Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent Ron Paul, the Texas congressman stirring up the Republican presidential contest with his libertarian-leaning views and online fundraising prowess, left the door open Sunday to running as an independent, should he not win the Republican nomination.
Paul, who has railed against excessive federal spending, also defended his own earmarks to benefit his congressional district into spending bills, likening them to a "tax credit" for his constituents. He added that his position was consistent because he ultimately voted against the spending measures.
And he decried the Civil War, calling it a needless effort for which hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives. He rejected that the war spelled the end to slavery in the United States, saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them.
During a one-on-one interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert challenged Paul particularly hard on the earmarks, saying that the congressman inserted them because he knew the bills would pass even with Paul voting no.
"When you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in ... the spending bills, I think you'll be consistent," Russert said, one of his most direct criticisms of a candidate in recent memory.
Paul said that while the chance of his running as an independent was slim, "I deserve one wiggle now and then." He ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.
Paul also reviewed his no-government approach on a range of issues, including what he called the ill-advised involvement of the U.S. military in the Civil War.
Russert said, if it weren't for the Civil War, there'd still be slavery.
"Oh, come on," Paul replied. "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
I thought he had vowed previously that he wouldn’t make a third party run?
this a-hole will ensure the piaps ascendancy back to the White House!!!
what a maroon!!!
Yea, he’ll run as a third-party but he won’t vote for himself. That will make it OK.
What an idiot. The slaves were privately owned. They weren't owned by the CSA. Surely those whose income depended on slave labor wouldn't have sold out their labor force to the enemy. Why would they have done that? And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery. This comment is retarded on so many levels.
The southern states needed to preserve the slave system, which is why they bolted. The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution. End of story. Ron Paul is a moron.
And what if they did'nt want to sell? It's this kooky, simplistic thinking that makes him extremely dangerous.
I don’t much cotton to Paul but I do find his comments on slavery and it’s ending interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only a complete fool would say that without the Civil war there would still be slavery in this country! I thought Russert had more brains.
He’s playing to a niche market. Racists, confederate apologists, antisemtites, retarded IT workers, etc.
So, CNN and Washington Post are spinning it to make it sound like there's more of a chance...probably just to get folks here bent out of shape. I'm surprised how many are buying it.
Reckon the North could have kept their slaves,,,
This seems extremely naive. Wasn't the point that many "simply" didn't want to sell their slaves to the U.S. government?
I think he’s a nut.
Even though what you say makes perfect sense to anyone with two functioning brain cells, that still does not keep you from being an agent of the big fascist interests... /sarcasm
libertarian utopianism.
Dr. Paul better go back and read his history. The civil war was not about slavery. It was about economics.
The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting comment, exactly what part of the constitution required the northern states to go to war to prevent secession?
I am so busted. The Jooz made me do it!
I expect that those whose incomes depended on slave labor would have sold their slaves to the U.S. Gov't, bred some more and then sold some more. How long would that cycle have lasted?
Paul’s notion that the Confederacy could have been bought off (as though they would not have restocked their slave inventory) is great insight in how he would deal with Islamic radicals. Surely they can be bought off too - at least until the next time, when the price goes up logarithmically.
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.