Posted on 12/02/2007 9:00:33 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Oh please. You got filthy creatures like Specter and Maine's version of Boxer and Feinstein in the GOP and you're going to complain about a guy who ran as a Libertarian, a party that's still at least 80% ideologically similar to the GOP?
Besides, his 10 terms in Congress Paul is a Republican. What does him being a Libertarian have to do with anything, other than for you to rehash child porn/drug stereotypes?
If only what? He'd kissed RINO butt and thrown away his deeply held beliefs? What are you suggesting?
Was Ford a Libertarian? Has Ron Paul promised to support the Republican nominee when he himself loses the primary election?
Has Ron Paul promised to support the Republican nominee when he himself loses the primary election?
You're the one that's clueless EV. My first post to you asked you what does that spell for the GOP and you responded with the usual "leftists/libertarians" are supporting Paul BS. If you can't see in front of you that the GOP's base has shrunk over the years, and that Paul is bringing back the old right conservatives as well as newcomers and independents, then you need glasses.
I guess libertarians don’t believe in free speech...
He hasn't, but you know why? The GOP is going to ban him from speaking at the convention and support the candidate against him in the Congressional race. Paul's knows he'll get the shiv in the back one way or another.
Sure they do, as long as they agree with that speech.
Flying under false colors.
"Old right conservatives" haven't moved anywhere. I have no idea what you mean.
And, if you think that these leftist anti-war mobs will be voting for anyone but Hillary in the general, you're deluding yourself.
Not at all. By just doing what he was doing, he would have been a prominent, more mainstream spokesperson for conservatives. He could have been someone the GOP needed to challenge the lies of the race-baiting Democrats and black left.
Yes. He said it himself. He'd only promise to support the nominee if they promise to surrender to our enemies and withdraw from fighting the war.
There are plenty of good reasons for a candidate to say "no way in hades" to support for the GOP nominee, if it ends up being a leftist. But, as in so many things, Paul's got it all wrong.
“Would of” if he’d done what? You’re not being clear.
You realize that Bush & the RNC supported Democrat-turned-Republican Laughlin in Paul's 1996 Congressional race, do you?
Speaking of false colors. AHEM
Owner of the local paper; country club republican types.
Laughlin was the Republican incumbent in 1996. In 1998, when Ron Paul was the incumbent, the RNC supported Paul and opposed Laughlin's entry into the race.
Why did you leave that out?
"Old right" meaning conservatives angry over Bush about the big government spending & foreign policy.
50% of Iowa Republicans oppose the war. You know how NH is with it's independent streak. You got 8 Republicans going after the war/social conservative Republican vote, and then you got Paul bringing in the newcomers, the independents, the libertarians, cross-over Democrats, and the conservatives I mentioned above. What do you think is going to happen?
Use your head EV. There's going to have to be some type of equilibrium on the war here between the GOP and the Paul campaign in order to retain just enough of those votes Paul brought in to defeat Hillary. Now obviously, I'm not advocating that the GOP caves in on an immediate withdrawal. But the long-term aspect of the war is going to have to be addressed. People are fed up about the war, EV. I know that FR doesn't want to hear it but it's just the sad truth. I'm not, and this is one area I don't agree with Paul on, the immediate withdrawal part.
If the GOP doesn't reach out to Paul on some of the issues, then the party will have a difficult time next year.
You got it backwards. "Flying under false colors" would be if he betrayed his principles by endorsing a business-as-usual, big government, interventionist, constitution-trampling, globalist RINO.
Some of you need to get it through your heads that just having an (R) by one's name is not the determining factor for those who believe in the constitution, conservatism and liberty. Marching in lockstep with those who betray those things, just because they have an R by their name, is one of the things that is destroying not only the party but this country.
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.