Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
kristv.com ^ | today

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


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; antiamerican; awesome; bestrepublican; donquixote; electionpresident; liberal; rlc; ronpaul; sheehansfavorite; spiritofgoldwater; texas; truerepublican; weakonterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-660 last
To: Rodney King
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.

641 posted on 01/30/2007 4:52:05 PM PST by Clemenza (NO to Rudy in 2008! The politics of Rockefeller and the attitude of a Gambino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
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).
642 posted on 01/30/2007 5:00:54 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; CWOJackson

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.


643 posted on 01/30/2007 5:10:52 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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!


644 posted on 02/05/2007 12:28:56 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

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.


645 posted on 02/05/2007 12:35:02 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 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

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.

646 posted on 02/05/2007 12:54:45 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Ron Paul: American - bump


647 posted on 02/05/2007 12:56:36 PM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

He ran as a Liberalitarin candidate for president before.


648 posted on 02/05/2007 2:48:36 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
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"?

649 posted on 02/05/2007 3:19:55 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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.
650 posted on 02/05/2007 4:07:08 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
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.

651 posted on 02/05/2007 4:17:02 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

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.


652 posted on 02/05/2007 4:32:38 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
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.

653 posted on 02/05/2007 5:20:11 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

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.


654 posted on 02/05/2007 5:40:29 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
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.

655 posted on 02/08/2007 5:50:31 PM PST by lormand (Michael Wiener - the tough talking populist moron, who thinks he is a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

You're welcome.


656 posted on 02/11/2007 1:17:53 AM PST by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I know of no Conservatives who support that hag.

Me neither.

657 posted on 02/11/2007 1:32:47 AM PST by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

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


658 posted on 02/11/2007 3:21:08 AM PST by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
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.

659 posted on 02/11/2007 3:30:08 AM PST by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

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


660 posted on 02/12/2007 12:12:15 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-660 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson