Posted on 02/09/2008 10:43:41 PM PST by anymouse
Are we really getting the most effective representation with Ron Paul as our Congressman?
The presidential debates have exposed a stubbornness and inability to compromise that is at odds with the intentions of the founding fathers. Democracy requires negotiation and compromise to reach a consensus. We negotiate and compromise in our daily life, at work and at home. Ron Paul's inability to reach consensus on vital issues makes him ineffective as our congressman.
Ron Paul is a self-described Libertarian; if he is so enamoured with Libertarian philosophy, why is he running in the Republican primary for Congress? I welcome his participation in the political process and respect the views of his supporters as honest and sincere. The question is, does Ron Paul truly represent the values and priorities of the Republican voters in this district or is he using the Republican party's structure and established appeal just to get elected because he can't get elected as a Libertarian? If the latter is true, it is intellectually dishonest.
I think we need a Republican of conviction representing us in the U.S. Congress, not a Republican of convenience. I urge you to look at the sterling qualifications, impeccable character, and genuine passion and sincerity of Chris Peden as our Republican candidate for Congress. Chris is a pro-life, pro-family, conservative Christian who is a CPA and the Mayor pro tem in Friendswood. Chris has a proven track record of not only fighting for our conservative principles, but of achieving conservative results. Ron Paul is long on words, but a little short on results.
Just this week on the Michael Berry radio program, Ron Paul said that being a congressman was his "Plan B". I don't know about you, but I don't want to be anybody's second choice.
The catchword for this year's presidential election is "change." It's time for real change in CD 14 also. Ron Paul is the past; Chris Peden is the future. Let's put someone in Congress who represents all of us, not just the Libertarians.
Letty Packard La Marque, TX 77568
The author seems not to understand the difference between a “Libertarian” and a “libertarian”...
Gotta love the Ron Paul hit pieces, eh? But that’s okay, I voted for him in the Virginia primaries anyways.
Ron Paul owes the taxpayers a refund for twenty plus years of taking their money and not doing anything for it.
“Ron Paul was already the LP’s presidential candidate in 1988, and remains a life member of the party.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123587.html
I’m aware of his LP background - but the author is apparently contending that you can’t be a libertarian and be a true Republican, which is nonsense...
“Ron Paul is a self-described Libertarian; if he is so enamoured with Libertarian philosophy...”
That looks like a capitalized “L” to me.
“Ron Paul was already the LP’s presidential candidate in 1988, and remains a life member of the party.”
How does one become a “life member” of a political party?
Dr. No has saved his constituents plenty by 'not doing anything.'
When politicians 'Do something' it usually involves lightening your wallet in case you failed to notice.
What does his religion have to do with anything?
I don’t care about a candidate’s religious beliefs, but I would never vote for someone who asked me to.
Sure, I believe you, I really do.
By filling out the form and sending in the dues. Same as the NRA.
“He joined as a life member in 1987 at the California LP convention, where he violated Gresham’s Law by paying his membership dues in Gold.”
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/29/kevin-tuma-asks-ron-paul-to-rejoin-the-libertarian-party/
McCain and Huckabee are in the same party, but it would be silly for someone to claim that either one or both are enamoured with 'Republican philosophy'. Yet they both can claim to be in sync with 'conservative philosophy' (although many here would try to poke holes in such assertions). Similarly, Ron Paul can fairly claim to support libertarian philosophy and still be a Republican...
Peden has been on the ground busting his butt for many months now. He is one of the hardest working man in south Texas politics. And while running for Congress he has SHOWED UP for his Friendswood Mayor Pro-Tem job! While Ron Paul has missed vote after vote after vote. Which is no big deal because he usually just votes no. But Paul has been getting PAID whereas Peden's city council job pays ZERO.
Peden does him homework and is a very serious man when it comes to working for the taxpayer. You can read about him on his web site. He'd make a fantastic congressman and would be able to actually get some things done because unlike Ron Paul Peden can work with people. Peden is one of two guys who should be elected to Congress this election cycle in Texas. The other one is Brian Klock. Brian is a guy along the line of a Ronald Reagan. And he's a man who has put his life and the line for us serving his country.
Odds are that neither one of these men will be elected. They are outside the Republican establishment and they both need money. Each are running their campaigns on guts, determination and on a shoe string. They are both underdogs. Besides that the main thing they have in common is something that the professional politicians lack, they are exactly the kind of people the founders had in mind when they started this great nation. That good, decent and honest people leave their jobs and go to Washington and represent us. Us, the people Ron Paul long ago forgot about.
Like I said, odds are neither will be elected but in politics you never ever know. I pray they beat the odds!
It's political philosophy, committed to writing in its platform, is a lot better defined than the "libertarian" philosophy.
If you believe that a political party can have a “philosophy” (I don’t), then do you therefore believe that the Republican Party has a “philosophy”? If so, what is it?
What do you think a platform statement is?
A political party is a marriage of convenience - at best it's a mechanism for people who may have some common interests to work together to advance those interests, however those people are not likely united by the same philosophy (see a discussion of "big tent" for more info on that concept). The Republican party has a mix of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives and libertarians and country-club moderates and liberals. The Republican platform ends up being a compromise between policies and elements that are sufficiently palatable to enough of the people to get it approved, but it hardly represents the philosophy of any or all of those groups.
Sorry, rooting for Ron Paul v Peden. He’s a solid paleo. His opinions on the war are certainly debatable, but his stance on the homefront is not as much.
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.