National Catholic Register: "Ron Paul Draws Passionate Support"
From the January 27, 2008 issue of National Catholic Register:
WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign continues to win a portion of the Republican vote in early primary states, signified by his second-place finish in Nevada Jan. 19.(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
Although many consider his campaign a long shot, Ron Paul has built up a significant amount of enthusiastic supporters and raised substantial funds.
He beat frontrunner Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in Nevada and Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in Michigan.
Numerous Catholics in America are among those that remain unsatisfied with the mainstream political candidates for president, and many have joined the vocal supporters of a campaign that is significantly different than his Republican rivals’.
Like many Republican presidential candidates, Paul is pro-life and has a congressional record to prove it. Supporters like to point out that he is an obstetrician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies and shares a personal conviction of pro-life issues.
“I, of course, never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.” Paul stated during the CNN/YouTube debate last November.
Paul’s opposition to Roe vs. Wade stems from his strict interpretation of the Constitution. He believes the federal government should have no role in determining abortion rights. [ED.: So, does this mean he basically takes the same position Stephen Douglas did with regard to slavery? I need to know where Paul stands on the Human Life Amendment - I've seen conflicting reports, some saying he supports it while others say he does not.]
Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, noted that as a Congressman, Paul took pro-life issues seriously, but noted that his approach was different.
“Ron Paul thinks that the federal government doesn’t belong in the abortion issue, so occasionally there is a vote that might appear anti life,” she said, “but it stems from his belief that it’s a states-rights issue [ED: Like slavery and segregation? Look, I've always been a big fan of federalism, but invoking "state's rights" when it comes to abortion makes no more sense than it did when it came to enslavement and oppression of blacks. To say that the unborn are children in one state but mere "globs of tissue" in the state next door is untenable.] rather than a federal government issue.”
Paul’s strategy to ban abortion is best revealed in a bill that he sponsored that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion. [ED.: Such a law would have absolutely no chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge.]
“By denying the federal courts’ jurisdiction, state laws banning abortion would stand and there would not be any Roe vs. Wade,” said Thomas Woods, Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Woods wrote a letter to fellow Catholics supporting Ron Paul and making a case for his candidacy.
Paul stands alone among the Republican presidential candidates as one who voted against the Iraq war, stating that it was unconstitutional, since it never received a congressional declaration of war. If elected president, Paul promises to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Paul mentioned the Vatican’s comments regarding the Iraq War when paying tribute to John Paul II’s legacy. “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty,” he said on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2005, four days after the Pope’s death.
Although initially a supporter of the death penalty, Paul changed his position after studying the issue throughout his political career.
Some religious voters remain skeptical about a vote for Paul, as his strict interpretation for the Constitution pits him against federal legislation to ban prostitution, drugs and homosexual “marriage.” [ED.: Count me as one of the skeptical ones. When I was in college and law school, libertarian arguments held some appeal for me. Now that I'm all "grown up", living in the real world, and have a family of my own, I recognize the shortcomings of libertarianism. I've stated before that Rep. Paul does hold some appeal for me, and I'd vote for him in the extremely unlikely scenario in which he became the GOP nominee, but I need some serious convincing before I could consider voting for him in the Ohio primary.]
It should be noted that our old friend Regular Guy Paul has endorsed Ron Paul, now that Duncan Hunter has dropped out of the race:
... Ron Paul is right on the abortion issue. He's the ultimate small-government guy. He has the record to prove that he's not just a crackpot after his career in Congress. Unlike Hunter, he's put together a real national campaign. In a season in which so many people say they want change, no one offers as much change as does Ron Paul. So why didn't I like him before? He wants to pull out of Iraq. Which leads to the question, can we do that? Can we do it well?I remain undecided at this point (except for the fact that I've pretty much decided that the entire GOP field leaves much to be desired).
I've concluded that, as I've often been told, I cannot have a perfect candidate. I'd rather trust President Paul to pull out of Iraq well than trust President McCain to defend the traditional family and the rights of the unborn. I'd rather trust a man who won't go to war without a declaration of war from Congress than trust whomever a President Romney would "consult".
I'd rather trust Ron Paul with the presidency than anyone else...
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Ron Paul's Appeal to Conservative/Orthodox Catholics
I Must Admit ...