Ron Paul: A Conservative Study in Contrasts

The Politico ^ | April 18, 2007 | Josh Kraushaar

[Designer II]

"..like isolationists."

Where did you hear that term, from the talking heads in the MSM?

I think you did. At least that is where I heard it.

Somehow, that word is being applied to anyone who thinks giving our money away to other countries, and refusing to act as the world's policeman is a bad idea.

[Wormwood]

Somehow, that word is being applied to anyone who thinks giving our money away to other countries, and refusing to act as the world's policeman is a bad idea.

If that's the case, I'll proudly appropriate that word for myself.

I'm an isolationist.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Perhaps a more neutral term would be “political isolationist.” As an advocate of free trade, I’d happily embrace that term.

[Designer II]

I think I know what you mean. Trade is one thing, intervention is quite another.

Especially intervening in the affairs of another country without a compelling national interest. (Ours, not theirs.)

[kevkrom]

But, you know -- if you do Vote for him... and if enough other folks Vote for him... then the Money System doesn't really matter, eh?

Have him win a statewide election, then maybe we'll talk. If he can't get elected Governor or Senator, why does anyone think he's capable of getting elected President?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Have him win a statewide election, then maybe we'll talk. If he can't get elected Governor or Senator, why does anyone think he's capable of getting elected President?

Because the Electoral College is not restricted to voting for Senators and Governors.

[kevkrom]

Because the Electoral College is not restricted to voting for Senators and Governors.

I said "capable", not "legally able to". By your standard, I have a chance of winning the election, and I can guarantee you that's not going to happen.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I said "capable", not "legally able to". By your standard, I have a chance of winning the election, and I can guarantee you that's not going to happen.

True. Unfortunately, the Best GOP candidates running (Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter in that order) are all United States Congressmen, not Senators or Governors. Whereas the "biggest" GOP Candidate at this time is.... a Liberal ex-Mayor.

As far as "Senators and Governors" (or ex-Governors), you've got McCain and Romney -- neither of which is dependably Conservative; and a gaggle of ex-governors from various states who are polling no better than (and sometimes lower than) Congressman Ron Paul.

Given those choices, I'm supporting the Congressmen -- Ron Paul most of all.

[kevkrom]

Throw Fred Thompson into that mix and you have a solidly conservative former Senator who can effectively communicate his message, and just by announcing will immediately become one of the front-runners.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Throw Fred Thompson into that mix and you have a solidly conservative former Senator who can effectively communicate his message, and just by announcing will immediately become one of the front-runners.

Fred Thompson isn't running for the GOP Nomination.
That's not a prediction; just a plain statement of Current Fact.

I'm supporting a Candidate who is running for the GOP Nomination, not one who isn't.

[traviskicks]

bookmark

[BigTom85]

True. Unfortunately, the Best GOP candidates running (Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter in that order) are all United States Congressmen, not Senators or Governors. Whereas the "biggest" GOP Candidate at this time is.... a Liberal ex-Mayor.

Sadly, Ron Paul does not the the attention he deserves. He is one of the only elected representatives on the federal level that actually speaks about saving our country, culture, and constitution. The rest of the suits are just money/power hungry bureaucrats.

It saddens me to say.. but Rudy will probably get the GOP nomination and will probably win the next election. We can bet our bottom dollars that we will see more taxes, more gun laws, more bureaucracy created, and more feel good social programs programs created. We can also bet on the ATF funding to be expanded big time. Rudy is a true-blue big city northeast liberal to the highest degree. He is NOT to be trusted.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It saddens me to say.. but Rudy will probably get the GOP nomination and will probably win the next election. We can bet our bottom dollars that we will see more taxes, more gun laws, more bureaucracy created, and more feel good social programs programs created.

Oh, if I were a betting man, I'd say that's probably the likely scenario. Giuliani is a seasoned enough politician to chew up a movice like Obama, and Hillary's negatives are so high that she's going to have to fight for every 1% Undecided over and above the 35-40% Democrat Base.

However, as you correctly observe: any Giuliani/Democrat matchup is just a race between two Liberals (quite literally -- Rudy sought and received the endorsement of the Liberal Party of New York). Ergo, as long as we have the opportunity in the Primaries, I'll be working to nominate Anybody But Rudy -- most preferably Ron Paul.

[Verax]

#18

Thanks for shedding some "common sense" on the issue.

Speaking of "common sense", where's Tom Payne when you need him!

[Austin Willard Wright]

You’re forgetting the war. Everybody seems to be. Rudy is as much a backer of the failing surge as McCain. If it continues to go south, amd Rudy refuses to back down, the Democrat will benefit. This applies to any pro-surge candidate.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You’re forgetting the war. Everybody seems to be. Rudy is as much a backer of the failing surge as McCain. If it continues to go south, amd Rudy refuses to back down, the Democrat will benefit. This applies to any pro-surge candidate.

That's a good point.

[John D]

I wish the other GOP candidates would think more like Ron Paul and less like the DEMs.
*******************************************************************************************************************
You mean you want the other Republicans to advocate the cut and run cowardly policy of Ron Paul? I sure do not. Why is he and his democrat allies so insistent that the terrorists win in Iraq?

[The_Eaglet]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Fox clip 4-20-0

[The_Eaglet]

7

[Austin Willard Wright]

You mean you want the other Republicans to advocate the cut and run cowardly policy of Ron Paul? I sure do not.

Conservatives sensibly advocated "cut and run" on LBJ's starry-eyed War on Poverty back in the 1960s. They knew that victory in such an enterprise was hopelessly utopian, produced unintended consquences, and was a waste of scare resources. Now, using the same logic, Paul calls for disengagement from Bush's utopian crusade to "spread democracy" in Iraq. In both cases, the "cut and run" (to use your words) approach rested on the pragmatic principle of recognizing cold, hard reality.