Inconsistent Ron Paul

Here is a sterling example of why I find Congressman Ron Paul to be so very frustrating. One on hand you have this brilliant speech from the floor of the House yesterday morning.



Then you have his unfortunate appearance on Neal Cavuto's show on Tuesday where he defended the practice of earmarks.

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the libertarian right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.

That's not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That's what Fox News is reporting.

In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, Paul not only defended his own earmarks, he argued that every penny in the federal budget should be earmarked, to improve transparency.

Paul, a fiscal watchdog who said he voted against the bill because he believes federal spending is out of control, acknowledged that $73 million in the bill passed by his colleagues "might be" going to his district on Texas' Gulf Coast for things like the intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake. But he was fine with that.

"The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to -- it's like a -- a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years -- if ever. . . .

This coming from the man that last fall campaigned AGAINST earmarks...who said that he would never vote FOR earmarks!

Even worse was his trying to defend earmarks for "transparency sake"...

"If you don't earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there's no transparency."

I know more than a few Ron Paul supporters who are going to be very disappointed by this turn of events, but I am not too overly surprised. As with then Senator Obama, I told many of my Ron Payl supporting friends to look at the record and not at the rhetoric. While I admire the Congressman when it comes to his small government votes in the past, it simply can not be ignored that Congressman Paul has openly taken stands against earmarks all the while loading bills chiocke full of pork for his home district. That is simply not a principled stand. If you find earmarks to be good, then openly support them, ask for them and vote for them. If you find them to be odeous, then do not ask for them and do not vote for them. Back up your talk with your actions Congressman. THAT is the real principled way of doing business.

The Ron Paul Phenomenon

You may have noticed that Presidential politics has been on my mind a lot this past week. With the Iowa caucuses three weeks away, is it any wonder? The subject of today's post I'm sure will be controversial....Congressman Ron Paul. I've written about Congressman Paul in the past on my own blog and the more I dig into his record, the more puzzled I am by his candidacy. While I feel that his isolationist views are dead wrong and dangerous, I like a some of his thoughts on limited government.

Today Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel takes a look at some of the lessons that the RNC needs to take from the Ron Paul campaign.

If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.

Congressman Paul is not going to be President. Besides his foreign policy stands, his supporters have put off so many potential converts (such as myself) with their tactics of gaming online polls to inflate his support and their blatent disregard for the property rights of venues that hold political events (such as the Iowa Straw Poll which dictated where signage could be posted...something Congressman Paul's supporters disregarded). Because of these actions, many Republicans disregard the Paul campaign entirely and that is a pity because his call for smaller government is a core conservative principle.

On the stump, Mr. Paul whips up crowds with his libertarian talk of "less taxation, less regulation, a better economic system." While Mitt Romney explains his support of No Child Left Behind, Mr. Paul gets standing ovations by promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Rudy Giuliani toys with reducing marginal rates; Mr. Paul gets whoops with his dream to ax the income tax (and by extension the IRS). Mike Huckabee lectures on the need for more government-subsidized clean energy; Mr. Paul brings cheers with his motto that environmental problems are best solved with stronger property rights. His rhetoric is based on first principles--carefully connecting his policies to the goals of liberty and freedom--and it fires up the base.

First principles....hmmmm where have I heard THAT before??????

The men vying to lead the Republican Party might instead make a study of Mr. Paul. One shame of this race is that for all the enthusiasm the Texan has generated among voters, he hasn't managed to pressure the front-runners toward his positions. His more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a "North American Union") and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.
They shouldn't dismiss the passion he's tapped. If Mr. Paul has shown anything, it's that many conservative voters continue to doubt there's anything "heroic" or "compassionate" in a ballooning government that sucks up their dollars to aid a dysfunctional state. When Mr. Paul gracefully exits this race, his followers will be looking for an alternative to take up that cause. Any takers?

Emphasis mine. The Party had best wake up and take a page from Congressman Paul's campaign. Small government is a winner! Returning control to the people will get you votes. This is not rocket science....it's common sense - something that appears to be lacking in both parties right now.

Ron Paul's Re-PORK Card - Record or Smear?

Well, I got one predictable response to my last post on Rep. Ron Paul.

A very effective smear job in full swing
I must say that this is not unexpected. With the success that Ron Paul is seeing in translating his grass roots support into actual real world support, the GOP-establishment had to start attacking him sooner or later.

As a Paul supporter myself this definitely worries me. Although anyone with a semblance of logic can see that this is a classic case of 'A believes in B, and A believes in C, therefore B believes in C'. A political tactic that has been used many times before. The unfortunate part is that the logical fallacy becomes all that much more effective due to the odiousness of 'A' (the truthers, neo-nazis, anarchists, and other fringe groups).

This tactic is so effective because it starts with an illogical basis meaning there is really no logical way out of it. Professional smear artist can play on this very easily. An example is Michael Medved's open letter post - he knows that if Dr. Paul responds, that he is now caught verifying that some of his supporters are fringe lunatics, lowering his credibility. If Dr. Paul doesn't respond, he lends credence to the claims set against him through inaction.

I genuinely think that silence is Dr. Paul's only option here, as either way is no-win. Personally I am torn as to how I feel about these new attacks. Should I feel good that Dr. Paul is putting the fear into the GOP-establishment, or should I be frightened that the first coordinated smear campaign is so effective (no matter how illogical)?

Sigh....the thing is I have no doubt that Congressman Paul's supporters are well meaning people. They DO want to do what is best for the country, but their hyperbolic defenses of a thoroughly flawed candidate really make it hard to take them seriously. For their response to every well documented, well researched look into the man's voting record results in one response...."SMEAR JOB".

Well going off of that, here is another "smear job" on Congressman Paul....another hard look at his voting record (as opposed to his talking points).

Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate Representative Ron Paul (see PDF). The seventh in a series of white papers on the pro-growth records of presidential candidates, the attached report provides an extensive summary of Ron Paul's economic policies during his years in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"Ron Paul's record contains some very laudable components," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government."

Included in the highlights was this look at Congressman Paul's embracing pork barrel spending.

Paul's record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake's anti-pork amendments in 2006,[28] but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth's RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments.[29]
Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's Urban Center; $129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree project;" $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.[30]
This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry."[31]
In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the if you can't beat 'em,
join 'em position, arguing that "I don't think they should take our money in the
first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."[32]
This is a contradiction of Paul's self-proclaimed "opposition to appropriations
not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution."[33]

One would think that if Congressman Paul really cared about keeping spending low, he would hold fast to his principles rather than taking an "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude.

There are more examples of the Congressman's principles of convenience.

I hate to say it this way, but if Rudy Giulliani is an unacceptable candidate because of his conservative "principles of convenience", then shouldn't we hold Congressman Paul to the same standard?

Truthers for Paul!

A while back I wrote a post asking if Ron Paul was the answer for the Republican Party. It was in response to several of his supporters who insisted that Rep. Paul was "the only true Conservative" in the race. Well after seeing this slide show of photos taken at an International Answer/9-11 Truth rally in Los Angeles, I have to ask just WHAT is conservative about Congressman Paul's followers?

I pulled a couple of selected pictures because of the comments that were posted by Ron Paul supporters in response to Michael Medved's "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul"

Finally there is this photo.....

Since the conventional wisdom is that you are known by the company you keep I have to ask yet again - WHAT is "conservative" about Rep. Ron Paul or his supporters? Communism is the anti-thesis of conservatism so it is obvious, to me, that there is NOTHING conservative about Rep. Ron Paul or his supporters.

Is Ron Paul the answer?

Well that depends on what the question is. If the question is which candidate has the most devoted followers the answer is definately Ron Paul. However if the question is which Republican, announced or unannounced, is the best candidate for President, Ron is not the answer. Oh his devotees will tell you in no uncertain terms that Rep. Paul is the most conservative of the candidates, but is that really true. A look at the voting record would indicate that is not the fact.

While Rep. Paul opposes federal funding for abortion, he voted against a bill that forbade human cloning for research and against a bill that restricted transporting minors to abortion clinics without parental permission and against a bill that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of another crime. Rep. Paul voted for a bill that banned gay couples from adopting children in DC and voted twice against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Rep. Paul says he is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer, he voted against a bill allowing school prayer and against a flag desecration bill (to be fair I would have voted the same way - that was an unconstitutional piece of legislation).

Rep. Paul voted to abolish Medicare and the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security but voted for funding these organizations. He voted against limiting the prescription drug benefit given to Medicare recipients and against capping damages in medical lawsuits. He says that he is for school vouchers - voting for a bill allowing vouchers for private and parochial schools and then he voted against a bill that would have given parents in Washington DC school vouchers. He voted against more prosecution of juvenile crime and yes to fund alternative sentencing rather than building prisons and he opposes the death penalty. He says he is a "friend to the taxpayer" (voting for all of the Bush tax cuts and he has a 89% NTU rating) and he has made a big show of voting against pork....unless it is his own!

How ever it is in the National Security arena that disagree most with Rep. Paul. Rep. Paul is against the same kind of electronic surveillance that England used to catch last week's bombing suspects and to foil several others. He is against our fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, he has voted against defense appropriations and against funding for our troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that Reagan "showed courage" in running away from the Islamist attackers in Jordan (something I know drives my friend Gary S. up the wall). He is a very strict isolationist - which is simply not tenable in the Global economy we live in.

Rep. Paul is for legalizing hemp and medical marijuana - he has an "A" rating from the organization Vote-Hemp.

He is hardly the conservative savior that his supporters claim he is.

There are a multitude of other issues and statements that Rep Paul has made that show him to be the moderate he truly is. Oh sure, he talks a great game while he is campaigning, but as I said in 2006, take a look at the actions - not the words. When you look at the voting record, you find that Rep Paul is not what he claims to be.