the line to the point of justifying society to say it is not only immoral, but so immoral that the force of government should be used to stop it. Where Paul does not want religious ideas of right and wrong to influence the debate and where that line should be drawn, I (and the founding fathers by the way) would be further down the scale. There are MANY choices upon which I would agree with Dr. Paul are simply individual liberties, but I cannot agree with the libertines that it is liberty to do anything that seems right to the individual. there ARE moral absolutes and there ARE things that society should not allow and the basis for knowing right and wrong comes from the religious values the libertines want out of the equation. David, I must disagree with you on this as well. Is it okay for a state to allow slavery, murder, etc.? I think not.
Tyler as for your other post about insults, I was actually making the point, which you should appreciate, that such a description can NOT be applied to all Ron Paul supporters and gave some of the arguments for why some of my very smart friends are supporters and even talked about many of the things I like about the man. If you are a true Ron Paul fan, then you’ve been to some rallies and interacted with some of the ones I described, so you can’t honestly say they don’t exist. I was trying to hit that head on so that the readers of my blog that think ALL RP supporters are that way would stop for a second and listen to the good parts of Ron Paul and the good supporters. As for me saying Paul is whiney, I said the same thing about Santorum…I’m just giving an honest assessment of how the general public will view these candidates in the general election and that we need to consider those things…that’s just me being blunt and honest like I promise my readers I will do. I did the same thing with all 7 candidates, including the ones I support. I have probably been more brutally honest about the candidates I’d vote for than the other ones, that’s just my nature.
Tyler, see my response to your other comment… and by the way, some of things I’m getting called in the non-posted comments, I can’t post here on a family friendly site.
collectortoysrme@mail.com – wake up!!!! if i’m that boring, find another blog to read or say something to wake everyone up! P.S. I liked your comment better than any others on this post!
“oddball68@yahoo.com”, Your other posts will not be approved because they are nothing but insults, as is most of this one, but it was so funny I had to post it. And yes, I slept through a LOT of classes in school…just not the two you named. And just for the record, I love my momma and I think she did a pretty darn good job! And since you didn’t dig all the way down to “your mother wears combat boots,” you stayed just barely above the 1st grade level of rhetoric…congratulations!
Yes, you are right…I don’t like my record being misrepresented or distorted and I don’t like it when others are done that way either (like Bachmann has done to some of the candidates lately), so I will try to correct this if my own opinion of his message was taken as a direct quote…though I don’t think I did it as a quote, it was written as an interpretation (no quotation marks). However, I honestly don’t want to give a false impressions, so I’ll be more clear.
I didn’t back peddle intentionally, my recollection is that he was very clearly trying to alleviate the concerns of republican voters that he would run 3rd party or support 3rd party because that is STILL the white elephant in the room…that was a major concern in 2008 and is still a major concern today. Why is that? Because everyone knows that if he launches or supports a serious 3rd party candidate, then Obama gets 4 more years.
So, since I don’t have time to go track down those debate exchanges from 2008, I’ll just go ahead and apologize and retract and all that by modifying my statement (and I’ll do it on the actual blog as well) to say that IN MY OPINION he went out of his way to lead republican voters to believe that he was a republican and going to stay on the home team since that’s the uniform he had on.
Does that help?
Yes, Rick, it helps. And I very much appreciate your edits to the original blog post as well. Other than listening to you and David try to fit 60 minutes of words into 30 minutes of airtime, I don’t know you very well, and so I didn’t know what reaction to expect. I am very pleased to see you set the record straight.
I do still think you grossly misinterpreted Paul’s statements in 2008 and heard/saw things that you were hoping to hear/see, but I know how that can happen. I watched all (all, every minute, 2 or 3 times) of the 2010 Texas gubernatorial debates and am positive that I heard KBH herself pose the “will you promise to serve all 4 years” question to Rick Perry. But now I cannot turn it up anywhere (all I can turn up is the moderator posing the question). Still, I “know” I heard it. I even remarked to my family at the time that “whoa! That could be a big problem later”. But…. my recollection has failed me before, and could be doing so in the KBH instance, so I never tell that story without qualifying it.
I don’t think you should spend time worrying about Paul running on a 3rd party ticket. Although he has not 101% ruled it out, he has also not said (in my best RP voice) “Well, yeah, you know, that’s always an option”. He probably knows ballot-access laws better than any of the other candidates. Witness Gingrich and Perry in VA. He explained in 2008 that the sore-loser laws make it difficult (though not impossible) and probably not worth it. To avoid that, he would probably have to drop out before March to join in the Libertarian (or other) primary/caucuses, and he’s (so far) doing far too well to consider that, don’t you think? Anyway, so far this season, the 3rd-party angle is playing out almost exactly as it did in 2007/2008. But it could get more interesting. We might even see Baldwin running on the CP ticket again, as I don’t think the CP would nominate Johnson. In 2008, Paul was loyal to both of his friends Barr and Baldwin, and only officially endorsed Baldwin when Barr went postal on him (Paul). I can’t see either Baldwin or Johnson going postal on Paul, and I can’t see him publicly choosing between them.
Your worry about him not endorsing the GOP nominee (if that turns out to not be Paul) is very well founded, however. Paul seems to believe, as do I, that voting based on pragmatism is the equivalent of placing oneself in God’s shoes and on God’s throne for the day (well, maybe 5 minutes). I prefer to align myself with Gideon and John Quincy Adams – “Duty is ours; results are God’s”
Thanks again, Rick, for the open discussion. I am really sorry to hear about the insulting and vile comments you have been receiving. I suspect that Paul is thinking as I would, i.e. “No, I don’t agree with those people, but I’ll certainly take their $50 and keep it from going to someone else to use against me.”
By the way, I hope you noticed that the FB comments from Sharon are actually from me. That is my wife’s account. In the case you two should ever meet, please don’t hold it against her !