Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« He Should Have Been a Son | At the Dem Debate in New Hamps... »

Sunday, June 3, 2007

True or False: Ron Paul is a Republican?

posted by on June 3 at 15:52 PM


I was riding my bike through Pike Place Market today—which I don’t recommend as the market is packed—when I spotted a clump of scruffy, sign-wavers roasting in the sun. I love me some scruffy sign-wavers, so I rolled over. There were about ten of ‘em, most looked under 30, and they were holding signs that said “Ron Paul / President / End War.”

Hm. Whoever made the signs, I thought to myself, left off one important word: Republican.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas—albeit an pro-civil-liberties, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Bush Republican congressman who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War from the start. (Unlike some, ahem, left-leaning sex-advice columnists I could name.) Paul kicked up a shit storm at the last Republican debate by suggesting that our involvement in the Middle East prior to September 11, 2001, might have had something to do with motivating the attacks on September 11, 2001.

I asked the guy on the left in the photo above if he really thought a Republican could really end this war—even Ron Paul.

“He’s not really a Republican,” he said. “More of an independent.”

“He’s a Republican congressman from Texas,” I said, “and has been for decades.”

The guy with Ron Paul sign looked left, then right, then at me.

“I’m just holding the sign,” he said, “okay?”

“They paying you?” I asked.

“What do you think?” he answered.

I took a flyer—which also didn’t mention the “R” word—and rode home.

RSS icon Comments


Cause we definitely need another crazy Texan for the White House

Posted by Vooodooo84 | June 3, 2007 4:27 PM

The next president will be a dictator. R or D, does it matter? Unless somebody with some self-control and respect for the constitution gets elected. Not likely.

Posted by Thomas | June 3, 2007 4:32 PM

Not only is he a Republican, he's a crazy, crazy, crazy Republican. He favors putting the US back on the gold standard for fuck's sake.

Please see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech if you're confused about that.

Posted by Gitai | June 3, 2007 5:04 PM

William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat though and the most powerful Democrat in the later part of the 19th and early 20th Century. (Until FDR) But Bryan was a freakzoid.....

Posted by Just Me | June 3, 2007 5:41 PM

I just hate all the random people on the internet who are like "RONPAUL2008 4EVER" like he's the only viable, morally Good choice. Please. Puhleeze. There's a difference between grassroots and making your candidate look ever more like a joke.

Posted by Katelyn | June 3, 2007 6:05 PM

I'm not voting for any candidate who's anti-FDA. Wtf?

Posted by jkjk | June 3, 2007 6:32 PM

OK, I'm calling BULLSHIT on your story.

Posted by Lovely | June 3, 2007 6:41 PM

WOW Ron Paula agrees with you on one (or two) issues. He must be a totally awesome candidate. It was the same thing with the Gunthri supporters in 2006. They would try to get voters by highlighting that Gunthrie agreed with them on one issue, like gay marriage. Ignoring the fact that his positions on every fucking other thing was idiotic.

Posted by Giffy | June 3, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote - "Not only is he a Republican, he's a crazy, crazy, crazy Republican. He favors putting the US back on the gold standard for fuck's sake."
And I suppose you LOVE inflation! You LOVE paying more and more for gas each year? In 1964, a silver dollar would buy 4 gallons of gas, today that same SILVER dollar will buy 4 gallons of gas. A paper dollar, not so much, is that too much to get your head around. If wanting the money you earn to NOT lose it's purchasing power is crazy, than count me LOCO!

Posted by Deet | June 3, 2007 7:26 PM

Dude, remind me never to mention the gold standard at the same dinner party Deet's at.

Posted by sniggles | June 3, 2007 7:56 PM

Inflation's a hell of a lot better than deflation. Didn't take much U.S. history/Economics/common sense in school I assume?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 3, 2007 8:06 PM

WTF are you talking about Deet. US currency was gold based until a bit before WW2, but certainly not silver based in 1964. Not to mention that even metal pegged currancy still has to contend with inflation and the like. Its just more inefficient and rather silly.

But then I guess the Illuminati the trilateral commission and the boogy man now control everything right.

Posted by Giffy | June 3, 2007 8:08 PM

Party on fool

Posted by Kangalanatolian | June 3, 2007 8:21 PM

I like inflation. I like the idea that in ten years, the $1,660 a month I pay for my mortgage will be a pittance. I like the idea that all those small businesses borrowing money to start up or expand today will find their loan payments to be a minor drain on their income in ten years. I like that for all those students who are borrowing money to pay for their educations, it'll be much easier to make their loan payments in ten years than it is right now, not only because their incomes will have increased, but because the absolute cost of those loan payments will have decreased so heavily.

If you hate inflation so much, why don't you just hop in a time machine, move to Japan in 1991, and see how nice living in a country with no inflation or negative inflation is.

Posted by Gitai | June 3, 2007 8:28 PM

This is what you get when a political party decides to use a primary to select its delegates. Voters are dumb enough to support someone like this, caucus goers probably are not. Like Pelz said, a primary is for boutique candidates and brainless advertising, which is exactly what paid sighn-wavers like this are.

Posted by calvin | June 3, 2007 9:06 PM

I hope that Ron Paul doesn't win so the next president can regulate the Internet and remove stupid comments like the ones above.

Posted by Elwar | June 3, 2007 9:23 PM

Jesus christ is this post infuriatingly stupid, Dan. I definitely don't want Ron Paul to be president (mostly because of his total isolationist stance and he's kind of a xenophobe).

But I certainly wouldn't be so fucking dumb as to oppose him based on party alone. How ignorant can you get?

Sorry this post is so hostile, it's just what you wrote tonight is a lot of what's wrong with american politics.

Posted by coolidge | June 3, 2007 9:38 PM

When did he say he opposed him because he was a Republican?

Posted by Chris | June 3, 2007 11:50 PM

Dan I was at the market about the same time and also took the flier from those people thinking the same things. "Why are the leaving off the fact that he is a Republican?" was my first thought.

My second thought was: "If these people are so serious about singing some type of anti-war song with a conductor and everything, shouldn't they not suck so bad?"

Posted by Sam | June 3, 2007 11:56 PM

he's a libertarian republican.

but he's a republican.

i smell an eyman.

Posted by maxsolomon | June 4, 2007 9:12 AM

Not to worry.
The guy has such radical views that if he ever became a serious contender, he will be 'disappeared' just as Dean was.

His principles and goals are anathema to the real rulers of the country. His election would mean an end to their control.

So relax, enjoy the show.
The next president has already been picked. Can you guess the next president's name?

Posted by old timer | June 4, 2007 9:25 AM

I kind of agree with coolidge @ 17, minus the nasty tone. Party alone shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election. Those are his true stripes. This is pretty obvious when you look at his stance on various issues. I think it's just more convenient for him to be a member of a major party. I doubt he would have made it into Congress otherwise.

Posted by Jamey | June 4, 2007 10:25 AM

I'd vote ron paul just to make the republican party a little more interesting.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 4, 2007 10:25 AM

There are very, very few political ads of any kind (TV, print, bumper sticker, flyer, yard sign, you name it) that identifies any candidate for any public office as belonging to one party or the other. (Third party candidates are the big exception.) You might not think about that when you see cars go by with old W or Kerry stickers (or Rossi or Gregoire, or Cantwell or what's-his-name) since you all know which party they belonged to, but it's the same for city council, state house and senate, and any other partisan race you can name. (There are rare exceptions, but sometimes you can't find that info even in the fine print.)

I think candidates in the last 20 or so years don't see their party affiliation as a selling point any more. One possible reason is not wanting people to just dismiss them on that basis. (Admit it people - some of you would sooner get a paint thinner enema than vote for any Republican.) Maybe they want to spare their campaign workers confrontations with hardcore members of the other side. Whatever the reason, candidates today don't seem to think there's anything to gain by calling themselves Democrats and Republicans.

Posted by Matt from Denver | June 4, 2007 1:54 PM

see also: Seattle Times: Opinion: Bruce Ramsey: "The GOP would be wise to listen to Ron Paul's message", 2007-05-30

Ramsey begins:

Two-thirds of Americans can now see that starting a war in Iraq was a mistake. The majority of Republicans still do not see it. Eventually they will, but it's hard to go against their own president unless one of their own makes them do it.

and also writes:

Paul rejects President Bush's gum-drop idea that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They hate us because of what our government has done in their part of the world. In the May 15 debate, Paul said America was attacked on 9/11 "because we were over there."

At the debate, Rudy Giuliani disingenuously declared that he had never heard such a statement, as if it were ridiculous on its face. After the debate, Paul went on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" show, and Sean Hannity barked at him: Did he think America was to blame for 9/11?

No, Paul said, though really he was saying something like that. When your government acts as an imperial power, the natives bite back. They are responsible for what they do, but theirs is not the only responsibility.

When a Saudi zealot kills Americans, you can blame the deaths on the Saudi because he did it, or on the U.S. government for stationing soldiers in the Saudi's homeland, which aggravated him. Paul's point is that if you don't aggravate folks, you don't get bit.

Posted by hyperlinker | June 4, 2007 3:32 PM

Party alone needn't be the deciding factor in criticizing Ron Paul. Don't oppose him because just because he's a Republican. Oppose Ron Paul because of his history of racism.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
-Ron Paul, 1992

Posted by Jon | June 4, 2007 4:29 PM

"we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
-Ron Paul, 1992

Ron Paul does have a nasty habit of telling the truth. Like saying that an Administration of White Guys has committed genocide in Iraq.

Posted by imp | June 5, 2007 8:10 PM

I'm definitely a Ron Paul fan. Sure he's a Republican, a Texan, and pro-life... but, without someone like him Cascadia has no chance.

Instead of thinking how awful it would be to do without the Fed or FDA, think about how much better these systems could be if they were designed for and by us instead of the corporate interests that currently dominate American politics.

Posted by Cascadian | June 7, 2007 9:53 AM


Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:41 PM


Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:41 PM

Ron Paul is a Republican, the way that the Republican party used to be. The Republicans were, once upon a time, the party of small government. Ron Paul respects the Constitution, which is something that I can say about very, very few politicians. Respect for the Constitution, above and beyond his positions on any individual issue, is the major reason that I am so excited to see Ron Paul running for President.

Posted by Avelyn | June 16, 2007 8:45 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).