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.

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."

Ron Paul's Christmas Surrender Message:

Yesterday, we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. In Iraq, however, war rages on with no end in sight.

The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same – much more – when it comes to Iraq.

President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory.

In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible.

In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars.

This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation – which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same.

The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has requested an additional $100 billion to keep the war going. This money will not be included in the annual budget or deficit numbers, but will be whitewashed as an “off-budget” expenditure.

If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran.

Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same.

In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it – or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government.

Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.

Doesn't it bother you at all that he's against the WOT?

I have two thoughts on foregin intervention in general. We should be all in, or all out. Starting back in the 1940's, 1950's, I would have taken over the middle east as Britain left. Sparing that, I would have totally retreated. The worst thing we can do is meddle around in another countries affairs, and then not kill them. It just pisses them off. That being said, I support the war on terror.

However, that one issue has twice now caused me to vote for a president who is the biggest spender ever. I won't let the one issue keep me from supporting the guy who is otherwise the best president ever.

Although now we get to be lectured by the RINO's that we should just surrender and support a RINO before the primaries even start

Ron Paul aligned himself with a handful of RINO's and most of the Democrats, and every gutless appeaser with this bold move of his.

Going against the president in a time of war isn't exactly a slick and bold move, when you consider the commander-in-chief is in charge of the military.

One can't have it both ways by being against the commander-in-chief of this country's armed forces, and support the armed forces under the command of the president.

It just doesn't make sense.

But, then again, isolationism doesn't make sense either.

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.