Congress After Ron Paul

Meet the men seeking to fill Dr. No’s shoes

(Page 4 of 6)

One thing I did agree on wholeheartedly was your headline, which said that Thomas Massie is not Ron Paul. That is appropriate to point out. I’m not Ron Paul. I’m not from his congressional district; I’m from the 4th congressional district of Kentucky. I don’t have the same background that he does, and I’m going to approach things differently. He was trained as a doctor. I was trained as an engineer. There will be lots of opportunities to point out differences going forward. I don’t even want the mantle. 

I would say my views are closer to Rand Paul than Ron Paul. I don’t take offense because I often see Rand Paul attacked by Ron Paul supporters. A guy who shares 99 percent of his dad’s DNA can’t satisfy his father’s supporters, and I surely am never going to. But I do believe we should be less involved overseas, that it’s more important to think about bridges at home than in Afghanistan, and that it’s counterproductive to be engaged in so many conflicts. 

I also think it’s important to focus on the domestic civil liberties issues surrounding the war on terror. I’m an opponent of the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] last year. I said in a speech a couple of weeks ago that we don’t need to fund more corporate loans, Obamaphones, or domestic drones.

reason: What do you see as the prospects for alliance between the more libertarian-minded and the rest of the GOP coalition?

Massie: We need to focus on things we agree on. I won my primary because I had the support of the Tea Party, the support of the liberty movement, and the support of Ronald Reagan Republicans. All of those groups are for smaller government. That’s one thing that ties us all together and we can all be pulling on the rope in the same direction. We shouldn’t have purity tests that disqualify people from helping, and that gets back to the pleasant surprise—that I think there are over 20 people here who I would say are firmly pulling in the same direction as the liberty movement even if they aren’t [pure libertarians].

Ted Yoho: Get rid of stuff we don’t need.

Ted Yoho, 57, is a freshman congressman from Florida’s 3rd district who became interested in politics after a long career as a veterinarian in the Gainesville area of north-central Florida. He managed a surprise upset primary victory over a 12-term incumbent, Cliff Stearns. Yoho sounds like an ’80s-style Reagan politician, far more concerned with what he sees as out-of-control welfare and regulation than, say, the Federal Reserve and empire. His views and the way he expresses them would sound at home on right-wing talk radio—an audience Ron Paul never managed to capture.

reason: Why did you want to run for office?

Rep. Ted Yoho: I started paying attention more than 10 years ago and saw that the country was moving away from its founding principles and core values. I could see two visions of government [at war in D.C.], a socialistic one and a republic, and that’s why you can’t get the two sides to agree; they are playing two different games.

I’m a veterinarian by profession and always will be, and I never thought of myself as a political guy other than that I’m affected by politics every day, more and more so in my business. Seeing the red tape you have got to go through to run a business, to hire employees, workman’s comp and all that, is mind boggling. There seems to be no common sense in the process. As a businessman looking back on dealing with the IRS, whether in the quarterly reports or just trying to get resolution with the IRS on something, it’s a nightmare. And talking to my clients, a majority [of them] were business owners and hearing their nightmare stories, I thought, it can’t have to be this complicated, we have to look at the bureaucracy in charge. I thought we have got to do better than this.

Talking to my constituents, that’s something I’ve been doing for the last four years; I decided to run four years ago. Every day I was out there talking to people, and what I heard is that we want to rein in government spending, so many duplicative programs. Welfare reform is an issue that comes up over and over again. Everybody that I talk to is OK with supporting people so they can get up on their feet, but not as a way of life. We have got to deal with waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, the unaccountability of money in the military, I hear about $60–90 billion unaccounted for in Iraq. People don’t mind paying their fair share in taxes, but don’t ask us to pay more if you can’t account for the money we already gave, with things like Solyndra. 

reason: Have you been following the story of those congressmen who stepped outside of GOP discipline in a more anti-spending direction and got punished?

Yoho: I’m not officially sworn in and not involved in any of those talks, so for me to speculate on why they were removed—I just read what you read in the papers. That would be pure speculation.

But let’s hope for the 113th Congress there will be a different perspective. I ran on a different perspective of being in the business world for the last 30 years practicing veterinary medicine, unlike entrenched politicians, and that’s a message that resonated that allowed us to be able to beat Mr. Stearns, that we are in a crisis that career politicians either let happen or failed to prevent, and neither are acceptable. I don’t care how it was broken; we need a plan to fix it. It’s inexcusable to not have a budget for the strongest nation on Earth because we can’t get our act together.

reason: Besides just trying to trim in waste, duplication, and the like, are there entire functions of the federal government you think should be rethought?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • A Frayed Knot||

    Next up, Brian Doherty After Ron Paul.

  • Mike M.||

    Ted Yoho would be a great name for a pirate.

  • CE||

    I'm takin' shore leave, with my buddy, some booze, and a girl we met in port. It'll just be me, Yo Ho, Ho, and a bottle of rum.

  • The Derider||

    Just like Ron Paul and his son Rand, none of these men believe that personal freedom includes a woman's right to get an abortion. And just like Ron Paul and his son rand, all these men get no critical questioning on the issue from Reason.

  • iggy||

    If you believe abortion is murder, then that trumps a woman's right to choose. I don't necessarily agree with them, but there is nothing unlibertarian about being against abortion.

    So why should Reason care?

  • The Derider||

    Apparently Reason shouldn't care when someone's religious faith causes them to pass laws which force women to bear children they do not want.

    Of course there's something unlibertarian about the state criminalizing abortion.

  • MSD62581||

    Laws against abortion really don't "force" women to do this. Crimes aren't crimes until after they have been committed. It is really not correct to identify the pro-choice movement with libertarianism considering the big government that is wrapped up in the pro-choice lobby. We are funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of half a billion dollars a year. There's nothing libertarian about that.

  • The Derider||

    Hahaha, yeah, the threat of state violence does not "force" anyone to do anything! Feel free not to pay your taxes, because that's not illegal until you do it.

    I like the honesty in the second answer, though. Libertarians can't oppose abortion restrictions because democrats do, too. Team red 4 life!

  • MSD62581||

    Actually it doesn't use force. No one is advocating for state violence to force a woman to give birth. Again, crimes aren't crimes until after they happen.

  • The Derider||

    So the state doesn't use force to make you pay income taxes because tax evasion isn't a crime until after it happens?

    The state doesn't use force to prohibit drugs because drug sales are only crimes after they occur?

    This argument is terrible.

  • MSD62581||

    The state can't infringe on your liberties in order to prevent some future crime from happening. Also, tax evasion is not a violent crime that is committed against an individual. Your analogy does not hold up.

  • MSD62581||

    Your assessment that I think that libertarians shouldn't oppose abortion restrictions because of Democrats do the same thing is misguided and incorrect. My objection to this is because the issuing of tax dollars to abortion clinics is fundamentally un-libertarian. It is forced government compassion that comes from the point of a gun. This of course, is not compassion at all. If opposing abortion is a symptom of being on "team red for life," then wouldn't support for abortion on demand be a symptom of a "team blue for life" mentality?

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    Some Libertarians believe that abortion violates the non-agression principle, and is inherently illegitimate. By "critical questioning" do you mean initiating dialogue or "calling them out" on it? I believe the latter to be a bit presumptuous.

  • The Derider||

    Of course you won't see either one.

  • MSD62581||

    Very true. Laurence Vance addressed it pretty well here.

  • The Derider||

    He says that his opposition to abortion is rooted in his faith and the bible. What a comforting reason to support state restrictions on personal liberty.

  • MSD62581||

    Once again, being pro-life is not desiring a state restriction on liberty. And I'm pretty sure people use the things they believe in to formulate their opinions all the time. It doesn't make it "dangerous" for religion to be among those reasons.

  • The Derider||

    Vance writes: libertarians should not only be opposed to abortion, but in favor of making it a criminal act just like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, assault, and robbery would be in any libertarian society based on the non-aggression principle.

    He favors the state imprisoning abortion doctors and their patients. Why? Because Jesus said so. That's clearly the pro-liberty position.

  • MSD62581||

    Pretty sure he doesn't say anything about imprisoning patients. He concedes that he is not sure as to how abortion should be treated if it were to be made a crime. But he also says he is not exactly sure how each state should treat other crimes in which a victim is harmed. Ultimately this decision should be made at the state level. The Bible/Jesus also spoke of not murdering and stealing. Are laws against these things also illegitimate?

  • Renfred43||

    my best friend's mom makes $70/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her income was $18311 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.FLY38.COM

  • CE||

    You know the IRS monitors this site, right?

  • CE||

    Dude, 18311 at 70 an hour is over 260 hours in a month. That's over 65 hours per week. Who wants to work for a slave driver?

  • ||


  • John C. Randolph||

    Boehner is probably the #2 example of the kind of asshole the Republican party needs to get rid of, if they ever want to be credible again. #1 is a tie between John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Willard was #1, but since he lost the election, he doesn't matter anymore.


  • Roderick||

    Liam. I can see what your saying... Frank`s remark is terrific, I just got a great Car from having earned $9986 this-past/four weeks and-over, 10-k this past munth. it's actualy the nicest-work Ive ever had. I actually started six months/ago and almost straight away began to earn over $87 per-hour. I went to this website,, http://www.FLY38.COM

  • Brand||

    Well now I'm just baffled, who the hell is Liam?

  • ||

    Amash: "I was elected to Congress to follow the Constitution"

    Ok, let's follow its seventh article and think logically about it until we understand a painful truth: Article VII is not law before "Establishment" of the Constitution of which it is part. So you are prohibited from using it to know that ratification is sufficient or that conventions may be involved in establishment. Furthermore, that article would be superfluous even if the Constitution were established. So there is no justification for having included Article VII in the text.

  • دردشة بغدادية||

    Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties