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 ...
He has amazing press as a supposed conservative because he opposed some aspects of the New Deal.
But his full record tells a different story:
(1) Although he was a wholehearted supporter of Social Security.
(2) He opposed putting the Nazis on trial for their crimes.
(3) He opposed the founding of NATO because he feared it would antagonize the Soviet Union which, according to him, "posed no threat."
(4) He was an early advocate (from the 1920s!) of a World Court that would have jurisdiction over the US even in matters pertaining to American sovereignty.
(5) 16 years before LBJ's Great Society he wrote a bill calling for sweeping government-subsidized public housing.
This guy's PR corps is amazing.
Ron Paul needs to stop lying about being a Republican. I am not a Libertarian and I will not support the likes of Ron “money is the only thing I fight for” Paul.
Yep.
And his offspring ended up the only Ohio governor in history to be convicted of crimes while in office...and then refused to resign.
I can’t stand those people.
I like Paul, but he more than any other candidate, attracts far too many nutcases.
I don't think he would make a very good president.
>>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.<<
Ron Paul is 72 years old? As a separate issue from his policies (some of which are unacceptable) -that’s too old.
A vajayjay doctor? I thought he’d be more of a proctologist since he obviously has his head up his a$$.
Wow, RP isn’t that different than Taft after all.
The voting machines don’t distinguish between nutcases and the rest of us. A vote is a vote.
What will Guiliani, the presumptive nominee, attract? The pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay-marriage wingnuts, presumably. But at least they’ll be evenly split between Rudy and the pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay-marriage Democrat, right?
>> wishful thinking on the part of a lefty?
Probably.
The left seems to be pushing for a 100% anti-war election ... i.e. Ron Paul vs. John Edwards. That way, even if they lose, they win.
However, it is FAR more likely that they’ll nominate their most PRO-WAR candidate (Hillary), and we’ll nominate a true hawk (Thompson or Giuliani). Either way, the anti-war crowd will lose.
H
I would hope that pubs or libertarians or whoever is supporting Paul, will at least vote Pub for Prez when the nomination is not for the good doctor. We need every vote to derail the socialist pacifist Dems like Her Highness.
It isn't just nutcases. Ron Paul has succeeded in drumming up the Pop Culture vote. For example, go over to MySpace or on a blog and say anything bad(true) about Ron Paul. You will instantly be castigated by dozens of commenter's. It reminds me of when people said that Clay Akin sucked, the blogsphere went nuts. Ron Paul has, unfortunately, tapped into the American Idol voters- he has made it pop culture to support him.
That worries me.
>> The voting machines don’t distinguish between nutcases and the rest of us.
True enough ... but the mere fact that a large portion of Paul’s support comes from the lunatic fringe will necessarily drive away more reasonable voters.
For instance - me.
H
Why does it matter that Run Paul is a 72 year old grandfather from Texas? Is he running for Grandfather of the year?
If this doesn’t belong in the political humor category, then what does it take to qualify?
How do you know it’s a “large portion?” I’m sure it would be interesting to examine the donation history of the couple-thousand-some donors reported by the FEC, and see where their >$200 political money has gone in the past.
It's a compare-and-contrast commentary on the presumptive GOP nominee from New York City.
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.