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 ...
We're going to "roll back decades of federal government largesse" by supporting a party that doesn't want to.
We’re going to “roll back decades of federal government largesse” by electing Hillary.
Makes about as much sense.
The only way RP would get a 10th of what he has said he stands for would be to declare himself king. Think Freepers and Glenn Beck are tough on the Paul-lites? Wait until the House and Senate have at him.
Sad but true. Revolutions don’t start from the top down.
Imagine this Ron Paul energy directed at ousting the Republicans that have strayed too far from the path.
Targeting 20 house members and 5 Senators.
We’re “going to roll back decades of federal government largesse” by listening to people who argue that we can’t do it.
Excuse me for butting in, but your response (listenhillary) to tacticalogic's statement made me wonder: which would you prefer, a Ron Paul presidency, or a Hillary Clinton presidency?
Indeed. Imagine all the other candidates held to the same standard with regards to being vilified for every single federal dollar that went to their constituents.
You mean this? Sarcasm...
We’re going to “roll back decades of federal government largesse” by electing Hillary. Makes about as much sense.
~~~~~~
I would take Ron Paul any day over Hillary. But if wishes were gold, I’d be retired now and out on my fishing boat.
Putting all of this energy in to Ron Paul does nothing to prevent a Hillary president. That is MY opinion. I’m sure Ron Paul’s followers have another opinion.
Ron Paul is unelectable in a presidential contest. You are moving mountains with coke spoons. It comes right right out of Hillary’s playbook. Divide, splinter, shave off factions and play them against each other.
You will notice that Nader isn’t getting any serious support this time?
I notice that "reducing the size of the federal government" isn't getting any support.
The other candidates are not saying they will cut government to the bone while taking the same pork. Maybe they shouldn’t be held up to the RP mirror?
I notice that “reducing the size of the federal government” isn’t getting any support.
Giving RP the R nomination and electing Hillary will get you smaller government?
Thanks for your reply.
But your statement above is really a non-starter, because, quite frankly, putting all of this energy into any current Republican candidate does nothing to prevent a Hillary presidency. Hillary is going to win or lose the Democrat nomination no matter what candidate wins the Republican nomination; the two processes are wholly separate, and are participated in only by the partisans of each party. And after eight years of Republican rule under George W. Bush, the most unpopular president since Richard Nixon, 2008 is really the Democrat's election to lose. This, of course, does not make me happy, but we must be realistic.
Show me where Ron Paul said that, and we'll see. Till then, you're just another voice telling me reducing the size of the federal government isn't really an important enough issue to avoid wild claims and hyperbole so there can be a rational discussion about it.
So I take it that the Bush Tax cuts meant nothing. We would have been better off with 4 or 8 years of Albert Gore at the helm.
Would Albert Gore have cut taxes in response to 9/11?
Finding reasons why we have to keep electing "mainstream" Republicans who want more government programs will? I don't see any end to that arrangement, nor any progress toward getting smaller government. The very best you could hope for is getting bigger government a little bit slower.
Tax cuts are good, but unless there’s a reduction in the size of the government to go with them the end result is simply a bigger national debt.
“Show me where Ron Paul said that, and we’ll see. Till then, you’re just another voice telling me reducing the size of the federal government isn’t really an important enough issue to avoid wild claims and hyperbole so there can be a rational discussion about it.”
Reducing the size of the Federal government is incredibly important, I’m just trying to get you all to see that supporting RP for president is not going to make it happen. You are not going to get what you expect.
Al Gore would not have cut your taxes. You seem to think Bush is so horrible, but the other option is unimaginable.
You think you're going to get it by tearing down every attempt he's ever made to actually reduce the size of the federal government because you don't like his foreign policy?
You're the one who's thowing out tax cuts as being sufficient all by themselves.
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.