Posted on 04/26/2011 4:22:54 AM PDT by quesney
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time.
Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaigns leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.
Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates
Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman,
Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his money bomb fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.
Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshires primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Pauls campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008.
This would seem to be an ideal year for Paul: Since the last election, the Republican Party has moved much closer to his view on deficit reduction, which made him an early tea party favorite. All of the party's top-tier presidential hopefuls are focusing on lowering debt, government spending, and tax rates, issues Paul has long advocated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Wait a minute. Everyone knows crows are black. Are you calling ronnie a racist? or a corny cawboy? I’m so cornfused.
As a Paul supporter, I think we are our own worst enemy. How can you disagree? Nobody forced us into bankruptcy. Nobody forced us into anything.
I like his economic policies on the fed
But since he blames our actions for terrorism and the muslim problems. I can’t say I would ever vote for him.
Just another fly in the ointment.
When are we going to get a REAL problem solver on a ticket we can rally behind?
Yes, that one seems to confuse them.
All Ron Paul seems to do is talk. He never really does anything except vote with the Democrats half the time.
“But since he blames our actions for terrorism and the muslim problems. I cant say I would ever vote for him.
Just another fly in the ointment.
When are we going to get a REAL problem solver on a ticket we can rally behind?”
There is a candidate bragging about apologizing to all of Islam, and sending $Billions in foreign aid to Yemen, Pakistan, Oman, Egypt, and Kosovo. This candidate formed a coalition and bombed Libya without consulting Congress! BHO seems to be your man. He is solving each of your concerns.
Impress? No....I’d just like if folks answered questions. I’m not interested in playing games. How about you?
LOL!
or else.
Sarah does not support amnesty. She will give illegals a 60 day period to register with the government, and if they don’t they will be deported. She also believes in giving Americans the first shot at jobs.
Alice in '12 because he only *plays* a lunatic onstage.
[that's sorta like 'accomplishing' something]
I believe that sin causes death but I don't believe in themoral equivalence of states.
Al Qaeda states that our military presence in Saudi Arabia is their reason for warring against us. But there is nothing immoral about being in Saudi Arabia by invitation, to defend the oil. On the other hand there is something immoral about upholding a sinister regime like the royal family of Saudi Arabia which oppresses it's people and finances organizations like Al Qaeda.
There are so many complex causes of terrorism, it is impossible and foolish to concentrate on a single/simple cause. Could we all agree that we should avoid being offensive where there is no national interest and be overwhelmingly offensive when there is a national interest? Let the Congress declare our wars (as stated in the Constitution) and let there be no substitutes for complete and decisive victory.
Nah. I'm more the fun loving type. Light-hearted. I like to laugh.
Mostly with people.
But sometimes, when it's just unavoidable, at people.
I get serious when it's called for.
But, if you have no sense of humor, then it's just going to be a rough ride all around.
But he shore gots purty eyes fer uh boah.
And a mighty purty mouf...
He probably oughtn’t campaign in the deep mountains, then.
I like Sarah Palin, but that sounds kind of amnesty-ish.
He probably ort to stay away from them deep swamplands in Loosiana, too.
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.