It's always such a touching, special moment in electoral politics, whenever a candidate and his/her natural voting constituency "find" one another.
Posted on 10/10/2007 12:46:07 PM PDT by Baladas
The umbrella group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, whose members include such progressive groups as the Service Employees Union International and MoveOn.org Political Action, issued a laudatory shout out today to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate:
While Crowded Field of Republicans Follow Bush Over Cliff on Iraq War, Ron Paul Stands Out as Being Right on Iraq
GOP Presidential Hopeful Decries Fellow Candidates’ Support of Endless War
Washington, DC – While the rest of the Republicans continue to follow President Bush’s unpopular Iraq war policy, Representative Ron Paul is the lone anti-war Republican presidential candidate in the crowded GOP primary field. During yesterday’s debate he took his fellow Republicans to task for their support of President Bush’s policy of endless war in Iraq. While most of the candidates continued to saber rattle about Iran, the congressman refused to allow them to gloss over the most important issue facing Americans today.
Thus continue the striking paens to Paul coming from, of all places, liberals who would find themselves differing on a host of other, mainly but but not exclusively, domestic issues.
Paul, for instance, opposes many of the policies that are a given to many progressives. Obviously, there's a bit of the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my friend going on here.
Here's a useful, though admittedly lengthy excerpt from the Almanac of American Politics, 2004 edition that helps somewhat explain Paul:
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.chicagotribune.com ...
*cough* they want him third party *cough*
Check out the ensuing comments - yet ANOTHER Soros supporter who REALLY wants "freepers" to nominate this nutjob to prove to him "they have common sense".
Well, there you go. No Rue Paul. Wally Cox looking doofas.
It's always such a touching, special moment in electoral politics, whenever a candidate and his/her natural voting constituency "find" one another.
They’re loving him over at Salon.com, too.
Please, please Dr. Paul, make a third party run.
I’m not convinced that Ron Paul would be all that bad, really. He would probably steal more liberal votes than conservative.
Think about it. Anti-war, moonbats, conspiracy theorists, america-bashers. They all flock to Paul. And they all, for the most part, vote democrat. Or would vote dem before republican.
I hope ron paul runs third party. He would steal the moonbat vote and a lot of antiwar/codepink ignoramuses who would otherwise vote shrillary. They are much, much more numerous than the buchanite votes lost (who probably wouldn’t vote republican this time around anyway).
Truth outer? Please don’t.
Wally Cox, he was the Mr Peepers character in the ‘50s correct?
*************
The Left is so obsessed with President Bush, they simply cannot leave him out of this campaign.
He sounded just like ‘em last night with his “9/11 was done by 19 thugs, not by a country” comment -
like, hey dude, the guys who did it are dead, case closed.
Ron Paul, third party candidate. Al Gore, fourth. Nader, fifth. A five way race. That’ll make Hilldog piss her pants.
‘whose members include such progressive groups as the Service Employees Union International and MoveOn.org Political Action, issued a laudatory shout out today to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate:
While Crowded Field of Republicans Follow Bush Over Cliff on Iraq War, Ron Paul Stands Out as Being Right on Iraq
GOP Presidential Hopeful Decries Fellow Candidates’ Support of Endless War ‘
Ron Paul is supported by the organization that produced the ‘Betray Us’ ad in the New York Times a month ago, huh?
Its not surprising to those of us that follow politics.
Let me translate B.S. into English:
"Endless war" means: "a war that fought with a stated outcome, that eventually will end in victory, but since we don't have the patience to see that through, we'll just call it endless"
I agreee with most of both of yours analysis, the only problem I have is that there’d be no votes to steal - the majority of them simply won’t vote at all.
It’s too risky - the last time there was a serious third-party candidate we got Clinton.
iraqcampaign.orgAnd the YouTube of the commercial is:
I haven't found it actually airing yet, only playing via YouTube. We'll see how serious they are about supporting Ron Paul if they spend their own money to put it on TV and cable channels.YouTube - GOP Presidential Candidates Just Don't Get It on Iraq
True. But, there is a big difference between people who supported Perot and people who would support Paul.
Ah c'mon. It's not Paul. In the words of Carville 'It's the war issue, stupid' [hey not you!] The surge has got to work. If troops are still getting killed by election time, it's deep doo doo.
I'd love it. Every one of those candidates would pull votes from the Hillary base, not from the GOP side.
I wonder if we could get John Edwards to run on a sixth party. The Silky Pony Party or something like that?
Why shouldn’t the libs support Ron Paul? He’s one of them.
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.