Posted on 10/02/2007 9:57:06 AM PDT by sdnet
Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.
It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google “Medicare expansion” for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father’s or grandfather’s GOP.
There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
Wonder if he gets enough dollars to pay for the batteries?
BATTERIES!
We are not allowed don't need no stinking batteries!
In the Peoples Republic Democrazy Of San Fran y Juan de Cisco, we only use wind or solar!
Batteries are like Haight Street hate speech, Dude, so watch your mouth!
Yo, Dude!
Don’tchya walk away when I’m toking at you!
I haven’t yet told you about the Great Savior of America: L. Ron Paul, the Poliscientologist. There’s a free meeting tonight....
Moved to southern Oregon in 1984, then to the Black Hills.
LOL
Joe Dumb Ass? Vote for Joe Dumb Ass? Lots a luck with that one.
Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 at age 69.
Heaven help us! He’s pro-freedom! We’re dooooooooooooooooooomed!
And at 77, he was getting old. Ron Paul would be 77 after just one term.
You Ron Paul haters miss the meat of the article. No present “front runner for the GOP” has a chance of beating Hillary.
70% of the country is against the war and will tend to vote for the most anti-war candidate.
None of the present GOP front runners excite the GOP base.
None of the present GOP front runners can draw from the Democratic base.
The article is correct, the only GOP candidate that has a chance of beating Hillary is Ron Paul. He will draw from the anti-war base of the democrats and he will draw from the organized labor base of the Democrats.
Without Ron Paul heading the ticket, the defeat for the Republicans could be of the epic proportions of the defeat in 1972. Democrats will have a veto proof control of the House and the Senate. Couple that will Hillary in the White House, we would be in big trouble, as a country.
Ok, well, whatever you want to call us.
But as to the point of the article, no one missed it, we don't remotely come close to buying it. Big difference.
The source is questionable in purpose and the premise is past believability. Ron Paul would not even come close to Hillary, and he would be little better, and in fact perhaps worse on the main topic of the day. We have a couple of front runners who can take her, including one I would have to shower for a week if I had to vote for. Thanks for the concern though.
Ok, well, whatever you want to call us.
But as to the point of the article, no one missed it, we don't remotely come close to buying it. Big difference.
The source is questionable in purpose and the premise is past believability. Ron Paul would not even come close to Hillary, and he would be little better, and in fact perhaps worse on the main topic of the day. We have a couple of front runners who can take her, including one I would have to shower for a week if I had to vote for. Thanks for the concern though.
>>You Ron Paul haters miss the meat of the article. No present “front runner for the GOP” has a chance of beating Hillary.<<
I’m not a Ron Paul hater - I like him. I’m glad he’s principled and raising some these issues.
I could never support him the primaries because of his ideas on defense and the economy.
If he or somebody I find unacceptable in the primaries gets the nomination then I deal with that when it happens - but I certainly not gonna do anything to try to make it happen.
As to Hillary... a lot can happen. She has really high negatives and lacks her husband’s charisma. We’ll see - the primaries have not even begun so its way too earlier to talk giving up or even settling.
Well, Ross had genuine national appeal. Despite the posters here in FR, RuePaul does not. I doubt he would seriously affect a single state’s electoral votes.
Yet, in the very same poll, 54% of the respondents approved of the way the President was handling the Iraq war and only 22% approved of how the Congress was handling it.
Do you believe and act on everything you read in the MSM?
Understand they are trying to convince you that no Republican candidate has a chance. That's what they want you think, when it isn't true, at all. Understand that they want you to vote for Ron Paul -- because it helps them.
Don't fall prey to their propaganda.
Yet, in the very same poll, 54% of the respondents approved of the way the President was handling the Iraq war and only 22% approved of how the Congress was handling it.
Do you believe and act on everything you read in the MSM?
Understand they are trying to convince you that no Republican candidate has a chance. That's what they want you think, when it isn't true, at all. Understand that they want you to vote for Ron Paul -- because it helps them.
Don't fall prey to their propaganda.
BUMP
What’s the difference? Socialists are socialists. McCain, Clinton, Obama. When are you RINOs going to wake up??
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.