Ron Paul Proposes to Cut 1Trillion in Spending
Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he’ll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b3DzYXgp<>
Ron Paul, the Isolationist
I have offered a brief response to a friend who referred to Ron Paul as an isolationist:
…one quick point of correction. You keep using the term “isolationism.” A true isolationist would be Pat Buchanan who is a protectionist. Ron Paul would be a non-interventionist along the lines of the founding fathers. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are free-traders, not protectionists. Paul believes firmly in national defense and he even authorized the U.S. military to go after Osama bin Laden after 9-11. Unfortunately, the majority of the country bought into the well-proven lies of the Bush administration in those days and wasted billions of dollars in an unconstitutional war in Iraq instead of pursuing the real culprit. Again, Paul is a strong advocate of the Just War Theory, which places him far away from isolationism. I hope this helps.
<>
Glenn Greenwald on Due Process for U.S. Citizens
Republican Candidate Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have both argued that President Obama’s actions against U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki was both unconstitutional and a sad image for America around the world. Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com argues that al-Awlaki was not tried by any court and that the U.S. was not able to prove his guilt in any of the terrorist threats. He writes:
It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.
MSNBC reports the words of a senior American military official who says that the death of al-Awlaki will cause al-Qaida’s surviving leaders a sense of doom. This type of response misses the real nature of enemy retaliation. As many have shown, most notably, Robert Pape, militants retaliate mainly because of U.S. foreign occupation. Pape goes through extensive research to prove this point. The very 9-11 commission report makes reference to this point. If the U.S. military believes al-Qaida and others will simply cease their retaliation course because of a vastly unknown figure-head, then once again the U.S. has not learned its lessons, but rather continues to repeat the faults of the Bush policy. Jeremy Scahill observed yesterday that most in Yemen have absolutely no idea that al-Awlaki was dead or who he was to begin with. “He was barely mid-level management,” Scahill said. In many ways, America’s consistent display of arrogance and unconstitutionality is another incentive for foreign attack. I hope this trajectory changes.<>
Mitt Romney: The Flip-Flopper
Governor Romney is what he is. An elite product of the political system who will blow with the prevailing winds. When the general election comes, you can be sure he’ll blow toward the political center again.
<>
Ron Paul on Jon Stewart
Last night’s interview was entertaining. Stewart suggested that Ron Paul flip-flop for political gain. Of course, he was merely poking fun at the impressive consistency of Texas Congressman. Later Stewart had a more substantial debate on the political philosophy of free markets. Stewart argued that we can have an alternative between a free market society and socialism. Paul responded that every socialist program began with a seed and suddenly it grew out of proportion. He observed that it is better to suffer from the mistakes of one person than of the mistake of the Federal Government.
Overall, the interview went well. Paul did not convince Stewart, but Stewart’s gracious and irenic spirit allowed the conversation to flow.<>
The Flavor of the Moment
This is a great analysis by Jack Hunter:
When Republican voters became excited upon Rick Perry’s entrance into the presidential election, Ron Paul dismissed the Texas governor’s initial popularity as the “flavor of the moment.”
Judging by the reaction to his debate performance last night, the enthusiasm of many conservatives for Perry was significantly diminished and for good reason—they are discovering that Perry is not very conservative. He never has been. Ask Al Gore.
But neither was Donald Trump, who was briefly the flavor of the moment for conservatives.
Then there was Herman Cain after the first debate in Greenville, South Carolina.
Then there was Michele Bachmann who energized the GOP’s grassroots base for a time after Iowa.
And then there was Rick Perry.
Ron Paul will never be just a “flavor of the moment” precisely because his conservatism is consistent in every moment. Being a true constitutional conservative requires steady fidelity to our nation’s founding charter, something that typically lacks flashy gimmickry or that doesn’t play into the cult of celebrity of so much public fancy.
This is not to take away from other candidates, like Cain or Bachmann for instance, who certainly promote certain conservative principles—but it is to say that no one else running for the Republican nomination has represented bona fide constitutional conservatism to the degree that Ron Paul has, vote for vote. In fact, no other candidate even comes close.
Ron Paul does not need to become the flavor of the moment because the Constitution should be conservatives’ favorite flavor every moment.
And 2012 would be the perfect moment for the GOP to finally insist on a candidate with an actual limited government record, not simply more unlimited rhetoric.
<>
Ron Paul’s Hope and Rick Perry’s Downfall
With the media–both conservative and liberal–losing their patience for Perry, naturally Romney will go up in numbers. Perry’s immediate fall in New Hampshire is an indication that he is not what they expected him to be. But if the Tea Party man is not living up to debate expectations and can’t handle the hard oppositions from the establishment candidate (Romney) or the other Tea-Party candidates (Bachmann and Paul) then what is the electorate’s next move? Will they continue to support Perry’s difficult past or will they consider an alternative? Some may say this is the right time for Palin to come in or Christie. I hope both stay in their respective domain and work within their platforms. The field is full and all ideas are fairly represented. This is the time I think Paul can genuinely offer an alternative to what is going on. His consistency, as Jon Stewart, is fond of affirming, is precisely what is the Achilles heel of many of the candidates. No one can say that Dr. Paul voted this way ten years ago and now has changed his mind. Everyone knows that Paul is who he says he is. I believe this is Paul’s best hope at this stage. He continues to enjoy a restful third place in most local and national polls, but this is not enough to get the country’s attention. If in his third place he receives less questions than all other candidates (save Gary Johnson) it means that the MSM is still not seeing his support as authentic and worthy. One can say that his ideas are not understood by the mainstream media, but the mainstream in many ways make the candidate. A move to second place or a closening of the gap in the numbers and the eventual downfall of Rick Perry will offer Paul a greater voice in the months ahead.<>
