"Lack of Practical Principles Will Stall Paul's Progress"

[Triton]

Now folks - don't go calling me "troll". If we are to win, we need to take this type of valid critique seriously. I happen to agree with his conclusion.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/OPINION03/710070305

Dr. Ron Paul is a presidential candidate of absolutes -- sort of.
The Texas congressman is described as principled (to a fault sometimes, his colleagues and admirers say) and a staunch constitutionalist. Unlike most of his associates in politics who've mastered the art of babbling their way around questions, you can ask him what he thinks on an issue and he'll usually answer it directly.

That was the impression I got after the Republican, but Libertarian-leaning, presidential candidate stopped by The News' editorial board for a visit. There was little fanfare surrounding his arrival. He came quietly with his national campaign manager and a few other local folks, but they sat quietly by.
There were no glossy brochures, and he didn't sport any gimmicky buttons extolling the virtues of President Paul. He wore a muted blue blazer with a white shirt and grayish blue tie. His congressional member lapel pin was the only accoutrement that set him apart from any one else who might have been wandering through The News lobby that day.

He stopped by on his way to a Republican function on Mackinac Island, the only candidate to do so. Perhaps that's because he has to work harder than most. He's been pegged as a third-party candidate, even though he's not.
Whatever the label, one is starting to stick: formidable fundraiser.
Paul has raised a reported $5 million in the last three months, with the majority of it coming from his Internet army. Everett Shannon of Burtchville has reached into the piggybank for Paul, according to the "recent donor" feature that scrolls names across Paul's presidential Web site.

When questioned as to what all the grassroots interest and Internet-driven donations mean for his campaign, Paul smiled and said: "It means we'll stay in this race, and I guess we'll have to hire a few more people."
He seems almost annoyed by that necessity, but nobody running for president is without ego. Paul's got it too, but he's more grounded than most of his competitors.

Little middle ground
"It doesn't matter how many people are in this race for president," he says about what sets him apart from other Republicans. "They're all for the war."
Paul is not. He'd withdrawal troops from Iraq today. Just pull them out because he says that's how we got in. It's a message that resonates with college liberals, independents and others who are disenfranchised from candidates on both sides of the majority party aisle.

But it's not entirely realistic. Sure it might be possible, but even the top Democratic Party candidates aren't willing to commit to leaving Iraq. Try getting that idea through Congress.

Similarly, he'd run into obstacles in his free-market crusade for health care. He rightly says the first dollar spent into health care should come from the consumer and that the government should get out of the business. Three cheers for that idea, but the trend is moving dangerously in the opposite direction.

He supports secure borders, stronger property rights, the enforcement of existing immigration laws and lower taxes. Hard to argue with those notions either, but he doesn't have much guidance for how he'd make things happen if elected president.

And though he talks often about small government, his nearly 20 years in office have endeared him to those controls, too.

When asked who would determine citizenship if birthright citizenship were abolished, as he proposes, he said government could figure it out. That's a frightening suggestion that would be about as legitimate as having a group of monkeys throw darts at birth certificates at the state fair.

Every candidate has an issue or two that trips them up and perhaps this is Paul's. It's a fringe subject, but it's symptomatic of what ails his campaign, in my mind. Idealism doesn't always mesh with realism, and Paul had a hard time explaining how he'd put his platform into practice.

That's a serious issue. If Ron Paul is to be considered a legitimate contender during the next few months, he'll need to get beyond principle and put some action into his plan.

Manny Lopez is a Detroit News editorial writer whose online column is published Sunday. Reach him at mlopez@detnews.com (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/OPINION03/mailto:mlopez@detnews.com) or (313) 222-2299. Read more columns by Manny Lopez at detnews.com/lopez

[RP4ME]

I dont disagree - we need to her more pecifics on some things but I imganie we re still introducing him at this point and with littl;e time to get hi ideas across - its a hrd thing. We could help do that - but we do need more speciifcs......but it can be done - his ideas are really the most practicl. Its fanatsy fro ex. to think we can continue paying for thsi war and not live in aabject povery very soon

[RP4ME]

I dont disagree - we need to her more pecifics on some things but I imganie we re still introducing him at this point and with littl;e time to get hi ideas across - its a hrd thing. We could help do that - but we do need more speciifcs......


my keypad is broken so Im haveing a time typing

[trispear]

"It doesn't matter how many people are in this race for president," he says about what sets him apart from other Republicans. "They're all for the war."
Paul is not. He'd withdrawal troops from Iraq today. Just pull them out because he says that's how we got in. It's a message that resonates with college liberals, independents and others who are disenfranchised from candidates on both sides of the majority party aisle.

But it's not entirely realistic. Sure it might be possible, but even the top Democratic Party candidates aren't willing to commit to leaving Iraq. Try getting that idea through Congress.What is there to get through Congress? As President, RP can just bring the troops home. There was no war declared, just an authorization of force leaving it to the President's discretion what to do.

The reason the democrats don't commit has nothing to do with what is realistic or not, rather they want to own the Iraq War issue, but as it shows by Hillary voting for the use of force, they actually like having troops there as part of foreign policy.

I don't know what the author here is criticizing. RP has often said transistions are in his head, that he doesn't want to end programs left and right. His principles are uncompromising, but he isn't heartless or stupid.

[dmitchell]

Other major candidates publish policy papers fairly regularly, and these always make the news. Why isn't Ron Paul doing this?

[DJ RP]

I don't agree with this AT ALL. You can ask Ron Paul exactly how he plans to implement any of his ideas and he always gives a satisfactory answer. It's not always easy and some things will need congressional approval but WTF? Why not do everything you CAN do instead of compromising your integrity and the people of America when you do vote, al la most of washington

[Triton]

I don't agree with this AT ALL. You can ask Ron Paul exactly how he plans to implement any of his ideas and he always gives a satisfactory answer. It's not always easy and some things will need congressional approval but WTF? Why not do everything you CAN do instead of compromising your integrity and the people of America when you do vote, al la most of washingtonIf you show me one link where he explains the HOW on the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc, I will retract this thread and apologize.

[Corydoras]

Other major candidates publish policy papers fairly regularly, and these always make the news. Why isn't Ron Paul doing this?

I agree with you on this. I agree with the article. I'm hungry to see his ideas on how he would put his principles into practice. And I'm not sure he and his staff have time or money to do this now.
:(

The best article I've ever read about Paul in regards to pragmatism is this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6158.html

One big reason I'm supporting Ron is that he has such immense experience building coalitions with legislators. It means a lot to me that someone as generally opposed to his principles as Barney Frank can call him one of the easiest of his colleagues to work with. But this skill does not come across in his campaigning or in the overwhelming majority of his supporters' materials.

The thing I'm most afraid of with regards to Paul is that sometimes he comes across like this, and this may be a big part of why the media has not taken him so seriously:

1. Constitutional principles
2. ???
3. Freedom, peace, and prosperity!

But he's not really that way... For example, he's with the Liberty Coalition, which deals with policy very seriously. And we've all seen how many bills he sponsors and cosponsors. In fact, I have a suspicion that when he's in Washington, he's a bit of a policy wonk. But this is just not coming across, and it needs to.

One of the advantages that the CFR people have is that they are bigger than the Liberty Coalition, and politicians' talks to them establish their street cred with The Powers That Be, including the mainstream media. Whatever the CFR's agenda, they at least force candidates to talk about policy and pragmatism-- if you've ever read Foreign Affairs, you know what I mean in terms of the CFR making people verbalize practice and policy so that they are part of the big conversation. Obviously, the CFR is not an option for Ron, but his freedom from them puts him that much further behind with TPTB.

Showing his policy and pragmatism strengths would not get him an in with the soccer moms and NASCAR dads whose votes he needs in the primaries. They don't care. But it would establish his street cred with the media, and that's what he needs.

I gag and choke to admit it, but I actually want him to let the media know that in the BEST possible way, he really IS a Washington insider-- the kind who knows how to swim the filthy Potomac without drinking the sewage in it. He has FAR more experience working with Congress than the vast majority of the candidates. (I mean, what, the Republicrats can't do better than to run two governors and two new senators?) He knows the ins and outs of Congress far better than the govenors running for the presidency, and he hasn't sold out like the senators have. He knows how to get things done, and his constituency knows it! Anybody who's knocked off incumbents the way Ron has is cool-headed, canny, and practical-minded, and far from a "maverick," which I guess is the nicest thing any of the MSM call him.

I fear that at the same time as establishing his credentials with the media, showing how he is a can-do politician would alienate a lot of the true believers, and he needs their donations, too. On the other hand, it sure would help if media granted him the the street cred to convince the big donors and bundlers to help him out.

He's keeping his how-to light under a bushel.
:(

[Kregener]

I disagree.

70% of America wants us out of Iraq...yesterday, and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate saying it will be so.

This is HUGE.

[Corydoras]

70% of America wants us out of Iraq...yesterday, and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate saying it will be so.

I know they do. But if Iraq withdrawal were the key to victory, Richardson and Kucinich would be doing better even if the media weren't biased against them.

There has to be more. And this is illustrated in Hillary, Obama, Rudy, and Romney. They have street cred in terms of policy wonkery. Obama has less than the others, and that, I think, is why he's falling behind.

[inibo]

I think he has spelled it out pretty plainly. Dismantle our military empire and the welfare state and we wouldn't need the Fed to counterfeit the money to pay for it. Granted, he needs to work with Congress on the welfare side of the equation, but I can think of three words that make the military empire part a piece of cake "Commander In Chief." Correct me if I'm wrong, but on inauguration day he could give the following order "Effective immediately all military personnel stationed outside the continental United States are hereby ordered to return as quickly as prudence will allow to the bases in the United States under the control of their respective military command organizations. The Department of Defense is directed to give this order the highest priority." Short of impeachment who would have the authority to tell him no?

Of course I doubt he would do anything so dramatic. It doesn't strike me as his style, but it does illustrate that the President of the United States is responsible for one of the largest budget items. It the course of a year or so he could cut that approximately one trillion dollar expenditure in half, if not by two thirds and there is not a damn thing anyone could do about it.

[Corydoras]

A president is not an emperor. And RP is not big on executive orders.

There's a lot more to getting things done governmentally even than:

1. Constitutional principles
2. Work with Congress
3. Freedom, peace, and prosperity!

[mikelovesgod]

If you show me one link where he explains the HOW on the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc, I will retract this thread and apologize.

He did on an interview after the first debate on how he would do this. He said he wouldn't abolish the Fed, he would have it compete with gold as the currency of the nation for backing and allow open competition and let the market determine who wins.

He said he will try to abolish the IRS through Congress on Neil Cavuto on Fox by going to Congress and explains himself.

He explained his cut to the DoE by allowing states full control by going to Congress.

You should know his positions better. He has explained them more fully.

[Corydoras]

He said he wouldn't abolish the Fed, he would have it compete with gold as the currency of the nation for backing and allow open competition and let the market determine who wins.

No. That's what he wants to occur.

He is not an emperor. He has to get it done procedurally. Exactly how he is going to make a private corporation do that is going to require a lot of legal and political maneuvering.

There's that little "rule of law" thing, you see.

[Corydoras]

He said he will try to abolish the IRS through Congress on Neil Cavuto on Fox by going to Congress and explains himself.

And Congress will say, "Oh, sure." They don't even say that to Bush these days.

No, he can issue a paper ahead of the elections that explains HOW they should accomplish it.

And if Congress goes along, this will inevitably go to the courts, and thousands of pages of case law will have to be overturned... assuming his administration wins.

[Bradley in DC]

Other major candidates publish policy papers fairly regularly, and these always make the news. Why isn't Ron Paul doing this?

That would be policy director Joe Becker.

[skilt]

My impressions from reading his many statements on many issues are such and I will discuss a couple:

With regard to the US forces abroad he would be large and in charge. If he wanted troops to come home from S. Korea, Germany, and of course Iraq, he has the constitutional authority to do so w/o the approval of congress. He feels this in turn would save the american taxpayer ~1 trillion dollars a year.

This savings would then be a key component of the transition process away from a welfare state and returning that which is rightfully theirs to the states. The states might not like it initially, but the people will.

The fed circumstance has been previously addressed - so I won't rehash it.

I guess what I would consider the important point is this --- HE'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES FOR THIRTY YEARS. Do you really think he hasn't give clear and concise consideration on how to implement these constitutional ideals practically??? He has, and when pressed before during interviews he has a clear ideas based on sound principles- the issue is that the MSM thinks they are so radical as not to be a plan at all. It's this ignorance that we are all campaigning to overcome.

He can't be one day the smartest most well read politician ever, and the next day a dunce who can't get his message out. The thing is he clearly defines the problems, and provide simple practical solutions, and that's what freaks everybody out. He doesn't have a 50 point plan on Airport security - It's the airlines responsibility to protect their passengers etc., etc.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of the question posed by this thread, I just think we should be careful trying to respond to the needs of a busted political system - as in you've got to have a plan clearly enuciated to save the country.

My thoughts

Sk

[Corydoras]

That would be policy director Joe Becker.

Here's a 28-min video of Joe Becker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baa1JzQwFDo

[wgadget]

Yes, he DOES have the Ron Paul library.

www.ronpaullibrary.org

[Corydoras]

Yes, he DOES have the Ron Paul library.

www.ronpaullibrary.org


It's mostly newsletters and speeches.

[Craig_R]

1. the president can bring troops home without congressional approval being commander in chief and all

2. instructing the DOJ (it is directly controlled by the executive) to not prosecute those using silver/gold as currency and encouraging people to do so can be done without congressional approval thus letting gold/silver compete in the free market with federal reserve notes

3. the department of the treasury is under the control of the executive the IRS is a branch of the treasury no need for congressional approval to disband it

4. I believe the only executive order Paul would write would be one to repeal all previous executive orders and perhaps ban new ones

[plopolp]

He must of course explain what he stands for. If politicians weren't honest, democracy would be no better than tyranny...

Then we'll see what compromises result from negotiations with the congress. He can't promis what others will and won't do. And he sure shouldn't lie and say that he doesn't want to abolish the dep of education for example, but only cut it by half or something like that. Maybe cutting it in half is what he can achieve during four years as president, but it's not his goal.

Before an election the candidates should state their views and goals.
Between elections they should negotiate.

[inibo]

A president is not an emperor. And RP is not big on executive orders.

There's a lot more to getting things done governmentally even than:

1. Constitutional principles
2. Work with Congress
3. Freedom, peace, and prosperity!

I'm not talking about an executive order, I'm taking about his legitimate constitutional authority as commander of the armed forces. As I said, I don't think he'd do anything as dramatic as what I suggested, but I am quite certain he will exercise his legitimate powers rigorously.

[Craig_R]

democracy would be no better than tyranny...

.

democracy is tyranny, tyranny of the majority. Two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.

glad this is a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy

[RP4ME]

And Congress will say, "Oh, sure." They don't even say that to Bush these days.

No, he can issue a paper ahead of the elections that explains HOW they should accomplish it.

And if Congress goes along, this will inevitably go to the courts, and thousands of pages of case law will have to be overturned... assuming his administration wins.

What do you mean - Congress has given Bushie all he dreamed of and more - all they do is whine - they dont do anything! Otehrwise we'd have impeachmnet and soldiers home!

[Corydoras]

The fall of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, the withdrawal of Miers, these were all driven by Congress, not legislatively, but politically, and they were not minor events.

[ThePieSwindler]

uh, Ron explains alot of his specifics in extended interviews. Do you honestly think he has time in debates to do this? I do think the tuesday debate will be a good forum for him to expound on some of his domestic policy, seeing as it is an economically-driven event. Whats funny is that he is wrongly criticized for not being "specific" or "practical", which he certainly is, people are just retarded and dont feel like taking 2 seconds to look more deeply into his stances, which he even explains to an extent in many of the debates.

And its not as if other politicians like Obama or Fred Thompson or HIllary go into specifics. Or when they do, its usually talk about what they will do... as if they have absolute power to set in motion their every whim and wish.

[Original_Intent]

If you show me one link where he explains the HOW on the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc, I will retract this thread and apologize.

The department of education is easy. I am not sure if this is Ron Paul's approach but I believe it should be shut down over a very short transition period.

The only thing they do is take money for administration that would be better used for teachers. They dictate what may or may not be taught, and withhold federal funds (our funds) if their dictates are not adhered to.

Leave a skeleton crew to automatically fund all schools with no oversight (of the schools) and then defund it completely and tell the states education is their baby.

Like I said, I am not sure this is Ron Paul's plan, but there shouldn't be a lot of handwringing over the loss of the DoE.

[Syren123]

Who writes this stuff.