Posted on 12/13/2011 10:58:28 AM PST by BatMite
Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates.... Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives?...
1. Ron Paul is not a "top-tier" candidate.
...Paul is doing increasingly well in national and state-level polls.... And now that Cain has dropped out, Paul's stock is likely to keep climbing. The congressman is no less a top-tier candidate than anyone else in the race.2. Ron Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian.
...Paul parts company with many libertarians on many issues. These include immigration, where he favors ending birthright citizenship and reducing the number of newcomers until the welfare state is dismantled. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007, 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act....3. Ron Paul's call to "end the Fed" is crazy.
...Paul's bill to audit the Fed, which has been introduced three years in a row and hasn't passed, but had more than 300 co-sponsors in the House in 2009. Paul introduced a new version in January that has 195 co-sponsors drawn from both parties....4. Ron Paul is anti-military.
Unlike his fellow, er, top-tier candidates Gingrich and Romney, Paul served his country in uniform, as an Air Force captain.... While Pentagon brass might oppose his defense cuts, troops seem to like what he is saying....5. Ron Paul has strong youth support because he wants to legalize drugs.
Paul's popularity among younger voters — he's called a "rock star" on the college circuit — stems from the idealism of his politics. Kids rally behind his faith in the future, belief in the individual and confidence in bottom-up decision-making....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Welcome to FR.
IBTZ
They usually do.
Captain Kirk...
Truthfreedom...
I have to ask myself how this guy ever even got elected to office.
So you mean that you side with the Supreme Court ruling on abortion, then? Because before the SCOTUS ruled in Roe v. Wade, abortion was an issue that was decided by the states.
The founding fathers never envisioned us being the world policeman. Where in the constitution are we required to take care of other nations problems? Ron Paul is not isolationist, he is non- interventionist….big difference.
1. Bat
2. Guano
3. Crazy
Ron Paul -earmark king.
Ron Paul -TRUTHER.
Ron Paul -Soft on islamic terrorism.
As a former Bush supporter and pro-Iraq war to the point that I enlisted and deployed 3 times, my position is somewhere between Paul's and Bush's. I don't think we can disengage, but clearly you can't hand democracy over to a people who don't know how to properly use a toilet. I think Reagan was also somewhere between Bush and Paul. Reagan was for a strong foreign policy but he didn't send troops to every craphole thinking he could change backwards cultures by goodwill.
After you have asked yourself, and having received no answer, you might consider asking the voters in his District.
Enjoy your short stay and electrifying exit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:batmite/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Hey, you suddenly shut up.
Why?
Cat got your tongue, and your innards?
ROn Paul is PRO-HOMOSEXUAL and thus is NOT a conservative.
No. Don’t be an ass.
Murder is illegal and we have the right to life, as is noted in the Declaration of Independence. To allow some states the right to kill the innocent is against the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Ron Paul was upset with Newt telling the truth about the palestinians.
He basically said this does not help the dialogue .
So what he is saying why bring in the truth , it only hurts the legitimacy of the Lie.
That was the latest stated purpose for the invasion but was that the real purpose? It seems to me that the real purpose was just to bomb Iraq halfway back to the stone age so that it would be less of a threat to Israel.
Seems the noob got the zot
He already rode the lightning bolt. That was a short stay.
If that was the case then why did we rebuild their military with our modern tactics and weapons?
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.