Power to the People: Pride Goeth Before Ron Paul ….
Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.
Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.
Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."
Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."
My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."
Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:
- He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
- In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
- Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
- Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
- Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
- Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
- Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
- Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
- Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
- Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
- Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
- According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
- Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)
Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.
Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.
Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska
SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence
Ron Paul for President Campaign
NH Republican Presidential Poll
Also on GO:
Tags: Alternative Fuels, Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, New+Hampshire, Political News, Politics, Presidential+Primary, Renewable Power, Ron+Paul
- Uncategorized
October 31st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes “…it’s the safest form of energy we have.” (Seriously, he actually believes that!)”
Well he got my vote… I work on nuclear reactor. Slandering nuclear power is a little “old-fashioned” at this point. In terms of environmental impact Nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have. In terms of societal impact, it is much, much safer than COAL (think trapped miners) and OIL (think foreign relations disaster).
I realize you believe nuclear reactors cause these dangerous and awful results, but nuclear technology has settled into best practice after 60 years and the US policy of not developing more nuclear energy infrastructure is mostly backward based on irrational fear.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
First of all, he’s not at 3% and that information is completely wrong. Try 7.4% and rising.
Second of all, Dr. Paul supports strong private property rights and that by itself includes pollution controls under threat of civil and criminal laibility for infirnging on someone else’s air, land or water.
So the hyper-Green argument here, as usual, fails the sniff test. This author hasn’t done his research at all. He really should, expecially after Dr. Paul does so well in the upcoming NH primary, finishing in the top 3 and possibly even winning it.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Another biased article on Ron Paul. Wow! That’s a shocker! Tune back in next week to read a positive article about a candidate this writer supports!
Mike, here’s an idea: release your obvious dependence on the federal government. Isn’t it time we Americans take care of ourselves instead of asking the government to regulate us to death?
Ron Paul has some great ideas and maybe you might want to look at the flip side of your arguments. You didn’t mention one positive thing about Ron Paul’s ideas and that makes this article a smear piece. Be objective when you write!
October 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
You are right on. could not have said it better myself. Nuclear power takes a very small amount of resource and makes it last for decades.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
If you are interested in being a part of history and supporting Ron Paul’s campaign for freedom, please join us by going to http://www.ThisNovember5th.com and pledging to donate $100 on November 5th. It will be the highest single-day contribution to any candidate in history!
Remember, Ron Paul is one of us. It’s time we take back our country!
October 31st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
This is a common fallacy people seem forever trapped by, the illusion that we must pursue things according to the rules currently in place.
For many people, this means government involvement. Regulation, funding, subsidies, taxes, etc.
There are some things that government is necessary for. There are some things for which it isn’t. There are some things government is better at, and some things government has no business being in.
Unfortunately, things have devolved to the point that the thought of the government *not* being involved is a foreign concept and the lack of government involvement is characterized as lacking common sense.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
The Paul supporters are out in full force! Debate is really good for all political discussions. But none of you nuclear supporters have any valid response to what happens to all of the nuclear waste that will be created. Maybe we should bury it at all of the empty Ron Paul campaign headquarters in January. Until you can do something safe with the nuclear waste, you have no valid argument. 3 Mile Island was a near miss. Chernobyl was a real disaster. Would any of you nuclear people want one in your backyard? You might say yes during a blog debate, but the answer in your heart is actually no. Paul said its the safest energy we have. Safer than solar? Safer than wind? Get rid of the huge subsidies that the nuclear industry has received and is still receiving and lets see how safe it really is when these utilities and corporations are paying the tab, and not the taxpayers. Be honest people.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Here we go again. Yet another pseudo-intellectual who thinks he knows something libeling a person who does.
The evidence is not in about what is causing Global Warming. In fact, most evidence as another bright responder wrote is indeed pointing to solar activity. Most greens are environmental terrorists who believe the planet would be much better off without any people on it at all. They would rather send millions to their death in third world countries by forcing them not to use the only source of fuel they have - coal and to instead live in squalid conditions with no fuel to cook any food or make the water drinkable.
Most of the things you “attack” Ron Paul for are absolutely true and you look like an idiot for trying to use sarcasm when you are wrong as can be.
As soon as you have done one tenth the reading that Ron Paul and studied even one book on the subject, then you can come back and give your little opinions.
You also need to learn a lot about writing. Usually the title of a piece has something to do with its content.
You will find that most of the people who respond to this article are much more intelligent than you and have studied much more than you.
Your most laughable comment is: # In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that “environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people.”
That is exactly true. So what is your point here. Are you ignorant of the fact that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age and most likely it would hit before the year 2000? Why don’t you do some research before writing drivel?
If you are an example of “greens” and this publication you have just given them a black eye.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
if you are so green and complain about global warming, think about what creates more carbon dioxide, burning uranium or burning fossil fuels. Obviously it’s fossil fuels; nuclear energy is the cleanest source their is research it. Did you not read the comment from the nuclear plant worker. Also a good way to get rid of the nuclear waste would be to put it into space, and actually let NASA do something positive with the trillions of dollars we give them every year to accomplish nothing. While I’m at it why is space off limits to private companies, does our government own space, NO! Then why don’t we allow private companies the chance to expand and use space in positive ways like getting rid of nuclear waste. Anyway I appreciate your views but i think they are somewhat flawed. Ron Paul’s views aren’t anti environment, he thinks that any time property rights are infringed upon such as with pollution people have the right to stop it and he feels that society itself can make these decisions instead of a billion dollar beurocracy that is bought out by the highest bidding lobbyist. I love when people try to bash Ron Paul and a Libertarian point of view, because in the end the libertarian always wins because they make the most sense. Socialists assume people are stupid and they can decide better than they can and Neocons force their beliefs on everyone through forcea nd secracy; they want people to fear government, Ron Paul wants to give that power to the people and he feels government officials should fear the people. Wake up people, take the power back from the elite, corrupt government run by corporate america. Do some research, I don’t want to tell you what to think I just want you to research the topics and make your mind up on your own, don’t just believe everything the corporate owned media tells you to believe.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Actually, do some research. There is a site in Nevada called Yucca Mountain. http://www.yuccamountain.org/ There is a completely modern, state-of-the-art, that has enough capacity to hold about 10,000 years worth of nuclear waste even if we increase production a thousand fold.
Unfortunately, the environmental lobby has been attempting to derail construction of this site.
Nuclear power is the safest and most abundant source of electricity available to America today. Its a shame that the environmental lobby has prevented the construction of any new nuclear power plants since 1975.