Ron Paul should run as a Libertarian
Photo/libertarianparty
Time is running out on America and the policies of the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans differ only in degree. If things don’t change drastically, they will certainly take us to the point of no return.
It makes no difference whether it’s Obama in the White House or Republican front-runners Mitt Romney or Herman Cain for example.
I believe only Ron Paul has the consistent, Constitutional, small government beliefs, policies and plans.
However, the Republican establishment will never allow Dr. Paul to be the nominee. The so-called conservative talking heads like Charles Krauthemmer and Mark Levin will continue to belittle him. The Republican Party cringes everytime Paul talks foreign policy.
The Republican Party pushes candidates with questionable small government principles, and those who change policy stances like changes in the weather. Just listen to either Republican front-runner, they continuously change and retract their statements because neither truly have core beliefs other than trying to get elected.
Despite the fact that the Republican Party was, as Ron Paul correctly says, the party of Robert Taft, small government and non-interventionist, it is no longer and is not likely to be.
It is more than evident that the Republican Party is run by the neoconservatives and has been for at least a couple of decades. Ron Paul is essentially a declared enemy of the neoconservative philosophy.
Some thought the Tea Party would reign in a “new” brand of conservative, the traditional Constitutional conservative, unfortunately, the Republican Party and Fox News, in my opinion, hijacked this small government movement and falsely morphed it into its own. Just look at some so-called small government, Tea Party candidates like Marco Rubio. Mr. Rubio totally endorses an ever growing and interventionist foreign policy at a time when we are broke.
This is why I think Ron Paul should run for President on the Libertarian ticket.
True enough, before he wouldn’t have had a prayer to be featured in the three Presidential debates which draws millions and millions of viewers, but with his following and the way he is polling, it is reasonably plausible he could meet the 15% polling threshold to be invited to these critical debates. He currently polls in the ballpark of 10-12% in most Republican primary polls and polls well against President Obama.
In this format, the American people with see a sharp contrast between the policies of Ron Paul with that of Obama, Romney and/or Cain, both domestically and foreign.
Ron Paul would be endorsing significant cuts in government programs, tax cuts and spending, while the American people would hear the bickering between the Republican nominee and Mr. Obama about the tinkering around the edges they proclaim as their policies. Sorry folks, the time for tinkering is over.
As they discussed monetary policy, Obama and Romney/Cain would talk about what a poor job Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has done while Ron Paul would discuss the atrocities the Fed committed from his own investigations and how much real damage it has caused to the economy and the dollar.
Only Ron Paul will be able to stand on that stage and say that the Patriot Act is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, while the others are all strong supporters of this horrific act.
While President Obama and the Republican nominee, all supporters of a large military presence overseas and banging the war drums to attack more countries we disagree with, Ron Paul can tell the world and a war-wearing American public that this nonsense has to end. He is the one that will end it.
Only Ron Paul will proclaim that you cannot continue as is. Only Ron Paul will say you cannot have a small, Constitutional government with our current foreign policy. Only Ron Paul will say that the current American foreign policy is the antithesis of limited government.
Just imagine the VP debate…hypothetically a VP candidate Andrew Napolitano or Walter Williams on the same stage as a bumbling Joe Biden or Marco Rubio (just an example)….nuff said.
Yea, I can hear it now…the radio and TV talking heads will say that Ron Paul running as a Libertarian will take away votes from Romney or Cain and keep Obama in the White House.
So-called conservative blowhards, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the obnoxious Mark Levin will blame Paul for Obama being reelected.
I say to them and anyone else, does it really matter, I mean really?
Whether it is Obama in the White House or Romney or Cain or any other Republican, what will be the significantdifference? Same spending, same increase government involvement in all areas of our lives, i.e. health care, no real cuts in government programs, same foreign policy…just differing in degree.
The sands of the hourglass have run out for America. Drastic reductions must be done and be done now. We can’t rely on tinkering anymore.
We are broke. We will continue to lose our credit rating. We cannot continue invading foreign nations on the Chinese dime. If things don’t change a lot, and change fast, the dollar will be no more.
I say Ron Paul should run for President of the United States as a Libertarian and truly let the American people hear a very different vision of America and let us decide. Enough tinkering…
If we the American people chose either a left-wing or right-wing, big government president in this day and age, then it’s our own fault where we end up. However, we must decide.
Modern day liberals and neoconservatives are two sides of the same coin.
Ron Paul truly believes in limited, Constitutional government.
The Libertarian Party truly believes in limited, Constitutional government.
The Desk of Brian recommends:
Krugman: More inflation and higher taxes will end the depression
Ron Paul should take Rick Perry to the woodshed: op-ed by Hill's Brent Budowsky
Paranoia, Democrats, and the Speculators
Stereotypes and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons: This is economics?
Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and Conservatism
The Libertarian Party’s Four-Minute Mile by Alex Snitker
Michael Scheuer, Gary Johnson and Jesse Ventura endorse Ron Paul
Ron Paul agrees with Americans: Two party system is broken
Dan, you sound like a libertarian that is more of an anarcho-capitalist. No problem with that, but obviously you need to read a little more into what libertarianism is. People hold fast to certain principles a little more than others.
Your example of homosexual christian is terrible. I am that example. If you know anything about being a Christian, and if you truly understand Jesus’ teachings, being a homosexual Christian is not what you are apparently making it out to be. Just saying.
What you’re failing to see if that the Post Office is intended to be run like a private business. So it is, therefore, in line with Libertarian principals. They get no money from tax dollars. They are only supposed to get money from the revenue they make from the services and products they provide. Just like any private business.
Besides, there are many levels of Libertarian. Not all Libertarians belive that government should be completely abolished. Nothing is that black and white.
So, what would you say the government should do? Anything?
Yes but I was not referring to any specific company, regardless of name. When Paul makes a decision, he bases it off of the Constitution, so either:
1) he supports it fully, or
2) he does not support it
Meaning that he either:
1) agrees with all of it’s contents, including a government run postal service, or
2) has been lying about being a “strict Constitutionalist”.
How can one, for example, claim to live according to the Bible, and at the same time live a homosexual lifestyle? (I am not against gays nor am I religious- just an example.)
Wtf? USPS=United States Postal Service.
I said that but I never used the term USPS. I’m not sure what it was I said that is false.
“Libertarians support free markets. The Constitution calls for a government run Postal Service, which, because it is paid for by taxes, is against the principle of free markets. If Dr. Paul was a Libertarian, he would not base his decisions off of the Constitution, which has concepts that are against Libertarian ideology.”
Your words, not mine.
I never once said that the USPS was run by tax dollars. I don’t even recall saying USPS. I said that he supports the Constitution which calls for a government operated postal service. I do not see how a Libertarian can look at the Constitution and say “This is awesome. It’s so awesome that I’m going to support base my political views off of it.”
I like Ron Paul. If I was old enough to vote, I’d vote for him. I do not see him as a true Libertarian though.
That’s not correct. The USPS is not run off of tax dollars. They are supposed to be supported solely by their revenue. So yes, a Libertarian would support the USPS as defined by the Constitution.
Ron Paul supports the constitution in the way it’s supposed to limit government and protect our personal liberties.
How many republicans do you think truly represent what the Republican Party is supposed to be? Look at Mitt Romney. Look at Rick Perry. Do they represent republican principles the way that Ron Paul represents libertarian principles? It’s my opinion that they do not.
Obviously, the Libertarian Party feels he meets the requirements to run as a libertarian once more. As a libertarian myself, I feel comfortable supporting that.
I never said that he supports USPS. I said he supports a document that supports the USPS. A “republican with many libertarian principles” is a perfect description of him. I never said that anyone called him a Libertarian; I was simply saying that he should not run as a Libertarian because he isn’t one. He did say this though:
Ron Paul: “Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism”
He never said we was a Libertarian, but he was hinting that he supports it. I still do not see why people want him to run as a Libertarian.
Ron Paul does not support USPS. It’s one of the things he would like to see completely phased out by the free market. But it’s not his main focus. Besides, when you hear someone talk about Ron Paul, they say he is a republican with many libertarian principles. They don’t say he’s a full on libertarian, nor does he claim to be. Just saying
Why would one base his decisions off a document that he considers flawed? Why not say “I do not like this because ____” instead of “I do not like this because it’s not in the Constitution, even though I am against parts of the Constitution”. You either support the Constitution fully, or you don’t. Saying you are a strict Constitutionalist, yet you claim to support ideas that conflict with the Constitution is like a Catholic that lives a perfect lifestyle in God’s eyes, yet has premarital sex daily. Would God see you as holy? You are either holy or you are not.
Libertarians do not look at the Constitution the way he does. The Constitution does not support a Voluntaryist society, which Libertarianism represents
lol the only thing you’ve based that argument on is USPS which Ron Paul would probably oppose given the chance. It’s not like he’s opposed to constitutional amendments he just stands by the principles of the constitution which are largely Libertarian. USPS is one of very few government agencies explicitly authorized in the constitution and it should probably be removed.
I don’t really care. This not the point. The point is that Ron Paul is in no way a Libertarian.
Hold on, Ron Paul supports USPS? I doubt it.
That’s the difference. It’s authorized in the constitution as is a military, which is also paid for by taxes. Personally, I would rather see a privatized mail service as it would be more efficient and actually turn a profit. But we do have free market alternatives such as FedEx, UPS and the like. Back in the Old West, we had the Pony Express as well.
Libertarians support free markets. The Constitution calls for a government run Postal Service, which, because it is paid for by taxes, is against the principle of free markets. If Dr. Paul was a Libertarian, he would not base his decisions off of the Constitution, which has concepts that are against Libertarian ideology.
Where do you see him as not being a Libertarian? What is not Libertarian?
Well yes, he is consistent, but that doesn’t make him a Libertarian. He’s the closest thing to a Libertarian that has a chance at winning so of course Libertarians are going to vote for him. Doesn’t make him a Libertarian though
Ron Paul has always been consistent on issues. Most Libertarians I know (and I’m a card-carrying member) know his decisions are based on the constitution. I don’t agree with any candidate 100% but I agree with most of what he says.
I wasn’t alive when he was a Libertarian, but as of now. He’s not a Libertarian today though. If he ran as a Libertarian NO one would vote for him.
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian over 20 years when I started following him. He couldn’t get elected until he ran as a Repub. He is still really a Libertarian. However, he has to deal with what IS and not what IF. DC didn’t change overnight and it won’t be fixed overnight.
I really like Paul, but he’s not a Libertarian. Libertarians do not look at an issue and say “Is this allowed in the Constitution?” Libertarians look at an issue and say “Does this infringe on another person(s) rights?” If Ron Paul was a Libertarian he would not support our Constitution which calls for a government-operated postal service. He is a right-wing Republican. If he’s changing parties, he should be switching to the Constitution Party.
I think he has a better chance at changing the republican party then running as a 3rd party.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that can beat Obama. If the MSM keep trying to push Romney and Cain, Obama will win re-election. I really hope Ron Paul considers running 3rd party if he doesn’t make the republican nomination.