Ron Paul: Utah turnout wows candidate

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 9/16/07 | Sheena McFarland

[George W. Bush]

Ron Paul: Utah turnout wows candidate

Before a crowd of 1,000, Republican hopeful speaks about foreign policy, war

By Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:09/16/2007 02:38:49 AM MDT

More than 1,000 people gathered Saturday at the Union Pacific Depot in Salt Lake City to rally behind U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

    Paul, an obstetrician from Texas, was impressed with the turnout.

    "Wow. If they only knew you existed over in Washington, they'd change things over there," he said as he greeted the cheering crowd.

    Paul spoke fervently of his support of smaller government, including the abolition of agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, and of his support for strictly following the Constitution. He also spoke out against the war in Iraq and any pre-emptive military action.

    "Because of our careless attitude about foreign policy and how we go to war, we have allowed our government to build an American world empire," he said. "We are not an empire. We're a republic."

    Paul's stances on such topics are "clearly proven" in his voting record, which has earned him the nickname of "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives, said supporter Ronald Levine Saturday.

    "I tell people not to listen to what a candidate says before an election or what he does," he said. "I tell them to look at what he has consistently done for the past 20 years."

    That voting record is what drives his grass-roots supporters, said Mark Hudson of Syracuse.

    "He is the only candidate who attracts everyone from libertarians to constitutional conservatives to true conservatives," Hudson said.

    Paul visited Utah for the free rally and for a $1,000-a-plate brunch that drew fewer than 20 supporters and a $2,000-per-plate dinner. He is the eighth presidential candidate to visit Utah, the fourth Republican. Paul had raised about $13,000 in Utah as of the June 30 filing, according to the Federal Elections Commission.

    Though polls show Paul garnering an average of only 2 percent of potential voters, many of his supporters believe the polls don't accurately show how many people support him.

    "He's the only candidate I've seen homemade signs for," said Tom Salt, who is studying mechanical engineering at Brigham Young University.

    Salt sees many young people supporting Paul.

    "We look at his principles and we're too young to be cynical about his chances," Salt said.

    The mainstream media has not treated Paul fairly, said Jed Hardman of Springville, and neither have some of the other Republicans in the race, pointing to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney "openly mocking" Paul after debates.

    "They're afraid because as soon as such a true conservative emerges, one who is anti-abortion and has conservative views on taxes, they're going to lose," he said.

    smcfarland@sltrib.com

[Tears of a Clown]

What makes him a wacko? The fact that he worked for Ron Paul for so long? If that’s the case then I agree, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong when he relates what happened when the vote for force in afghanistan was up. Given Paul’s softness on the WOT, it shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Atleast he was sane enough to stop working for a anti-war conspiracy theorist, I’ll give him that.

“Paul takes the supposed war on terror seriously enough to have serious objections to measures that may be an unconstitutional infringement on the liberties of American Citizens.”

O that is such BS. Him being more worried about a terrorist in guantanamo not being comfy enough or a cell member not having his phone call listened to while he’s calling his buddies in pakistan than the potential for millions of american deaths means he’s serious about the war on terror? I’m not buying it, and no one else here does either.

And a lot of people fault bush for not taking care of illegal immigration and the border. Mostly it’s because the GOP doesn’t want to scare away hispanic voters (my guess). But not one of the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11 was here illegally. They all had visas. None of them even crossed the mexican border. Most of them were also saudi arabian, but that in itself doesn’t give us leverage to attack Saudi Arabia.

And bringing up Saudi Arabia as if to say Ron Paul WOULD “deal decisively with them” is silly. Ron Paul supports an isolationist foreign policy.

[the tongue]

“And bringing up Saudi Arabia as if to say Ron Paul WOULD “deal decisively with them” is silly. Ron Paul supports an isolationist foreign policy.”

“Dealing decisively” with someone doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to kick their ass. There are other ways to deal with problems, as we’ve all learned in adulthood.

[Tears of a Clown]

I don’t know many adults who say they ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Most would probably confront it head on.

The Ron Paul Doctrine when it comes to foreign policy is, in a nutshell, “Ignore the problem and hope it goes away”

In an increasingly globalized world, with the US as the sole superpower, that just ain’t gonna work.

[the tongue]

One of the problems with the American mindset is that when things are done, they must be done NOW. We could set plans in motion that would timebomb the economy of these despotic sheikdoms. We could ruin them while assuring our own security, economically.

[BigTom85]

If we pulled our troops out of the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere I have no doubt the United States would be at much greater risk of attack and the next war front would be on the US boarder. We would have no military allies because Ron Paul doesn’t believe in them. He would not even help England or Australia.

We have already pulled our troops out of parts of Asia after conflicts (Korea and Vietnam). Both of those examples were a far cry from victory for the US.

The best way to get along with a nation is to TRADE with them. Our relationship with Vietnam has improved big time... a lot of the improvement is because of trade.

[traviskicks]

pic from the event:

From:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=360

[MNJohnnie]

I feel really sorry for you Paulbots. To be for Isolationism in a post 09-11 world one has to be even more mentally incompetent then the American Firsters were in 1940.

Rather then screaming scorn at everyone who tells you the hard truths about the world, and your deranged god Paul, you should make peace with the reality that not only is Paul a simple minded lunatic, he also is never going to be anything other then a crackpot congress critter from Texas.

The people who support Paul are either old senile Buchannaites who choose to forget their former god got less then 1% of the vote nation wide in 2000 or rabid Moveon.org stooges who think Paul will be their ticket to split the Conservative base for the Democrats in 2008. Most of these latter ones will never vote for him, or any Republican, in a general election.

But do keep posting. These threads have become as much fun then the old ZOT threads were. Going to be great fun reposting them after the 1st primary so we can watch you all rationalize away why Paul got his butt kicked.

[MNJohnnie]

Really? Perhaps you can explain to me where the Constitution authorized Earmarks? How earmarking $400 million dollars to fat cat special interest groups over the years shows Paul acting as a “limited Govt Conservative? How Paul, a purported "limited Govt Conservative” can defend Earmarks as a “necessary tool of Congress”?

Paul is a hypocritical fraud. He pushes all the rhetorical emotional hot buttons of the fringes while being just another good old boy politician in his actions

[MNJohnnie]

Free Republic is a bastion of the Right. Freeper Members are all committed likely voters and activists. If Paul cannot win here, he cannot win anywhere. Latest Freeper polling numbers.

Fred Thompson 50.0% 1,376

Duncan Hunter 21.3% 587

Other/undecided 6.1% 167

Mitt Romney 6.0% 165

Ron Paul 5.3% 146

Rudy Giuliani 4.9% 134

Tom Tancredo 3.0% 82

Mike Huckabee 2.5% 69

John McCain 0.5% 15

Sam Brownback 0.3% 9

99.9% 2,750

[svcw]

First I do not recall calling you a nut.
Second are you comparing Paul to Washington? If I lived in Washington’s time I might feel different, but get over it this is now and it now we need to be concerned for a strong defense. Third no matter what you said about Paul not blaming us for 9/11, you can believe what you want. I have heard him say it out right, imply it and by default the people who support him (some groups of truthers). Forth I really do not think I called you a nut but since you keep thinking I did, I just wonder what voices you are listening to.

[svcw]

I heard him say he blamed us for 9/11, he has implied it and there are groups who actively support him who believe it and that he is on their side.
I do not support anyone who does not support Israel - period.

[George W. Bush]

Really? Perhaps you can explain to me where the Constitution authorized Earmarks? How earmarking $400 million dollars to fat cat special interest groups over the years shows Paul acting as a “limited Govt Conservative? How Paul, a purported "limited Govt Conservative” can defend Earmarks as a “necessary tool of Congress”?

It is part of the standard budgetary authority. It has been practiced since the earliest days of the Republic. Paul doesn't object to earmarks. He objects to using them to funnel pork or for unconstitutional purposes. And that $400 million in submitted earmarks is not "over the years". That's just what he submitted this year since he merely passes along what his constituents submit to the relevant committees. And earmarks are a necessary tool of Congress if dealing with an agency with different budget priorities. If they do not allow earmarks, then an agency, say Department of Education, could allocate all the funds they are granted in the budget to something that every member of Congress absolutely opposes. And Congress would be powerless. Earmarks are a tool for Congess to prevent money they authorized being spent for things they don't want. And porky earmarks which Paul does oppose are things greedy congresscritters slip in for their own advantage, slicing off funds for relatives and friends and cronies (Murtha).

[George W. Bush]

Free Republic is a bastion of the Right. Freeper Members are all committed likely voters and activists. If Paul cannot win here, he cannot win anywhere. Latest Freeper polling numbers.

That is exactly where you are wrong, Johnnie. A strong constitutionalist and libertarian who is essentially small-government can in fact win big with hard Right, indy and even Dim voters.

FR is no longer hard Right exactly and is much more estalishment GOP on many, perhaps most, issues. You are yourself like this, I think. I'm not criticizing it (provided no one advocates socialism or open borders). It's natural FR would become far more establishment during a majoritarian period than it was during the Xlinton era. And Ron Paul does have some pretty strong support here among pre-Bush FReepers.

[JTN]

All those people aren’t really there. One guy just “spammed” them all.

[traviskicks]

Or perhaps it was ‘photo-shopped’. :)

[t_skoz]

Uhh, Ron Paul supports Israel. He wants to stop restraining them so they can nuke Iran and Syria if they continue to attack.

All anyone else offers is more ass-kissing. It is insulting to see Israeli leaders shaking hands with murderers in the Rose Garden while Palestinian terrorists carry M-16’s made in USA paid for with USA tax dollars.

We could support Israel by taking off their handcuffs and letting them defend themselves. They have 100 nukes. Let them drop a few on Iran and Syria. It’s their neighborhood after all.

[t_skoz]

What happens when we fight a war that will take “a generation or more” and that WE CAN NOT WIN? We will bankrupt our nation and we will be without liberty, security, or prosperity. Meanwhile the party establishment hacks will continue to bankrupt us through inflation and taxation, and will continue to endanger our national security through wide open borders, the North American Union, and imperialistic foreign policy.

That is not the definition of conservatism, my friend... it’s the definition of idiocy.

[t_skoz]

So it’s cool when a bunch of baby killing, nanny state, tax and spend, adulterous, war mongering psychopaths call themselves Republicans and ruin our country, but the second that a young person with dyed hair and a shirt that you don’t like supports someone you agree with on probably 85% of conservative issues (I’ll go out on a limb here and say your main objection to Ron Paul is foreign policy), they’re dirty stinking hippies and there’s no room in this big tent for those freaks!

[t_skoz]

Ron Paul is winning straw polls all over the country. Hundreds of supporters in every city are hitting the streets spreading the message of traditional Republican values and Ron Paul’s candidacy.

FReepers, by and large, are keyboard warriors not political activists. I am not concerned that they are against Ron Paul. Those hundreds of thousands of Republicans taking to the streets are the ones people should be interested in listening to.

[lormand]

"So it’s cool when a bunch of baby killing, nanny state, tax and spend, adulterous, war mongering psychopaths call themselves Republicans and ruin our country, but the second that a young person with dyed hair and a shirt that you don’t like supports someone you agree with on probably 85% of conservative issues (I’ll go out on a limb here and say your main objection to Ron Paul is foreign policy), they’re dirty stinking hippies and there’s no room in this big tent for those freaks!"

That picture was taken from an anti-war rally in San Francisco that also included some smelly hippies who were Ron Paul fans. When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

I love it when you Paulistinians step in it.