Tuesday, January 22, 2008

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.

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.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
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'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...
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).

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Ron Paul's Appeal to Conservative/Orthodox Catholics

Some Clarification

I Must Admit ...

Labels: , ,


At 1/22/2008 1:27 PM, Blogger Brian said...


I am supporting Ron Paul and I would urge you to investigate this candidate further. I would ask you “not” to read what “others” have written about him, but rather read what the man has said and done. His record is easily assessable in Congress, and he has loads of interviews posted to YouTube.

Beware there is a concerted effort to soil his name, and a few are from State of Ohio Blogger Alliance contributors. Surprising or maybe not, the neo-cons have some big issues with Ron Paul; I tend to think they actually have issues with freedom and virtue, but that’s for another discussion. Paul is a good man, but he is also cutting and straightforward. In today’s day and age the majority of folks I know are put off by this because they want to be stroked.

Check out the blog, Catholic for Ron Paul: http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-jane-roe.html

One Oar in the Water

At 1/22/2008 3:06 PM, Blogger Jeffrey Smith said...

Congratulations. Your skepticism is right on target.

At 1/22/2008 3:43 PM, Blogger Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

As I wrote in the article you linked, Ron Paul is not a perfect candidate. But I have concluded that he is the most trustworthy candidate.

Still, especially this year I think, skepticism is warranted of all the candidates. Do your research.

And I agree with you about the need for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

Rep. Paul co-sponsored the first Human Life Amendment to the Constitution when he first came to Congress (remember that was after his run for President as the Libertarian Party candidate).

His current campaign website calls for passing the Sanctity of Life bill, which he has repeatedly co-sponsored, which would effectively overturn Roe by a Congressional finding of fact that human life begins at conception (and therefore, according to the Roe decision itself, there can be no right to abortion), and exercising Congress' authority to determine the jurisdiction of the courts the bill would exclude the abortion question from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

This would have the effect of returning the abortion fight to the states, and handing a big club to the pro-life forces in the form of a federal law that finds that human life begins at abortion.

And, according to his website, if that can't be done, he still would support amending the Constitution today.

Thompson got out today. The field is getting thinner.

I believe that Ron Paul is our best shot in 2008.

At 1/22/2008 6:50 PM, Blogger Jeff Miller said...

With Fred gone as I have said on Paul's blog I will vote pro-life in the Florida Primary which means Huckabee or Paul. Though I doubt if it will mean much because neither are going to make to be the nominee notwithstanding something very strange happening.

So my questions for Ron Paul pretty much don't matter. Though I would be curious to know how he would pull the troops from Iraq. "As soon as possible" does not give me prudential guidelines. I know it would be stupid to give a date. I have no doubt if they are removed in a quick period of time that it will lead to mass slaughter in Iraq. His rhetoric doesn't make it sound like a pull out after Iraq is sufficiently able to take care of itself. Al Qaida never worried about killing other Muslims just as long as they receive their political goals which would require the fall of the current government. I also don't believe as Paul has stated that it is our troops over there "And that's why our dollar is getting weaker." I can agree with him to large extent on the initial war in Iraq, but you can't put the toothpaste back in to the tube and real progress is occurring there now. Pull-outs never lead to security, they only make a bad situation much worse and the resulting deaths due to a pull-out would be totally on the person ordering it. I remember John Kerry testifying to congress that if we left it would not lead to massive deaths.

I do love his take on Ethanol, Social Security, and his health care plan is solid, and his immigration plan is mostly good.

Though I have to admit there would be a certain amount of fun in watching a doctrinaire libertarian run the country. He would go from Dr. No to Dr. Veto.

At 1/22/2008 7:21 PM, Anonymous Donald R. McClarey said...

Ron Paul is a complete headcase who stands as much of a chance of being elected President as Dennis Kucinich does.

The New Republic did a great job in uncovering what was contained in newsletters that went out under Ron Paul's name:


None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the career of Ron Paul. I believe his defense now is that he didn't write the referenced articles and that he was unfamiliar with what came out in his own newsletters!

Conservatives, and I have been one since I became old enough to vote, will do themselves no good by lending any credence to Ron Paul.

At 1/24/2008 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, does this mean he basically takes the same position Stephen Douglas did with regard to slavery?

No. Google: "Sanctity of Human Life Act". Ron Paul wants to define life from conception to natural death at the federal level. This would legally define life at the federal level. However, he also wants to remove subject matter jurisdiction from the Federal courts on this issue. This would over turn Roe and the other abortion decisions and return this issue to the states. Over night 33 states would ban abortion if given the chance.

This is the fastest means to reducing abortions and eventually ending this horrible chapter.

He is against an Amendment to the constitution because it is too onerous a procedure and the Constitution has already provided a means of dealing with this issue: subject matter removal.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger