What's the Big Deal About GOP Candidate Ron Paul? (VIDEO)

People are talking about this Republican Presidential hopeful, backed by a small but substantial and outspoken set of principles and campaign positions.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Many Americans are curious about a Texas GOP candidate named Ronald Ernest Paul, who is raising a few eyebrows among a wide section of the voting populace.

I've heard republicans refer to Ron Paul as a breath of fresh air, and I've had democrats mention the candidate in a good light, even suggesting a party switch in order to help elect him. Then there is all of the excitement from the GOP debates that he generated, with his unbridled statements about the war in Iraq.

A number of people have written, asking if I am planning to write a story about this candidate. In researching Ron Paul, I was hoping to find qualities that would make this man stand out as something truly different, and that is exactly what I found.

Unfortunately, I think that in the end Ron Paul will cause many people to view his position with a measured degree of disappointment. He is far from the average candidate, a real horse of a different color. Yet perhaps he is the best man the GOP could elect.

Were he elected, that vote would reflect a solid adherence to non-violent Christian beliefs. In spite of the party's ties to the Christian right, republicans might not be ready for that.

Paul and his wife Carol Wells were married on February 1st, 1957. They attended colleges in different states but stayed in touch and eventually married during Ron's senior year at Gettysburg College.

They have five children: Ronnie, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy. They also have 18 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Living in Detroit during his residency, Carol ran a dance school in their basement.

Unfortunately, the virtues Ron Paul puts forth seem a bit random, and overly conservative in some respects, especially in light of his staunch, anti-abortion stance. Yet he uses the term "neo-cons" to describe his opponents in the legislature.

Paul certainly is an economic conservative, adhering to the philosophy of the Austrian School of economics. He has written a number of books on the subject, and has pictures of economists Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard hanging on his office wall.

He touts the line of the GOP at large with a call for sharply reduced taxes and a "smaller government." This idea of reducing the size of government seems lost on the current administration, and Paul is quick to cite that. He also says government honesty and political transparency remain a big issue that has to be tackled in Washington, D.C., and all too often money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.

Last June, republicans won a victory on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills. (an earmark refers to congressional provisions that direct money to be spent on specific projects)

Many at the time said it meant that progress in the area of transparency was being made, and others celebrated the Democratic leadership's agreement to clearly identify each earmark in the future.

But Ron Paul said that was far from enough, and feared the increased scrutiny of the appropriation bill earmarks would only be a small and temporary solution.

"Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes."

Ron Paul is also extremely critical of this U.S. involvement in the United Nations, and the associated funding that goes along with it, in spite of the fact that UN troops have assisted the American military in countless operations.

Most Americans believe in the mission of the United Nations. They want to see soldiers around the world share the load of war, security and humanitarian work with our forces, but that isn't how Ron Paul sees it. He would rather place an emphasis on domestic security, while shoring up loose ends to prevent terrorism here.

"The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded."

This pro-life physician is possibly best knows for his extreme opposition to the war in Iraq. He also thunders disapproval over President George W. Bush and his administration's policies, while describing himself as "an unshakable foe of abortion".

Not to question his intelligence, but I don't know if Ron Paul understands how many people in this country support a woman's right to choose, or if he considers how much anti-war support might be found in the ranks of progressive democrats.

Roe vs. Wade has survived almost two terms under President Bush, and in spite of the replacement of Supreme Court judges, abortion still seems like a detrimental issue for Paul to center his campaign around. Most people that believe in his views on the war, would be at odds with him on his views over a woman's right to choose.

But others call him a man who walks the talk and puts his money where his mouth is, and this abortion opponent is an equally avid foe of capitol punishment. Fair is fair, and to this day I am astounded by abortion foes who support war and capitol punishment, it is just too big of a conflict. One thing this candidate does not do, is support war.

Ron Paul may have another reason for placing a major emphasis on the continuance of life; he is a physician who served as a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War.

While he never served in a combat zone, Ron Paul did serve our country honorably during that time period. He was drafted into service during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This veteran makes very direct statements about what he calls, a failing military conflict in Iraq. He is also extremely critical of efforts to expand the war, based on information that has proven to be false.

"The warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11."

Doctor Paul in the ER Image courtesy: goronpaul.blogspot.com/

He criticizes the claim of the far right, that "surrender should not be an option." He posed the question; if Americans were attacked on 9/11 "because of their 'freedoms', then why would politicians surrender the freedom of people with legislation like the Patriot Act?" "With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?" Paul added.

This outspoken critic of the war in the Middle East is not exactly what you would call a big contender for the presidency. So far, most national opinion polls only show roughly two percent supporting him.

But that is a very enthusiastic two percent as it turns out, and huge campaigns by supporters have shown up all over the Internet, claiming that this is the candidate more people need to pay attention to.

This contender from Lake Jackson, Texas has been referred to as a conservative, a constitutionalist, and a libertarian. Ron Paul's primary base of support by all accounts, hails from the old school of conservatism. Whether you like him or not, Paul tows a hard line in the pursuit of his beliefs, and for that he deserves plenty of credit.

Even though he won three out of four of the 2008 GOP debates according to online polls by the debates' sponsors, he has received relatively little attention or name recognition from the mainstream media.

While he remains a total long-shot for the official GOP nod, his candidacy raises the question of what the GOP is really all about at the end of the day.

Certainly even the most ardent supporters of the war in Iraq wince at the daily reports of carnage and death, and despise the notion of our young warriors being laid to rest.

They know about the thousands of veterans and active duty marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from their service in Afghanistan and Iraq. They know British troops are pulling out of Basra. That's not a good sign, and it does not bode well for the safety of our troops.

Is Ron Paul right about the war in Iraq? It may be a difficult thing for some people to swallow, but the New Testament clearly states that Jesus Christ taught man to turn his other cheek. Jesus Christ ranks among the biggest anti-violence advocates in the history of mankind.

Abortion is a major issue in so many Christian churches, and many young people who are not exposed to any religious training can see it as a divisive issue. The stories of anti-abortion demonstrators blocking the paths of young women entering a clinic, or shooting doctors for the same reason, are dark clouds over what some consider a routine moral effort in parts of the country like the Midwest.

One advocate from the pro-choice community said this, "Abortion protesting alienates many young people from Christianity, and it crosses a strange line in the sand for many voters like pro-choice republicans, while creating a much harder battle for somebody like Ron Paul to win."

Many people conclude that campaigning politicians always have some kind of a trick up their sleeve, but Ron Paul's delivery is unmistakable and clear to those who support him, and that group says the movement to elect Ron Paul is gaining momentum and support.

Could there be a dark side to Ron Paul? Some people believed that was possible fifteen years ago when a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report contained racial remarks. According to Wikipedia and the Atlanta Progressive News, the newsletter accused President Bill Clinton of "fathering illegitimate children" and using "cocaine," and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."

The article also stated that the age to prosecute children as adults should be lowered, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." There was more, but that may not be as important if you pay attention to one particular development, because he ultimately claimed that he was set up and that he never wrote any of it.

But Paul told the Texas Monthly magazine several years later, that he acknowledged the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter, and did not represent his views.

He said he particularly lamented the remarks printed about Congresswoman Jordan, calling it "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

He said that he took moral responsibility for the comments though that were published under his name. Texas Monthly put it this way, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

I think it is reasonable to assume that this is not the true nature of Ron Paul, but it took a toll and left a serious political black eye to deal with.

Even if his chances to earn the office of President remain doubtful, Ron Paul has represented Texas's 14th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, showing that he can not only gain support, but also keep it.

He also represented Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985. During this time, Paul delivered babies on Mondays and Saturdays during his entire term.

It is also noteworthy that Ron Paul is also no stranger to the race for president, as he ran in the 1988 presidential election as the Libertarian Party's nominee, as a registered Republican. For more information you can visit his Website: ronpaul2008.com

Here is 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in discusion with Google executive Elliot Schrage as part of the company's Candidates@Google series.

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with almost twenty years experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist and reporter. Today, in addition to his role as a war correspondent in Afghanistan where he spent the winter of 2006/07, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor. Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website, affiliated only with Google News. You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Ron Holland September 16, 2007 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

Do You Support Ron Paul? Please sign and comment on the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html You also might want to read “The Final Presidential Executive Order” a fictional story about a future terrorist attack against the US and learn how a government extreme response elected Ron Paul as President of the United States at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm

Jory September 11, 2007 4:47 pm (Pacific time)

Tim! I am very impressed with this piece of journalism. You have done what few others have managed; Told the story of Ron Paul in a unbiased and fair way. Kudos to you for a writing a great story about a fantastic Presidential Candidate instead of ignoring his presence. Ron Paul has the ability and backbone to get this nation back on track and restore her to pre-corruption condition.

Henry Ruark September 11, 2007 7:54 am (Pacific time)

Neal et al; Nice application of basic analysis principle: Pay attention to what is DONE rather than what is only SAID. (OR written either, esp. if "anonymously hidden".

Neal Feldman September 10, 2007 10:00 pm (Pacific time)

If Ron Paul has such respect for the constitution why isn't he a cosigner to the bills seeking impeachment of Cheney and Bush, hmmm? Ah well...

Lee Mason September 10, 2007 9:34 pm (Pacific time)

I'm an independent, so can't vote in the Rep primary but I would consider voting for Ron Paul. Forget the abortion issue, he can't change that. The most important thing is that he will bring the troops home immediately. That is so important. That was a great article Tim.I hope you write one on Kucinich, my favorite Dem, Best regards Leebm29

Henry Ruark September 10, 2007 10:46 am (Pacific time)

Friend Neal et al: Agree, almost entirely. Need to add what guides analysis and decision...that's where established, proven, tested, long-normal "principles" come into play. They must supersede basic emotion-only or those failed political party myths, like those you have illuminated. What better place-to-start than with Founders (including entire bkgrnd from Federalist Papers onwards) establishing Constitution now world-famed and the model for emerging new democratic nations; with overwhelming, growing, hungry, demanding populations and excruciating new needs; best filled by demo-design leading to their own Century like ours culminating in New Deal, Fair Deal, et al, et al....

Neal Feldman September 10, 2007 8:31 am (Pacific time)

Henry - Maybe I am misunderstanding you but I fail to see any dynamics today or any day that trump deciding each issue independently as I do. The facts, logic, ethical analysis and sound reasoning are tools that I find to be timeless. Like I said, maybe I am just misreading you. Never an absolute impossibility I guess. Ah well...

Henry Ruark September 10, 2007 7:21 am (Pacific time)

Friend Neal et al: Thank you for wise insightful comment...but I feel moved to add to your "Ah, well..." that other sharp phrase: "'Twas ever thus !". Gotta change, now that 21st Century events, trends, and growing pressures driving us back to "original principles" simply for survival.

Neal Feldman September 9, 2007 9:55 pm (Pacific time)

I know where you are coming from Henry. I, myself, register for whichever party I want to vote the primary in. I prefer open primaries. I am an independent deciding every issue on its own merits - I couldn't give a fig for what any given party or group thinks it is the facts, logic, ethics and reasoning that matter. On some issues I would be considered liberal, on others conservative, if someone wanted to try and pigeonhole me based on a single issue or couple of issues. I support freedom and the constitution, as should everyone if they could just stop trying to force their own agendas onto everyone else. Ah well...

Henry Ruark September 9, 2007 4:32 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Ethical disclosure: I am NOT now, for first time in life, a registered Democrat. I've allowed registration to lapse purposely, to force new choice --if any ever emerges-- from what I see as tragically failed responsibilities on both sides of aisle, with heaviest weight on Right. BUT neocons came from both parties, and have in essence seduced and submerged ideals of both. If I could press the button to trash whole-lot, surely would be tempted ! But I remain "liberal" in outlook, albeit neither mythic name now means a damned thing.

Henry Ruark September 9, 2007 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

Mia et al: Re "recurring cycle", "disproven GOP doctrine" and "see with own eyes", all still pertinet to Tim's report and responses, see: "Racists and Robber Barons";in NATION, 7/30/8/6, pp.4-5, on return of race isolation in schools as "current issue". We fought the damned Civil War over that one...and here it is back with Supremes, in decision (5-4, naturally)by Bush-packed "right-leaning" Court. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", wrote Jefferson --and he was forebearer for "your side" !

Henry Ruark September 9, 2007 12:29 pm (Pacific time)

Mia et al: Do u recall Duck Soup, one of Marx Brothers zaniest films ? Has classic scene when Chico is caught in compromising situation. "But I saw you with my own eyes !" his accuser insists. To which Chico replies: "Who you ganna believe, me or your own eyes ?" Point here: Politics is now precisely the same-situation. Keep probing --AND thinking, too...!!

Henry Ruark September 9, 2007 10:44 am (Pacific time)

Mia et al: With all due respect, all I learn about Paul, here and elsewhere, points to simple sanitization and canny restatement of old Libertarian and disproven GOP political doctrine. In essence U.S. history shows continuing cycle, with this and preceding ones repeating original Founders' confrontations on same age-long controversies. Previous GOP ascendancies have, so far, shown same bad tendencies as Bush I and II, on top of Reagan debacle. Too complex for deeper dialog here, so offer PDF and other documentation for any wishing to dig-deeper ! Just ID-self to Editor, who will then put us in touch. Best to all, and honest, open dialog can build better for all of us...keep it coming here and YELL at CONGRESS !

dave September 8, 2007 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Tim, thanks for the fair and ballanced rag. GO RON PAUL!!

Mia September 8, 2007 2:21 am (Pacific time)

Thanks Mr. King...we supporters of Ron Paul in North Carolina appreciate this article. To Sue...please read more of Ron Paul's actual positions and not what someone told you. Public schools are state run, not federally run....follow the money, and see what coporations get your tax dollars that is pumped into the schools for contracts. And the children are no better educated. Sue, the FDA is not protecting you, so why are you paying for it?! Most government agencies have colluded with business in the form of regulations that allow businesses to poison us and pollute their neighbor's bodies and property. That is why when I reported seeing the owner of a local grocer pick meat up off the floor and put it back in the case on top of other meat, the local inspector said that there was nothing he could do. What is he getting paid with my money for? But could I tell the media without getting sued? No way, the grocer is more powerful than me. Did you hear the NPR story about Chinese food products? One company drives trucks over its wet tea leaves so the exhaust can dry them before they are packaged and shipped to the US. I think less than 2% of foreign food products are inspected. You know, like the lead in candy from latino countries! Why would you allow your political enemy to feed your country? Why borrow 3-7 billion dollars a day from a country that hates you? You can't blame the corporations for doing what their government encourages them to do? How did privatization effect the victims of the Federal Army Corps of Engineers failure to maintain a levee system? The hurricane did not flood NOLA. And whose cousin got the contract for all of those government trailers that were not meant to be lived in? Full of fermaldihide. Hundreds, if not thousands of trailers sitting vacant, because FEMA will not put trailers in a flood plane...so who bought the trailers for a flood? And why couldn't they send them back? If the government had let the private citizens and local governments who wanted to help come in and help, there would not have been babies dying in the middle of the city from dehydration! Local police killing people over people taking things they needed to live out of WalMart, but they can't go get the people some water and food? Taking private citizens guns, so they can't protect their homes? Fire men sat outside of the area for days waiting to get permission to enter. A convoy of VA state troopers was turned away, and told to go home. If you could keep your money instead of paying income tax, imagine what you could do for your own family. Maybe even send your children to private schools, or donate to the PTA of your local school. My child is not a government experiment. Forcing parents to send their children to certain schools in certain zones is a travesty. If I did not have the option to send him to a "magnet" school", he would be home schooled. Because the neighborhood schools are a mess. And NCLB is not helping. Parents have got to get involved and vote LOCALLY. They have got to visit the school, eat the lunch, know the teachers and principal, know the school board members, attend the meetings. Locally run is what is best. THAT is Ron Paul's assertion. Matters of life and death are state and local. The government is inept...that is why they are not liable for anything. Privatization is not bad, when there is not corporate welfare, government collusion, and the people have easy access to the courts and honest, hardworking, affordable attorneys. Sue, stop listening to the sound bites and pundits...Ron Paul has a well thought out reason for his positions that he cannot explain in two seconds...and lots of times he thinks we all know history and economic policy. We have got to do our own research, he can't explain everything all the time. Read some of his books! Take care... Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries!!!

Tim King September 7, 2007 8:23 pm (Pacific time)

Well the comments on this story were very good at first, like, "this is easily the most unbiased and most comprehensive piece of journalism i ever read about ron paul. certainly not everyone will agree with him on all positions, but the fact that ron paul is a good man with firm principles is obvious."

To the person leaving a more recent comment named Raymond, thanks a lot for making sure that you get your two cents in. Isn't it great that you can write anything you want within reason and a site like this publishes it with no questions? I think your attack on my article is weak proves that I raised many questions in your mind, and your abusive tone conveys that all by itself. I just tried to portray different sides of this man and his past in a fair way.

Sorry to take you so far out of your comfort zone man, I would suggest that you would get your point across in a better way if you weren't so insulting in the process.

Neal Feldman September 7, 2007 7:45 pm (Pacific time)

Dave - Yes the 10th amendment says that. The 9th also says just because a right isn't listed does not mean necessarily that it does not exist. And if you work your way down a bit you will see the 14th amendment, not Roe v Wade, put the federal rules onto the states. Roe v Wade should never be overturned. It is not the government's business what a woman does with HER OWN BODY (whether federal, state or local govt id irrelevsnt). Some people just refuse to face that fact. Ah well...

Neal Feldman September 7, 2007 7:37 pm (Pacific time)

Natalie - Oh where to begin? I assure you that my knowledge of the US Constitution as well as how our government operates clearly exceeds your own ( do not feel bad it exceeds likely 99.99% of the US populatiuon). Have you heard of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution? That, amongst other things, applied to the states the rights guaranteed federally. As such if a woman has a right to choose abortion in ANY state she has the SAME inalienable right to choose abortion in EVERY state. Do you grok it yet? Yes I believe in freedom... but no one has the freedom to unreasonably infringe upon the freedoms of others. You (as an example, not making specific assumptions about you) have the right to practice your religion. You (same caveats) do not, however, have the freedom to impose it upon others as that infringes upon THEIR freedoms and rights unreasonably. Get it yet? And what if one of your little communities wished to bring back slavery? That would be ok with you? Remember in much of this country slavery was legal and practiced for 2/3 of the 19th century. And no one is telling you that you cannot smoke... they ARE however protecting the lungs pf NONsmokers from your exercising your freedom to smoke if you try and do it in an unreasonable manner. But if you are in your own home or the home of someone else who does not mind or outside away from others puff away all you like. I promote no moral gode but I do promote an ethical one. There is a difference. But a US citizen should be able to know whatever rights they have they have ANYWHERE in the US... not just in certain spots. I studied constitutional law. Clearly you never have. Ah well...

Raymond. September 7, 2007 7:03 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Tim King, this article starts off as a nice piece for Dr. Paul but it turns into a tirade of blurry comments that don't deliver a conclusion. For example, what does Jesus Christ have to do with the Iraq war? You just keep blabbering on and on about shooting abortion doctors? What are you saying man? That Dr. Paul supports that? I don't understand. Also, why are you putting in big letters "Racial Remarks?" if later on this was debunked - as you mention in the article. No candidate is mentioning this in the debates - why? Because it's a bunch of bull that was debunked long time ago and I don't think it's worth big letters in an article about Dr. Paul. I believe this article doesn't provide a good description of what Dr. Paul is and it just sounds like a bunch of half-assed comments that never conclude anything. There's no mention about Dr. Paul's monetary policy, or why he believes we need smaller government or why he believes we should have non-interventionist foreign policy. You just dish out a bunch of ideas you heard over the radio or TV about Dr. Paul and expect the reader to disect it. Lame. You did a poor job researching this delightful candidate.

Aaron September 7, 2007 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

I am pro-choice and a lawyer. I do not judge Ron Paul on the issue since he has delivered over 4000 babies. He is right about Roe v. Wade. It is a house built on sand because technology will render it moot possibly within a decade. That is why courts are not good at legislating. If Roe v. Wade was not decided as it was...abortion would not be the great national distraction that it is. Most states would have legal abortions...and people would be allowed to move onto other issues like war and the economy when they make their choice for President.

Henry Ruark September 7, 2007 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Albany: I respect your strong feelings --but feeling is not rational opinion based on a realistic assessment of facts and events...which is surely a far better measure to guide action for commonweal interest which is what elections are intended to do. The report stated fact: Ron P. is definitely a (very) long-shot. Other points you mention are at best debatable but most are obviously very close to what Tim stated. Feeling is fine, but dialog should share assessment of what facts we can dig out, in this complex media-propaganda environment. Best to you for spunk and determination, in any case...

Paul Revere II September 7, 2007 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Welcome to the fold It allways makes me smile when someone cares enough to check him out on their own.... Help us spread the word even more we must defeat the Media theve been screwing us over the whole time......

Bob Moore September 7, 2007 4:59 pm (Pacific time)

I am also pro-choice and I support Dr. Paul.

Albany September 7, 2007 4:26 pm (Pacific time)

I am a Ron Paul supporter and was happy to see a story written for him, but was disappointed in the portrayal of him in some points. He has not raise a "Few" eyebrows, but has raised "MANY" eyebrows. Democrats (and other parties) aren't just "suggesting" a party switch to get him "NOMINATED AND ELECTED", they are actually doing it! I know, because I and many friends have done so. And it is reported by reliable sources that this is happening all over the U.S. People are jumping ships in droves to get on board the U.S.S. RON PAUL. "Perhaps" he is the best man to be nominated by the GOP? No, HE IS THE BEST, NOT "PERHAPS". The reporter twisted the Christian non-violence issue to make Ron Paul sound like he is not a 2nd Amendment supporter. The truth is he believes that all Americans should exercise their freedom to arm themselves. Personally he is Pro-life and believes life begans at conception, but doesn't believe the Federal Government has the right to interfere in a personal descision regarding what one does to their bodies. The writer is putting words in peoples mouths by saying most americans support the mission of the UN. (Tell the Americans that our present government forced some of our men to wear UN uniforms which is unconstitutional, and when they refused, where court martialed.) Ron Paul says by following the Constitution we are to stay out of foreign alliances and entanglements. The reporter used a poor choice of wording because he doesn't know or understand the constitution. This is a "hit piece" on Dr. Paul. Twisting the truth with negative words. He does support war, IF DECLARED BY CONGRESS as stipulated by the Constitution, which the reporter omitted. He does not support invasion and occupation by our country to "spread democracy". I mean, get your facts right. National polls are not to be trusted. Neither is Mainstream Media. Who are both trying to blackout his message. Where does this reporter get the notion Ron Paul is a "long shot"? He's won major straw polls, or placed in the top 3. You sir, are running right along with the mainstream media with this article. Giving the truth in one sentence and twisting it in the next. Poorly written, but thank goodness there's a decent video interview that goes along with it and his website is listed. Ron Paul is a strong candidate and should not be ignored.

JengoPop September 7, 2007 4:24 pm (Pacific time)

I don't know about Ron Paul. Who do you think will win the Republican nomination? Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, maybe Ron Paul? Vote today at pollicious.com

Editor: If you want advertising, please contact us. We'll let this go once

Dave September 7, 2007 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

To the pro-Choicers out there. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned not because it made abortion legal in every state, but because it unconstitutionally expanded federal power at the expense of the states. The Tenth Amendmendment says that power not degelgated to the federal government are reserved for the states to exercise so long as the constitution does not prohibit the state from doing so. Also, realize that if the federal government can expand it's power to make abortion legal in every state, then the opposite side of the coin is also true: they can make it illegal in every state. Best to leave it to the state governments where the issue rightly belongs.

tejón September 7, 2007 3:55 pm (Pacific time)

It can't be stressed enough that Ron Paul's personal views on abortion, which I am completely at odds with, are simply irrelevant to his Presidential agenda. He believes the Federal government's nose doesn't belong in that business one way or the other, and his voting record reflects this time and again. That's all that matters in the end. That being said, it might be wise for him to put his pro-life rally attendence on hold for the duration... abortion is such a hot button that many voters will turn away before this can be explained to them.

Henry Ruark September 7, 2007 3:11 pm (Pacific time)

Strong, honest OP Ed, but in already-lost cause despite flow of Comments. Re Constitution: History, the Federalist Papers, and long experience with Supremes shows politics shapes changing interpretation. Ain't no "absolutes" even there...built that way by the Founders purposively --which is why honest, open democratic dialog, cumulating wit, wisdom, will of all, is only way to go preparing for final act of absolution: the vote. moresoon in Op Eds, but Comments here reflect very limited viewpoints, despite excellent article-base.

Matt September 7, 2007 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

I am Pro-Choice I support Ron Paul 100%

Kris September 7, 2007 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

Sue, the last thing that Ron Paul wants is for our country to be privatized. He is on record as saying that it is evil for corporations to benefit from government largess in the way that Haliburton and the military industrial complex has. The way that the Federal government currently collaborates with national and multinational corporations is very close to fascism, where both entities exist for the benefit of each other. Ron Paul does not want to privatize any aspects of the Federal government in the way you fear.

Jamie September 7, 2007 1:14 pm (Pacific time)

I started the Salem Ron Paul meetup group several months ago because Ron Paul has been totally steadfast in honoring his oath of office for 10 terms. I can think of no better qualification for president than that -- but, if more are desired, dozens more can be provided. Now try to find another candidate like that.

Rolland September 7, 2007 1:08 pm (Pacific time)

Good article. Though MSM writes Dr. Paul off as unelectable and attempts to discredit him at every turn, the fact is, only 50-55% of the eligible voters turn up ever four years to cast a vote. Why? Because every 4 years you have twiddledee and twidledumb as the only (perceived) two choices. If Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination (and don't think for a minute that he doesn't have a chance), there would for the 1st time in my lifetime, a candidate running (from the two major parties) who is not bought and paid for big business and special interests and there would be a huge groundswell of support from many of the other 45% who have lost hope.

zenpiper September 7, 2007 12:37 pm (Pacific time)

What is important to consider also, is that Dr. Paul is Not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an elitist, manipulative organization that would seek to establish a one world government. Thus far, the CFR has been successful: GATT, WTO, NAFDA, the UN, and the likely North American Union are all products or by-products of CFR initiatives. The following candidates are members of the CFR: Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Fred Thompson, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Bushes, Obama, Edwards, Biden. The only non-CFR candidates are Huckabee, Kuchinich, Gravel and Ron Paul. This is significant and should be included in any meaningful discussion of the candidates and their agenda.

kyle September 7, 2007 12:26 pm (Pacific time)

I like Ron Paul.

Sarcasm September 7, 2007 12:16 pm (Pacific time)

"Ok, vote for him, put him in office. It will be the end of our country as we know it." I know exactly what you mean... there is no way that I want to work any less than four months out of the year to pay the Federal government for all these wonderful services. I surely don't want my local government in charge of my local schools. And, by-jiminy, I am completely unable to determine what foods I should and shouldn't be feeding my children. If I don't take responsibility for myself, then the government must, right?

Bo McG. September 7, 2007 11:56 am (Pacific time)

If we don't elect Ron Paul we will have tyranny. We are already closer than people think. The people who run our govt are not for us, they are for themselves. I think people will be quite shocked someday to find out what goes on behind closed doors in dc.

CTJohnson September 7, 2007 11:27 am (Pacific time)

I am joining the Republican party to vote for Ron Paul. He is the only honest, not bought and paid for Republican. He has a 20 year Constitutional voting record. They call him Dr. No in Congress for a reason. He votes for only Constitutionally authorized bills. What? He follows the highest law of the land...amazing...I was stunned! I didn't even think we had people in Congress that were not bought and paid for!

Natalie September 7, 2007 10:43 am (Pacific time)

Neal-You wrote the following... "Of course he wants things done at the state level.. it is so much easier to ban abortion or put creationism into the schools etc state by state. The fact is though that the federal constitution guarantees equal treatment of all US citizens and that would NOT happen with the crazyquilt patchwork that would exist in Ron Paul's dream (and most folks' nightmare). Now, my response... apparently, you are not a fan of our Constitution. Because if you were, you would know that this is not Dr. Paul's "agenda", it is what our Constitution SAYS. It is the law. The federal gov't only has the powers expressly written in the Constitution...everything else is a state issue. You can't legislate morality, sir. Not everyone wants to live in a place that bans abortion, doesn't allow everyone the right to marry, and won't let you smoke. However, some people do want to live in a place like that. So...since we have free country with lots of different people and lots of space...why can't we have the people in the communities decide their laws, not someone in Washington. So, some places you can have an abortion and others you can't. Some place outlaw smoking, others don't. Let the people decide what kind of communities they want! We don't all have to agree on everything for this country to work. Instead of trying to force everyone to live under a specific moral code, why can't we have choices throughout our great country?

Ryan September 7, 2007 10:40 am (Pacific time)

You forgot to mention that, although Ron Paul is a staunch anti-abortionist, he believes that the Federal government has absolutely no say on it. That's right: you are free to do what you will with your own body. He correctly asserts that states will maintain the ability to outlaw abortion, but it is obvious that there are many states which would not choose to do so, and you would then be free to go to many states to have the procedure done. Amendment 10! Tu ne cede malis!

Richard Brodie September 7, 2007 10:27 am (Pacific time)

"It will be the end of our country as we know it" and the rebirth of the once great country our parents and grandparents knew.

A little about polls September 7, 2007 10:19 am (Pacific time)

The author mentioned the single digit poll numbers that usually turn up next to Paul's name, but that's a specious attribute at best. Ron Paul polls low because these "scientific" polls you see are carefully put together in a way that is detrimental to Paul's campaign. The biggest thing to be looking for on a poll are if they are used to guage "likely GOP voters" or "likely primary voters." That right there will immediately tell you that Paul's numbers have been cut. Why? Two key criteria of the poll are designed to filter out the following attributes: 1) Is the person currently registered in the GOP? 2) Did the person vote in the last GOP primary election? What doe these two criteria do? They screen out a) cross- over voters and b) new voters that were either i) apathetic about their past choices and sat out the elections or ii) too young to participate but have since reached majority age. Those demographics right there are some components of Paul's support, parts of the electorate to which his campaign has electrified and brought considerable life. The finished product you see on the news however only shows the party faithful that will be voting for Paul, and should not be trusted.

suepeace September 7, 2007 9:55 am (Pacific time)

Ha - I'm laughing at the person who said that getting Paul elected will mean the end of our country as we know it. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! In case you haven't noticed, our country is falling apart on many different levels. WE NEED CHANGE, not just more of the status quo.

billmoore September 7, 2007 9:53 am (Pacific time)

Want to end the war? Are you a Democrat? Register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul. Whomever wins the Democratic nomination will be against the war. Ron Paul will be against the war as well. Ron Paul winning the primaries will certainly mean the end of our foolish war in Iraq and we can get on with the general election focusing on domestic issues.

Oregon Dave September 7, 2007 9:37 am (Pacific time)

I can't support everything that Ron Paul stands for however I still am supporting his candidacy. He has a "hit list" and while there are many government programs he wouild prioritize the important issues of Iraq, the IRS and the monetary system. He wouild put less emphasis on getting rid of long standing federal bureaucracies and in fact could really only accomplish so much of his agenda. He would still have to go though Congress after all. I think the general direction of moving us back towards iiberty and the constitution trumps any objections to sepecific planks. This is one progressive liberal who is voting for Ron Paul!

Sue September 7, 2007 9:30 am (Pacific time)

Ok, vote for him, put him in office. It will be the end of our country as we know it. I know what I know from listening to him being interviewed on radio shows, before he was a republican. He won't get my vote.

Lee September 7, 2007 9:26 am (Pacific time)

There is no doubt in my mind that Ron has the highest IQ of the Repubs, and Dennis Kucinich has the highest IQ of the Dems. Lets vote for someone that has an IQ at least 20% more than Bush

Architect 4 Ron Paul September 7, 2007 9:18 am (Pacific time)

Ron Paul may be personally against abortion, but he correctly maintains that it's the states who should decide abortion law, not the federal government. His position would NOT outlaw abortion. He's also not against good education, or "food for people"-- those issues should be left to local governemts for people who are persoanlly involved with them. The federal governemt has a laundry list of failures trying to micromanage the country; just look at FEMA and the vast inefficiencies of the Katrina disaster. How would he fix New Orleans then, you ask? Before you write him off as insensitive to ANY issue, please read his philosophies and understand that his ideas are founded on the constitution and would work for the benefit of everyone far better than the corrupt and mismanaged systems in place today. It's there you'll find the answers. Ron Paul has got it figured out! People who read headlines and "write him off" are shooting themselves in the foot. Discover Ron Paul and you'll discover the answers to peace, prosperity, liberty, and every solution that concerns you. That's why his supports are rabid to get the word out. Before you critize Ron Paul, go to his website (don't go to a 3rd party website that doesn't explain him!!) and look up your issue. You WILL be convinced he should be President and become his most ardent supporter.

BZ SMITH September 7, 2007 9:06 am (Pacific time)

Ron Paul is the man! I love that guy.

Gary/Kansas September 7, 2007 9:01 am (Pacific time)

Sue: Please research a subject before you inject negative comments for public viewing, your comments clearly indicate you know NOTHING about RP or his principles!

Neal Feldman September 7, 2007 9:00 am (Pacific time)

Of course he wants things done at the state level.. it is so much easier to ban abortion or put creationism into the schools etc state by state. The fact is though that the federal constitution guarantees equal treatment of all US citizens and that would NOT happen with the crazyquilt patchwork that would exist in Ron Paul's dream (and most folks' nightmare). The ONLY thing he has right is on getting out of Iraq. Beyond that most of his ideas are extremely dangerous to anyone who examines them past their veneer of sophistry. Ah well...

Vic September 7, 2007 8:55 am (Pacific time)

At risk of being repetitious, I would like to add that if you are not registered as a Republican , you cannot vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. My wife and I just did the unthinkable..registered as Reps. It is time to pre-emptively invade the GOP !

LC September 7, 2007 8:54 am (Pacific time)

"Not to question his intelligence, but I don't know if Ron Paul understands how many people in this country support a woman's right to choose, or if he considers how much anti-war support might be found in the ranks of progressive democrats." All around, this is an excellent article, but this statement bothered me. Congressman Paul is firm in his convictions and this should be respected. He isn't going to change his views around so that he can appeal to pro-lifers or anyone for that matter. I know it's rare in the political arena these days, but this is called 'principle'.

Jack September 7, 2007 8:49 am (Pacific time)

Wow...fantastic article. It's amazing how impossible it is to write negative things about Ron Paul. The only time you hear any negative comments about him is due to misunderstanding of his views or just plain lack of research. He is on of the most outstanding candidates to run for President. There are 3 kinds of people: People who watch things happen; People who make things happen; and People who says, "What happened?" Thanks to Ron Paul's fight for the Constitution...I am taking action to help him make things happen.

Ray September 7, 2007 8:43 am (Pacific time)

Sue, you are so lost. States have to run themselves (AmX) and the National government is supposed to take care of issues enumerated in the Constitution. That's it. Centralized government was a soviet/ communist tactic. Schools and Police and local governemnts have nothing to do with the fed, nor should they. They are funded by local taxes and not Income taxes. Income taxes are used to pay interest on the national debt and not much more. BTW Katrina was the end result of federal government intervention (FEMA) not privatization. Sue you need to read up on stuff and then you will understand whats going on. Pick up some political science books and stop believing what you think is fact from the mainstream media. Kind regards.

David September 7, 2007 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life as he has said over and over. But, you have left out the missing piece on that issue. He wants the Abortion issue handled at the state level where local people can choose representatives that reflect their views. If you are pro-choice, move to a pro-choice state. He doesn't want to force his views on anybody or run their life, religion, etc.

Ray September 7, 2007 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Matthew, UN troops are meaningles and the UN would not exist without US support, period. Most countries do not even pay their fees for belonging to the UN. Lastly, the UN undermines the sovereignty of this nation. Its RP for me!

Justin Klingler September 7, 2007 7:54 am (Pacific time)

Go Dr. Paul! Keep up the good fight cus you are right!

Dan Warner September 7, 2007 7:51 am (Pacific time)

Sue, Ron paul does nto hate government, he does not hate public schools, police or oversight. You need to understand that your own state has a government, and that state used to manage these things. This is the proper place for their oversight, not at the federal level. Ron Paul is running as president, that is a federal position. He correctly feels that you are better represented at your state level and that the federal government is actually messing that up. It is not the role of the federal gvernment that is detached from your local level to decide what is right for your community, that is best left to the local and state governments. Your school taxes are not collected at the federal level, that is done at the state and local level. These services will not end, they will improve when the federal government stops robbing you and allows your own money to go where it is most needed. Please take the time to learn how things work and you may find that Ron Paul is the best answer. less interference from the federal level allows the states to decide what is best done with your money.

Kyle September 7, 2007 7:37 am (Pacific time)

Considering this is coming from Oregon, I highly doubt Oregon would be a pro-life state if it was left up to the states. :)

Matthew September 7, 2007 7:30 am (Pacific time)

A note on the UN: While it is true that Dr. Paul opposes funding the UN "in spite of the fact that UN troops have assisted the American military in countless operations", Dr. Paul opposes our involvement in these military operations anyway. "I believe strongly that we should avoid getting entangled in foreign alliances and instead seek peace and trade with all nations" -Dr. Paul, June 2007

jeff September 7, 2007 7:28 am (Pacific time)

to see a picture of the constitution needing to be revived with a defibulator and know that it is an accurate portrayal breaks my heart. i hope we do listen to jesus christ and the founding fathers and vote for Dr. Paul, it's not just a g*ddamned piece of paper george bush it's so much more.

Sue September 7, 2007 7:28 am (Pacific time)

Ron Paul has a great stance on Iraq. That is where is greatness ends. He hates government. He doesn't want public schools, public police, public oversight on foods that we feed our children. He wants our country privatized! It worked so well in Iraq and Katrina, didn't it. I applaud him on standing up against the war, but that is where the applause has to end.

Wheaton September 7, 2007 7:25 am (Pacific time)

Great article. Thanks for taking the time to profile an honest and respectable candidate, even though other media outlets haven't deemed him a "top-tier" contender. We need to start looking for men and women who will be real leaders, not the crooks and parrots that the big news corporations always sell us. Thanks!

brettrix September 7, 2007 7:07 am (Pacific time)

not sure if i have to log in or if url's are allowed but this is what i say from Phoenix, AZ Register so you can vote in your state's primary for Ron Paul Join a meet up group - there are over 800 cities that have them, along with 40,000 Ron Paul supporters Learn more www.ronpaul2008.com Listen More wwwronpaulaudio.com Do MORE: http://ronpaul.meetup.com GREAT ARTICLE THX Exercising your rights is the best way to live! Take back America! Peace, Prosperity, Probity, PAUL

LPM September 7, 2007 6:42 am (Pacific time)

Excellent! I appreciate your candid and thoughtful article. Good Job!

Nathan September 7, 2007 6:23 am (Pacific time)

Nice article. One thing I'd like to point out though is although Ron Paul is for overturning Roe v. Wade, he is against federal intervention when it comes to abortion. He believes it is a state's issue. He voted against a law that would make it illegal to transport a pregnant woman to another state in order to have an abortion. While he is pro-life he is moreover a strict adherer to the constitution and the part of it that says "Congress shall write no law..."

Max Merkel September 7, 2007 6:15 am (Pacific time)

this is easily the most unbiased and most comprehensive piece of journalism i ever read about ron paul. certainly not everyone will agree with him on all positions, but the fact that ron paul is a good man with firm principles is obvious.

Robert September 7, 2007 6:06 am (Pacific time)

Ron Paul is our Republic's only hope for bring back the Constitutional form of government - By the People and For the People. He's not bought and paid for by "The Machine" as most of the other candidates are. I am now a Democrat for Ron Paul.

[Return to Top]

What's the Big Deal About GOP Candidate Ron Paul? (VIDEO)

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News