Posted on 07/14/2007 4:42:06 PM PDT by bnelson44
Perpetual candidate Dennis Kucinich is in a snit. The Ohio Congressman has lashed out at John Edwards for suggesting the number of presidential candidates in debates should be limited. According to the AP, "Kucinich's comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums."
At first glance, Kucinich would seem to be in the right. Democracy dictates openness.
But wait. Who gets to be a candidate anyway? Why Dennis who barely registers on the polls but seems to spend his entire life running for office? Why this unbelievably tedious narcissist? Why not you or me or anybody else? Who determines who appears on those nationally televised debates? What if your neighbor were to declare for the presidency? Is it fair that he or she would be denied equal time? Chances are they would be just as bright Dennis, who often seems to have a cognitive disorder, probably brighter.
The system clearly has some inherent corruption. While my sympathies are with Clinton and Edwards - let's get Kucinich off the air already - something is obviously askew here.
UPDATE: Perhaps the Pajamas Media formula - or something like it - should be applied. If a candidate fails to register on national polls after a certain number of weeks or months, they should be removed. Call it the Ron Paul Formula. (Tonight Mr. Paul will once more be dumped from the PJM poll for failing to reach one percent on the latest Gallup.)
If a tree falls and the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound?
Paul is arabic for loser.
Rue Paul would get at least 4%
Ron Paul: A Libertarian with a Liberal foreign policy in Republicans clothing.
It’s hard to believe such a beast actually exists.
It would help if Ron Paul didn’t think we’d try and stage a Gulf of Tonkin-esque incident to try and justify an attack on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1865940/posts
Sorry Paul, but we don’t need to make up excuses to attack Iran for their meddling in Iraq.
Ron Paul is accusing the Bush admin of faking a terrorist attack in another article on FR. The man is a loon, and shouldn’t be considered part of anything the grownups do. President? Yikes.
That has been disproven.
Exactly!
L. Ron gets at least 4 percent of EVERY internet poll.
Best Republican candidate? L.Ron > 4%
Best Democrat candidate? L.Ron > 4%
Most Reliable North American family sedan? L.Ron > 4%
Favorite drug-addled, pantiless Hollywood nymphette? L.Ron > 4%
Most popular pizza topping? L.Ron > 4%
The DNC would never let fellow Democrat Lyndon LaRouche into their debates but they did permit Al Sharpton.
I guess they need some PC trappings to let a low polling antisemite on stage with them.
How did he manage to beat you in that one?;^)
Are you sure he doesn't want to let the states decide? Can you back that up?
That’s pretty clever for someone who can only manage to string together seven letters of the alphabet in order. At least they’re in order.
Most marijuana-friendly candidates: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) are the most marijuana friendly 2008 Presidential candidates, according to an analysisby the Marijuana Policy Project.
They are the only candidates who support the legalisation of marijuana, for general as well as medicinal use.
“I think it’s tragic what’s happening today in the drug war,” Rep. Paul said. “Since the early ‘70s we’ve spent maybe $200 to $300 billion on the drug war. That’s not been any good. This whole effort on the drug war doesn’t make any sense at all to me.”
http://granitestaters.com/candidates/
http://pressesc.com/01184177937_marinuana_friendly
They support him because he wants to legalize drugs.
They support him because he wants to legalize drugs.
A lot of young people who use the Internet a lot want Ron Paul
Many of these young people only have cell phones so are not polled
However, in past elections, young people don’t vote.
Why do they want Ron Paul? They support him because he wants to legalize drugs.
Most marijuana-friendly candidates: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) are the most marijuana friendly 2008 Presidential candidates, according to an analysisby the Marijuana Policy Project.
They are the only candidates who support the legalisation of marijuana, for general as well as medicinal use.
“I think it’s tragic what’s happening today in the drug war,” Rep. Paul said. “Since the early ‘70s we’ve spent maybe $200 to $300 billion on the drug war. That’s not been any good. This whole effort on the drug war doesn’t make any sense at all to me.”
http://granitestaters.com/candidates/
http://pressesc.com/01184177937_marinuana_friendly
They support him because he wants to legalize drugs.
Muckraker Report: At the moment, I have several friends who are operating marijuana farms in northern California. The right to grow marijuana for medical purposes is protected under California state law, but it’s illegal according to federal law. Naturally, these friends of mine are concerned about the future of their livelihoods. What would you say to them?
Congressman Ron Paul: As a medical doctor, I have a special interest in this issue. Tell your friends I support their livelihoods and strongly oppose any attempt by the federal government to infringe upon the right to grow medical marijuana in California under Proposition 215 of California state law. The Ninth and Tenth amendments make it very clear that under our federal system, the states retain the full authority to craft their own laws. The federal government has only limited powers, and can therefore preempt the states only in a very narrow range of federal matters. This essential principle of our Constitutional Republic is being ridden roughshod over by imperial Washington, which bullies local governments into accepting its illegal and unconstitutional policies.
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id447.html
.....
He wants to abolish the federal laws against pot. That means it would be legal unless the states made it illegal.
They support him because he wants to legalize pot.
Yes it has. Dr. Paul should do well in Iowa (especially considering Ed Failor no longer has a candidate to push). Get him in the top two in Iowa and even Giuliani's lap dog Hannity will have to talk about him. The younger generation are behind him (something the Republican Party can't say about any of the other candidates) and his message of freedom is catching on. And he is the only candidate who's given specifics on how he plans to cut government.
Let Pajamas Media have their fun taking him in and out of the poll. Just gives Dr. Paul more exposure as others talk about it. And nice to see PJM has taken the Clinton/Edwards track of getting rid of the 'gadflies'. Who would have thought Republicans were so much like Democrats....
You have friends operating pot farms? Are you financially involved?
George Wallace! “Not a dimes worth of difference . . .”
No, do you?
As such, perhaps it isn’t surprising that Paul is a staunch supporter of legalized industrial hemp farming – it is an issue that should be decided at the state level and not by the federal government, he says, and most certainly not by the Drug Enforcement Administration. In 2005 he introduced the first-ever federal bill to reauthorize hemp cultivation, eventually earning 11 co-sponsors before the bill died in committee. Undaunted, Paul rekindled the issue this year, filing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007. It may be an uphill battle, but for Paul that’s well-traveled territory
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A477963
They support him because he wants to legalize pot.
Pot comes from the leaf, hemp comes from the fibrous stalk. They are different things.
I believe whoever wins in the Iowa straw poll should be considered the front runner.. and whoever gets number two should be considered a serious contender. After that we can go down to maybe 4-5 candidates for debates.
There are quite a few big government socialists who post in this forum. There are mostly good conservatives here, though.
Yep, you have more letters, but mine are in order.
I guess that's a nutty idea seeing as how the federal war on drugs is doing so well at stamping out pot use. It's only been about 70 years or so since that one started, I'm sure we'll declare victory in the WOD any day now.
I would like to see Lyndon LaRouche.. a democrat who wants a strong America, not to destroy america. And has lots of ideas whether someone agrees with him or not. I can actually see some of the appeal the old school FDR dems had when I hear his ideas.
This is _supposed_ to be a conservative site. I think it’s largely a site of RNC cheerleaders and Bush sycophants.
So? Do you not support a candidate because of one position but may disagree with them on other positions? Some support Giuliani because of his non-stance on the 2nd Amendment but may disagree with him on many other things.
I think what some are failing to understand here is Ron Paul can and will get votes from literally everywhere on the spectrum. Some for his stance on the police action, some for his stance on 10th Amendment issues, some for his stance on the WOD, and even some for his stance on limited government. And there's nothing wrong with that. What is important however is that every one of his stances (unlike any other candidate) can be traced back to two things. The Constitution of these United States. And freedom.
Federalist 45 is quite clear what the role of the federal government was to be and what the role of the state governments was intended to be. And shows us the intent of the Framers in their own words on the role of the federal and state governments.
“Rue Paul would get at least 4%”
...only if the polling were conducted in a “nut house”.
Freedom is scary. It's much easier to be a content and happy house slave on the government's plantation.
Sounds like a plan. What's your address?
yeah but the bushbots and rudy/romnites make this site interesting though, meaning wacky!
And those otherwise sane people who have been seized by “Fred Frenzy”. An apparent psychosis which causes blurred vision and slurred speech.
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.