Thread: Ron Paul - The GOP's Rodney Dangerfield

Someone just emailed me this article:


The GOP's Rodney Dangerfield
By Chuck Muth
CNSNews.com Commentary
May 07, 2007

The ten announced GOP presidential candidates gathered at the
Reagan Library last Thursday to show off their stuff for the
first time to a generally disinterested nation.

Without dwelling on the relative merits of the field or how they
handled themselves at what can only loosely be described as a
"debate," I do want to talk about the one candidate who is
deserving of far greater attention by Republicans, but who has,
to this point, gotten the least respect -- Congressman Ron Paul.

The GOP debate was broadcast on MSNBC, and an online post-debate
survey of over 50,000 people conducted on the network's website
clearly showed Ron Paul came out ahead.

Yet one post-debate columnist referred to the congressman simply
as a "gadfly," and a Fox News pundit who published a wrap-up
assessment this weekend didn't mention Paul at all. I'll return
the favor by not mentioning the pundit's name, but he wrote about
three of the other nine candidates using words such as "losers,"
"dull," "unattractive," "boring" and "bland." So maybe Paul
should be thankful for small favors.

But Ron Paul's candidacy deserves far greater attention and
consideration by national Republicans who have clearly lost their
way. GOP leaders in Washington who are still shell-shocked over
the shellacking they took last November should stop scratching
their heads and asking "What happened?" and start listening to
Ron Paul. His campaign is all about the reasons so many
limited-government conservatives stayed home or voted for a
non-GOP option last fall.

For those of you who don't know much about Congressman Paul, here
are a few facts: He's a doctor. He's run for president before; in
1988 as the nominee for the Libertarian Party. He's solidly
pro-life and makes a Constitution-based argument for his
position. He's also earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Washington
because he won't vote for any bill which isn't authorized by the
Constitution. As columnist Joe Sobran notes, "When the House
votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the
1."

Indeed, the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as
being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry
Goldwater.

Jefferson wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide
for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
Goldwater famously wrote, "I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it
is constitutionally permissible." Paul explains on his website
that he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure
is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Birds of a feather.
Peas in a pod.

And for all the candidates trying to position themselves as the
one, true heir to the Reagan mantle, John Fund of Political Diary
reminds us that "Dr. Paul has been in and out of Congress since
1976, when he was one of only four GOP House members to endorse
Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford."

This bears repeating: "One of only four GOP House members to
endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford." In
other words and to borrow a phrase, Dr. Paul was a Reaganite long
before being a Reaganite was cool.

This is a "gadfly"? This is a Republican who warrants no mention?

Consider Ron Paul's position on Iraq. He's unique in that he was
against the war before he was against the war, unlike all the
Democrats (save Kucinich) who were for the war before they were
against it. But also unlike the Democrats, Ron Paul's opposition
to the war is rooted in our nation's founding history, not
political expedience or pacifism. In explaining his consistent
anti-war position, Dr. Paul notes the non-interventionist
policies of the Founding Fathers.

Wasn't it that early-American "gadfly" George Washington who
warned our fledgling nation not to "entangle our peace and
prosperity" in the affairs of foreign nations?

When asked during Thursday's debate if, as president, he would to
phase out the IRS, Rep. Paul responded, "Immediately." But he
added that "you can only do that if you change our ideas about
what the role of government ought to be," noting the IRS will be
around as long as citizens think "government has to take care of
us from cradle to grave." That might be the sign of a "gadfly" to
liberals and Democrats (but I repeat myself repeat myself), but
it is quintessentially conservative and what was once, long ago,
quintessentially Republican.

When asked "yes" or "no" on the emotional issue of embryonic stem
cell research funding, Paul remained consistent and
constitutional, responding that "Programs like this are not
authorized under the Constitution." How Jeffersonian. How
Goldwateresque.

When asked whether or not he trusted the mainstream media, Rep.
Paul responded: "Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot
more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we
should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never
voted to regulate the Internet."

On the notion of turning America into a "Papers, please" nation,
Rep. Paul declared, "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID
card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all
about."

And showing he's not all wonk and no play, when asked if Bill
Clinton being back in the White House would be a good thing for
America, Paul deadpanned, "I voted to impeach him, so..."
Laughter all around.

In announcing his presidential campaign earlier this year, Paul
said, "I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong
direction." That assessment is unassailable. It's also the reason
why so many conservative Republicans are cutting up their GOP
membership cards and re-registering as independents or with third
parties.

If national Republicans want to stop this bleeding of grassroots
support, they'd better start giving the views and presidential
candidacy of Ron Paul a lot more respect.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.a ... ary/archiv\
e/200705/COM20070507a.html

In announcing his presidential campaign earlier this year, Paul
said, "I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong
direction." That assessment is unassailable. It's also the reason
why so many conservative Republicans are cutting up their GOP
membership cards and re-registering as independents or with third
parties.

If Dr. Paul continues to gain this kind of support, it makes one wonder if more Reps may switch to the Constitutional party.