Posted on 12/30/2007 8:30:31 AM PST by imd102
It won't matter how high Ron Paul finishes in the Iowa caucuses this Thursday or in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 or anywhere else. He's already won his prize....
In April, shortly after he announced he'd run for president, Paul told the Trib that his goal -- besides winning, of course -- was to make an impact on the race and to spread his ideas about maximizing freedom, limiting the federal government and practicing nonintervention overseas....
Though his presence at the debates has shown what a bunch of unprincipled, flip-flopping, war-loving, faux conservatives Messrs. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain are, Paul's political impact on the primaries has been minimal -- so far....Paul, as debate-watchers know, is the anti-Mitt Romney....
But sometimes winning the election isn't what matters in the long run. Ideas do.
Remember Barry Goldwater? His crushing defeat in 1964 reinvigorated conservatism and spawned the Reagan Revolution. In a country still cruising down the road to socialism, Ron Paul's success in selling freedom is a sign of hope.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Sounds like an all night bong party just broke up.
That’s not the official campaign logo. That’s one of the logos created by the grassroots.
Bolton agrees with Paul
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton says U.S. intervention in Pakistani politics was a factor in the assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
“In part the United States is responsible for this by pushing (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf to try and cut a deal with Benazir Bhutto, by encouraging her to go back in the country, by trying to act like we could have a democratic election campaign in a situation with great instability,” Bolton told the Fox News Channel this afternoon.
If I want a candidate who talks like this, and whose supporters talk like this...I already know where to find Denny Kucinich, thanks.
He is mildly reminiscent of the politicians who gained a voice but little political power during the Viet Nam war. Some people love a guy who finds a reason to run away from our military commitments and cut any support to Israel. I doubt that if their were no war that these same people would want a guy who wants to end social security, medicare, medicaid, and make them all pay more for college.
I can see how Paul would scare someone like you who apparently is all for the Bush/Congress sound economic policy that has led to unprecedented deficits and a dollar that is worth less than the Canadian loon.
I could spend all day on where Ron Paul is right and where he is wrong. But, because the SOB has said some of the most unbelieveable things that nobody agees with, it is useless to respond to the mans views.
We got a fast growing third party started in this country. Yet even the constitution party hasnt learned to go slow in their march to get us back to the Supreme Laws of the land-The US Constitution.
I dont agree with everything either the GOP or Constitution party platforms put down. But these past years have driven me more toward the latter as the former has become another liberal party.
If these are his supporters then there is something dreadfully wrong with him as a candidate.
Those "unbelievable things" you mentioned are actually believed by many. Of course most of them inhabit the Sheehan/McKinney/Kucinich wing of the political spectrum.
Paul reminds me of Pat Paulsen only he’s a better comedian than Pat.
Yep and the cold light of a sober dawn allowed reality to intrude for just one moment. More of his supporters should sample reality sometime.
You can stereotype his supporters as a bunch of lunatics, but I see real people getting involved in politics for the first time. And it's about time because none of the other statists are talking about the real issues facing this country like Dr. Paul is.
Actually, the Ron Paul campaign has proved is that any cult leader who can gather enough followers can make the evening news sometime.
Wrong. He would have my support, war or no war. I’m really tired of paying 38% of my income to support our Army propping up two bit dictators, paying for medical care of illegals when I can’t afford it, having to ask permission from the federal government to do just about anything, politicians who lie through their teeth - I could go on and on.
By the way, I’m a life long Republican, spent 18 years as a military dependent wife, and between my husband and ex-husband, 52 years of military service.
I supported Afganistan and if and when we decide to take out the Saudi government I’ll support that. Israel doesn’t need our help, we just get in the way. And what possible reason do we have for sending foreign aid to the Palestinians?
Why do you think most of the world hates us? Because we are determined to tell them how to live. And send our military in to *support* them.
Ask my husband or ex-husband how they felt, playing policeman to the world. I’m wasting my breath - I know. End of rant.
The Patriot post gave some good explanations of Ron’s questionable policies.
Ron Paul (Read our commentary http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=546) Patriot Rating: 4
[snip] Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?
The key is the difference between the meanings of “libertarian” and “conservative.” As for Ron Paul’s status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by “conservative” I always mean “constitutional conservative”), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.
Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty — the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.
Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of “the one and the many.” Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society’s individuals.
Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism — the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.
In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).
Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.
Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues — the one area where the Constitution couldn’t be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in “empire building” and cavalierly dismisses as a war “sold to us with false information.” While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul’s criticism repeatedly lends them credence.
This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul’s view of Iraq as a “war of choice” conjured up by war profiteers and “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.
“That’s not the official campaign logo. That’s one of the logos created by the grassroots.”
When you say “the grassroots” are you referring to Ron Paul’s Moveon.org people or to George Soros himself?
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.