CR Nation

I’m not particularly interested in running for president.

- Current Republican presidential primary candidate, Fred Thompson

Why would you vote for someone that apparently doesn’t care?…

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.

I want a candidate the places more emphasis on freedom than political pragmatism – pragmatism is best left to individuals.

I want a candidate that places more emphasis on liberty in making political decisions than he does on his own re-election or the re-election or members of his own party. When decsisions are made on what his best for a re-election, principle is exchanged for power and our country is worse off for it.

I want a candidate that is not part of the Washington status-quo establishment. I want someone who is an independent thinker, who is not afraid to anger a narrow constituency or interest group in order to do what is right for freedom and liberty.

I want a candidate that will return our country to a “constitutionally-sized” government and will govern by the law and the policy of the constitution, which requires freedom, liberty, federalism and small government

I want a candidate that believes what he says and say what he means. I don’t want I candidate that says things to please certain people in order to get elected.

I belive Ron Paul’s record supports all these things.

Ron Paul is for a small federal government. For a simple small government conservative like me, that is enough.

After resisting Democratic led efforts to expand the popular State Children Heatlh Insruance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion by exercising his veto pen twice, President Bush signed a bill reauthorizing, not expanding, the program at its current spending levels until March 2009.

As you may remember, Bush vetoed the SCHIP expansion because it was funded through a tax increase on tobacco, but for the tax to create the revenue needed to meet the spending level, an additional 22 million American would have to become smokers. How much sense does that make?

Bush also vetoed the SCHIP expansion because it would cover kids who already have private insurance. If the goal is to cover the most needy, i.e. those without insurance, than why spend tax dollars to cover kids who already have insurance. By attempting to shift kdis from private insurance to the government rolls, Democrats intended to slowly create an environment where adults expect provisions from the government because they received them as children. Bush smelled this socialist rat, at vetoed the bill twice due to this provision.

Lastly, Bush vetoed the bill because it covered children of illegal aliens and adults. SCHIP is a program for American children. Illegal aliens and adults should not receive SCHIP benefits.

This is a win for Bush because he drew a line, stuck to it, and was backed up by Republicans in Congress who upheld his veto. Winning this policy battle, as well as several others (Iraq, energy, etc) will force Democrats to work with Republicans in Congress and Bush, or win enough votes in the Senates to obtain cloture – which is unlikely, or just not pass any legislation. In 2007, the Democrats chose the latter, and their approval ratings and electoral hopes have suffered because of it.

In 2008, Democrats (if they are smart) will work with Republicans which ensures conservative solutions to problems will become a part of legislation. This is a result of Bush’s policy wins in 2007.