Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul
While I'm not entirely sure why the author of this encomium to Obama considers himself a conservative in the modern American context, Andrew Sullivan comes out at the Atlantic web site with a GOP endorsement for Ron Paul that very nicely sums up the Texas congressman's virtues.
Sullivan starts by praising him from having been right from the beginning on Iraq (unlike, cough cough, Sullivan himself, but let us welcome the prodigals). Then:
....the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.
He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.
Go Ron Paul!
Anthony Gregory|12.17.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Where is the evidence that Ron Paul actually opposes gay marriage? If Texas tried to legalize gay marriage, do you think he'd vote against it?
Kolohe|12.17.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Is this what they call a "jump the shark" moment?
Another question is: who's jumping?
|12.17.07 @ 6:12PM|#
If Texas tried to legalize gay marriage, do you think he'd
vote against it?
Certainly not, seeing as he isn't a member of the Texas
legislature.
VM|12.17.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Where is the evidence that Ron Paul actually opposes gay
marriage?
according
to Kip Esquire, this is.
while hier
Kip points out probably why A.S. hopped on board.
|12.17.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Some of Sullivan's comments about McCain make me think he's never actually listened to McCain. The McCain in Sullivan's head sounds like a great candidate, though.
Anthony Gregory|12.17.07 @ 6:28PM|#
You can hold all those positions and not oppose gay marriage. Ron Paul's position is marriage should not be a government issue, period, which is the proper position, anyway.
VM|12.17.07 @ 6:32PM|#
"You can hold all those positions and not oppose gay
marriage."
okay. if that's your take, fine. I disagree (with the first
sentence of you 6:28 at least).
Jerry|12.17.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Why is government involved with marriage, which should be a private matter instead (a contract to be enforced by courts if you may).
|12.17.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Would people mind redditing this for me? There's been a group of
folks down-modding all Ron Paul stories lately:
http://politics.reddit.com/info/639kl/comments/
Seitz|12.17.07 @ 6:57PM|#
He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line
between religion and politics.
Where on earth did Andrew get that idea? This is the guy who thinks
the Constitution is "replete" with references to God, and that our
founding fathers never mentioned a wall of separation between
church and state. Maybe I had a crappy social studies teacher, but
I've always been under the impression that Thomas Jefferson was a
founding father.
So was Paul just lying/pandering when he wrote that, or is he
really that ignorant?
|12.17.07 @ 7:07PM|#
@Anthony Gregory
You can hold all those positions and not oppose gay marriage.
Ron Paul's position is marriage should not be a government issue,
period, which is the proper position, anyway.
Actually, I'd say marriage is an issue beyond the scope of
libertarianism, anyway.
The most anyone has a right to expect in a free society is to be
left alone to pursue their business in peace. Whether or not
society sanctions or approves of your business is a whole 'nother
story.
I don't think there's any such thing as a right to public approval
or sanction. It may have it's merits, but it has nothing to do with
your liberty.
Elemenope|12.17.07 @ 7:15PM|#
seitz --
Th. J. was not involved with the drafting of the Constitution, due
to him being in France at the time. He did write the Declaration,
which is fairly replete with references to God.
The "Founding Fathers" were of several minds as to the proper role
of religion in society, much less government. Most of the original
impetus for a strict principle of separation came not from the
state, but from minority churches (like the Baptists, Unitarians,
and Catholics) who rightly feared oppression by the state for
having beliefs different than the majority of the populous and the
elite.
R. Paul is fudging at best when he says that the Declaration and
the Constitution are "replete" with mention of God, since the
Constitution does not in the active body of the text mention God at
all. However, he is correct in saying that of the sixty odd people
considered as "founding fathers", only one of them ever wrote down
a principle approaching the modern conception of the Separation
(Th. J.). So, he's wrong on the minutiae of the facts, but he has a
point (of a sort). One out of sixty is hardly a clear sign of
unanimity.
|12.17.07 @ 7:32PM|#
Would Dr Paul's positions on the relative frequency of
references to God in the DoI and CotUS have any effect whatsoever
on his actions as President?
If the answer is yes, tell me how.
If the answer is no, the subject is irrelevant.
Brandybuck|12.17.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Maybe I had a crappy social studies teacher, but I've always been under the impression that Thomas Jefferson was a founding father.
Maybe I had a crappy social studies teacher, but I've always been
under the impression that we had more founding fathers than just
Thomas Jefferson.
In a more serious tone, I also note that "wall of separation" isn't
in the Constitution either, only a clause about religious tests and
part of an amendment about establishment and prohibition. Ron Paul
understands the Constitution far better than those who believe it
mandates an anti-religious test.
|12.17.07 @ 7:37PM|#
OK, Reasonites. Let's put our money where our mouth is, help Ron
Paul. Monetary or otherwise. We have a chance in a life time to
make history with this guy, or at the very least make a wave big
enough that the cold splash might wake up a few Washington
politicians.
The media, the corporate lobby, the foreign lobby , the IRS and all
the rest are deadset to hush up RON PAUL, let's at least make a
stand for our values. There's not shame in defeat, only shame in
inaction.
Now is our time.
|12.17.07 @ 7:40PM|#
In Marc Ambinder's comments several people have made the claim
that polls are not showing Dr. Paul's true level of support because
1) pollsters don't call mobile phone and Paul supporters are
disproportionately more likely not to have a landline and 2) the
"Likely Republican Voters" that are polled had to have voted in the
2004 Republican Presidential primary. Since there was no race last
time, many independents voted in the Democratic primary. This would
also seem to exclude anyone who turned 18 since the last
presidential primary.
I have heard the first claim before, but can anyone tell me if the
second claim is true or just wishful thinking.
Brian Carnell|12.17.07 @ 7:44PM|#
"OK, Reasonites. Let's put our money where our mouth is, help
Ron Paul. Monetary or otherwise. We have a chance in a life time to
make history with this guy, or at the very least make a wave big
enough that the cold splash might wake up a few Washington
politicians."
Yeah, don't vote for those other immigrant-hating, conspiracy
minded, anti-abortion social conservatives in the Republican
Party!
|12.17.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Yeah, don't vote for those other immigrant-hating,
conspiracy minded, anti-abortion social conservatives in the
Republican Party!
Edward, is that you?
MattL|12.17.07 @ 7:47PM|#
That's Ron Paul the racist
right?
No thanks. You can keep that Texan for yourselves.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.17.07 @ 8:02PM|#
Except for all of the areas he isn't libertarian he is a consistent libertarian.
|12.17.07 @ 8:03PM|#
1) pollsters don't call mobile phone(s)
Good point.
A lot a young people don't bother with expensive landline telco
service at all, opting only for cellular service. I doubt that
pollsters have completely overlooked that, but it does nudge the
door open for some surprises.
Seitz|12.17.07 @ 8:05PM|#
First, I'm not Edward. I'll admit to partially trolling. I'm not
a Paul supporter, though I'd take him over any other Republican.
But I see two statements, both of which are clearly false:
1)Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, both replete with references to God...
This is obviously untrue, and I'm sure Paul knows it. Why include
the K in this statement when he has to know it's not true? What's
he trying to accomplish?
2) The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no
basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers.
Again, he could have stopped after "Constitution", but he felt the
need to add text that is demonstrably false.
It bothers me only because Paul seems like a straight shooter. I
may not agree with all of his beliefs, but at least he believes in
more than "I really want to be President". Yet these are both
outright obfuscations.
Jon|12.17.07 @ 8:21PM|#
What is it about so many libertarians that makes me think they'd entertain no other option than to eschew a big tent for an umbrella? I'm just saying...Ron Paul is PLENTY libertarian.
Neu Mejican|12.17.07 @ 8:27PM|#
It is not gay marriage that Paul opposes, but gay
adoptions.
Why the government has any business meddling in this private
contract I have no idea...
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
zzzz|12.17.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Seitz,
First, you are Edward. Its obvious because you keep saying the same
exact things over and over again. You don't know too many words, do
you? Second, anyone who knows about Paul's passionate and
consistent criticism of the war on drugs knows these charges of
racism are bunk
Neu Mejican|12.17.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Except for all of the areas he isn't libertarian he is a
consistent libertarian.
At least most of the time.
|12.17.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Now is our time.
To some extent. I don't know if Dr. Paul will win the nomination,
but I'll support him whole-heartedly.
And not because it "will make a statement." It already has made a
statement. Look how quickly Huckabee jumped on the Fair Tax
bandwagon!
He's making a difference made visible by some erratic changes in
policy the other candidates have made over the course of this
campaign. Show me any supporters with the fervor, passion and
optimism that Dr. Paul draws...
Anyone?
My fellow Reasonoids, trolls, and all around Donderoooo!
no-good-ninks, who would have thought a year ago that someone with
about 75% libertarian beliefs would even come
close to making it this far?
I gave up my career in journalism in 2005 because I saw, even at
the local level, how corrupt our country has become. I realized
that I couldn't do very much to change it either. But Dr. Paul has
given me hope; a hope that I imagine no one but John F. Kennedy
could inspire.
For far too long, our founding fathers have been spinning in their
respective graves for the pathetic way in which we've cared for
their republic.
No longer with this stand.
Stop the spinning, start the r3VOLution!
|12.17.07 @ 8:41PM|#
The economy is bankrupt, an imperial war has killed a million
innocents, our constitutional rights are threatened, and they
whine, "But he doesn't support gay marriage!"
My guess is that anyone who talks that way is a neocon hack. I have
difficulty believing that an intelligent gay person would be so
obsessed with his sexuality that he would forget his freedom.
As for Dr. Paul's actual position, he wants the matter handled by
the states and taken off the federal agenda so that national
politics can be about foreign policy and the economy -- before our
distraction from critical issues destroys the republic.
|12.17.07 @ 8:45PM|#
When the constitution was written, I believe there were several
states with incompatible state religions.
Massachusetts, for example, had tax-payer funded protestant
churches, and a public school system to indoctrinate children into
the state religion.
In Vermont there was also a religious requirement for holding
government office.
I belive Maryland was a Catholic state.
The first amendment was an attempt to prevent the Federal Govt
becoming a battleground for religious control of other states. It
was intended to be a sort of live and let-live policy. Furthermore,
while Thos Jefferson did (correctly IMHO) did identify the church
and state as being a pernicious combination, there were many who
did think that the U.S. should have chaplains serving in the
military etc.
Does Ron Paul wish to establish a white Christian nation as some
allege? Clearly no. I have listened to several of his interviews,
and he has said things such as,
"An abortion ban would probably be legally unenforceable"
" A compassionate society should rejoice that we have developed
drugs that can help those in severe pain, rather than demonize
those drugs because a tiny minority abuses them."
"If we had a healthy economy, there would be little political
pressure to keep out immigrants; people would welcome them."
Honestly, a Federal Government adopting Ron Paul's political
prescriptions would be such a great improvement over what we have
now, that I would welcome his election, even though I am an
anarchist and view Ron Paul as yet another piece of statist scum, a
crime-boss-wannabee.
|12.17.07 @ 8:45PM|#
You go to war with the Ron Paul you have, not the Ron Paul you
wish you had.
And least that is what I tell myself...
|12.17.07 @ 8:51PM|#
Hey, that means that Andrew Sullivan is more "libertarian" than Reason Magazine!
|12.17.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Over at the Corner Derb admitted to donating $100 to the Tea Party. How wild is that? Sullivan and Derbyshire supporting the same candidate!
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.17.07 @ 9:04PM|#
Something I have to wonder: How many of the Ron Paul supporters
are either registered Republicans or live in states where they can
vote in the Republican primary even if they are not?
Just asking.
|12.17.07 @ 9:05PM|#
The landline excuse doesn't impress me. Even if the pollsters
are biased against mobile phone users, Ron Paul won't win any
elections if he can't get 10% of landline users to support
him.
However, I do think it's entirely possible that the reason Paul's
numbers are so low is because the general public doesn't know the
first thing about him yet. As the first primaries draw closer,
dedicated supporters and advertising dollars can fix that.
|12.17.07 @ 9:48PM|#
Sullivan endorsed Paul? Well, that's the kiss of death. We wasted our money yesterday.
|12.17.07 @ 9:48PM|#
However, I do think it's entirely possible that the reason
Paul's numbers are so low is because the general public doesn't
know the first thing about him yet.
That may have been a tenable belief a few months ago. Now, I fear
we're running into the fact that people don't want what he's
selling. As much as people bitch about America heading in the wrong
direction (as they have been since such polls were first done),
they don't want radical change -- they want the status quo plus a
scratching of whatever itch they've currently got. And I assure
you, very few people are itching about monetary policy or the war
on drugs right now -- the current pacifier the baby's crying for is
free health care.
Full disclosure: I hope I'm wrong about this...
Vent|12.17.07 @ 9:51PM|#
George Bush hates black puppets.
Give him a break -- he's really not up to all that
pressure to be bright.
Ventifact|12.17.07 @ 9:58PM|#
I'm with crimethink. I'll also add this: Americans tend to like
prestige. Ron Paul has served well as a congressman and has
performed the good work of a physician, but that's not so-called
presidential material. Americans are results-oriented more than
ideas-oriented*, and so they see anyone who has attained an
impressive position and satisfied his constituents in that position
as a person who could do the presidential job too. It's not all
that much about what someone's actually saying they'll do --
especially in this race.
* Thus, e.g., the fact that they are clamoring for gov't-given
healthcare, missing the underlying economic (including tax) reasons
they don't have healthcare. Thus the rallying cry that a given
candidate will "get in office and get things done for
America(ns)!"
-- also not edward
|12.17.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Neu Mejican:
Why the government has any business meddling in this private
contract I have no idea...
Just take that idea and expand it. Here's a hint; Why the
government have any business meddling in any private contract that
doesn't involve force or fraud?
|12.17.07 @ 10:04PM|#
-- also not edward
In other words, not everyone who's skeptical of RP's chances is
Edward, a fact that some of our more enthusiastic posters need to
be reminded of from time to time...
|12.17.07 @ 10:08PM|#
Shoulds been: Why *does* the government have any
business meddling in any private contract that doesn't involve
force or fraud?
(I shpuld set aside a New Year's res. for the Preview button!)
Seitz|12.17.07 @ 10:15PM|#
First, you are Edward.
I'm not sure how to convince that I'm not, other to tell you to ask
Matt Welch. He can verify it.
Bingo|12.17.07 @ 10:21PM|#
James B:
Haha I think the Corner has a few closet Paul supporters. It's too
bad the war and foreign policy is their hot button issue rather
than things like fiscal conservatism and small government.
Oh National Review, where did you go wrong.
|12.17.07 @ 10:23PM|#
Shoulda been: *Shoulda* been.
Sorry. Please accept this swell vid from the early 80's:
EBN-OZN - "Aeiou sometimes y"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlzEpRmJgv4
Go Ron Paul!
http://www.youtube.com/RickeyRamone
|12.17.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Except for all of the areas he isn't libertarian he is a
consistent libertarian.
At least most of the time.
Ron Paul is a libertarian 90% of the time, every time.
|12.17.07 @ 10:38PM|#
@jacob
I went to reddit and voted the story down. The first 50,000 Ron
Paul stories submitted to reddit or digg was my limit. Really I'm
tired of it.
And when did everyone started caring what Sullivan thinks anyways?
"hack" is not a strong enough word for the guy and this doesn't
help Ron Paul in the slightest.
|12.17.07 @ 11:44PM|#
Andrew Sullivan lives on the net. Since he's been touting Paul
and Obama for weeks now, his endorsement is neither surprising nor
meaningful.
A more surprising, and more substantive endorsement came last week
from John Derbyshire of National Review. Why didn't we here about
that on H&R?
Elemenope|12.18.07 @ 12:07AM|#
Ron Paul is 100% human (so far as we know), which makes him
pretty much by default less than 100% anything else that requires
perfect fidelity to ideas, actions, etc.. How much less is
significant, and he does pretty well on that score.
People who wait for perfect wait forever.
BakedPenguin|12.18.07 @ 12:56AM|#
Please accept this swell vid from the early 80's:
EBN-OZN? Damn, Rick, that's cold. If you're trying to annoy people,
why not Barnes
& Barnes, Lene Lovich or
Art of
Noise?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.18.07 @ 1:10AM|#
He's the real thing in a world of fakes and
frauds
Amen, Brother Sully
|12.18.07 @ 2:16AM|#
Seitz | December 17, 2007, 10:15pm | #
First, you are Edward.
I'm not sure how to convince that I'm not, other to tell you to ask Matt Welch. He can verify it.
Really, on some level, aren't we all Edward? Deep inside
all of our hearts lives our own personal Edward. Except for
Warren's heart, probably.
I was actually looking at the Ron Paul site yesterday when John
Derbyshire's name was on the screen. I know enough about National
Review to have recognized his name and felt pleasantly surprised,
but then thought maybe I'd heard he'd written some pro-Paul stuff.
So I shrugged my shoulders and just kept watching the money roll in
for Liberty.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 2:27AM|#
Good point, Arkady. I think we will also mostly recognize that not only do we all have a little Edward in us, but we also derive a little benefit from having Edward around the forums. It helps us keep fairly certain that we are right to quash that internal Edward.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 2:30AM|#
Rick Barton,
Just take that idea and expand it. Here's a hint; Why [does]
the government have any business meddling in any private contract
that doesn't involve force or fraud?
Strangely, Dr. Ron Paul would claim to be with you on this
point...and yet...
|12.18.07 @ 3:19AM|#
Neu Mejican --
I'm honestly not trying to deploy the "nuh-unh!/yuh-huh!" method of
argumentation here, but do you have citations for the bills where
Ron Paul took all the apparently anti-choice stances you're
describing? Because -- and I repeat, I'm not trying to be a dick
about it -- some, though not all, of the one-sentence things you've
posted ("Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in D.C.
(1999)") sound a little like context-free talking points to
me.
It reminds me a bit (and I'm paraphrasing) of the attack ad last
fall against the legislator whose vote to renew NIH funding
translated into a "[vote] to fund a study of the reading habits of
cross-dressing Eskimos" (or something like that), since
obviously "voting to fund NIH" == "support for every study
conducted by anyone remotely connected to NIH". So do you know, did
RP actually vote to ban gay adoptions in DC, or just vote against
an act wherein one of the fifteen titles would have required all
adoption agencies in the District to accept applications from gay
couples?
Now, obviously RP's got more conservative religious beliefs than I
do. But even if you can find all the bills you describe and they're
unambiguously anti-choice, my pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice vote
will still be going to Ron Paul. That's partly because I'm sanguine
about the prospects for my preferred policies -- I see equitable
treatment for gay unions as just a matter of time (whether that
means gay marriages being recognized by the state or that
governments would leave the marriage business altogether, I don't
know), and I think that an America where Roe was
overturned would probably be an America with safer abortion
rights.
Furthermore, though, I'm still not convinced that Ron Paul
has/would have a) the desire to force his religion on people, b)
the ability to do so if elected president, c) the willingess to
exercise that ability if he has it, or d) the willingness to
arrogate that ability to himself if he doesn't. Plus things like
this
and this go a long way towards alleviating any
fears I might have.
|12.18.07 @ 3:47AM|#
Alright, perhaps this is the offending statute? It's language
that shows up in the DC appropriation bills from the 105th
Congress, which included 1999. My legalese isn't up to snuff, but
it sounds like it's denying DC the ability to use its appropriated
money to extend various benefits (which might presumably include
adoption) to couples who weren't legally married -- ie, gay
couples.
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992
(D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-1401 et seq.) or to otherwise
implement or enforce any system of registration of unmarried,
cohabiting couples (whether homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian),
including but not limited to registration for the purpose of
extending employment, health, or governmental benefits to such
couples on the same basis as such benefits are extended to legally
married couples."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html
If RP did indeed vote in favor this bill, I still need a lot of
convincing before I'll believe that a) he did so on account of this
provision as it might be applied to adoption (and not, say, just
because he wanted to duly appropriate funds to DC's city
government), and that b) this is part of a pattern of heavy-handed
religious authoritarianism on RP's part.
|12.18.07 @ 4:02AM|#
... none of which is to say that even a half-assed attempt
(which maybe this wasn't -- maybe it was a laser-sighted attack) to
use federal power to impede the rights of homosexuals in DC isn't a
despicable, craven (but ultimately Constitutional) act of bigotry.
A "yea" vote from Paul, if it was centered around language like
that, suggests to me that maybe I wouldn't vote for him for state
senate.
But he's not running for state senate.
|12.18.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Why didn't we here about that on H&R?
Derbyshire isn't gay?
He isn't? I was sure he was. Maybe he's just British. Doesn't that
count?
|12.18.07 @ 9:46AM|#
I have contributed to both of Ron Paul's money bombs and I will
vote for him. Any doubts I had about Paul were cleared up in his
recent John Stossel interview that I have embedded here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI2C93T4CU
Even though I support Ron Paul, I sure do miss Harry Browne. There
was really no doubt about what kind of libertarian he was.
BTR
BakedPenguin|12.18.07 @ 10:00AM|#
Even though I support Ron Paul, I sure do miss Harry Browne.
I thought Browne was a great candidate, even if his accounting
should have been better.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Arkady,
Those are just the bullet points from
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
On the issues provides quick summary and links on all the
candidates.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by
gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ;
vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Arkady,
While Ron Paul may have supported the anti-gay adoption amendment
because it limited spending (and he may have a knee jerk "yes" vote
for any provision that reduces federal spending), Ron Paul is more
active in attempts to make abortions more difficult and to increase
government intrusion into this private sphere...
He has sponsored bills (HR 1094-95) to take the decision away from
mother's and doctors.
1095 has a very libertarian friendly form (again, it can be
seen as a way to reduce federal spending...
1095 No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any
population control or population planning program or any family
planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective
of whether such program or activity is foreign or
domestic.
But 1094 is clearly designed to pave the way for criminalization of
abortion. It even has provisions to take powers away from the
Supreme court on the issue...
Ron Paul, as a libertarian, should recognize the importance of
checks and balances on government power...in this case he wants to
increase the powers of state governments over their citizen's by
removing federal checks on that power.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Ron Paul:
"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the
Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional
authority to define what official state documents other states have
to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that
no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license
issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor
of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to
the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts'
jurisdiction."
From the Defense of Marriage Act:
Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage'
means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband
and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 12:09PM|#
I am a strong believer in decentralized solutions, but an
important feature of our system is the balance between local and
central authority.
Ron Paul consistently works to undermine the effectiveness of
judicial checks on state level power in political domains where he
feels that a collective community right to encode Christian morals
is infringed by current federal powers.
He seems to like the constitution except for that pesky Article
III.
nebby|12.18.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Neu,
Article Three has to be balanced with the 10th Amendment. The Fed's
get the enumerated powers and that is it. The rest belong to the
states. If there is a constitutional provision that mentions gay
marriage I am unaware of it.
Paul just doesn't want to see back door expansion of the Fed's role
in states business.
Benedict XVI|12.18.07 @ 1:05PM|#
When you have a gay Catholic heretic on your side, how can you lose?
|12.18.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Ron Paul consistently works to undermine the effectiveness
of judicial checks on state level power
Well, the question of how much power the Supreme Court has over
actions of the various states is not at all settled. Remember, the
states are supposed to be semi-autonomous. I think the current
balance is tipped way too far toward the feds, in large part
because SCOTUS has been too happy to exercise power over the states
and too reluctant to restrain its fellow federales in doing the
same.
|12.18.07 @ 1:19PM|#
"""I think that an America where Roe was overturned would
probably be an America with safer abortion rights."""
Uh, if Roe is overturned, America will not have an abortion right,
it will be left to the states. A New Yorker may continue to have a
right to an abortion but the people of South Dakota, probably
not.
I'll have little problem with that until states start trying to
pass laws to prevent citizens from going to another state for an
abortion. And if the states start having problems because the
increase of unwanted kids, they must seek a state solution.
Fluffy|12.18.07 @ 1:24PM|#
If I get a law license or a plumber's license in one state, the
other states don't have to recognize it. Why should they have to
recognize a marriage license?
Neu, I think if you would watch the Stossel interview you would see
that Paul would favor gay marriage in his own state, but would
allow other states to not recognize those marriages if they so
chose. This, of course, would mean that states could decline to
recognize heterosexual marriages, too, if they felt like it. That
sounds like it would create a considerable legal morass, but it
also doesn't sound like an explicitly anti-gay position to me.
Fluffy|12.18.07 @ 1:27PM|#
And honestly, I'm not just knee-jerk defending Paul in that post, because I may be all done with Paul if I can't get some clarification on his supposed anti-evolution statements from South Carolina that surfaced today.
|12.18.07 @ 1:48PM|#
I don't know what statements you're talking about, but is belief in evolution or lack thereof really relevant to a presidential candidate?
VM|12.18.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"I'll have little problem with that until states start trying to
pass laws to prevent citizens from going to another state for an
abortion."
like the case in Ireland?
fuckin' fundies.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Nebby/Fluffy
Paul just doesn't want to see back door expansion of the Fed's
role in states business.
This doesn't ring true based on Paul's support of a law that
strictly defines, at a federal level, what marriage is. If he was
supporting a bill that said: "states do not need to recognize the
marriage licenses of other states." Full stop, then I think you
would have a case. But instead, he supports (would have voted if he
had the chance) a bill which defines marriage at the federal
level.
|12.18.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Oh, you're talking about this:
Questioner:They had a question about the theory of evolution, whether it was true, and they had a show of hands, but I didn't see which way you voted, so I wondered, do you think it true, and should it be taught?
Ron Paul:Well, at first I thought it was a pretty inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And you know, I think it's a theory, the Theory of Evolution, and I don't accept it, as a theory. But you know, it doesn't really bother me, it's not the most important issue for me, to make the difference in my life, to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know, I think created us, created every one of us, and created the universe. And the precise time, and the manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anyone has absolute proof on either side, so I just don't, if that were the only issue, I'd think it's an interesting discussion, it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our own views, but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office on it.
|12.18.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Wow, that was painful to transcribe. If there were anything that
would make me be done with Paul, it would be his inability to
finish a sentence before starting a new one...
But his views on evolution don't really matter to me. You'll notice
he didn't say what the questioner obviously wanted him to, that he
would oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Fluffy|12.18.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Yes, that's it, crimethink.
And having declared Huckabee a dumbass for saying something along
those lines, I can't back down now and not apply that to Paul.
|12.18.07 @ 2:11PM|#
RP's real achilles heel may prove to be the 1988 Libertarian
Platform that he ran on.
Anyone know what it said on gay rights or abortion or other issues
sure to stir up controversy?
VM|12.18.07 @ 2:16PM|#
hopefully keeping the state out of each (meaning that both are
available for whomever wants either or both), as neither is
anybody's business. period.
despite the fucking fundies desire to control you.
|12.18.07 @ 2:24PM|#
creech,
I don't think the biggest timebomb from his 1988 is going to be
abortion or gay rights...remember, Libertarians want your children
to do drugs.
|12.18.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Fluffy,
You can support someone for president and think they're a dumbass
at the same time. Or, you could reevaluate your harsh judgement of
Huckabee's statement, while still saying he's a dumbass for his
other stupid statements (God/Evolution knows there's no
shortage).
|12.18.07 @ 2:28PM|#
VM, I know you have the person I'm not on ignore, so are you talking to the person I'm not?
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Crimethink,
Thanks for the work.
I wonder how RP got that BA in biology? (ignoring the medical
degree for the moment).
I mean, his statement is very vague and all...but come on...he
doesn't accept it? What's that mean?
|12.18.07 @ 5:37PM|#
NM
My observation is that a lot of creation myth believers (I hesitate
to use the word "creationists") have no problem learning and
repeating the facts of evolution without believing them and hence
have no trouble passing exams in biology.
As for MDs it actually strikes me that beyond their own specialties
they can be an awful clueless bunch*. Ron Paul seems to be an
exception having a wide knowledge of things.
I, too, don't see eye to eye with him on some things either. But
they are at the margins.
And there are days I don't even agree with myself, anyway. :)
I'm not really picking on MDs here either. I see the same thing
with a lot of engineers too.
SIV|12.18.07 @ 5:41PM|#
I wonder how RP got that BA in biology? (ignoring the medical
degree for the moment).
Many people obtain liberal arts degrees without really believing in
communism
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Isaac,
Agreed on both the MD's and the Engineers...
And the lawyer's, and the...
Anyway,
I don't have big problems with Paul.
He is at least as good as any of the other republicans running. But
that is a pretty low bar...
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 5:43PM|#
SIV,
Oh right, because liberal arts = marxist re-education camp...
Got it.
|12.19.07 @ 2:06AM|#
Neu Mejican:
Ron Paul consistently works to undermine the effectiveness of
judicial checks on state level power in political domains where he
feels that a collective community right to encode Christian morals
is infringed by current federal powers.
Consistently huh? Care to provide evidence?
And note that Ron Paul vociferously opposes Faith Basewd
Initiatives, while slime ball Hillary as well as Obama support
them.
Neu Mejican|12.19.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Rick Barton,
I already have.
c.f. his positions on abortion, gay marriage.
|12.22.07 @ 2:46AM|#
Ron Paul's worst offense is that he claims that the US is at
fault in its battle with Islamofascism. Yeah right Ron, Bin Laden
is a patriot battling American imperialism. Not to put too fine a
point on it, Ron Paul is an enemy sympathizer. He claims that the
US was wrong in every war it ever fought. Ron Paul is an
anti-American crank, and he deserves the contempt of all freedom
loving American.
The anti-American left and the loony tunes right are both enemies
of our country.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245