Ron Paul is not a true Republican or true conservative.



Ron Paul represents the Republican Party better than any other candidate.


Dr. Paul has been asked multiple times why he’s seeking the nomination of the Republican party. He has been attacked numerous times for his libertarian positions, and the fact that he ran as the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988. While it is fair to say that Ron Paul isn’t like the other Republican candidates, it isn’t fair to say that he doesn’t represent the party, and it definitely isn’t fair to say that he isn’t conservative.


Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate against the war in Iraq, and against a possible future war with Iran. While this is considered going against the grain of his party, this is only because of the current stances the party is making. The Republican Party historically always ran on the platform of small government, and non-intervention. To promote a strong military while refraining from using it unless necessary. Theodore Roosevelt is famously quoted, “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”


In his bid for his first term as president, George W. Bush criticized Bill Clinton and the Democrats when running against former Vice President Al Gore, for the advocation of nation building and policing the world. It was Bill Clinton (a Democrat) that entered Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo, and promoted a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Here’s a quote from George W. Bush from the Bush-Gore presidential debate of October 11th, 2000:


Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission, then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's... when it's in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn't have supported either.


Instead, Bush focused largely on education and a “faith based” agenda when campaigning for his first term in office. This however changed after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, as his platform was changed to winning “the war on terror”. As consequence, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law, and the Department of Homeland Security was formed. Rather than decreasing the size of government, our nation’s military is now stationed in 131 different countries, while our rights have been severely compromised. Ron Paul has promoted a non-interventionist foreign policy in light of the party’s roots rather than a platform foreign to the party. He also does so in line with the “just war” theory, first proposed by the early church apologist St. Augustine.


Concerning border control, while President Bush recently pushed for the passing of an immigration bill that many criticized as nothing more than granting amnesty to illegal aliens (the bill was defeated, largely due to reaction from the American people), Ron Paul has opposed such measures, and instead, wishes to bring our troops home so that we can better defend our national borders instead of defending other nation’s borders. He also opposes the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP), begun by President Bush in 2005. The SPP (often called the North American Union) seeks to expedite trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but many critics have said that it does so at the cost of our nation’s sovereignty, promoting a one world agenda that would make protecting our nation’s borders forever impossible.  In Ron Paul’s words in regards to this matter, “This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”






Concerning the sanctity of life, Dr. Paul is a licensed OB/GYN who has delivered over 4 thousand babies in his Texas district, and so is staunchly a supporter of the right to life. He has been criticized though for supposedly not being pro-life, but rather, for state rights. This distinction is meaningless and counter productive. It is long believed that the reason abortion is legal and viable is because of it artificially being protected by the federal government through the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe V. Wade. By reverting the rights back to the state on this issue (as with any issue), American citizens would be given an opportunity to protect or abolish the practice of abortion in their state. By taking away the decision from a mandate by the federal government to a choice made by the state, the citizenry of that state have a chance to promote their values, giving the pro-life movement a long waited opportunity to be able to end his practice, by fighting at the local level. It should be noted that Ron Paul has been endorsed by Barbara J, Hagan, a leader in the pro-life cause, because of his strong pro-life stance.




Concerning freedom Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase and he has never voted to regulate the Internet. In Ronald Reagan’s inaugural speech, he made his famous quote that “in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” This is indeed the fundamental platform on which Ron Paul stands; that people should be free, and this can only happen when the government is small and remains in its proper role.


While it is true that Ron Paul did run as the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, this is the only instance in which he has run under that banner. Congressman Paul has served 10 terms in 2 districts in the state of Texas, always as a Republican. He has always campaigned for the ideals of the Constitution and promoted conservative values in social, economic, domestic, and foreign matters.


Here’s an ad for one of his bids for Congress in Texas (be advised that the style of this video is dated):