Posted on 01/05/2008 4:46:48 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Starting today, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul is running a television ad - titled "Defender of Freedom" - in South Carolina.
"Congressman Paul has an unmatched record of defending the rights of Americans," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "This advertisement is about bringing Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity to potential voters. The more people know about Dr. Paul, the more support he gains."
The ad can be viewed here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmY-fW3gdc
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
ping
President Paul would have a mandate. Congress would be forced to take up some of his issues, or else find new employment two years down the road.
Dream on. He probably wouldn’t carry a single state, let alone have a mandate. And most legislators are virtually guaranteed reelection, no matter who the President is. There is no slate of Paulinista Congressional candidates running. Reagan really did have a mandate, but couldn’t accomplish that much because the Demonrats controlled Congress.
“Dream on. He probably wouldn’t carry a single state, let alone have a mandate. And most legislators are virtually guaranteed reelection, no matter who the President is. There is no slate of Paulinista Congressional candidates running. Reagan really did have a mandate, but couldn’t accomplish that much because the Demonrats controlled Congress.”
Whoever is propelled into the White House in 2008 will be getting the “Herbert Hoover Memorial Booby Prize”. The stresses on the polity are the cumulative effect of several decades of severe fiscal mismanagement, but the incumbent will be held accountable for any crackups that result, given the tunnel vision and tiny time horizon of the electorate.
Better to pay attention to local races and get best-possible local candidates elected. Best wishes to Paul, but I take him seriously mainly as a herald of some good ideas that will have greater traction later, rather than a candidate likely to be put into office now (and I strongly suspect he sees it that way too). Incidentally, he is not “draining away a vote from an electable candidate”, because I do not vote for the “lesser of two evils”. I always cast a ballot, but there are usually some blank spots, when none of the candidates are worthwhile.
I think there are several reasoned anti-Paul posts on this thread.
Basically, some of his economic and domestic positions are good, but on the main issue of our times, he sounds like the worst of the most liberal democrats.
And that’s naive and dangerous for our freedom.
It's different from most then. Perhaps they are getting tired of repeating the same garbage over and over.
but on the main issue of our times, he sounds like the worst of the most liberal democrats.
I'd be interested in specifically what it is that that you think is worst than the most liberal democrat? Personally, I don't agree with him entirely on foreign policy either, but I can't say I've found anyone I agree with completely.
I was at a local restaurant the other night in Manch where the Paulites hang out.
Two words:
Whack
Jobs
If you watched the debate tonight, his statements there were very good examples of what I refer to. Among other things, he said we had little to fear from terrorism, that the threat was over-rated. And once again he attributed Islamic terrorists attacks as caused by our foreign policy - and curable by changing that policy. That, I believe, is the basic far left view of American war mongering creating Islamic terrorism.
Also, a summary statement from Paul illustrates (from http://www.ronpaul2008.com)
"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."Now there is certainly good and valuable room for debate on pre-emptive military action and nation building. These are very different times with unique dangers and I sincerely wish we could have this debate.
However, I don't think Paul has the the knowledge of history or else is naive about the centuries-long struggle between Islam and civilization.
I think for many of us, much as we might like his stands on other areas of government, this stops us cold as far as his presidential candidacy is concerned.
I think Paul's problem with the issue of terrorism is that, like many folks these days, he doesn't see the broader threat islam in general and wahabbism in specific pose to our civilization. I'm pretty much with Mark Steyn on the issue of the danger islam presents to us, so I think that pretty much anything coming out of pols on either side is dangerous pollyanna thinking. President Bush calls it a "religion of peace"! There is also an article here on FR today about a fellow in the intellegence community being fired for basically doing his job and speaking plainly about the threats because it's not 'politically correct'.
Again, I didn't see exactly what he said, but in gen for G-d stake!eral, it is true that Americans individually have little to fear from terrorism. You're much more likely to be killed in traffic than by a terrorist on any given day. The actions FedGov has taken to combat terrorism domestically is somewhat laughable at times. They respond to the forcable hijacking of an airliner by islamicists by keeping me from taking a swiss army knife with me. When the very fact of the nature of the attacks changed the rules of engagement immediately. I would put a serious amount of money against anyone being able to hijack an airliner today, even though the entire cabin has been forcefully disarmed completely by their own government, and even if the hijackers had automatic weapons. We now know the consequences of doing nothing, whereas the people on the 1st two flights were just following the recommended procedure of the government by cooperating. Yet, what has the government done since? Rather than arming the flight crews, which would have actually have done some good, they basically make all of us into criminal suspects for merely having the gall to want to travel by airplane! I, for one am sick of my government treating me like a criminal.
Sorry. Got off track there a second.
and once again he attributed Islamic terrorists attacks as caused by our foreign policy - and curable by changing that policy. That, I believe, is the basic far left view of American war mongering creating Islamic terrorism.
Again, I didn't see it, so I'll have to check it out later, but I've heard him speak of some of this type of thing before and it wasn't exactly couched in those terms. What I've seen him say about it previously is that our foreign policy egged some of the hothead islamicists on. I believe freeper cnives said it better than me on a previous post:
So, while I don’t agree with everything he says, when he says we caused some of the hatred against us over the course of decades of involvement in the ME, I believe we did. Does that mean Islamofascists have the right to attack us or that we should turn the other cheek ? No of course not, but let’s be honest about why they attack us. They hate our way of life, they hate and have declared war on any religion other than Islam, and they resent Western meddling in the politics of the Middle East. We can get plenty of oil elsewhere than the ME as well as drill here at home - let’s let the ME implode and collapse under the weight of their 7th century beliefs without robbing American taxpayers blind to build up other countries.
That said, I absolutely disagree with the quote you posted from his site
"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."
I don't believe we were sold a bill of goods. I think the invasion of Iraq was ultimately good for the stability of the region, if the democrats and media will let us actually finish the job. However, us being in Iraq does provide some grist for the jihadists. To think otherwise is foolish. Not only our being there, but also the fact that we completely wiped the desert with the islamists in two countries in the region without even breaking a sweat from a military perspective pisses them off a bit because arabs seem to natually have a rather large inferiority complex. I'm not particularly worried about it, though, because we also seem to be doing a good job of killing the hell out of their new recruits. This does nothing for the self-esteem of your average whackjob islamicist.
The things Paul has been saying about the dangers of nation-building are basically the same thing most conservatives said about it when Clinton was trying to do that in the balkans. Notice that the troops that Clinton promised would be "home by Christmas" are still there 10 years later.
I'm not so sure Paul is as far away from where a lot of people on this site are, even with the foreign affairs stuff. It's just that his positions do not lend themselves to taglines or bumper-stickers, so they essentially cannot be discussed when you have a bunch of folks frothing at the mouth about something they think he has said.
I wish Ron Paul would have time in the debates to discuss the difference between Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (where the powers of Fedgov are clearly defined), and where we are today with the alphabet agencies who think we are nothing but vassals to do their bidding. Unfortunately, that would be another one of those things that would not fit in a tagline or on a bumper-sticker, so we won't get to have that important discussion. Especially when we can be so easily distracted with important (not) things like whether or not the cross in that ad was intentional or not.
Pinging you to this as I quoted you. :-)
I liked your post - you and I think the same on this.
Thanks. I wish Paul were better at getting the message out.
Me too. He seems to have a low-key grassroots appeal, but nothing beyond that.
Good point!
It should have been titled...
Ron Paul, defender of Liberal Foreign Policy Rhetoric
Hopefully he can pull votes from the other four guys and help my man Fred Thompson finish in 1st place in SC.
If Fred doesn’t do well there, with a win or close 2nd, I’m afraid it may be curtains for him.
Ron Paul will NOT be able to do squat unless he gets an agreeable Congress. Congress is liberal and RHINO’s and they will continue to TAX and EARMARK.... no matter who is president. CONGRESS is US they are the elected officials that we the people select to govern US.
On occasion I make sense.
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.