Posted on 08/08/2007 2:35:26 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Rep. Ron Paul Isn’t Going Away *
When he deigned last month to include Ron Paul in his Sunday morning show, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told the Republican presidential candidate that he’d bet every last cent that Dr. Paul won’t end up in the White House.
He’s right, of course.
But that doesn’t mean that the 71-year-old congressman from Texas isn’t a surprising force in the 2008 race. He commands far more attention—from the media and from his opponents—than his low standing in the polls seems to warrant, has amassed an ideology-defying army of true believers through the Internet, and actually outraised some of his more seriously regarded G.O.P. foes in the most recent reporting period.
For now, Dr. Paul is mired in also-ran territory in national and early-state polls, indistinguishable from, say, Duncan Hunter, another congressman waging a seemingly futile bid. But Mr. Hunter peddles a safe (for a Republican), generic campaign message, one that won’t offend any crucial Republican constituencies but that also prevents him from building any measurable momentum. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, preaches a unique gospel of Constitution-based conservatism—and it’s getting him noticed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nyobserver.com ...
Suport Ron Paul...
Because 911 was our fault!!!
Ron Paul always brings back fond memories of that one particular summer of my youth when I had a boil on my butt that wouldn’t go away
Did you?
Rats.
You can't refute the fact that Paul has a burgeoning network of supporters and has more name recognition than most of the other Republicans, so you have to resort to name-calling.
Simple. It's his 'out of Iraq' stance that gathers the pro-Iraq war folks from all corners. Anyone who has this opinion is to be utterly destroyed continually in the media, low standing notwithstanding. This is intended to keep any other candidate from thinking along these lines. 70% of voters have to be reeducated.
Dr. Paul, on the other hand, preaches a unique gospel of Constitution-based conservatism—and it’s getting him noticed.It's so easy for hypocrits to "get noticed" in America. The press ALWAYS give hypocrits a free pass, even those on the Republican side (at least in this case).
Question for Mr. Paul: How about earmarks? How do they stand up to your sacred test of Constitutionality? And are you ashamed of all the earmarks you've bestowed on your district... or is it only OTHER PEOPLE'S lack of adherence to the Constitution that get your goat?
“so you have to resort to name-calling.”
Its NOT name calling when you call a spade a spade.
Identifying Ron Paul as a total loon is not name calling, its simply stating fact.
Calling his “just war concept” an excuse for cowardice and being unwilling to defend his country—is also a statement of fact.
Here’s another fact. Ron Paul is no more conservative than Ted Kenedy.
By Ron Paul
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
June 18, 2007
Last week’s big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
So does Hillary.
At least I didn't call him a Marxist Pig.
Just a pain in the ass.
It is a cinch that Ron Paul will be reelected in Texas - Look at his Pork shopping list - Federal money for the Texas wild Shrimp industry and more.
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
It is not his “out of Iraq” policy that makes me a supporter. It is because he doesn’t want to ram social conservative policies down everyone’s throats like many of the Republicans do. However, he doesn’t want to tax everyone to death like the Dems do and thinks spending should be addressed like neither party wants to do.
On the war issue, he makes a lot of sense. I have some reservations but the options we have are not good at all.
How convenient. He sees nothing wrong with earmarks.
Problem? What problem? No problem.
Next problem...
Really? The only disagreement with Paul that conservatives have is his foreign policy views, and I agree with half of what he says. So how come he's a loon but a pro-abortionist such as Giuliani is not?
On all the other issues, Dr. Paul is dead on. You do agree with Paul on the 2nd Amendment, limited government, and border security, don't you?
Here’s another fact. Ron Paul is no more conservative than Ted Kenedy.
Here's a fact: You're an idiot for suggesting this. Refute that.
Did Paul sing and dance with Jane Fonda? Go to anti-war rallies?
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.