Posted on 01/11/2007 6:06:07 PM PST by Rodney King
Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
HOUSTON -- Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.
Paul filed incorporation papers in Texas on Thursday to create a presidential exploratory committee that allows him and his supporters to collect money on behalf of his bid. This will be Paul's second try for the White House; he was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.
Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.
"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide."
Paul, of Lake Jackson, acknowledges that the national GOP has never fully embraced him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP's large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas. He bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.
He describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.
Paul was not available for comment Thursday, Snyder said.
But he said the campaign will test its ability to attract financial and political support before deciding whether to launch a full-fledged campaign. Snyder said Paul is not running just to make a point or to try to ensure that his issues are addressed, but to win.
Paul is expected to formally announce his bid in the next week or two, Snyder said.
Snyder said Paul and his supporters are not intimidated by the presence of nationally known and better-financed candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.
"This is going to be a grassroots American campaign," he said. "For us, it's either going to happen at the grassroots level or it's not."
Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans. He was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007.
The vote against the defense appropriations bill, he said, was because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he said was "not necessary for our actual security."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not b
Hardly there Rodney...I don't think you've recovered from your LA experience. Which of course why you don't see any problem with a candidate who would surrender to our enemies.
I don't believe that but you are welcome to.
How about the battle of Saigon? I'm sure I could find some pictures of us fleeing the capitol.
But seriously, it's because of people like George W. Bush that we lost the Vietnam war. We cannot continue to use WW2 style strategies to win 21st century wars. If he or the others in charge are not capable of adopting our tactics to make a change for the positive, then we need rethink our mission. Sending more troops to walk in circles waiting for the enemy to jump out at them does not appear to be working.
I think we've proved our point, Saddam is dead and his regime is toppled. Now let the Iraqi people decide what they want to do. Democracy cannot be handed out or forced on anyone, it must be earned.
Duncan is a good guy ... but he really doesn't have a chance of making it out of the primaries
First, I hope that you and yours had a great Christmas and New Year in your new location.
That said, I'm smart enough to know that I'll never pull you onto the Ron Paul bandwagon due to his questionable record on foreign policy which troubles even a loserdopian like me.
I'm wondering who you are currently pulling for for the GOP for '08 though. I know you were a big Mike Pence fan but it does not appear as if he will be even running. Have you looked into Duncan Hunter? I really feel as if he would be the best man to unite the different factions of Republicans.
At least here in FR it seems as if Hunter has attracted libertarians, social conservatives, and "bushbots". I personally don't see any candidates which have been able to unite people so well thusfar.
I'm still a big Paul fan, but for now I'm sticking with Hunter because, frankly, as much as I love Paul's domestic policies, his stance on foreign affairs drives me nucking futs.
Again, nice to see you back. Hope all is well.
Do some research. Start with google or yahoo. Some of the webpages you will go to are just liberal wacko kook sites. However, some will be a little more balanced.
Halliburton has raked in over $10 billion since being in Iraq- their stock has sky rocketed. Several other contractors have also done very well financially. More power to them.. they do a lot of good for our troops. Mr. Cheney still collects checks from this company (from stocks)... im sure the amounts are posted on the internet on various sites. Sen. Latenberg from NJ was a name that make a big stink of this. Try putting his name into the research that you may (or may not) do.
I identify myself politically as a mix of conervative/libertarian.. i guess the correct jargon is paleo-conservative or whatever they want to call it. I see things for that they are.. I dont let my politics get in the way of reality. Republican and Democratic ethics/honesty are about as clean as a NYC garbage truck.
Did you happen to catch the video of the President giving the Medal of Honor to the parents of the young Marine today?
If you did, compare the humble humility we saw there with this.
but perhaps not a repellent as I find the chance for good conservative sites to balkanize themselves on the occasion of his marginal candidacy. Perhaps we can recall the harsh words amongst our fellows on this site on the occasion of the Buchanan candidacy, the discussions over life preservation for the poor girl in Florida, the abortion debates, the libertarian factions in general, the issues of republicans as marginal conservatives and all the rest of the various debates where we chose the small litmus issues to divide us while ignoring the general broad agreements we all share.
I know its galling to see too much of one you would like to have just shut up and go away, but I think I sometimes need to have those with whom I don't constantly agree with share the microphone with me to have me reach down deep to make the most sincere points.
Remember, there is no thread too small to make some truely harsh comments that will drive away at least one reader who otherwise might be our countryman.
McNamara is a steenking liar. The only battle we lost in Viet Nam wasn't in Viet Nam. It was in Walter Kronkite's treasonous diseased mind.
While I respect your opinion, I'll have to say your debating style is sorely lacking in couth.
just an FYI... :)
I know and that is the fact of life.. He should of ran for Govenor of California in the Primaries against Arnold...
Your post #164:
Three words: No bid contracts.
I asked for a link to your statement in #114 and your only comeback is no bid contracts which I don't think you know very much about. A serious charge you make accusing the President and others making $$$ on the blood of our country's best. Seems like you could come up with a link, eh?
It was something from the era... Whether or not it was designed that way, it happened. Lots of new toys were developed by the defense contractors (remember, there were some BIG budgets for the war) and sent over for "field testing" in-country. Some worked; some, notably the M-16, were disastrous for the troops. (The first one I carried, thankfully at Pendleton during Staging Bn, had to be manually cocked after every round. The armorer told me to "live with it.")
It is not inconceivable that currently connected companies would be heart-broken at a cessation of hostilities in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many of them have those lovely cost-plus contracts? How many of them might have the ear of someone powerful? Someone who might be interested in post-government "service" employment? You KNOW it happens. When there is as much money being flung around as we have here, people will do a LOT for a taste of it. With only two years left in Bush's administration, how many folks that work for him are polishing their resumes and looking to their futures? How many of them have access to the top policy makers? What might be changing hands in order to keep the gravy flowing? Can you or anyone here be 100% sure that the answer is NONE and NOTHING? I doubt it very much.
I used to live in his district, and even I seriously doubt that he could win a statewide race. He's good for his district, for the military and for the goodness he brings to politics -- he's truly a patriot and he has House seniority.
Yes, I am a big Pence fan and I HAVE looked a Hunter. I could happily vote for either of them.
Unfortunately I think Hunter has the same problem Pence does; he's little known outside of his district and a few activist forums. I think one or the other of them "could" have a chance if there weren't too many candidates...give then a chance to stand out and get known.
Unfortunately, this election looks like it's shaping up to be another three ring circus for both sides...everyone throwing their hats into the ring. When that happens there isn't much chance for someone like Pence or Hunter to go anywhere.
As for Paul, until surrendering to our enemies becomes a conservative value he has no chance. If he runs he will only serve to dilute the field even further for people like Pence and Hunter.
They are at 180's with each other in the political spectrum and you know it. While one person spammed the thread with what Ron Paul said about the war one part was very true. The congress is not behind this war. They never were behind this war. Instead of a Congressional Declaration of War specifying the interest of the United States congress wrote out pages of enforcing U.N. Resolution TRIPE! The GOP nor the DEMs in congress didn't even have the guts to simply write out a two paragraph declaration specifing solely the interest of the United States and commit themselves to it. I understand where he was coming from.
Saddam is dead. He was a thug and a tyrant. So are thousands more over there in leadership positions. Our best solution was to keep them busy fighting amongst each other. Our second best solution was a selective covert strike against leaders and terrorist cells causing us grief. When you do that you don't parade around the press and send out state department clowns announcing it to the world.
Here's the example. A Libyan dictator causing problems was the response Oh my gosh call up all our troops for the next 5 years? Or how about simply and quietly dropping a missile into his tent and not a peep heard for years. Cheaper, more effective, and it gets the job done in short order.
Bush mishandled Iraq and much of the backlash he brought on himself. One was the USS LINCOLN fiasco with Mission Accomplished. The nation took it to mean as time to wind down and get our troops home. Next someone put it in W's mind we should rebuild Iraq. That is where the man lost the support of many conservatives especially ones who had reservations about going to Iraq to start with.
If you want to win a war turn it over to the Generals and let them do their vocation. Untie their hands and let them do it and be done with it. Honor them, give them a parade and a thank you, and welcome them home. Don't have them building schools etc for the families who's uncle Ommar tonight may kill a dozen of their platoon. War is a punishment and the enemy should never be rewarded with a new nation.
If you want to get bogged down and hug the tar baby from which you will never be able to let go just involve the State Department in it. You will never satisfy their liberal agenda of being the worlds policeman and nation building contractor.
Bush called for 25,000 more troops. Now when did he go to congress and ask for the End Troop Strength to be raised so Grandpa in the Guards isn't yet again sent to Iraq for another year plus tour of duty?
I see no reason for being civil to anyone who would surrender to our enemies; they do not deserve it.
In all fairness people like Duncan can do more good by staying in the house...
I'm not disputing what you are implying, because I have no evidence to the contrary, and I wasn't even alive then. Are you saying that McNamara was only in support of The Viet Nam war because of special interests in business friends?
I agree with you that Paul's foreign affairs stances have been downright madddening, but would you not agree that when it comes to domestic policy, Paul is second to none with defending the Constitution?
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.