Posted on 12/22/2011 9:39:03 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. The data collected between Dec. 8 and 18 suggest that unlike the previous frontrunners, Paul’s support is more solid.
Paul is the first choice of 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucus-goers among the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents contacted by ISU. That’s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG poll in November. He’s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from 16.3.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is the only other candidate to poll in double digits at 11.2 percent – an increase from 7.9 percent a month earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Not sure about others, but I’ve read Paul’s foreign policy proposal and as brief as it is doesn’t sound like a surrender monkey to me:
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
The real test will be if the Paul people bestir their sorry butts to get out on a freezing night and spend hours in a townhall forum. If they behave as they normally do, they will end up turning off more of their neighbors than they will persuade to support Paul.
You can bet the Romney people will be there, as will the evangelicals, but the latter seems hopelessly split among the various candidates.
LOL - Guess the rest of the State boards don’t get trolls like we do Arrowhead. This morning’s was pretty hilarious.
I’d vote for Huntsman about as soon as I would vote for Mitt.
>>You can bet the Romney people will be there, as will the evangelicals, but the latter seems hopelessly split among the various candidates.<<
I’m not sure, but it seems to me that the Evangelicals will coalesce around one candidate on the caucus date. They will realize the importance of putting forth a united front, and so I suspect they will throw most of their support to the frontrunner at that time between either Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum.
In other words, the support could shift a lot at the last minute, away from the laggards to the leader among that bunch.
RP also an anti-taxer. Supports major tax reform, not mere tweaking. However, of late, he has simply gone off the reservation completely.
Republicans certainly do not have much in the way of candidates this time around. Maybe someone will surface. Soon I hope...
LOL. If it weren’t for trolls like Jeff or “I need respect” Danny, the TX board would be bored.
The only possibility I would have of voting for Paul would be if he somehow got the nomination. I could not vote for Obama under any circumstances and I could not withhold my vote for someone running against him.
“* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? But like all things with RP, you need to look at the details. Back in 2001 Ole Ron Paul introduced two bills, H.R. 3074 and H.R. 3076, for Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. He said this was the Constitutional way to bring the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to justice.
Or then there’s this gem: “* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.” What Ole Ron Paul is saying here is that we should follow his interpretatioin of the Constitution rather than as it is written. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that dictates to Congress the Constitutional way to declare war.
Perhaps, but interventionism and pre-emptive strikes are not Constitutional either.
>>RP also an anti-taxer. Supports major tax reform, not mere tweaking. However, of late, he has simply gone off the reservation completely.<<
Your use of RP confused me, at first. (Rick Perry/Ron Paul) I had to check which post you were replying to...
Anyway, Ron Paul has been “off the reservation” for a long, long time. He’s always been an apologist for the attackers on 9/11 by claiming time after time that it was our actions that drove the Muslim world to fight back.
If one enjoyed President Obama’s apology tour around the Mideast and his frequent bowing to foreign leaders, then a President Ron Paul would not disappoint, for that has been his message for years: “It’s our fault; we’re sorry for what we’ve driven you to do.”
Of the candidates in best position to actually win the nomination, Rick Perry best illustrates those principles that Paul holds that actually make sense, and he would never go on another Mideast apology tour, I suspect. To me, the choice comes down to Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum, and of those, I think Perry has both the best record, and the best chance, to gain sufficient support to be a contender again. And I suspect that’s what those Iowa caucus voters who want neither Romney nor Gingrich will also decide, though they might not do so until the night of the caucus. At that time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of Ron Paul’s supporter peel off also, in support of Perry.
But, for that to happen, Perry’s bus trip through Iowa is going to have to show some results first.
OMG! Does this mean that 95% of the blacks will vote for Obama instead? Does this mean that the majority of the blacks won't vote Republican?
Sometimes the logic here just escapes me. Paul could have NAACP tattooed upon his forehead and he wouldn't get the black vote in the first place.
If the logic of human dignity of all people escapes you, then you are beyond help.
Racism is a sin, and it also happens to be harmful to human discourse and to society.
Time will tell! And we're running out of it!
Like RP, you’re trying to re-write the Constitution claiming there are things there that are not. I thought only liberals did such things.
huh? As I recall even the founders warn of “entangling alliances” and a “declaration of war” is necessary in the Constitution. Otherwise why have it in Article 1 as the duties of Congress. The POTUS could decide whenever and however he wanted to commit troops with no recourse for the people.
Once again, you’re trying to re-write the Constitution claiming there are things there that are not.
Whether the founders warned of “entangling alliances” is irrelevent to your claim that interventionalism is not constitutional. Please define ‘interventionalism’ and explain why it is not constitutional.
And, you make the claim that a ‘declaration of war’ is necessary. Necessary to what? And, where in the Constitution is the basis for this claim?
In your previous post, you also made the claim that pre-emptive strikes were also not constitutional. Define ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and explain why they are not constitutional.
I’m really not trying to mess with you. I’m only trying to demonstrate that Ron Paul is not the defender of the Constitution that he claims to be. One cannot defend the Constitution and re-write it at the same time.
No, I am not redefining the Constitution, I argue (and tell my students) the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are designed to work together. DI is the mission statement and the Constitution+ Bill of Rights are the bylaws on how our government works. Furthermore, our government is based on a social contract that implies voluntary cooperation and a moral sense of right and wrong. From this premise, government is to be limited so as not to infringe on the civil liberties of the people. Chief among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness embodied in the DI.
With that in mind, Article i, section 8 lists the powers of Congress “to declare war, grant marquee and reprisal and to make rules for the Capture on Land and water” - nothing in this language to meet grants the power of Congress to initiate hostilities - unless in defense of the homeland, and only then with specific and limited power to the executive.
That means when fired upon, otherwise- we violate the dictum of the Constitution by re-defining hostility (overt or otherwise as a threat) - that can place us in a state of war at all times. Our Founders also understood that taxation was tied to warfare and to be in a perpetual state of war means more taxes. Thus to minimize taxation we have to minimize war, lest we bankrupt the nation.
Within the moral definition of limited government, then, is George Washington’s warning to beware of “entangling alliances” to insure that we do not align ourselves with other nations in a way that can create additional problems (like trade problems or warfare). This, to me and other scholars, is morally consistent with the tenets of limited government.
To expand the document to allow reprisal to be unilateral and decided upon by a President short circuits the function of Congress. Indeed, how is one to define reprisal, is it overt or covert act of war, aggression or hostility -that definition must be clear to prevent expansive interpretation to grant government power it does not have. A higher threshold for war exists again for the possible waste in treasure and lives and because a declaration of war can bring about definitive beginning and ending to a war. Otherwise, warfare is bureaucratized and left to drift or place a nation in perpetual state of war based on the over broadened executive power -not the objective of the founders (see the history of the Roman Empire).
Continuing to follow the line of moral authority and to protect the nation not only from overt actions of war committed against the United States, a declaration of war or its adjunct (reprisal) is initiated sparingly and with good cause to prevent interventionist (US involvement either directly or indirectly) into the affairs of other nations. consistent with Washiginton’s caveat of “entangling alliances.” We can also add to that the corollary that life being so precious and protected within the Constitution must be protected and war waged as an absolute last resort. That, I think, also raises the standard as to when and how war is determined and defined. We should not go about warfare in a cavalier manner. I, think, we would agree ALL life is precious and is the central tenet of moral underpinning of the Constitution, government and its raison d’etre.
Therefore, it also follows that pre-emptive strikes -defined as striking at a nation before they attack you - is a violation of another nation’s sovereignty and can be the grounds for war and for them to now attack us for the violation of their property and people and destruction of life - something we have a pact between ourselves and our government to protect -our civil liberties, life and property rights). Constitutional power should be legitimate to have authority, when we say its okay to kill one person but not someone else, then life is not as sacred, or its only defined to who we want to live and who does not live. [As an aside, I think that is another reason so many of us favor life o f a child -to wantonly disregard any life violates that moral code upon which our government was founded]
Finally, to openly define Artile 1, section 8 and interpret reprisals or rules of capture on land and water as broad, rather than restrictive, as most conservatives interpret the Constitution, now opens the entire document to a loose interpretation. If we re-define reprisal to mean we are threatened but not attacked then one can look at other language within the Constitution to give government more expansive power than the founders intended - this would deny the moral authority of a social contract - since government expansion can also infringe on all other rights.
If we look at Hamilton’s insistence that the “necessary and proper clause” or elastic clause provides the authority for government to do as necessary and proper, then why should we as a nation, be upset when government violates first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, nine and tenth amendments, among others? After all, if we can redefine war to be interventionist to attack another nation when we have not been attacked and the executive has expansive power as Commander-in-Chief, then that generates more power into the hands of the executive. To expect that executive to knowingly decide when to apply “specifically defined” power -via statute or otherwise and when not to is a dream -and we have then usurped the Constitution based on teh exigency of the time - and its very clear our Founders believed that is precisely the time when our Constitution must be zealously protected. If not leaders wishing to become tyrants or despots could surrender the Constitution (NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, etc.) to the idea of always protecting our nation and growing government all the more.
At the end of the day, we risk additional expansive government and abrogation of our Constitutional rights along with additional taxes to pay for wars, conflicts, etc. that “we think” need to be fought. With that interpretation of the document, I don’t think we can make the case for limited government at all nor that the Constitution protects us from government -but leaves society with the idea that as long as government does not infringe on me personally it can do whatever it wishes. That moves the fence posts in the favor of government and not in the favor of the person. Something the founders new only too well and an idea they try to safeguard.
We certainly have the right, as a nation, to defend ourselves from all enemies, but when we empower government with the power of war - that too me is the most profound and provocative power government can have -then it needs to be limited, used sparingly and with overwhelming force and then stand down. If not, once an executive understands he can use the power of the military to accomplish his goals it’ll be the proverbial hammer to be used whenever. How, then, do we prevent the expansion of executive power? By allowing Congress to place a check on the system and to check that power of the executive from endless warfare through taxation and protection of our other rights.
So, no, I am not “redefining the Constitution,” but enhancing its limited powers with a bright line on where military force should be employed and when not, and for Congress to check the power of the executive; otherwise we risk losing all Constitutional safeguards. It should be no wonder that our members of Congress continue to vote on excessive government spending because they have no understanding, or don’t care about the Constitution because it gets in their way, no surprise when people want our government to do everything - we can’t afford and violates our civil liberties in the process.
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.