« Primary Colors: Voting for Dr. No | Home | Quote of the Day: Think before you speak… »
Primary Colors: Ron Paul a terrible choice
By cement mixer | December 30, 2007
Ron Paul claims to be leading a revolution for liberty with his anti-establishment campaign. But Ron Paul is no freedom fighter. He’s not even a good choice for president. In fact, I think he would be a terrible choice.
The Ron Paul Revolution is based on hatred for government spending, specifically earmarks, and opposition to the war in Iraq. My position towards Ron Paul had been one of conflicting emotions. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of smaller government and the elimination of earmarks. But I disagree completely with Ron Paul’s view on Iraq. And thus I was torn on the question of supporting Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” answered that question. Paul reiterated his perfect voting record against earmarks. However, Russert pointed out that Paul has requested federal dollars for his district in the form of water projects, a hospital expansion and even Texas shrimp promotion. Paul proudly proclaimed that he had voted against the final version of the bills containing these earmarks, yet those bills would not have contained the earmarks without Paul’s request. To this charge, Paul argued that because citizens of his district had paid taxes, these were “tax credits,” and he takes all of those. The double-standard could not be more obvious. To everyone else, they are evil earmarks. To Ron Paul, they are deserved tax credits.
The revelation of hypocrisy removed my main attraction to Ron Paul. On foreign policy, I always have believed that Ron Paul is absolutely wrong. He opposed the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, apparently content to consign 50 million human beings to a lifetime of oppression. If that’s not enough, he does not believe that the American military should be deployed abroad, to foreign bases. Ron Paul seeks a retreat of American forces into the safe confines of the United States of America, to watch as regions explode in war and to wait until that war is brought to our streets in another terrible tragedy.
Such actions do not support our brave men and women serving in uniform. These soldiers risk their lives daily, not just for the freedom of Afghanis and Iraqis, but to defend the freedom that you and I hold dear. But those who have voluntarily placed their lives in harm’s way for the Constitution that Ron Paul idolizes simply are evidence of unconstitutional aggression. How utterly disrespectful, to hide behind the Constitution and yet not honor those who are its protectors. Ron Paul is no freedom fighter; he fights those who actually are.
Then there is the issue of Ron Paul’s leadership. Though he has been known as “Dr. No” for almost 20 years in the United States Congress, Ron Paul usually is still the lonely vote against earmark-laden bills. In almost 20 years, Ron Paul has failed to persuade a single person to his cause. How is he supposed to implement his grand plans of eliminating departments and ending the income tax when he cannot garner congressional support now?
And so the Ron Paul Revolution is exposed as sounding brass and cymbals, all noise and no tangible substance. A candidate beset by hypocrisy, spiteful of the military and lacking leadership.
All this explains why Ron Paul would be a terrible choice for president.
Topics: Presidential Primary, Campaign 2008, Republican Presidential contenders, Ron Paul, Primary Colors |
