Posted on 02/03/2007 12:49:38 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Rep. Ron Paul: Running to Win in 2008
Dave Eberhart
Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007 WASHINGTON -- Libertarians and conservatives alike, frustrated by their early options among the so-called 2008 front-runners, may turn to a familiar face in pursuit of the White House: Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul, R-Texas, has been a fervent advocate of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He's now considering taking his no-nonsense show on the road in an under-the-radar run for the White House... (full article at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/30/151713.shtml?s=po)
Well, it's (very nearly) official: the Honorable Rep. Ron Paul, Texas 14th District, is running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. I don't mind saying that this news has me more excited about National electoral politics than I have been in a long, long time. We are past due for a 100% Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Capitalism, Pro-Liberty die-hard Constitutionalist Christian in the White House!!
Over the last few days, I have been speaking with a delightful Calvinist Christian political operative: Presbyterian Church in America member Penny Langford-Freeman, Ron Paul's own Political Director. She is enthusiastic about the prospect that Presbyterian and Reformed Christians and others can develop a powerful base of support for Ron Paul's candidacy by hitting the ground EARLY, leveraging our internet resources, our elbow-grease and our shoe-leather from the grass-roots up to overcome the financial advantages enjoyed by major GOP liberals like Giuliani and McCain. We need to get our Conservative Christian friends and neighbors registered Republican and committed to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries, and then get them to get their friends and neighbors registered and voting for Ron, every day for the next 11 months until Iowa and New Hampshire... and then take the GOP Primaries by storm in 2008, swarming out of the shadows like the guerilla army of Huguenot Calvinist "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion in the Revolutionary War.
Towards that end, I have set up a new Email account for coordinating FreeRepublic support for Ron Paul's candidacy. I will be working with Ron Paul's campaign staff to help direct interested FreeRepublic Conservative Christians in their efforts to support Dr. Paul; while I will be working most closely with my own Presbyterian and Reformed FReeper Friends (due simply to long familiarity and camaraderie), Christians from ALL theological traditions are most welcome!
If interested, please send your Name, State of Residence, and Email Address (contact phone number and church membership are helpful but not required) to:
I will be accepting Emails from interested parties and then submitting the list en masse to Ron Paul's political director later next week. You will be placed on Ron Paul's campaign email list and put in contact with your State campaign organizers as soon as possible. In addition, any suggestions you can offer regarding campaign literature, strategy, and marketing will be appreciated!
CORRECTION: Roughly 5 major areas that they get TWELVE minutes each on. (WAKE UP, SELF!)
He enjoys a Zero percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League.
I believe the Constitution foresaw military operations short of war. At the time these were covered by "letters of marque and reprisal."
Privateers were ships licensed to prey on the vessels of other nations with whom we had a bone to pick.
Guiliani did do a lot of good in New York City. His quality of life anti-crime campaign made New York safe to walk in again. He was a very effective leader for the City - and the job of Mayor of New York is, in my own opinion, the job most similar to that of President in terms of scope and scale. My big concerns with Guiliani? His questionable judgment with respect to Bernard Kerik, a man who was as dirty as it gets.
Romney also intrigues me - particularly his background on fiscal issues, and his fairly strong (if somewhat recent) stances on social issues. My biggest concern is that I don't know what he'll do on the WOT or Iraq. I do not care that he is a Mormon. To quote Martin Luther, "I would rather be ruled by a wise [Muslim] than by a foolish Christian." The same applies, IMHO, to Mormon presidential candidates.
I can't imagine myself voting for any of the Democrats. Hillary would be their best choice, if I could discount her history as a Clinton (I can't) and her shameless pandering to the Moveon.Org segment of the party (I can't). Obama is an attractive candidate only insofar as he is a human Rorschach blot upon whom people project what they want to see.
Yes, Ron Paul introduced the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" back on October 11, 2001 (to "allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces") and "The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001" as additional tools in tracking and destroying terror cells.
Unfortunately, Abortion is a non-issue. Even if we reconstituted the Supreme Court entirely with Alito and Roberts clones, the Supreme Court holds starae decisis so tightly that they will not overrule Roe v. Wade. Abortion will be legal as long as the Supreme Court subscribes to that philosophy.
The fight, therefore, must be ensuring that abortion is rare. A mixture of regulation and social pressures can accomplish what the Supreme Court never will.
I treat the primaries totally differently than I do the general election.
The primaries are for getting the guy closest to your perfect candidate to be the standard-bearer for your party.
If that fails, then in almost all cases you support the party. If I have a violent objection to the party candidate, then I have to ask myself if there is a line that the party nominee has crossed that makes it impossible for me to support him.
In terms of electability, I think Rudy's messy personal life will do him in; same with Gingrich. McCain's hatred of the conservative wing of the party will deny him the nomination. Massachusetts has a penchant for flip-floppers; and since Mormon flip-floppers are a really new catch for the American electorate, I think Romney will go the way of his Michigan daddy.
Well, Ron Paul isn't yet officially "announced", so howzabout him?
He's way further to the right than I. I would be uncomfortable voting for him, certainly in a primary.
A Hillary v. Ron Paul or an Obama v. Ron Paul matchup would keep me awake at night.
I think that's true of Roberts, but not Alito. I believe I recall remarks from Alito to exactly that effect -- regarding Scott and Plessy, for example.
Does Ron Paul have broad enough appeal to be able to win the general? Hunter could get crossover support from American manufacturing because of his strong (and Reaganesque) views on free, fair trade. That's a reason to have hope for him in the general, esp. against a far-left Stalinist like the two Dem frontrunners. Would Rep. Paul, with his conservative social stances, likewise be capable of pulling in votes from the center?
It's very true of Roberts. I don't know if you've noticed, but the decisions this term have been far less sweeping than the ones issued under the Warren Court or the Rehnquist Court. That's largely due to Robert's philosophy that the Supreme Court should not pontificate like law professors do, but somewhat more narrowly decide the issue at hand.
As far as I am concerned, that seems to be a breath of fresh air - and, from what I've heard, the Court seems to be functioning better this term. It will be interesting to keep an eye on this Court.
Did anyone in the Federalist papers ever define the word "war?" Were there others in those early days who saw operations short of all-out societal war being legitimate objectives for our military forces?
I haven't seen one in either party, so I'm stuck wondering whether I should even vote in a primary (a first for me!), and if so, for whom. I'm leaning Guiliani or Romney, but willing to listen for others who are somewhat moderate.
I'll pay more attention once the primaries get closer.
I know this is heresy around here, but why do we care how the Federalist papers defined "war"? It's fundamentally irrelevant how an agrarian, Colonial-era society defined "war," when crossing the Atlantic took weeks, not hours. In a modern, "world-is-flat" era, the definition of war in the 1790's is an anachronism neither required nor desirable to interpret the Constitution.
The approach to this issue needs to be balanced, both top-down (Govt. incl. SCOTUS, Congress, the new effort in SD) and bottom-up (crisis pregnancy center support, abstinence education, culture-of-life, and just show the darned procedure, already!). So I half-agree with you.
I care how they saw it, because I don't think the idea of limited military operations is new at all.
It never hurts to see history.
I believe so.
Ron Paul's advocacy for State's Rights federalism on many social issues may make him more acceptable to the moderate center than politicians who claim that they will mandate social conservatism from Washington DC.
ronpaulcalvinist@sbcglobal.net
No "pro-open borders" Republican candidate for President will ever have a serious chance for victory in '08, but Rep. Ron Paul can still bring up issues during the Republican primary season and during the Republican debates that otherwise wouldn't be brought up just by running for President.
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.