Posted on 09/02/2007 3:41:26 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
As the vote tallies were announced at the Texas Republican straw poll Saturday, at least one supporter of Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson couldn't contain his frustration.
"Fix!" he yelled from the back of the ballroom at the Fort Worth Convention Center. "There's no way."
The congressman put a great deal of effort into the event in his home state, even paying to bus in supporters. They seemed to be the largest force in town. So it was a disappointment to those supporters when he came in third.
Some were convinced that Dr. Paul won.
"The results are totally wrong," said Jason Scarbrough, a Paul supporter who lives near Houston. "There were 10 times as many Ron Paul supporters here than anyone else had. There's just no way."
Though there were clearly more Paul people at the straw poll event, the congressman with the libertarian leanings had a much smaller base of support among those who could vote.
Even Dr. Paul conceded that he didn't think he could win.
"They made it very restrictive," Dr. Paul said at a rally Friday night. "But we're trying to build the party. If they want us to build the party, we can."
Saturday's vote disappointed Kathy Massey, a 45-year-old Houston woman who works in the petroleum industry.
She described Dr. Paul as a man of integrity who wants the Bill of Rights restored – and a political titan.
"Las Vegas oddsmakers say he's the only one who can beat" Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Massey said, without offering proof.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Some of them believe our government planned 9/11 or GWBush did.
If we get to the point where there is no Constitution, only lawless socialism, then what would be the point?
Ever wonder why there's low voter turnout? You think maybe the politicians ought to get a clue and start talking about the real issues instead of BSing folks all the time.
I do agree to an extent about the coulda woulda shoulda aspects of this. It still baffles me how we could have allowed students from the Middle-East to take flight training focusing only on flight and no landings, but no alarm bells go off. And who in their right mind come to the conclusion that basing our nearest interceptors about thirty minutes from Washington, D.C. or a major city like New York was anything but an example of derelection of duty at the top?
I don't think you're going to get a big disagreement form people based on that comment.
Like I said, I have some reservations about Paul on foreign policy. I would like for him to call Islam what it truly is. Where I agree with him is that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of those Middle Eastern countries. Look, that region has been in turmoil since the dawn of time. You're talking centuries-old conflicts and ideas here. After the surge is complete and Iraq is stabilized, we should leave. We should secure our own borders and end immigration from Muslim countries here. Let them stew in their own juices.
I agree on the first two points. I was fairly sure you didn't approve of all his foreign policies. Where I disagree, is the idea that we are simply meddling in the affairs of those Middle-Eastern nations. I don't think we're trying to get them to be just like us. I think of this as us sending in the feds to rid the region of their "Billy the Kids", "Ma and Pa Barker" or Fey Dunaway and Warren Beatty. Once the region is quited down, I don't expect us to remain. And I do expect it to quiet enough were we can, if we play tough.
As for letting them stew in their own juices, I don't mind. I'm just not willing to let them boil over on Europe or America.
If Paul was President, I wouldn't doubt for a second that he would declare war and fight like he meant it. He wouldn't be consulting with the UN or trying to appease "the international community." He'd declare war to Congress and fight it. So FReepers calling Paul a "cut-and-runner" or "being in bed with the terrorists" are really disingenious, considering that Paul has been a staunch supporter of the military up until Iraq.
I know you don't doubt this, but it's up to Paul to make it pefectly clear. You can't expect people to get behind him based on suppositions. It can be very frustrating to his supporters, but there are some things he must do, if he wants the support of pro war advicates. As for bowing before the paper tiger UN, I don't think he should. The international community is a dicey problem. We cannot afford to make it look like we think we're the ruler of the planet, even if there are times when the world's populace would be better off if they would accept that defacto appearance.
The declaration of war is an interesting point. There are pros and cons to a declaration. It's an interesting debate. I've favored it in the past, but I have also heard some rather interesting arguements against it also.
Well, it is hard for folks to understand it when a guy won't get behind a campaign like this one. I know some purists don't like what appears to be meddling, but I find that a really tenous arguement myself. Folks don't see the value of checking on Paul's historic view of the military, when he's unwilling to support what is taking place right now. They view this to be a very important campaign. When someone can't support it, they naturally make some assumptions that may or may not be entirely accurate. It's up to the candidate to clarify the issue or rethink it entirely.
If he feels he has already made the right decision, he won't be able to though.
Thanks for the response.
HR 3305 IH
To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism.
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism.
I’m not much of a fan of a touchy feely resolution to this. When 09/11 took place, the time for Arabs to keep their own brethren in check was over. Failing that, it was time we cleaned house.
I heard candidates talk about real issues. I guess it depends on the issues that are important to you.
Duncan Hunter addressed issues that are important to Republicans.
Paul deserted Republicans years ago when he left for the Libertarian Party, seems he was at home there, and only came back to use the Republicans to get elected.
The kicker here though is what you mean by "meddling," as opposed to looking after legitimate vital security interests in the region.
Do you or Ron Paul think that we could safely disengage and leave the region to their own schemes and strategems, leave the field open to the influence of competitors, rivals, and downright enemies, ignore the growth of Islamic extremism in countries surrounding Iraq, or the Iranians drive for a nuclear weapon? Where and when would you or Ron Paul say that "meddling" stops and pursuing national interest begins?
How about on the Korean peninsula--should we stop meddling there, pull all our forces from the region and leave NoKorea to its own intentions? Stop trying to "meddle in their internal affairs" by opposing their nuclear prgram as well? Most people call that diplomacy, not meddling. It's what nations do. It's how they communicate and (hopefully) get along.
Ron Paul has been a Republican congressman for the last 10 terms. He didn’t just get in the party.
Interesting.
Lots of co sponsoring bills, sponsoring amendments, sponsoring a few bills, but yet he didn’t seem to get his name out there prior to showing up at the debates. The media would be on his side since he’s a total Bush basher. Wonder why they don’t showcase him?
I’m not going to call him or his supporters names, but just don’t get your hopes up too high.
As far as this straw poll stuff goes, being from a state that has no such thing, it just seems to my uneducated eyes to be a big party to convince a certain few to “vote” for you in a meaningless contest. But, I guess it matters to those in the states holding them.
As a person who didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, I know what you mean. Look, none of us wants Hillary. I will say though, if we’re going to get some lackluster moderate again, I’ll be hard pressed to vote for them myself. Give me a conservative I can vote for, or damnit, go pound sand. The RP has pushed their luck way beyond my tollerance. They either get their house in order or I’ll simply stay home.
This FTAA and other nonsense is way beyond my tollerance. The joint security agreement and other moderate moves have destroyed my confidence that they’ll do the right thing.
I vote against Kerry and what do I get, a medication rider to Medicare and someone trying to give our nation away to foreign nationals. To hell with that!
I never said ANYTHING about getting rid of the Constitution, UNLESS it came down to my family.
Respect the documents, revere the Lord who gave us this great land.
You are kinder than many here, thanks.
Please let me know which of the candidates are calling for entire departments to be eliminated, the size and power of the federal government reduced, the IRS abolished, civil liberties restored to Americans. Even Fred Thompson hasn't talked about this in specifics and he definitely doesn't have the voting record to back it up.
Duncan Hunter addressed issues that are important to Republicans.
He has addressed border security and immigration, but then again so has Paul. Hunter has addressed China and the need for fair trade, but then again so has Paul. Get back to me when Hunter starts talking specifically about runaway entitlement programs and limiting government. As a conservative-libertarian, this is a huge issue for me, because regardless of who's President, they're going to have to address terrorism one way or the other.
Paul deserted Republicans years ago when he left for the Libertarian Party, seems he was at home there, and only came back to use the Republicans to get elected.
All of Paul's beliefs are in line with traditional Republicanism, right down to the non-intervention foreign policy. There's no need to bring up the libertarian straw-man. Libertarians are just as much as part of the GOP as Christian and moderate/RINO Republicans are.
So, you didn’t vote for Bush in 2000.......just who DID you vote for? The options were.......Gore and Bush. And if you didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, why would you vote for the person you voted for?
in 2004 you voted “against” Kerry?
HUH?
If you don’t know more than this about 2000, why should I bother to respond?
I don’t know if I’d call it a slogan, but I saw a freeper with a great tag line:
“Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my cocoa puffs.”
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.