GOOD ONE!!!
Posted on 09/09/2007 5:30:35 PM PDT by traviskicks
For better or for worse — well, for worse — Ron Paul has become the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.
His presidential campaign is an Ayn Rand express train rolling through a country already taken over by collectivists of various stripes. That there may be a caboose full of crazy sitting at the end of that train is enough to doom his chances.
But please, Ron, don't drop out just yet. The country might not want another Texan with nutty ideas and a political tin ear, but it may need one.
Many conservatives breathed a heavy sigh of relief when Fred Dalton Thompson confirmed Thursday that he was running for president. But while Thompson may be the best overall candidate for the Republicans, having someone like Paul in the hunt ought to generate healthy debate and more informed politics.
Unfortunately, it seems from the poll numbers that Americans like their politics devoid of straight talk. And it's not just Hillary Clinton trying to run away from her vote on the Iraq invasion.
Rudy Giuliani, running on the basis of his outstanding leadership around 9/11 (and the willingness of people to forgive earlier missteps), promises he would appoint pro-life judges, while still holding the pro-choice line. Mitt Romney is a large mass of wishy-washy whose riskiest stance so far was turning his back on soon-to-be-former-senator Larry Craig.
John McCain still speaks with conviction, but everyone seems disinterested in hearing what their cranky grandfather has to say about military strategy and the uselessness of torture.
Paul, however, is consistent with his message of defanged government and neo-isolationist policies. He talks about getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service and making sure the government leaves its citizens well enough alone.
That kind of talk ought to rally Texas conservatives, with the "get off my land" attitudes so prevalent over the past, oh, 170 years. Honestly, if all his positions are taken as a whole, it looks like the backbone of Texas conservatism. But he's barely making a dent in the polls even in his own backyard.
Because Paul still comes across as a little nuts. He doesn't fit in with the rest of the GOP, somehow. Opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war just prove he's not a team player. He's putting principles above party, which is exactly how not to get ahead in Washington these days.
He's also fearless about his image. He's willing to spread his message on potentially hostile grounds such as The Colbert Report, Real Time With Bill Maher or the Republican debates.
In the Information Age, you're not likely to see many candidates take such a cavalier attitude. The current administration has taught them to seek familiar, friendly ground before saying anything that passes for substance these days. Surrounding yourself with sycophants, yes-men and screened supporters during the modern campaign is just a rehearsal for the later office.
Though Texans especially should have an appreciation for a straight-talking rogue, Paul has no realistic chance at nomination, much less election. Not even if he ran against a Clinton-Obama double bill.
But now that Thompson has (finally) formalized his plunge into presidential politics, he might think about taking some lessons from the contrarian Paul.
Thompson's running mate no matter who else joins the ticket is the ghost of Ronald Reagan. This would be the same Reagan who bucked his party by running for the 1968 and 1976 Republican nominations as the conservative alternative.
Reagan got elected in 1980 by finding a way to build a bridge between the "Religious Right" and low-tax libertarians, but he made his career with a rabble-rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 campaign.
The Republicans also seem to forget that they achieved power in 1994 by speaking their mind and promising policies that would return the country to congressional sobriety.
Thompson appears to be a fine federalist with charisma to spare. Here's hoping that he'll follow his convictions and become a strong presence and strong leader, able to convince others that his is the right path, rather than just being obstinate.
Virgil noted that "fortune favors the bold." Looking at Ron Paul, that may not be true.
But Paul's boldness could help rattle the conventional wisdom of today's Republicans and elevate the national discourse and direction. If so, he's the most important man in the race.
Even if nobody votes for him.
I feel sorry for Mike Gravel. He was the most entertaining dem candidate. No mention of him.
"GOP version of Kucinich" shows just how conservative RP is.
Had Ron Paul been at the Alamo:
"Davy, the Mexicans have legitimate grievances. If we all move back to Tennessee, they won't attack us."
Those two IDJOTS are made for each other: It’s the Kucinich/Paul ticket no it’s Paul/Kucinich no it’s not it’s Kucinich/Paulno not it’s Pau............
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should live in a tree together and bake magical cookies.
ping
IMHO
Ron Paul is snookering the public - he converted to Republicanism - the one true party dedicated to the good of the nation - only for the purpose of stirring the pot - to get his message out, knowing he cannot possibly win the nomination.
Then he will return to the Liberterian Party, running as their nominee, hoping for a coup.
As with Perot, most of his votes would normally be Republican. Remember Clinton would not have won either election without Perot. They are an odd couple (Clinton/Perot)- but the strategy gave us slick willie.
In before the keyword vandals! bump
Paul is an ostrich candidate just like most Dems in Washington. Head in the sand....no understanding of the threat in front of us.
His libertarian views on limited government are great, but isolationism is simply not ever a solution.
Fred didn't call for non-smoking. He said al Qaeda tactics and limits on personal freedom, such as a smoking ban, drove Iraqis over to the Americans.
“For better or for worse — well, for worse — Ron Paul has become the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.”
He can thank Alex Jones and the troofers for that.
I happen agree with alot of what Ron Paul says. The sad thing is that he will never even be given the opportunity to be a serious candidate. Today, the only possible way to win the Republican nomination is to toe the party line and to not rock the boat. It’s ashame that this is the way it is. I wonder if Ronald Reagan would be able to get his message across today seeing as how he didn’t toe the party line either.
Fred didn't call for non-smoking. He said al Qaeda tactics and limits on personal freedom, such as a smoking ban, drove Iraqis over to the Americans.That's right.
I see you made it in. *\;-)
Nothing sad about the fact that Paul's forays into nutbattery keeps most people from taking him seriously. It shows there is still hope for this country against the threat we face.
Ru Paul is a fool. The gator will eat him first.
Paul/Gravel 08 L0L
I don’t think Ayn Rand would support Ron Paul this time, Saddam did not represent what she would consider a legitimate government and therefore had no right to continue to rule Iraq, the only question is whether invading Iraq was in our National interest, since it was we had every right to remove Saddam.
I like RP’s limited gov’t ideas, we need more of them but his support among the truther community turns me off. After every straw poll or debate Alex jones is on the air proving that no one voted for anyone but RP and all the votes were stolen by the golablists and Masons
Hardly, especially given the claim that Paul represents Texas values. Ol' Ron would have advocated moving back to Tennessee.
We shall see, there is a very intense national grass roots effort working in his favor, which I suspect will eventually translate into some sort of movement in the polls. For example, here is a recent article, front page in today’s Las Vegas Review Journal, appearing as a result of the efforts of our local Las Vegas Ron Paul meetup group:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/9676197.html#blogcomments
This sort of stuff is happening across the country, see the 2nd article in post 7.
Timeo Danaos et donos ferentes.
When a liberal reporter pretends to give conservatives advice, watch out. His intentions are not kindly.
Hate to say it, but more like the Little General Perot!
Sounds like LIHOP to me - let it happen on purpose. In other words, truther.
I used to support Ron Paul before I found out that he was right about Iraq all along.
Where, other than your paranoid fantasies, did you find support for that?
It is hard to take seriously any columnist who does not understand the difference between disinterested and uninterested. The former simply means unbiased; i.e. having no vested interest in the outcome: The judge recused himself because he held stock in the company being sued, so he could not be entirely disinterested.
Yes, some dictionaries have recently shown "lacking in interest" as a definition of disinterested. But they are merely reflecting an increasingly common (but still substandard) usage.
But, I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity.
Which to me is an embrace of the LIHOP mentality.
Shouldn’t truther be capitalized and romanized?
TRVTHER
Did you know Ron Paul is on the O’Reilly Factor tommorrow night? Should be fun to watch... :)
hey, im thirsty again, where’s my koolaid? :)
Note that nowhere in the Wiki entry does Paul even attempt to reject LIHOP - just MIHOP. Couple that with his claim that some are exploiting it, and he sure does seem like he buys into LIHOP.
“He’s putting principles above party”
-
yeah...islamic principles. Yeah let’s give them what they want and they will leave us alone!
What does this mean? If nominated republicans would rather vote for hillary/obama than Paul - or that hillary/obama would be an easy ticket to beat for any republican but Paul?
Dr. Ron Paul, King O’ The Feebs!
You're seeing what you want to see. Do you honestly believe that those people didn't see it as an opportunity and take advantage?
I agree. If Ron Paul, who at present does not have the chance of a snowball, ends up with even 3 or 4 percent of the Republican vote, that 3 or 4 percent may make the difference in a general election. We have had some close ones recently. I am not sure the constant demeaning and belittlement of Congressman Paul is going to do a lot to encourage his supporters to back the GOP nominee or be friendly to those who were so critical of their guy and his supporters.
Ron Paul is snookering the public - he converted to Republicanism - the one true party dedicated to the good of the nation - only for the purpose of stirring the pot - to get his message out, knowing he cannot possibly win the nomination.That is exactly correct. I tried to sound the alarm on this too, but the Paulistas quickly stepped in to deny it and claim Paul has promised not to run if he loses the GOP nomination.Then he will return to the Liberterian Party, running as their nominee, hoping for a coup.
As with Perot, most of his votes would normally be Republican. Remember Clinton would not have won either election without Perot. They are an odd couple (Clinton/Perot)- but the strategy gave us slick willie.
Ron Paul is NO Ronald Reagan! You didn’t hear Reagan suggesting we ‘disengage’ from the Cold War and let the rest of the world go on its way while we went on ours. Paul may be fiscally conservative (though his own earmarks suggest differently) but he is NOT like Reagan. Reagan had vision and encouraged the best in us. Not so Ron Paul.
I tend to agree with those who believe he might be the Perot of this race should he decide to run as an independent or libertarian..which is what he was initially before becoming a republican.
>> Do you honestly believe that those people didn’t see it as an opportunity and take advantage?
Well, I sure don’t believe it.
But since you and your fave nutjob feel otherwise, instead of speaking in code innuendo, JTN, why don’t you spell out...
1) EXACTLY WHO you’re talking about when you say “those people”.
2) PRECISELY WHAT they saw as an OPPORTUNITY and PRECISELY HOW they planned to take advantage of it.
Paul would have fought a real War on Terror rather than running to the "international community" or the UN for permission.
He is also in favor of border security & a missile defense system.
If you think Paul is a pacifist, then you also think Bill Clinton is a Saint. Paul has supported all of Reagan's defense buildups in the 80s and has always supported the troops.
There is a list of names of those who were in the Alamo battle.
One might be able to find the list on the internet.
It is not wildly known or covered.
Thought you might like to know.
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.