Replies

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans claim to be the Party of the Constitution, the Party of States Rights, the Party of Small Government, the Party of Personal Liberty, the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, ... and how they continually bitch about the Democrats abusing the Constitution, and expanding the Constitution, ... but when a true constitutionalist emerges in their midst, someone who has throughout his political career voted in strict support of the Constitution, they can do nothing but bash him and his supporters. I guess it demonstrates just how two-faced some Republicans can be.

Yes, Republicans are two faced, the worst are on FR.

It could have nothing to do with

1--His foreign policy proposals bear no relation to Republican Party positions, are much closer to the far, far left of the Democrat Party.

2--In this splendid Congressional career, he appears to have accomplished nothing. Other than polishing his reputation as a curmudgeon. If his district likes him, great, but an inability to accomplish one's objectives is not a recomendation for a position of leadership.

‘2—In this splendid Congressional career, he appears to have accomplished nothing. Other than polishing his reputation as a curmudgeon. If his district likes him, great, but an inability to accomplish one’s objectives is not a recomendation for a position of leadership.’

About twice a week I read a post, or a part of a post, and think ‘Damn, wish I wrote that one.’

The above is a great example of this. Well done.

"His foreign policy proposals bear no relation to Republican Party positions, are much closer to the far, far left of the Democrat Party."

And the Republican Party foreign policy bears no relation to the Constitution. FWIW, Ron Paul introduced a Declaration of War bill against IRAQ in Congress and his Republican cohorts wouldn't support it. According to the War Powers Act, the President can send troops into combat for up to 60 days without a declaration of war--how long have we been in Iraq?

...an inability to accomplish one's objectives is not a recommendation for a position of leadership..."

So you would rather have a President whose positions are dictated by the polls or by what Congress will pass, rather than positions based on principles? For me, I respect a President with principles and who leads based on those principles. Obviously a growing number of Americans agree with his principles and his view on reducing the power and cost of government--now if we could just get the rest of the Republican Party to vote for the principles they claim to support rather than campaigning on promises and voting for the lobbyists.