Posted on 10/14/2009 7:02:43 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul took to the cable networks today to jab back at South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who over the weekend said he would not sit back and watch the Texan “hijack” the GOP with his brand of Republicanism.
“My first reaction would be, ‘What does he have against the Constitution?’ And the supporters I have support me because I’m a traditional conservative and I support the Constitution,” Paul told CNN in an interview tonight.
He cited Graham’s support of TARP funds and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and “all the big government things” as examples of why his supporters feel lukewarm about the GOP. “These are the things that constitutional conservatives don’t support,” he said.
. . . . .
Their war of words is emblematic of larger battles brewing within the Republican Party over how best to heal the electoral wounds suffered in 2006 and 2008, rebrand itself, and build a new generation of party leaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Neither of these two are appropriate or qualified to address the topic.
Whatever the future of the GOP.....it would be better if these two don’t participate.
I’d be a “Paulbot” before I’d be a “Graham cracker”.
PING
Sarah Sarah Sarah Sarah ra ra ra
It sure as Hell wasn't Grahamnesty.
The only flaw with Paul is his 18th century foreign policy views, but even then it's still better than Grahamnesty supporting endless wars and nation-building everywhere. We need to have this fight, and restore libertarian-conservatism back in the GOP.
>>Neither of these two are appropriate or qualified to address the topic.<<
When 2 rhinos battle, the base pays the price.
Ping
EEE, folks here and in the GOP are never going to get it even with the facts slapping them in the face.
The Scrimp King is dead on correct here!! Anyone that supports Tarp and the Carl Marx capitalism it leads to is one sick puppy.
Ron Paul is almost sounding normal now..compared to Graham..manly too..
Ron Paul is a lot of things, to be sure. But he is NOT a Rhino. Paleo-conservative, possibly. Pre-WW2 Conservative? Yes. Neo-con? NO! Many here on Free Republic are neo-cons, as are many of the most popular talk radio figures. So it’s not surprising that many here don’t like Paul.
But he’s not a RINO as we use the term. (IE: Rockefeller Republican, often siding with and voting with Dems, unwilling to take a stand for Conservatism, wishy washy on the issues.)
WTH are you talking about? I'm not a Paulbot, but Ron Paul is no RINO by any stretch of the imagination.
May the best RINO win.
In my book, anyone who isn’t a Conservative is a RINO.
Paul hews to some true ideals. But he also shat bit nutso and drags us all down with him.
Lindsey you and Juan lost if not for Sarah it might have been a 40 state plus blowout.
All of his flaws combined do not add up to the damage done by RINOs like Graham, Snowe, Specter, McCain, Jeffords, Chafee.....
It was Bush’s deviations from conservatism (I don’t consider nation-building neocons in the same category as conservatives) that alienated the public against the GOP. Positioning RINOs like those above in influencial leadership also took its toll on the party. They always blocked the will of the the people that got the party as a whole elected.
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.