The Only Pro-life Candidate

[Aloysius]

I don't know what he'd do as a British Politician. It would be interested to read the forward he wrote to Hilaire Belloc and Cecil Chesterton's book "The Party System" recently being republished by IHS Press since that book is particular to the British government. But I do believe he supports the principals in that book and while in America he is big on the founder's vision, Belloc makes a good point in that book that Paul might accept for the unelected officials in Britain were he to be part of that government:

[quote]It may, however, be worth while to define
exactly what democracy is. Votes and elections
and representative assemblies are not democracy ;
they are at best machinery for carrying out
democracy. Democracy is government by the
general will. Wherever, under whatever forms,
such laws as the mass of the people desire are
passed, and such laws as they dislike are rejected,
there is democracy. Wherever, under whatever
forms, the Jaws passed and rejected have no relation
to the desires of the mass, there is no democracy.
That is to say, there is no democracy
in England to-day.
-Hilaire Belloc, The Party System[/quote]

haha, so in other words, even if officials are unelected, they could be democratic; and just because officials are elected does not mean that they are unelected.

of course, all of this is quite off topic. Paul supports the Founders' vision for this particular country and he has a good plan for how to begin to end abortion in this country.

[Justin86]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1434722' date='Dec 16 2007, 11:20 AM']On the most rudimentary political level, his very unwillingness to make political compromise on his key issues leads him to actually inhibit Conservative progress in this country. That's not how you do things in the US Congress. Read the Club for Growth's assessment of the man.[/quote]
Reagan didn't comprise on principle with Congress either. If Congress didn't approve of what he wanted he would take his case to the American people by campigning all over the country for it. [i]That[/i] is how you get things done with Congress. Comprise on principle is an insulting, degrading thing for anyone with honor and integrity.

Of course, Ron Paul comprised his integrity with the 2007 budget so I'm not sure why you're accusing him unwillingness to comprise when he certainly has on government spending, a major issue of his campaign.

[quote]The very fact that Ron Paul is supported primarily by the same class of people who supported Howard Dean assures his doom in the primaries. These folks are mostly college-age idiots or conspiracy-addled nitwits who will happily put up stupid cardboard signs around the city but forget to register to vote.[/quote]
Actually, what killed Howard Dean was his Scream Heard Around The World. Before that he was the front runner. Ron Paul might be the real Republican front runner right now, depending on if you beleive the media or internet polls. Each side explains the others vast differences by accusing the other of bias, and frankly either could be right, however while polls can be biased fundraising cannot be and its telling how much money he manages to get. Also, Paul is winning a few media polls. There was most recently a poll in Alaska that he won. Not that he can win the nomination just be winning Alaska of course, but it does show some doubt in the media's hypothesis of the man.

[quote]Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning Republican, and what that means is that on the important moral issues he believes that if people vote to enact it then it's ok. Homosexual marriage? Ok if the community allows it. Abortion? Ok if the community allows it. His personal opposition to these things means precisely nothing.[/quote]
His position is that of a federalist. I find it ironic that you bring up Fred Thompson as the ideal, who also personally supports abortion, but wants the federal government to leave it up to the states. Him and Paul don't differ at all on this issue really.

[quote]His ideas about the Middle East are not only stupid and outmoded but dangerous for our national interests. Perhaps dangerous for the lives of American citizens.[/quote]
Now that is absolutely true, and actually its really the only reason to not vote for Paul in the primary.

[Aloysius]

I suggest further discussion on his foreign policy over at my topic "President Ron Paul at War".

The subject of debate on this thread is whether there are any candidates other than Ron Paul with a good and accurate pro-life plan. Huckabee might be possible, I still have never seen him say anything on restricting the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, he seems to have all his eggs in the basket of a Constitutional Amendment, which to me is the longest long shot we have, Constitutional Amendments have been proposed a lot and very rarely go anywhere. The chances of getting a Constitutional Amendment passed are slim to none. not that it wouldn't be great, but I see Paul's plan as much more feasible and effective.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1434734' date='Dec 16 2007, 12:00 PM']I've been thinking about this. How do you suppose his politics would look if they were 'translated' into the British political system? We don't have a codified constitution over here, and we're too small a country for local councils to make their own decisions about matters arising from important political issues. Do you think he would throw his whole support into the House of Commons and campaign for the abolition of the Lords? I suspect that he might, and that would be a bad thing for anyone who uses Catholic principles as a guide to voting - the Lords are currently an effective check on many of the more outrageous proposals that get through the Commons. (That tentative bill on 'assisted suicide' that was put forward a few years ago is the prime example.) Yet the Lords aren't elected to their positions, and I can see that being a problem for Ron Paul. As our political system is quite different, it's not really possible to tell what sort of a candidate he would be in a British setting.[/quote]
To my knowledge Ron Paul doesn't have a problem with unelected officials who provide checks of popular opinion. That is one function the Supreme Court has taken up recently, and to my knowledge Paul has never called for them to be elected.

As for what federalism would look like in Britain, and whether or not its actually for Britain I have no idea.

I'm a big federalist myself, and that was one of the reasons I supported Thompson early on, however I think its obvious he has since showed no real desire for the White House, and I've since abandoned him. I really have no candidate to support, but I can see myself reluctantly voting for Romney in the primary. I hate politicians.

[Aloysius]

"federalism" couldn't work in Britain. subsidarity is the general principal that applies to all nations and states, federalism is particular to large countries like the US (though the EU is gradually moving towards something like that, I think that's a bad idea), but Britain should be run the way any individual state in our Union should be run, based upon subsidarity getting things done at the lowest level possible.