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
Thanks. My weekend would be a lot "greater" if the Jets were still alive in the playoffs, but that's OK. I have a date on Sunday and hopefully that will more than make up for it.
Ah, so when you said that it wasn't a fact, you were lying. I'm glad we cleared that up.
I wish you great good luck with your date! :-)
Yet when it is pointed out that Reagan made speeches to Dems, all about how much he admired FDR and all of that president's policies and that he was proud to have been a union man and the president of a union, twice over, with CCPed quotes,that is NEVER accepted. Still, by his actions, Reagan was far trued to the latter, than he ever was to the old quote about Libertarians! His WAR ON DRUGS is but one substantive argument in that favor; so too is his willingness to commit to war and anti-abortion speeches, as president.
Let me spell it out for you. A poster said that Reagan called libertarianism "the heart and soul of conservatism". You took exception to this. When it was pointed out to you that it was a fact, you denied this (here). When you were then given a link to the interview where he said it, along with the appropriate excerpt, you admitted that you were fully aware of the quote (here). So you admitted to being aware of what you had earlier denied. Do you know what that's called? Lying.
No amount or wriggling, that you indulge in, is going to makes gold out of that straw! LOL
Did Reagan say it or did he not say it?
L
Apparently Ron Paul is also wrong on the need to protect marriage federally. He is against the federal marriage amendment, on faulty grounds.
Marriage is a federal issue, ever since Congress required states to disavow polygamy in order to join the union.
HAH! Well, I guess even my hero, RR, was wrong sometimes.. Did he say this before, or after Paul ran against him in '84?
WOW.. THANK YOU so much! Your FACTS have lifted a huge burden I've been wrongly carrying for several years.
For some time now, I had convinced myself that Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in 84, against Reagan. As a friend of the Paul family (well, acquaintance really), and a strong supporter of Limited "Constitutional" Government, I worked in his campaign and gave him my vote. I remember, that at the time, I knew I was throwing my vote away...but, I was pretty convinced that my vote wasn't needed for the Republicans....and, I was somewhat angry with them.
I've been carrying guilt at not voting for Reagan at both opportunities... but, clearly, I DID! Now.. the timing make more sense to me... I was mad about the 86 tax hike.. and, I never cared for Bush the first that much anyway....
Anyway.. thanks for helping get my memory straight, and my conscience clear! :-)
I dunno, I'd rather the Feds not be involved in marraige. Just like religion, they corrupt whatever they touch. There are currently many perverse incentives and disincentives involved in family and marriage that are the direct result of federal intervention.
Persosonally, I'd even prefer local governments out of the debate. Let the people themselves define marraige. Not sure why this idea appears so radical...
lol, well glad to help, don't let things weigh on you so heavily, it's only politics. :)
yea, I never cared for Bush sr that much either, or the jr despite my inital support.
You would rather have had Utah legally practicing polygamy all these years? Where is the evidence that Congress corrupted marriage by requiring Utah to give up polygamy?
And how can states have various laws on marriage, anyway? Wouldn't that be nothing short of chaos? This is one area where one state's actions would dramatically affect all others. I'm all for states' rights, but diversity on this subject is impossible. Of necessity, there can only be one definition of marriage.
Let the people themselves define marraige.
Do you really think allowing Utah to practice polygamy is a good and healthy thing for the nation?
I'm not sure why we need to dwell on what utah does. Let them do what they will, I don't see how it effect the rest of us.
The point is, the federal goverment did. In fact, the federal government still holds power over Utah's marriage definition. Congress must give permission before the State of Utah could ever change its definition of marriage. It's in the law.
Are you really willing to fight for a change in that law?
Let them do what they will, I don't see how it effect the rest of us.
So, when a legally married polygamist family moves into your state, should your state recognize that union? It does affect you.
If Ron Paul is flaky on foreign policy (and he is), he's flaky on some other things too -- or that's my guess.
Even isolationists who are motivated by patriotism, like Paul, are dangerous, because it's a dangerous policy.
Advocating virtually no government is no way to persuade Americans that there should be less government. I admire Paul's guts, but he's far from an effective leader or spokesman.
Well... I'm not sure where he stands today, but Paul used to be a rather strong advocate of reverting to a gold standard for currency. I can't say I've ever agreed with him on that one..
Some of us choose to do otherwise.
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.