Wrong, Paul

[dgriffin]

From Fact Check.Org

Fantasy, fallacy and factual fumbles from the Republican insurgent.
Summary

Ron Paul doesn't have much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he persists with his well-funded campaign and even talks of turning it into a permanent "Revolution" that will continue far beyond 2008.

We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:

* Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.

* Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.

* Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.

For details:
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html

(I love this site. Anyone out there plan to vote for Paul?
- Dave)

[frankcor]

I voted for Ron Paul when he ran for president as a Libertarian. A lot of what you quoted above regarding NAFTA and disassociation with the GOP were LP platform positions. Dr. Paul has made it clear he has evolved beyond those days. The $1-trillion foreign empire claim includes all military spending and no one, even Paul thinks he can eliminate all military spending.

Paul did receive an endorsement from Reagan when he ran for re-election for Congress in the early 80s, I think (may have been in the 70s). He split with Reagan after the President failed to cut spending sufficiently to eliminate deficit spending resulting from the tax cuts. I think Reagan even admitted later that he was sandbagged by congress. (I know Bush Sr. said that too but I'm not certain Reagan did)

You left out the parts where Paul promised, when elected, to sell all National Parks and Federal Buildings and dismantle the U.S. Departments of Education and Energy, as well as the Veteran's Administration during his first week in office. He would not be entirely heartless, redirecting some of the savings towards productive job training for all the unemployed federal bureaucrats he would create. He would then be open to suggestions on what to do in the second week. It was at that point, I decided to vote for him.

You need to see Dr. Paul in person, see the twinkle in his eye, and feel the love he has for this nation. He has changed positions on issues, I freely admit, as does he. But there is one issue on which he has been rigidly inflexible -- Dr. Paul has never ever voted in favor of any legislation that raised taxes or funded a program without corresponding cuts elsewhere. He even votes against pork barrel spending in his own district. And they keep electing him down there, anyway.

Vote Freedom. Vote Ron Paul.

[frankcor]

Note: I failed to point out that Dr. Paul has obviously modified his plans for his first week in office since his days as a Libertarian. Today, he plans simply to eliminate the IRS.

Vote Freedom. Vote Ron Paul.

[dgriffin]

Could he do all or part of any of this without congressional approval? I'm not sure of my basic civics in that area.

[dgriffin]

The NAFTA superhighway is indeed on Paul's site at:
www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/701/the-nafta-superhighway/
Also, you've brought up some issues not mentioned by FactCheck and then denied them.
But I do like his platform!

[frankcor]

I most recently heard Paul admit to Tim Russert several weeks ago that he knew no President could do what he wants to accomplish because congress would never go along. But with leadership like his at the top, he might be able to turn us around in the right direction.

Looks like I was wrong about his dropping the superhighway plans. I remember when they were part of the Libertarian Party platform. It was the LP positions on trade protectionism and most recently, the war in Iraq, that I am no longer a Big-L libertarian. Face it. No candidate will be perfect for me, except for me and I'm not interested in the job. But because of how Paul admits his limitations in ending the war and imposing trade restrictions, I'm still willing to vote for him. He would certainly do less harm than any of the four Republicrats running today.

However, in actuality, it probably will make no difference in the outcome four years from now no matter who wins.

[frankcor]

dgriffin said:

Also, you've brought up some issues not mentioned by FactCheck and then denied them.

Heh, sorry. My sarcasm doesn't quite fit through my modem line. you got the words, but not the intent. What I meant was, you forgot the most wacky stuff Paul has said.

[dgriffin]

I still like the guy. Can I go with him when he shuts down the local IRS office?
I voted Libertarian back when the choice was between Clinton and ..... who was that guy? Don't remember who the Libertarian candidate was. Didn't matter.

[dgriffin]

By the way, frankcor, congrats on your elevation to Supreme Galatic Being. But can we have two? One more would make a Holy Trinity. Or a Hat Trick.

[frankcor]

Get busy, Dave. You could be the Holy Ghost.