Posted on 01/23/2007 9:23:18 AM PST by traviskicks
why doesn't Ron run as a Republican? he runs as a republican for his house seat!
Reckon ol' Paul will honor his term limit pledge from years past?...... I doubt it since he came back to the gov't tit.
Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He has ruled out a third party run this time.
For me, Paul and Hagel are the only Republican candidates I'll support at this point. I'm not voting for a neocon or a socialist, so I'm either voting for an anti-war Republican or a Libertarian.
Do you have evidence that he ever made such a pledge?
I believe Paul supports passing a term limit law, but has never made a statement that he would limit his own terms. This seems fair enough to me. I don't see why the good guys should leave office when the career politians stay in forever. Also, with the seniority system in the House and Senate, it's nearly impossible to accomplish anything without significant tenure. There needs to be term limits for all, not some.
Probably....but given the mess in Iraq, which will only the same or worse next year, GOP voters may be looking for an alternative and Paul and Hagel are pretty much it. I like Hagel but he strikes me as rather disorganized.
Evidence you say..... well a little hearsay....
http://www.answers.com/topic/ron-paul
He was the first congressman to propose term limit legislation for the House of Representatives. In 1984, citing his term limits proposal, he did not seek reelection to the House, although he unsuccessfully contested the Republican primary for Senate. In 1985 he returned to medical practice as an OBGYN.
In 1988, Dr. Paul won the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the U.S. Presidency. He placed third in the popular vote (with 0.3% of the total), behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.
Google will give you several hits....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ron+paul+++term+limit
See my post 26. Proposing a term limits law is not the same as promising to limit your own terms.
bump.
I guess you are correct.... After nine terms it's evident he was just joking/fooling everyone. Do as I say we should not as I do..... yep.
Matters not as ol' Paul won't get enough votes to make a major difference in who gets the nomination in the GOP. And he can run for his 10th term.
No, the GOP will give us "who's turn it is" like they did with Bob Dole against the Rapist-in-Chief. I do no want the guy "who's turn it is" I want the best guy for the job. If that is between
Hillary, McCain, and Paul ... Paul
Obama, McCain, and Paul ... Paul
HERE IS MY FEAR ... a Clinton cannot win a two way race. The only way that a Clinton wins is if the conservatives split their votes up. It would be better if Ron would just take over the Republican Party
I think you and I are more or less on the same page. I would be happy with Hagel or Paul. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I greatly respect Paul for his consistency and for taking correct but unpopular stances (drug war, Patriot Act, etc.). Unfortunately, those things could also contribute to his undoing.
I think sometimes he's also a little too idealistic. Take trade for example. While he has a good point that NAFTA and CAFTA are not true free trade, I feel they're a good start. I also disagree with his position on immigration, though I do agree with him that we should reduce the welfare state incentives.
Hagel, on the other hand, has more general election appeal. Except on foreign policy, he's more or less in line with other Republicans, thus giving him a better chance to win the primary. He also has more of a Presidential "look", which shouldn't matter, but it does. That will help him in a general election. I personally like his more pro-business stances on trade and immigration.
But, as you pointed out, Hagel doesn't seem to be very organized, making me wonder if he's not going to run after all. He may have been banking on being the only anti-war option in a crowded primary field, which could be enough to win, but with Ron Paul now in the race, that's no longer the case. That could impact his decision. He's reportedly thinking of leaving politics altogether - if that's true, I don't see why he doesn't go for it all and make it his last campaign, win or lose (with the obvious exception of running for reelection were he to be elected President).
Libertarians suffer at the polls because they overstate their case. They need to learn that those who demand everything up front seldom get what they want, and those who use gradualism to achieve their ends usually get a lot of what they want.
So Libertarians should pick a top 10 list of relatively small changes that are tremendously popular with the public.
It worked very well with the Contract with America, for the reason that it succinctly said, "This is what we will do." People understood it, it made sense.
No hedging, no waffling, just easy to understand straight talk.
Make it clear that even if Libertarians win, they will still by far be the minority. So they don't take issues to Washington that they *demand*, or will try to *force*. Instead take issues that Libertarians can *persuade* the other political parties to pass.
For example, right now, many of the security efforts that were implemented at the start of 911 are becoming unpopular.
The Libertarians could latch on to this and say "Elect us and we will try to convince the democrats and republicans to discard lots of these unnecessary and oppressive laws."
Be loud and clear that the Libertarians, if not centrists, can effectively be the in the center between the two major parties: to become the SWING vote. And that is a position of real power.
With as few as 15-20 seats in the House of Representatives, and 3-4 Senators, the Libertarians could completely reshape the direction of the country.
They could bargain with both parties for over-representation in committees, in exchange for their votes, and even start to take presidential cabinet posts.
It would break up the political bi-opoly that has dominated our landscape for too long.
Convey this to the people. Let them know that if they elect a Libertarian candidate, their State could become far more powerful than it is, with minor democrat and republican representatives.
Finally, since there are always weak office holders, the Libertarians should develop a pool of strong candidates to run against the major parties weak ones. Then the national party should invest much of its resources on these small wins.
Remember, they only need a small number of seats to really matter, so this is the way to go. Don't start by running a strong presidential candidate, start by electing dog catchers.
I don't see a pledge there. Plenty of folks made them. If he did, where is it?
I assume he believes they are both unconstitutional.
yea, it's a difficult line, becoming electable by waffling on the issues or staying true to the issues and not being electable. I think something you suggest is a good compromise, running on popular libertarian issues and placing emphasis on those while still keeping the other issues.
Or, like Paul here, a strategy is to infliltrate the republcian party and spread the message there.
well ... what does he propose to change it?
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.