Democrats: Vote for Ron Paul in the Primary

[Charles M.]

Yes, I'm suggesting that you dyed in the wool Democrats register as Republicans (if necessary in your state) and vote for Ron Paul in the primary.  Of course, I also hope that you'll see the light and vote for him in the general election, but even if you won't go that far, here's the argument for voting for him in the primary. 

First of all, I'll assert that no matter how you vote in the Democratic primary, you're going to get either Hillary or Obama.  Right now it looks like Hillary is unstoppable.  My guess is that the Democrats will end up with a Hillary/Edwards ticket to get some southern, white male flavor on the team.  Second, I'll assert that there is really no significant policy differences between Clinton and Obama.  While your vote might have some small effect on whether Clinton or Obama gets the nomination, do you really care anyway?

If you favor anyone besides Clinton or Obama, it really looks like you're out of luck.  A vote for Gravel or Kucinich is nothing but a protest vote.  Why bother?

So, given the general irrelevance of your vote on the Democrat side, why not hedge your bet and do what you can to get someone you could stand on the Republican side?  It's true that the Republicans go into 2008 with a huge disadvantage, but you have the opportunity to at least make it so that on the outside chance that the Republican wins, it's someone you can live with.

Why Ron Paul you ask?  The first and easiest answer is that he is the most anti-war candidate of them all, Republican or Democrat.  Paul voted against the war at the start, as did Obama, but unlike Obama he's not wavering and waffling on that position due to political cowardice.  Paul has maintained his principled position on the war in the face of brutal opposition from within his party (and flat out attacks from the moderators on the Fox News debates).  I'll add that the good thing about Paul is that his opposition to the war is not based on head in the sand pacifism, or an unwillingness to maintain a strong defense, but on strict adherence to the Constitution and a firm, principled belief in non-interventionist foreign policy.  As a liberal, this may or may not matter to you, but that's how it is.

You may have forgotten, but non-interventionism ("no nation building") is actually the traditional conservative position.  Somewhere along the line, Republicans and Democrats switched roles where this is concerned.  Paul stayed the conservative course.  Paul also stayed the conservative course on other issues, and as a Democrat, this might cause you concern.  I'll try to explain why you have no need to fear a Paul presidency when it comes to issues besides the war.

Let's start with the hugely divisive issue of abortion.  Paul thinks Roe v. Wade was a mistake and would like to see it reversed.  Whoa, you say.  That is not acceptable!  But wait, why does he want it reversed?  Not because he wants to make abortion illegal nationwide, far from it.  He opposes it because it brought to the federal level something that belongs with the states.  To him, Roe v. Wade amounted to a federal power grab.  So while he would like to reverse Roe v. Wade, by the same reasoning, he would never support bans on abortion at the federal level.  Likewise, he would not support federal legislation regarding gay marriage.

It's reasonable and consistent, and it would allow Massachusetts and South Carolina to diverge on these divisive issues, as they should.  Live and let live.  It's true that Paul, the man, is generally conservative on social issues, but as a politician at the federal level, liberals have little to fear from him.

The thorny social issues are probably the roughest for Democrats to get past, but the rest should be easy.  Paul is against much of the stuff that both traditional conservatives and modern Democrats oppose: the Patriot Act, domestic spying, torture, infringement on free speech, regulation of the internet, a national ID card, and so on.  He also opposes all forms of corporate welfare - including military action on foreign soil, government/Fed bailouts, and currency manipulations by the central bank.  He supports balanced budgets and a rapid elimination of our ridiculous national debt.

If your concern is corruption, I can assure you that Ron Paul's integrity is unmatched.  Wealthy lobbyists wouldn't even waste their time with him.  His campaign is the epitome of grass roots, so there can't even be a presumption of him "owing" anyone anything when he gets elected.

I strongly encourage you to research Paul some more and find out where he really stands on issues.  Take criticisms from both the Right and Left with a huge truckload of salt and find out what the man himself has to say (the Ron Paul Library is a great resource). His worldview is all about freedom, peace and keeping the government out of your affairs - "live and let live".  Who can argue with that?  Consider voting for Paul in the primary.  Maybe, after you do more research, you'll decide to vote for him in the general election as well.

[FREE RIFLEMAN]

I fully support your effort on this one. I wrote Ron Paul before he filed the inquiry to run, and my e-mail to him was that I was voting for him, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or as a write-in. There is simply no better candidate. Please allow me to introduce myself, I am FREE RIFLEMAN, and I stumbled upon this great forum while smashing the state. Excellent job! I am a reformed Neocon, who saw the light and joined the liberty team.

Greetings!

[ApRhys]

Sounds like a good plan, but it's really hard to persuade party voters to cross lines during a primary, unless they think they're sticking it to the other party down the road in the general election. Party voters are almost always going to stick with their team, unless things are REALLY, REALLY horrible. On top of that, right now the Democrats are in a little intra-party struggle of their own between Obama and Hillary, and they are very unlikely to cross lines for fear they might take votes away from "their" candidate.

[Charles M.]

Sounds like a good plan, but it's really hard to persuade party voters to cross lines during a primary, unless they think they're sticking it to the other party down the road in the general election. Party voters are almost always going to stick with their team, unless things are REALLY, REALLY horrible. On top of that, right now the Democrats are in a little intra-party struggle of their own between Obama and Hillary, and they are very unlikely to cross lines for fear they might take votes away from "their" candidate.

Is there really a difference between Hillary and Obama?  I can't see it, but I guess I haven't looked that hard.

Do you think a democrat would see a vote for Paul as beneficial to the republicans?  I doubt it's widely accepted that Paul would have more chance of beating Hillary than Mitt or Rudy.  If they did see Paul as a big risk in the general election, I could understand the hesitation.

[ApRhys]

Is there really a difference between Hillary and Obama?  I can't see it, but I guess I haven't looked that hard.

Do you think a democrat would see a vote for Paul as beneficial to the republicans?  I doubt it's widely accepted that Paul would have more chance of beating Hillary than Mitt or Rudy.  If they did see Paul as a big risk in the general election, I could understand the hesitation.

I don't see much of a difference between Hilliary and Obama myself, but to the party voters it makes a world of difference. They have their candidate and they want *them* to get to the primary. Voting is more a popularity contest than anything else nowadays and I think we'll really see it this year. That's why Rudy, essentially a Democrat, is ahead of the Republican pack.

I think the primary voter this year is thinking less about the war and more about who can beat the otherside. Considering the average primary-voting Democrat this year is probably driven more by hatred of Republicans this year than actual anti-war sentiment, they aren't likely to jump or even know who Paul is.

[mlana]

I will vote for Ron Paul not because the democrats are trying to keep Hillary out of office but because I feel as a Libertarian who has to register as a Republican in order to be allowed to vote in the first primary has to be registered as a republican or a democrat!!
He has the values I believe in, less government control for the people by the people, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, thats what I believe! He has character that most people in the public eye and government do not possess!!

I am a southerner, raised in the deep South where everyone one was a Democrat, my father was a Libertarian for a long time, but he never espoused it until we were older in order to remain employed! He worked for as big company out of New York who believed in the political machine and tried to control votes etc.!

When my father discussed politics he never mentioned party affiliation because of his family! Then when Reagan ran for president he began to speak out some!!
Well I am speaking out now for values, morality and keeping the control of my life private without government control,and the less assistance the better!!
Ron Paul a man who realizes that we as a Nation need to stand together not apart!! Together we stand divided we fall and we are falling rapidly!!

[rmhainlen]

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
John Quincy Adams

I don't want to disagree with you because I think it would be amazing if dems came over to vote for Paul, but if a democrat is going to vote for a 'lost' candidate, based on that quote there isn't anything wrong with it.

[Charles M.]

Why The Antiwar Left Should Support Republican Ron Paul in '08
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_mej_071006_why_the_antiwar_left.htm
by Mike Mejia

I must admit, I only agree with Texas Congressman Ron Paul on about 10 to 20% of his political stances.  Ron Paul is pro-Life, while I am pro-choice.  Paul believes universal health care is socialized medicine.  I believe some form of universal health coverage is essential for the U.S. to become as civilized as just about every other industrialized nation.  I was appalled when the Congress caved in to the Banking industry on a new bankruptcy law.  Paul voted for this atrocious bill.

And yet, with all the differences between my views and those of Mr. Paul, I plan on crossing over and voting for him in the GOP primary.  The reason is simple: Paul is the only candidate, save Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, who recognizes the dangers the continuing expansion of the U.S. Empire poses to our freedoms and quality of life.  In other words, that 20% on which I agree with Candidate Paul is the 20% that will, more than any other factor, determine the quality of life the American people in the coming decades.

Paul is also the only candidate with the guts to ‘tell it like it is’ in regards to the so-called ‘war on terror’: the reason the U.S. is facing so many threats from terrorism is because of our interventionist foreign policy.  This interventionism, unfortunately, cannot be placed solely on the backs of the Republicans: from Korea to Vietnam to Haiti, Democratic politicians have participated in trying to micromanage the affairs of other countries.  In some cases, the U.S. has appeared to ‘succeed’ in choosing the leaders of these other nations.  But as was the case with the U.S. intervention in Iran in the 1950s, these ‘successes’ have engendered the kind of blowback that make it apparent that nonintervention would have been the best policy.

Paul’s program for success in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple: get out now.  This position is far more in line with the antiwar Left than the positions of any of the mainstream Democratic candidates.   From John Edwards to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic positions on the war depend on the latest poll numbers; Mr. Paul, on the other hand, has consistently held his position: occupation is the problem, not the solution, to terrorism.

I know there are some who will strongly disagree with my support for Paul.  They will point out to his seemingly ‘far right’, pro-corporate positions on several issues and on his support for unfettered access to firearms.  Some label them ‘kook’ positions.  But Paul is no kook and he is no right-winger.  He is a Libertarian Republican who has well thought out views and convictions that span decades.  Many of these positions are unlikely ever to become law:  I do not think Social Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the CIA will ever be abolished.  Furthermore, it is unlikely the U.S. will ever go back to the gold standard, a position held by most Libertarians.

But, if Paul could somehow be elected President, I believe for the first time ever the American government would have a leader who would only deploy U.S. troops as an absolute last resort.  I believe we might actually have a chance of downsizing America’s imperial ambitions, or at least slowing them a bit.  And even if Paul does not win, as most experts predict he won’t, every vote for his candidacy is a vote for a return to, as George W. Bush disingenuously put it in 2000, a “more humble foreign policy”.

Personally, I would rather be on record as voting for someone of substance, like Mr. Paul, than a pure politician like Clinton, Edwards or Obama.   There is plenty of time to vote for the Lesser of Evils in the general election.  In my opinion, those who really want to change American foreign policy need to stand up now and cast their vote for someone who, though they may not agree with him on many other issues, is a staunch, unabashed antiwar candidate.

[kharma]

As a registered Democrat (Independent until Bush invaded Iraq).   Ron Paul is the only one of the R's I can even begin to stomach.  I agree with his foreign policy (and economic) more than most of the Democratic candidates running.  I live in Florida and was considering changing parties to help out Paul and offset the Guiliani vote. 

The media has been playing the R side for a decade now.  They not only are trying to nominate your candidate for you (McCain), they have been trying to force Hillary on us.  Hell, I'd vote Ron Paul over Hillary in any general election.  Get the fucking corporations out of our policy making.

I guess you guys will probably ban me now that I identified my party, but seriously...don't you think that eight years of spending like a college kid with a Capital One is putting a serious hurting on our nation? 

Give us back our money, we can spend it a hell of a lot wiser than the crooked fools in DC.

[Charles M.]

As a registered Democrat (Independent until Bush invaded Iraq).   Ron Paul is the only one of the R's I can even begin to stomach.  I agree with his foreign policy (and economic) more than most of the Democratic candidates running.  I live in Florida and was considering changing parties to help out Paul and offset the Guiliani vote. 

The media has been playing the R side for a decade now.  They not only are trying to nominate your candidate for you (McCain), they have been trying to force Hillary on us.  Hell, I'd vote Ron Paul over Hillary in any general election.  Get the fucking corporations out of our policy making.

I guess you guys will probably ban me now that I identified my party, but seriously...don't you think that eight years of spending like a college kid with a Capital One is putting a serious hurting on our nation? 

Give us back our money, we can spend it a hell of a lot wiser than the crooked fools in DC.

Why do you identify with Democrats if you like Paul's economic policy?  That's the whole reason I lean Republican.  Having said that, Bush and the whole neo-conservative thing is a huge disappointment.  Between Bush, McCain and Huckabee, the party is almost a total loss to me at this point.  I have no home at all.  It's very sad, because if you look back 20-30 years, the Republicans were basically moderate libertarians.  Soon economic conservatives will have no home at all.

[kharma]

Why do you identify with Democrats if you like Paul's economic policy?

I believe in a balanced budget.  I believe in limited government.  I believe the Republicans have been spending and governing more than any Democrat.  I also believe the government should stay the *&&^% out of my bedroom, my body, and my privacy.

[Charles M.]

I believe in a balanced budget.

Both R and D fail this.

I believe in limited government.

Advantage R, in my opinion. 

I believe the Republicans have been spending and governing more than any Democrat.

Really? Because of the war, or otherwise?  If you look at what Hillary, Obama, Edwards all propose, it's massive increases in entitlement programs and spending.

I also believe the government should stay the *&&^% out of my bedroom, my body, and my privacy.

I hear this a lot, but it generally seems unfounded as a criticism of Republicans, unless you're talking about abortion.  Do you have any other examples?  Personally, I feel much more offended by having half my income confiscated, my right to defend myself stripped away, my ability to run a business as I see fit taken away, being told I can't use an incandescent light bulb, and so on.  This seems to all come from the left.