Posted on 10/10/2009 10:42:55 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Those of us who have been waiting for a politician to pick up on the monetary issue are perking up at Governor Palin’s demarche on the dollar. This came last week in a posting on her Facebook page, where she reacted to a report that Gulf oil producers were negotiating with Russia, China, Japan, and France to abandon the use of the dollar in pricing petroleum. She noted the report in the Wall Street Journal that Arab oil officials were denying the story, but reckoned that “even the possibility of such talk weakens the dollar and renews fears about its continued viability as an international reserve currency.” Then she pointed out that “a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our ‘privilege’ to run up huge deficits.” Most importantly, she warned about the price of gold, which that day had hit a record in what she called a “response to fears about the weakened dollar.”
Time will tell, but what this suggests is that the former governor of Alaska is ahead of the rest of the undeclared contenders in 2012...
So Mrs. Palin’s comments suggest she’s savvier than many give her credit for being. No sooner did she issue her warning about the dollar than Reuters found a number of Republicans declaring she was right...
It is true that the only politician who has been campaigning on this issue, Ron Paul, failed to prosper at the polls. We would argue that had less to do with his monetary policy than other issues. Maybe he should have been a bidder for that famous lunch with the former Alaska governor. We’re not ready to make endorsements, but Palin and Paul would make a whale of a ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
That was in some part due to his stance on the Bush wars.
The question for the inevitable name callers who delight in slinging flames in threads like this is, would a President Paul have handled the wars as badly as Obama has done?
I'm certainly a member of the libertarian wing of FR, but can anyone else honestly claim that Dr. Paul is farther away from their core beliefs than Obama? Would a President Paul really be worse than "President" Obama? Just asking.
Might do them some good. That being said, speculation on running mates is way too overoptimistic. President Reagan tried it first with Richard Schweiker in 1976. Note how incendiary the article title and contents are. Future President Reagan had already lost the primaries in terms of delegates when he threw this Hail Mary[1].
We're going to be attacked no matter what and this has gone on all of my life time.
[1] I am hoping that someone comes out with a book comparing the Republican 1976 campaign to the 2008 Democrat campaign.
I’m actually finding Palin/Paul to be a fairly amusing (in a good way) thought as I roll it around in my head . . .
The ‘Cuda and the Capitalist.
The Rogue and the Randian.
It could be, but I am never ever again voting for a neocon. I am absolutely in favor of a strong defense; I am absolutely against preemptive war.
I think that Dr. Paul would have listened to the military officers in charge of the wars and would have adjusted his policies to do something sensible. No politician delivers everything he or she promises during a campaign. It doesn't work that way unless they assume a total dictatorship and not even then.
'As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans."'
The second link is the same quote from the same interview.
Puhleeze ... Policy-wise, Dr. Paul is as strong as a candidate that I've ever seen run and that includes President Reagan. He would not done have done all the stupid things that Obama has done while he is charge - he would have consulted with and listened to the people in charge.
It seems that our side is the anti-Black Knight.
BK: None shall pass!
BK: If you attempt to do so, I shall cut off my arm.
KA: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
BK: (Cuts off his arm. It flops on the ground with blood spurting).
KA: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
BK: 'Tis but a scratch! If you try again, I'm going to cut off one of my legs!
KA: A scratch? Your arm's off! (moves toward the bridge)
BK: (Cuts off one of his legs). Keep coming you coward!
KA: Why good Sir Knight. You have one arm and one leg. How will you stop me now?
BK: Come on you pansy! (cuts off his other leg)
Some day, we will stop behaving like the (anti-)Black Knight and the Republic will be safe ...
It cites an Oct. 27 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in its call for the Security Council to charge him under its 1948 convention for the prevention of genocide.
The non-binding resolution, initiated by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), passed by 411-2.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)were the only votes against it.
HCON 21 RFS
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html
Rep. Ron Paul Statement on HCON 21 RFS - Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
Palin maybe. Paul, definitely not.
Thumbs up on the Michelle Bachmann!
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.