http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

I vote Glenn Greenwald.

I am pro-choice and will vote for Ron Paul in the coming election.

"Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves." - Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)

Let's just finally admit we all have "irreconcilable differences". Roe vs. Wade convinces no pro-lifer that abortion isn't wrong, just as a federal ban would convince no pro-choicer that it shouldn't be legal and safe. While not ideal, I still believe Paul's approach to this issue is still ultimately pro-choice in the sense that states or (potentially) local communities could decide how to handle abortion. That's hardly going to satisfy everyone, but I find the idea of abortion being illegal in some parts of the country a whole lot less offensive than the notion that a central government can create one-size-fits-all solutions to complex social problems for a gigantic and very diverse population that happens to be at impossible moral odds with one another. Yes, even a gay-loving liberal with a chip on his shoulder about religion can believe in federalism.

Paul is running for the Presidency and at the same time believes that the executive branch has no say on abortion. If he was running for Congress in my district, it might be a different situation. But I'm voting for him because the President is commander of the armed forces. Because our aggressive, financially draining foreign policy, because of our of our 700 plus military bases all over the world (which I guess we need in order "to protect our vital interests", as Obama says), because of the oppressive occupation of sovereign nations, because of secret assassinations and regime changes by our CIA, because of government collusion with the military-industrial complex, because of the current lack of consitutional ethics and transparency - all of this is, in my value system, a far greater UNEQUIVOCAL immorality and immediate threat to our future (economically, diplomatically) than the banning/allowing of abortion will ever be, whatever side you're on.

While pro-choice, I cannot deny that abortion is also a gruesome and, yes, aggressive procedure for which some amount of revulsion is indeed justified, or that a world in which abortion didn't happen wouldn't be preferable. (Paul, by the way, once witnessed a still breathing and crying fetus extracted from a woman and dropped into a bucket.) From the Salon film review of "Lake of Fire", which I haven't seen: "As interviewee Noam Chomsky puts it...the pro-lifers might have a valid moral point to make, if there was any seriousness or consistency or concern about poverty and human welfare in their position." If you've ever heard Paul rail against the Federal Reserve, you've seen a man with profound concern for the poor and human welfare. He is also firmly committed to non-violence and non-aggression, whether militarily or individually. Paul is by no means above criticism, but he has philosophic integrity in this regard, unlike the rest of his party. Unlike most of the Democrats for that matter.

P.S. Paul also voted against a law that would prohibit the transport of minors across state lines in order to get abortions.

P.S. Salon! Get Greenwald to interview Ron Paul!