Monday, September 17, 2007

Values Voter Debate - Ron Paul Comes in 2nd

Tonight Ron Paul took part in the National Values Voter Debate.


1st Mike Huckabee at 63% and with 219 votes.
2nd Ron Paul with 44 Votes
3rd Alan Keynes

This straw polling was more sophisticated than other polls. They took a vote at the beginning and the end of the debate to see any shifts. Ron Paul lost 9 votes over the course of the debate. There were a number of issues where Ron Paul voted alone and contrary to the rest of the candidates but didn't take the opportunity to clarify his positions. This hurt him.

Ron Paul will have to do a better job of framing his positions vis-a-vis values voters on the difficult issues like drugs and pornography. He will have to explain his policies better within a Judeo-Christian Constitutional framework if he wants to win these voters.

After the debate, the organizers had a discussion in which Ron Paul's position on the war was kicked around and with it the classical Judeo-Christian principle of Just War doctrine. It was cheap and a deeply biased conversation where the Bible was taken out of context and Ron Pauls position as well to beat the drums for war. Ron Paul is right, using Christianity to justify our immoral and unConstitutional war is very dangerous. They paid lip service to Just War but immediately ejected it. The mixing of unbiblical rapture theology, eschatology and Middle East policy is very very dangerous. The comments of the post-debate seemed to have such a vision behind there comments.

Again, Ron Paul will have to better explain his positions using a Judeo-Christian Constitutional frame to draw more values voters to his message.

Here is a quick round up of his answers (grossly paraphrased, any errors are my own):

Marriage Amendment to the Constition as Man and Woman
Lead by example. 50 Years married. No to a Constitutional Amendment. Traditionally Judeo-Christianity sees marraige as under the jurisdiction of the Church not the State. The DOMA is enough to protect against Full Faith and Credit attacks on the State level. Should not concede this to the Federal Government. Look up the definition of Marriage in the dictionary - it is between a man and a women. We don't need the Federal Government to define this. This should be left to the States to decide.

Constitutional Amendment to protect Life from Conception to Natural Death
The Amendment process is too long and cumbersome, we have a process already provided for in the Constitution that is to remove this issue from Federal Jurisdiction. Why hasn't there been more Congressional support for my (RP's) Sanctity of Life Act? This is an immediate action that could be taken but isn't. We don't need an Amendment, the Constitution has the answer.

How will you protect America from Radical Islam?
Have to understand motives. They attack us because we are over there. Legislation that is used to fight Radical Islam will be used against Christians by the Government - we have to be very careful. The Answer is found by following the Constitution.

Talk about your faith.
Declared belief in Christianity. Up held Just War Doctrine against the unChristian aggressive doctrine of pre-emptive war. When when justify what we do by using Christianity, it is very dangerous. (Interestingly Brownback declared his belief that the war was a Just War, despite John Paul II's statement that it was not a Just War).

Security and Prosperity - Will you oppose a North American Union?
(Very strong answer from RP) Yes, and out of the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Bank, World Trade Organization; strong declaration of American sovereignty.

What do you intend to do to counter act the Homosexual Agenda?
Rights are based on the individual NOT based on groups, be they race, gender, sexual orientation. We have to influence through persuasion and Churches, but we can't use Government to force people to accept our values. This doesn't work. We have to eradicate the Hate Laws. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect individual rights, not groups. Advocate through persuasion and Churches and pass legislation at the State level.

Yes & No Round

Do you support impeachment for Judicial Activists? RP - NO.

Will you defund Planned Parenthood? RP - YES.

Does "multi-culturalism" (used by Liberals) weaken America? RP - YES

Will you oppose immigration until US youth unemployment is below 5%? RP - YES

Do you support personal retirement accounts for social security? RP - YES

Jude Roy Moore Question on supporting a protection to express religious beliefs (display the 10 Commandments)? RP - YES

Will you nominate textualist judges who will reverse non-textualist decisions to the Supreme Court? RP - YES

Do you support an executive order protecting Military Chaplians right to religious expression? RP - YES

Would you veto Fairness Doctrine legislation? RP - YES

Would you prevent socialized health care via government universal heath care coverage? RP - YES

Would you eliminate and block any Hate Crimes legislation? RP - YES

Would you work to eliminate the national debt? RP - YES

Would your policy be the same that caused a boarder patrolman to be sentenced to 11 years for wounding an illegal alien who was smuggling drugs? RP - NO

Terri Shiavo question: Would you support legislation that would protect cognitively disabled Americans from being killed through starvation and dehydration? RP - NO
(This question has to be explained better by Ron Paul. Because it was one where he was the only candidate who voted no.)

Would you prosecute white collar distributors of hard core pornography that violate our obscenity laws? RP - NO
(This too is an issue Ron Paul will have to better explain to the values voter.)

Would you support human embryo destructive research? RP - NO

Would you support academic freedom for researchers who are persecuted at the Universities for their work on creationism and intelligent design? RP - YES

Would you extend broadcast indecency laws to cable networks? RP - NO
(This is another issue where Ron Paul voted contrary to the pack. It is another issue that needs clarification.)

Would you support legislation that would cause forfeiture of funding to any federally funded schools that teach homosexual indoctrination? RP - YES

Would you place Abstinence Programs on equal funding levels as contraception education? RP - YES.

Would you work to establish a comission to eradicate slavery of Christians in the Sudan? RP - NO
(This is another issue that Ron Paul must take time to better articulate his position upon.)

Would you support legislation to protect Christian symbols across our country that are being attacked by the ACLU? RP - YES

Would you veto non-discrimination employment act that makes sexual orientation a protected class? RP - YES

Would you eliminate the gag rule on 501(c) 3 organizations that prevent them from endorsing candidates? RP - YES

Would you recind Bush's executive order that permits Mexican truckers to freely drive across America competing directly with Americans and making dangerous conditions on the roads? RP - YES

Will you stand behind Isreal to keep their land? RP - YES

Would you support private health care initiative that create incentives for leading a healthy moral lifestyle that leads to fewer health care issues? RP - YES

Would you endorse an autonomous region for Iraq Christians as possible in the Iraq Constitution? RP - NO. (He voted counter to the rest on this one).

There was a question by Voice of the Martyrs on visas, didn't catch it. RP - NO

Will you oppose the effort to make abortion a human right? RP - YES

Do you support school choice? RP - YES

Do you support the NAFTA Super Highway? RP - NO

Open ended direct question to Ron Paul on drugs.
States should regulate, these controversial issues were designed to be delt with by the States not by the Federal Government. The War on Drugs has been a colossial failure - Prohibition was a failure - when will we wake up and realize this, stop spending the money on a failed policy. Drug addiction is a health issue and should not be treated as a Federal criminal issue. When the Federal government acts it removes power from the States, you conceed power to the governement. The government can't solve these problems. We can't dictate our values. It doesn't work.

Ron Paul finished strong reiterating that Governement can't solve these issues and we shouldn't look to government to solve them for us. We are drifting into a Toltaritarian society with National IDs and laws that are made for the War on Terror but used on Americans. We have to restore haebus corpus and the rule of law. Jesus is the King of Peace, we are not entitled to use pre-emptive war to spread our Christian beliefs. We have to return to the moral justifications for war. Remember Jesus's message, which is a message of non-intervention, peace and turn the other cheek.

(Please forgive the mistakes and some missing questions which I didn't catch while watching the debate).