[George W. Bush]

Making the case for Ron Paul. If this isn't an endorsement, I don't know how much closer you can get to it.

This piece answers John Derbyshire's excellent article yesterday. We had a thread here: NR: "That Old-Time Religion".

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

NRO Online: Todd Peavey telling the Derb that RP can so win. And why.

[Petronski]

The congressman from Texas has something for all conservatives.

Grape, Berry, Strawberry, Lemonade, Watermelon: There's something for everyone!

[billbears]

But if we want a radically smaller government — precisely that thing that a Republican Congress neglected to do for the last twelve years, which has created the current mood of conservative frustration — we must support Ron Paul. Remember how small government was at the nation’s founding and consider how perhaps even conservatives have since then become de facto socialists, accepting the leviathan state as inevitable. But it’s not inevitable if they vote against it when history hands them that chance.

Words as such we haven't heard from Republicans in a long, long time. Very good to see the NRO is finally giving some, albeit a little, support to an actual conservative candidate instead of trying to convince us faux credentials of another politician

[Migraine]

We have our doctrinal differences within the conservative movement; but I don’t really want to discuss those here. My fear is that columns such as this one might take a single-digit candidate, one with an ego at that, and make him think: “Hmmmm; 3rd Party Run?”. After all, he is from the same state as the last guy who did, and has the same initials. That’s scary because the last guy who did gave us 8 years of BJ and HRC. My nightmare is that HRC might offer this RP a lot of money to go 3rd party and he might just do it, especially with a little encouragement from the likes of Natl Review.

[trisham]

The author is delusional. Paul is the worst possible opponent to Hillary. He has zero charisma and looks like a deer in the headlights when in front of a camera.

[Red Badger]

Cold Fusion............

[zencat]

Not a Ron Paul supporter, but I like him in the mix at this point (too much an isolationist). However, I feel adds to the debate about the role of the federal government.

Many times, the debate between the R and the D boil down to how much the feds will do for you:

R = whatever you want
D = everything, regardless of whether you want it

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Paul's statements speak for themselves...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865449/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854076/posts

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst021207.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm

[fireforeffect]

More Fission than Fusion. Unless it is Cold Fusion.

[Oliver Optic]

I’m not sure yet about voting for him (still mulling the foreign policy thing) ... but I’m thankful Rep. Paul is putting constitutional government back on the table for debate.

If, in the name of electability and “winning,” we are scared to nominate someone who will challenge the oppressive nanny-state government ... we have already lost.

[88keys]

From the article: "He plainly gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in 2006...

...he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with Hillary...

...and — here’s the clincher — he gets a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot.

"Think about it: Clinton has already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join the Ron Paul 'love revolution.' "

Hmmm...something for everyone here!! Or does that translate to almost no one ends up with anything, ideologically speaking?

/ being "fused", LOL!!

[MNJohnnie]

Isolationism is not a Conservative value.

[George W. Bush]

Pinging some RP supporters and some others posting on the threads today.

A fresh new shocker from the FEC, reported by Army Times. It turns out that now that the FEC has verified the employers, that Ron Paul is leading McStain (by a nose) among active-duty personnel!

RP's total military employee contributions: $22,140
RP's total active duty contributions: $14,840

---

From the August 6 edition of The Army Times (print edition only, not online):

Washington

Surprise fave among troops

WHAT'S UP: Among Republicans running for president, the anti-war candidate — Texas Rep. Ron Paul — has the highest total of campaign contributionns from service members, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission reports. Paul collected $14,840 from service members, slightly more than the $14,775 collected by Arizona Sen. John McCain, a supporter of the war in Iraq. The other Republican candidates got $2,600 or less from contributors who identified themselves as service members.

WHAT'S NEXT: Paul, who served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force in the 1960s, and McCain, a Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, could not be further apart in their views of the Iraq war, which is the biggest military issue so far in the 2008 campaign that is just beginning. The current front-runner in the race, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, received $2,550 from military contributors, the FEC report shows.

---

Read 'em and weep, all you Paul-hating big-government trolls. Two-thirds of his support is from troops, matched by McStain. And the other pro-war GOP candidates can't break $2600! Your denials and fantasies have been exploded by ArmyTimes, well, unless they're another Leftie rag. LOL.

Earlier related threads:

• Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with one-third of military contributions for Q2
• Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain
• Military support for the Republican candidates (Ron Paul wins)

[note to the Ron Paul cadre: we have two good RP threads already. We may post this tidbit as a thread tonight or tomorrow because we don't want to abuse FR with RP articles, especially since the other campaigns are so boring and dead in the water at present. Certainly, it isn't our fault that RP gets so much attention but we should be reasonable, I think.]

[Nephi]

Todd Seavey makes a sound conservative argument for Ron Paul. Certainly, Ron Paul's opposition to the war is a stumbling block for some Republicans. (If only George W. Nixon wanted to win the war as bad as his war supporters do.) Unfortunately, simple minds interpret his comments against the war to be an echo of "blame the US." It isn't and he's consistent. He's blaming the globalists. Recently, we've heard of $150-190 billion going to Palestinians; arms deals with Saudis who were 17 of the 19 terrorists and US visas for thousands of Muslims. Globalists don't have a very good record and I don't fault Ron Paul for opposing them.

It is mystifying that freerepublic, a forum established to promote conservatism, seems to dismiss the only Republican candidate that actually represents conservatism. Sadly, many Republicans view the primary process as a horse race. Pick your horse to win now and stay with him 'til the end. It could do the Republican party good if a vast majority of freepers got behind Ron Paul if only to drive the rest of the candidates to the right. Instead, Republicans seem to have gotten behind the one candidate who is a better fit for the Democrat party...Rudy. Or, one who is an empty suit save for his close ties to McCain and McCain/Feingold.

How is conservatism ever going to get a chance to shine if conservatives don't have the spine to get behind one during the primary process?

[cva66snipe]

since in a one-on-one match-up with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he could fare remarkably well.

Hillary can talk to the right of Rudy, Mitt, John, and even Fred. But she can not talk more Conservative than Ron Paul. If the GOP choices can't out debate Ron Paul on Conservative issues then she sure can't.

[LibertarianInExile]

“Get Paul through the primaries, to the Republican nomination, and he has the tools to take on Hillary. He plainly gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in 2006, he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with Hillary, and — here’s the clincher — he gets a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot.”

Bears repeating.