Posted on 12/14/2007 10:58:50 PM PST by neverdem
Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative. His supporters love him for it.
If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.
It helps, too, if voters know you mean it. In nearly 20 years in the House, Mr. Paul can boast he never voted for a tax hike. Nicknamed "Dr. No," he spent much of the time Republicans held a majority voting against his own party, on the grounds that the legislation his colleagues were...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“...the only thing that’s killing him is his foreign affairs ideas.”
That may be so, but it is a very big thing.
Au contraire, Ron Paul is for a strong national defense. He just thinks that if we declare war it should be done Constitutionally. He also believes we should run our foreign policy in such a fashion as to reduce our UNNECESSARY involvement in foreign affairs that are detrimental to our country.
By the way, I have to point out that the bad guys that you are shivering in your boots about were Saudi’s, not Iraqi’s. So we invaded the wrong country and Ron Paul voted against it. Smart man. I do not fear terrorists. I do fear an endless undeclared, unconstitutional bankrupting war against the wrong people.
If we bankrupt America, the “terrorist” boogymen will have accomplished their goal. They will have destroyed us. Ron Paul is addressing the economic reality. No other candidate is. Our unpayable deficit, our failing dollar, our mortgage crisis are all a result of the pursuit of foreign wars and the unchecked printing of money with nothing to back it up. I think that we did the Iraqi’s a great favor by going over there and solving their problems. We are destroying our own country to do it, however. We have nothing in our future but severe inflation and ultimately depression if we do not face the economic truth that we cannot pay to police the whole world.
Also, Ron Paul is absolutely right about the fact that by occupying Muslim countries, we are feeding the frenzy of hatred against us.
If anyone should come against us in our own country, I am sure that Ron Paul would respond appropriately and by following the RULE OF LAW, which in case you have forgotten is that quaint little thing called the Constitution.
Would you please give me a breakdown of all the supporters for all the candidates and what all of the affiliations are, good and bad, immediately, so that I can decide which candidate I support by looking at all of their supporters, rather than looking at what the candidate himself believes.
Great points. I am a bit surprised that even some so called conservatives have fallen for the media spin on Ron Paul since he has by far the most conservative voting record & plans on getting rid of the many things which sustain big government.
An argument can be made that the current administration's foreign policy is the Republican party's biggest weakness, even bigger than the profligate spending spree we've been on since Bush became president.
Of course, the Democrats are worse. They'd let the UN decide when and where to deploy American troops. Or launch cruise missiles into aspirin factories to show they mean business.
Is it any wonder the United States has lost respect around the globe?
You said “Paul’s reliance on the Constitution seems quaint, even strange”. MY GOD MAN, they have thrown out the rule of law in this country and are governing willy-nilly any way they please and you don’t think we should fix that.
You obviously don’t believe in the principles on which this Republic was founded.
Leaving Iraq and ending foreign aid aren’t going to solve this nation’s financial problems long term. Only ending entitlements or slashing them severly will do that. To paraphrase Rush when it comes to Ron Paul-a nut, is a nut, is a nut. You don’t build a strong national defense by constraining it inside our borders either. If he wants to limit our ability to project our military power, he may as well disband it and hand the job over to the National Guard. Tell me this, once Paul disolves our alliances through his idiotic view of foreign policy who should we count on once we’ve hung them all out to dry?
Exactely! And here’s another nutty, RINO isolationist, fortress-American kook. Just listen to him mouth Wacky Ron’s talking points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpTNdcM_e0
We can always give more money -read as: your tax dollars.
The Palestinian government respects us $500 million more now ...
/sarc
It would be nice - and a REAL change - if all those who are in favor of pushing America into endless wars, without formal Congressional declaration, would have the guts to actually say so, instead of just smearing & insulting a “fringe” Republican candidate.
Very good post!
paul=kucinich on steroids
the best thing you'd bring to the table
It is not isolationist to want to end foreign wars and involvements that are bankrupting America and leaving our children with unpayable debts.
Personally, I am sick of what has happened to this country. It will not change until we vote for a candidate that will change things. Every other candidate for either party supports the status quo. They will drive America further into debt and destroy this country. Our currency is becoming worthless from a printing press run wild. Any candidate who does not address this issue is just a joke.
People are passionate about Ron Paul because they care about America and our precious freedom. That is something worth passion, worth everything. That is why they donate so much.
repeating truths
Yep sure can, don’t stand too close to the UFO landing site.
Agree w/ you except about drug legalization.
Paul marginalized himself when on the GWOT.
do you have any idea of how much money we send to people who hate us ?
Isolationism might not be a bad thing to a degree
I call bullshit on this one.
Defecit is due to lots of people wanting gimmes from Uncle Sugar w/o having to pay for them. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Only because it's been sold that way to the people through the peacnick media. Look, nation building is hard stuff, but it is the only thing one can do after defeating a despotic regime. One cannot abandoned a people after deposing their despot without fearing the former tyrant's underlings filling the power vacuum.
That leaves us with why we're in Iraq in the first place: was it necessary? After 12 years of non-compliance of cease-fire agreements and the U.S. and U.N. looking like paper tigers in a post September 11th world, I think so! We went to war the first time because Saudi Arabia and occupied Kuwait asked us to help them for protection and liberation, respectively.
Leftists that bang the "get out of Iraq now" drums forget this bit of history when they spout their anti-military crap and when they ask for intervention in the Darfur region of Sudan. The foreign policy of the current administration was actually very reponsible and Wilsonian in this current political climate. It is too bad that actively promoting liberty where it is wanted around the globe is too kooky of an idea to seriously embrace...because there is a way, Constitutionally, to do this:
Article IV
Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Should be another great day for RP and the campaign dollars.
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.