Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid

kristv.com ^ | today

[Clemenza]

Ron Paul: American.

Rudy Giuliani: Noo Yawker = UNAmerican.

John McCain: Loose cannon.

Ron would have my vote over those two morons, but common sense Constitutionalism seems in short supply among the SHEEPLE these days.

[BlackElk]

Ron Paul has evolved into a paleopipsqueak who thinks national defense is an option. What will it cost taxpayers to rebuild after terrorist nuclear strikes on New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Miami, et al.? Paul doesn't want to fight anyone at any time for any reason. Like Neville Chamberlain before him and his ilk, he wants to stick his head in the sand ostrichstyle until the bad men (assuming he concedes that the Isamofascisti are bad men) go away or he wants to apply his lips to their posteriors begging for us to be let alone while Iran stockpiles nuclear weapons with the able assistance of Russia, China, North Korea, et al. Heaven forfend that we should whack the Islamofascisti before they whack us. We went through enough of this crapola during the Vietnam War to last a lifetime (our nation's lifetime).

[BlackElk]

RK: Will Ron Paul promise to leave his Congressional seat and to take the other foreign policy paleoimbecile Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina with him? I would never vote for a surrender monkey like either one but it sure would be nice to see their Congressional seats held by Americans with an American foreign policy designed to make Islamocider out of Islamofascisti, swamping Tehran, Mecca, Medina and the Dome of the Rock in an ocean of pig blood.

[soccermom]

Oh goody! So Paul gets to run back and forth between parties, depending on when it is conveeeeeenient for him? Great. So he'll force all the other candidates to spend money running against him and when he doesn't win the nomination, he'll pick up his marbles and run as third party spoiler. Swell!

[soccermom]

LOL! You gotta love that! He talks about "RINOs," which Paul literally is, and predicts he'll be asked to "surrender", which is precisely what Paul advocates in the WOT.

[Rodney King]

Oh goody! So Paul gets to run back and forth between parties, depending on when it is conveeeeeenient for him? Great. So he'll force all the other candidates to spend money running against him and when he doesn't win the nomination, he'll pick up his marbles and run as third party spoiler. Swell

WTF are you talking about? Paul has been a GOP congressmen for many years. What do you mean by run back and forth between the parties? Also, since this article was posted he has specifically stated that he was running in the GOP and will support the GOP candidate whoever that is.

[WhiteGuy]

Ron Paul: American - bump

[soccermom]

He ran as a Liberalitarin candidate for president before.

[Rodney King]

He ran as a Liberalitarin candidate for president before.

And that qualifies as "back and forth"? Reagan was a democrat before he was a Repbulican, did one switch make him "back and forth"?

[soccermom]

True, but Reagan didn't switch to the GOP, simply because it was a better avenue for advancing the Democrat agenda. Paul is using the GOP, but he still advances and represents the liberalitarians.

[Rodney King]

Paul is using the GOP, but he still advances and represents the liberalitarians.

Last I checked, the Bush Bots wanted the Libertarians to fight within the GOP rather than be spoilers.

[soccermom]

I haven't considered the liberalitarians to be a branch of the GOP since 9/11. It became very clear to me, then, that the liberalitarians had more in common, on the important issues, with liberals than with conservatives. I'm tired of the GOP trying to court them. They can go as far as I'm concerned.

[Rodney King]

I'm tired of the GOP trying to court them. They can go as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough. After the last election lots of Bush Bots here on FR were whining that the libertarians cost the GOP the senate, and that libertarians naturally belong in the GOP. That being the case, it would be hypocrtical to the argue that Paul shouldn't run in the GOP. However, your position is logical and consistent, and we have no problem then.

[soccermom]

Yep -- I remember those threads and I jumped in and said we can't assume, based on the liberalitarian positions on the War on Terror and immigration, that those votes would have gone for the GOP. People have to stop assuming that the "L" vote is a faction of the GOP. Now, I do blame the so-called conservatives who stayed home to "teach the GOP a lesson", but I consider the liberalitarians to be distinct from them.

[lormand]

Where do I fall?

I support winning in Iraq, i.e., The War on Terror, and I don't support any RINOs for GOP nomination.

[The_Eaglet]

You're welcome.

[The_Eaglet]

I know of no Conservatives who support that hag.

Me neither.

[The_Eaglet]

Although he has other priorities now, I would not be surprised if President Reagan still believes that. Reagan was right.

[The_Eaglet]

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.

I agree with that.

[lilylangtree]

I didn't know that Ron Paul didn't support our prez on the WOT. Interesting aspect!