[Peace-discuss] Opposing Obama's obfuscation

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The positive proposals of libertarianism -- such as reducing rather than 
increasing regulation of corporations -- are positively harmful, but on most 
other matters Paul is much better than his opponents in the Democratic (and 
Republican) parties -- as the first quotation below makes clear.  --CGE]


“He hasn’t bombed Iran yet,” says Ron Paul, when asked to assess the best and 
worst characteristics of President Barack Obama’s six months in office.

“The worst thing is he is probably still thinking about it.”

No sooner does the representative from Texas’ 14th Congressional District, 
nicknamed “Dr. No” by his detractors, find himself embraced by mainstream 
Republicans (and even some Democrats) on domestic policy issues, than he pivots 
his focus to foreign affairs.

Obama, Paul told POLITICO during a sit-down in his office this week, “has talked 
a little better than his action, but he has already expanded [the number of 
troops] in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He became the peace candidate: ‘Yeah, we’re 
going to end that war in Iraq.’ But it’s not sincere. I don't think they had any 
intention, never did.”

It’s a unique time for Paul. With the economy in the tank, the same cable news 
shows that spurned him during the election now keep asking him on to talk 
monetary policy. Republican House members are finally voting with him on 
spending measures.

But following his exhilarant, if quixotic, quest for the presidency, Paul finds 
himself simultaneously gratified and frustrated by his return to the 
friendlier-than-before confines of the House of Representatives. He thinks he’s 
well situated in Congress to push for his libertarian causes, but then claims he 
doesn't "pay a whole lot of attention" to the activity on the House floor these 
days, adding, "I don't think it's relevant to the big picture.”

“A lot of this is just tinkering, bailing out, more money, more spending, no 
shift of direction and it's a little bit frustrating," he says.

Asked if he feels more embraced by the Republican Party establishment, Paul 
shrugs and says, "half and half.”

"I think there's respect. But they don't call me in and say, ‘What we need to 
find out from you is how you reach the young people.’"

As for another presidential run in 2012, “I don’t think that’s likely,” Paul says.

But in the next breath, he admits that he would have made the same prediction 
three years before his last run for the party’s banner. And he questions whether 
the names being bandied about as possible Republican nominees will connect to 
his supporters.

“The one thing that is characteristic about anybody who joins us is that they 
are energized and everybody recognizes that," Paul says. "We also know that it 
is the energy in a small group of people that really leads nations.”

"Let's say I have 15 percent of Republicans and [Mitt] Romney has 30 percent. If 
his people aren't energized, our guys might stand for three of his."

As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her 
supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”

"I wonder whether she's energizing the 15-20 year olds," Paul muses. "That would 
be a question I would have. Because she doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve 
and some of these issues. She doesn't talk too much about personal liberties, 
civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing 
people who torture."

Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: “If Obama was the only one who 
was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of 
partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to 
appeal to partisan Republicans better.”

As Paul sees it, such partisanship is the rough equivalent of an old Onion 
headline, “"Our local area sports team is superior to your local area sports 
team," Or as he puts it, “I think when it comes to foreign policy and monetary 
policy on big spending and watching out for the big corporations, Republicans 
are Democrats.”

And then he reverses again crediting Obama for restoring, however 
unintentionally, Republican principles.

“Republicans now are conservatives again” since the election, he says. “They are 
more consistent in voting against all these spending [measures]. And I kid them, 
I say, ‘are you guys voting with me now or am I voting with you?’

“Of course, they would always complain when I voted against Republican spending.“

Looking back at his presidential run, Paul seems sincerely surprised: He’s 
stayed the same, but suddenly the young folk who were whistling past him for 
years stopped to listen, even as the party’s other candidates did their best to 
ignore him.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, that was a good strategy,’” Paul says. “It was no more 
strategy than a man on the moon. It was just that I knew what I believed in, I 
kept talking about it, knew the problems were coming. I really assumed I would 
probably be back in medicine or something when the crisis hit.”

The Campaign for Liberty, the grass-roots organization that grew out of Paul's 
presidential campaign, has raised over $3 million since last June, attracting 
some 200,000 members.

“It just sort of baffles me," says Paul, shrinking, as he tends to do, when the 
notion of his star quality is raised.

And as of last week, 271 members of the House – about one-third of them 
Democrats – have signed onto HR-1207; a measure Paul introduced last February to 
audit the Federal Reserve.

When the Campaign for Liberty had a petition drop in support of the measure some 
six weeks ago, members were informed the night before that there would be a 
photo-op with Paul. Even with such late notice, 11 showed up to have their 
picture taken with "Dr. No," including Tom Cole, the former chair of the NRCC.

At the same time, Paul shrugs off his role in the House. “So I don’t work here 
so much. I didn’t get many signatures, because I have sort of twisted arms or 
put on pressure. Plus, I have nothing to trade, I am not a committee chairman 
and don’t have any clout, but because we have grassroots support, they got 
energized, and that’s how we have [271 members]…on the bill.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25109.html