Is Ron Paul A Republican or a Libertarian?

12/22/2011

Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I'm sick and a 'demeanor' of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won't say: Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican. (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman, Ron Paul couldn't hold Thomas Jefferson's quill pen.)

Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned. Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs.   He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican.   (More about this race in a little bit....)

In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party. He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would'offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.' Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates. He then told members of the conference that "we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates." He would later state that he would not endorse a specific candidate because  "due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members . . . and I'm a ten-term Republican congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party." Eventually Congressman Paul gave a full endorsement to Chuck Baldwin the candidate of the Constitution Party. In his endorsement from 2008, Paul stated:

"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for remaining neutral in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It's true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better.� I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." (Source: Campaign For Liberty Website.)

Now I know that all of the Ron Paul folks will stand and applaud your hero for his stand against the tyrranical Republicans, but if he hates us so much, why does he continue to claim to be one? Don't you think he's hypocritical?

Now back to the Congressional campaign of 1996 as this was the possible nucleas of the dislike that Congressman Paul has against former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Dr. Paul ran incumbent Greg Laughlin, a former Conservative Democrat who had switched parties in 1995. Laughlin was endorsed in the primary over Dr. Paul by Speaker Gingrich and then Texas Governor George W. Bush.

Fast forward now to December 15, 2011 in Sioux City, Iowa. Fox News Megyn Kelly asks Congressman Paul at the last debate held in Iowa before the Caucuses,

"....You have some bold ideas. Some very fervent supporters and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa. But there are many Republicans inside and outside of this state who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise? And if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?"

Congressman Paul respoonds:

"Well, you know, fortunately for the Republican party this year, probably every — anybody up here could probably beat Obama, so..... So the challenge isn’t all that great on how we’re going to beat Obama. I think he’s beating himself. I think really the question is, is what do we have to offer? And I have something different to offer. I emphasize civil liberties. I emphasize a pro-American foreign policy, which is a lot different than policemen of the world. I emphasize, you know, monetary policy and these things that the other candidates don’t — don’t talk about. But I think the important thing is the philosophy I’m talking about is the Constitution and freedom.

And that brings people together. It brings independents into the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues. So, therefore, I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it’s an America philosophy. It’s the rule of law. And it — it means that, you know, we ought to balance the budget. It opens up the door for saying — supporting my willingness to cut $1 trillion out of the budget the first year." (Read the complete transcript here.)

Great answer, I do admit....But also only half of the answer to the question asked by Ms. Kelly. Where's the pledge to support the GOP candidate if the Congressman doesn't win the nomination? It is not there....It is not there because that pledge will never be there as the Congressman has a slash and burn agenda of continuing to hammer the base of the Republican party then leave it again when his support will be needed to help defeat President Obama. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at least had the decency to bow out of the GOP now and run as a Libertarian. Congressman Paul should follow suit or endorse Johnson instead of pulling a bait and switch job on voters who don't know any better.

On a different matter that is now in the national headlines, yesterday CNN's Gloria Borger politely asked Congressman Paul about those now-famous newsletters that I wrote a little about yesterday. Paul, before abruptly ending the interview, denied writing them again then even denied that he read them saying, "I didn't write them, I disavow them, that's it." Really? He then went on to say "I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written." So let's take the Congressman at his word. He put out a newsletter that has his name on it and didn't read the content until a decade later. Content that is racist that he has now disavowed. I wonder if he would disavow any of the newsletters stances on ending the Federal Reserve as well? Well Congressman, how does it feel to be vetted?

Comments

Valerie

12/22/2011 11:25

Bill, there is so much wrong with this. Dear anyone reading this, if you want to know specifics of why a Ron Paul supporter and Lifelong Republican (with the membership card and lapel pin and everything) finds this article to be a tacky smear job in attempts to boost Newt Gingrich's campaign, please email me at thevaleriesm at gmail dot com.

Cate Gooch-Coolidge

12/22/2011 11:26

Of course he is a Libertarian. His supporters don't deny that (well at least the ones I've spoken to).

Patrick

12/24/2011 01:14

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Ronald Reagan,1975

Does having a libertarian leaning mindset make

Patrick Hans

12/24/2011 01:17

you a non republican??? When did this intolerance start? Were Goldwater, Taft, and Reagan non republicans? The GOP has abandoned Ron Paul, Ron Paul is what the GOP used to be when it was great.

Bill Knowles

12/22/2011 11:44

Where is the smear, Valerie? Most of the article is in the words of Congressman Paul...I posted the facts of his career as a Republican/Libertarian after 1987 and asked a few questions. Gingrich was mentioned in one paragraph.

Charles Jackson

12/22/2011 13:32

Bill-I congratulate you on your Ron Paul commentaries. The response by his supporters here and elsewhere on these pages vividly demonstrates what they are: a bunch of self-righteous zealots who claim to know The Truth and go bonkers when challenged. Fortunately, they comprise a miniscule fraction of the overall American electorate. They rant and rave now but in the end, the great mass of voters just yawn and the Paul apostles go back under their rock.

Bud Grennan

12/25/2011 03:06

The words that ring irony in your statement are "self-righteous". The words that best describe most Ron Paul supporters are "know The Truth".

As for "miniscule fraction of the overall American electorate". Well, that seems to be what has the corrupt establishment so afraid. Truth seems to have a contagious nature.

I don't recall any of your comments that use sustenance, facts or references. Your comments seem to consistently be of ridicule for others, but they usually lack a valid argument.

Bill Evelyn link

12/22/2011 12:04

This article is a insult on the intelligence of any reader. The issue is whether Ron Paul is a Republican or Libertarian, both are simply parties. There are many Democrat ideologues registered Republican. The issue is whether Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative or Republican.

The Republican Party is filled with warmonger, NEOCON, statists, and liberals that expand the government like Democrats. There is virtually no difference between the two parties. In reality we live in a one party state with competing factions dueling it out.

We are all much dumber after reading this.

12/22/2011 13:14

Mr. Evelyn-your comments indicate that one couldn't get much dumber so you haven't lost anything.anyway.

daveHEART link

12/27/2011 13:59

Charles....your mom is calling you up out of the basement. Time to give her a foot rub.

12/22/2011 13:08

Bill Evelyn is exactly correct!

Bill, you took most of the words right from my keyboard... "There is virtually no difference between the two parties"... The reality of that statement is true; but the propaganda proclaimed by folks like Bill Knowles, Gingrich, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Gore, Obama, etc. attempts to make the voting public think there are real differences in the parties. In the recent several decades there have been no real differences.

Anyone who does not have the mentality of sheep knows that the established insiders of the Democrat & Republican parties put on a show; much like a political version of WWF & WWE pro "wrestling" hype.

You are correct about this piece... Insult the intelligence of the reader it does. At least those readers among us who are not sheep.

12/22/2011 14:23

P.S. This is Paul's second bid for the GOP nomination - running in 2008 - and his third run for the White House: he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. I think it's safe to say that this will be three strikes and you're out for Paul.

Jordan

12/22/2011 16:33

The old saw comes to mind: Democrats and Republicans are the left and right wing of a bird called Tyranny.

Anyway, the reason Dr. Paul generally runs as a Republican is because there is a teeny-tiny greater chance of turning a person who at least pays lip service to Federalism and small government than there is of turning a person addicted to State. I actually disagree with this idea, but that isn't important right now.

Ron Paul has stated at several events over the years that he sees his campaigns as less of an actual attempt at achieving more power than a platform to spread Libertarian ideas. No one pays attention (even Libertarians!) to third parties. We've tried it more than once, it doesn't work. This year, Ron Paul has advanced Libertarian philosophy to more Americans than the previous 20 years combined. If he wins Iowa, places well at New Hampshire, then I think we'll be well on the way to ridding the Republican Party of the warmongers and big spenders.

12/24/2011 00:59

Reagan ran 3 times and won. He was attacked for "not being republican enough" ( whatever that means). Only a few republicans stood by him and endorsed, campaigned for him. One of which was Ron Paul.

Indigo

12/22/2011 16:03

this writer is clearly a butt-hurt statist...you should have kept this nonsense for your diary.

12/22/2011 16:05

its hilarious how much this writer believes in the party system...LOL....your poor brain.

Bill link

12/22/2011 22:25

I hate having to inform the misinformed over and over, but it obviously must be done... over and over.

Ron Paul was elected to Congress in 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982... as a REPUBLICAN. He ran for the U.S. Senate in 1984... as a REPUBLICAN. In 1987, he left the Republican Party, frustrated with the Reagan administration's failure to follow through on small government promises, and ran for President as the Libertarian Party nominee in the 1988 election. After that election, he returned to the REPUBLICAN Party, forming the REPUBLICAN Liberty Caucus, and worked on the 1992 presidential campaign of REPUBLICAN candidate Pat Buchanan. He was then elected again to Congress in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010... as a REPUBLICAN. In 2008, he ran for U.S. President... as a REPUBLICAN. Now, he's running again for U.S. President... as a REPUBLICAN.

So, except for a stint of about TWO YEARS when he officially left the Republican Party, Ron Paul has been elected over and over and over and over again... as a REPUBLICAN. That's while representing his traditional REPUBLICAN beliefs 100% honestly, every single time.

I'm sorry to berate this point, but I'm really really tired of people saying "Ron Paul is a Libertarian, he should run in his own party". He IS running in his own party - the same party he's been elected in TWELVE TIMES, and is running in NOW: the REPUBLICAN Party. The party that USED TO believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and the free market… THAT is MY GOP. What about YOU?

12/23/2011 07:44

Ron Paul is an opportunist who uses the Republican Party to get elected to Congress and has absolutely no allegiance to the party itself.

12/24/2011 01:04

"Allegiance to the Party"

What era are we in? So we have to chose to engage in this " Reds vs. Whites" party war?The party comes before principles and thought? The founders warned us this would happen!

12/24/2011 01:10

With that mindset, if a member of the Ba'ah Party disagreed with Saddam, that makes them less of a Ba'ah member?

12/24/2011 01:12

12/25/2011 02:44

"Allegiance to the party"

Patric Hans is correct when he questions; "The party comes before principles and thought?" ....... The principled answer to that question would be no. Principles and thought should come first.

I consider Blind faith a very dangerous thing excepting my faith in God. Our founding fathers certainly did not expect this country's citizens to have blind faith.

When the party loses its allegiance to the traditional principles that make a person (Ron Paul) proud to be part of it. And this person ends up a lone voice of reason trying to pull the party back to it's roots. He is doing everything he can to be loyal to the party.

The party is not loyal to it's greatest champion; Ron Paul. The party is not loyal to it's roots. The party wants to "ignore him". Even if the people decide with their vote that they want the party to be what it once was... Conservative.

The attitude of neoconservatives usually seems to have this totalitarian air that one dare not have opinions that differ from their morphed views. Even if the opinions correspond to the parties classical objectives. The statement that: "Ron Paul is an opportunist who uses the Republican Party to get elected to Congress and has absolutely no allegiance to the party itself. " proposes that Ron Paul should abandon his core constitutional principles in favor of the "the party". This type of mentality, and statements like that are sort of reminiscent of the early rhetoric of a guy that eventually ruled a state called the Third Reich.

Rick

12/26/2011 23:19

Because RP doesn't quack and sound like the ducks you are familiar witH, you must Disassemble him. You sir wouldn'tt know liberty if it walked uP and bit you on the nose. Quack!

12/27/2011 00:08

From the GOP website on Republican beliefs:

"I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government."

12/27/2011 13:58

Bill Knowles, once again, shows his inability to THINK as an individual. Bill Knowles, once again, shows himself to be blinded by party rhetoric, programmed by the propaganda of the state, no better, really, that the socialist hive mind he supposedly opposes. Bill Knowles is a pseudo-intellectual who is proves the theory that you can be formally educated and know how to speak English quite well, yet lack the ability to form a coherent original thought.

Now, Bill Knowles, buzz on back to the GOP hive and flap your wings so that all your GOP budzzz will know what a good little bee you are.

Is Ron Paul A Republican or a Libertarian?

Comments

Leave a Reply

Archives

Categories