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
You almost make it sound like a spectator sport...sitting in your back yard watching the squirrel and nut.
You seem to forget that this war isn't a war against another country, but a war against an ideology, and that it didn't just begin in Afghanistan and it won't end in Iraq. As CWO said, this war knows no boundaries.
The United States hereby declares war on...uh...well...on...a...
If you are going into a country which has been used as a staging area for terrorists (and how do you fight an ideology, anyway? Who and where do you attack?), you DO fight it as we did Japan, who were the nearest equivalent to what we're fighting now... you break the will of the "host" country to provide them support. You make it PERSONAL to the country and its leadership. Remember Moammar Khaddafi? Remember how quick he stopped supporting terrorists after we made it PERSONAL to him what the price would be? He really did stop for a LONG time... then even gave up his nuke program after 9-11, because he didn't want to be on the hitlist. What's so hard about that?
Actually he voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.
How much Saddam's Iraq was involved in global terrorism is something honest folks disagree on ...
... and tax cuts.
Nope.
I notice you did not respond to the meat of my reply... WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOR FEDGOV TO BE INVOLVED IN THESE THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
LOL
I really do hate to break this to you but we've found our enemies in this country...should we carpet bomb Toledo?
We've found them in Canada. Nuke Vancouver?
We've found them in London. Time to send some cruise missile to Piccadilly Circus.
I think the Urban League or America would prefer we not use your manual of war.
In any event, should he really enter the '08 GOP presidential primary, he will be made the butt of every joke on T.V. and in the papers and waste his time and ours.
Ask your Congressman, see what kind of response you get.
Thank God adults are in charge.
If this is a war (and they seem to think it is) we should respond accordingly.
The first act would be to dismiss charges against our soldiers for activities in Iraq, regardless of the severity.
Secondly, withdraw all troops and personnel. Follow this with a period of 'dead calm'. Allow some time for factions to come to some sort of 'peace' among themselves, if it is possible. Begin the deportation of Islamists to their country of origin.
At the first sign of hostility toward the U.S., attack with a vengence not seen before. Don't stop with Iraq, let Iran and Syria have a piece of the action too.
Do it from the air, do it with nukes if need be, but just do it. Then, it will qualify as 'war'- one that you may not have to fight again for a hundred years or more.
This will also buy street 'cred' with the Chinese and Russians. They'll think you're nuts, and that's always a good thing-keeping your enemies guessing. When at 'war', don't let your enemy sucker you into a 'fight'.
It came crashing down on New York sidewalks a few years ago.
I hate to be so blunt but your idea is incredibly stupid. I'd try to go into more detail but that simple statement pretty much covers it.
**crickets**
And despite Al Gore's best efforts Baghdad would be buried until sixteen feet of snow.
No, it is a war against certain people, supported by some governments, who use certain tactics against us. It is NOT a war against an ideology; for we can never fight against an ideology. I mean, who do you attack? Where is the ideology centered? How do you find it? That is just an excuse for an open voucher on the nation for an endless state of war.
Certainly, denying these thugs any safe haven anywhere in the world means they have no place to fight FROM... and THAT is what we need to be doing as a start. Then we can say that we are finally properly defining our task... and not giving FedGov a blank check on our future and our children's future.
We fight the PEOPLE who subscribe to that "ideology" and we grant no quarter until they no longer have either the capability or the will to continue. Simple.
I would dearly love to hang around but tomorrow is another day...in the real world. Have a good evening and remember those immortal words of Captain Ron Paul Jones of the Libertarian Navy..."Give up the ship! Give up the ship!"
Perhaps I should just do a general over-spray of the republocratic statists area; -- effectively watering the trees of liberty in the anti-libertarian socialistic forest is best done by hand.
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.