Is Ron Paul A Republican or a Libertarian?

Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called  a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I’m sick and a ‘demeanor’ of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won’t say:  Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican.  (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman,  Ron Paul couldn’t hold Thomas Jefferson’s quill pen.)

Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned.  Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs.   He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. 

Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican.   (More about this race in a little bit….)

In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party.  He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would’offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.’  Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.  Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates.  He then told members of the conference that “we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.”  He would later state that he would not endorse a specific candidate because  “due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members . . . and I’m a ten-term Republican congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party.”  Eventually Congressman Paul gave a full endorsement to Chuck Baldwin the candidate of the  Constitution Party.  In his endorsement from 2008, Paul stated:

“The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for remaining neutral in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.  It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better.� I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”  (Source:  Campaign For Liberty Website.)

Now I know that all of the Ron Paul folks will stand and applaud your hero for his stand against the tyrranical  Republicans, but if he hates us so much, why does he continue to claim to be one?  Don’t you think he’s hypocritical?

Now back to the Congressional campaign of 1996 as this was the possible nucleas of the dislike that Congressman Paul has against former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Dr. Paul ran incumbent Greg Laughlin, a former Conservative Democrat who had switched parties in 1995.   Laughlin was endorsed in the primary over Dr. Paul by Speaker Gingrich and then Texas Governor George W. Bush. 

Fast forward now to December 15, 2011 in Sioux City, Iowa.  Fox News Megyn Kelly asks Congressman Paul at the last debate held in Iowa before the Caucuses,

“….You have some bold ideas. Some very fervent supporters and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa. But there are many Republicans inside and outside of this state who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise? And if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?”

Congressman Paul respoonds:

“Well, you know, fortunately for the Republican party this year, probably every — anybody up here could probably beat Obama, so….. So the challenge isn’t all that great on how we’re going to beat Obama. I think he’s beating himself. I think really the question is, is what do we have to offer? And I have something different to offer. I emphasize civil liberties. I emphasize a pro-American foreign policy, which is a lot different than policemen of the world. I emphasize, you know, monetary policy and these things that the other candidates don’t — don’t talk about. But I think the important thing is the philosophy I’m talking about is the Constitution and freedom.

And that brings people together. It brings independents into the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues. So, therefore, I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it’s an America philosophy. It’s the rule of law. And it — it means that, you know, we ought to balance the budget. It opens up the door for saying — supporting my willingness to cut $1 trillion out of the budget the first year.”  (Read the complete transcript here.)

Great answer, I do admit….But also only half of the answer to the question asked by Ms. Kelly.  Where’s the pledge to support the GOP candidate if the Congressman doesn’t win the nomination?  It is not there….It is not there because that pledge will never be there as the Congressman has a slash and burn agenda of continuing to hammer the base of the Republican party then leave it again when his support will be needed to help defeat President Obama.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at least had the decency to bow out of the GOP now and run as a Libertarian.  Congressman Paul should follow suit or endorse Johnson instead of pulling a bait and switch job on voters who don’t know any better. 

On a different matter that is now in the national headlines, yesterday CNN’s Gloria Borger politely asked Congressman Paul about those now-famous newsletters that I wrote a little about yesterday.  Paul, before abruptly ending the interview,  denied writing them again then even denied that he read them saying, “I didn’t write them, I disavow them, that’s it.”  Really?  He then went on to say “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”  So let’s take the Congressman at his word.  He put out a newsletter that has his name on it and didn’t read the content until a decade later.  Content that is racist that he has now disavowed.  I wonder if he would disavow any of the newsletters stances on ending the Federal Reserve as well?  Well Congressman, how does it feel to be vetted?