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 ...
Well, so far he seems to think an immediate surrender in Iraq is in our best interest. I just wondered how far his non-interventionist border extended.
uhh... and just how, pray tell, do you intend/propose to do this?
I’m still trying to understand???
Are you pointing this out in support of it being a legitimate practice, or just one that has been used by the left before?
I’ll concede you have your facts right, or even that it has been done many times in state primaries. Are you suggesting that this is a good practice? This is how you think the Republican nominee for the highest office in the land should be chosen?
That’s my only question...
Speaking of twisting rationalizations.....
I’ve seen paul called the “Thomas Jefferson of our day”. As well as his supporters saying that the pork he appropriated is ok because he voted against the bill or that he’s “just returning the money to his constituents”. Not to mention the one supporter on here who swears up and down that our borders are “international territory”. And they say that it’s ok that he requested funding for the I69/TTC/NAFTA Superhighway because he’s still against NAFTA and wants to restore our sovereignty.
Yep, they look ignorant and ignorance can be very costly...
If Paul IS relevant then he IS dangerous. Thankfully he isn't relevant as far as actual Republicans are concerned so he will not be the Republican nominee.
A vast majority of Republicans support the existence of the Department of Homeland Security and still fight the good fight to make sure national security is enhanced as reasonably necessary while still retaining valid privacy safeguards.
What is not going to happen is a complete dismantaling of the D of HS. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY EITHER PARTY so it is an absolute waste of time to turn to a candidate that may have a couple valid critiques but then wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is why Paul could NEVER be considered seriously as the Commander-In-Chief. His idea of the military is that it is a standard military-industrial-complex-scam in peacetime and a super-sized military-industrial-complex-scam during war. His lack of support for D of HS matches his lack of support for the military because he will not acknowledge the basic structure, hiearchy, etc. necessary for either department. He doesn't need to - just highlight some imperfection and then say, "Scrap the whole kit-and-kaboodle!"
That is the sure sign of an appeaser and a simple thinker playing only to emotions (so much like the left) and I thank God 99% of Republicans agree.
The man has been in congress for thrity years or so. He has seen most if not all of the intelligence reports and still ignores the expert advice on the subject...
That’s what makes me think so...
Amen trooper!
He’s saying Paul has all these leftist supporters and then says that “if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal.”
If Paul was so liberal that why would he taking the most conservative republican voters, wouldn’t he start siphoning the moderate republican voters first?
Why would the most conservative republicans be attracted to a man with all these leftist supporters? This is the contradiction in this article I was alluding to. I suggest that he does not have many leftist supporters, that most of his suppporters are very conservative, with some libertarians and independents sprinkled in.
On your second point, I think there are many conservative republicans who may be uneasy with aspects of Paul’s foreign policy, but find his domestic record so remarkable they are willing to overlook it. And, even so, most Republicans agree with the general principle of a humble foreign policy, with nonintervention, and no nationbuilding. It is only when you apply it to the specific situation in Iraq where you start loosing them.
What would Reagan do?
He wouldn’t retreat from the war on terror, or invite it back upon our own shores, that’s for damn sure...
Paul (38%) Clinton (48%)
Paul (33%) Obama (50%)
Someone else raised your first point earlier. It would have been better stated to say that outside (non-Republican) voters brought in by the Paul Campaign would cancel Republican nomination votes, leaving the candidate with the largest minority of party support atop the nomination, most likely Rudy as it stands.
In this way, they would have a result reverse of their stated desires, but one very good for our leftist enemies.
I would agree mostly, on your second point. I have yet to meet a “pro-war” American. But I know a lot of pro-national security Americans, the best ones being conservative Republicans.
We all know that “liberals” aren’t liberal anymore. They don’t believe in or support individual freedom on liberty at all anymore. That’s why we don’t want them choosing our party nominee... or monkeying around in the RNC nomination process.
But you’re right, no conservative supports nation building. They just don’t agree with Paul that nation building is what is happening in Iraq.
The divide between Paul and conservatives is his leftist rhetoric on the war on terror. What makes it a heated situation is the tactics of the Paul campaign, in an effort to overpower that disagreement with leftist money and voters.
Liberty and Freedom are not suicidal tendencies!
Hillary will get about 45% of the popular vote IMO. That means to win, the Republican will need at least 46%. That will be hard to do with either Ron Paul, who will leave the national security conservatives out in the cold, or Giuliani, who will leave many of the social conservatives out in the cold.
I don’t expect any third party bolt, like in ‘92 and ‘96. But voters will stay home in disgust in both of these cases.
Today, to get more than 45% of the popular vote, Republicans will not be able to leave any voters at home. We MUST have a candidate who will unite the vote, not divide it.
Paul is more polarizing within the party than Giuliani because conservatives put national security ahead of all domestic issues, especially social issues.
They will give up social issues before national security.
“are you for keeping the war on terror or foreign soil instead of our own”
I am in favor of winning the war against Islamism. To do that we need a united America. 3 or 4 years ago if Bush had dealt forcefully with Syria and Iran, he would have had my support. But he dithered and delayed, and now that moment has passed.
It’s reasonable for supporters of the Iraq war to claim that fighting there has spared the USA. I’m not sure that it’s true, but it’s a reasonable argument. There have been several domestic plots over the past 4 years, but excellent police work by NYC and the FBI have caught the bad guys before they could do their dirty deeds. Well done!
If we, in some fantasy, elect Ron Paul President, he brings our troops home, and our country is then attacked again by Islamists, there would be total national unity on a declaration of war and a devastating response. Even Ron Paul, after all, voted for the Afghan war resolution. Personally I like Tom Tancredo’s plan of holding Mecca and Medina hostage for our country’s peace and tranquility. The outrage from CAIR that greeted Tom’s idea was a sure indication he was on the right track. If you like, add Teheran to Tom’s list.
But if we are still mucking around in the Middle East, and our country is attacked again, there will be no national unity on what to do; just endless recriminations.
So to really win the war on Islamism, it may be that the best thing to do is come home, issue dire and draconian warnings, and then await events. It will be a terrible experience for the rest of the world to try to survive without its American super-cop sugar-daddy. But I’m an American, and I really want what’s best for the USA.
How much was the average donation from these 150 switchees? Without that info this article is absolutely useless. Is your post supposed to make a point favorable for Ron Paul?
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.