Representative Ron Paul - will he make a difference in the Republican primaries?

[Universe Prince]

Excerpted from "Ron Paul, the Real Republican?" by Radley Balko:

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents. For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly. This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.

[...]

Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone will make them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the continuing disaster that is the drug war, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone will differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage. But Paul can then swing to the right of every other candidate on federal spending, regulation, the Nanny State, and the growth of government. On these issues, he can reliably and credibly serve as the party's conscience, and browbeat the sitting senators and congressmen running for president for their votes issues like the prescription drug benefit, the surge in federal spending, and the party's complicity in the corrupt earmarking process.

[...]

Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the princples of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them). Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution. How well he does, how long he lasts, and who ends up defeating him will reveal whether there's any limited government allegiance at all still stirring the Republican Party.

So the question is, will Ron Paul be able to influence the Republican campaigns for President or not? Does he bring something to the race for President that we ought to see, or is he the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich, too far out there to be taken seriously? If he is not to be taken seriously, what does this say, if anything, about the Republican Party's supposed commitment to limited government?

[Universe Prince]

Hello?

[hnumpah]

Hang in there, UP. I read it, just ain't digested it all yet. Though from what is in the article (hang on, quick check, lemme be sure I am in the right thread), I like what I read about him. Especially this: ...He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly...

I wish all of the members of both houses would do that.

[Plane]

   Should the Congress just pass a lot less law?

    And all that they do pass should be more simple?

    I like what I have just read about Ron Paul , but there seems to be a demand frm the public that the Congress work harder.

    I think I would vote for a guy who promised to clean up and repeal some of the stacks of old law.

[hnumpah]

Should the Congress just pass a lot less law?

I think congress should stick to laws the Constitution authorizes them to pass - you know, to regulate commerce, pass tariffs, provide for the common defense - the ones that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Everything else, according to the Constitution, should be left up to the states to decide for themselves.

[sirs]

I think I would vote for a guy who promised to clean up and repeal some of the stacks of old law.

Count me in, on that campaign       

[Universe Prince]

Should the Congress just pass a lot less law?

No, but that would be a baby step in the right direction.

[Universe Prince]

Count me in, on that campaign

Okay, so would you vote for Ron Paul for President? And does he have a chance of influencing the race?

[Universe Prince]

I wish all of the members of both houses would do that.

Me too.

[BT]

Okay, so would you vote for Ron Paul for President? And does he have a chance of influencing the race?

No and no.

He will have no more influence than Kucinich or Sharpton and less influence than Ross Perot had.

[Universe Prince]

Okay, why wouldn't you vote for him? And as I asked previously, if Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously, what does this say, if anything, about the Republican Party's supposed commitment to limited government?

[Plane]

Okay, why wouldn't you vote for him? And as I asked previously, if Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously, what does this say, if anything, about the Republican Party's supposed commitment to limited government?

   I would need to be more familiar with him than I am , I like the bit you introduced him with , so I might look up more .


    Lots of people don't really look deep into a potential canadate tho , and must be spoonfed the bit that they do learn .


     This is usually done with large investments of cash.

[BT]

Okay, why wouldn't you vote for him?

Because he is a libertarian. If i wanted to vote for a libertarian i would vote for the libertarian candidate.

What has Ron Paul accomplished as far as limiting government, i mean other that inserting speeches into the congressional record?

Show me some tempering influence he has had on legislation emanating from DC. Show he is more than someone jeering from the bleachers.

[sirs]

Okay, so would you vote for Ron Paul for President? And does he have a chance of influencing the race?

A) I'd like to know more about the guy to pull that lever at this moment, but at least I've got some positive vibes going his direction

B) Probably not, but one can hope

[Universe Prince]

What has Ron Paul accomplished as far as limiting government, i mean other that inserting speeches into the congressional record?

By himself you mean? Without the support of all those other Republicans who campaigned on limiting the size of government? Given the size of the government, gee, I guess not a whole lot. But for some reason I find him more trustworthy than the other Republicans for whom limiting government is just a phrase to scam votes. Maybe that is because Congressman Paul's votes actually back up his words.

Show me some tempering influence he has had on legislation emanating from DC. Show he is more than someone jeering from the bleachers.

Well he has co-sponsored a number of bills that would have restricted the war on drugs, and generally voted against government expanding legislation. He is also now the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, which should help increase his influence. And since returning to Congress in 1996, he has been reelected 5 times, running unopposed in 2004 and winning by a 20% margin in 2006, so the man must be doing something right. I realize none of this will satisfy you, but frankly, this "jeering from the bleachers" bit seems silly. You have, if recall correctly, criticized the Libertarian Party for sitting on the sidelines and not trying to get involved in the major parties. Ron Paul has been elected to Congress as a Republican, is trying to effect change from within the system, and you're still complaining about "jeering from the bleachers". Apparently you're not satisfied unless someone just pays lip-service to limited government.

Which brings me back to the question you still have not addressed. If Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously, what does this say, if anything, about the Republican Party's supposed commitment to limited government? Where are the other Republicans who are accomplishing limiting government? Who are they? Show me these sterling bastions of limited government virtue. Show me these politicians who have voted more consistently to limit government than Ron Paul. I'm not saying Paul has to be the front runner, but if Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously as a Republican candidate for President, that indicates to me the notion of the Republican Party as the party of limited government is a farce and a lie. Maybe you want to throw your support behind that because that is the way to win votes, but I do not.

And given the results of the 2006 elections, I'm not so sure that farce is the way to win votes. Let's see, a bunch of Republicans lost their seats in Congress while Ron Paul won his reelection by a 20% margin. Hm...