Grass Roots Activists Push for Paul

NHPR ^ | 7/18/07 | Dan Gorenstein

[John Farson]

It comes right down to freedom. They want to go back to small government. Not smaller government. Small government as it was originally intended. And that is what really unites most of our support.

The word ‘freedom’ is a short-hand way of explaining Paul’s platform.

Paul supports a drastically reduced federal government- the elimination of the IRS, he believes state’s should be left to regulate abortion and marriage policies.

He questions many international organizations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and the country’s membership to the United Nations.

[CJ Wolf]

So if he wins the Nomination your gonna vote Paul. If he doesn’t win you will still vote republican. ;-)

[WhiteGuy]

So if he wins the Nomination your gonna vote Paul. If he doesn’t win you will still vote republican. ;-)

by writing in Dr. Paul.............yes

[George W. Bush]

by writing in Dr. Paul.............yes

Isn't it a little early to man the lifeboats, fellas? If every Republican did that, there would be no point in seeking the nomination.

It's a political party. Not a Kevorkian cult.

[CJ Wolf]

I think he will get the nomination. But if he doesn’t I won’t be voting for Rudy.

[WhiteGuy]

It’s a political party.

No longer a fan of political parties.........

[George W. Bush]

But if he doesn’t I won’t be voting for Rudy.

Me either.

[George W. Bush]

No longer a fan of political parties...

Fine. But where will you draw enough appointees to run the federal agencies, the embassies, etc.?

Now RP might be able to reduce the size of government. But as an LP/CP candidate, you would hardly have enough party members in the entire country to staff the necessary positions. Now, that's before you even talk about whether they are qualified.

Running as a Republican, RP could draw on Republican pols to serve. One of the biggest problems with Perot was that you end up with someone like Stockwell as VP. Great guy but when their first debate remark is "Who am I? What am I doing here?", well, it raises the question of who is going to staff an administration.

We're talking about thousands of qualified appointees that we would have to have in order to just operate the government, push the button, pull the levers, begin to transition to a reduced federal government.

RP can't wave a magic wand and do it all alone, you know.

[WhiteGuy]

But as an LP/CP candidate, you would hardly have enough party members in the entire country to staff the necessary positions.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear.

The only point I’m making is that RP is the best candidate IMHO, and I am willing to do all I can to see that he wins the nomination and the general election.

I understand the relative importance of his being a republican candidate. I do not advocate Dr. Paul running as an independent and I appreciate your other points too.

But it would take an awful lot of convincing for me to pull the level for one the other gop candidates, on principle.

[DugwayDuke]

“And Saddam did ‘prove’ he didn’t have WMD to the inspectors. He was stupid about it but there is no proof he still had any WMD or that he evacuated to Syria or anywhere else. And we just said that Saddam was lying and that he really had them anyway. But he didn’t, regardless of the rich fantasies some folks here at FR spin about it.”

I see you got your copy of the democrat talking points for the week.

“You’re being silly. No Congressman, even those on the military and intel oversight committees, is given access to that much information. Not under this administration or in any previous ones.”

I’m being silly but thinking that those who criticize should offer concrete and specific proposals to deal with the issues? Exactly how would Ron Paul fight terrorism? Invading Pakistan? So far, the only concrete proposal he’s made is to withdraw from the fight and hire pirates to do our fighting for us. Is that your idea of a winning strategy?

“I was indicating the hypocrisy in condemning Xlinton for exactly that which Bush has shown so little interest in. Bush has actually been publicly dismissive of the need to bring Osama to justice, talked as though it was completely unimportant.”

Hypocrisy? Bush invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban in an attempt to catch Osama. Clinton wouldn’t even send a single plane to pick the man up.

“Phooey. It will stop terrorism organized by Osama. You don’t stop future murders by executing a single murderer. But you stop that murderer from murdering again. And recent studies show that almost nothing deters murder like the death penalty despite all the bilge the liberals spew about how ineffective it is.”

We’re killing several hundred terrorists a month in Iraq. By your standards, we should continue that process. Each one we kill means fewer terrorist attacks in the future.

[cva66snipe]

I'm curious...why did you want to know?

Several reasons. What I was taught in boot camp was rules of conduct expected of soldiers and sailors in war. For those rules to work war must be fought as an all out offensive. You number one concern is winning for your nation, for your friends fighting beside you, and for your own preservation. You get shot at I expect the right to shoot back if it kills innocents so be it that is war. This is not a policeman in Chicago or Bugtussle in Arkansas this is a U.S. serviceman engaged in war. In war there can be no innocents. That is my major beef with Bush and company.

If a soldier suspects house A is giving him live fire and harboring a gunner even by duress IMO he still has a moral right to take them out and has an obligation to his fellow troops to do so. This is why the war in Iraq will not be won. The enemy uses those insane rules of engagement and our limited targeting against us. They did it in Korea, Nam, Gulf War one and now. That despite what the soldiers you are embedded with say is not how it is done and they were unfortunately taught wrong by PC leaders which have taken over government and the military. The Court Martial are sickening. I say scrap the Geneva Convention once and for all. It's our enemies rule book they use against us in war.

I am against nation building period. War is an absolute punishment against a nation and it's people period and in some cases Divine judgment where no person is left standing. That is war and anything less is tyranny by leaders telling troops and citizens that what they are doing is war. It gets no mention that the people of Iraq and other such nations the people themselves ALLOWED dictators to remain in power. That is what separates us from other nations was intolerance for tyranny and we broke off from Britain's crown rule. The people of Iraq have yet to take their own freedom into their own hands. As such when this is over their clerics whom they also refuse to toss out will give them their new Saddam and they will follow. Not one U.S. service members life is worth that not a one. We should have never tried to save Iraq. I can back the morality of this. Look up the conquest of Joshua. Look at his success's and failures our leaders could learn much.

I believe war is such a ultimate act it should only be taken as a last resort. I am not anti-war but many can not and will not except what war requires of man and nation to win it including George W Bush and most of congress. If that is not the intent then stay home War can never under any conditions be kinder and gentler. Leaders who try to go there using kinder gentler policy are tyrants unworthy of leadership and get good soldiers killed for nothing in return. Korea, Nam, Gulf War One. Iraq????? were on that same dead end path.

This is not at you personally. But I feel the war in Iraq is purposely being dragged out so contractor friends can milk the taxpayer for all it's worth as in the acts like LBJ did. LBJ like Bush was itching for any reason to go to war. Sadly his term has been all about feathering the nest of long time friends be it political or business. His trade policies make that clear also. I do not trust Bush. I stopped trusting him when our plane was forced down over international waters by China. Another LBJ type scenario.

[cva66snipe]

Korea was unresolved not because of the tactical situation, or an on-going insurgency, rather because of the political situation (one radically different from the political situation in Iraq). Truman was worried about the non-existent (at that time) Soviet nuclear threat.

We are in agreement on a lot of it. Still politics has no place on a battlefield it gets men killed unnecessarily. The United States leadership lacked resolve. Was there even a Authorization of use of force in Korea? That is what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was rather than a formal declaration as well as Gulf War One. MacAuthur would have indeed won it and Truman indeed fired the man or relieved him of command. MacAuthur was an honorable commander the shame is on Truman.

[Allegra]

I actually agree with most of what you say, including the part about the contractor companies.

Many of us who are in this for the mission, military and contractor alike are very frustrated by a lot of what we see as inaction or poor play-calling from Washington.

I do believe we can win this and we're making a lot of strides lately, although I have seen progress the entire three and a half years I have been here.

While I despise the handcuffs being put on our military in this war, I have to hand some of the blame to the media and the Democrats. They EMBOLDEN the terrorists every time they talk all of that gloom-and-doom defeatist stuff. The terrorists LOVE all of that.

I am not a Bush fan, by the way. I was at one time, but he has disappointed me on too many occasions.

Thank you for your service to our country.

[George W. Bush]

But it would take an awful lot of convincing for me to pull the level for one the other gop candidates, on principle.

We have to try to work with the party, as RP is.

It will be hard enough for any Republican to win in '08. And winning cannot be defined as forcing our party to lose.

That said, we aren't obliged to vote for a candidate so opposed to conservative principle or so untrustworthy that we distrust them as much as the Dims. Like crossdressing autocrats whose own children loathe him because of how he treated them.

RP's candidacy as a Republican is also likely to suck the resources and esprit of the CP/LP dry. So they will probably be very weak in '08, providing even less alternative than in most elections. Well, that's just how it is. And RP isn't going to run third-party and he shouldn't. We said we'd play by the rules as Republicans and we have to keep our word.

One thing we should demand is a fair shot though. RP is probably in third place right now. We don't have to be loyal if they use sneaky rules to exclude Ron Paul while including complete losers like McStain. Or letting the rest of the second-tier, virtually broke, stay on the stage while excluding us with our strong fundraising and our great Meetups and such. So they do have to give us our fair shot if they expect us to be loyal. Fairness goes both ways.

[George W. Bush]

I see you got your copy of the democrat talking points for the week.

Show me the WMD. That's all. Put up or shut up. The Bush administration doesn't pretend to have them. What, did Saddam mail them to you?

I’m being silly but thinking that those who criticize should offer concrete and specific proposals to deal with the issues? Exactly how would Ron Paul fight terrorism? Invading Pakistan?

His most recent remarks indicated to me that he wants to go into those areas if necessary. Again, why don't you point to a detailed plan by any other candidate of what they plan to be doing in 2009? For that matter, why don't you show me the Bush administration's plan for what they plan to be doing in the Mideast in December 2008?

Hypocrisy? Bush invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban in an attempt to catch Osama. Clinton wouldn’t even send a single plane to pick the man up.

But he forgot all about Osama. Then he talked like Osama was just unimportant.

We’re killing several hundred terrorists a month in Iraq. By your standards, we should continue that process. Each one we kill means fewer terrorist attacks in the future.

Muslims are breeding hundreds of times that number, given their base of over 1 billion people. Our kills in Iraq are a drop in the bucket though they do thin terrorist presence in that one country at the current time.

Much of the Iraq violence is sectarian civil strife. We eliminated a lot of the foreign fighters and continue to do so. Some of the tribal chieftains have done more of the actual work in that though. Fine with me. At some point, they have to clean up their own towns and their own country and live in peace.

[no dems]

I hope he runs as a Libertarian, an Independent or on the Unity ‘08 ticket. That would divide up the anti-war vote.

Then, if Al Gore would run on the Green Party Ticket.....

[George W. Bush]

He won't. He promised. We're forcing the LP/CP folk to register Republican if they want to vote for him.

That's how it's going to be.

It's just wrong to run for one party's nomination, then lose, then run under another party's banner in that same election cycle. That's just being a spoiler.

[no dems]

It's just wrong to run for one party's nomination, then lose, then run under another party's banner in that same election cycle. That's just being a spoiler.

Guess you don't like Joe Liebermann, huh?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Paul died the moment he accused the US of attempting a “Gulf of Tonkin Incident”

Yawn, another lie. It was the radio host who said this, not Paul.

[George W. Bush]

I’ve never cared much for any incarnation of the ever-mutating Joe Liarman. But I wasn’t referring to him here. The Republicans who helped elect him in their state will likely get their comeuppance for having betrayed their own candidate. But my remarks were directed toward Ron Paul running as a Republican then coming back to run as a spoiler under a LP/CP ticket.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Surrender is NOT an option, IMO. And I do not support anybody who believes that it is.

It's not surrendering, just that most people oppose a long-term committment in that godforsaken hellhole.

The Middle East has been in turmoil since biblical times. It's time to finish the job (I disagree with Paul that we should pull out immediately) but we need to stop trying to broker peace treaties and sticking our noses into the mullahs' business and having military bases scattered throughout the world.