Civil Liberties

Who Will Be The Next Ron Paul?

As Dr. No retires, here are three House members who might claim his libertarian mantle.


Regardless of whether he wins the Republican primary, makes an independent run, or bows out of the 2012 presidential race altogether, this aspect of Ron Paul's future is indisputable: Come January 2013, he will no longer be a member of the House of Representatives.

Last July, the 12-term Republican representative from Texas, deep in his third bid to gain the Oval Office, announced that he was not standing for re-election.

Paul will leave behind a big pair of shoes to fill when it comes to being an indefatigable champion of reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. No politician over the past several decades has been more outspoken and consistent in his views—and votes—for smaller government.

Even a cursory look at the budget plans being hawked by the three other Republican presidential contenders and by Barack Obama shows just how rare Paul's politics really are.

Who can take Paul's place in the House of Representatives? The 2010 midterms flooded the lower chamber with 94 new members, many of them supported by Tea Party factions. The ideal candidate to take up Paul's libertarian message would oppose the government picking market winners and bailing out market losers; militarization at home and abroad; and economic and social engineering of all stripes.

3.) Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.)

When Paul retires, Tennessee Congressman John "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. will be the last sitting House Republican to have voted against the Iraq War. Not just once, but every time the issue was on the table. Along with Paul, Duncan voted against the war in 2003, against a House declaration in support of the war in 2006, and against further funding for the war in 2007. Also in 2007, Duncan voted in favor of a resolution to withdraw all U.S. troops within 90 days of the resolution's passage.

What else has Duncan voted against? The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, making the PATRIOT Act permanent, and ObamaCare. If that sounds a lot like Paul's voting record, it's because Duncan, who has served since 1988, is a member of Paul's Liberty Caucus.

In his own words: "The traditional conservative position on foreign policy is a noninterventionist foreign policy, and Congressman Paul has been a very forceful advocate of that," Duncan told in 2007. When asked about Paul's statement during the GOP presidential debates about blowback, Duncan replied, "What [Paul] should have said, in my opinion, is that nothing that we've ever done or not done could ever justify the killing of innocent people such as occurred in New York City. On the other hand, at some point we're going to have to realize that we can't afford to keep getting involved in every religious, ethnic, and political dispute around the world. It's unconstitutional and unaffordable, and it goes against every traditional conservative position I've ever known."

Why He's Not Number 1: Despite being against market and military interventionism, Duncan has a mixed record on domestic policy. While he supports vouchers and charter schools, gun rights, and free trade, he also supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, drug testing for professional athletes and federal employees, making death penalty appeals harder, and banning various types of political ads. Additionally, Duncan supported Cash for Clunkers and thinks tobacco should be regulated as a drug.

2.) Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)

Ron Paul isn't the only marijuana reform advocate retiring from Congress this year. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is also taking a powder. When it comes to economic regulation and sexual orientation, Jared Polis is more like Frank than Paul, but he shares the latter's deep concern with civil liberties.

Polis took office in 2009 and his list of libertarian-ish ideas is short but powerful. He's called for an end to federal marijuana prohibition, says the Iraq War was a colossal mistake, opposes the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Fairness Doctrine, voted against the PATRIOT Act's warrantless wiretaps, the suspension of habeus corpus for terror suspects, and domestic spying. He also supports travel to Cuba, and even started a nonprofit foundation in Colorado to help launch charter schools. (Contrary to an earlier version of this article, Polis wasn't in office to vote for TARP, but he did oppose the Detroit bailout.) 

In his own words: "Ending the failed policy of prohibition with regard to marijuana will strike a major blow against the criminal cartels that are terrorizing Americans and Mexicans on both sides of the border," Polis said at a National Press Club Event. "It's been estimated that the drug cartels derive about half of their revenue from marijuana, so I think it would reduce the violence by half, and reduce the money that fuels the criminal enterprises by half."

Why He's Not Number 1: Polis may be good in civil liberties, but he's a big-government Democrat on absolutely everything else. You name it, Polis has supported it: The pro-union Card Check, a national service initiative, additional  the initial stimulus, environmental restrictions on emissions, $40 billion for "green public schools"—the list goes on.

1.) Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.)

Having only taken office in January, Justin Amash doesn't have much of a voting record to object to. This, combined with his heavy handed social conservatism—he believes life begins at conception and supports the Federal Defense of Marriage Act—might make him a strange choice as the member of Congress most likely to pick up where Ron Paul leaves off.

And yet…

Amash is a vocal proponent of Paul's small-government philosophy and has endorsed his presidential run. The votes he has cast so far show a profound understanding of the many ways in which the federal government currently infringes on personal liberty. Amash has criticized President Obama's health-care legislation for its deleterious effects on small businesses and defended the right of parents to homeschool their children. He opposes all energy subsidies and most energy regulations. According to his website, Amash supports "lower personal and corporate tax rates," a simpler tax code, and a broader tax base. He's "also open to proposals that tax spending instead of income as a substitute to our current system."

Additionally, Amash supports a balanced-budget amendment, and believes all legislation should have to point to language in the Constitution that proves its legitimacy. While Amash wasn't in Congress to vote for or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he did vote to ban armed forces in Libya without congressional approval, and opposed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as well as many provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The fact that Amash explains every vote he casts on his Facebook page is not simply a pedantic cherry on top: It shows the 31-year-old understands not just 21st-century media but takes seriously the need for a more transparent government.

In his own words: "Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial," Amash wrote in a letter that was later signed by six other House Republicans and four House Democrats. "We strongly believe in protecting the country's security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But we cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate Americans' constitutional rights."

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason. Follow him on Twitter.

Follow Reason on Twitter.

What do you think of our choices? Who would you have picked to succeed Ron Paul as the House of Representatives' leading champion of libertarian policies? Share your thoughts in the the comments.

NEXT: ObamaCare's High-Risk Pools Cost Twice as Much Per Person As Projected

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.

  1. Come January 2013, he will no longer be a member of the House of Representatives

    Will anyone notice? Discuss.

    1. Yes, everyone will notice. Except YOU.

      1. Don’t feed it. What’s the point of arguing with something that is just here to bait you into arguing with it? Just start ignoring the morons. It’s blissful.

      2. Because Paul was so effective in Congress? Might you list some of his accomplishments? Things for which he alone was responsible?

        1. We’re in a day and age where the fewer “accomplishments” a lawmaker has under his belt, the better.

          1. I agree, when those “accomplishments” increase the size and scope of the state. But to my point, what has Paul done to reduce the power of the state? Will his absence really have any effect on the trend toward larger and more ruinous state power? I don’t see how. He’s only one man of 435, “checked and balanced” by all the rest.

            1. He’s done as much as one man in his position can be expected to do. Which isn’t much, since, as you say, he’s one of 435. What he has done, however, is to call a great deal of attention to the excesses of the state and the dwindling away of our liberties. He’s taken the concepts of individual liberty and limited government and dragged them away from the fringes and into the mainstream. Of course, he’s done this more in his capacity as a presidential candidate rather than as a congressman. I think Ron Paul is the greatest statesman of my lifetime. And off the top of my head, I can’t list a single thing he’s done in Congress.

              1. I give him credit for making some people more aware of the principles of liberty. It’s a bit of a stretch to call him a “statesman,” however. No mere Congressman can be a statesman on the level of a Churchill or even an FDR. They simply haven’t the power of office to effect global events.

                1. It’s a bit of a stretch to call him a “statesman,” however.

                  states?man? ?/?ste?tsm?n/[steyts-muhn]
                  noun, plural -men.

                  1. a person who is experienced in the art of government or versed in the administration of government affairs.

                  From a wikipedia article (I know, I know) defining “statesman”:

                  “As it relates to American history, “statesman” represents an individual, who after being elected to office, holds firm to their oath to defend and uphold the US Constitution within their duty as an elected official.

                  1. experienced in the art of government…versed in the administration of government affairs…an individual, who…holds firm to their oath to defend and uphold the US Constitution within their duty as an elected official….

                    Your definitions would apply to the lowest city council or board of education member. Is Henry Waxman a “statesman?” Is Nancy Pelosi? John Boehner? Just being a politician or an elected official doesn’t mean that you are a statesman.

                    1. A statesman isn’t necesarilly someone who has enacted great change or affected world events. It is someone who fits the model of a public servant, i.e their conduct while in office is the conduct that every other politician should be held too, but sadly isn’t. If Obama or Bush were half the statesmen of Paul then the US would be in much better shape, but then again they would never have been elected.

                2. his 30 years of statesmanship is really beyond the scope of what one or two whimsical outliers can proclaim to question

              2. Well said, Karl.

            2. Just obstructing the “process” by calling attention to shit is a great accomplishment in that kind of hellhole environment. As they say, if it saves one life, or prevents one bill from advancing.

            3. Ron Paul has done more to push the political debate in this country toward economic freedom and individual liberty than anyone else in office. He’s had a MAJOR effect on the power of the state.

              1. Really? So how’s that going? Good?

                1. Yes, America is far better off for having had Ron Paul in office then she would have been otherwise.

                2. ?
                  do you have more productive ways of making yourself stand out


            4. No one even began to discuss auditing the Fed or real budget cuts until Paul started talking about them. Or the 10th Amendment or Constitutionalism. He has shifted at least the rhetoric of all the GOP candidates.

              You know you can read many newspapers on line now, if the Podunk Pennysaver doesn’t have any national news in it.

        2. Dr Paul was the REASON I thought to study ABCT. >nows eyes nose

        3. He set an example. The other assholes just never read or didn’t follow the constitution.

      3. Still waiting, OM.
        Or has SugarFree cowed you into silence?

        Would anyone else like to take a stab at it? How will a chamber of 435 members and scores of committees change for the worse with the retirement of just one fringe Representative?

        1. i’m touching myself.

          1. Nice.
            You know you’ve won the debate when they start spoofing you.
            I win.

            1. PS
              Commissar SugarFree demands that you ignore me.
              Don’t make him come up there.

              1. i’m still touching myself.

                1. I can see that.

                2. I can see that.

        2. Re: Troll too coward to use a less-lame nick,

          Still waiting, OM.

          Get a chair.

          1. Coward? I’m not the one cowed into silence by Commissar SugarFree. Happily, a few free-thinkers here are not so timid.

            1. [TOUChing]+[mySeLF]+[GAMBOLING]=HeaVEN

              1. fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap

                1. Libertarian spoofers.
                  Free minds, etc.

                2. Fuck this ? asshole. What have you accomplished troll dip shit? At least Paul has done something. You on the other hand are a fucking moron, please go die of AIDS in a gutter somewhere. Is that troll enough for you question mark shit wad? Sorry but you have to talk on a troll level, because these dip shits are so fucking stupid they don’t understand intelligent language. You have to use troll speak which is a overuse of profanity and stupid comments on their sex practices.

  2. Mike Riggs on Who Will Replace Ron Paul in Congress

    Summary of the article:

    No one will.


    1. No politician is irreplaceable.
      You’re aware that he is just a politician, aren’t you?

      1. OM is not allowed to talk to you.
        Mom SugarFree said so.

        1. SugarFree isn’t the boss of me.

          1. Shut up! SHUT UP!

            Just because we hate politicians doesn’t mean that we hate our politician!

            I am so ignoring you!

            1. Liberals just can’t do comedy any more. Only if they get to make a rape threat can they fart out even a lame joke.

    2. My take also. Because of the geographical nature of congressional districts, although candidates like Ron Paul have a wide base of support that support is not concentrated enough in any one place to get any representation in Congress, and effectively something like 20% of the population is silenced.

      However, it seems to me that the most natural successor to Paul as a Statesman for the cause of Liberty is Gary Johnson, with Rand Paul perhaps being close behind.

      1. Well we will get to see Johnson in action soon, and Rand no doubt at most only a few years later.

        For the first time we actually an say who is likely to be running as an “l” or an “L” for a couple of years into the future.

  3. umm, aren’t when missing a key person. RAND PAUL. obviously he is the next heir to the Paul-libertarian movement

    1. He’s in the Senate.

      1. Which is even better. An individual Senator has far more power in our system than an individual member of the House (most of whom have no power at all).

        1. The Ron Paul phenomenon is more a personality cult than a legitimate political “movement.” Libertarians cling to his robes like he’s Moses.

          1. Because he’s the only one in Washington who sees gov’t as our servant, not our master. That’s kinda big.

            1. He’s hardly the only one. But he’s yours, ergo the cult of personality.

              1. Can you name another representative that has consistently held similar views on the role of government in economics, civil liberties, foreign policy, WoD, etc.?

                  1. Libertarian spoofers.
                    Free minds, etc.

          2. Well, you’ve just shown everyone here that you are a complete moron. Kids don’t read Mises and Hayek or even Paul and discuss Austrian business cycle theory because they have a crush. They become fans when someone takes ideas seriously.

            Obama on the other hand is mainly loved by white air heads who want to suck a black cock but don’t have the balls to just go out and do it.

        2. such as putting a hold on a law to ban synthetic drugs…..

  4. and believes all legislation should have to point to language in the Constitution that proves its legitimacy

    “general welfare… regulate commerce… necessary an proper”

    I think that covers anything anyone can imagine.

    1. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

    2. a) General Welfare applied only to efforts that effected EVERYONE, not segments of the group (poor, rich, etc.)

      b) Regulate referred only to making a set of regular rules for commerce as it was going between states (not all commerce). Essentially – to stop the states from putting tariffs on shipments to other states.

      c) Necessary and proper is a limit, not a extension. The idea was that each law had to prove it was both the only way to accomplish some goal, and that the goal was a proper fulfillment of a explicitly defined constitutional power . It doesn’t actually justify any legislation itself.

      Of course, we live in the 21st century, where we can define words to mean whatever we want, right? Who cares what those stuffy 18th century gentlemen MEANT in their dialect of English. Our version is way better – we can do anything we want with it.

  5. WaPo “Fact” Checks Paul’s Contention That Santorum Is A Fake Conservative, By Contradicting Itself

    It’s likely that Santorum voted for aid in hopes that the U.S. could persuade North Korea to abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons. The Congressional Research Service noted in its write-up that the U.S. had a history of tying fuel aid, and sometimes food assistance, to the rogue nation’s willingness to dismantle its nuclear program.

    Basically, the WaPo fact checks the facts forwarded by Paul’s campaign by resorting to mind reading.

    1. Notice as well that the WaPo does not deny that Santorum voted for those bills, just like the Paul campaign contends. The author of the article is simply engaging in excuse-making.

      1. WaPo is in full court press mode, much like the rest of the left-media, to get Santorum the nomination.

        And, of course, Santorum voted for spending. Spending good, cutting spending bad.

        1. I want you.
          I don’t want anybody else.
          And when I think about you I touch myself.

          1. It’s probably the only touch you’ll ever be getting.

            Or do you live in a home for the mentally handicapped?

  6. What about the person who is actually going to replace Ron Paul–the one who assumes his seat in Congress? I know the Texas legislature tinkered with the boundaries of his district, but is there any chance another liberty-minded Republican replaces Paul?

    1. Yeah, that’s what I thought the article was going to be about. As soon as I opened it up, I thought, what sort of navel-gazing is this? A matter of deciding how the relative rankings will be to us of people who are probably going to be re-elected anyway?

      Gee, maybe do a little digging next time, finding out about people you don’t already know, huh? I’m sure there are people who are already known to be running for that seat — unless Texas is as fucked up as NY with redistricting and nobody knows the boundaries yet!

    2. Not really. Paul’s district is not some libertarian enclave in Austin — it’s pretty much bread-and-butter rural conservative. Which pretty much demolishes the argument that he’s not “electable”.

  7. The ad at issue:

    Santorum voted to send billions of our tax dollars to dictators in North Korea and Egypt, and he even hooked Planned Parenthood up with a few million bucks. Rick Santorum, a fiscal conservative? Faaake.”

    The WaPo’s conclusion:

    Paul can find legitimate ways to attack Santorum’s fiscal record without resorting to mischaracterizations about the candidate’s votes for consolidated appropriations bills. He earns two Pinocchios for suggesting his opponent’s intention was to support ruthless dictators or abortion.

    1. Paul can find legitimate ways to attack Santorum’s fiscal record without resorting to mischaracterizations about the candidate’s votes for consolidated appropriations bills.

      What appropriations bills aren’t “consolidated appropriations bills”? Isn’t that the way the game is played? If you want to get spending passed on “controversial thing X”, just attach it to a larger spending bill with a lot of other spending line items so that more congress critters will be likely to vote for the whole tamale despite objections to X?

      If Paul’s can’t attack Santorum on votes for omnibus spending bills, then he can’t really attack him on spending at all, since that’s almost the only spending bills congress ever passes.

  8. What mischaracterizations? The WaPo just friggin’ confirmed that Santorum cast votes in favor of bills sending billions to the Norks and Egypt, and that he voted in favor of [omnibus] spending bills that sent money to, among thousands of others, Planned Parenthood.

    Where’s the mischaracterization? And where’s any suggestion at all about what Santorum’s inention was? This is about spending and voting for spending, not “intentions.”

    1. My favorite moment in that debate was when Paul cornered Santorum on giving money to support abortion and Santorum’s response was basically “I compromise my principles when it’s advantageous to me”

      1. Although he made the point about why that kind of opportunism is exactly the problem with Washington, the fact is that Paul doesn’t seem to have that kind of killer instinct. He had Santorum dead to rights and really could have done some damage by saying something harsh, but in the end he’s just too damned nice for his own good.

        1. WTF could he have said. No Rick, you’re a total cunt for having no backbone?!

    2. Duh, it’s about intentions, not results.

  9. There is no replacing Ron Paul. His mixture of the quaint and ideal are kind of Babe Ruthish in nature. The time has past for a fat, hot-dog devouring drunk to set home run records just like a 19th century gold-standard isolationist will be no more.

    But legends they are.

    1. Isolationist? Oh right, because he didn’t want our armed force to be the world police.

      1. I meant that as a compliment.

        Did RP ever call the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional by the way?

        The subject came up the other day.

        1. But it’s not a compliment when you use incorrect terminology.

          I believe the word you are looking for is Isolationist “Non-Interventionist”.

        2. But it’s not a compliment when you use incorrect terminology.

          I believe the word you are looking for is Isolationist “Non-Interventionist”.

          1. You are correct.

    2. 755 & 61 still stand.

      those others are taints not records.

      1. Both Aaron and Ruth used PEDs (or at least attempted to in Ruth’s case).

        1. 61 is maris in 162 games (expanded AL schedule in 1961)

          60 is ruth in 154 games.

          its really a pick em

          1. and that streak of crushers in the late 1990s early 2000s are all juicers. So yeah, the home run king is a fat fucker who loved excess.

    3. the gold standard we had up until 1971 looks pretty dang good right about now

    4. Another moron regurgitating pap. Clueless about monetary theory, unable to distinguish between free competitive currencies and a state monopoly currency tied to a gold standard.

      Another example of how the public skrewl lobotomies produce drooling anencephalic sheep.

  10. I thought this was going to be an article about who was taking Paul’s actual district, not his politics. It’s of interest to me because the redistricting in Texas has moved me out of TX-22 (which Paul represented back in the 1970s and 80s) into the new TX-14, his current district.

    1. Its a better subject on the standard-bearer level. I once suggested that a media savvy Mark Cuban should be the type to replace RP but got laughed at here.

  11. Amash is my rep – lucky me.

  12. The gold standard is quaint? How has 100+ years of inflation worked out? No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin legal Tender in payment of debt. This clause has not been repealed or annuled by amendment. My daughter is 6. I shudder to think what prices she’ll be paying when she’s 40.

    1. Very well actually. Wealth is far more important than a static dollar. Compare wealth today vs 1913 if you don’t believe me.

      1. Compare family size in 1913 vs today, and how many paychecks it took to support those families. And why daycare centers were the only business to expand during the Fed’s latest recession.

        1. I would say that the shrinking size of households is another indicator of prosperity.

          People can afford to go out on their own at a much younger age than they could in the past, and the elderly are less likely to be in a position where the only affordable way to survive is to move in with their children.

        2. Wealth today is an illusion. In 1913, people owned their house and saved their money (a penny saved used to be a penny earned). Today, houses and cars are overwhelmingly owned by banks. All people can afford to buy today out of pocket are the bare necessities and a few disposable electronic gadgets.

          1. People are wealthier today because of advances in productivity and technological advancement, not because we are no longer on the gold standard.

            Ask yourself this. Would us having been on the gold standard prevented us from discovering the silicon computer chip? Splitting the atom? Cellular communications? Television? Nanotechnology?

            The answer to each and everyone of them is of course not.

      2. To a banker. Because they get the wealth. Meanwhile, my paycheck is static, while inflation causes food and energy prices to skyrocket. I’m losing wealth here, asshole.

        And you act like productivity could not increase under a gold standard. I guess the Industrial Revolution is a myth, then. Of course it will – and people that save their gold will actually benefit as it buys just a little bit more over time.

      3. Compare wealth today to 1997 or 1986.

    2. aint enough gold in the whole wide world to back trillions in circulation

      1. It’s still the law of the land. Maybe, just maybe, our gov’t would be 90% smaller if they couldn’t just print money that isn’t backed by substance.

        1. If a gold standard had any real merit a Luxembourg, a Singapore, a Switzerland or a Belize – someone – would be using it. Instead the idea is reserved for theoretic disaster economies.

          Its archaic.

          1. Barack….baby….I’ll just have my good friend Ben print you up another 2 trillion or so.

            Will that tide you over until the election is over?

          2. Why on Earth would a centrally planned state use a gold standard? Except when they realize that the fiat money standard is going to result in mass poverty. That might be why Iran is getting paid in gold by India to do an end run around our idiotic sanctions.

          3. Two problems with that theory.

            One) you discount the goverments desire to spend more than it takes in

            two) you discount the ability of human beings to over estimate their ability to plan and control an economy.

          4. A restriction to gold may be archaic, but a number of countries have currency backed by commodities, including other refined metals. I don’t have a list off hand, but from what I understand the Australian dollar is backed by commodities – and it’s value has risen quite a bit against the U.S. dollar.

          5. You are an illiterate. Austrians argue for competing private currencies, not a state currency supposedly tied to gold. Try reading.

      2. Not at current dollar valuations. This has always struck me as the”you are literally to stupid to insult”objection every time some one brings it up. Divide the amount of gold held by the dollars in circulation and you will be 100% backed. Feel free after that point to print them as fast as you can mine it or obtain it by trade. Of course any commodity or even basket of commodities would work as long as they can’t be created out of thin air at the whim of any dipshit central planner with a printing press. Gold just has the historical advantage of guaranteeing a 3% maximum inflation rate and giving a level of monetary stability that politicians and central planners can never hope to achieve. Iran and India have started using it for oil transactions instead of the dollar;China is now the worlds largest gold producer and one of the largest gold importers.

      3. there is if you mark those monopoly dollars to the value of gold. $2000 per ounce, $3000 per ounce $10000, $50000, $100000, I dunno but it’s not impossible, unless you want to return to Bretton Woods.

  13. ohn|2.22.12 @ 12:29PM|#
    We will find out rather. But libel certainly does. And I am going to sue whoever is doing this. Again, if it is you, you need to stop. I doubt you have any assets. But that is okay. I wouldn’t do it for money…And constantly posting after someone with libelous material, would count as cyber stalking in most jurisdictions. Again, if it is not you, you have nothing to worry about.-..I have idea who you are and I really don’t care. And if you are not the one doing it or if it stops, I will never care. But understand if you are doing it and it does continue, I will find out who you are and it will stop. It is really that simple.

    John|2.24.12 @ 9:04AM|#I Don’t do it LH. The pictures she puts up will scar you for life. If you do read it, you can see where the white indian crap comes from and how there is no doubt she is white indian.

  14. I’m pretty sure Ron Paul believes life begins at conception and voted in favour of DOMA; wouldn’t that make Amash the perfect replacement?

    1. Wasn’t in Congress during DOMA, iirc, though I believe he has stated support for the measure on the basis that it’s an issue that should be decided by each state and thus states cannot be compelled to recognize other state’s same-sex marriages.

      Paul has opposed the FMA though, and I think support for that measure is more troubling than DOMA.

  15. “This, combined with his heavy handed social conservatism?he believes life begins at conception and supports the Federal Defense of Marriage Act?might make him a strange choice as the member of Congress most likely to pick up where Ron Paul leaves off.”

    DOMA notwithstanding, what has the belief that life begins at conception to do with not being likely to pick up where Ron Paul leaves off? You know who else believes life begins at conception? Ron Paul.

  16. I would like to see someone more Libertarian than those three get elected to Congress in Nov. Any multiple of one would be even better.

  17. Shit, there’s another guy who uses the lower case jacob anon handle!

  18. Additionally, Duncan supported Cash for Clunkers

    Damnit! He was looking so good up to this point.

    Isn’t there a Rep. out in California who is somewhat aligned with RP’s philosophy?

    Perhaps Debra Medina will run for RP’s vacated seat?

    1. maybe there’s a lot of clunkers in Tennessee? sort of like Santorum was pro-union in Pennsylvania, but says he wouldn’t be as prez?

    2. I’m not really opposed to Cash for Clunkers – as Defense spending.

      Our oil addiction means that we end up going to war to ensure a steady supply of oil. I have to give credit to Obama for a farsighted energy policy. As much as some parts offend my sensibilities, I have to admit that getting America energy independent is a necessary step in divesting ourselves from the role of world policeman. The best way forward is to switch first to natural gas (because the technology is mature and natural gas is plentiful) and then move to renewables when they become cost-effective (probably 20 or 30 years out).

  19. You refer to Amash believing that “life begins at conception” as “heavy-handed social conservatism”. Regardless of what you think of the ramifications of such a belief, isn’t the belief itself merely bald common sense and scientific fact?

    The fact that life begins at conception was not controversial before Roe vs. Wade. Every science textbook at the time declared as such as non-controversial fact. After all, once conceived, a new life, with its own unique genetic code, begins replicating cells and growing by its own internal programming. Yes, this occurs with nutrient support from the mother, but a born baby survives from such support, too, as do grown patients hooked up to life support.

    It was only after RvW that the common and scientifically proper notion that life begins at conception was removed from textbooks, in order to side-step the newly-formed controversy of the issue.

    1. There are those who would have you believe that life begins at conception, and others who would say it begins at 40.

      This is a false choice.

    2. Life begins before conception, actually. Sperm are alive and so are ova.

    3. An embyro is alive; so is a sperm cell.

      The important question isn’t one of life but one of consciousness. A one-day-old embryo has no brain whatsoever, so it can’t possibly be conscious. A nine-month fetus, on the other hand, is a different matter.

      Just because a line is difficult to draw, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be drawn at all.

      1. Yes.

        And I think the “first trimester” line is a pretty good choice of where to draw the line. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good practical compromise.

        1. And there is no reason all states have to draw the line at the same place.

  20. I don’t understand your logic in ranking these Congressmen. If you simply put the “Reasons he is not number 1” side by side, it is clear that #3 should at least be #2.

  21. I don’t understand your logic in ranking these Congressmen. If you simply put the “Reasons he is not number 1” side by side, it is clear that #3 should at least be #2.

  22. I did some research, and it looks like George Harper is the best pick among the many people running for Paul’s congressional seat.

  23. Seems like an easy call to rank Duncan ahead of Polis… what happened to Flake? Hensarling? they seem pretty good on the fiscal issues, if nothing else

  24. A related question: When is the deadline to file to run for Ron Paul’s Congressional seat in Texas? I’m wondering if his district will be lost to a generic Republican, or if there is a specific successor Paul has in mind.

    1. Is Michael Badnarik still in Texas? Or did he move to NH?

    2. Check above. Pretty sure it’s George Harper.

  25. Jimmy Duncan? are you serious? King of east tennessee pork. How many buildings named after him or his daddy? Open for town hall meetings? forget it.

  26. duncan’s star is shining a little less brightly after his son’s misdeeds.

    john duncan jr is dragging his pappa down.

    1. factor in the nepotism effect with duncan as well.

      becky duncan massey, his sister, got elected, despite not lving in the district she now represents.

      her cv is working as a special ed instructor for grade schoolers.

      how does that translate to politics, at a broad level? it doesn’t.

      she won on her name, alone.

      of course, jimmy duncan, won on the coattails of his father, so there is a pattern.

      as for duncan, himself, sans the ‘rampant’ nepotism:

      he really is a wonderful rep.

      1. how does that translate to politics, at a broad level? it doesn’t.

        Seriously? This is probably exactly the background optimized for getting elected to public office in the U.S.

        1. I had the exact same thought.

  27. these guys are absolutely nothing like Dr. Paul, they are issue politicians. with no principle.

  28. I would have thought someone like Rep. Jeff Flake would be the most logical successor to Paul.

    Jared Polis sounds far from a libertarian. He sounds like a Barney Frank liberal. I’m not sure how someone who supports green subsidies, bailouts and the stimulus can be 2nd in line to succeed Paul’s legacy.

    1. Apparently being in favor of legalizing pot and gay marriage outweigh debt, taxes, insider trading by Congress, favoring expanding state power, etc etc. Who knew the reason peeps were so much fun?

  29. he believes life begins at conception

    This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

    1. I believe life begins when one has an abstract thought, like being able to understand Bastiat on what is seen and not seen. Anyone who has not achieved that level of development, especially if they work for the government, should be aborted.

  30. Why not Jeff Flake? I’m very willing to accept that there might be good reasons, I haven’t studied him nearly enough, but from what I have seen he seems to be a pretty good choice.

    1. Jeff F?lake is less “libertarian” than Michele Bachmann.

      1. Less libertarian than Bachmann? Flake isn’t perfect (he voted to renew the Patriot act, and the FMA). But he’s supported:

        ending the Iraq War
        repealing DADT
        easing immigration restrictions

        And he’s great on fiscal issues.

        Bachmann is good on many issues as well. She’s a bit of a hypocrite (accepts farm subsidies). She’s also bad on immigration, gay rights, abortion, and is a little bloodthirsty. So I’d still put Flake above her.

        1. And no one would throw him out of bed for eating crackers.

  31. Jared Polis? What the heck happened to “Jared Polis is great except for this, this, this, this, this, and this and this…but we still put him as #2.” Good grief. If we go by that standard, people like Pelosi should be up here, too!

    As a resident of Colorado, I hereby endorse the exact opposite of everything good written here about Polis. And subsequently remove my endorsement of anything related. Crimeny.

    1. Bears repeating.

    2. They are softening you up for when they poll their editors and contributors again this election cycle, and a third of them still write tortured screeds on why Obama is the rational libertarian choice.

  32. As long as the “next” one isn’t as wacked out on foreign policy as Paul, then that person will be a more than adequate replacement.

    1. As long as the”next”one one isn’t as wacked out on foreign policy as Paul Bush,Obama,Romney,Gingrich or Santorum,then that person will be a more than adequate replacement…..FTFY

  33. How did Jeff Flake not get a shout-out?!

    1. That’s what I’m saying. The only really thing I can think of is that he’s said he’s going for Kyl’s seat in the Senate. Or maybe I’m remembering that incorrectly.

    2. He’s too pretty. Almost as pretty as Thune.

  34. I’ve been following Rep. Amash on FB since last year, I wish he were my congresscritter.

  35. It is interesting that you suggest that Justin Amash may not be a suitable heir apparent to Dr. Paul because Amash is pro-life

    … yet Dr. Paul is pro-life. Wouldn’t that make him *more* like Ron Paul?


    1. Exactly. Another millionaire Democratic heiress who makes profits off Congressional inside trading, a kind of Nancy Pelosi junior.

  37. Seriously you could make as much of a case, if not more, for Corey “noob” Gardner as you could for fkin Polis. At least Gardner flambeed a EPA dbag as his moment of excellence.

      1. ???

        An economic analysis should by its nature reflect the impact on jobs. It is an indirect assessment, but should be roughly as reliable as the analysis itself (i.e., not very). Anyone in Congress should know this, so it is clear that Gardner is either grandstanding or kind of dumb.

  38. More realistically the man to succeed the Paul legacy will be…. Paul. Rand Paul (the junior senator from Kentucky) takes for the most part the exact same positions as his father. There is a very real possibility that when Paul Sr. hands over the reigns of the Liberty movement that Paul Jr. the movement will continue to grow.

    Your number one choice while being fiscally conservative still supports federal government intervention in the lives of it’s citizens on social issues. A large part of the Paul support base is fairly “liberal” on social issues in the sense that they dont want people telling them what to do, Mr. Amash would alienate them immediately and betray one of the core tenets of the libertarian movement.

  39. When the good doctor retires, and if he is not busy with presidential duties, he will find himself in the unaccustomed position of having a lot of time on his hands. I hope he continues his good fight in the papers and on the blogs. He is the standard by which all congressmen should be judged.

  40. Of course, the best successors are Senators (or will be next year): Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Mike Lee.

    1. I really expected to see Gary Johnson, Rand Paul and Mike Lee too.

      Sometimes when I read Mike Riggs I think he is not right in the head.

  41. Jimmy Duncan is my representative, and there are things I really appreciate about the guy — he actually reads my letters and replies, and he’s not afraid to stand up to the GOP. However, he brings home a TON of pork, and as the article notes, he’s weak on the social issues.

  42. Ron Paul has always been more prophet than politician. No one is likely to exactly fill his shoes. But the ideas he speaks of have become stronger because of his efforts. If ( as seems likely ) the Republican herd rejects him as president, he will fade away having fought the good fight.

    There will be plenty of successors.

    1. Oh no, no!
      It’s the end of the world, THE END OF THE WORLD, I TELLS YA!

  43. he also supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman

    Yesh, real small government guy that one. Do we really need another embarrassing amendment that gets repealed 15 years later?

    Additionally, Duncan supported Cash for Clunkers

    WTF was his rationale for that?

    You name it, Polis has supported it: The pro-union Card Check, a national service initiative, additional the initial stimulus, environmental restrictions on emissions, $40 billion for “green public schools”?the list goes on.

    Oh, is that all?

    supports the Federal Defense of Marriage Act…..The votes he has cast so far show a profound understanding of the many ways in which the federal government currently infringes on personal liberty.

    So he knows it’s wrong and does it anyway?

  44. Since Ron Paul was kind of a ‘message’ guy, what about Gary Johnson picking up as the outspoken libertarian? His views just about match Ron Paul’s, with the major exception that Johnson believes gay marriage is a constitutional right (as I do)

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall that straight heterosexual marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. That being said, gays should have the same right to make stupid mistakes as anybody else.

  45. Ron Paul is irreplaceable.

  46. Fucking ignorant tools, fuck off, this article is such bullshit, you compare liberal democrats to a libertarian? You are fucking clueless.. Fuck off this sight will no longer be visited by me due to this horrible guesswork journalism, did this mother fucker even go talk to any of these people? No, he probly got the info off wikipedia, fuckin hacks.

  47. Let’s see, who will take his place?
    We need someone who can view the cause and effect of a world war, from actual experience rather than a history book (he grew up during WW2).

    Someone who watched as we entered the undeclared unconstitutional Korean war.

    Someone who was in the military service while we were in the undeclared unconstitutional Viet Nam war.

    Someone who saw our money taken off of the gold standard and has watched as our currency has raced toward zero value.

    Someone who has watched as we went into one “little war” after another in which 10s of 1000s American soldiers died and literally over a million innocent people (collateral damage) died.

    Someone who has spent a medical career outside of politics practicing medicine.

  48. Someone who has made deep study of global economics.

    Someone who has endured and generally prevailed slander and abuse from the press while running for president three times.

    Someone who has run and won, a congressional office 12 times and held seats on numerous committees (even chairman of a few) concerning financial and foreign policy.

    Someone who has never voted outside the constraints of the Constitution (never taking one “for the team”).

    Someone who has never entertained a lobbyist. Lobbyists don’t even bother darkening his office door.

    Someone who opts out of a lucrative congressional pension because he considers in hypocritical.

    I could keep going, but what’s the use? I can think of no one that can be the “next Ron Paul”.

  49. Jared Polis is featured in one of the stories in Peter Schweizer’s “Throw them all out” engaging in sponsoring legislation in coordination with insider trading to profit himself.

    A gay Democrat is running against Amash next time around who will I am sure be highlighting their differences on gay marriage.

  50. The 4th choice to replace Ron Paul would be CH4 – in a jar.

  51. classmate’s aunt made $13816 the prior week. she has been making cash on the internet and moved in a $388200 house. All she did was get fortunate and use the directions reported on this website makecash16. ?om

  52. We may have to wait until the 2014 mid-terms before we see Ron Paul style libertarians in the House. Fortunately we have one in the Senate in the form of Rand Paul.

  53. Are you kidding? Super Tuesday hasn’t happened yet! Paul might just pull off a win what with the latest positive exposure on the cover of the latest Reason Magazine, yeah!!! Never say die.

    Mind you, that Gary Johnson, he could well lead the LP to new heights of political relevance, you betcha. Buy gold early and often, but think happy thoughts.

  54. Gary Johnson is just as good as an example as someone on the national stage, with an excellent record who can fill in as a proxy, Rand Paul will never be his daddy. On the issue of a new Ron Paul in Congress, there is no such thing……Ron Paul is Ron Paul and there is no replacement!

  55. These selections offer little hope of replacing Paul.

  56. The fundamental tenet of libretarianism is that no restrictions shall be imposed unless it causes harm. Allowing my drinking water and air that I breathe to become polluted and poisoned does cause me harm. Environmental regulation is not a per se breach of libretarian principles.

  57. his 30 years of statesmanship is really beyond the scope of what one or two whimsical outliers can proclaim to question

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.