Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008 by Chuck Baldwin 29 August 2007 Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal. No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious. For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/election2008.php The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore. On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package." He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support. In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies. If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely. See the Freedom Index here: http://www.jbs.org/files/fi-110-1.pdf Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.) In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had. For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, go here: http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/ Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman. Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. Continued: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070828.html
The article's not bad and I respect Ron Paul, but he doesn't have a chance at winning the republican vote.
And why is that? Because his helmet of hair is not like Romney's? Cuz he doesn't sound like a dictator, ala Rudy? Cuz he doesn't look like he'll keel over and die like McCain.. Can anyone explain to me WHY these guys lose before the election even started? Seems to me that he's pretty popular...
True. The fact is Ron Paul has been on the national scene for a long time and has never developed more than a cult following. I give him full credit for voting his conscience and for intellectual courage, but you can't run the country by yourself. There is a big difference in standing up for principle and leading a government. The only area where most conservatives would question him is on defense. His non-interventionist policies make a lot of sense to me, just as when Pat Buchanan was articulating them. However, getting from where we are now to where he would like us to be could be very risky. Power abhors a vacuum, and if we just pulled out of various areas, like the middle east, some pretty unsavory elements would move in. Paul also overstates, in my opinion, the role US foreign policy has had on fomenting islamist terror attacks.