PDA

View Full Version : Editorial on Ron Paul and Republican party


gtrman66
12-01-2008, 07:22 AM
Saw this in yesterday's Dallas Morning News. I thought it raised some good points. Why ending income taxes and returning to a gold standard is nutty to the writer is beyond me. But all in all, this should start the gears turning in the minds of repulicans that are fed up with what has happened to the party. Reagan is dead, but the ideas are not.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_30edi.State.Edition1.2b92bf2.html

Rod Dreher: Ron Paul, if only we listened

06:21 PM CST on Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I was a Mike Huckabee man), nor did I write him in on Election Day (I penciled in farmer-poet Wendell Berry). But no Texan this year did more good for conservatism and his country than the congressman from the coast.

Lord knows there was no Republican in the 2008 campaign who talked straighter.

Dr. Paul – he's a physician – never had a chance, of course. He is too peculiar in his opinions and doesn't know how to spin like a TV slick. What he had was ideas, integrity and authenticity. On the most critical challenges facing America, Dr. Paul was more right than the well-funded GOP regulars who bigfooted the campaign trail.

His best moment came in a May debate aired on Fox News. Dr. Paul asserted that too much U.S. meddling in the Middle East invites terrorist blowback – a conclusion shared by the 9/11 commission and former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer. Rudy Giuliani pounced, accusing Dr. Paul of trying to blame America for the Sept. 11 attacks.

But Dr. Paul's point – lost on the demagogic New York mayor – was simply that America should rethink its role in Iraq and the region. "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," he said in the debate.

Who can doubt it today, given an Iraq war debacle conceived and executed by a president and an elite team blinded by ideology? The Iraq war did deep damage to our military, our economy and our prestige – and it has destroyed the Republican Party's credibility on national security issues.

Ron Paul, who has always stood against U.S. imperial overreach, was right about the Iraq war. And that's not the only thing he saw that most Republicans did not.

His libertarian economic views are far from mainstream. For example, he's against income taxes, period, and believes the U.S. should go back on the gold standard. Eccentricities like this keep him from being taken seriously.

But the truth is, if U.S. economic policy looked a lot more like Ron Paul's ideal than what we've had these past decades, the nation wouldn't be tottering on the financial abyss. Dr. Paul has long argued that an economy built on easy credit, insatiable consumption and deficit spending is a time bomb. He backs a national economic model based on savings, investment and production.

An economy that depends so heavily on government intervention to keep it afloat is one that creates of necessity an ever more powerful state. The nationalization of the banking sector only increases the power of the central government and decreases liberty. Dr. Paul warned for years against what we're seeing happen today. But nobody – including me – listened to the old crank.

How much better off would America be today if we had? We'll never know. Poor us.

It's not true, really, that nobody listened. Dr. Paul had a relatively small but intensely devoted following and raised astonishing amounts of campaign cash for his outsider presidential bid. Unfortunately, that enthusiasm didn't amount to much of anything in the primaries. So much for the Ron Paul Revolution, right?

Maybe not. The same GOP establishment that mocked and reviled Dr. Paul now lies shattered. Who believes in this Republican Party anymore? The party destroyed itself with its own unprincipled recklessness, both in foreign and fiscal policy. And it has ruined its reputation among the young – the most ardent of Dr. Paul's supporters, incidentally – who are far more likely to identify with the Democrats.

Out of this destruction, some creative young conservatives may rise up and decide to take back the Republican Party. Perhaps they'll run against the overweening power of the federal government and in favor of decentralizing power (but unlike today's Republicans, they'll actually mean it). Maybe they'll fight for an America that lives responsibly, within its natural limits both overseas and at home. And maybe, just maybe, they might make the Republican Party worth following again.

If that day comes, it will be thanks to the lifelong labors of Ron Paul and his 2008 campaign based on ideas. If those ideas germinate into genuine reform and restoration of sanity in our government, America will look back on Dr. Paul as a gift from Texas and a worthy nominee as Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.

And having once given the nation George W. Bush – and given him to our countrymen good and hard – we Texans sure as hell owe them one.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallasnews.com.

MYCAR47562
12-01-2008, 10:37 AM
One Question That Was Brought Up To Me Does He Support Legalisation Of Marijuana?

gtrman66
12-01-2008, 11:30 AM
The libertarian platform states it is a decision best left to states to decide, it is not a federal issue.

The marijuana legalization argument is what the main stream media tries to use to classify the libertarians as nut cases.

MYCAR47562
12-01-2008, 11:33 AM
Ok So What Your Saying Is You Dont Know His Stance On It?

gtrman66
12-01-2008, 12:13 PM
I haven't been out his website. He is a "republican" but is definitely a "libertarian" at heart. So, no I do not know his stance on it. I would think he would side with it being a state decision, not federal, since he feels that way about most things.

MYCAR47562
12-02-2008, 08:07 AM
well a no stance can be better than anything else

gtrman66
12-03-2008, 06:17 PM
Here's the official stance from the Libertarian website:

Step 2. End Prohibition
Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

This is from Ron Paul about marijauna for medical purposes on the website:
http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1692#paul

Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), offered the following in a letter dated Apr. 27, 2005 to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), signed by Rep. Paul and 23 other members of the US House of Representatives:

"After deferring to the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration], your release reads that, 'FDA is the sole federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications.' Why then has the FDA failed to respond to the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report which concluded that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials?
It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date. Additionally, this release failed to make note of the FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed patients with certain medical conditions to apply with the FDA to receive federal marijuana. Currently, seven people still enlisted in this program continue to receive marijuana through the federal government.

The existence of this program is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the 'well-controlled' series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need."
Apr. 27, 2005 Ron Paul

And here is his take on federal raids of medical marijuana from the same site:

Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), speaking at a campaign event on Aug. 19, 2007 in Londonderry, NH, stated:

"I'd stop them [federal arrests and raids]. I wouldn't do them, because it's unconstitutional. Why should I go and send someone out to California to overrule a state law when we have no jurisdiction? Besides, it's a waste of a lot of money and energy. No, there should be no federal preemption on laws like that."
Aug. 19, 2007 Ron Paul

Here's another article:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1236/a02.html

Still, Cole said he doesn't expect political change any time soon. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, comes closest to LEAP's position, and he only calls for the legalization of marijuana.

MYCAR47562
12-04-2008, 06:43 AM
Roy, That Is Some Awesome Info As Much As I Dislike Drugs It's Kinda Hard To Argue With The Article

gtrman66
12-04-2008, 06:55 AM
My dad worked for a drug rehab center for 10 years while I was growing up. Making drugs illegal doesn't solve anything.

MYCAR47562
12-04-2008, 07:29 AM
I Dunno Never Had A Chance To Be Here When They Were Legal So Its Hard To Say. But I Know One Of My Friends Has Become A Waste Of Space Oc Head And I Know For A Fact If It Were Legal He Would Over Dose And Kill Himself. Always The Catch 22

Remphoto
12-04-2008, 02:51 PM
I Dunno Never Had A Chance To Be Here When They Were Legal So Its Hard To Say. But I Know One Of My Friends Has Become A Waste Of Space Oc Head And I Know For A Fact If It Were Legal He Would Over Dose And Kill Himself. Always The Catch 22

I agree with you on this one. Enough dope head running around without making it even more available. It would be in much wider use than it is already. As an example, I don't have a clue where to buy illegal drugs, so even if I were tempted to experiment with them, I would not be easily able to do so. Think this applies to many persons. BTW, the topic of drug legalization is the one topic I differ on with my conservative hero, William F. Buckley.

MYCAR47562
12-04-2008, 09:59 PM
yep but it also fits into the catch 22 he might be the only one who is able to save our economy so do we elect him?