My wife is a registered Republican, which is why (I assume) she gets the collection of mailings. A certain former Massachusetts governor sends her mailings about each week. Some of those are fun to deconstruct, but maybe I’ll work on those some other time.
The one she received from Ron Paul’s campaign last week was rather shocking in its claims. Combined with assertions and claims I have seen in various commentaries and blogs by Rep. Paul’s supporters, I have decided that he is more of a cult icon than actual political figure.
This mailing is covered with the pictures of very adorable babies. There is certainly something to be said for that.
The assertion on the front, though reads: “Dr. Ron Paul is more than pro-life. He’s the essence of all that it stands for.”
More than pro-life? So, what does more than pro-life mean?
Mostly, it means that Rep. Paul is trying to talk around an issue.
“Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection to the unborn,” reads the quote from Dr. Paul on the inside of the tri-fold.
So, surely he must have some agenda for ending abortion?
One might think that.
One would be wrong.
Rep. Paul falls into the category of “personally against abortion, but pro-choice.” For all his talk of honesty, though, he won’t say that plainly. While he wants the federal government out of abortion decisions, that means that he wants it to be up to states entirely. He claims that this makes him the most pro-life candidate. Of course, that’s the same position taken by Sen. Fred Thompson, so I’m not sure how his “the most” status comes in, if we apply logic. I’ll get back to that, though.
I’ll take Dr. Paul at his word that he is personally pro-life. He did, in fact, introduce the H.R. 1094 which would define life as beginning at conception. However, this would (believe it or not) stop short of making any real protection for the unborn.
In April 2001 and February of 2004, he voted against legislation that would have afforded any legal protection to unborn victims of crimes.
His own assertion is that “respect for life begins with respect for the Constitutional rule of law,” which would mean that you can’t respect life without honoring Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, this is more or less a hallmark of Rep. Paul and himself. His campaign and its devotees can’t find enough superlatives to describe him — he’s the most pro-life, pro-family, Christian, honest Presidential candidate we’ve ever seen.
I’ve seen him described as “more Reaganite than Reagan,” and (my personal favorite) “more Jeffersonian than Jefferson.“
Discussions with Ron Paul supporters often venture into the surreal. Part of the word-intensive and substance-light assault on a Janet Folger article included the assertion:
…Ron Paul is in support of and how govt should run–and under those policies tragedies like what Terri Schiavo had to endure would not happen
One might think that this means Rep. Paul’s policies would have prevented her death by starvation. But, no. Apparently, what she had to endure was having decisions made by federal authorities.
This seems typical of how Rep. Paul is discussed. Results and consequences don’t matter. The substance of any issue is hijacked for his claims.
An honest position might be for Rep. Paul to call himself a pro-life Federalist, wanting to remove the federal government from abortion altogether. Instead, he is quoting slogans that make him sound like something that he isn’t. He isn’t the strongest foe of abortion in the field.
If you want to argue that he’s as strong a foe of abortion as the Constitution allows, then we can have that argument. The claims made in this mailing, though, are dishonest. It’s as phony as anything coming from the Romney campaign. And that’s too bad, because I have thought that at least Ron Paul was honest about what he thinks and what his agenda is.
I am now tempted to turn on the option to allow all comments to be moderated before posting … we’ll see.
November 19, 2007 at 9:34 am
I thought maybe ya had something, but I guess not.
November 19, 2007 at 9:41 am
Well, thanks, Curtis, for that example of substance-light comments.
November 19, 2007 at 9:58 am
“This seems typical of how Rep. Paul is discussed. Results and consequences don’t matter. The substance of any issue is hijacked for his claims.”
Y’know, just the other day I was complaining that the worst thing about the current administration is their die-hard adherence to “the ends justify the means.” Seems to me that that “Results and consequences don’t matter” complaint is actually a sort of backhand promotion to those who see the issues like I do.
November 19, 2007 at 10:20 am
If you’re a fan of empty slogans, then Ron Paul, much like George Bush, would be your guy.
The more I look at him, the more I see the same styles and methods of any other shameless political hack, just dressed up with a different agenda.
November 19, 2007 at 10:28 am
LOL this is a pretty funny rant, but then again it’s coming from a supporter of that clown who shall not be named but who raised taxes to a fair thee well in Arkansas….
How about repealing Roe v Wade? That pro-life enough for you?
Huckabee can pretend to be pious as a ‘minister’ and his religious right nutcase followers can claim that no one else is pro-life enough for them, but the truth hurts.
November 19, 2007 at 10:45 am
I gotta say, that doesn’t sound like Dr. Paul talking at all. Some of his supporters and staff can say some rather “political” things so who knows, maybe those aren’t his words.
But on the pro life issue Dr. Paul has repeatedly said he’s pro-life but the constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to deal with that issue short of a constitutional ammendment. To hear him say he’s the most pro-lifer doesn’t fit his MO at all
November 19, 2007 at 11:18 am
Ron Paul is absolutely the most pro-life candidate running. Per a recent Chuck Baldwin column:
(Take the issue of abortion, for example. Ron Paul proposed the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005″ (and 2007), which would require that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency”
The bill also provides that “the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect unborn children…” And that “the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review …the performance of abortions; or the provision of public expenses of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.”)
This bill would overturn Roe v. Wade instantly, with a 51% vote and Presidential signature. Where was Huckabee on supporting this? The same place Bush and the Republican establishment were, silent in the wings…
I suggest you check out Baldwin’s most recent columns for more Christian perspective on both Paul and Huckabee.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071030.html
November 19, 2007 at 11:19 am
Updated link for above…
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/speech.html
November 19, 2007 at 11:21 am
NH – Thanks, but I think we understand what it means to say nothing of substance.
As for repealing Roe v. Wade, no, that isn’t pro-life enough for me. I have addressed this issue several times, actually … there is a wide gulf between merely being anti-Roe, which anyone who has read the Constitution must be, and being pro-life, which means actually wanting to care for and support lives. (There’s also a difference between merely anti-abortion and pro-life. I invite you to check out “The Case For Huckabee,” where I write about those three levels in detail.
Robert – This comes from the Ron Paul campaign itself. “Dr. Ron Paul is more than pro-life. He’s the essence of all that it stands for.” His own website, under the Issues page of “Life and Liberty,” steers a person in the direction of thinking that he would take action against abortion.
If you think that this doesn’t sound like him, then perhaps you don’t know him that well. I would argue that this is very deliberately deceptive.
November 19, 2007 at 11:43 am
Kevin -
Thank you for providing an intelligent aspect to this discussion.
You have an intelligent case to make, and it’s perfectly valid. The question here is whether abortion should be viewed as a state issue or whether it warrants federal attention to abolish it — as did slavery or segregation. I have no problem with people who honestly think as you do, though I disagree.
Ultimately, of course, this means that Ron Paul isn’t any more particularly pro-life than Sen. Thompson, as I noted. Yes, he proposed a piece of legislation. But his position is the same. It’s hard to translate into “the most pro-life,” I think.
And while you’re looking down your nose at Huckabee, he helped pass the Unborn Child Amendment in Arkansas — which should warrant at least a nod of respect.
November 19, 2007 at 11:47 am
See also:
Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama
http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-as-vice-president-for-barack.html
November 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Just another, among many today, attempt at a smear campaign without substance. Why are Huckabee supporters so agressively smearing Ron Paul? What are you guys so afraid of? And do you really think you’ll turn Paul supporters to your candidate through blatant garbage? Watch out, you guys are getting the same rep as RP supporters it just hasn’t been brought to the light yet. Wonder why that is? hmmmm?
EDIT (Wickle) – Actually, I have said a number of very positive things about Ron Paul. I defended him on someone else’s blog in regards to the asinine charge about stolen credit cards. I am addressing a number of specific points, which is what I do. As for a reputation … I don’t think that too many people have had to delete 37 comments that said nothing but “Go Mike Go!” today. That’s the current count on “Go Ron Go” or “Paul 2008!” comments with no other substance.
As to what I’m afraid of, and the substance of my comments, read the post. I addressed it. I laid out facts. If your definition of “smear” is “thing that suggests Ron Paul isn’t perfect,” then I can’t help you.
November 19, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Real Christians support Ron Paul. Why because Paul walks the talk.
EDIT (Wickle) – Yes, there are real Christians that support Ron Paul. If you’re asserting that ALL real Christians support Ron Paul (and that therefore support for Ron Paul is a way to determine how real someone’s faith is), then you’re further illustrating my point that Ron Paul has a cult-like following. Pastor Huckabee has done some walking, as well.
November 19, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I would agree that both Huckabee and Keyes are more pro-life than Paul. Paul ranks third in my estimation, though you can also make arguments for some of the other candidates. I support Paul because he’s very good on many other issues I care about, but I can understand how someone who put a very high priority on pro-life issues would choose Huckabee (or even Keyes, if they didn’t care about electability) instead.
As for the mailer, I think you’re overreacting. It’s politics, of course the candidates are going to try to represent themselves in the best possible light.
November 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I hereby proclaim this for future reference. If Huckabee is elected. Not one single thing will be done to end abortion in the U.S. He, too, will discover that his plan will not pass the legal test.
Go ahead, elect him, then we will see who was right. Others have already tried or at least promised it and failed. Why do you think that is?
November 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I like your term pro-life Federalist, which means Ron Paul is the most practical pro-life candidate. In debates and interviews he comes across staunchly anit-abortion. How many candidates have you ever heard state that he can think of no instance where abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother? Nice that he even has the knowledge and clinical experience to make that statement.
Also, we need to remember that a pro-life political philosophy is not only limited to abortion and euthanasia. Certainly Ron Paul’s consistent anti-war stance (not limited only to the most recent Iraq War) is a pro-life position. Rev. Hucakabee certainly seems a little less pro-life when it comes to Iraq.
Finally, I believe Ron Paul may is opposed to the death penalty, another demonstration of being truly pro-life, although, unpopular with the Right.
November 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Liz – that’s funny coming from a Paul supporter. A quick trip through the daily paul and all you see is attack after attack on Huckabee. One of the more humorous ones is the notion (stated as fact with no proof of course) that Huckabee is paying all the bloggers on his blogroll! Not one paul supporter will address where they obtained this information. Why not spend your time promoting your candidate instead of spending all that energy attacking other candidates – especially when those attacks are based on fabricated information (lies made up by rp supporters).
November 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Dear Wickle,
Why does your emotion and reason invoked in your support for the protection of life for the unborn not extend to the living? I have never understood how one can be pro-life and pro-war and see no contradiction. Perhaps, you can explain. With Mike Huckabee advocating essentially the same pro-war policy as Bush/Cheney that has led to hundreds of thousands of death to innocent Iraqi children, women, men and our own brave soldiers and the countless others injured how can you even for a moment think that Ron Paul isn’t “more than pro-life.” The statement is true because Ron Paul is also, Pro-Living! When did the Christians became the warvangelicals? Thou shall not kill? I didn’t see the asterik next to that one with a list of exceptions. The Prince of Peace! Remember? I beg of you and all other fellow Christians to please consider the dangerous contradiction in your thinking (pro-life/pro-war). They will know we are Christians By Our LOVE! Not by our bombs! Not by our torture!!! Pray the Rosary for Huckabee? I do, every weekend. I pray that he “awakes from his slumber” and rises in strong opposition to this war on terror and the racist war on drugs and chooses freedom and persuasion through friendships and understanding not at the barrel of gun. We cannot and will not as a nation or world respect life so long as we remain responsible for the majority of military deaths in this world. Clearly we do not respect life. So yes, Ron Paul respects life more than Mike Huckabee. Abortion will only ever end when we actually respect life. When it has value. When we value it more than profits, more than resources, and more than killing. I am praying for all us Christians to wake up and actually be pro-life! And just talk about it. To be pro-living! My highest thoughts and prayers go out to you all in the Mike Huckabee camp that you may listen to your hearts and remember the words of our Lord and Saviour, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Your brother in Christ,
Henry Williamson III
EDIT (Wickle) – I removed your e-mail address from your comment.
You start by asking why my respect for life doesn’t extend to the living (by which I assume that you mean, the born). Since you are now commenting on my character, and you are no longer looking at the post itself, you probably should have taken the time to look at other posts. I have actually addressed these points:
Mike Huckabee’s Heart
Torture Again
Torture
The Case For Huckabee
I can explain and have explained my position regarding war:
Even War Has Rules
About the War
… my primary point being that, at this point, merely leaving Iraq won’t stop people from dying. The decision to go to war was wrong, but that argument was lost six years ago. We now have to deal with the reality as it stands.
I have often seen people who base their theology on one or two verses, few who base it on one Commandment and one name of Jesus. (Out of curiosity, do you know when that name was first used?)
I refer you to the book of Obadiah, which is very critical of allowing terrible things to happen to people just because it’s convenient.
You ask me about praying the Rosary for Huckabee … I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up, since I certainly made no mention of it.
Bear in mind, if you would, that Ron Paul’s version of loving our neighbors as ourselves would mean taking no action on the international slave trade (his vote at the Values Voter Debate), abandoning Iraq to sectarian violence, removing all federal funds from medical care, and deregulating workplace safety so that workers can be exploited in the US as well as they are in any Third World nation or China.
You made a better case than a lot of these other comments (and certainly better than the mind-boggling number that I deleted). However, you (and most Ron Paul supporters responding today) seem to take every comment as a need to discuss the entirety of the campaign and every issue.
To call the war on drugs racist, by the way, is insane. It is, in fact, ethnic minorities who are being abused by the drug dealers, and whose communities are being wrecked most by these predators. However, it really has nothing to do with my post, to which you are purportedly responding.
I’m not, of course, responding on your own site because I’m not going to register as a user on Daily Paul.
November 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Obviously you all are not getting it.
Ron Paul is indeed more than pro-life via the fact that to him life begins at conception (I myself don’t agree-12 weeks), and as such, any harm to that life would be considered an attack on that life’s rights(constitutional rights).
Hence, abortion (at any time) would be a constitutional crime, a constitutional crime that would then be dealt with by a states individual criminal code.
In more words, Ron Paul is not just pro-life, he is also pro-constitution(pro-choice-states right to choose criminal penalty).
November 19, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“I consider abortion an act of agression”-Ron Paul
As a Ron Paul supporter, I see that his position on Abortion is not as anti- as mine is, BUT I believe his Presidency will swing more pro”choicers” to become anti-Roe than any other candidate. Just listen to him talk about it. If you want substance, there is no better substance than that. Murder is a state crime, and is prosecuted by the states. Overturning Roe will happen WAY sooner with a Paul Presidency than with any other candidate has since the pitiful case became “law”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk
As far as Huckabee, If it was between any other candidate besides Paul, and Huckabee, he would definately get my vote. The reason for me? The Economy.
November 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm
http://prolifestance.com/…it is a great resource on the prolife presidental topic.
November 19, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Wickle,
I would love to have an honest and serious discussion with you about the issues. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my response. Your points are well taken. I get emotional about the war. By the way, I am not afraid of having my email address published. Please feel free to contact me. Also, let me find you the number of African Americans currently imprisoned for victimless drug convictions and you tell me if it isn’t racist. The war on drugs is destroying a huge part of the black community. But, you are right this isn’t directly related to your piece. I just think that when we respect life we recognize when someone has a serious addiction or problem they need help they need medical attention. They certainly don’t need to be behind bars. I am just ranting now I know and I apologize. This again something I get very emotional about. I guess it is just another way that I am “more than pro-life.” Let’s talk.
November 19, 2007 at 10:02 pm
The fact that Ron Paul makes such claims that the 9/11 attacks were caused by us “bombing Iraq for 10 years”, and that he evidently sympathizes eith 9/11 truthers ought to tell you this man is either out of his mind or ridiculously stupid.
November 20, 2007 at 12:14 am
It’s unfortunate that Huckabee and Ron Paul supporters are fighting. However, it was Huckabee’s supporters that declared war on Ron Paul’s supporters first.
Honestly, I respect and like Huckabee. And his supporters that I have met in person have been some of the best. I don’t go out of my way to smear Huckabee because I have no reason to. However, people like -kf above are the reason there is strife between us.
Why is it that we can’t actually ever have an intelligent, reasonable discussion about Ron Paul? Every time he is mentioned, the supporters for every other candidate have to resort to childish name calling.
Is this what Southern Baptists do? Out of all the people that confronted and debated Ron Paul, Huckabee had the most respectful exchange at the CNN debate. I only wish his supporters could be as respectful.
November 20, 2007 at 12:55 am
Scott,
The “you started it” comment is pretty childish. I’m not going to play that game. I have been accused, in the past 24 hours, of being a false Christian, of being paid by the Huckabee campaign and lying about that, of any number of things — and that’s without delving into the profanity.
Until and unless you can explain that in some kind of rational terms, don’t try to tell me that Paul is being picked on and his supporters are paragons of virtue.
I have put up several posts on Dr. Paul before this one, some of which have been quite positive. I refer you to “The Field,” if you’re interested.
Please, do tell me what I did that warrants the insults thrown in my direction.
Frankly, I can see why other sites have shut down Paul supporters.
November 20, 2007 at 2:40 am
[...] Ron Paul Mailing My wife is a registered Republican, which is why (I assume) she gets the collection of mailings. A certain former […] [...]
November 20, 2007 at 11:02 am
Go Mike Go! Huckabee 2008!
(Sorry, had to do it. I hope it gives you a laugh after all you have been through and doesn’t just irritate you more.)
This has certainly been an interesting read. I especially liked Cindi’s post above. If that is truly the essence of Paul’s position, it would be different than Thompson who feels states should have the right to keep abortion legal.
Anyway, I’m for the Constitutional amendment and for Huckabee. And I’m a registered republican and have never received even one of these political mailings. :( Perhaps the state I live in is not as important at this point.
Hope your day goes better today!
Blessings,
Karen
EDIT (Wickle) – You got a laugh out of me, thanks. I don’t know if it’s a NH thing, but we get all kinds of mailings … Mr. Moneybags Romney is sending things just about weekly. One or two from McCain, the one from Paul, and I think there’s one from Giuliani around here somewhere. Maybe not. (Possibly more, but my wife might hide them from me to keep me from ranting.) Maybe I’ll scan them all in, post them, and you can print out your own copies, just so you don’t feel left out.
November 30, 2007 at 1:53 am
You do realize that before Roe versus Wade that states were left up to decide for themselves about abortion?
And you do realize that if Roe versus Wade is overturned, it will return to that status again, and that’s what the whole effort to overturn Roe versus Wade is ACTUALLY and has ALWAYS been about, right?
November 30, 2007 at 2:28 am
Mr. Wicks –
Either defend the wording “beyond pro-life” or don’t. Don’t change the subject.
According to your own argument, Ron Paul is simply pro-life. That means that my criticism is valid.
November 30, 2007 at 2:34 am
Wickle – I agree that your criticism is valid… I am not sure how they came up with that wording (unless they refer to his support of life after birth, such as anti-death penalty and anti-war). I really think that mailing is poorly worded and misleading – I have no idea what they mean by “more then pro-life”.