Ron Paul

FRC II: Ron Paul Comes Home

|

(First post here.)

Before his speech Rep. Ron Paul hung around outside the Hilton Washington ballroom, talking to anyone who recognized him. Max Blumenthal, the merry Nation prankster, grilled the candidate and about his views on Israel's role in the end times. ("I've never really thought about that.") A bearded Jacob Sullum lookalike asked him whether he believed in the devil ("Well, not a guy with horns and a pitchfork") and whether liberals represented Satan here on earth ("I don't think so"). Screwball presidential candidate Daniel Imperato grilled him on whether he was related to Imperato's cousin Paul. ("No.")

I had been waiting to see who exited the hall when Paul's name was announced; a sucker's game, as no one patient enough to endure Duncan Hunter's feverish belching was going to stiff Paul. He entered to polite applause and started talking about the growth of his campaign. "We have a simple message," he said. "It's not complex. Freedom is much better than government bureaucracy and socialism. Freedom works." So, steps one through 1000: "All we have to do enforce and obey the Constitution!" Less applause than when Fred Thompson blubbered about seeing his baby's sonogram, but loud enough.

Like he did when I saw him at the Ames Straw Poll, Paul did some light surgery on his stump speech. The war was dealt with in a fairly small section, sans references to "neocons," and "sound finances" came up but weren't hammered home. Paul swapped in a story he tells at pro-life gatherings about when he was a medical student and he walked in on an abortion. "They took a two-pound baby out of the mother," he said, "and it was crying, but they put it in a basket and pretended they didn't hear it. And it died." Bambi's mother got slugged; the crowd "awwwd." "Since then the Supreme Court has legalized that process. Our goal should be to repeal Roe v. Wade!" He spoke about the First Amendment with a religious twist, decrying campaign speech laws that "tell ministers what they can't and can't say from the pulpit. They have no right to come down on our ministers!"

It didn't get the loudest applause but the best little moment was when Paul got into his department-cutting kick: "I don't even think we should have Department of Education!" At that all the high schoolers from TeenPact, an evangelical group that teaches kids about government, got up and cheered.

In the small media/fan scrum before the speech, I asked Paul if he'd followed the controversy over a possible religious right third party and whether he'd be their candidate. He's heard of it but isn't interested; he's "not going to run as a third party candidate." But a few minutes later I talked to some Paul voters and heard support (which they said was echoed back home) for a third party Paul candidacy on a Libertarian/Constitution Party fusion ticket.

NEXT: More AlternaWeekly Blues

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does Paul support a constitutional amendment banning abortion?

  2. David,

    I can’t stop yawning. Please work on your writing skills.

  3. I can’t stop yawning. Please work on your writing skills.

    Geez, I hope you’re not an Utne judge.

  4. Paul’s elbow-rubbing with these Bible-thumping moonbats is going to hurt his popularity with his anti-war constituency.

  5. If I’m not mistaken, Paul thinks abortion is something that should be decided at a state level, not federally. However, he has also said that he thinks abortion is immoral, and presumably would be fine with laws abridging people’s freedom to obtain one.

    I don’t get why he has become so popular among the libertarian crowd. I would be very afraid for our abortion rights if he was elected. Also, he has said that the government should support “traditional marriage” so that is another strike against him. I think the government should only recognize civil unions, and I think any two people (or more, if the bugs can be worked out) who want should be able to contract for a civil union.

  6. “Geez, I hope you’re not an Utne judge.”

    Why yes. I am. Well…at least with regard to it’s softness and absorbency.

  7. I talked to some Paul voters and heard support (which they said was echoed back home) for a third party Paul candidacy on a Libertarian/Constitution Party fusion ticket.

    FUCK THAT NOISE. No no no a thousand times no. Never forget, never again. Crawling in bed with those fascists was the biggest mistake the libertarian movement ever made. The fusionist marriage has been nothing but spousal abuse from day one.

    Fuck you conservatives! You go to hell. You go to hell and you die!

  8. If I’m not mistaken, Paul thinks abortion is something that should be decided at a state level, not federally.

    You’re not. And he’s right. FWIW, I’m pro-choice.

  9. Our goal should be to repeal Roe v. Wade!

    Does Paul support a constitutional amendment banning abortion?

    I really don’t think so. I think he believes abortion is a matter for the states, since (a) there is no enumerated power that reserves regulation of abortion to the feds and (b) there is no articulated Consitutional right to abortion that is enforceable against states legislating otherwise.

    To people who believe that the Constitution should be enforced as written, Roe is kind of Exhibit B for how the modern Supremes have screwed it up. (Exhibit A is Wickard v. Filburn, the Commerce Clause case.)

  10. Ru Paul is running for president?

  11. Mathew Wilder
    presumably would be fine with laws abridging people’s freedom to obtain one.

    What freedom would that be?

  12. Don’t sugarcoat it Warren. Tell us how you really feel.

  13. it’s

    Sal, I can’t stop thumping my head on my desk. Please work on your punctuation skills.

  14. Well, he did sponsor this bill:

    H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007

    To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

  15. “Sal, I can’t stop thumping my head on my desk. Please work on your punctuation skills.”

    Thanks for the tip; I greatly appreciate constructive criticism. A gift of gold.

  16. JasonC
    Well, he did sponsor this bill:

    H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007

    To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

    That would be cool. That way the human life could inherit property an whatnot.

  17. it’s

    “Sal, I can’t stop thumping my head on my desk. Please work on your punctuation skills.”

    what doe’s being on time have to do with anything?

  18. It amazes me, the hypocrisy I see. Abortion rights. Do we have murder rights?Well what the hell is the difference? Paul will no more take away your rights to an abortion than he will take away your rights to murder your neighbor. Constitutionally, you have neither. It’s time to top pussy footing around and call abortion what it is, murder of the unborn.

    FWIW, I am pro-choice too, the choice of the unborn, the choice of the one without a voice, the choice of the defenseless. That’s my PRO choice!

  19. the choice of the one without a voice, the choice of the defenseless. That’s my PRO choice!

    Your mother should have made a different choice.

  20. Sorry, abortions can cry? Could this qualify as screaming for help?

  21. I think this might be the thread in which we finally settle the abortion debate. Come on, guys! We can do it!
    I say: kill the bastards.

  22. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone.

    Plus, afterbirth on toast.

  23. After having looked quite closely at all the Republican Candidates for President I have concluded:

    Dr. Ron Paul has the only consistent voting record to support his rhetoric in the campaign. After waiting for Thompson to enter the race and then viewing his comments reported in the media and at the last debate, I have switched my support to Dr. Ron Paul. The policies that I may not agree with, have been expressely mentioned by Paul as needing Congressional approval before enactment.

    That is good enough for me.. and I put my dollars where my vote will be going.

    Good luck to all REAL conservative candidates in this race

  24. I believe in what Dr. Paul is saying, “let the States decide for themselves”. I have no worries either way when it comes to abortion, if it happens, you have to be the one to face your or its maker, not me. But that still goes with the notion that you believe in a creator. The States that end up allowing abortion (after it’s not any longer being regulated through the Federal Guvment) will be filled with a bunch of depressed folks though.
    Just my two-cents.

  25. I don’t get why he has become so popular among the libertarian crowd. I would be very afraid for our abortion rights if he was elected.

    I don’t get why libertarians are so exercised over abortions. “You own yourself” and all that. The fetus may be small and dependent, but it’s a biologically unique human.

    That said, I’d let Ron Paul slide if he were pro-abortion since he’s so good on the other points I hold dear. Why not the other direction?

  26. Relevant article from the most recent Economist:

    http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989951

    Restrictive laws do not reduce abortion

  27. a biologically unique human.

    There ya go, using that word “human” again.
    Human to you, wart to someone else.

  28. I think the government should only recognize civil unions, and I think any two people (or more, if the bugs can be worked out) who want should be able to contract for a civil union.

    Bigot!

  29. A biologically unique wart?

  30. A biologically unique wart?

    Better then a biological weapon war.

  31. Sal –

    you’re yawning cuz you’re so tired from your lips moving when you read.

  32. Paul’s abortion stance is at least 100% consistent with his views on life and his plain reading of the Constitution.

    I have more trouble with him signing on to this gem (the *gag*Marriage Protection Act of 2005, which fortunately died) which was essentially Congress asserting it can tell the Supreme Court it can’t declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Gee, wouldn’t it be convenient for Congress if it could pass any ol’ abridgment of liberty it pleased and simply tack on a “The Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to hear…the Constitutionality of this act.” Puke. I don’t understand how this fits in with Paul’s otherwise exemplary record on the Constitution.

  33. Roe is kind of Exhibit B for how the modern Supremes have screwed it up. (Exhibit A is Wickard v. Filburn, the Commerce Clause case.)

    RC, you’re forgetting Brown vs Board, the forerunner of all the other “Fuck the Constitution, we’re going to do the right thing” decisions (including Roe).

    Anyhow, I’m also amazed at how some libertarians are so adamant about abortion “rights” and gay marriage that they would withhold support from RP on the basis of his positions on those issues…positions which would almost certainly have no effect on the relevant laws even if he’s elected.

    Let’s put it this way: I’m virulently pro-life, and if RP was pro-choice I would still support him.

  34. R.C. Dean,

    Whether he supports a new constitutional amendment on the matter isn’t really directly addressed by your statement, is it?

  35. I think this might be the thread in which we finally settle the abortion debate. Come on, guys! We can do it!

    Hil-fuckin-larious! LOL

  36. I think the government should only recognize civil unions, and I think any two people (or more, if the bugs can be worked out) who want should be able to contract for a civil union.

    Bigot!

    Bug, I think Matthew was referring the famed bunny not insects. You’re cool.

  37. Let’s put it this way: I’m virulently pro-life, and if RP was pro-choice I would still support him.

    As I said, I’m pro-choice. I still support Ron Paul. Roe v. Wade WAS bad law, send it back to the states. As a pro-choicer who wants Roe v. Wade overturned, I’m a pretty lonely guy in the fetal flame wars.

  38. crimethink,

    Let’s put it this way: I’m virulently pro-life, and if RP was pro-choice I would still support him.

    I’m not quite sure why other people should make the sam calculation that you do.

  39. I’m virulently pro-life…

    Now we know the source of yesterday’s ‘Outbreak of middle school pregnancies in Maine’ as reported on HnR!

  40. I asked Paul if he’d followed the controversy over a possible religious right third party and whether he’d be their candidate.

    Was that even an option or was it a rhetorical question? Seriously, I beg you David Wiegal, let us know.

  41. I guess, I freaked out for a second… should be “Weigel” not “Wiegal” (duh)

  42. While you might try to make the case that the Ninth Amendment allows for the right to choose to abort a fetus, that same amendment could also be construed to allow for the right for the fetus to live. Thus, I’d say it’s inapplicable.

    I think Ron Paul has the constitutional issue right — the feds have no right to meddle in the abortion issue, it should be left up to the states, and if you don’t like your state’s laws, drive or fly to a different state for the abortion. This, of course, begs the question about minor children having great difficulty making this choice, short of raiding their parent’s purse and catching a bus to another state.

    Of course, Ron Paul’s support for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act seems inconsistent with his view that the Tenth Amendment prohibits federal meddling such as Roe v. Wade. Perhaps someone could raise this at a Paul Q&A session. The Marriage Protection Act is absurd pandering — anyone want to bet the Supreme Court would declare unconstitutional the provision saying the Supreme Court couldn’t rule on the constitutionality of DOMA?

  43. On the one hand, it’s good that Weigel is reducing the fact-challenged Blumenthal to just a prankster; it’d be better if he tried to call him on his various misleading statements.

  44. I’m with you, J sub D. Repeal Roe, and then let’s pass a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing reproductive privacy.

  45. Roe v. Wade was the right decision in my opinion but really crappy legal reasoning. Brown v. Board was most definitely the right decision and good legal reasoning (14th amendment, etc).

    I’m pro-choice but I lean towards leaving abortion policy to the states. I think the end result wouldn’t be so different from what we have now. How many abortion clinics are there in places like South Dakota, anyway?

  46. I’m with you, J sub D. Repeal Roe, and then let’s pass a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing reproductive privacy.

    Sounds good to me. How but guaranteeing privacy in general explicitly?

  47. Lot’s of high quality remarks on this site (not). reason readers have got some major issues. Vote Ron Paul 2008 if you want to be more free and if you want to take our country back.

  48. I think this might be the thread in which we finally settle the abortion debate. Come on, guys! We can do it!

    Enough of your soft bigotry of low expectations, pessimist! We’re not only going to solve the abortion question, but here libertarians will once and for all settle their differences on race, school vouchers, the Civil War, labor unions, religion, science fiction, Ron Paul’s candidacy and which Rush album is best for a mushroom trip.

    The clear answer: 2112, but only while reading a lost Heinlein alternative history where a syndicate of Hasidic students run their own private school named for Conferderate Gen. Aborted Black Lincoln after Ron Paul loses to the Kucinich-Colbert ticket.

  49. Ron Paul DOES NOT support an Amendment to the US Constitution banning abortion simply because, if you give Washington the power to dictate to the states through added amendments, it can easily be undone when another party takes power in Washington.
    Much better to use an already existing amendment (tenth, State’s Rights) to protect the rights of the people to do as they please WITHIN THEIR OWN STATES.

    Sound, undeniably sound.

  50. Ron Paul supports an “Act of Congress” removing abortion from the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction. He does not support a constitutional amendment because simply put it is like killing a fly with a sledge hammer. Only a simple Act of Congress is required. The sledge hammer will damage the constitution.

  51. Last poster was correct, Paul wants to take the issue of abortion out of the control of federal-level courts, and he is critical of amendments on either abortion or defining marrage as between a man and a woman.

    He DOES, however, define life as beginning at conception (which is scientifically accurate–warts contain the DNA/genetic line of whoever they are on; the fetus has it’s own, unique, HUMAN, DNA/genetic code). If the federal government defined life as beginning at conception, it would change the nature of the debate entirely, and then he would send it to the states. Which is an interesting policy stance, and I agree with him after thinking it through. The Fed DOES have the right to determine at what point citizenship is granted, therefore it must have a stance when human life begins. At least that’s my train of thought, as triggered by Paul’s stance.

  52. re: does Paul support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion…the answer is NO. He supports a platform that would seek to repeal Roe v. Wade because the Constitutional position is that the Federal Government has to no right of jurisdiction in abortion cases.

    He’s basically saying the states should make their own laws about it.

  53. Hey “Pro-choice”, you have always had a choice:
    It’s called “birth control”. Be responsible!
    Eric

  54. HAY ERIC:

    IT’S PRO CHOICE – YOU DON’T WANT AN ABORTION? DON’T HAVE ONE. BE RESPONSIBLE.

    ALTHOUGH WE WISH YOUR DADDY PULLED OUT EARLIER.

  55. Lot’s of high quality remarks on this site (not).

    Party on, Wayne!

  56. Ron Paul supports an “Act of Congress” removing abortion from the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction.

    Please tell me Ron Paul would never support such foolishness. Please.

    Does he also think that Congress can pass a law banning all weapons, so long as they specify that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over weapons laws? So much for the 2nd amendment!

  57. Abortion is termination of life. That would be killing. Where does the fucking idiot who is concerned about losing abortion rights derive the right to murder innocent babies? The eugenics/population-reduction monsters have polluted yet another mind. HEIL HILLARY!!!!

  58. there’re guilty babies?

  59. crimethink:

    If something is not in the jurisdiction of the fed, then SCOTUS shouldn’t rule on it, since SCOTUS is part of the Fed. I think that is how the logic goes.

  60. To say an unborn child has the value of life also means they can be killed the same as you or I. If I drive down the road and am adjusting my radio?and by accident run over a child and kill them…the current law protects that life (or the next life) by charging me with manslaughter. So what if a 3 month pregnant woman is tuning her radio, runs off the road, hits a light post, and miscarries? Can we protect the unborn life the same as the child on the street and charge her with manslaughter…or do we make a choice and decide her criminal neglect can be overlooked in the case of the unborn? Same thing if she was 2-3 months along and?for instance skiing?almost every miscarry would need to be investigated for the possibility the mother was negligent?knowing or unknowingly. The problem is when you LEGALLY protect a life?you protect it from more than just murder?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.