Paul shows he’s only real GOP choice

If the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire proved anything, it proved this: Texas Rep. Ron Paul is the only person on the stage worth the party’s embrace.

A consistent, principled conservative, Paul’s answers to questions were erudite and well-informed. He had no hesitation, save when he was asked to decide between his preference for BlackBerry or iPhone. (His answer, BlackBerry, was the only thing he got wrong all night.)

His opponents, by contrast, took turns proving why they’re unworthy of the GOP’s consideration, at least if principle still has any meaning for Republicans.

Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who announced her official candidacy at the event, got some applause when she declared “President Obama will be a one-term president.” But since it’s unlikely — depending of course on the economy, unemployment and geopolitical events — that any of the people on the stage Monday can beat Obama, why shouldn’t Republicans nominate their most stalwart champion? And there’s no question that’s Paul.

While other candidates debated their murky stance on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bank bailout), Paul said nobody should get a dime. “There shouldn’t be any government assistance to private enterprise,” he declared, calling it immoral, illegal and unconstitutional.

While other candidates discussed Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to reform Medicare, Paul drew a harder line. “It can’t be made solvent. It has to change,” he said.

While other candidates answered questions about church and state separation with historical inaccuracies or outright absurdities — “I’m someone who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason,” said former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum — Paul kept it simple. Leaders should be moral, he said, but the First Amendment clearly says there shall be no established theocracy in America.

While most the rest of the field declared states should be able to opt out of the health-care reform law, but not out of a constitutional amendment to deny marriage to gay couples, Paul cut through the confusion. The federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, he said. In fact, government at any level shouldn’t issue licenses to get married. Let churches handle that duty, he said.

While most candidates mouthed the same affront to the Constitution — that they’d wait to find out what “the generals” or the “combatant commanders” thought about war plans before deciding whether to withdraw troops — only Paul got it right.

“I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander-in-chief,” he said. “I make the decisions. I tell them generals what to do. And I’d bring them [troops] home as quickly as possible.”

While other candidates debated whether and how they’d continue to bomb Middle Eastern countries, Paul made it clear he’d end foreign military adventurism, and save taxpayers billions in the process.

Meanwhile, Bachmann suggested women should bring their rapists’ children to term; Pawlenty insisted that former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is qualified to be president; ex-Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain implied he’d have a religious test for Muslims serving in his Cabinet; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney danced around his ever-shifting positions on several issues; ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich tried vainly to defend his recent implosion on the Ryan budget plan; and Santorum indulged his longtime curious obsession with gays by saying they should be expelled from the military if found out.

Is there even a debate here? Paul has not only embraced the classic Republican stance on issues, he’s been consistent about it. In fact, Paul is so Republican, he ran in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate for president, before giving principle-starved Republican voters a real presidential alternative in 2008.

The GOP has another choice to make. It really shouldn’t be difficult.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.