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
Could you please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes those things, or do you agree with Al Gore that we have a "living constitution"?
I know about 5 or 6 teachers, some liberal some conservative. Not a single one of them thinks that NCLB is a good thing.
Would you agree with me that it would be a much better idea to end federal involvement in education, provide corresponding tax cuts, and have each state fund their own schools?
The issue I raised is not a matter of practicality. The point is, Ron Paul is against even pursuing a federal role on abortion, on ideological grounds.
Ron Paul is a good man, and has done a lot of good in Congress. However, his view of states' rights on this issue is inconsistent with the founders' view of federalism (never did they intend that states should have the choice of sanctioning murder of innocents). That's why I compare this stance to the Confederate view of slavery.
His position is also foolish. Supposing Roe is overturned today. Without a federal prohibition of abortion, there is nothing to prevent a future liberal court from striking down state laws with another Roe decision. We have no choice but to try to prevent such things federally.
There are a lot of dumbasses out there. You can't legislate the stupidity out of them.
I've asked at least 20 of those people that like NCLB and Drugs for Geezers the exact same thing and I've never gotten a reply, only dodges. They don't even bother to try and invoke the Commerce Clause like the drug warriors do.
It came crashing down on New York sidewalks a few years ago.
How in the world does that World Trade Center attack have anything to do with No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Benefit?!?
OK, I'm breaking my "be nice to other freepers" resolution already. That is the most retarded thing I've ever read.
JimRob endorses Paul's Republican Liberty Caucus and allows to host their forum here on FR? Are you saying he supports anti-semites?
I must admit, you always have good sign-offs.
Cool! Is he as nice of a guy as he comes off as in public?
I've never heard Paul be personally uncivil towards President Bush. Are you turned off by the attacks on Rep. Paul by some on this thread?
I'm glad you're on board the Hunter bandwagon. Antoninus runs a really good moderate-volume Hunter ping list you might be interested in. That said, do you realize that Hunter's immigration views are almost identical to Tancredo's?
On domestic issues they are very similar. I have been a big Ron Paul fan for years and am now supporting Hunter for '08 thusfar.
I've had the EXACT same thing happen. I've been battling with CWOJackson for literally YEARS here on FR, mostly on libertarianism and immigration. However, as much as I hate to admit it, I've grown to like the sumbitch over the years. We can go from tearing each other up on threads like this right into another thread where we reminisce about our military days or swap funny every-day stories.
Another example is this dude named Sinkspur. I don't even consider the guy to be conservative, but he and I are both "dog guys" and I can't help but deeply respect his advocacy for canines. I recall after Katrina when he used his FR tagline to offer up his home to any displaced family as well as their pets for as long as they needed. Say what you want about his politics, but the guy's got a heart of gold and we chat like old buddies when we tell pet stories.
My point is why don't we work now on getting Roe v. Wade overturned and then when hopefully there is the political will for an Amendment then working on it. Doing it my way would result in lives being saved in the meantime.
That may be, but trying to do that with a president who would undermine the national effort would only add an extra burden to the cause, and decrease the chance for success. Without a federal ban, it is only a matter of time before a liberal court gives us another Roe v Wade, and we're back to square one.
Better to keep the focus on banning abortion now, federally. Imagine the effect of such an effort on the nation, particularly if led by the president. Support would build, and the amendment would increasingly become within reach.
But if we prematurely signal to our politicians that we will "settle for less," we decrease the likelihood of getting the ban.
Chesterton has a nice thing on this that I will post. It may take a while to find it.
We, here, are an acidental family, joined by chance, Clinton and the constitution.
Chesterton's core is made when he states in Heretics: "The best way that a man could test his readiness to encounter the common variety of mankind would be to climb down a chimney into any house at random, and get on as well as possible with the people inside. And that is essentially what each one of us did on the day that he was born."
Dealing with the variety of our own family is what civilizes us, what redeems us and what teaches us love.
Put a sock in it, Ron. Your extremist kookiness will just discredit the cause of small-government. Please don't run.
Absolutely, but I have seen his own words posted on this site.
Thanks for the links, I'll take a look over the weekend.
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.