Posted on 05/12/2011 8:34:49 AM PDT by Hawk720
Ron Paul is set to officially launch his presidential campaign Friday morning, a Paul source told POLITICO.
The Texas congressman will make his announcement from New Hampshire during the 7:00 a.m. hour of ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Paul is then scheduled to speak at 10:00 a.m. in Exeter, part of a two-day swing through New Hampshire following a stop in Iowa. Paul will also be keynoting the Grafton County Republican Memorial dinner on Friday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I think Paul could go that route if he can’t pick up enough GOP primary/caucus wins.
These questions posed are but a few view that Paul has taken. Not 30 years ago but within the last 3. This is far more dangerous than a Romney flip flops because these views are deeply in the man. He fully believes this nit wittery.
If he became President, there would be just as much outrage here at FR as there is at Obummer because he is a doctrinaire Libertarian the likes of Obummers adherence to Socialism. Libertarianism is in no way Conservatism as Buckley and Reagan practiced. It is almost Anarchy. I will take Reagan over Rothbard any day.
He's great for entertainment value, though.
And his followers can be amusing, too.
Until they get boring.
Earmarks?
Please explain how they work.
Is Voting For Spending part of this process?
I remember in the last election they zotted, spam and made a general nuisance of themselves on the Fred Thompson Group to the point were you could almost count on some asinine post from one of them being up every time you logged on. And not 5 minutes after Fred dropped out they where back on begging us to back Paul. The majority (Clearly not all) Paul backers are among the rudest crudest individuals I have come across and if for no other reason I would never support a man who has the backing of such a large group of Truthers, dopeheads, goldbugs, and people who are as far left as most members of DU except for one issue that of government spending and size. A man is known by the company he keeps and I have no desire to join such company.
If you’re saying that Ron Paul’s supporters can sometimes be unhelpful, this is true. It remains to be seen exactly how people act this time around.
What happened in 2008 is a whole bunch of people, mostly young people, got really excited about Ron Paul. Ron Paul was not really expecting this, did not coordinate this, his campaign did not have any idea how to deal with all these people, there was open hostility toward the official campaign from the grassroots. Etc. Ron Paul had very little control over the grassroots. The grassroots was very enthusiastic, came up with a lot of great ideas, but was very inexperienced, and often did stupid things.
It’s 4 years later. I have no idea how the official campaign and the grassroots will work this year, but I would guess much much better. The Campaign For Liberty has been an ongoing thing since the campaign ended, people are being trained, have been continuously.
I’d like to see a link where Ron Paul’s supporters are attacking Cain. In situations where I see Ron Paul’s supporters attacking other Conservatives, I typically tell the Ron Paul supporters to modify a bit.
We’ll see how everyone acts this time around. I think it’ll be better, but who knows.
El Run Paulie wishes to live in a nation marked by cowardice on anything and everything of true importance: military strength, assertive and interventionist foreign policy without a by-your-leave to ANY other country or globaloney organization (UN, NATO, etc.), saving the babies, saving marriage from those who would redefine it out of meaningful existence, strict enforcement of criminal laws prohibiting "lifestyle" crimes (up to and including HEROIN use???), saving taxpayers from funding his obscene and hypocritical earmarks for Galveston. In exchange for all of those policies of conservatives, we get unintelligible yak-yak posing as "fiscal conservatism." No thanks.
I was a Reagan state chairman in 1976. Ron Paul may have issued a press release posing for holy pictures while doing nothing as usual.
IIRC, Grafton County is not a bastion of conservatism in New Hampshire. A good guess would be that there are nearby college campuses (Keene State???) to be thrilled by a county GOP organization inviting a candidate (paleoPaulie) who favors drug abuse being legal, opposes the military and its use, wants to cave in to the Islamofascists, etc., etc., putting his lips on autosmooch for their anti-American backsides. As to why paleoPaulie is rejected here on FR, I think I already answered that and so has JimRob who has spoken eloquently on the subject. If you think that the rejection of the paleosurrenderman is limited to FR, you are wrong. 80-90% of Republicans, much less actual conservatives, would NEVER vote for Cut ‘n’ Run and the GOP primary voters will see to it that they won’t be faced with such an obscenity in November 2012, even after the usual anti-American leftist suspects cross over to vote in GOP primaries for his ostrichness.
Ron Paul is not a “fiscal conservative”
He’s a Limited Constitutional Government Conservative.
Henry “Scoop” Jackson huh? You hyping him?
You’re confusing the term “Hawk” with “Conservative”.
No one is saying that Democrats don’t like war. You didn’t have any trouble naming a whole bunch of Democrats who were hawks. That’s because “war all the time” has not been a traditional Republican or Conservative foreign policy point.
Until recently, the Democrats got us into wars and the Republicans got us out.
Democrats who worked for the same Scoop Jackson who you praised left the Democrat Party because kids would rather torch the Convention in 1968 (not literally) than get shot in Vietnam. That caused hawks to realize that “war all the time” was a better sell in the Republican Party. They started calling being a “hawk” a “conservative” even though the Conservatives typically had a more reserved foreign policy.
Also worth noting, these guys who left Scoop Jacksons office, they like Trotsky.
I think Bob Dole used the term “Democrat Wars” in a VP debate in 1976.
1. No disarmament for America...but we do not have to ‘protect’ the rich nations of the world like Japan or Western Europe.
2. He is a pro-choicer plain and simple...he is not fooling anyone
3. I have no problem with what someone does in their bedroom....as long as it does not include children and/or injury...that being said...that does not mean that you and your llama can be married.
4. I do not understand the implication of fund raising as you say...I do know that pork must be cut.
5. we need our boomers, they protect us...we do not need to have bases in Germany or England or Japan.
6. now that OSB is happily DEAD....lets pull back from the sand box...put the majority of our non militia soldier on the border to protect us from our ENEMY to the south....and Drill the Gulf, drill ANWR, frac the natural gas..this will protect us from these rising prices from and unstable middle east....
PaleoPaulie is not a constitutional anything. He simply hides behind the 10th Amendment to prevent responsible action by the central government to put an end to the American Holocaust, to prevent efforts to redefine marriage out of existence to satisfy the social and sexual pervert fringe nuts among us, to prevent efforts to use the central government to stifle narcotics abuse (which he apparently regards as a human right unlike the right of the unborn to survive to birth and beyond. To his libertoonian admirers, it is wink!, wink! whenever he massacres the truth to falsely claim being a social conservative, while being as pro-abortion in federal policy as Barbara Boxer.
I would sooner see Henry "Scoop" Jackson charged with defending this country as a legislator than depend on the anti-American ilk of El Run Paulie, Weepy Walter Jones, Dennis Cuckoocinich, Maria Cantwell or Patty Planned Barrenhood Murray. That is the same Scoop Jackson of Jackson-Vanik fame who forced the soviets to allow reasonably free emigration of the persecuted Jewish minority or be denied the products of Am3rican agriculture and face explaining to those who would starve why persecuting Jews was THAT important to Russia. El Run Paulie and his ilk do not care what happens to other human beings at the hands of totalitarian tyrants. Many of the paleopipsqueak's peace creep supporters would not have supported war against the nazis or the reds. They always are enthusiastic to echo Cain by saying: "I am not my brother's keeper." Fortunately, America does not agree with such spinelessness and cowardice and lack of conviction and lack of responsibility.
Scoop Jackson was widely quoted as saying: "I take second place to no man in calling myself a liberal but that does not men that I must be a damned fool." Substitute libertarian for liberal and it would be refreshing, however unlikely, to hear the paleosurrenderman make an analogous statement but he won't. After all, Paulie IS a damned fool and his sycophants would not have it any other way.
"Hawk" is insufficiently precise. Saving the soviets in WWII was not a worthwhile goal. Destroying both the reds and nazis was a worthwhile goal. We could and should have sat back and watched the nazis and the reds chewing each other to death while distributing buttered popcorn to freedom-loving spectators. Then we would have been able to intervene at the end to destroy whatever was left of nazis and reds.
The appropriate term for conservatives in foreign and military policy is, as you well know, "interventionist." We reserve the sovereign right to intervene militarily whenever and wherever we choose for whatever reason we deem sufficient without the permission of any other nation or group of nations. If the peace creeps and enemies of our nation do not like that, tooooo damn baaaaad! It is not as though it was any of their business to decide whether we go to war or not. No more START treaties. No more UN. No more NATO. No more paleocowardice as a nation.
Now, that brings us to the pretension of the paleowhatevers that they are somehow true conservatives by adhering to knee-jerk national cowardice or, as you put it, "a more reserved foreign policy."
In the years leading up to WW II, there were folks who were sooooo concerned about the possible interruption of international commerce and all the yummy profits to be made by arming our enemies and other folks whose knee-jerk reaction to foreign enemies is always to genuflect before them to avoid, well, warfare and all that messy slaughter of our enemies. Does "Peace at any price" ring a bell? There was an America First Committee, HQd apparently in Chicago and bankrolled by Colonel McCormack, that signed up many of America's fashionables to have an organized movement of elitist people who preferred, above all else, to emulate the craven Neville Chamberlain. The Executive Director was John Flynn, then editor of the generally conservative New Haven Register (a John Day Jackson publication). It is this group and similar groups that paleowhatevers suggest were the real conservatives who opposed wars. I would remind you that, when their policy stupidity, resulted in Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41, they folded their tent and declared in favor of war against the Axis on 12/8/41. Having grown up reading the sensible New Haven Register, I suspect that John Flynn was never so embarrassed in his life as by how wrong he was to be an isolationist in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
If there are Demonrats (communists who seized the Democrat Party under McGovern in 1972 and held it ever since) who "like war," you would never know it from their votes to starve Pentagon weapons systems.
Bob Dole is a genuine WW II hero but he probably never regretted any remark so much as the crack about the Democrats and Republicans ending them. There was little honor in Eisenhower leaving North Korea on its feet and Feckless Ford and Tricky Dick losing in Viet Nam.
Bob Dole was only questionably conservative in his Senate career. Jack Kemp accurately called Dole the "tax collector for the welfare state." Mid-western isolationist to an extent but not a movement conservative.
Wars should be waged crisply, massively, devastatingly and verrrrrry memorably. We do not need to wage war for years on end. We simply need to ignore the critics and wage blitzkrieg warfare leaving the enemy suing for peace on our terms within a few days of the opening of hostilities, make the defeated enemy pay every cent in cash or kind incurred as war expenses. One or two wars like that and war will become relatively rare.
Trotsky???? Trotsky???? Just because Scoop Jackson's enemies were Stalinists does not make him a Trotskyite. Think of him as a socialist or fiscal liberal but always as a patriot unlike the communist trash who erupted against the Democrat leadership of Hubert Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. Too bad that Mayor Daley did not order the Chicago police to apply a Smith & Wesson solution to that mob in his streets.
I’m not saying Scoop Jackson = Trotsky.
I’m saying Kristol, Podhortetz = Trotsky.
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.