Posted on 10/27/2007 9:01:09 PM PDT by freedomdefender
On the heels of a St. Anselm College poll showing Ron Paul in fourth place with 7 percent in New Hampshire, the candidate is starting to spend some of those millions he’s raised with radio ads and an upcoming TV ad. But Paul is also stepping up efforts in direct mail. The campaign put together a 12-page biographical pamphlet being mailed out in New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Presidential Watch blog reports, “The mailing comes at the same time that Ron Paul will spend $1 million on five New Hampshire television commercials.”
Paul has also spent $430,000 on a new radio ad, which will run in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada. The 60-second ad, an appeal to New Hampshire independents, mentions Paul’s name 11 times and focuses on conservative principles of spending, foreign policy and taxes and mentions “flip-flopping” Republicans and Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Oh. So we pretty much agree. Why are we arguing? A Monday thing, I suppose.
FYI you are even more incorrect about Ron Paul not supporting a Pro Life amendment.
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
Foot in mouth?
The Republicans sure have acted on it, didn't they? How about taking the approach Bush did, making speeches about life, appointing pro-life judges, and signing the partial-birth abortion ban? Waiting for a Constitutional Amendment means more babies die when at least some of them can be saved by overturning Roe vs Wade, or supporting Paul's HR 1094 which would have taken the federal courts out of it completely.
Ron "take the kid across the state line to Planned Parenthood" Paul doesn't suupport it either.
Nice smear. Paul voted against it because knew the bill would have been shot down by some lefty judge anyway. You don't have any idea on how to advance an agenda, do you? I'll take the Paul approach over the hail-mary approach Republicans want to use as bait for the conservative base every presidential and mid-term election.
They have not, one of GWB's many failings.
Nice smear. Paul voted against it because knew the bill would have been shot down by some lefty judge anyway. You don't have any idea on how to advance an agenda, do you? I'll take the Paul approach over the hail-mary approach Republicans want to use as bait for the conservative base every presidential and mid-term election.
So Ron Paul, Patriot, Constitutional expert without equal, who votes only the Constitution, come what may, earmarks excluded, votes against a bill barring transport of minors to purchase an abortion without parental consent across state lines because "some" judge might shoot the bill down.
I visualize President Paul, shaking in his boots (does he wear boots), cowering at the thought of signing a bill that might be overturned.
Were that the case, a despicable, sniveling coward.
Actually, he votes against the bill because he has not problem with transporting minors across state lines for abortions. Presumably nose jobs too. Nothing in the Constitution about that after all.
You know, you’d really do better just to attemp to defend Paul’s postitions, which are occasionally libertarian, on the war code pink left, and his associations with racists, white supremecists, and truthers. It wouldn’t be popular, why would you expect that on FR, it would be elsewhere, but it might feel better than every day, spin, spin, spin.
Not in the least, the full quote
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
I may or may not waste my time looking up his proposed amendment, but my recollection is that it returned the issue to the states, it did not define life as beginning at conception, the platform position. That's further supported by your link when Paul says.
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.
Clearly he prefers the authority rest with the state, something I'm not opposed to, but which I recognize is not a strong pro-life position.
And thanks for clarifying the state line issue.
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.
Banning the transport of a minor without parential permission across state lines to sell her an abortion is unconstitutional?
The Founders would have agreed.
As a Paul supporter, doesn't that embarass you?
Be honest, advocate the action.
New Hampsire is becomming more and more primary irrelevant every day.
Sure, sure. If you can find concrete evidence instead of trying to link Paul with Kevin Bacon, let me know.
Bush has done an excellent job on pro-life issues. Note to the pro-life purists: Try getting the first downs firsts instead of going for touchdowns all the time.
votes against a bill barring transport of minors to purchase an abortion without parental consent across state lines because "some" judge might shoot the bill down.
Great way to help the pro-life cause, eh? Let's pass a bill that NARAL would've immediately sued and been tied up on courts. Meanwhile, more minors will continue to get abortions. But we rustled conservatives out of the bed to vote for us!
No it doesn’t. The current Republicans in office work on it embarrasses me.
The First Commandment enjoins me not to have strange gods before the One True God. In that category, I would include the constitution and its authors to the extent that they may be deemed responsible for Roe vs. Wade and its 50+ million innocent infant victims to date.
Our constitution itself was the product of a revolutionary generation of statesmen known now as the Founding Fathers. The elected British government would have hanged the lot of them starting with Washington, Hamilton, Henry, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al., IF the American Revolution had been defeated. The FF were generally right and not morally deserving of execution or any other punishment. Fortunately, they won. My Church is a LOT older than our republic and, based on the promises of its Founder, will be here to the end, a guarantee not shared by the republic. Likewise 50+ million absolutely innocent babies have been wantonly slaughtered under a now quite perverted "rule of law" and that fact is rather permanent too as the death toll increases by the day. Dictatorship and no abortion or "democratic republic" with continued millions being slaughtered annually??? No brainer!
Ironically, you would not be asking the question but for the fact that SCOTUS ran amok on the abortion question (running roughshod over democracy and republicanism in its infernal rush to cause millions of babies to be killed en masse) on January 22, 1973 and ever since. Dictatorship of SCOTUS and dead babies by the millions (among several other subjects) or enforcing morality through government measures whether SCOTUS likes it or not??? Another no brainer. It is more than time to crush the self-created and self-serving powers of SCOTUS to restore our democracy and our republic ASAP.
Actually, I am a conservative. If you want nuts, try paleoPaulie’s webpage and campaign.
Also, considering that you are the source, that is a compliment.
You hit the nail on the head in observing that paleoPaulie would have no problem with the Planned Barrenhood Express taking young girls across statelines to states where aortionwould be, ummmm, "federalistically" allowed. After all, what's another 50 million to infinity sliced, diced and hamburgerized babies compared to disagreeing with paleoPaulie's eccentric "libertarian" "constitutional" imaginings????
Soon enough, paleosurrenderman will be an obscure historical footnote soon forgotten as the irrelevancy that he is and always has been.
“I think Grunthor is trying to be fair, wants me to be what he considers “fair” to Dr. Demento.”
Yes.
“I think I am quite fair to Dr. Demento but I disagree with Grunthor on that.”
Yes
“I also suspect that Grunthor is not a fan of paleoPaulie but Grunthor can speak for himself on that more authoritatively than I can speak for him.”
No. Not a fan.
If (not that this could happen in a zillion millenia) paleoPaulie somehow got his skeevie treasonous little paws on the office of POTUS, he would probably be too busy applying to potential SCOTUS justices litmus tests on the "constitutionality" of publicly owned (therefore "socialist") streets, lighthouses, national parks, Air Force bases, Marine Corps facilities, any weapons systems more modern than the blunderbuss, standing Army and Navy, West Point, Annapolis and other things inconsistent with the idiosyncratic ideology of the very late Lysander Spooner to remember to ask about abortion and even then he will not seek the SCOTUS remedy of personhood.
It doesn't matter anyway, I'm not voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I'm voting for Duncan Hunter. If he is out by then, I'll vote Tancredo. I dislike Ron Paul's current foreign policy especially Iraq now to vote for him as CinC but to criticise him on abortion is ludicrous when he's far better than 95%+ of Republicans in office.
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.