It’s been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes, from dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say: “He is the most radical, liberal candidate running.” Then, on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Morris said: “I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years.”
Funny, but I’ve known Ron Paul for more than 30 years, and I see him as one of the purest conservatives in Washington — and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I’m talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said: “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Paul? For starters, he says that Paul “has this crazy idea about returning to the gold standard.” Hmm… I never thought of a return to sound money as being a crazy idea. With all due respect, Morris, I think I’ll stick with Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises on that one.
Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
- Get rid of the Fed.
- Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than the war on alcohol did.)
- Stay out of other countries’ affairs (which would make it possible to slash our military budget without weakening our national defense).
- Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government’s ability to snoop on American citizens.
Morris even claimed that Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by the government. That’s one I’ve never heard before. Paul has always been adamantly pro-life. Furthermore, he believes the issue of abortion comes under the auspices of the States, not the Federal government.
Why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a nutcase, a crackpot and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul will run as a third-party candidate and “hand the election to Barack Obama.”
First of all, Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have tried so hard to label him as. Second, he is one of the most morally sound individuals I have ever known, and he is intellectually sound as well.
In fact, the “crazy uncle” remarks that the fearful media pundits keep throwing out about Paul couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, if Paul has one weakness, it’s that he’s intellectually above the average voter’s head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand him.
I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Paul’s newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces them today. Often, Paul’s problem is that he is very uninhibited when it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the truth. Unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.
I can speak only from my own firsthand experience. Behind closed doors, I have never heard Paul say anything that even mildly bordered on racism. Nor is he anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel would be better off without having to answer to the United States.
Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any other candidate, Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate of freedom electable? Morris and other establishment Republicans say absolutely not. And they could be right. But there’s a part of me that wonders if they might just be wrong.
If Paul ran as a third-party candidate — especially if Mitt Romney were the Republican nominee — he would attract not only Tea Party voters, but independents, moderate Democrats and anti-war people of all stripes. While the contrast between Obama and Romney is marginal from a long-term point of view, the contrast between Paul and Obama can be measured only in light years.
Romney is John McCain. Romney is George W. Bush. Romney is Bob Dole. Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Romney is Thomas Dewey. Romney is Herbert Hoover. That is why I believe that millions of disgusted and desperate Americans, rather than swallowing McCain Light or accepting four more years of Obama’s anti-American policies, might consider casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated freedom.
Even if Paul did not win, it would be a Presidential race like no other. And if it resulted in Obama’s re-election, I’m fine with that if it keeps Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of socialism day in and day out.
Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008 when it was McCain versus Obama. Early on, I said that I preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake up millions of apathetic Americans. And that’s precisely what happened. In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama brought the Tea Party into existence.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or Congress. But if Obama is re-elected, maybe Tea Partiers will be jolted into rising up in earnest — 365 days a year — and will get serious about taking back America.
While Morris says that “Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare,” I say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama’s march toward Marxism.
Maybe it’s Morris who’s the crazy uncle?