Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Foreign Policy: Ron Paul's World View

Rep. Ron Paul

"Some people in DC laugh at the idea that I should obey my oath of office, and ask first of any proposed legislation, 'Is it constitutional'?"

"If I am defeated in the upcoming congressional primary, our ideas will be held to have been defeated as well. It will be proclaimed from the rooftops in DC that such "ridiculous and outmoded notions" as the free market, sound money, personal liberty, limited government, and a pro-American foreign policy are through.

I am determined not to let this happen. All that you and I believe in is far too important to the future of our country, and to everyone and everything we love, to let the neocons dance on its grave

- Texas GOP Congressman and 2008 POTUS candidate Ron Paul
Excerpts from a Paul campaign e-mail [see The Washington Note]

Steve Clemons says:

I think Ron Paul's voice has become vital in our national debate and felt that more should be aware of how the Iraq War has become the sad rallying cry of the right.

I'm an Independent -- and I believe that the Republicans and Democrats are both complicit in our current mess. But it does really bother me that Republicans who opposed the war are under attack from a new resurgent mania of Iraq War fantasists, and that Dems in Congress failed to pull the plug on this conflict and could have.

While there have been drawbacks to the Paul candidacy from those who'd call themselves true Progressives, based upon some unsettling and decidedly tragic associations with those who are labeled "neo-confederates" [I leave it up to the reader to judge for themselves what those charges of past racism are worth and ask them to recall West Virginia leader Robert Byrd's own past], I have long been with Dr. Paul at heart on much of his world view when it comes to modern U.S. foreign policy. I have found, personally, that I am intimidated by my own fellow Progressives on progressive group-websites when I set out to discuss Dr. Paul's world views and I've often found that it's most unfortunate. I had blogged about Dr. Paul's public opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq occupation long before most Democratic leaders became politically emboldened to do the same [or as clearly] as Dr. Paul. I carry much respect Dr. Paul's wisdom and politcal courage for this reason. Affirmed neoconservatives should have no place of honor or responsibility in the next Presidential administration. I'll never again trust an administration who would swear a neoconservative into any position of power.

I think it's important, whether or not we support a candidate's bid for POTUS, that we agree that it's fine to say so when you agree with someone on issues with which you have a stand in common. This kind of pact to seek consensus and agreement is sorely needed for the best interests of this country.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that Dr. Paul will not receive his party's presidential nomination. His voice, however, has been one of the strongest in opposition to every wrong-minded Foreign Policy thought that has brought us to where we are today. Why do you think he has the hearts and minds of [and financial contributions from] so many young Republican voters today?

To whom will those young Republicans turn in the November election?
Will they vote at all?


"Ron Paul won the debate hands down. He wont garner any Republican support though because he dared to speak of the unspeakable…..the Constitution of the United States. Of all the other candidates on both sides, not one has even mentioned upholding the Constitution, a document they would swear to defend if elected. It’s a sad commentary on the state of American politics."

- A comment found under a post at The American Street