Posted on 06/06/2007 3:05:08 PM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
Three of the Republican presidential contenders -- Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo -- show promise as individuals who are largely devoted to limited government, individual rights, and sound policy.Each of them has numerous issues where their principled stances will appeal to the conservative voter base of the Republican Party. Each also has some ideas which I find flawed. To educate voters and lead to the most informed possible choices, here is an analysis of some of these three candidates' positions.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
I don't know if you are only addressing the three in this article, but I think the fact that so many (Malkin, Hewitt, Saul Anuzis, etc.) have called for Paul's removal over Giuliani, a candidate that thinks we should fund child murder, is very telling with regards to their priorities.
Very well said.
I’m only referring to this article.
I like Ron Paul. I disagree with him on some of what he’s said about the WOT, although I do agree that we should have had a declaration of war.
I think Paul has a place in the debates and his message on domestic issues and the Constitution is one that needs to be heard, but I think his approach to foreign policy is an unworkable solution to our current Islamic troubles.
Paul has expressed his belief that the Islamists are attacking us because of our foreign policy going back to the 1950s.
A quick look at the history of Islam demonstrates that the Islamists have been attacking us and Western Civilization since Mohammed was old enough to lift a sword.
The radical Muslims who want us dead want us dead because it is, as Tancredo said, a dictate of their religion.
Paul's assertions that our foreign policy has brought them to this point just aren't correct.
I have for a long time been a fan of Ron Paul's. His stance on the Constitution is correct. And he is correct that there should have been a formal declaration of war before Afghanistan.
However, unless I misunderstand his positions, his judgement of the threat posed by the Islamists and his unwillingness to actively engage them on foreign soil are unacceptable in my opinion.
If you think Paul would fight the Islamists, then perhaps you know something about his position that I don't.
You do. A quick perusal of his website is all that's necessary to correct that.
If you think Paul would fight the Islamists, then perhaps you know something about his position that I don't.
Apparently I do.
L
I've looked at his website. I'm not somebody who's never heard of Paul before the debates and jumped on the Gotta-Support-Bush-Bash-Paul bandwagon.
Paul gives no indication how he would actively pursue and fight Islamists. He just says we've screwed up with our foreign policy (which is another point I don't argue). My argument with Paul is that the jihadists are coming for us regardless of our foreign policy, and they always have been.
If you've got a link to something he has said that makes you think he would fight the Islamists, I'd be grateful to see it.
Here's what I get from his website:
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
There's not much there for me to disagree with as it is stated. But there's no indication that he would actively fight the Islamists. I don't like the way Bush has restrained our troops in Iraq, but I do think that Iraq is the right place for us to be fighting for a multitude of reasons.
Blah blah same old anti-Paul talking point. That's why he supported Reagan's military defenses & voted in favor of the initial phase of the WOT.
And he served in the military himself.
Nicely done, sir.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Blackbird.
How can you describe Hunter as a “limited government conservative” when he voted for the prescription drugs boondogle and is also quite a pork-barreler?
This is one of the reasons Hunter is not my first pick. But Hunter is far better than most of the others running in '08. I like Tancredo, who voted against prescription drugs for everybody and No Child Left Behind.
But put Hunter up against Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson, and you've got a limited government conservative.
Nice try on the smear by association tactic though
Thanks for your vigilance.
20 posted on 06/07/2007 3:46:20 PM EDT by KDD (Ron Paul for President)
Hopefully they will do it without our tax dollars, too.
That is an excellent point.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
I have seen several make his claim about Hunter, and I was prone to believe it until I learned more about his record.
What Mike Huckabee in fact supports, and I entirely agree with him on the point, is the throwing of the ENTIRE income tax code onto the ash heap of history, where it properly belongs, and replacing it with a point of retail sale only sales tax.
You can learn all you would ever need to know about the proposal that Mike Huckabee endorses at the Americans for Fair Taxation website.
I agree that Huckabee should not have been listed as a limited government conservative, but neither should Hunter. His record on government spending is not something that warrants such inclusion.
“I think Paul has a place in the debates and his message on domestic issues and the Constitution is one that needs to be heard, but I think his approach to foreign policy is an unworkable solution to our current Islamic troubles”
I agree.
“I have had it with the pseudocons, who gave us 8 years of W. I will “throw my vote away” on an independent or third-party candidate rather than vote “evil” or “evil light.””
BTTT!
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.