Who Will Be the Next Ron Paul?


Congressman Ron Paul gave his farewell address to the US House of Representatives on Nov 14. Lasting close to 50 minutes, it was a litany of all the reasons you either can admire or disdain the Texas congressman who represented part of his state from Apr 3, 1976 – Jan 3, 1977; Jan 3, 1979 – Jan 3, 1985; and Jan 3, 1997 to present (with a few presidential campaigns thrown in for good measure).

Congressman Paul’s farewell address can be viewed below. As mentioned, it runs close to 50 minutes, so it is something which may be best run in the background while you do some other things. But, whether you were a Ron Paul supporter or not, it is worth taking in:

Ron Paul will leave a void not easily filled with his departure. No other conservative ignited a more passionate following, especially among younger Americans, than he. That is quite an achievement in and of itself, and especially from someone who is 77 years old and for the most part quite generationally removed from a bulk of his supporters. Republicans need to find a way to capture that passion and energy before it dissipates with Paul’s departure from active politics. In short, they need to find the next Ron Paul quickly (and one can’t automatically assume that will be Paul’s son, Sen Rand Paul).

With that said, Ron Paul most likely isn’t fading away. He was on Jay Leno a few months back to announce his intent to run for president again in 2016. But, he will be 81 during that election. Assuming he wins in 2016, and again in 2020, he will be 89 years old when he left office. It is safe to say the nation’s highest office is not in the cards for him, and probably never was.

Not all can agree with Ron Paul’s messages. I personally feel some (but not all) of his foreign policy positions were naive at best, and may have prevented his further rise in elected politics. Some feel his pursuit of a return to a gold standard was a bit out there. But, it is hard for any conservative to argue with his powerful — and consistent — message of liberty, limited government, and sticking to the principles our founding fathers left us as detailed in the Constitution. We also always knew where Paul stood on the issues, and to those stances he stuck; a trait that is painfully lacking in too many other politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Where Ron Paul stood (and continues to stand) was with liberty. His message was powerful, and ignited a passion in his followers that no other conservative has been able to replicate. He will leave a vacuum with his departure from active politics, and politics abhors a vacuum. The vacuum will be filled, but it is up to Republicans to decide if they will be the ones to fill it.

Thank you Congressman Paul for your years of service to your state and nation, and for standing with liberty and limited government every time.


LegitSlater is a SayAnythingBlog.com contributor who focuses on features primarily pertaining to state and local government as well as political parties, but has been known to dabble in other areas. LegitSlater has also been known to pinch hit for Rob when he is out and about in his worldly travels, or attending the occasional Yankees-Twins series. LegitSlater's numerous awards include the personal satisfaction received from informing the vast readership of SAB, spurring respectful debate, and hunting the trophy sacred cows which have been otherwise deemed off limits by the traditional media, elected officials, and the political parties.

Related posts

  • Onslaught1066

    Shower mold?

  • Neiman

    While right on many issues, he was at his core, a dyspeptic old fart, a moral anarchist, an isolationist and an extremist that could not gain a following beyond a handful of disciples that worshipped him and that turned off everyone else.

    He only knew how to mess up the works, not fine tune his message to be more inclusive and compassionate, he was an enemy of the GOP and conservatism IMO.

    • Mike Peterson

      I suppose that’s why he continues to fill up college stadiums right?

      • Neiman

        When did he after many tries get nominated for President, let alone elected? ‘

        Sure, his worshipful, moral anarchist disciples can fill stadiums, while the mass of the people, 99.99999% avoid him, because he is a ego maniacal nut!

        • Ima Tenther

          Moral Anarchists? Why, because his followers believe in following the Constitution? Who knew that the Constitution was a staple of Anarchy? Huh. You folks who say such nonsense obviously have no grasp whatsoever of what was intended by the Constitution and our Founders, and you are just as much to blame as any liberal. Go read Article I, Section 8 and tell me where it says the federal government is supposed to be imposing your morals on someone else. For goodness sake, it doesn’t even punish murder, and that’s immoral … but also covered under the 10th Amendment, not the authority of Congress! That DOES NOT make anyone an Anarchist. So, you either don’t comprehend the Constitution, or you don’t understand the difference between Constitutional CONSERVATISM and Anarchy. Ron Paul was more of a Conservative than 99% of today’s Authoritarian GOP! Who’s the “ego maniacal nut”? Not Ron Paul. The GOP and its cult of blind followers need to take a look in the mirror.

          • Ima Tenther

            Btw, in regards to the article, he did not say on Leno that he planned to run again in 2016.

          • RCND

            I watched it. He was close enough to call it good enough as saying it

          • Zog

            Mullah Neiman fancies himself to be the ultimate authority on public morality, and he has spoke, so shuh yo mouf.

          • Neiman

            Childish blather from a low grade moron. The Bible is the ultimate authority and our Founding Fathers recognized in our national charter and their private writings that without the Bible to teach moral rightness, the nation would, as it is doing now, fall and cease to exist.

            You call me names out of fear, knowing your fate is hell unless you repent and find Christ as your savior and Lord.

          • Neiman

            You are the one lacking in knowledge. Our National Charter, the Declaration of Independence set forth the goals the Constitution should later meet and it included our dependence upon Nature’s God as the sole Guarantor of our Liberty. Not man, not Pope Ron Paul, they knew it was Nature’s God or we would fall into the abyss.

            If you bothered to read the words of our Founding Fathers, their purchasing and encouraging the Christian Bible be taught in all our schools (It is in the Northwest Treaty, Jefferson wrote it) for morality with acknowledgement that without it, our nation would fall, as the Constitution was written for a religious people and would work for no other. Look at the prayers to the Christian God in establishing our Independence and Constitution, in the halls of Congress and on our public buildings, all acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God. Then see how in passing laws they had no problem at all passing laws against immoral behavior, in New York it was a felony to take the Lord’s Name in vain. We were declared a nation made up of 13 Christian colonies.

            It was not until 1948 when all of that changed course with the damnable lie of separation by that pig Hugo Black and he pal FDR. Every free and decent society throughout all human history have passed laws against immoral behavior. With Paul’s moral anarchy, the gay man in S.F. can suck another man’s penis on public streets and expose my children and grandchildren to his filth, as he practices Paul’s moral licentiousness at the expense of my right not to be exposed.

            Why don’t you take your own advice and study our founding as a Christian, a moral people that for the sake of the people restrained the base lusts of people like you.

          • jackstan84

            Most of this is either untrue or biased. The majority of this comes from David Barton and his book Jefferson Lies, which has been regarded by historians as grossly inaccurate. Which is not suprising considering Barton has no formal training as a historian. The Declaration and Constitution are two different documents, the Declaration refers to God several times but the Constitution does not mention God, and the writer of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, did not want to adopt the Constitution as he thought we should only revise the Articles of Confederation. Your statements about none of that beginning till 1948 is false. Jefferson stated that the first amendment set a wall between church and state and James Madison who is regarded as the father of the constitution stated there is a line between church and state. Your arguments about state laws is irrelevant. For several decades after the ratification of the Constitution Massachusetts continued to have a state church. This is because up until the 13th to 15th Amendments were passed the Constitution was only restraining on the Federal government and instances where Federal law had jurisdiction. At this point very little limits were placed upon what state governments could do.

    • Clifford Jones

      What a wonder! “Moral anarchist,” “more inclusive,” etc. Those are certainly models we don’t need to follow in America, for sure! Why? Hmm.. more babies born out of wedlock, more people shacked up, corruption and crookedness on every hand, rampant welfare and foodstamps for those unwilling to work or who prefer “guvmint” handouts (obama care leads the list, today), “diversity,” etc. My goodness, I just read “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to all people.” My list touched only the tip of what is wrong (read perverse) of our land and you bemoan someone who has moral principles! I just remembered, he also served honorably in the military. Did you? Have you ever put yourself in harm’s way, or in a place where many creature comforts were forfeited while you served? That’s called sacrifice; have you ever sacrificed for America? And, the name calling from you who calls for compassion and inclusiveness! What a joke you are!!
      And lest you think I am pro-Paul, while I admire some of his points, I did not vote for him in the primary. His right to opinion is still inviolate… except by rude, inconsiderate, ill-mannered fools like you. And I state that kindly!

      • Neiman

        Yes I served in the Marine Corps, Vietnam. My family in both sides have served this country in war since the Revolution. Served as a police officer for a few years and ran a rescue service, risked my life often. Any other charges?

        As a libertarian he believes government has no role in restraining base impulses and that is moral anarchy.

        • Ima Tenther

          No, what he believes as a Constitutional Conservative is that the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government authority to legislate morality. It also kind of goes along with that crazy “free will” idea that some of us crazy, religious folks have. What he believes is that, as long as you harm the life, liberty or property of someone else, then how is it a crime to harm only yourself? Can you tell me exactly what morals it is that you want legislated upon people?

          • Neiman

            No to abortion, it is murder and the ultimate immorality.

            No to homosexual rights and gay marriage, they are destructive of the family and the nation.

            No to use of mind altering drugs that place others in danger.

            There are many ways a society places restrictions on aberrant, immoral behavior for the good of the society as a whole, what Paul advocates in moral anarchy that destroys us all.

    • Guest

      In his message he speaks of a moral society at the end he even says that a moral society and religion are vital to a constitutional America. It is an argument not against religion but an argument against government coercing behavior. At the end he says rules do not matter if people don’t follow them and talks about how people must be virtuous to have a free society. Using government to force behavior beyond simply being inefficient then does not make people more moral or religious and as a matter of fact can discourage it. This is especially the case when politicians manipulate social conservativism for their own purposes.

  • Phil Gay

    Rob you disrespect Ron Paul because you drink the Republican kool-aid. Ron Paul is a TRUE Republican. Rob tell us the Republican’s 5 core values & the last two Republican nominees for President; did they posses those values? Sadly the Republican party is an arm of the Democrat party. Same kool-aid different pitcher.

    • Flyby_Knight

      Rob didn’t write this.

      • Phil Gay

        Rob is an anti-Conservative

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          You may believe that, but I still didn’t write this.

    • RCND

      What exactly is disrespectful in the story? And don’t confuse a difference of opinion between Paul and LegitSlater as disrespectful.

  • HG

    Hear, Hear!
    Well said Rob.

  • WOOF

    Rand Paul

    Rude Paul

    Runt Paul

    Ru Paul

    and an outside chance for Rumpelstiltskin Paul, should he awaken.

    • $8194357

      Apostle Paul..

      Acts 9:4
      Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

      Acts 22:7
      And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’

      Acts 26:14
      And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

  • fedupny

    There will be others to take his place.

    The core of the principles are that we must be a “virtuous and moral people” for Liberty to flourish, which he states in his speech.

    I believe with all the young people that followed him, he planted the seed, but it will take time, which seems to be limited.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Mitt Romney needs a job, why not him?

  • sbark

    I see in a Ron Paul interview, he is encouraging Seccesion and Nullification


    To sit and “hope for a turnaround is futile…….hope means you sit on the arse and do nothing about the problems.
    People have to “desire” for a country to turnaround…….that means actions are undertaken to facilitate the turn around
    Question is have we already waited too long for conventional means, it would appear so, as even Romneys 47% was too low………..it appears the Free Stuff bunch is now the majority……….
    ………and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about—-that is the one problem with a Representative Republic they could see coming 200 yrs ago…..Free loaders, and those who will exploit them for relentless power.

    • $8194357

      “Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law.”
      Psalm 119:18
      Founders framed our constitution and bill of rights
      on patriarchail rule of law western Jeudeo/Christian moral values.
      You know.
      The Bible
      This is why the communist democrats
      seek to destroy it “by any means”.
      Communism is “matriarchal majority concensus”
      by elitist olagarchy….Illuminst false eden sold once again
      to the world…
      But what do I know compared to the last 100 years of bi-partisian
      deception ratcheting the globe ever left into international progressive tyrany?

      A ratchet holds position until the next application of force
      once again moves it even further to the left.

  • DWorc

    The next Ron Paul is right in North Dakota, Mr. Paul Sorum.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Give me a break.

      I’ve lost a lot of respect for Paul Sorum after he started attacking free speech.

    • Ron Paul

      We’re looking for a new leader, not a dog catcher, for which Sorum wouldn’t qualify for either.

  • borborygmi

    Ummm Rand Paul will bethe next Ron Paul

  • Judy Morris

    The future of the Republican Party lies with tossing out the arrogant elites and intolerant social conservatives who have dominated the GOP for so long and destroyed it. Ron Paul’s message of peace, liberty and prosperity is timeless, consistent, classic and his staunch constitutionalism does indeed echo our founders and founding principles. I proudly supported Ron Paul, voted for Gary Johnson in the general election and won’t return to the Republican Party until the GOP stands for something besides endless wars, big government, rent seeking cronyism and the wholesale destruction of civil liberties.

    Viva la Revolution! Bring it on!!

  • C. Y.

    SAYING GOODBYE TO RON PAUL: His Capitol Hill career began in 1976, and tonight Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) gave his swan song as a Member of Congress. We are not sad to see him go.
    In his 52 minute address he was quick to denounce Israel, the national security community, the “warfare state,” and advocated numerous proposals that are well to the left of the Obama administration.
    All Republicans want to
    reduce the size of government and cut the deficit, and his rhetoric on these topics was often admirable. However, at the same time he would be working with liberals to stop the conservative agenda.
    Our efforts are directed at liberal Democrats, but we also oppose a variety of isolationist and protectionist organizations associated with Dr. Paul. The news media often describes these groups as libertarian, but we call them neo-liberal.
    They are neo-liberal because they are well to the left of the Obama Administration on defense, foreign policy, trade and war on terror issues. The best known neo-liberals are Dr. Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson (NM), who has already left the GOP.
    We support a border fence to stop illegal immigrants but Ron Paul opposes it because “it could be used to keep us in.”
    He blames the United States for 9/11 and his extreme isolationism would help terrorists. The GOP platform advocates serious reforms, but in Ron Paul’s America, there would be no public schools, Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare.
    The Federal Aviation Authority and its air traffic controllers would be abolished along with the CIA, FBI, the Patriot Act, and the FDA, which ensures the safety of food and drugs. He would allow states to legalize dangerous drugs.
    Paul would also do nothing to stop the development of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran. He wants to abolish sanctions on Iran and abandon Israel. He would do nothing if the Jewish State is attacked, and believes it is wrong to stop weapons shipments to Hamas. He also believes the Osama bin Laden raid was wrong.
    Ron Paul always attacks “neo-cons,” but he is the real neo-con, neo-confederate. He believes the South was right in the Civil War.
    Paul is a moral monster who would have done nothing about the Holocaust, slavery or segregation.
    He is the only Republican in the House or Senate who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Dr. Paul believes Abraham Lincoln was our worst President, and “destroyed the original intent of the republic.” The original intent of the republic was that all men are created equal.
    The conservative movement has changed the debate successfully on taxing and spending, and the American people agree with its criticism of the liberal agenda. Conservatives are making progress but on the key legislative initiatives, Dr. Paul voted with the liberals.
    His supporters praise him for being consistent, but unfortunately he is consistently wrong.
    He was one of four Republicans to reject the Ryan budget to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion. He was also one of four Republicans who continues to ask for earmarks in defiance of the GOP ban. He then rejected $2.4 trillion in cuts and was one of nine Republicans to oppose the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act” to put the nation on a path towards a balanced budget. He voted against it even though a month earlier he had signed a pledge to vote for it.
    In addition, he is against a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Paul claims these initiatives were not sufficient, but he would not accept them as a starting point.
    The defense budget is already being cut by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, but Ron Paul/Barney Frank bill would go further by gutting the Pentagon. They want to end all modernization and readiness programs.
    The Bush administration was not in “glee” about the 9/11 attack, and we believe GOP leaders should stand up in opposition when Ron Paul and other neo-liberal Republicans makes these outrageous claims.
    The “Ron Paul Revolution” is a cause and it was never about the presidential campaign. Its goal was to fundamentally change the Republican Party from conservative to radical libertarian. Paul’s claims about the Patriot Act, NDAA, FISA, “900 military bases around the world,” “the warfare state,” the “North American Union,” an “Amero” currency, and Obama’s executive order concerning the White House grounds are all lies.
    The Federal Reserve is not owned or controlled by world bankers. No stock in any Federal Reserve Bank has ever been sold to foreigners. Paul’s claim that we are paying interest to the Fed is false.
    His “End The Fed” book does not tell the truth. Unfortunately, far too many Republicans believe this nonsense.
    We do not want to remove anyone from the Republican Party, but we understand the frustration with Ron Paul and the party’s anti-defense wing. “Weekly Standard” editor Bill Kristol says: “A lot of people when they criticize Ron Paul have to preface their comments by saying, ‘you know, he’s good guy, he brings a lot to the debate.’ I actually don’t buy that. I do not think he’s a particular good guy. I think it would be better for the Republican party, if he left the Republican party.”