Is Ron Paul the perfect challenger?
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and his candidacy for the presidency have reached a point of such popularity amongst conservatives, libertarians and even some liberals that you’d think he was a candidate for canonization as well.
I might have invested my enthusiasm with the senator from Illinois in the last race to the White House, but I was still enthralled by Paul and his book “The Revolution.” Honest is a word I would have used to describe the Texan, a descriptor I don’t often afford to politicians. However, as time passed, I began to notice cracks in the paladin’s armor.
Possibly related:
- Tech a relationship nuisance · Dec 14
- Letter to the Editor: Gaddafi · Nov 2
- Budget matter of quality vs. price · Oct 23
- Abortion discussion complex · Oct 19
- 'We need to teach values' · Sep 11
I remember a video on YouTube in which conservative thinker and writer, William F. Buckley, Jr. appeared to thoroughly dismantle Paul’s reasoning for wanting to dismantle the FBI and the CIA.
This is when I started to process Paul through the same kind of political analysis I had scrutinized every other candidate with–an act I don’t believe is often carried out by the fanatical sect of Paul’s supporters.
A second breach of the armor was made after I noticed a little bit of uneasiness with Paul’s support for same-sex marriage. I know Paul has stated he doesn’t have any opposition to same-sex marriage, however, his support is never voiced without this small caveat: “So long as they didn’t ‘impose’ their relationship on anyone else.”
Does Paul really believe gays and lesbians want to impose their relationships on other people? If not, then why make such an admonition, as he does so frequently in his responses?
The second part of his response, in which he would allow for states to solve the issue is no more acceptable, and is a deviation from his philosophy of libertarianism.
I understand Paul’s inclination towards state’s rights, however, that doesn’t excuse his belief gays and lesbians should have to petition states for the same rights as everyone else. Even if they were to succeed as they have, and probably will in further territories, same-sex couples would still be denied some of the benefits that marriage entails.
I’ve also heard Paul voice the idea that marriage should be left to the private sector, which doesn’t seem at all feasible or desirable.
“Republican presidential candidates are issuing biting and sustained attacks on the federal courts and the role they play in American life, reflecting and stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary,” read the introduction to a New York Times article regarding the candidates’ philosophy on the judiciary.
“Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices,” it continued. “Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage.”
“Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary,” said Paul in the article. The statement seemed so at odds with Paul’s avowal of strict interpretation of the Constitution. It seemed downright unconstitutional.
I understand why Paul said this while he was in Iowa, his attempt to appeal to caucus voters who were irate over the state Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage may have helped him secure his status in the race, but his followers should really question that position.
Unfortunately, Paul’s position on same-sex marriage or his ideas on the judiciary most likely won’t be challenged or questioned–at least not by his most ardent supporters who should find themselves in the curious position of agreeing with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
- |
by Mary
Seriously. You will sacrifice the issues of 1) instigating world war 3 with Iran (and her allies, China and Russia), 2) continuing to rape the American middle class via the Federal Reserve, and 3) destroying our economy by allowing corporations to remove all decent-paying jobs and relocating them to China or Columbia at pennies on the dollar… because you are worried that Ron Paul isn’t stern enough about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
Not.
Flag for moderationby Nathan
Mary, that comment is awesome!!!
Flag for moderationby Tim
This article is about as good as the “China Jon Huntsman” video.
Flag for moderationby geyon k.,
by Matthew Good
I am not going to speak for Paul, but as for myself I too agree that I shouldn’t impose my beliefs on others and they shouldn’t impose their beliefs on me. By impose I mean making the government do what someone else wants me to do. If I don’t want to call you married who cares? Why should married couples receive benefits from the government in the first place? Marriage is a shared decision between the people involved, not the people and the government.
Flag for moderationby libertylover
I’m a passionate Ron Paul supporter and I agree with him completely. The government should not be involved in marriage. If people can find a church to marry them they should be considered married.
As for your priorities on who to elect. I would hope that you would take the factor’s that Mary mentioned into consideration as I believe they are a bit more pressing.
Flag for moderationby kj
Ron Paul’s ardent supporters know his views on same sex marriage and the ‘don’t impose them on me’ goes to the argument that religions have the right to define their own sacraments in faith, not law. He thinks government should be out of it altogether and people who want to marry should do so by private contract or through a church that voluntarily recognizes it.
Flag for moderationby Mythic Mystic
Paul doesn’t care if you get married to whoever you love, he just thinks the government shouldn’t be involved. And without the FED Reserve, why would you need to tell the government you are Married anyway, not for Tax reasons for sure. Love thy neighbor, keep an eye on your government. As bad as Americans can be about certain groups, we have the ability to be just as good. Dr. Paul will bring about an environment that we can get these issues on the table and figured out in a sane and rational way. Ron Paul is not above changing his mind about something when a good constitutional argument can be presented. You want a rational president or Obamney?
Flag for moderationby George
Dr. Paul doesn’t believe government should be in the marriage business and believes ideally it is a matter that should be left to the individuals themselves, though he would respect the right of the different states to decide how they want to individually handle the matter. He also has proposed a legal instrument that is similar to a civil union.
Flag for moderationby Bryan
No GOP candidate can win without Ron Paul Supporters! PERIOD! Mitt said he would have ‘Signed 2012 NDAA’ as president. He just lost all Ron Paul Supporters. The second the GOP rejects Paul by not electing him as their nominee, the Libertarian Party will put in on the ballet in all 50 states. Dr. Paul doesn’t even have to run as a 3rd party. He will be written in and we will vote Ron Paul! It’s you choice GOP. Ron Paul or Obama!
Flag for moderationby Really?
What is marriage really? It is you and your spouse going before God (whoever yours is) and saying you will be faithful to one another. Marriage is a bond between two people, overseen by the Creator (and Punisher). The government has no place in it period. Tax breaks to be married? If you are getting married to skip out on some taxes, you’re getting married for the wrong reason.
So if a same-sex couple can find a preacher to marry them, good for them. Why do you need the privilege from the state? Find a lawyer to draw up some property documents and you are good to go.
Flag for moderationby Bryce
Dr. Paul’s reasoning behind marriage has been thoroughly explained and you missed the concept completely. He thinks marriage is a Church/Religious function, not a Government matter.
“William F. Buckley, Jr. appeared to thoroughly dismantle Paul’s reasoning for wanting to dismantle the FBI and the CIA.”
Not only is that statement redundant, but it’s really misguided. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard Paul say he’d immediately dismantle the FBI/CIA, and it’s not in his “Plan to Restore America.” There are plently of veterans and even the CIA’s head of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, who have endorsed Paul’s sensible foreign policy.
Flag for moderationby Stinson
i still don’t understand this argument. what rights are the gays missing? to call their union “marriage”??? call it what ever you want… why would this be a federal issue? therefor something that the president would concern them self with. no matter what kind of “marriage” you participate in (same sex or not) this is a private matter and government on all levels should stay out of it.
Flag for moderationby Kenneth Barna
Dear Friends,
Flag for moderationI don’t know how many times I have to tell you Ron Paul supporters, America cannot return to the gold standard because there is not enough gold in the world to facilitate it. This is Mr. Paul’s response to the Federal Reserve.
I have no idea who wants to go to war with Iran on the democratic side, but you have a lot of loony tunes on the republican side that want to do that.
You have to have consistency when it comes to marriage laws. That means a federal law stating that gay people have the right to be married regardless of the state in which they reside. That way they are protected in their marriage, especially if they were to move to a state where gay marriages are not recognized, if state laws were to prevail.
by Kenneth Barna
Dear Friends,
Flag for moderationI don’t know how many times I have to tell you Ron Paul supporters, America cannot return to the gold standard because there is not enough gold in the world to facilitate it. This is Mr. Paul’s response to the Federal Reserve.
I have no idea who wants to go to war with Iran on the democratic side, but you have a lot of loony tunes on the republican side that want to do that.
You have to have consistency when it comes to marriage laws. That means a federal law stating that gay people have the right to be married regardless of the state in which they reside. That way they are protected in their marriage, especially if they were to move to a state where gay marriages are not recognized, if state laws were to prevail.
by Kenneth Barna
Dear Friends,
Flag for moderationI don’t know how many times I have to tell you Ron Paul supporters, America cannot return to the gold standard because there is not enough gold in the world to facilitate it. This is Mr. Paul’s response to the Federal Reserve.
I have no idea who wants to go to war with Iran on the democratic side, but you have a lot of loony tunes on the republican side that want to do that.
You have to have consistency when it comes to marriage laws. That means a federal law stating that gay people have the right to be married regardless of the state in which they reside. That way they are protected in their marriage, especially if they were to move to a state where gay marriages are not recognized, if state laws were to prevail.
by nhusmc
Mr. Tatum,
You say that Paul’s comments about removing cases such as gay marriage from the Court’s jurisdiction seems at odds with his strict constructionism, and even downright unconstitutional.
Might I suggest that you read the Constitution before making such uninformed statements? Specifically, Article III, Section 2:
“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE.”
Flag for moderationby Bob Calhart
It seems the Paulbots are out in full force.
Flag for moderationby Bob Calhart
Mr. Tatum is exactly right when he describes Mr. Paul’s nonsensical position on gay rights and the judiciary. First, he wants to support states rights and force gay couples to petition for their rights, which they mainly do through the judiciary (exp: California), and then he wants to eliminate that option for them by preventing the judiciary from ruling on gay marriage. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it – Paulbots!
Flag for moderationby Jonathan
Anyone notice how every time someone opposing Ron Paul posts on a comment section they always use demeaning ad hominems and name-calling, and often obfuscate largely trivial issues to downplay the fact that this country is going to collapse under the weight of a gargantuan debt that our grandchildren won’t be able to pay off?
In a world full of crazy people, sanity is viewed as insane. And I’ll tell you right now, the crazy people are not the ones supporting Ron Paul.
Flag for moderationby Bob Calhart
Anyone notice how every time someone opposing Ron Paul dares to express their opinion they are flooded with messages of dissent or their YouTube videos are thumbed down a thousand times by supporters who latch onto one part of the overall criticism instead of answering and responding to it in its entirety. Or how they obfuscate the criticism by mentioning the wars or the debt?
Flag for moderationby maddy
I think its funny how people are getting their feathers all ruffled over gay marriage and abortion and such, when there is a more important crisis at hand. I am 100% a Paul supporter, I am also as liberal as they come, for pro choice and gay and lesbian rights. Ron Paul said in the latest debate that although he feels strongly about the subjects, opposing them, he knows it is not his place to decide what is right and wrong, and if people would vote in the local elections they would have more of a say. BACK TO THE POINT, if we dont fix the financial crisis we are experiencing then no one is going to be getting married or having abortions, what do you think is going to happen when the american dollar goes from the 20 cents its worth now to 0!!!? Its going to create choas, giving our current corrupt government to enable marshall law, propelling us closer to new world order…have fun getting married under complete and total lockdown, even you straight white folks! You have to look at the bigger picture, Ron Paul has that picture in writing on how we start this. Ron Paul, this revolution might be your last chance as an american to change the horrible path we are going down, someday it will be too late, and you’ll wish you had listened. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT
Flag for moderationby Bob Calhart
Maddy, you made my point, instead of addressing the concerns raised in this article you spout off about the insignificance of gay and lesbian rights – well I can tell you that the LGBT community does not consider them insignificant. Mr. Tatum level a single criticism of Mr. Paul’s overall policy views.
Flag for moderationby Jon
isn’t it amazing that the best criticism of paul is that he doesn’t want anyone, gay or straight, to force their values on others?
shame on him
Flag for moderationby Dr Tobias Wahl
You are confusing libertarianism with constitutionalism. Paul is the former and recognises the dictatorship of democracy of the states enshrined in the constitution as flawed. However, constitutionalism is second-best in that it at least removes the dictatorship of democracy from the federal level and wants to revert back to a republic where the states compete with each other and thus compete to create the most attractive living environment for citizens.
Flag for moderationby Constitution-Man
Dr. Wahl, you sound foolish – Paul has stated he is a libertarian and let’s not forget he ran for president in the 1980s under the banner of the Libertarian Party!
Flag for moderationby estanislao
The Seven Points of WIN:
Flag for moderation1) Only Paul and Romney can run a national campaign. (logistically)
2) Romney CAN’T win without Paul’s endorsement. (say insiders).
3) Paul supporters won’t vote for Mitt (regardless if Paul endorses him or not).
THEREFORE:
4) Romney CAN’T win which means Romney is UNELECTABLE.
IN ADDITION:
5) Paul polls neck and neck with Romney and Obama.
6) Paul gets the independent votes as well as defected Democrat votes. (Obama won on the independent vote…not anymore)
SO:
7) IF the GOP actually endorsed Paul… Paul would WIN…whereas, Romney cannot.
by rick
mr. tatum get a clue read the book several times over,you might just comprehend ron paul`s message!
Flag for moderation