Posted on 03/06/2008 7:16:40 AM PST by jdm
The Austin American-Statesman notes that John McCain has clinched the GOP nomination and all the other GOP hopefuls have dropped out … except Ron Paul:
“President Bush welcomed John McCain to the White House today and hailed him as “the nominee of the Republican Party.”
But while that Rose Garden victory celebration was going on, Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul — who issued a statement Tuesday night saying he will return to the U.S. House next year — continued a presidential race he now seems to be conceding he cannot win.
“There were 11. Now there are two,” says a posting on Paul’s Web site that shows the crossed-out faces of nine Republican contenders who have dropped out of the presidential race.
In the Tuesday night statement after he won renomination for his U.S. House seat, Paul said, “I have no Democrat opponent in November and will serve another term in Congress where I will continue my battle on behalf of taxpayers.”
He’s not getting much press anymore but Paul’s spokesman vows that Paul will “remain in the (presidential) race and will do so as long as his supporters wish it.” At least one Paul supporter has hope:
“There is a very good chance that John McCain could drop out of the race when enough negative information hits the masses,” a Paul backer said in a Wednesday e-mail. “Ron Paul and his supporters are counting on this. Whether this is realistic or not, only time will tell.”
That’s positive thinking.
I kind of agree that one is over the line. All it does is distract from policy problems Conservatives have with him.
That gift that keeps on giving. Life is short, crazy is forever...
Good...we need some comic relief during this bleak election season. ;-)
I believe it was an amendment as part of #899 here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_800.asp
“The fact that he is barely a blip on the radar means that there is still some sanity left.”
Does it? Or does it mean we have SERIOUSLY lost our way? Listen to Reagan’s 1968 convention speach and then compare it to things Paul is saying. It’s eyeopening. I didn’t vote for Ron Paul but after I investigated for myself and quit letting others tell me what he stood for I gained a lot of respect for him.
For Paul it all comes down to the Constitution - if the Constitution does not specifically authorize Congress to act on all of the particulars a bill contains, he votes against it. Makes for some interesting votes for sure, but also explains why he's arguably the biggest supporter of the second amendment in Congress.
But in this case, the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do just that. Article 1, section 8, subsection 10 (a clause Paul quite frequently overlooks)- Congress is authorized to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations. The Constitution doesn't limit what the 'punishment' is, it leaves that for congress to define as it sees fit. It does, however, in several areas indicate that treaties are to be considered high law of the land and must be honored. We have several international treaties in which we are co signatories agreeing to condemn any acts of genocide.
Like in many other cases, Paul simply likes to pick and choose from the Constitution in order to fit his view while claiming his view is defined by the Constitution.
>> Are you saying Ron Paul still actually has a chance of winning the GOP nomination?
Why, sure. He has as much chance as you do, or I do.
By the way, if nominated, I will not run.
I never demonized him, and I deplore that sort of name-calling, even if the target is a Dem.
My criticism of Peden was that he was backed by a GOP establishment that hadn’t shown much competence in picking strong candidates (e.g. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs). That, and he was backed by figures in the national GOP establishment, such as Pat Ruffini, who seemed to have a vendetta against Paul for his anti-war position. I don’t think that the GOP should engage in cleansing itself of Republicans who take heterodox positions.
The endorsements from such papers as the Galveston County Daily News seemed to be plaints that Paul wasn’t bringing home “their share” of the booty from the taxpayers. Well, if it wasn’t for misguided self-interest masquerading as acting in the public interest, we wouldn’t have a massive federal government.
Finally, Wonkette’s endorsement of Peden and characterization of Paul’s campaign as “wierd” did nothing but elevate Paul and downgrade Peden in my eyes. There is no better barometer of the top-of-mind DC cocktail party circuit opinion than the blatherings of that strumpet.
In the end, what Paul did is something that a so-called mainstream conservative (if we define this as being pro-WoT) couldn’t do, which is open the minds of those who are anti-war to conservative ideas. They may never agree with us on the war, but might be allies on other issues in the future.
You have my vote.
“F15Eagle — Change You Can Take To The Bank!”
You have my vote sir!
HA, you would not belive how ridiculous you look when you use that thing.
It is a killer on the shoulders.
Ron who?
The ironic thing is that Peden is actually pretty damned libertarian, which is more or less the polar opposite of neoconservative. I agree he's a good dude, but it really was hilarious as hell to rub his loss in the face of the more obnoxious anti-Paulites.
Tough. I'm organizing a write-in campaign for you anyway!
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.