Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Who Side Is Ron Paul On? by Akindele Akinyemi

When I spoke to One Network's Chad Miles this afternoon he came to a very interesting conclusion about Ron Paul.

He feels that Ron Paul is in the race to split the ticket between the top tier candidates. Especially Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Miles also feels that Paul will run as an independent once the Republican primaries are over.

Sounds familiar? Can we all say H. Ross Perot from 1992?

Yes, Ron Paul, to me, is an plant from the liberal side to disrupt the flow of conservative energy among the Republican candidates. However, I will say this about Ron Paul. He will stand his ground no matter what.

One thing I do agree with Paul is his position on education:

Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states "accountable" for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. 5/23/01

Remember, the U.S. Department of Education was created under the Carter Administration as a gift for the teacher unions. More bureaucracy.

His position on large government:

The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. 1/31/00

But what shocked me was when asked at the Presidential debates in Dearborn, MI if he would be willing to support the Republican nominee for President he said no. Is this a door opening for Hillary Clinton? Time will only tell. I mean Ron Paul is our version of U.S. Senator Zed Miller, former Georgia Democrat who supported President Bush.

Paul may, in turn, support Hillary Clinton to further erode the conservative base.

We shall see.


Anonymous said...

Dr. Paul believes deeply that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and a disaster. I think it's wrong of people to say that Dr. Paul should just abandon his beliefs and convictions because he's a member of the Republican party. Come election time if Ron Paul is not running as a third party candidate then he will vote on the individual who best represents his views on both foreign policy and domestic policy like every other American should be doing. People should never vote for a person JUST BECUASE they are in one party or another, they should make sure the candidate's beliefs and positions match their own as much as possible. I don't think Dr. Paul would ever support Hillary because she agrees that troops may have to stay in Iraq for years to come and her domestic policies are the anti-thesis of Dr. Paul's positions.

Anonymous said...

He stated in an interview after the debate that he would not support a Democrat. So rest easy.

If you delve into his stances on the various issues you would see that you probably agree with everything he stands for except maybe the war. And even if you can't support his stance on the war you have to agree that the manner in which we went into the war was unconstitutional.

There's much more to this man than his stance on the war.

Check out and you can read writings and speeches from him over the years to get a clearer picture of where he stands and why he stands there so strongly.

Chet said...


I was the person that interviewed him on that question an answer (exclusive to I'm hoping for YouTube on it soon.

I don't know that I "must agree" that the way we entered the war was unconstitutional. The Congress did authorize use of force in 2003, whether it contained the words war or not. The Constitution does not say that the President must seek Congressional approval for every use of force imaginable - it merely says it must seek Congressional declarations of war. So the question becomes how we define war and conflict. If you want a neat little box that says every conflict is a war, then the Constitution has been violated hundreds of times by nearly every president since at least back to Jefferson and Madison. I think Paul has a "colorable argument," one that we should consider, but to simplify this area of the Constitution (the First Amendment is pretty simple, I'll say, but even then has some nuances) and say that anyone who believes otherwise is a "menace to the Constitution" I think is a bit far. And the fact that Congress passed the War Powers Act defining these differences and ceding the President some authority suggests another possible flaw in Paul's argument, since his argument depends on separation of powers and Congressional authority.

Paul could have made nomination-winning arguments against this war (a "wouldn't be/isn't prudent" Bush-41 anti-nation-building-type of argument, but still willing to use force, say, to save Kuwait or for limited highly defined goals). He's failed to make those arguments though in favor of an almost "no-war whatsoever" argument. But your right - there's alot to like about Paul's positions on other issues.