GOP's Ron Paul wants all troops home

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 09/12/07 | JOEL CONNELLY

[JTN]

And anyone who can assign "logic" to someone like Ahmadinejad has got to be of the moonbat persuasion.

You would have a point if Ahmadinejad had any real power. He may act like he does, but he doesn't.

[mnehring]

These 65 pages of requests are from March 2007 alone:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

The point isn’t even that he requests earmarks. It is that he claims to be against them while requesting them at the same time.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Hate to be the one breaking the sad news to you, but Ron Paul is making himself a joke.

To be perfectly fair, however, Jim: he's getting one holy hell of a lot of help from his supporters hereabouts, on that one. ;)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Y'all are getting paid by AIPAC? When did that start? Or do us lowly Sidebar Mods only get RNC stipends?!?

Those gals in Accounting! FReepmail me; I'll see to it your check gets cut next week. ;)

[mnehring]

If it wasn’t for his supporters, I know I wouldn’t have scrutinized his record so carefully.

[BlackElk]

Can you name a single "declaration of war" issued by any nation since the adoption of the UN Charter???? Why do you suppose??? Nonetheless, wars continue to be fought since they continue to be necessary. There is nothing magic about the three little words trhat is not resolved by Congressional action in the nature of authorization of the use of military force. The president IS the Commander in Chief. He ought not be restrained from acting in a military crisis without the usual Congressional moonbats dithering and trying to micromanage military action. Congress's role is to authorize military force and appropriat the funds, getting the hell out of the way of military decision making thereafter.

The War Powers Act was a scheme of the usual gang of antiAmerican, antiwar Congresscritter suspects enacted in mid-war when Nixon was politically crippled. Among the ringleaders of that treasonous legislation were: Frank Church, George McGovern, Gaylord Nelson, and seven others who were simultaneously purged by an enraged electorate on that most American of revolutionary conservative nights when they also kicked Carter out of office and turened the nation back over to the grownups. As an added benefit, we got rid of the soviet union within a decade of that night. Of course, there were also allegedly GOP folks who proved to be quislings at that time: John Sherman Cooper, Jacob Javits, and Charles someone or other from Maryland come immediately to mind as paleoPaulies of their day. When soon they were out of office, they were never missed. Nor will Hagel be missed. Maybe a genuine Republican can replace John Warner and some of the cautiouscrats like Lugar.

[George W. Bush]

Elk, no one is denying he submits all of the earmark requests he receives. And he publishes them online, unlike a lot of pols who won't reveal their earmarks.

via CNN: Ron Paul's earmarks, PDF file, about 65 single pages with sparse text, 1 page per earmark request.

Previously, I dug around on RP's own site and he had the link there but I had to google it to find it. But maybe RP is just playing hide-the-shrimp with all you Paul-haters.

[Iwo Jima]

AHA! I thought so. I always had my eye on you. I said to myself, "Self, that Lead Moderator looks to me like a UN loving, Earl Warren suckup."

Boy, does it ever satisfy me that I have at long last been proved to be right!

Seriously, though, stop using "Bircher" as an epithet. As far as I can see, they have been right on important issues more than they have been wrong. And the things that they may have been wrong on have on the whole been fairly trivial in the broad scheme of things.

[ladyinred]

Oh gee, where do I sign up to vote for this guy???? /sarcasm of course!

[Iwo Jima]

I am a libertarian who almost always votes Republican. I believe in the traditional American, Constitutional, libertarian, and conservative principle of non-interventionism. I believe that Ron Paul has misapplied that principle in some respects with respect to terrorism.

I believe in the gold standard. I reject the concept of fiat currency.

While I am not the most learned Constitutional scholar, I am hardly ignorant of the Constitution. It is my lodestar, and I ever strive to understand and correctly apply it.

I hope that that you find that information satisfactory. If not, guess how much I care...

[Iwo Jima]

Come, now, you can’t honestly think that such a juvenile post will elicit a response?

[L.N. Smithee]

Although described as a libertarian, the physician-politician is a throwback on stands that used to define "conservative" in America -- defense of individual liberties, a minimalist federal government and freedom from foreign entanglements.

Oh, puhleeze...what thesaurus does this writer use that doesn't contain the word "isolationist"? He's avoiding that word for a reason.

[JTN]

The difference is Thompson doesn’t make him out to be the champion of anti-earmarks. I’m not harping on Paul’s earmarks per say, but the fact he says one thing but does another.

Nonsense

He made a point of talking about pork barreling spending and the budget. Thompson said that Republicans "lost the advantage" in budgetary issues because they also over spent and did not do anything to get the budget under control. He said, "We went to drain the swamp and became the alligators."

He singled out Tom Coburn and John McCain as two senators he thought were principled on budgetary issues. When I mentioned Democratic Senator Kent Conrad as another budget hawk, he acknowledged that but said Senator Conrad was just as insistent as anyone else in bringing pork back to his home state.

Senator Thompson said it was too hard to change the system when the accomplishments were so minor and the setbacks were so large. To be clear, I didn't bring up the budget issue, he did. It seemed to be his primary source of frustration with his time in the Senate.

So, as you can see, he's a hypocrite. I'll be waiting for your statement that you're withdrawing your support.

[Petronski]

I will say this: The constitution specifies no particular language necessary to effect a declaration of war...it is congressional approval of military action, nothing more.

[Iwo Jima]

I do not respond to posts in which Ron Paul is referred to as “Ru Paul.” That brands you as an insincere, juvenile, small-minded person who is not worth my time.

[eleni121]

Oh for goodness sake... this self appointed national shrew (and take hildebeast with him) needs to go on vacation permanently.

[Iwo Jima]

Candy-ass. Impeach him posthumously!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

And if Ron Paul opposes such an amendment, then he should properly be excoriated.

Fred Thompson opposes it too.

Should he be excoriated also?

[George W. Bush]

Senator Thompson said it was too hard to change the system when the accomplishments were so minor and the setbacks were so large.

Actually, this is quite similar to the kinds of things Ron Paul says about earmarks, earmark/pork reform, etc. Of course, you get the same remarks from McStain or any long-time legislator.

Not too surprising. This is the general view by a lot of old-time Republicans whose ideal is small-government. And you can't have small-government with big-government revenues. If you don't take that money out of federal hands, that money will find a home and constituents in future elections.

[mnehring]

And he publishes them online..

Is that the newest talking point? I don't know, I like the 'he submits but he votes against them' better. If he really does publish his earmarks online, then I'm sure you'll be able to produce more than just the March 2007 ones that CNN dug up in an investigative report in July?