Posted on 08/08/2007 2:35:26 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Rep. Ron Paul Isn’t Going Away *
When he deigned last month to include Ron Paul in his Sunday morning show, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told the Republican presidential candidate that he’d bet every last cent that Dr. Paul won’t end up in the White House.
He’s right, of course.
But that doesn’t mean that the 71-year-old congressman from Texas isn’t a surprising force in the 2008 race. He commands far more attention—from the media and from his opponents—than his low standing in the polls seems to warrant, has amassed an ideology-defying army of true believers through the Internet, and actually outraised some of his more seriously regarded G.O.P. foes in the most recent reporting period.
For now, Dr. Paul is mired in also-ran territory in national and early-state polls, indistinguishable from, say, Duncan Hunter, another congressman waging a seemingly futile bid. But Mr. Hunter peddles a safe (for a Republican), generic campaign message, one that won’t offend any crucial Republican constituencies but that also prevents him from building any measurable momentum. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, preaches a unique gospel of Constitution-based conservatism—and it’s getting him noticed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nyobserver.com ...
Suport Ron Paul...
Because 911 was our fault!!!
Ron Paul always brings back fond memories of that one particular summer of my youth when I had a boil on my butt that wouldn’t go away
Did you?
Rats.
You can't refute the fact that Paul has a burgeoning network of supporters and has more name recognition than most of the other Republicans, so you have to resort to name-calling.
Simple. It's his 'out of Iraq' stance that gathers the pro-Iraq war folks from all corners. Anyone who has this opinion is to be utterly destroyed continually in the media, low standing notwithstanding. This is intended to keep any other candidate from thinking along these lines. 70% of voters have to be reeducated.
Dr. Paul, on the other hand, preaches a unique gospel of Constitution-based conservatism—and it’s getting him noticed.It's so easy for hypocrits to "get noticed" in America. The press ALWAYS give hypocrits a free pass, even those on the Republican side (at least in this case).
Question for Mr. Paul: How about earmarks? How do they stand up to your sacred test of Constitutionality? And are you ashamed of all the earmarks you've bestowed on your district... or is it only OTHER PEOPLE'S lack of adherence to the Constitution that get your goat?
“so you have to resort to name-calling.”
Its NOT name calling when you call a spade a spade.
Identifying Ron Paul as a total loon is not name calling, its simply stating fact.
Calling his “just war concept” an excuse for cowardice and being unwilling to defend his country—is also a statement of fact.
Here’s another fact. Ron Paul is no more conservative than Ted Kenedy.
By Ron Paul
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
June 18, 2007
Last week’s big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
So does Hillary.
At least I didn't call him a Marxist Pig.
Just a pain in the ass.
It is a cinch that Ron Paul will be reelected in Texas - Look at his Pork shopping list - Federal money for the Texas wild Shrimp industry and more.
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
It is not his “out of Iraq” policy that makes me a supporter. It is because he doesn’t want to ram social conservative policies down everyone’s throats like many of the Republicans do. However, he doesn’t want to tax everyone to death like the Dems do and thinks spending should be addressed like neither party wants to do.
On the war issue, he makes a lot of sense. I have some reservations but the options we have are not good at all.
How convenient. He sees nothing wrong with earmarks.
Problem? What problem? No problem.
Next problem...
Really? The only disagreement with Paul that conservatives have is his foreign policy views, and I agree with half of what he says. So how come he's a loon but a pro-abortionist such as Giuliani is not?
On all the other issues, Dr. Paul is dead on. You do agree with Paul on the 2nd Amendment, limited government, and border security, don't you?
Here’s another fact. Ron Paul is no more conservative than Ted Kenedy.
Here's a fact: You're an idiot for suggesting this. Refute that.
Did Paul sing and dance with Jane Fonda? Go to anti-war rallies?
He sounds like he might do a duet with Fonda now.
Did you?
Exactly the same argument they made for John Kerry on the 2004 elections.
Big Brother is watching you.
“So how come he’s a loon but a pro-abortionist such as Giuliani is not?”
The mayor of NYC will fight and kill our enemies.
Ru Paul will sigh letters of the marque and send pirates after them.
The entire “just war” argument is a mask to hide his cowardice behind.
The simple fact is: RP is a Fruit Loop libertarian who has more in common with Code Pink than Reagan.
If he was a real conservative, RP would be polling above 1%.
You mean like Hunter?
So did Benedict Arnold
######It is because he doesn’t want to ram social conservative policies down everyone’s throats like many of the Republicans do.######
Which policies are you talking about?
George McGovern was a WWII bomber pilot. Are we supposed to be impressed by paleoPaulie as a flight surgeon??? Both of those weasels wound up antiwar antiAmerican jerks.
‘Cause he wants to legalize the weed?
I can’t figure out why posters think a Pork list is so UnAmerican. He was elected to help his district what is wrong with that.
Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate, generated much excitement back in 1996.
What did he get - maybe 1% of the vote.
The trouble with the Libertarian Praty is that it invites numerous ripe nuts into the party to swell its tiny numbers. Wander over to the Lew Rockwell site if you need to count.
The Libertarian CATO Institute has a number of grounded thinkers that conservatives would do well to read.
God knows we have too many fascist FReepers on the private property posts around here.
Mostly, that is about all they got.
Harry Browne ran in 2000.
Giuliani won't do jack except impose a police state on law-abiding residents in the name of "fighting terrorism." "Those who would give up essential liberty..."
Ru Paul will sigh letters of the marque and send pirates after them.
Nothing wrong with paying locals top dollar to hunt down Al-Qaida in those caves.
The entire “just war” argument is a mask to hide his cowardice behind.
Paul wants wars Constitutionally declared. He wants missions defined. Isn't that's what America used to do up until WWII? The simple fact is: RP is a Fruit Loop libertarian who has more in common with Code Pink than Reagan.
Name one issue Paul is liberal on other than his call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
If he was a real conservative, RP would be polling above 1%.
Paul is a real conservative, and he has more widespread support than you or the GOP establishment give him credit for.
Are you really denigrating Paul's military service to our country just because he didn't have his boots on the ground? Do you realize how valuable his role was as a flight surgeon?
Both of those weasels wound up antiwar antiAmerican jerks.
So when conservatives opposed Clinton's Kosovo War were we all "anti-American" jerks too? Gotta support the troops, you know! Paul has supported all defense budgets, veteran's funding, and military hardware so Reagan can win the Cold War. Had Bush properly asked Congress for a declaration of war, there's no doubt that Paul would have voted for 9/11-related defenses too. He still voted for Afghanistan, mind you.
Because he looks like the spaced out LSD UFO California person (I can’t think of his name but it started with a L) they classify him as nuts.
vs
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1] right wing movement based primarily in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity
Neo's
According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism . . . The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."[19] Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos. Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state.
Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China, North Korea and Iran.
neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.
Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict -
So if you call Dr. Ron Paul a Paleoconservate do you think it is an insult to him of some kind?
Ron Paul's brand of conservativism has been the conservative standard well before William Kristol and John Podhoretz separated from their idealogical brothers on the left and began trying to hijack traditional conservatism.
“Harry Browne ran in 2000.”
You’re right, of course. Time goes fast when you’re having fun.
So who did run on the libertarian ticket back in 1996? I thought Browne ran in both ‘96 and 2000. Back in ‘96 I wasn’t paying attention - I was busy slaying extinct forest buffalo and snail darters and freezing them in preparation for Y2K.
Its fun to post it because it is proof that Ron Paul is misleading people. As you said - Ron Paul was “elected to help his district” BUT instead he proposes money programs for his district BUT he does NOT vote for them. How is that helping the district???????
BTW, wikipedia is not where I would go for political definitions. I do think it nice of them to include paleoSobran's little number calling conservatism (which he he mistakenly labels "neo"conservatism) "kosher conservatism." Right there, you can see why Sobran was dumped by National Review lest he further sully the reputation of the flagship magazine of American conservatism. Wikipedia fails to note that the late paleowhatever editorial heartthrob atheist Sam Francis was the editor of the newsletter of the so-called "Conservative Citizens' Councils", the lineal descendant of the White Citizens' Councils of 40 years ago aka the Blow-Dried Klan and that he had been fired by the Washington Times for addressing a neo-nazi national convention.
Peter Steinfels is as trustworthy an historian of conservatism as Karl Marx was of capitalism and for analogous reasons.
Paleowhateverism aka paleo"conservatism" was and is not one bit concerned with opposing communism. The paleopantywaists see a strong US opposition to, say the late communist Slobodan Milosevic as a bad idea like opposing Islamofascism seems like a bad idea to these professional cowards rooted in "blood and soil" ideology which is a polite term for far worse things.
I don't know about "neoconservatives," but actual conservatives are a LOT more socially conservative than is Tom Fleming and Chronicles and the Rockford Institute who got OH SO ANGRY at pro-lifers of Operation Rescue violating the PROPERTY RIGHTS of baby-murdering abortionists. Tom may be individually pro-life but, hey, first things first!!! Ancestor worship and racial exclusiveness are NOT social conservatism.
Ron Paul's brand of paleowhateverism is called insanity and cowardly insanity at that by normal people and his candidacy will be massively rejected accordingly. His supporters will be a source of embarrassment to their descendants. Ron Paul's brand of paleodelusionism mirror's that of the Garrett Garretts and the John Birch Society and the Objectivist followers of the serial adultress who supported Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan because the stumblebum Ford was favorable to baby-killing.
The United States should have all the military hardware and troops that are necessary to fend off any threat from any movement or nation. We ought not to EVER ask: Mommy, may I???? to the United Nations (nor even belong to it) or to refrain from wars that are in our interest and sufficiently provoked (a minimalist standard). I personally do not give a rat's patoot whether Islamofascist countries become democratic or not so long as they do not get in the way of our interests.
I am not voting for John McCain but his service apparently merits my respect more than it does yours. "Flight surgeon" covers a lot of territory from treating the sniffles to dealing with injuries. PaleoPaulie is an Ob-Gyn. I don't know what his personal medical practice was as a "flight surgeon." Do you??? I do know that he is now an antiwar antiAmerican peace creep and that he probably won't be getting my primary vote or that of an overwhelming number of Republicans. Two other veterans are in the same category of antiwar antiAmerican jerks: John Kerry and George McGovern.
For the record, I was not very favorable to the Gulf War when it involved only prying Sodamn Insane's paws off Kuwait. It was his moves toward Saudi Arabia's oil that eventually convinced me. Favorable or not, NOTHING would convince me that funding should be refused to troops at war. Anyone who would deny funding to our troops at war IS an antiwar antiAmerican jerk.
PaleoPaulie claims never to have voted for a tax hike. Some of Ronaldus Maximus's budgets contained tax hikes (1986 TEFRA for example). PaleoPaulie can't have it both ways however much he usually tries. Either he voted for a tax hike or more or he did not support the expenditures in those same budgets for military. Reagan would win the Cold War with or without the paleopipsqueak.
When paleoPaulie voted for the use of force in Afghanistan (the right position) he also showed himself up for the rank phony and hypocrite that he is on Iraq with his fraudulent claims of necessity for declarations of war.
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.