What's wrong with Ron Paul?

I've listened, for some time now, to a local radio talk show host sing the praises of Ron Paul.  And for a good while there he made a convincing case for the man.  I like the idea of someone who takes the constitution seriously especially as it relates to keeping big government in check.  But then I started reading some things being said by a few respected bloggers and I followed some links to some seriously kooky people who were big Ron Paul fans.  I started to think a little differently about the man.

Today I came across this Mick Wright post and I think I can confidently say that he's speaking for me about Mr. Paul:

Ron Paul is one of only a few members of Congress who always votes according to his principles, and truly believes in Constitutional limits on the power of government. On spending, on taxes, on freedom from an overbearing government, he’s great. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in always putting America first.

Where I disagree with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a million dollar grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect. Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.

On foreign policy and trade, I disagree totally with Ron Paul. He is an isolationist and is against free trade, while I believe that 9/11 calls for increased involvement (at least diplomatically) and more trade with other nations.

Some of Paul’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. A fair concern, to be sure, but ultimately unjustified in my view. For me, it reveals that Ron Paul has the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. I think his policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.

I’ve read some of his articles and speeches, and he also seems to be a bit of a conspiracy nut. And so it doesn’t surprise me that the people supporting him most, at least around here, are the John Birchers, the folks who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional,” etc. These are folks I agree with 99%, but who consider me liberal.

No offense, though, if you like him. Because, like I said, he really does have some great qualities.

I do think a lot can be deduced about someone by simply observing who it is that is passionate about what that someone has to say.  Ron Paul is backed by too many people I consider to be a bit kookish and he does little, very little, to distance himself from them.

That's a problem.

Comments

[Vich]

"Ron Paul is backed by too many people I consider to be a bit kookish and he does little, very little, to distance himself from them."

He's up front about his own political stances. Imputing the beliefs of others (notice how the liberty message attracts people from all different political views except statists and imperialists) to him is a mistake for that reason. He needs not agree with all of his supporters and all of their views. They are drawn to him by at least part of his message. He is not drawn to them because of theirs.

The guilt by association argument is weak logic.

[Buckwheat]

"He is an isolationist and is against free trade, while I believe that 9/11 calls for increased involvement (at least diplomatically) and more trade with other nations."

A more accurate term than "isolationism" for Dr. Paul's foreign policy is "military non-interventionism." Paul believes in spreading America's values to the world, but only through trade, diplomacy, and example, not by force of arms.

Dr. Paul is the strongest supporter of free trade in the U.S. congress. The confusion comes because he opposes such Orwellian-named agreements such as NAFTA, which is managed trade favoring politically-connected corporations, the furthest thing imaginable to free trade. Similary, Paul opposed the regulatory and falsely-named "Net Neutrality Act."

WRT Paul, you always need to do your own research. Lots of false things are written about his positions, either through carelessness or, now that he's getting so much support, something less benign.

[Monkey]

So, which candidate has 100% squeaky-clean supporters? If you know, please tell us so we can vote for them instead! Americans are diverse. People are corrupt, greedy, selfish, and sometimes downright evil. Do you look at the political bumper sticker of the person that cut you off in traffic and decide you aren't going to support that candidate? Your vote is one better not cast. But, as a member of an extremely diverse club called America, you have the right to vote stupid

[bret]

The guilt-by-association argument is not only weak logic, it's a cop out. Be honest with yourself. If you don't like his message, then be honest and say so: for example, say "I prefer to spread democracy on the point of a sword" or "taxes are necessary to sustain the bureacracy" or "people are too stupid to take care of themselves, we must have a welfare state to do it for them." If in fact that is what you believe, don't shift the blame for your position to some racists or truthers or whoever you believe to be kooky.

I'll note, we live in a country where it is, at least for now, legal to be a kook. Thank God for that.

If you think Fred Thompson is the answer, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. The other candidates are all the same, Paul is the only people's candidate in the race. But more importantly, Paul is the only one spreading The Message. And that is what is critically important. You sure don't see Fred doing anything like that. He claims to want the power of the presidency. In my mind, that alone disqualifies him. You'd never hear Paul say that - and I have heard it from his own mouth, that he really didn't want to run. This is our campaign, he's just our figurehead. And that is what a president ought to be.

[StarCMC]

Excellent points and right on the mark.

[Raymond]

Ummm CATO gave ron paul a score of 86 out of 100 on free trade ( one of the highest score for the entire house ). NATO isnt free trade.

[Dave]

How are Ron Paul's supporters kookish? As I read the blogs, I am finding honesty, liberty-mindedness, and a part of this country that I thought was long since dissolved. If these are "kooks" then I think we need a lot more kooks. I take it you have not heard any kooks in the Hillary or the Obama camp - huh? Those are the kooks supreme. I have to say, I had not looked at his candidacy seriously in the recent past. I am starting to look at his attempts to be heard more seriously now.

[David Neuman]

Nah - we're better off with a Hillary or Obama. Good for the Country!!!

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Supreme Court declares something to be unconstitutional, I'm usually going to be given an amendment number or an article-section-clause citation I can go look up. And then, even if I disagree with the outcome, I can usually follow the logic. Even if it comes from John Paul Stevens.

Scalia's method is particularly convincing when he writes his dissents. He will presume the majority, his opposition, to be correct adn simply follow that argument to a logical conclusion, in so doing leaving it up to the reader to see how absurd it gets.

Ron Paul simply says things "don't seem to be authorized by the constitution" and leaves it at that. Granted as a Congressman he has less of an obligation to cite his source, but you reach a point where the "constitution" thing is just a figure of speech and nothing more. I think he's crossed it. Very few Ron Paul fans show me any evidence at all they've even read any part of the U.S. Constitution. He's become just another zany anti-war zealot who happens to be opposed to abortion as well.

[Mommynator]

Since when is it NOT prudent to see who a man's friends and supporters are? He has been backed by white supremacists, pimps and whores. How is that NOT weird?

You can yell "constitutional" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't mean that your views are.

Mr. Freeberg, as usual, summarizes well and this article is an excellent exposition of a certifiable nutcase who should not be in charge of anything.

Well, I don't think that anyone claimed Ron Paul has been perfect all his life...He's not being compared to Jesus. (Although if he were, Jesus also hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves)And I have a hard time believing most of the "bigot" accusations anyway...especially after hearing him talk on Leno the other night. He kind of "got after" people for choosing to not support Romney because of his being Mormon, saying that that was wrong and not the right reason.

Anyhow, I am supporting him because of ALL his views. He has an incredible stand on all sorts of issues. Parents gaining back control of education,pro-life, lowering taxes, being able to do so by ending certain federal agencies such as CIA, dept of education, and the IRS. People may not realize that these have not always been around, and if we as a nation "create" something, we should be able to "dissolve" it as well. One of the ways he would help out with the high gas prices is by eliminating the federal tax on it ($.81/gallon). And, we do a LOT of global policing. I have a brother in Iraq who is highly opposed to the whole thing. He is in his second tour over there and an officer of notable rank. When he was in training in Ft Riley...he noted that all of the people he met there had been in Iraq several times,and also in Afghanistan, etc. They are all exhausted and want to be with their families. Why are we as a nation so selfish to not see that they have lives too? This "war" has been going on now for 5 years, and we don't have a large military anymore. Listening to the debates in SC I wonder why all of the candidates believe so much that the US can "Not be Defeated", the Romans used to have a similar mindset.

I think the mainstream media is scared of Ron Paul...I really don't know why, and I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but have you ever seen such blatant unfair and unbalanced media coverage? Who owns these companies, and what do they have to hide, or lose? Something smells with this whole thing. I'm beginning to feel like our country is no longer free at all, but rather slaves to our apathetic past.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

I had an interesting exchange with one of my readers after agreeing with Ace, who had just gotten done cleaning all the meat off Ron Paul's wishbone.

There are some perfectly valid arguments for halting or curtailing our aid to Israel, but once a candidate declares that to be his intention it should have been foreseen from a LONG ways off what unsavory bedfellows he would eventually make. And Dr. Paul's made them. I have no sympathy for him at all here, in fact, if it's made some problems for him at this late hour I'd say he's been on the receiving end of less grief than he's had coming.

[Tom Osborne]

Your man Freeberg, in effect, must be advocating more of the same old, same old, which is an increasing encroachment of an ever-more powerful state on either the fascist or the socialist side, so "we the people" are being squeezed by two different jaws of the same pincer. Many, many different types of people are not going to like that, from good citizens to bad. Fortunately, virtually all of the readers making comments here really do get it.

Also, Freeberg should be careful about repeating mainstream media propaganda. I think who THEY want in office is definitely not who Freeberg would want.

And Mommynator might want to read the Constitution (again). She would see how quite clear it is in its enumerations and would therefore understand that all Scalia does (with his obvious contempt for the people) is obfuscation.

Unlike most of the other candidates, Ron Paul is not the lesser of two evils, he is actually a good (Thompson's not evil, either).

Freeberg recommends a politics of compromise instead of principle, but when the house votes are 434-1 or some such numbers, just what compromise does Freeberg expect Paul to make?

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Goodness gracious, it's amazing how much these Ron Paul fans know about the things I do and what motivates me to do them, simply because I don't support this candidate.

Your man Freeberg, in effect, must be advocating more of the same old, same old...Freeberg should be careful about repeating mainstream media propaganda...Freeberg recommends a politics of compromise instead of principle...

Dude, I just think your candidate is a crackpot.

Also, what part of the Constitution do you think Mommynator has missed? I'm curious about that one...