Posted on 05/19/2007 5:22:40 PM PDT by jdm
It's a fine line between quixotic and committed, and just where Ron Paul falls is an open question as the Texas congressman pursues the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
The case for quixotic: It's a unique conceit to run as an anti-Iraq-war candidate in a generally pro-war party; to vow to eliminate myriad federal agencies, including the CIA, the IRS and the Federal Reserve; and to oppose every act of the federal government not specifically approved in the Constitution (including niceties such as congressional gold medals for such people as Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks and Pope John Paul II).
"I've advocated over the years the elimination of most big-government things I can't find in the Constitution," Paul said in an interview.
Trying to explain that during a recent presidential debate, Paul said, "I'm a strong believer in original intent" of the Constitution's framers. To which moderator Chris Matthews, the MSNBC television personality, responded with a disdainful, "Oh, God."
The case for committed: If somebody needs to drag the Republican Party back to its roots, Paul said, "I'm offering that alternative."
Paul was one of six House of Representatives Republicans who voted against the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, based on the same wariness of excessive international involvement that long guided Republican foreign-policy thinking. Traceable to George Washington's warning against entangling foreign alliances, its post-World War II followers -- including "Mr. Republican" Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio -- likely would share Paul's view of President Bush's adventures in democratic nation-building as muddleheaded folly.
"He touches a nerve out there," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "There are Republicans who believe it was a mistake to get in there to begin with, and that's the Paul constituency."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Those of you who know Ron Paul (and apparently everything he stands for regardless of what he says)...
question: is he as anti-Semetic as he seems?
Or is he just not a supporter of Israel?
Are these statements you read on the web out of context?
(Its not really aimed at you GWB, its just a general question.)
No, no, no. I do not care about the rest of the middle east, what I want to know about is his support of Israel.
I have read “stuff” on the internet that clearly points to anti-Semeticsim.
What are his real views?
I address these question to those who know him beyond what’s posted on the net.
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for the link. It's a great plan.
Ron Paul is quite the lightening rod around here!
My view is simple... is Paul for the invasion of our borders? Will he be against this heinous illegal tidal wave? He appears to be against it, so hoo-rah for that! No way to hate someone against the illegal travesty! And he’s in congress, so he can actually fight it!
As for the debate... sadly he gave ROOTY an opportunity - with an assist by Carl Cameron - to sound tough, when ROOTY is, in truth a giant, super-sized RINO (and a scary cross dresser as well - yikes! what an ugly woman Rooty makes!)
Ron Paul is for smaller government, getting the IRS off our backs, cutting down the welfare state.
I like and agree with those positions - I think any real conservative does.
I also like Duncan Hunter - who may have a real shot. Tancredo’s great, but the spotlight seems to freak him out. Huchabee didn’t sound bad either, maybe he could do it. Fred (if he declares) is certainly better than the “anointed 3.”
The “anointed 3” make me extremely nervous. McCain is a sellout of monstrous proportions, Rooty is a crafty liar (endorsed by the liberal party in NY), and Romney might just being saying whatever is necessary. The Neo-Con machine has anointed the top 3, which is interesting in itself - it means they all must be willing to do what the machine wants. Which has GOT to be bad for real americans.
Anyway - I think immigration is the make or break deal - if that bill passes - all other arguments are moot (<— meaning “pointless)
What kind of a question is that? Ron equally opposes aid to Israel, Egypt, Palestine, etc. just as poster GWB pointed out. Ron has many Jewish supporters; his favorite economists are Jewish. In the 20 years I have known Ron Paul I have never heard or read anything of the sort.
I really, really don’t know why this has to be pointed out - opposition to foreign aid does not make one anti-Semitic, just as opposing aid to Togoland does not make one anti-Togolese.
BUMP
The “Banana Wars” were interventions by the U.S. (using the Marine Corps) in several Central American countries and in Haiti and the Dominican Republic during the 1920s. These shameful interventions were largely done to protect the interests of the powerful fruit importing countries, hence the name. There were some real abuses going on, which were “corrected,” but at a horrendous price in ill-will generated by the U.S. against us and anything American... something we still face today in places down there. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, retired, had some very apt comments about the situation after he retired from the Corps.
You lie.
Took a "frothy" moment to comment on how....vapid...your comments are.
Howlingly yours, DoP
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.