Although the media has decided Mitt Romney is the GOP front-runner and the winner of Saturday's debate at St. Anselm in New Hampshire, Ron Paul ain't doin' so bad. He had direct confrontation during the debate with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.
1. He took Rick Santorum to task on his corruption and lobbying. What Paul didn't mention is that Rick Santorum was a junior Senator and involved in meetings with famed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2006. Santorum was meeting regularly with Abramoff in 1996.
Paul did go on to mention Santorum's own lobbying career. The Huffington Post reports that Santorum earned $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. He became very wealthy doing what he describes as being a "board member" and working on behalf of his own interests. There's a fine line between pooling money to sway a vote and coming together in a group for your voice to be heard. Which do you think best describes Santorum's efforts?
2. He did a good job of deflecting his own racist views dispersed in newsletters several years ago to making a case for ending discrimination today. Although his racist views are documented in those newsletters, it doesn't mean he hasn't learned since then. Even Senator Byrd, a former KKK member, said years later that was the greatest mistake he ever made. Byrd also filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and later said he would go back and change that if he could. Does Paul still hold racist views or is there any indication, other than statements from the debate Saturday, that he has changed his views?
3. Comparing his voting record to that of Santorum, Paul is the true economic conservative. Santorum voted to increase the debt ceiling 5 times. Paul voted against the bank bailouts and has a record of not supporting big government spending. Paul states that fixing the economy requires a liquidation of the debt, something he's stated several times over the course of the campaign.
4. Paul pointed out that the United States became involved in the Iraq War without a Declaration of War from Congress and continues to invade Middle Eastern countries at will ever since. It is true that Bush violated the Constitution and got America involved in a war that was never declared. However, Paul seems to be the only one on the planet with the opinion that Iran is not a nuclear threat. Is he right or is he wrong on Iran?
In addition, Paul made a valid point calling Newt Gingrich a hypocrite for sending America's youth to war when he, himself, took several deferments to the draft. Gingrich went on the defensive stating that he was married with a child when he was drafted. To which, Ron Paul retorted that he was married with two children when he served. Would a President that has been to war give more thought and consideration to sending American troops into harm's way?
These are some things to think about when considering Ron Paul for President. He stood his ground and was, by far, the most aggressive candidate in the debate. When will he take on Mitt?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
That said, I cannot support Ron Paul. His quasi-skeptical view of global warming and apparent unawareness that every major scientific organization in the world is warning us shows that he does at least pander to the anti-science, far-right cult within the republican party. It also shows that even if he accepted the science, he has no political approach to such national (and global) problems. A weak federal government is inadequate to meet such problems, much less providing global leadership in doing so.
There are other issues I would agree with Ron Paul on, e.g., his foreign policy views and his stance re: the Muslims and religious liberty, the drug war and his position on legalizing hemp. If he could just get real about global warming and promise some leadership on that - then I could probably support him.
I think Mr. Paul trusted some people he ought not have trusted, William. We are talking about something in the neighborhood of ten thousands pages in the various newsletters published under his name. That he did not read them all carefully, is not an improbability to me, but a rather understandable probability. And allowing the "first person" voice several were published in, was the truly dumb mistake, I think.
It's not like a clear indication of either racist mentality, or habitual negligence, for goodness sake. And the man now sitting in the oval office, sat in a black liberation theology church for twenty years, and called the man he himself eventually denounced for bigoted views, his spiritual mentor . . So what's with the selective puritanical attitude about this? We all know these are extremely complex matters, that can in hindsight seem a lot more sinister than they really were.
The issue of Paul's newsletters is tangential compared to his response when asked about them. He prefers to discriminate on the basis of property rights, choosing to call it "liberty" rather than what it is. The proof is in the pudding. Either we are a country of diverse people with liberty and justice for all or we're not. The natural extension of Ron Paul's policies is that we're not.
I don't believe the racist charges. I still wouldn't support Paul. Like I indicated above, if I were to vote in the NH primary, I would vote for Huntsman. Unlike John, above, he takes science seriously.
Is he 'no longer' racist? He slams the Civil Rights Act as an attack on private property. Among Southern segregationists, 'private property rights' are a code for 'segregation'. As a 70-yer-old Texan, Paul cannot possibly be ignorant of that.
Something to think about.
I have much better reasons not to vote for Paul. The charges re: his alleged racism is a distraction.
I spend several hours at the library reaserching the articles, they were written he did say that, he has changed since those articles were written dating 1970's onwards.
Who's afraid of Ron Paul (with links)
Whether he is right on Iran or not his approach of disengagement is the correct one for a whole different reason. Read this post to see why.
Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
... Washington, DC
January 10, 2012
The United States condemns the Iranian Government’s decision to begin enrichment operations at its Qom facility, an act contrary to its obligations under multiple United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions. This step once again demonstrates the Iranian regime's blatant disregard for its responsibilities and that the country's growing isolation is self-inflicted.
The circumstances surrounding this latest action are especially troubling. Iran only declared the Qom facility to the IAEA after it was discovered by the international community following three years of covert construction. Iran has announced it intends to consolidate and increase its production of uranium enriched to a near 20 percent level at this facility. There is no plausible justification for this production. Such enrichment brings Iran a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.
Iran claims that this decision was necessary to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This is false. The P5+1 has offered alternatives for providing fuel for the TRR despite Iran’s longstanding refusal to fulfill its international nuclear obligations. Iran has refused these offers.
We call upon Iran to immediately cease uranium enrichment and to comply with its international nuclear obligations. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations with the P5+1, prepared to engage seriously on its nuclear program, and urge Iran to reply to this effect to High Representative Ashton’s letter from October 2011. We reaffirm that our overall goal remains a comprehensive, negotiated solution that restores confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
I think it was Santorum that said, "we should be shoulder to shoulder with Israel with no daylight between us."
Because we are so tight with Israel, don't we HAVE to go to war?
I think Iran is working overtime on their enrichment program because they know Obama won't do anything right now and risk his re-election. So, we are hands off for now.
I also think Iran knows that any one of these Republicans WILL send troops in or at the very least bomb them from the air to destroy their nuclear facilities (except for Ron Paul).
If you think we should stay out of Iran, and Paul does not win the nomination, you have to vote for Obama. He's your only chance of staying OUT of war.
Yes I happen to be a crazy evangelical who believes that we have caused enough trouble for Israel and getting our tail out of there is the best our politicians can do since trading influence for oil is what the Arabs have done and will continue doing to us in our relationship with Israel.
Also I study prophecy and I know from the Bible that Israel will outlast the USA because God himself is the keeper of Israel not pitiful politicians in Washington who talk a big talk but keep selling out Israel and its interests for oil.