Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul Grabs Attention of Alienated Voters
WSJ ^ | 8/31/2007 | JACKIE CALMES

Posted on 09/01/2007 6:52:16 PM PDT by oblomov

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Artemis Webb

>>So basically you like that he stirs the pot or makes some waves?

Yes, I do. It badly needs to be done within the current political environment, as well as specifically within the GOP.


41 posted on 09/02/2007 12:28:59 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Ron Paul will never, ever, ever, ever be President of the United States.

True, but he's moving the GOP back to its traditional roots.

42 posted on 09/02/2007 12:38:42 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
If he’s such a non-threat, why do some FReepers get so worked up about him?

Probably because their sacred cows would be eliminated if Paul wins the Presidency.

43 posted on 09/02/2007 12:40:04 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Artemis Webb
How many departments did Ronald Reagan cut?

Reagan spoke of limiting government in general, broad terms. Paul is mentioning specific departments by name.

45 posted on 09/02/2007 12:44:18 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
...And just why would that be? His chances are as good as anyone else’s...

Good grief are you ever deluded.

46 posted on 09/02/2007 12:45:22 PM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: Pennant -22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People
LOL

Polls conducted by mainstream media organizations with an obvious agenda that uses obsolete sampling methods shouldn't be taken seriously.

47 posted on 09/02/2007 12:45:35 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
You can get a more coherent response from a quadriplegic.

There is nothing about quadriplegia that would cause incoherence. What in the hell is wrong with you?

48 posted on 09/02/2007 12:50:35 PM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: Pennant -22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Petronski
My bad, Petronski.

On the other hand, there is nothing about Paul that makes him a POS Turd or an Al-Qaida sympathizer.

49 posted on 09/02/2007 2:25:36 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
***I agree that some of the Paul supporters are overzealous to the point of being obnoxious. I support Paul contingently, reluctantly, and I have no illusions about him actually having a chance at winning the nomination.****

Yes, in the current political situation he is very much of a long shot. However, the benefits of him winning the presidency are much greater than his odds as a long shot.

Why do I support him? I see Paul as anathema to the establishment in both parties that seems to agree on the broad outlines of policy, differing only on minor points of doctrine. Romney, Obama, Clinton, Guiliani... all adhere to the same welfare-statist ideology, and the results we would get with one of the mainstream Republicans would differ only slightly from what we would get with a Democrat.

Well, believe it or not, the general public knows that that is true. They instinctively know that electing another run of the mill candidate will just further the direction we have be going in for the last 50 years. I think they are ready to vote for someone that proposes radical change.

50 posted on 09/02/2007 8:34:34 PM PDT by jmeagan (Our last chance to change the direction of the country--Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: billbears
********What department did Reagan specifically state he would cut during his campaign? The point is that Reagan, like Paul, gave specifics. Something you don’t hear from many Republicans these days.***********

Reagan had the primary goal of ending the cold war. In order to get the military build up and the tax cuts he wanted, he had to compromise with the Demos on their spending programs. The Demos had a large majority in the House and it was very hard to get any of his programs passed there.

It was during the early Reagan years when Newt and his followers started giving speeches on C-Span at the end of the day. Whatever else you think of Newt, it was his drive that finally led to the Republicans taking over congress in 94. Newt lost the showdown with Clinton, mainly because so many “moderate” republicans were threatening to deflect. After Newt left office, the moderates have been in control and keep giving us Demo light.

Newt had to hold 218 votes to get his ideas into law. If RP would win the presidency, he could do many things using his presidential powers and his position as Commander-in-chief, and he would have the veto power. We can be sure that an unbalanced federal budget would only get through by over riding his veto. The same would be true with other bills filled with pork.

We have been following this introventist policy for over a 100 years. I think it is time to look to our own country. Bring our military home and make them the strongest in the world, so that no other country would even dare think of attacking us. If a country or a terrorist group should attact, we would respond with over whelming force if that was the appropriate action.

Just bring the troops home would give a massive boost to our economy, which I think is in terrible shape at the present time. Putting a uniform, but not a protective tariff on imports; would also be a huge boost to our economy and bring a lot of those outsourced jobs back to the US.

I think the idea of using a uniform tariff to pay for the federal government is the most over looked stance that Ron Paul has. As it becomes known, it should bring a lot of the working class into his camp. Even the late, great Jude Wanniski, the champion of supply side economics, thought that a “revenue tariff” would not be detrimental to “free trade.” Putting forward this idea in this way, does not allow the “global economy” people to label RP as a protectionist as they were able to do with Pat B.

Right now everyone is so focused on his anti-war policy that the rest of his ideas seem to get pushed into the background.

51 posted on 09/03/2007 9:54:51 AM PDT by jmeagan (Our last chance to change the direction of the country--Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan

Well said, great posts.


52 posted on 09/03/2007 9:58:19 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson