samtechlan
11-16-2007, 12:07 PM
Michael Smerconish | SWOONING (JUST A BIT) FOR RON PAUL
Philadelphia Daily News
I'm flirting with Ron and hoping Rudy doesn't find out.
Call me a political hussy.
I like Rudy and think he may be uniquely positioned to win. I also know him. I've been in his company on several occasions and hold him in the highest regard. But the more I talk to Ron Paul, the more sense he makes to me. I've ended both my recent conversations with him more intrigued, even enamored, than when we began.
I think that's because in a political world epitomized by the constant hedging of candidates scared their one false move will end up on YouTube, Dr. Paul is something of a throwback. He's plainspoken, direct and mad as hell. And that's what I find so refreshing. Even when I disagree with him.
I just don't think he can win, and I'm unaccustomed to protest voting.
Last week we chatted for less than 15 minutes, but in that brief encounter, Ron Paul pulled no punches and weighed in on no less than 10 issues I raised: The economy, Iraq, Pakistan, foreign relations, global warming, abortion, Terri Schiavo, drugs, immigration - even hookers.
He told me that he has long employed a simple test for every legislative decision he makes: He reads the Constitution.
Before every vote, he checks out our founding document and makes his decision based on whether it explicitly allows the proposed action. The practice earned him the nickname "Dr. No" from his congressional colleagues.
"I just try to tell them it's not that difficult. All we have to do is obey the law," he told me. "We were given great guidance coming out of the great city of Philadelphia on what we ought to be doing, and we ought to just live up to our ideals."
His simple litmus test doesn't entirely square with the game plan I have advanced for how the Republicans can maintain control of the White House: moderate on social issues, tough on terrorism, reasonable in dealing with differing viewpoints. I have long believed that's how we win the hearts of suburbanites. And Rudy is that embodiment.
Still, Ron Paul makes sense, and I find myself drawn to him based on some of this thinking.
Pakistan: Paul believes that our $10 billion commitment to Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been a "bad investment." No disagreement there. Not to mention we have outsourced the hunt for Osama bin Laden to someone who has struck his own deal with those who probably harbor the 9/11 culprit.
Foreign intervention: Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who could be considered remotely "anti-war." He thinks we should resort to the battlefield only when America has been attacked or faces imminent danger. I like it in theory, I'm just having a hard time deciding what we'll say to friends like England and Israel should they need our help.
"I think they should take care of themselves," he told me.
Global warming: Like me, Ron Paul sees tons of misinformation out there. He agrees that if there's evidence that we're contributing to atmospheric heating, we should err on the side of caution and cut down our polluting.
Marijuana and prostitution: He thinks we should let adults decide what they put into their bodies, and I agree with him. As long as you're not out on the road or operating machinery, it's your business what you smoke.
Same goes for prostitution. Take it off the blacklist.
Life vs. choice: An area of slight disagreement. I'm fine with the legal situation the way it is. Dr. Paul told me there shouldn't be a federal solution at all - it's an issue for state legislatures. We both believe that the feds should have stayed out of Terri Schiavo's hospital room.
Illegal immigration: Amnesty doesn't sit well with either of us.
Paul wants to eliminate all the subsidies and mandates that require us to provide free education and medication to illegal immigrants. I'd like a fence, too. He disagrees.
Entitlements: No doubt we agree here that the situation is dire - either we rein in federal spending on entitlements, or we watch as those programs (and our economy) collapse under the pressure.
Gun control: Paul and I agree that clipping and carving the Second Amendment isn't an option.
NO WONDER the guy recently raised $4.2 million - all via online donations - in a single day.
Of course, that alone doesn't make Ron Paul a contender, but at least Dr. No can give a straight answer to an honest question. That's more than we can say for many candidates.
Rudy's still my guy, but I'm waiting by the telephone, and kinda hoping Ron calls back. *
Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5:30-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.mastalk.com.
Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/20071115_Michael_Smerconish___SWOONING__JUST
Philadelphia Daily News
I'm flirting with Ron and hoping Rudy doesn't find out.
Call me a political hussy.
I like Rudy and think he may be uniquely positioned to win. I also know him. I've been in his company on several occasions and hold him in the highest regard. But the more I talk to Ron Paul, the more sense he makes to me. I've ended both my recent conversations with him more intrigued, even enamored, than when we began.
I think that's because in a political world epitomized by the constant hedging of candidates scared their one false move will end up on YouTube, Dr. Paul is something of a throwback. He's plainspoken, direct and mad as hell. And that's what I find so refreshing. Even when I disagree with him.
I just don't think he can win, and I'm unaccustomed to protest voting.
Last week we chatted for less than 15 minutes, but in that brief encounter, Ron Paul pulled no punches and weighed in on no less than 10 issues I raised: The economy, Iraq, Pakistan, foreign relations, global warming, abortion, Terri Schiavo, drugs, immigration - even hookers.
He told me that he has long employed a simple test for every legislative decision he makes: He reads the Constitution.
Before every vote, he checks out our founding document and makes his decision based on whether it explicitly allows the proposed action. The practice earned him the nickname "Dr. No" from his congressional colleagues.
"I just try to tell them it's not that difficult. All we have to do is obey the law," he told me. "We were given great guidance coming out of the great city of Philadelphia on what we ought to be doing, and we ought to just live up to our ideals."
His simple litmus test doesn't entirely square with the game plan I have advanced for how the Republicans can maintain control of the White House: moderate on social issues, tough on terrorism, reasonable in dealing with differing viewpoints. I have long believed that's how we win the hearts of suburbanites. And Rudy is that embodiment.
Still, Ron Paul makes sense, and I find myself drawn to him based on some of this thinking.
Pakistan: Paul believes that our $10 billion commitment to Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been a "bad investment." No disagreement there. Not to mention we have outsourced the hunt for Osama bin Laden to someone who has struck his own deal with those who probably harbor the 9/11 culprit.
Foreign intervention: Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who could be considered remotely "anti-war." He thinks we should resort to the battlefield only when America has been attacked or faces imminent danger. I like it in theory, I'm just having a hard time deciding what we'll say to friends like England and Israel should they need our help.
"I think they should take care of themselves," he told me.
Global warming: Like me, Ron Paul sees tons of misinformation out there. He agrees that if there's evidence that we're contributing to atmospheric heating, we should err on the side of caution and cut down our polluting.
Marijuana and prostitution: He thinks we should let adults decide what they put into their bodies, and I agree with him. As long as you're not out on the road or operating machinery, it's your business what you smoke.
Same goes for prostitution. Take it off the blacklist.
Life vs. choice: An area of slight disagreement. I'm fine with the legal situation the way it is. Dr. Paul told me there shouldn't be a federal solution at all - it's an issue for state legislatures. We both believe that the feds should have stayed out of Terri Schiavo's hospital room.
Illegal immigration: Amnesty doesn't sit well with either of us.
Paul wants to eliminate all the subsidies and mandates that require us to provide free education and medication to illegal immigrants. I'd like a fence, too. He disagrees.
Entitlements: No doubt we agree here that the situation is dire - either we rein in federal spending on entitlements, or we watch as those programs (and our economy) collapse under the pressure.
Gun control: Paul and I agree that clipping and carving the Second Amendment isn't an option.
NO WONDER the guy recently raised $4.2 million - all via online donations - in a single day.
Of course, that alone doesn't make Ron Paul a contender, but at least Dr. No can give a straight answer to an honest question. That's more than we can say for many candidates.
Rudy's still my guy, but I'm waiting by the telephone, and kinda hoping Ron calls back. *
Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5:30-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.mastalk.com.
Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/20071115_Michael_Smerconish___SWOONING__JUST