Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?

"Paul is running against the big government-Rockefeller wing, which has taken control of the Republican party and which Reagan would also be against."

Absolutely correct, at least in the beginning.

After the Primary in New Hampshire, Reagan then changed tack completely and fired his advisors then and hired globablists.

He also appointed globablists to his Cabinet.

So unfortunately, it did not last.

Ron Paul exploits others... bait and switch
So what if Ron Paul has a photo with Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.

First, Ronald Reagan was a interventionalist. Look at helping the Contras and sending troops in Grenada.

Ronald Reagan increase military spending to put pressure on the Soviets.

And of course our CIA involvement in Afghanistan.

“Paul is an anarchist? Please give an example of his positions to back up that charge.”

For starters I think Ronald Reagan would protect our children from predators....just because its important to keep our children safe.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Bill because he felt it was unconstitutional....and its not the federal governments job to intervene.....

http://chip91.wordpress.com/families-children/

Imagine if you left the Amber alert to the States....authorities would be squabbling over who had what jurisdiction while the sexual predator runs off with your child over the state lines.

Its all anarchist madness......I won’t be voting for a mad man.

“Um... Paul’s is worse (82).”

Right. But Paul is a libertarian, who also has a much stronger rating on illegal immigration than Thompson. Plus, Paul has voted to eliminate Gov’t agencies such as the Dept. of Ed. and Federal Welfare. Thompson hasn’t.

While those stands may not be considered “conservative” by today’s standards, those things are what I personally care about most, and on those issues, he’s way to the right of Thompson.

tabsternager: Thompson would pull in more swing voters than you think.

OTOH, Dr. Demento (paleoPaulie, El Run Paul, etc.) would not carry a plurality of the GOP vote if his life depended on it. His nomination (ROFLMAO) would doom the GOP and the underticket to a landslide loss of Biblical proportions. That is just one of many reasons why the paleosurrenderman's destruction as a candidate begins with tomorrow's Iowa caucuses even though the usual gang of antiwar, antiAmerican Demonrat suspects will cast votes for him as though they and he were Americans, patriots and Republicans which, obviously, they are not.

Duchess 47: No one needs to bother to read paleoPaulie's ravings because most of us have seen all too much of them. He yaks and yaks and yaks and NEVER accomplishes ANYTHING! Nor does he intend to accomplish anything. He is best at posing for holy pictures while doing the opposite of what he claims to advocate. In the posted excerpt from his book (the paleopipsqueak's first farewell address), the cut 'n' flee in terror Congresscritter criticizes tobacco subsidies (fair enough) but he is a BIG advocate of shrimpin' subsidies. I don't see shrimp subsidies as an enumerated power of Congress but he poses as a "constitutionalist." For those who want cowardice as a foreign policy, Afghanistan, according to Dr. Demento, is a conflict to authorize but Iraq and VietNam were not, at least according to the pretend "constitutionalist.

At least, his Congressional constituents in the GOP will either reject him for Chris Peden or have to take personal responsibility for nominating this despicable lunatic as though he were Republican. The sooner that the old paleopoltroon is driven from public life the better. Maybe you guys can run Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina next time since paleoPaulie will be too old and Upchuck Hegel has already shown himself too realistic to imagine being re-elected to the Senate much less to the White House.

As to why many revile Galveston's paleodimwit, many of us had more than a bellyful of the antiwar crapola during the VietNam War and are not about to "learn the lesson" of imitating the communist opposition who were led by George McGovern. Wars are often necessary. Those who don't like it do not have to make believe that they believe otherwise. They have no business, however, posing as "conservatives."

All paleodelusions and Bircher fantasies and libertoonian drug induced hallucinations to the contrary notwithstanding, Ronaldus Maximus was NEVER a craven and cowardly little isolationist or paleopeacecreep. The New Hampshire staff firings had to do with the squandering of limited campaign funds to that point and the, ummm, scandalous personal behavior of one of those fired. Reagan had a secure sense of priorities in which knee-jerk cheapskatism was seldom on the front burner because RM had real goals to accomplish. Virtually no conservative or actual Republican would have slashed military spending if spending the money would destroy the military potential of the soviet union (as it did).

Even RM did appoint "globalists" to his cabinet and that was unfortunate. RM did often express his belief in the principle of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." See his acceptance of of Robert Finch as Lieutenant Governor in 1966-1970 as to the latter type. One problem with the paleocowards (the neo-Neville Chamberlains really) is their absolute refusal to distinguish between the international treaty and diployakkity-yak obsessed "globalists" or "internationalists" and other "citizen of the world" types OTOH and INTERVENTIONISTS (why, when, where and how WE please without a by-your-leave to the UN or other nations).

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.