Ron Paul Report Card

Ron Paul, one of the rightwingers giving succor and inspiration to the "left" these days with his needling of Bush, perceived by some as incising the neocons a new one - asking if America is a police state, condemning the loss of civil liberties, vocal on issues the pseudo-democrats are afraid to touch.

Libertarian-ish Paul prefers strict anti-immigration laws, pro-lifer, low score on labor issues too, and a member of the RLC. An OB/GYN he began a brief political career in 1976 but in 1984 did not seek reelection and returned to being a "love doctor" or as Bush the Boy would say – "to practice … love of women."

In 1988, Dr. Paul won the Libertarian party presidential nomination although he does not now identify himself publicly as Libertarian. In 1996, he was again elected to the House as a Republican; Texas laws prevented him from running on the Libertarian ticket. Being a libertarian in Republican clothing he drubbed Clinton often, once filing a lawsuit against Clinton for violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to Yugoslavia.

In 1992 Paul had a bit of a problem when accused of "racism over an article in a 1992 issue of the 'Ron Paul Survival Report'. The article, about the L.A. race riots and titled "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism," characterized blacks as "barbarians" and called the rioters "thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization". The publication cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point.

The article goes on: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." It blames "liberals" and the welfare state for telling blacks that they "are entitled to something for nothing". Paul later explained that this article was written by a staff member without his knowledge. He is not known to have made similarly controversial remarks at any other time."

(Of course no pol wanting a career would admit to that article. Would you let staff put your name to an article? If you would is it because you trust their judgment and they think as you do? No one claimed the article. Paul was the only dissenting vote against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, although he voted to give one to Reagan for "historical leadership." He also is against affirmative action, says such programs are against the constitution. )

In 1998 he he introduced legislation to prohibit Clinton from using force in Iraq. "… no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time … Foolish actions against that nation will only make it more likely that American citizens and cities could be targeted for terrorist or military attacks … With nearly every nation in the region opposing offensive action against Iraq, a war by this president right now has the potential to destabilize the region, cutting off trade and political relationships." ? A "war by this president" ? "at this time"? Is there a good time by another president?

October 4, 2002, however, Paul called for Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq. He says "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq … America has a sovereign right to defend itself … Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

Today, Paul remembers from Reagan memoirs : "Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 Reagan said in his memoirs: "…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave…yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there." (I guess Worshipers of Rontology forgot Reagan's wisdom and that occupying the ME makes them hate us when that happens. BushCo should have consulted Nancy and Ron's astrologist.)

Paul's voting record and ratings in the areas I grade on would earn him a C- or D, but I'll give him a B simply for being one of the six Republican nay votes in the House on the Iraq Resolution. He preferred a Congressional Declaration of War rather than a Resolution so drop it back to a D for being a little dingy, and using the "UN detractors" spin.

Known as "Dr. No" because he votes no on anything that increases government spending, which is good, brings him back to a C . But he does get Texas pork barrel farm and shrimping welfare, and recently requested hurricane aid programs, Unemployment Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, small business disaster loans, and USDA loans, which as a devout follower of Mises he has claimed such type of programs are unconstitutional. So the C would drop back to D for being another porker who yells about so many at the trough as he stands in line.

Drop it to an F for his amnesia regarding Reagan's death squads in Central America and that Reagan aided and abetted al Qaeda and Saddam through the 1980s. He deserves an F as he fears al Qaeda is scattered around the world and might strike us again as they did on 9/11. He doesn't question who was behind 9/11; he repeats the other side of the official line - it happened because of US intervention and/or foreign policy. The idea of 19 brown men with boxcutters simultaneously hijacking 4 airliners under our nose and bringing those towers down like professional demolition crews – is politically secure.