Ron Paul Explores Presidentian run in 2008

Florida Sportsman ^ | 1/13/2007

[GulfBreeze]

Paul will not run.

My guess is he will raise a slew of cash through his "exploratory committee" and use it to fund some sort of PAC, start a new party, or promote the Libertarian Party.

[Unmarked Package]

"The best case scenario is that a Ron Paul candidacy creates a grass roots movement to reconnect conservatism to its limited government roots ala Barry Goldwater."

Be very careful what you wish for regarding Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. The states Barry Goldwater carried in the 1964 election are shown below in blue. In my opinion, Ron Paul would win fewer states in 2008 than Goldwater did in 1964 (6 states, 52 electoral votes).

[Perdogg]

or pat paulson.

[rob777]

"A backstabber of US troops is not to the right of his party."


If you look to old definition of right, he is VERY much to the right of the entire GOP and anyone else in Washington D.C. The modern conservative movement was born in support of strictly limited government and opposition to messianic social engineering both at home and abroad. During the Wilson - FDR era, it was the progressive left that supported war and the social re-engineering of countries abroad, just as they did in domestic policies here in the U.S. the "Old Right" opposed this trend both in the arena of domestic and foreign policy. See this article on the link between progressive ideals and WWI:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_5.pdf

While the rise of totalitarian threats to freedom caused many conservatives to rethink their commitment to Jeffersonian non-intervsntion in the foreign policy arena, the antiwar position was a integral part of American Conservatism long before it became a part of liberalism. (In fact, the liberal position is less anti-war, than anti U.S., witness the lack of opposition to Clinton's bombing of Kosovo on the part of the left. Most of the opposition came from the right)

I agree with those conservatives who saw the rise of totalitarianism as justification to modify their commitment to non-interventionism in the arena of foreign policy, but see this as a potentially dangerous position, as it opens the door for weakening the conservative commitment to oppose government social engineering in all walks of life. This is exactly what has happened over the years, as opposition to social engineering no longer defines conservatism. This trend was aggravated by the retreat of the GOP from its "Contract With America" in 1996-1997 and the rise of G.W. Bush and "Compassionate Conservatism" in 2000. We need someone who is going to redefine conservatism as support for limited government and opposition to top down government directed social engineering. I may not agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I do on the fundamental definition of what is a conservative. In my eyes, the growth and expansion of the Welfare State is the biggest long term threat to American Civilization and Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above anyone else in Washington D.C. in opposing this trend.

[FreeInWV]

Really? I would find it quite refreshing to see him debate the purported front-runners on topics like the constitutionality of CFR, asset forfeiture, the patriot act, no child left behind, etc.

[wideawake]

If you look to old definition of right, he is VERY much to the right of the entire GOP and anyone else in Washington D.C.

The "old definition" of the right which you are referring to is not old at all, but a recent construct.

No definition of the right has ever included stabbing American troops in the back during time of war.

If it did, the number of conservatives in America would be about as large as the number of people who will cast votes for Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential elections.

[FreeInWV]

"stabbing American troops in the back during time of war."

Could you provide a reference for that. I remember his prewar stance and many actually agree with it. How about some info after the beginning of the war? I am not familiar with it.

[wideawake]

I would find it quite refreshing to see him debate the purported front-runners on topics like the constitutionality of CFR, asset forfeiture, the patriot act, no child left behind, etc.

If you are debating the constitutionality of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind, then you're not too familiar with the Constitution.

CFR and asset forfeiture, while dubious, are not really at the forefront of the average American's concerns.

The main concerns are the economy and terrorism.

On these topics, Paul offers crankery and appeasement, respectively.

Attractive to Democrats, perhaps - but not GOP primary voters.

[wideawake]

Read his articles on Counterpunch.

I will point out that the fact that he allows his writings to be published on Counterpunch is evidence in itself of his traitorous inclinations, given that site's well-known hatred of America.

Ron Paul is part of the blame-America-first left that likes to call itself "palaeolibertarian."

[FreeInWV]

"If you are debating the constitutionality of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind, then you're not too familiar with the Constitution."

I am. Whose constitution have you been reading? I think it is missing the 4th amendment and lots of sections on state's rights.


"traitorous inclinations.... given that site's well-known hatred of America"

LOL! That sounds like the kind of things that DU says about this place. Can you provide a URL to any specific article?

[wideawake]

I think it is missing the 4th amendment

The Patriot Act by definition cannot violate the 4th amendment because it does not, contrary to popular belief, vitiate the warrant requirement.

lots of sections on state's rights

Any state is free to not abide by the NCLB standards. State action is completely unhindered. States' rights, even under the most firebreathingly secessionist interpretation, do not include discretionary access to federal funds.

And it's really not my fault that you know nothing about the nature of Counterpunch or its editors.

[FreeInWV]

"The Patriot Act by definition cannot violate the 4th amendment because it does not, contrary to popular belief, vitiate the warrant requirement"

When a librarian is served a warrant from a secret court that she cannot inquire about (even to verify authenticity) to release the records of her patrons, she must comply or face stiff prison time. According to the act, she cannot discuss the matter with anyone, even her lawyer.

So, tell me how such a clause complies with the intent of the 4th amendment that the founders felt so strongly to include in the constitution?

[wideawake]

When a librarian is served a warrant from a secret court that she cannot inquire about (even to verify authenticity) to release the records of her patrons

The library and its records are not her personal property.

The 4th Amendment is intended to protect private individuals from unreasonable searches of their persons and homes and unreasonable seizures of their personal property.

It was not written to create a pretext for municipal employees to obstruct justice in federal criminal investigations.

And the Patriot Act did not invent the gag order.

[FreeInWV]

True Clintonese. I'm sure that message would resonate with the voters in a debate.

I did research this counterpunch site and failed to find any articles where Ron Paul was crititicizing soldiers in any way. I can see why such a site would upset neocons and Giulianni supporters like yourself. I did find a few articles where he was complaining about the search & seizure, warrants and probable cause with regards to the patriot act.

I searched here and found nothing about him backstabbing soldiers. I searched elsewhere and only found complimentary articles such as http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul142.html where Rep Paul pleads the case for better benefits for soldiers & veterans.

I am assuming you cannot provide a URL??

[wideawake]

True Clintonese. I'm sure that message would resonate with the voters in a debate.

Nothing Clintonian about it.

The library records are not her property. It's black and white: does she own the library's records?

If she doesn't own the records, she is not being subjected to any search or seizure.

The only person who has a shadow of a ground for complaint is the library patron, in which case they would have to prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in borrowing a library book that they stood on line in a public place to borrow.

I did research this counterpunch site and failed to find any articles where Ron Paul was crititicizing soldiers in any way.

Nice sleight of hand. I never claimed he was criticizing specific soldiers. I said he was stabbing them in the back.

Saying that our soldiers cannot win the war they are fighting is backstabbing, even if you say that the soldiers are all really nice guys.

I can see why such a site would upset neocons and Giulianni supporters like yourself.

Pathetic namecalling to disguise your unsupportable argument.

I am a conservative, not a "neocon" or a "Giulianni (sic) supporter."

I don't support pro-aborts. Period.

Counterpunch is a Marxist site, run by an avowed revolutionary Marxist.

I readily admit that I find Marxism repugnant.

That you don't speaks volumes.

I am assuming you cannot provide a URL??

You apparently found your way to Counterpunch where he is a contributor. Why do I need to give you a URL you already have?

[BnBlFlag]

I love Ron Paul and he is my Congress Critter, but I wish hw would forget this idea. The only thing he will accomplish is the loss of his Congressional seat to a "plain vanilla" Republican.
We need his voice in Congress.

[FreeInWV]

"Why do I need to give you a URL you already have?"

You obviously don't have a URL to any article where he backstabs soldiers as you claim. Lots of people have criticized this war in one form or another. It doesn't mean that they are backstabbing those in the military. Just post the worst you have (if you have any) and let us all read it and decide where you are coming from.

[wideawake]

All right, your highness.

Try this one at Mr.ckwell's anti-America emporium:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul359.html

or this one at Mr. Cockburn's:

http://www.counterpunch.org/paul03242004.html

The sentiment in both articles is of a piece: our fighting men are dying for nothing, they cannot achieve our objectives, all our servicement have done is make bin Laden happy, etc.

Classic backstabbing doubletalk.

[FreeInWV]

I read both. He makes some valid points. Others I do not agree with. I do not however feel that it stoops to backstabbing our soldiers. He just has different opinions.

[rob777]

"The only thing he will accomplish is the loss of his Congressional seat to a "plain vanilla" Republican.
We need his voice in Congress."



You have a valid point, one that I have made myself in years past when libertarian leaning Republicans were urging him to run. He must feel that the political climate is ripe for him to have an impact. A lot will depend on how the war goes and how much hotter the illegal immigration issue gets.