Posted on 01/11/2007 6:06:07 PM PST by Rodney King
Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
HOUSTON -- Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.
Paul filed incorporation papers in Texas on Thursday to create a presidential exploratory committee that allows him and his supporters to collect money on behalf of his bid. This will be Paul's second try for the White House; he was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.
Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.
"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide."
Paul, of Lake Jackson, acknowledges that the national GOP has never fully embraced him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP's large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas. He bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.
He describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.
Paul was not available for comment Thursday, Snyder said.
But he said the campaign will test its ability to attract financial and political support before deciding whether to launch a full-fledged campaign. Snyder said Paul is not running just to make a point or to try to ensure that his issues are addressed, but to win.
Paul is expected to formally announce his bid in the next week or two, Snyder said.
Snyder said Paul and his supporters are not intimidated by the presence of nationally known and better-financed candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.
"This is going to be a grassroots American campaign," he said. "For us, it's either going to happen at the grassroots level or it's not."
Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans. He was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007.
The vote against the defense appropriations bill, he said, was because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he said was "not necessary for our actual security."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not b
I'm all in behind him.
(Although now we get to be lectured by the RINO's that we should just surrender and support a RINO before the primaries even start)
liberty bump!
I think I'll get my checkbook out.
Unlike your buddy Ron Paul who just wants us to surrender the war on terror?
I worked on some of his early campaigns. Ron Paul should be the rule in Congress, not the exception.
I can understand you wanting a conservative but why support someone who would surrender on the WOT?
WOWZERS! He has been to several of my Christmas parties in Lake Jackson, Texas. Just saw him twice last year. He is a wonderful man, and his wife is a wonderful lady. I would most certainly vote for him. Have known him 33 years.
Ron Paul has my vote in the primary! Rudy- NO.. McCain-NEVER.. Romney-NO.. Paul-HELL YES!
You got my vote Ron!!!
How about Ron Paul/Duncan Hunter... Paul-Hunter '08
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is Dead. So are Three Thousand Americans.
The regime in Iraq has been changed. Yet victory will not be declared: not only does the war go on, it’s about to escalate. Obviously the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever, and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.
We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months of our war in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade, and by the time we finally got out 60,000 Americans had died. God knows we should have gotten out ten years earlier. “Troop surge” meant serious escalation.
The election is over and Americans have spoken. Enough is enough! They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite likely will occur, with bipartisan support. Up to 50,000 more troops will be sent. The goal no longer is to win, but simply to secure Baghdad! So much has been spent with so little to show for it.
Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have the Iranian Shiites who now are better positioned to take control of southern Iraq.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only the Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden – all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come.
Three thousand American military personnel are dead, more than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We’ve spent $400 billion so far, with no end in sight.
This is money we don’t have. It is all borrowed from countries like China, that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct.
Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody’s guess. But surely they won’t be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe. We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact. But then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988.
Some Members of Congress, intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans, want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft. But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Selective Service officials admit running a check of their lists of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the god of “equality.” Conscription is slavery, plain and simple. And it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.
Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and sending more troops off to a war we’re losing, we ought to revive our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory conscription to defend itself.
We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought. If we did not create credit out of thin air as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly from their pockets. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes it will not go unnoticed by any American.
I'll give him this. He's better than Hillary. At least you know where he stands....usually by himself... but you know where he stands.
OH GOODIE --- a duplicate thread.
Having Ron Paul in the race would make Jacques Chirac look good.
Doesn't it bother you at all that he's against the WOT?
Or that he was/is a Libertarian?
I will support him because he has a backbone. He is dedicated to putting the fat on the chopping block. Ron Paul would have no problem getting rid of a bunch of alphabet soup agencies- starting wiht the ATF.
He has my vote. This is about the best damn news that came out so far this new year!
So you, too, are against the WOT?
LOL
He thinks we should do away with the Air Force; are you down with that?
ABH
ANYONE BUT HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yesterday, we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. In Iraq, however, war rages on with no end in sight.
The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same – much more – when it comes to Iraq.
President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory.
In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible.
In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars.
This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation – which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same.
The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has requested an additional $100 billion to keep the war going. This money will not be included in the annual budget or deficit numbers, but will be whitewashed as an “off-budget” expenditure.
If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran.
Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same.
In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it – or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government.
Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.
I have two thoughts on foregin intervention in general. We should be all in, or all out. Starting back in the 1940's, 1950's, I would have taken over the middle east as Britain left. Sparing that, I would have totally retreated. The worst thing we can do is meddle around in another countries affairs, and then not kill them. It just pisses them off. That being said, I support the war on terror.
However, that one issue has twice now caused me to vote for a president who is the biggest spender ever. I won't let the one issue keep me from supporting the guy who is otherwise the best president ever.
You have to do what you have to do but I will not support someone that week on defense. Fortunely, I don't believe he has a prayer of getting the nomination.
Paul wants us to fight a real WOT instead of babysitting Iraqi kids.
Well for those of us who don't have the extravagance of being able to be on FreeRepublic 24/7, an occasional duplicate thread of such importance is a GOOD THING! so as Arno the rino says STOP WHINING!
AND THAT YOU FOR POSTING THIS I WOULD HAVE MISSED IT AND RON PAUL AND HIS LOVELY WIFE ARE FRIENDS OF MINE AND SO IS HIS ASSISTANT PENNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Odd. Reading his speeches it appears he just wants us to surrender.
Take a deep breath and ask yourself, WHERE did onyx complain?
I hope not. That's a formula for losing.
Yeah, I did a search on the title.. didn't come up.
His biggest problem is; "who the heck is Ron Paul?" I get Obamaized every day but have never heard the name Ron Paul until I read this post.
Ron Paul aligned himself with a handful of RINO's and most of the Democrats, and every gutless appeaser with this bold move of his.
Going against the president in a time of war isn't exactly a slick and bold move, when you consider the commander-in-chief is in charge of the military.
One can't have it both ways by being against the commander-in-chief of this country's armed forces, and support the armed forces under the command of the president.
It just doesn't make sense.
But, then again, isolationism doesn't make sense either.
It's a slightly different title. Your post is getting good hits.
I totally agree. Sometimes have a duplicate thread is important. Otherwise a lot of people might have missed Paul's desire to surrender the war on terror. That's too important to miss.
Hunter supports the WOT
Ron Paul is against the war and as Cindy Sheehan said, he is one of my favorite congrressmen due to his anti war stand. Ron Paul is a joke
where are you?
Does he really? Weird, considering he was a flight surgeon in the USAF from 1963 to 1968. Maybe he had a bad experience. I'll see if I can find a link where he states his anti-USAF views.
Well you weren't missing anything.
The president specifically said that too, by saying he wants Iraq to start stepping up, which begs the question why Ron Paul wants to appease terrorism, by agreeing with Dick Turbin. I swear, when I read Paul's press release, I thought it came from the office of Dick Turbin. The language in Paul's press release and Turbin's rebuttal to the president's speech were eerily similar.
Friend or not, he's still a surrender monkey.
I would support Tancredo or McCain befaore Paul. That pretty much sums up my opinion on this announcement.
He has my vote.
And support.
I am not aginst the WOT. However, I am against the way its being faught... instead of killing these SOB's.. the troops are arresting/detaining them... This is being treated like a law enforcement problem and I blame the top brass in the pentagon for this.
Enough is enough with Iraq. Instead of sending more troops there, we need to tell the Iraqi's to 'sh*t or get off the pot'. Tell them that they have 12-16 months to get thier acts together because we are going to be pulling out. We trained them, gave them money, gave them weapons, and have held thier hands through this whole thing. Sending more of our guys in there will just make them more dependant on us... plus it's going to cost the tax payers a ton of more money.
And business is about to pick up in the 2008 Race for the White House. Thank you, Ron Paul!!!
Unfortunately, with his surrender to the enemy platform he would do better in the Democrat primaries.
My friend, the WOT is not "one issue." It is the issue. What the hell good is someone diligent about jousting at the windmills that are "fat" and "earmarks" - a pitiful fraction of the federal budget - if he is otherwise a crank ideologue ready to bury his head in the sand and pretend there aren't untold billions of fanatics who want to kill us?!
We are waaaayy past the option of jamming our fingers in our ears and "isolating" ourselves out of the WOT. The economy is global and information is without boundaries. That genie is out of the bottle.
Now for the love of God, there will eventually be some solid conservatives in the field who aren't suicidal quacks like Paul. Support one of them!
Paul? Add another non-conservative to the list.
You're right, I knew very little about him, but now I know enough.
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.