Posted on 11/11/2007 12:39:35 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican
I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.
(snip)
So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
If he’s funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians and members of the Green Party to win the Republican nomination, not very…
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbull.com ...
Even the Revolutionaries had disagreements among themselves. They still stood unified against the British empire. Even after the war there were bitter disagreements among the delegates during the Constitional covention. From what I have seen of documents at the time, they would make this forum look mild in comparison.
I am simply pointing out that Paul is using the SAME tactics used by Specter in Specter's last election provided gratis by the Democrat party of PA and George Soros. I'm sure these two are not the only candidates using the method to seek election or to screw up a primary with Democrat voters.
I have NO IDEA where you get that I think it is fine for Democrats to nominate the Republican nominee. Maybe you better re-read my post. I am just telling you that in PA in Specter's last election, his party that he actually represents, the Democrats, devised a method for him to win re-election by screwing up a closed Republican primary with Democrat votes, allowing him to be re-elected as a Republican.
Ron Paul appears to be using the SAME method in the Republican presidential primary that Specter employed while BOTH received Soros' support and $.
The operative phrase there is “all of this”, meaning the article’s prior ravings that the Paul campaign is the captive of left-wing Trojan horse plotters. What nonsense!
The obvious fact is that Ron Paul is the ONLY semi-credible candidate in either party who says he will end the Iraq war in three months, and quite obviously means what he says. Therefore it’s quite understandable that this reactionary Taft-Republican grandpa has scooped up the single-issue antiwar support in both major parties. Why this should worry me, or any other Republican, I can’t imagine.
I started this campaign as a Tancredo supporter, and I still like both him and Duncan Hunter; but neither of their campaigns has taken off at all. Apart from his Liberalism, Giuliani will be dragged down by his closeness to Bush, and Bernie Kerik going to jail. Fred Thompson can unite the party, but his campaign seems to be lagging. Mitt Romney is a talented chameleon who I now consider the front-runner; but does he really believe in anything besides getting elected? As for Ron Paul, the only question worth discussing is whether his proposed policies are right or wrong for the USA. His proposed foreign policy might lead straight-away to Japan and Iran with nuclear weapons and a dire fate for Israel. On the other hand, if we bomb Iran won't the Islamist Pakis just give them another bomb to revenge themselves with? I think they will. And if we are truly too broke to play world policeman anymore, we might as well bring our troops home and pretend it was our own idea. I'm really not sure any more what is the correct foreign policy for our country to follow. What Ron Paul proposes is a drastic break from the recent past, but I'm no longer certain that he is wrong. As a Republican and American, I'd like to hear a further debate. Then we will vote!
This is the only post I've seen on this thread that makes sense!
There’s a simple way to settle this debate.
Find me a Ron Paul supporter who is not against the war on terror in Iraq? Who understands and supports keeping terrorists on the run by fighting them on foreign soil.
You call it nonsense, yet all of the supporting referrences in the column are legit and credible. That’s fine... if that’s how you see it.
But tell me, are you for keeping the war on terror or foreign soil instead of our own and supporting RP strictly on the basis of his “conservative” domestic comments?
Again I ask, Spector did so in a state general election, Paul is doing it in a national party primary that will decide the party nominee for the highest office in the land.
Do you NOT see the significant difference?
Hey it’s not Presione 1 para Inglés yet.
Practice saying “Resident Paul”!
Fixed it for you.
And yes that’s RESIDENT as in resident of a Texas nursing home where he belongs.
Rendell prior to being governor of PA was the head of the DNC under Bill Clinton. There is little doubt in my mind that this is a tried and true method of screwing up closed Republican primaries, state or federal, employed by the Democrat party.
( I didn’t get a good answer for this in another thread.)
If Ron Paul was in charge at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis and negotiations did not convince USSR to remove the missiles, would he use every available weapon in our arsenal including nuclear bombs to obliterate the missiles and launch sites to protect America?
Does Ron Paul’s non-intervention include nuclear missiles in Cuba with China pulling the strings?
BTW, my leftist friends are very disenchanted, and may be proto-conservatives ready for the ring of truth. One lady tells me she's getting tired of working 3 extra jobs to put her kids through college only to lose 40% in taxes. Many friends have been smarting from AMT for years and know our congresscritter could care less about it. Folks are starting to feel a little well-used. It's not going to be business as usual in this election.
WRONG!!!! Specter and the Democrats did this in the PRIMARY, not the general election. Sorry I did not catch this and understand that you have your facts all screwed up. Go back and re-read my post on how it was done.
You've GOT to be kidding. You must have missed the picture I recently obtained of a high-level Ron Paul for President strategy session.
Do these people look dangerous to you?
Hank
I’m trying to understand your point???
One Republican candidate will be chosen to represent the entire Republican Party in the 2008 Presidential election.
Are you saying that you think it’s fine for Democrats to pick that nominee? Or are you just pointing out that this is not a new tactic?
Do you know Ron Paul personally? What makes you think that he’ll reject all the information offered to him by the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, NSA, and every other group of professionals, executives and intellectuals, who have a full career in their particular area?
What makes you think he will become a ornery king?
Great question, but I’m the wrong guy to answer it.
Best I can tell, Ron Paul believes if we just leave all the evil people in the world alone, they will leave us alone.
Of course, history has proven this to be a faulty belief system repeatedly for thousands of years.
“I suspect many would vote for Hillary over Paul simply to avoid national suicide from retreat...”
Not me, I’d denounce my citizenship and move to Iceland before I cast a vote for paul or see the cloven-hooved hildebeast take the oath of office.
“What makes you think he will become a ornery king?”
Where did I say that?
You asked this question:
>If Ron Paul was in charge at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis and negotiations did not convince USSR to remove the missiles, would he use every available weapon in our arsenal including nuclear bombs to obliterate the missiles and launch sites to protect America?
Does Ron Paul’s non-intervention include nuclear missiles in Cuba with China pulling the strings?<
Questions that nobody can answer. So what do you suspect he’ll do, become a ornery king?
Selling small government to Republicans, in particular conservatives is a no brainer. We all buy that, we just can’t find too many politicians who can accomplish it. In part, that’s because too many Americans are demanding a never ending stream of government solutions to personal problems.
Where most conservatives disagree with Paul is on national security and foreign policy. It’s no more complicated than that.
But where we become angry with the Paul campaign, is when it adopts the leftist talking points of the anti-national security left and uses leftist money to promote party-jumping in an organized effort to hijack the Republican nomination process.
Now, there is NO debate as to whether or not this is true. All you have to do is go to many Ron Paul campaign sites and read their promotions of just that.
The idea that a Republican nominee for the highest office in the land should be funded or chosen by leftists who simply agree with the anti-war rhetoric he adopted from them, is insane.
If you can’t understand why that is causing such anger towards his campaign, after all his poll spamming and heated leftist rhetoric against the war on terror, then I can’t help you much...
We disagree on the biggest issue facing our nation today, not the idea of smaller government.
And we sure disagree on the topic of leftists funding and picking the Republican nominee...
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.