CONTEXT ADDED BY ADMIN:
END OF CONTEXT
Recently came across this piece. Despite my reservations, I thought it would be foolish to not support McCain in '08. Now I realize that I was a fool just the same.President Paul?
June 2007
Dozens of people have announced their candidacies for the White House in 2008, and if I had to bet at this point, I would put my money on the beldam. Hillary may be awful, but at least she is predictable. I suppose I can learn to resign myself to her.
What difference does it really make? Our next president will have his or her hands full cleaning up after George W. Bush. In a negative sense, he has already set the agenda for his unfortunate successor. Just getting this country back to normal would be a labor of Hercules. And Hercules isn’t in the race.
Politics doesn’t often produce good news, but I am slightly heartened to know that Congressman Ron Paul is running for the presidency. Paul, a pro-life medical doctor, is a genuine political maverick.
When the House votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the 1. He really fights for the principles other Republicans only pretend to stand for, and does so with carefully reasoned explanations of his positions.
In essence, Paul appeals to that subversive document, the U.S. Constitution, long since abandoned by both major parties, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court. He tests every proposed law by asking whether it exercises a power authorized by the Constitution. The answer is seldom yes.
Many years ago Paul told me, with his affably ironic smile, that he felt more pressure from his fellow Republicans than from Democrats, because the Democrats weren’t embarrassed when a Republican voted like a real conservative, but the Republicans were. Showing up his own party has been the story of Ron Paul’s career. No other Republican has voted against President Bush as consistently as he has.
Paul isn’t flamboyant or defiant about it; his style is quiet and reasonable, not combative. Being a maverick isn’t a pose for him. It’s a matter of conscience and logic.
As a result, the GOP doesn’t care much for him and, if he runs, will try to stifle him. The allegedly right-wing Newt Gingrich, when he was riding high, once supported Paul’s opponent in the primary race; Gingrich knew what he was doing. A genuine conservative’s worst enemy is a fake one. And vice versa. If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination.
The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion first among constitutional rights (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)
Paul ran for president once before, in 1988, when he bolted the GOP to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. Much as I admired him, I voted for George H.W. Bush, afraid of ”wasting” my vote on Paul, who had no real chance of winning. Silly me. I soon realized I had really wasted my vote on Bush. It made no difference to Bush, after all, since he was going to win no matter what I did; but it made a difference to me. I still regret it. (And to this day, Bush has never thanked me.)
Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the GOP's sorry candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s rhetorical skills.
Paul is what liberals used to call a conscience-raiser. He makes people reflect. After six years of supporting George W. Bush, conservatives should be in a reflective mood. American democracy has come down to a bloodcurdling choice between the Party of Endless War and the Party of Unlimited Abortion. Paul could offer an alternative to this bitter dilemma.
Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he certainly has my prayers. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sadly, elections aren't Frank Capra movies.
The Constitution must never be mistaken for Holy Writ, but at least it is based on the idea that there should be what William F. Buckley has called ”rational limits to government.” At this point, even conservatives claim that pursuit to be the antiquated dreams of radicals. Yet every attempt to portray Paul as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom.
Until now, the only way for the GOP to contain Paul is to pretend he isn't here. In an age of election polling groups and white noise, the beltway establishment hopes that Paul's message is lost in the media barrage. But the media cacophony will not stifle the voice of this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.
Paul's words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to. The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast.
Well, I can dream, can’t I? And today I’m dreaming of President Ron Paul, with a Congress he deserves.
Joseph Sobran
