Posted on 07/29/2007 6:22:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday I looked at the Ron Paul phenomenon as an expression of the anti-big government sentiments among some people in each of the major parties. Such voters have limited options among the other candidates this year. While the Paul supporters commenting vigorously disagreed, I also expressed the belief that Paul cannot win the Republican nomination. What if I am right? What will his supporters do?
It is hard to see Paul supporters being loyal Republicans and backing their party’s winner–which should be a matter of concern for the Republicans. If I was a GOP leader I’d be questioning Paul’s loyalty to the party and pressing him for a pledge to support the nominee and encourage his supporters to do the same should he lose. Of course it is questionable as to how many votes he could deliver to the authoritarian war mongers who dominate the Republican field should he be willing to do so.
I don’t even know that Paul would agree to support another Republican candidate. Would Paul jump ship and run as a Libertarian again? If not, will the Libertarian Party candidate benefit from what Paul has done? That will depend partially upon the candidate, but the LP will have the problem that many people are reluctant to vote for a third party which has no real chance of winning.
If they are reluctant to support a minor party, will many Paul supporters back the Democratic winner as the best shot of having an anti-war candidate win? That will depend a lot on the nominee. Richardson already has some libertarian support but remains a real long shot. Edwards will have a real tough time attracting any libertarian support, between his previous support for he war and Patriot Act when in the Senate to his current populist economic policies. Clinton will also have problems here, but I could see Obama managing to find a way to bridge liberal ideas with libertarian ideals as he has shown he is willing to avoid pandering to traditional Democratic special interests.
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any real chance of winning the Republican nomination, his candidacy is doing far better than might have been expected initially, and he very well may have a lasting impact on the race. Between the out right libertarians, as well as the more traditional conservatives who are becoming increasingly outraged by the current Republican leadership, there will be a number of Republicans looking for an alternative. Whether the Democrats can become a majority party will depend partially on whether they can attract a portion of these voters. To do so will mean not only opposing the war but showing they recognize that the 2000’s are not the 1930’s and their old New Deal coalition is long gone.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t laugh at anyone with the gumption to seriously run for the Presidency. I may not agree with much of what he says — I do agree with some of it — but, he does make a serious contribution to the discussion of both personal liberty and foreign affairs.
Leftist moonbats, now they’re a chuckle.
But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.
Then, if you feel sufficiently offended by our political process, feel free to sit at home on election day.
But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.
LOL! A little defensive there, aren't you? What a typical ROFL Ron Paul Acolyte response. Don't get too hot under the collar of your Star Trek shirt, now.
We do not reveal our secrets, silly. You should know that by now. It all has to do with basic psychology and that "sixth sense" we have.
But thanks for the hearty laugh.
Please send Eric Dondero a nice big campaign donation. Pretty please! LOL.
But that makes you fun to laugh at.
...probably pretty anecdotal and might tell us more about you than about Ron Paul. LOL.
Who said anything about tying Ron Paul into this?
Oh, wait...you did. Dude, you're obsessed. I wasn't this bad when I was a pre-teen gushing over my latest rock-band member or actor crush.
Yer funny. Weird, but funny.
Ok voting NO on condemning violence against Israel is not anti-semtism? Huh?
You may justify and make excuses all you want, Paul is an anti-semic little weasel.
One can argue that the state-building strategy and its execution were an action contingent upon a misinterpretation of Judaism and the promise of reinheriting the holy land; that said, Israel is here - it is a fact, and US foreign policy must act upon that fact. Arab nations must accept that fact and grant Israel a right to exist.
However, now that modern Israel is a state, one can criticize it for non-religious reasons -- i.e. criticize its foreign and domestic policy, its wisdom and its efficacy, the way one judges any group that manages its resources, its people, and its relationship with its neighbors.
BTW, these are my thoughts and not Ron Paul's. He votes against everything UN, even/especially the well-intended pablum.
The resolution had nothing to do with asking the UN to condemn violence OR foreign aid.
Paul voted against condemning violence against Israel..in my book thats makes him a weasely little anti-semite.
Paul voted against condemning violence against Israel. It was not a UN request from congress resolution.
He voted against Israel, in my book that makes him a weasely little anti-semite.
Your name calling, and your readiness to hurl the "anti-semite" bomb speaks more about your own character than Ron Paul's. You are doing the typical liberal two step (that passes for argument in their ranks): express "how dare you?!??!" shock and indignation, then accuse the person of being anti-[fill in the blank].
The morons in his district do.
Furthermore, it was after the 2006 election when Ron Paul decided to side with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda when agreed with them that America caused 9-11.
He is a traitor.
When he loses in 2008, he will be an unemployed traitor.
If the people of his district decide to re-elect him in 2008 when he is a clearly defined traitor, then your comment would make sense.
Until then, Traitor Ron Paul has to deal with his pro-al Qaeda stance.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;
(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;
(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;
(4) recognizes Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;
(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;
(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;
(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;
(8) supports Israel’s right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;
(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;
(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;
(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;
(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;
(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and
(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.
Paul voted NO.
it’s not pro-Al Qaeda. He did not blame America for 9-11. He did, however, say that decades of meddling in the Middle East brews resentment against the USA, which the Muslim terrorists exploit. Would they still attack us if we threw up our hands and said to the various Arab states, “go ahead and kill each other off?” They might keep busy for a while, fighting over oil revenues and who control the holy of holies.
Solong as the USA backs Israel to the degree it does now, relations will be “hot” between the USA and any radical Muslims.
Oh...I had no idea there were so many morons in Texas.
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.