The Most Consistent, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Life, Candidate in the Race UPDATED

There is definitely a “new top tier,” and the favorite of folks in the military, as well as one of the favorites of Catholic employees, is definitely in the race. Much to the chagrin of professional consultants and pollsters, I might add.

Here he is shiving in the cold answering questions from the surprised (“I thought we were ignoring this guy?”) Fox News correspondent. But first, he gives a little speech that for some strange reason seems to resonate with folks nowadays.

The RealClearPolitics polls can be found here. And here Mr. Paul is again in his own words during last nights debate in Iowa,

Some say he’s crazy and unelectable. But what he doesn’t say is wild stuff like “what happens in the private sector, stays in the private sector,” eh Mr. Gringrich? And what’s all that stuff about taking your oath of office seriously? How quaint. And he’s been married for 54 years to the same woman? Sheesh. Practically certifiable behavior, that.

On the other hand, Mr. Perry, Mr. Romney, and Mrs. Bachmann learned something from Congressman Paul of value too. Hey! Maybe there is a spot for them in President Paul’s Cabinet? Heh, I kinda doubt it.

I’m not saying Ron Paul is a sinless, perfect, punches all the right buttons, all the time, super hero that can do no wrong. I just hope he is still on the ballot when Super Tuesday rolls around.

All the other candidates (from either side of the aisle) leave me thinking that something ugly like the vision the character played by Christopher Walken had in the film adaptation of Steven King’s The Dead Zone had.

Ugh. Good thing we’ve got some major infrastructure projects to work on to put Americans back to work. Oh wait, those jobs have been outsourced to China?!

What the hell?! Big Mammon + Big Government wins again. No, I won’t be voting for the status quo. Not at this rate.

Update: Don’t shoot the messenger: another straw poll victory for Ron Paul.

  • Tim VonItter

    You worry me, Frank…
    I love this site, and you’ve opened my eyes many times… but lately your political direction has me wondering…WTF.
    If you are going to endorse a candidate, look at the big picture…
    What does he really believe… what truths does he (sorry, when I say “he”, I do sincerly mean HE or SHE) hold dear?
    This candidate held the principals of a writer so dear, that he named his son after HER…
    Are you still in favor of the tune his band is playing?

    • Frank Weathers

      Worry not, Tim. I’m a lilliputian who hasn’t endorsed any candidates. But at the same time, there are all of the conventional wisdom, status quo, candidates on one side (including the current President and the rest of his opposition) and then there is Ron Paul, regardless of how he chose his son’s name. If by their fruits you can judge them, then your wondering should be more focused on what is the record of Ron Paul. I never said he was perfect, etc. (see the post) but of the unpalatable pack of other candidates available currently (the party machines certainly haven’t been impressing anyone with this current pack, eh?), Mr. Paul is the one most likely to win my vote at this point, despite my holding him at arms length.

      It’s a long way to Super Tuesday, though.

  • Tim VonItter

    I appologize, apparently the naming was’nt after Ayn Rand, but listen to their own words… they both admire her and her writings…
    So please tell me Frank… you are the marine I admire… and the Christian I hope to be…
    Do you still endorse their beliefs?

    • Frank Weathers

      Tim: Have a look at the rest of the comments that have been added to this post.

      Regarding the videos you shared, and thank you for including them, I would have to say that nothing on either one of them is particularly damning to me. Ron Paul answering the students from Dartmouth doesn’t throw sand in the gears for example. He’s calling Greenspan on the carpet for his bubble making policies more than being a cheerleader for Ayn Rand. He is wrong in Atlas Shrugged being the second most popular book ever, because that feat belongs to The Imitation of Christ. I’ve been very clear on the fact that all the good stuff that Ayn Rand has ever said (and that ain’t much) has been said better by others, and especially better by the Church. Just go check the Ayn Rand tag in the tag cloud for all of my thoughts and examples about that.

      As for Rand Paul and the video you shared (thanks again), he both clears up the rumor mill silliness about the origin of his Christian name, while admitting to admiring Rand’s work and reading all her novels when he was young, as I did when I read The Fountainhead (but I’d had enough by then, and didn’t admire it much). I have to say that I am very pleased to hear that he has moved significantly higher up the literary and ethical scale with his appreciation for the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Dostoyeysky’s novels are rich in religious tone and his characters embody spiritual values that affirm Orthodoxy (Eastern Christianity) unapologetically.

      Back to “and you will know them by their fruits,” Rand Paul was one of the seven Senators (out of 100!) to lead the fight against the draconian add-ons to S. 1867 that will strip away the God given rights that our Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War over, and which we have fought to protect since the republic was founded. That bill is a clear and present danger to the liberty of all citizens of this great land.

  • Frank Weathers

    What follows is the thread of comments on this post from the blog’s Facebook page. I’m moving all the content over to the blog for further discussion.
    Bill Huber said: Sorry, if you want a consistent, pro freedom, pro life, pro Constitution, and Catholic candidate, that’s Santorum. Paul on the other hand is a flakey ideologue.

    Frank Weathers said: You forgot “who thinks torturing people is ok, and who thinks we should police the world.”

    Jayne Ochoa said: Not voting for either of them. Nope. No way.

    Frank Weathers said: Me neither (not yet anyway). But now? I’m a gonna have me some eggnog. ;)

    Bill Huber said: Are you quoting someone? (You used quotation marks.)

    Jayne Ochoa said: Paul is also incredibly racist. He was trying to back away from some comments he said in his newsletter, but, well, he used them for his benefit for well over a decade.

    Frank Weathers said: Racist, like Margaret Sanger was racist? Shoot me what you have on that angle Jayne. Bill: He said he supported water boarding/torture in the debates as well as reasons to continue warring in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. So it’s a paraphrased quote.

  • Frank Weathers

    I’ll readily admit that Mark Shea is more knowledgeable about Mr. Santorum than I am. (

  • Frank Weathers

    Bill Huber said: Ah, the good Mr. Shea… I frequently read him, often disagree with his conclusions, but he usually stimulates my thinking, if only to discover where he has introduced a false premise or fallacy.

  • Frank Weathers

    Anyway we’re talkin’ “top tier” and Mr. Santorum is not up there. ;) And (regarding torture) let them tell you themselves.

  • Frank Weathers

    Jayne Ochoa said:

    BTW, the only thing I have to say is this: These republican candidates will hurt the poor, indigent, and elderly far worse than what us “libruhls” would. They’re poor in social justice. That is incredibly important too. Further, consider that government telling people what they can’t do to their bodies is BIG, HUGE, government, it also then allows the government to tell people what they can do to their bodies, and then gives them leeway to tell people what they MUST do to their bodies.

    Further more, by definition, Paul is no where near consistently “pro-constitution.” He against pro-choice, and that is decidedly unconstitutional. As for the racist comments, I’ll need to look for that.

    His son is an abomination, IMO. And they’re both hypocrites, taking money from the government (medicare payments) when they would have it abolished.

    • Frank Weathers

      Jayne, the current administration is doing all it can to tell people what they MUST do regarding healthcare currently. Many Catholic institutions are being (or will be, as the Health and Human Services provisions are currently drafted) forced to go against Church teachings and offer “services” that are euphemisms for killing babies. Pro-Choice, though currently the upheld by the Supreme Court, has plenty of arguments against it that are constitutional. The right to redress grievances is incleded in the First Amendment.

      “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

      As for Church teaching on life issues, and all other issues as well, I fully support the teachings of the Magisterium.

  • Jasper

    The most pro-life candidate does not leave it up to the states to decide if an unborn child has a right to life.