Ron Paul A Sensible Choice For President

By: George Maynard

Posted: 6/11/07

Well, I'm hoping most of you got the chance to read a few of my columns over the course of the last year. If you have, you'll know I'm vehemently against the war and very much in favor of civil liberties. With that in mind, it will probably come as a shock to hear I think a Republican congressman from Texas has the best platform I've heard so far from any 2008 presidential hopeful from either party.

As the campaigns start to become more heated, debates and talk show appearances for all the candidates are becoming more frequent. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) are all over the front pages of newspapers, websites and they all have countless groups on Facebook. Unfortunately, American popular opinion seems to be incapable of recognizing rational, thoughtful candidates, who are marginalized because of their lack of money and name recognition. Among these candidates are Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate because he is the only true conservative running for election. The other nine Republican candidates have ostracized Paul because of his outspoken opposition to two creations of the "conservative" Bush administration.

First of all, Paul is vehemently against the Department of Homeland Security. That probably sounds pretty un-American at first, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the government had plenty of information from existing intelligence agencies that an attack was imminent. Because of incompetence at all levels, however, the attacks occurred anyways. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security. With the creation of this department, the Bush administration added an enormous amount of bureaucracy to the existing intelligence structure at a cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers. Paul takes issue with this because he believes that if something is already slow and inefficient, adding more bureaucracy and more money isn't going to help matters. Instead, he believes non-essential bureaucracy should be cut away to save money and increase efficiency.

In addition, Paul is one of only six Republicans who voted against the use of force in Iraq. By invading Iraq, Paul says that Bush has betrayed the platform he was elected on in the year 2000. If anyone needs a refresher, during his campaign in 2000, George W. Bush argued against nation-building and foreign interventions. In 1999, he blasted President Clinton for not providing a timetable to withdraw troops from Kosovo, saying, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," and "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." Bush's rhetoric impressed conservatives who were sick of the costly foreign interventions that were prevalent during the Cold War and to a lesser degree in the 1990s. After the Sept. 11 attacks, however, Bush changed his tune, invaded Iraq, and the rest is history.

Another stance that Paul has been reprimanded for is his assertion that American foreign policy is at least partly to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks. During a Republican primary debate on Fox News, Paul was attacked by Rudy Giuliani for saying the sanctions and bombing of Iraq, American troops in Saudi Arabia, the arming of Osama bin Laden by the American government and the coup that put the Shah into power in Iran have all made Middle Easterners angry. He asked how we would like it if China wanted to put sanctions on our country or build military bases here. In response, Giuliani spluttered indignantly that he survived the Sept. 11 attacks and that Paul should apologize, and the crowd applauded Giuliani wildly. Paul calmly told them that all of his assertions are backed up by the Sept. 11 Commission report and that maybe Giuliani ought to read it before making a fool out of himself again. The whole episode can be found on YouTube, so if you have any interest at all, I'd recommend you check it out.

Paul is also a vigorous supporter of personal liberties. To this end, he supports marijuana decriminalization and the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. He also advocates for a return to the gold standard, drastic spending cuts in government, and the elimination of the income tax. He wants to slash spending in useless areas such as the No Child Left Behind Act and slowly wean Americans off of the services of our welfare state while returning to a strict interpretation of the American Constitution.

As the campaign continues to progress, it is becoming increasingly clear that there really isn't much of a difference between the two parties. Both sides take special interest money, both sides have no idea what to do about Iraq, both sides have no idea what to do about the deficit and the list goes on and on. It's time we thought about supporting a candidate who doesn't take special interest money, who wants to fix our terrible foreign policy and who wants to make the government more accountable when it comes to balancing the checkbook.

At this point, Paul seems to be the only person who wants to make those changes, so I would urge you to take the time and read more about him and the rest of the other candidates as well. It's our responsibility to choose who the next leader of this country will be, so let's make sure whomever we pick is up to the task.

Weekly Columnist George Maynard is a 3rd-semester natural resources management and engineering major.