>From Brandon Nelson, Fairfield attorney:
Dear friends: I have alot of smart, progressive friends who are waving huge Ron Paul signs in their life. I've heard him speak, and I've talked to many of these people, but I decided to do some of my own research on exactly what he stands for. Here are the results of this research: There are two sides to Ron Paul. 1. On foreign policy, he wants the US out of every country except our own. That translates as a progressive alternative to the aggressive/destructive foreign policies of the last 25 years. And he believes, correctly and obviously, that only Congress can authorize the use of force against another nation (10-9-07). He wants us to bring our troops and our presence home, somewhat quicker than most of the Democratic candidates. I tend to agree with that, but I do feel that we have an obligation to fix what we have broken to a certain extent. On the other hand, he says we have "no moral authority" to help end genocide in Darfur and should have no presence or pressure there (9-27-07), and should not help end slavery in Sudan (9-17-07). He commingles non-intervention with blind isolationism. His domestic agenda is a mixed bag. As a libertarian, he doesn't want the federal government having any power or obligations. But unlike many libertarians, he is in favor of allowing individual states those same powers. That means many things. 2. He doesn't like abortions, and has voted against allowing the federal government to prevent abortions, but he has stated a number of times that he would "remove the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn." And in the September 17th debate he said he is "committed to reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench." That's a very clear shorthand for reversing Roe vs. Wade, and would effectively make virtually all abortions illegal in most of the US states. 3. At the same debate, he was asked if he would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and he answered No, and that "programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution." As a congressman, he has consistently voted No on any bill allowing any kind of embryonic cell research (he also voted for a bill that would prohibit cloning). So on the one hand he seems to suggest that if the constitution doesn't prohibit something, either states or individuals can do it, but this answer indicates otherwise--that nothing is lawful unless it is explicitly authorized under the constitution. Most human activities are not authorized under the constitution, but I can't believe he actually thinks they need to be. Again, this quote shows his true conservative Christian values coloring his judgment about medical science. The pro-choice movement grades his voting record a zero. 4. His record on the environment is right out of Rove's script. He voted No on removing federal oil and gas subsidies, continuing to give tax breaks and subsidies to big oil companies. That's a Republican vote, not a libertarian. He also voted against keeping the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore and permitting new oil refineries to be built in the US (the last one was in 1976), virtually turning our coastal states into leaseholds for oil companies. He also voted No on a bill that would have raised the fuel efficiency standards for cars and given incentives for alternative fuel vehicles, and supported a resolution to repeal the gas tax. He didn't even support Bush's national-energy policy (went too far). I have found no support for any environmental measures from him. In fact, he wants to abolish the Department of Energy (5-15-07) Apparently the US energy policy should simply be the policies of the energy companies currently producing energy. This man is not a friend of the environment and alternative energy development. 5. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and have only gold and silver as legal tender. (9-17-07) I don't see gold being any more stable than the dollar has been. And I don't see anyone else in Congress agreeing with him so that's not likely to happen. The president can't make that happen by himself. Yet this is part of his proposed agenda. 6. He says he "believes in federalism, [that] it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state." (10-21-07) That means the states get to decide our fate. That's how slavery was developed, voting restrictions were created, hog confinements have been allowed to proliferate, and parochial state prejudices often allowed to trump individual rights. Since Paul doesn't recognize individual rights unless they are expressly stated in the constitution, that means the states effectively have the power (9th amendment) to control our lives. On the other hand, he has voted No on extending the Patriot Act, and, like the Democratic candidates has a pretty good (67%) rating by the ACLU on his individual rights voting record. Strangely, while he says he does not support a national ID card, he has voted in favor of one for federal elections, and is OK with states requiring them. So while his support of individual liberties in the face of federal intrusion is clear, because of what he calls "federalism" we should be nervous about turning over such possible abuses to the state, which could be (and has been) far worse. "Local control" means the states decide. That's what Iowa has now in the face of a plethoric intrusion of large-scale hog confinement operations--the Iowa state legislature has made it virtually impossible to stop their development and expansion. Paul's theory of individual liberty tends to take a back seat to corporate expansion. 7. Paul doesn't like Medicaid, universal health care of any kind, or even health insurance (Orlando, 10-21-07). A basic tenet of libertarians is that it's every man for himself and that the government is the problem. If you're sick, good luck; if your road has a hole in, get a shovel and fill it. He would abolish the Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, HUD, the FBI, Homeland Security, the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, and ultimately the IRS. Be realistic: even if the president supports getting rid of these bloated bureaucracies, Congress is not going to follow, and virtually all of these ideas are completely impractical and will never happen. He also wants to privatize government assets, management and services wherever possible (12-8-00). My feeling is that if we're going to elect someone to run the government, I would think we would want to elect someone who doesn't hate the government, and whose ideas have even the tiniest chance of being passed by Congress. 8. The separation of church and state seems like an obvious and basic tenet of the constitution and libertarians. Yet Paul has voted for a number of potential amendments to allow prayer in school, and would not prohibit federal officials or buildings from promoting things like the ten commandments or public prayer. 9. He favors free trade, but opposes NAFTA. He would put no requirements on foreign corporations or countries doing business or trade in the US, regardless of their abusive labor or human rights practices. 10. He gets an A from the National Rife Association for his support of virtually all gun rights. The right to own a gun is one thing; an A from the NRA is quite another thing. After the Virginia Tech shooting, I remember hearing him comment on TV that the shooting probably wouldn't have happened if other students had been able to carry guns. He also believe that airlines should decide and enact their own security measures, and is fine if that means they allow people to carry guns on planes. 11. In June 2006 a bill was introduced in Congress to establish internet "neutrality" requiring that broadband network service not simply sell their bandwidth to the highest bidder, effectively resulting in the mainstream media controlling the internet. Paul voted against the "net neutrality" bill, yet I've heard his supporters tell me he supports net neutrality. 12. A number of his supporters believe the federal government directly and secretly caused 911 and that Ron Paul believes this too. He does not, and has made that clear (5-22-07). Like many of Ron Paul's "views," this seems to be a case of projection by his followers. Now the practical side: most Ron Paul supporters tell me they support him for his views on issues that are similar to those of Democratic progressives John Edwards and Barack Obama, notably withdrawal from Iraq and other unfounded wars, and protection of our individual civil liberties; in fact many of them tell me either one of those candidates would be their second choice. If that is the case, consider your vote for Ron Paul to be a vote for Hillary Clinton. If she wins in Iowa she will likely run the table. It's possible to register at the caucus (6:30 on January 3rd), so I hope those of you who are considering making a statement about Ron Paul will choose to exercise your ability to actually elect the next president by voting for one of the Democratic candidates who aligns with Paul on the key issues of Iraq and personal privacy, but who also aligns with the progressive views that Ron Paul does not. Most importantly, do not waste your vote on a candidate who is simply not electable. He is polling at Dennis Kucinich levels in most states, and a boost from a small part of Iowa isn't likely to create the snow ball effect that his supporters are imagining. It's more likely to siphon support from those candidates who otherwise need it (Obama, Edwards) to keep their momentum going. Be sure to use your vote wisely. Brandon Nelson No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 1/1/2008 12:09 PM
