Ron Paul not out of the race

[seamusTX]

Third parties in Montana and Louisiana have nominated Dr. Ron Paul for president in those states, and he is on the ballot.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-20/vote- ... d-montana/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is unopposed in his House district (14th) and is my Congressman.

I have no opinion about these nominations. I just found out about them and thought the issue was interesting.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

Ron Paul gets kicked around to an insane degree. Most of those kicking him do not even know his positions. The fact that he is running unopposed, to me, speaks volumes.

Anygunanywhere

[Liberty]

Ron Paul gets kicked around to an insane degree. Most of those kicking him do not even know his positions. The fact that he is running unopposed, to me, speaks volumes.

Anygunanywhere

His enemys seem to only be in the Republican party. He did run into some opposition in the primarys. There were lots of insiders complaining that he didn't play nice with his fellow Republicans in dishing out the pork. Fortunately his constituency likes him more than his fellow Republicans. He is the only friend in Congress that us Taxpayers in Texas have.

[LedJedi]

that's the issue with libertarians (like myself)....

they tend to be social liberals and economic conservatives. It's hard to fit in snugly with either party. I identify keenly with republican economics, but there are a lot of social issues i agree with democrats on. I honestly think that's probably why it's best to keep libertarians as a 3rd party. They just dont' fit well in a 2 party system.

[anygunanywhere]

but there are a lot of social issues i agree with democrats on.

That is not what I hear from most self professed libertarians.

The libertarians do not typically think much of socialism, which is what the current democrat platform and the existing crop of democrat candidates represent.

ANygunanywhere

[The Annoyed Man]

Please understand that I don't write this to slam him, but Ron Paul isn't ideologically pure either. He apparently has had a record in the past of voting against bills which are pork laden, when A) those bills are going to pass handily anyway; and B) when some of that pork is for his district. That way, he can claim ideological purity, and bring home the bacon at the same time. At least, that is what I've read. So if what I've read is true, then how did pork for Paul's district get onto the bill in the first place? Certainly John Murtha didn't put it there. And if Paul has actually done such a thing, then doesn't that make him appear a bit cynical about his own anti-pork stance? That sort of hypocrisy is what made me initially suspicious about him.

The other main thing that I haven't been able to swallow about Ron Paul was his refusal to return donations made by white supremacists. Now, I'm not dumb enough to believe that Ron Paul is himself a white supremacist. In fact, I'm fairly certain that he is not. However, he is willing to accept their money. In my view, that is dirty money. One of the big strikes against Obama is that his campaign has been less than fastidious in keeping their financial donation records. Also in my view, it is extremely difficult for any well-meaning politician to convince other people who haven't signed on yet to supporting him that his heart is in the right place when he accepts money from people whose hearts are definitely in the wrong place. It was unwise and ill-advised on Ron Paul's part to accept that money in the first place, and it was foolish and politically tone deaf for him to hang onto it once it became public knowledge. In my mind, a politician doesn't have to actually be a white supremacist in order to be tainted by failing to repudiate white supremacist money.

I could never vote for a politician who isn't wise enough to understand that distinction, and then do the right thing about it. But that's just me.

If those of you who are Paul's supporters can set me straight on those two issues, then I might be able to change my opinion of him as a crackpot, even if I can't agree with all of his policies.

[LedJedi]

but there are a lot of social issues i agree with democrats on.

That is not what I hear from most self professed libertarians.

The libertarians do not typically think much of socialism, which is what the current democrat platform and the existing crop of democrat candidates represent.

ANygunanywhere

you are correct.

my original post should have also had this qualifier...

"your mileage may vary"

:)

[seamusTX]

Please understand that I don't write this to slam him, but Ron Paul isn't ideologically pure either. He apparently has had a record in the past of voting against bills which are pork laden, when A) those bills are going to pass handily anyway; and B) when some of that pork is for his district. That way, he can claim ideological purity, and bring home the bacon at the same time. At least, that is what I've read. So if what I've read is true, then how did pork for Paul's district get onto the bill in the first place?

I don't want to drag out this discussion forever, but I do respect Dr. Paul for the most part. I voted for him three times this year.

Pork is what you call the money that goes to someone else's district.

The taxpayers of Galveston and Brazoria counties deserve to get some return on the money that they send to Washington. Most of the discretionary federal funds that come here are for coastal issues like the Coast Guard, NOAA, and the Army Corps of Engineers (which is the only agency allowed to perform work on navigable waterways), and the interstate highways.

BTW, there's only one interstate in the district, and Jack Brooks put it there 40 years ago.

I don't know whether or how Dr. Paul gets line items into the budget. The House of Representatives has been controlled by the Democrats for several years now.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't want to drag out this discussion forever, but I do respect Dr. Paul for the most part. I voted for him three times this year.

Pork is what you call the money that goes to someone else's district.

The taxpayers of Galveston and Brazoria counties deserve to get some return on the money that they send to Washington.

Thanks for the candid reply. The thing is, it is very difficult for me to take someone's declamations against pork barrel spending very seriously if the person making those declamations isn't above getting some of his own pork. Mind you, I'm not personally against the idea of pork, as long as one can make a legitimate argument for it's necessity, and which need wouldn't be better served through some other channel. The extent to which Ron Paul is guilty of making such declamations, is exactly the extent to which I think of him as no more and no less a charlatan as any other professional politician. That was my point.

Most of the discretionary federal funds that come here are for coastal issues like the Coast Guard, NOAA, and the Army Corps of Engineers (which is the only agency allowed to perform work on navigable waterways), and the interstate highways.

Then it sounds like most of that money is being better spent than on some bridge to nowhere. But if that's the case, then wouldn't you agree that Ron Paul should just go ahead and put his name on such legislation and take proper credit for it instead of ranting against pork like he does, but taking its benefits on the sly?

BTW, there's only one interstate in the district, and Jack Brooks put it there 40 years ago.

If an interstate down there is a necessary thing (I've not been a Texas resident long enough to know much of anything about your particular area), then it isn't really pork, is it? In my mind, it becomes "pork" when it serves no other purpose but to unnecessarily fatten up your district at the expense of taxpayers in other districts. That's why Ted Stevens' "bridge to nowhere" was so offensive. It was completely unnecessary. However, if your district has sufficient commerce, and insufficient roads for getting that commerce to market, then one can make a well-reasoned argument for why it would be necessary to bring in a section of interstate highway, regardless of who the serving congressman is at the time.

I don't know whether or how Dr. Paul gets line items into the budget. The House of Representatives has been controlled by the Democrats for several years now.

My guess is that he gets it done the same way the Republican minority gets it done - quid pro quo. Lots of bills are passed by Congress that don't really concern major policy issues. So it is easy for members of one party to support a bill sponsored by the other party in the name of "bipartisanship" when it doesn't concern gun rights, abortion, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. "Sure, I'll vote to renovate the sewage treatment plant in your district, if you'll vote to get an Interstate Highway extension into mine." Quid pro quo. I'll bet dollars to donuts that's how Ron Paul gets it done, only he gets both the benefit of railing against Democrat/Republican pork while also bringing that pork to his district.

[Liberty]

Please understand that I don't write this to slam him, but Ron Paul isn't ideologically pure either. He apparently has had a record in the past of voting against bills which are pork laden, when A) those bills are going to pass handily anyway; and B) when some of that pork is for his district. That way, he can claim ideological purity, and bring home the bacon at the same time. At least, that is what I've read. So if what I've read is true, then how did pork for Paul's district get onto the bill in the first place? Certainly John Murtha didn't put it there. And if Paul has actually done such a thing, then doesn't that make him appear a bit cynical about his own anti-pork stance? That sort of hypocrisy is what made me initially suspicious about him.

The other main thing that I haven't been able to swallow about Ron Paul was his refusal to return donations made by white supremacists. Now, I'm not dumb enough to believe that Ron Paul is himself a white supremacist. In fact, I'm fairly certain that he is not. However, he is willing to accept their money. In my view, that is dirty money. One of the big strikes against Obama is that his campaign has been less than fastidious in keeping their financial donation records. Also in my view, it is extremely difficult for any well-meaning politician to convince other people who haven't signed on yet to supporting him that his heart is in the right place when he accepts money from people whose hearts are definitely in the wrong place. It was unwise and ill-advised on Ron Paul's part to accept that money in the first place, and it was foolish and politically tone deaf for him to hang onto it once it became public knowledge. In my mind, a politician doesn't have to actually be a white supremacist in order to be tainted by failing to repudiate white supremacist money.

I could never vote for a politician who isn't wise enough to understand that distinction, and then do the right thing about it. But that's just me.

If those of you who are Paul's supporters can set me straight on those two issues, then I might be able to change my opinion of him as a crackpot, even if I can't agree with all of his policies.

I think of pork as grants for projects which have no national interest. When we build bridges that only serve local uninhabitated islands or art projects or other local projects thats pork.

Supporting Coast guard stations, Federal prisons and Federal navigable waterways isn't pork. You don't see pet projects in Galveston Brazoria that are just raw grants to benefit walthy supporters

[The Annoyed Man]

I think of pork as grants for projects which have no national interest. When we build bridges that only serve local uninhabitated islands or art projects or other local projects thats pork.

Supporting Coast guard stations, Federal prisons and Federal navigable waterways isn't pork. You don't see pet projects in Galveston Brazoria that are just raw grants to benefit walthy supporters

That seems like a reasonable definition. So the question is, when Ron Paul brings that kind of money (not pork) to his district, does he take credit for it, or does he continue to gripe about the pork?

[seamusTX]

... it is very difficult for me to take someone's declamations against pork barrel spending very seriously if the person making those declamations isn't above getting some of his own pork.

I'm reasonably confident that Dr. Paul would tell you that the funds that go to his district are not pork. Of course, every congressman and senator would say that.

I honestly don't see any of it as pork.

When the interstate was built, the Democrats controlled Congress and were doling out interstates as personal favors. So Galveston Island got one. It carries its maximum capacity at times, so I guess we need it. The causeway from the mainland to the island was old enough to be considered in dangerous condition, and now we're getting a replacement that cost more than $100 million.

The Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are aspects of core functions of the federal government, national defense and promoting interstate and international commerce.

You could question whether NOAA should exist, but it does, and an island in the ocean is an obvious location for some of its facilities.

When I look at the range of politicians who are in the pocket of this or that lobby, who are hypocrites ("pro family" and divorced multiple times), and outright criminals, I have a lot more admiration for Dr. Paul.

I don't agree with him about everything, not by a long shot.

The bottom line is that he has been voted into office 10 times (IIRC), and it's difficult to find anyone to run against him.

- Jim

p.s.: I was obviously typing this while the previous two messages were posted.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thanks for the answer.

[Liberty]

... it is very difficult for me to take someone's declamations against pork barrel spending very seriously if the person making those declamations isn't above getting some of his own pork.

I'm reasonably confident that Dr. Paul would tell you that the funds that go to his district are not pork. Of course, every congressman and senator would say that.

I honestly don't see any of it as pork.

When the interstate was built, the Democrats controlled Congress and were doling out interstates as personal favors. So Galveston Island got one. It carries its maximum capacity at times, so I guess we need it. The causeway from the mainland to the island was old enough to be considered in dangerous condition, and now we're getting a replacement that cost more than $100 million.

The Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are aspects of core functions of the federal government, national defense and promoting interstate and international commerce.

You could question whether NOAA should exist, but it does, and an island in the ocean is an obvious location for some of its facilities.

When I look at the range of politicians who are in the pocket of this or that lobby, who are hypocrites ("pro family" and divorced multiple times), and outright criminals, I have a lot more admiration for Dr. Paul.

I don't agree with him about everything, not by a long shot.

The bottom line is that he has been voted into office 10 times (IIRC), and it's difficult to find anyone to run against him.

- Jim

p.s.: I was obviously typing this while the previous two messages were posted.

I know that there is a NOAA facility in League City, and not in his district. This Facility was also built and funded While Jack Brook was in office.
Is there a facility in Galveston that I'm not aware of?

I looked it up and I found there is a fisheries Lab funded by NOAA and established in the 1920s, I would bet it works in collaberation with the Texas A&M Center. One can hardly accuse Ron Paul of pork funding for a facility founded in 1929.

[seamusTX]

There used to be an NOAA facility on Fort Crockett Boulevard or Avenue U when Texas A & M used that property (which used to be federal property). I think NOAA moved out when Texas A & M transferred it to Galveston College. I still saw a lot of NAOO vehicles before Ike, and I assumed they were based on Pelican Island.

The NOAA office on the mainland is on FM 646 just north of I-45 in Dickinson. AFAICT, that is in the 14th district, but it's gerrymandered like crazy around there.

There are other federally funded projects on Galveston Island. UTMB, which is one of the top medical research in the world, gets some federal research funding. The level 4 biohazard lab there is a prime example. It would be nice to find a cure for hemorrhagic (Ebola, etc.) fever before it escapes Africa.

- Jim