Ron Paul: Revolution Or Status Quo??
Josh Harding
November 17, 2007
As a long-time admirer of Ron Paul's, I'm glad to see he's still in the fight for the Republican nomination. Anyone who will call the Republicans out on torture, unconstitutional police powers, and reckless warmongering is a hero of mine. Not that I have realistic hopes for his campaign, considering that the Republican establishment really doesn’t want him in the party, let alone running for the White House.
That said, if he beats the odds, which I read are 8-1 in Vegas, and wins the presidency, just how committed will he be to the small-government libertarianism he espouses? While he is stellar compared to his colleagues, can you really call yourself a champion of smaller government when your votes would increase non-discretionary government spending by nearly $74 billion, according to a National Taxpayers Union vote tally done on the 109th Congress? Not only that, his recent record in fighting government pork-spending is actually quite poor, scoring only 32% in the Club For Growth’s 2007 RePORK Card. He uses good old-fashioned political doublespeak to explain his record on earmarks, claiming he is only trying to give back what the government takes from his district, but in the end he votes against the spending. That's like helping someone load a gun, then voicing opposition when the gun is fired.
He has an outstanding voting record when it comes to fighting the power-grabs of the Bush administration, such as his opposition to the PATRIOT Act and warrantless electronic surveillance. But would a Paul administration be so willing to give this power back? I’m not the greatest student of American history, but the last president I can think of rejecting power is George Washington, when he refused to run for a third term.
Ron Paul has tapped into an element of the electorate that is frustrated and desperate for reform. The chances of a Ron Paul presidency delivering that reform: 8-1, and that's being generous.
That said, if he beats the odds, which I read are 8-1 in Vegas, and wins the presidency, just how committed will he be to the small-government libertarianism he espouses? While he is stellar compared to his colleagues, can you really call yourself a champion of smaller government when your votes would increase non-discretionary government spending by nearly $74 billion, according to a National Taxpayers Union vote tally done on the 109th Congress? Not only that, his recent record in fighting government pork-spending is actually quite poor, scoring only 32% in the Club For Growth’s 2007 RePORK Card. He uses good old-fashioned political doublespeak to explain his record on earmarks, claiming he is only trying to give back what the government takes from his district, but in the end he votes against the spending. That's like helping someone load a gun, then voicing opposition when the gun is fired.
He has an outstanding voting record when it comes to fighting the power-grabs of the Bush administration, such as his opposition to the PATRIOT Act and warrantless electronic surveillance. But would a Paul administration be so willing to give this power back? I’m not the greatest student of American history, but the last president I can think of rejecting power is George Washington, when he refused to run for a third term.
Ron Paul has tapped into an element of the electorate that is frustrated and desperate for reform. The chances of a Ron Paul presidency delivering that reform: 8-1, and that's being generous.
Print
Email
