Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent Ron Paul, the Texas congressman stirring up the Republican presidential contest with his libertarian-leaning views and online fundraising prowess, left the door open Sunday to running as an independent, should he not win the Republican nomination.
Paul, who has railed against excessive federal spending, also defended his own earmarks to benefit his congressional district into spending bills, likening them to a "tax credit" for his constituents. He added that his position was consistent because he ultimately voted against the spending measures.
And he decried the Civil War, calling it a needless effort for which hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives. He rejected that the war spelled the end to slavery in the United States, saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them.
During a one-on-one interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert challenged Paul particularly hard on the earmarks, saying that the congressman inserted them because he knew the bills would pass even with Paul voting no.
"When you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in ... the spending bills, I think you'll be consistent," Russert said, one of his most direct criticisms of a candidate in recent memory.
Paul said that while the chance of his running as an independent was slim, "I deserve one wiggle now and then." He ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.
Paul also reviewed his no-government approach on a range of issues, including what he called the ill-advised involvement of the U.S. military in the Civil War.
Russert said, if it weren't for the Civil War, there'd still be slavery.
"Oh, come on," Paul replied. "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
I thought he had vowed previously that he wouldn’t make a third party run?
this a-hole will ensure the piaps ascendancy back to the White House!!!
what a maroon!!!
Yea, he’ll run as a third-party but he won’t vote for himself. That will make it OK.
What an idiot. The slaves were privately owned. They weren't owned by the CSA. Surely those whose income depended on slave labor wouldn't have sold out their labor force to the enemy. Why would they have done that? And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery. This comment is retarded on so many levels.
The southern states needed to preserve the slave system, which is why they bolted. The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution. End of story. Ron Paul is a moron.
And what if they did'nt want to sell? It's this kooky, simplistic thinking that makes him extremely dangerous.
I don’t much cotton to Paul but I do find his comments on slavery and it’s ending interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only a complete fool would say that without the Civil war there would still be slavery in this country! I thought Russert had more brains.
He’s playing to a niche market. Racists, confederate apologists, antisemtites, retarded IT workers, etc.
So, CNN and Washington Post are spinning it to make it sound like there's more of a chance...probably just to get folks here bent out of shape. I'm surprised how many are buying it.
Reckon the North could have kept their slaves,,,
This seems extremely naive. Wasn't the point that many "simply" didn't want to sell their slaves to the U.S. government?
I think he’s a nut.
Even though what you say makes perfect sense to anyone with two functioning brain cells, that still does not keep you from being an agent of the big fascist interests... /sarcasm
libertarian utopianism.
Dr. Paul better go back and read his history. The civil war was not about slavery. It was about economics.
The north needed to preserve the Union, because they were sworn to uphold the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting comment, exactly what part of the constitution required the northern states to go to war to prevent secession?
I am so busted. The Jooz made me do it!
I expect that those whose incomes depended on slave labor would have sold their slaves to the U.S. Gov't, bred some more and then sold some more. How long would that cycle have lasted?
Paul’s notion that the Confederacy could have been bought off (as though they would not have restocked their slave inventory) is great insight in how he would deal with Islamic radicals. Surely they can be bought off too - at least until the next time, when the price goes up logarithmically.
Free pocket protectors.
Because you retards are don't realize how implementing his libertarian policies would eliminate all of your jobs since 99.9% of all computers are used to spy on/track people.
In fact he has claimed several times he made a promise to his wife he will not.
Exactly what part of the Constitution defines how a State can cancel the deal? It is an interesting discussion.
Wow. A Ron Paul thread AND a WBTS thread in one place? WOOHOO!
*sits back, grabs popcorn*
}:-)4
Ron Paul is another goof ball just like Ross Perot. Lest we forget that Perot gave us Clinton twice! We can only pray that he is “beamed up” before he has the chance to ensure another Clinton in the Whitehouse.
True but the legal tender of the economy was slaves.
“I deserve one wiggle now and then.”
Aside from creating a horrible visual, this is a very scary statement from a Presidential candidate.
How would Bloomberg & Paul if they each ran independent hurt any republican? What (R) would vote for these two?
Well, then shouldn't he be in the Democratic primary?
Huck....you know quite well that England compensated.
But the park of the war had more to do with the expansion of slvery than slavery.
I think his comments are pretty unusual for someone to challenge the conventional wisdom.
but....he’s way off on so much stuff..geez
“This race really brings out all the friction and tension to the right of center. I don’t much cotton to Paul but I do find his comments on slavery and it’s ending interesting.”
Paul said, “”Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world.”
I agree with Paul that slavery could have been ended without the war. But the Civil war wasn’t all about slavery, and Lincoln wasn’t really concerned with ‘slavery’. Paul shows a troubling lack of historical fact with this statement:
“He [Paul] said that Abraham Lincoln made a mistake by going to war to free the slaves “
If he actually said this, it’s unfortunate. Lincoln didn’t go to war to free the slaves. He went to war because he was attacked and to squash a rebellion and put the South in their unrepresented place mostly for economic advantage for the North. The emancipation came TWO years after the war started. He had no presidential power to free the slaves. Maybe Ron thinks he did, just like he thinks he can do all that stuff some so want to believe he can. HE CANNOT. Lincoln did it as Commander in chief to confiscate the assets (slaves) of the Confederacy. The only slaves ‘freed’ were the ones in confederate states, not the entire ‘union’.
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United Stead shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion....And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity.”
Paul is not a constitutionalist but a con man. INDEED! The nonsense above is exactly what con men blather, not principled people.
Not many. They would attrack more democrats.
Republicans looking for an excuse to be against a war that was authorized by Congress but not "declared".
Exactly what part of the Constitution defines how a State can cancel the deal? It is an interesting discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The actual constitution (as opposed to some goofball interpretation) says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, therefore the only legitimate question is where is the power given to the federal government to stop secession.
I believe it was simply an assumed power like the power to force the states to legalize abortions, I don’t see where either power was actually granted by the constitution.
Actually, they would have had a better option, had that been the case. It was more expensive to keep and maintain a slave, with the initial investment always at risk than it was to just hire someone. For this reason, the most dangerous jobs were not done by slaves, but usually immigrants, fairly fresh off the boat (Often Irish around the time of the war).
Why would they have done that?
To get out from under the costs of feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for not only the slaves in the workforce, but their children as well--unitl they, too could work, and by being compensated for manumission, they would recoup some of their initial investment as well.
As it turns out, the owners were divested of what had been their lawful property without compensation.
And further, the war was fought to preserve the union--the issue was the legitimacy of secession, not slavery.
No argument there, but ask a few high schoolers abou that, and chances are they'll give you the PC version that the war was fought over slavery, not States' Rights (of which secession from these United States was assumed to be one, at least by Southerners).
that was my first thought....but there are quite a few here that think just like Tim and obviously never heard of compensated emancipation.
Civil War is a hotly debated topic round these parts....I thought Paul's comments really wild.
Just remember that technically, by the Constitution, I believe that the importation of slaves was ended in 1808. I’m sure it was going on illegally, but legal slave importation had been stopped for over fifty years by the time the WBTS started.
That doesn’t make Paul’s comment any less stupid, however. Like somebody upthread stated, the slaves were in the hands of private owners, many (maybe most) of whom would have no more sold them to the government than a modern farmer would sell off all his farm equipment—because in those days, that’s basically what they were, equipment. A plantation owner selling his slaves to the government would have been forced out of business. And in 1860, the overarching right of “eminent domain” to force the compensated taking of property wasn’t nearly as entrenched as it is today.
If the government had tried something like that, there would’ve been a war, just like the one that really happened. The War itself was mostly about economic issues, and less about the morality of slavery, Lincoln himself admitted as much. Remember the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free what few slaves there were in the North—it was a masterstroke of political maneuvering that gave the War a moral dimension it had lacked before.
}:-)4
He was for pork before he was against pork... Or he's for pork, so long as it's for his district, because it gives back to the people... Which he votes against. Where's that damn line item veto?
Exactly! See post 33
Compensation to slaveowners here never really got off the ground....too many hotheads on both sides alas.
I agree that the expansion of slavery was the core issue in the runup to the war (1820s-1860.) And that expansion had everything to do not just with economics but with power.
Good post.
His notions on islolationism are retarded as well. We were very isolationist before two world wars. Our lack of presence to support our allies were historically proven to embolden the tyrants who came to power. Any student of modern world history knows this.
A better question would have been if he would have pulled out of germany after crushing the Nazis in WWII, leaving Germany and the rest of Europe to Stalin. Also, I am waiting for a question to him about our committments to Taiwan, Japan, and other stations. How far would his demilitarization go?
His policies would bring us directly to having the vacuum of power that allowed for Hitler to come to power in the first place.
Of course that is what this election is all about.
Paul = Clinton-aid.
Plenty of Clinton library money to support this.
Repeat the mantra..Clinton wins with third party help.
Our ace in the hole..Cynthia (its not easy to be green)McKinney. A woman and a black all in one candidate. Who needs Hillary liberals. If you can’t vote Republican...vote Green.
Thanks for the comment. I responded in a very similar vein to another thread about this topic and got ripped apart for thinking that Ron Paul’s view of and comments about Iraq should disqualify him for the office of POTUS, just as it does the Democrats. Anything that might help them win is unthinkable. In addition, how could you trust him if he runs as a third party after he said that he would not?
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.