|Ron Paul Personifies Iowa GOP Party Platform|
|Commentary/Politics - Editorials|
|Written by Kathleen McCarthy|
|Thursday, 08 December 2011 06:01|
Page 1 of 2
(Editor's note: This is one of three articles on Ron Paul in the December 8 issue of the River Cities’ Reader. The package also includes Dave Trotter’s “Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These 11 Reasons” cover story and Todd McGreevy’s “Media Manipulation and Ron Paul.”)
How curious is it that both liberal and conservative media have so obviously colluded in blacking out meaningful coverage of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul? Add to this phenomenon that when coverage is unavoidable, it is heavily biased against Dr. Paul. This blanket policy by the mainstream media (MSM) toward this single candidate begs the question: Why is Ron Paul such a threat to both parties, so much so that the MSM has orders from on high to label him as “unelectable” but offers very little in terms of rationale for why it deems him so?
Voters’ curiosity should be piqued over this blatant dismissal of the candidacy of such a highly respected member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Texas voters have elected Dr. Paul 12 times as a Republican, and his base has grown exponentially since he became a national candidate, attracting conservative Republicans, moderate Democrats, and independents alike because his message has remained steadfastly constitutional in all things, no exceptions.
In fact, his ability to raise money from individual voters is extraordinary, and if he were anyone else, this phenomenon would be covered ad nauseam by the MSM, especially because for them it is low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In other words, it does not require a lot of energy, intelligence, or work to cover fundraising.
In the final analysis, Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama in 2012. (See cover story on page 6.) The establishment Republicans had best get their head around this sooner rather than later, because the Iowa caucus is around the corner. No other candidate can garner votes from the independents and moderate Democrats in the requisite numbers, especially if the the nominee is Gingrich or Romney. Furthermore, neither can hope to transfer votes from Ron Paul supporters, regardless.
Interestingly, Congressman Paul’s platform resembles that of Obama’s 2008 candidacy of “hope and change,” with promises of ending the war; repealing the USA PATRIOT Act because it harms Americans more than it protects them; eliminating expensive and fraudulent war contracting; deeply cutting spending; and evicting banksters and corporate insiders from cabinet and agency positions. These are all things Obama promised, but once in office he not only reneged on these promises but advanced these problems considerably, making him even more reprehensible than his predecessor.
These campaign promises are also found as planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform (IowaGOP.org/platform.php). With such a large number of contenders in the upcoming GOP caucus, efficiency would dictate that comparing individual candidates’ positions on the core issues to the planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform would be the best way to properly examine electability. Again, a relatively easy task for the MSM, which has devolved into nothing more than lazy American Idol-ish political coverage.
It can be strongly argued that Ron Paul’s positions, substantiated with an unblemished 20-year voting record, adhere to the Iowa Republican Party platform more consistently than any of the other GOP candidates. In fact, Dr. Paul does not even have a close second if the Iowa Republican Party platform is the measuring stick. So why do the GOP and the media cast Paul’s libertarian constitutional positions as being “extreme”? If Paul’s positions are extreme, then so is most of the Iowa GOP platform.
Most controversial, according to establishment Republicans and the MSM, are Paul’s positions on foreign policy, defense spending, and homeland security. The Iowa GOP platform planks read in part: “9.04. We support the repeal of the Patriot Act”; “9.08. We believe that the federal government should reduce the threat of terrorism by securing the United States borders at all points of entry”; “11.01. We insist on a national defense policy and a foreign policy that is in the sole interest of the United States”; “11.02. We believe in a strong national defense. We believe that one of the Government’s primary roles is to maintain an adequate military force to secure the borders of the U.S. To accomplish this, we believe the U.S. should provide adequate funds to maintain a military force capable of protecting U.S. Sovereignty”; “11.12. We believe the United States must not adhere to or abide by any treaties that compromise the sovereignty of the United States or that are prohibited by the Constitution”; “11.13. We believe our servicemen should serve only the United States, our Constitution, and the American Flag. We are adamantly opposed to United Nations oversight of our military units, ceding national sovereignty to any foreign body, or to the establishment of a one world government”; “13.04. We oppose any taxes being placed on the United States by the United Nations.”
The above planks are practically verbatim what Congressman Ron Paul espouses, and has stood for unyieldingly during his 20 years in office. There is not a single word in Iowa’s platform about nation-building, improving other countries’ infrastructures, constructing the largest embassy in the world in Iraq before we withdraw troops in December, maintaining 900 bases in 150 countries, providing exorbitant amounts of foreign aid in the form of cash, soldiers, war contractors, weapons, and the list goes endlessly on. Paul contends that there is no tangible evidence that any of these expenditures overseas has made us safer here at home. He does contend, on the other hand, that our intervention has made us exceedingly unpopular. He makes the case: “How would you feel if foreign armies occupied your cities, especially when bombing and fighting was occurring in your neighborhoods?”
Perhaps even more important, Dr. Paul receives more contributions from individual military personnel than all the other candidates combined. Paul is adamant about keeping spending for defense, but is opposed to militarism, claiming it is mostly foreign aid that does little to protect Americans but instead enriches a corrupt global military industrial complex. Obviously, military personnel agree.
Other planks that mirror Paul’s positions include: 2.20 – Abolish the federal Department of Agriculture; 2.22 – Farm subsidies should be phased out; 3.03 – Oppose government subsidies and bailouts that distort free markets; 3.25 – Oppose government control of the Internet; 4.16 – Eliminate both the Iowa and federal departments of education; 4.19 – Oppose No Child Left Behind; 5.04 – Global warming is a scientific fraud; 5.04-05 – Oppose any fines, taxes, laws, regulations, etc. related to climate change; 5.11 – Oppose cap-and-trade (American Power Act); 5:12 – Abolition of the Department of Energy; “12.12. We strongly oppose the diabolical collusion of the United Nations in establishing the unconstitutional ‘sustainable development agenda 21’ in our local communities, our state, and our nation”; 8.17 – Due to imminent failure of these programs, to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security over time; 8.14 – Parents decide which vaccinations their children receive, if any; 10.25 – Jury nullification; 13.09 – Support the abolition of the IRS; 14.02 – Vetoing all earmarks and pork spending; 13.32 – Require a balanced budget; and 13.35 – Support auditing the Federal Reserve Bank.
Stack these similarities up against the other candidates, and there is no contest. The other candidates have diverged too far, too often to compete as the leading conservative in the race.