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
And that's the REPUBLICAN half of the ruling party!!! The DEMONCRAT half is just as evil.
My whole point is that there are always significant issues on both ends. President Bush is good on foreign affair issues but sucks on running a government domestically. Ron Paul is great on domestic issues, but his foreign policy stances suck. It's a shame that so many people have to "take sides" and not just look at this as an outsider.
You posted no "truth".
I remember a lot of people said the same thing when Bush was running for president. Since that time the AWB was sunset, and Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban, and he's left the abortion issue where it belongs, up to the states.
That's all you got?
What? You mean that you would rather assume that the south Texas district voters that keep electing him are more secretly aligned with the Hyannis Port Oldsmobile Yacht Club Commadore and just tolerate that ol' constitutional beligerance thingy of his because they know everyone will ignore it in Washington.
Given the choice, I will have to believe my viewpoint based upon the Texans I have known.
Name one Republican who is anti-American.
I really do hate to point this out but war isn't an "issue". It's a fight for your survival. There is no looking at war as an outsider unless you live in Sweden.
Losing, you mean.
Happy to oblige. Let me see... what about Lincoln Chaffee or Olymia Snow for openers... or Arlen Specter... or even John McLame, as far as I am concerned. Anything else I can do for you?
"We're not talking midnight basketball...we're talking a war of survival."
----
Do you honestly think Islamic terrorists pose the greatest threat to the greatest and freeest nation on earth? I think not, I think expansive and corrosive government, pervasive socialism, and deteriorating economic slavery are far greater. History has proved this point. A few third world thugs we can send back to the stone age, if they aren't there already, anyday. I'd rather protect our freedoms now, here at home first. :) I'd hardly say this is an extreme position.
To say Ron Paul is a 'fool', 'treasonous', an 'idiot' or a 'jerk' is just, to be frank, childish. You've repeated yourself some 50 times on this thread and made your point of view more than clear. Ron Paul is a patriot and a defender of freedom. Feel free to disagree with his policies and positions, but don't insult the man or those who support him.
Exactly so and in spades!
You'll have to admit this is a very 'weird' war--the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, have generals, no insignia, etc., while blending in with the locals.
The answer to this Kennedy "quagmire" is the same one that alluded the British a couple of hundred years ago. Namely, to quash the opponent with whatever it takes, no holds barred. Then after we win, we can tell them that "we did it for your own good".
"Mrs. Speaker!"
I couldn't have said that any better, if I tried; BRAVO!
Yeah, cite for me where they've said anything that would be considered anti-American. Disagreeing with your worldview doesn't count.
LOL! Thanks God our Minutemen weren't as great of patriots and defenders of freedom...they would have sent word ahead that they surrender.
Actually, no he hasn't and please don't post obscenities; and the ***** don't count, as the Admin Mod said a few weeks ago.
He can't and he didn't.
You're wasting your time and bandwidth on that one.
The AWB did not sunset because of Dubya, as he flat out said he'd sign an extention if it crossed his desk. He gets ZERO credit for that one. And precious little for the PBA ban... because he never once in his first term picked up the veto pen. So naturally he signed off on it. Just as he did with McLame/Feingold. And that god-awful drug "benefit" and NCLB. So what credit does he actually DESERVE on his domestic policies?
Absolutely. Despite the efforts to portray it otherwise, it's unlike anything we've every fought before. That's why I'm always amazed at how people thought it could be over quickly or that it should have gone by text book. We don't have a text book for fighting this kind of war.
Something else as important and not in your list...this war doesn't have borders. It won't be over once we're done in Iraq alone.
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.