Posted on 01/13/2012 11:03:47 PM PST by Republic_of_Secession.
Ron Paul Is More Conservative Than Rick Santorum.
By Joe Deaux 01/11/12 - 04:02 PM EST
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- During a Republican presidential debate Saturday, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum had a spat about who was more conservative as each clawed for blocks of Republican voters needed to topple front-runner Mitt Romney.
According to a study done back in 2004 though, Paul was the more conservative of the two by a fairly healthy margin.
A list put together at voteview.com found that out of the 3,320 individuals (1 being the most liberal and 3,320 being the most conservative) who had served in the House or Senate from 1937 to 2002, Santorum ranked 2,674, while Paul ranked 3,320.
"Four or five times he voted to raise the national debt, so that tells you how conservative he is," Paul said Saturday about Santorum. Based on the survey, Paul could question pretty much any politician's conservative record against his own.
The scores were based on all roll calls cast in the period. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slotted in at 2,893.
Paul finished second in the New Hampshire primaries Tuesday night partly thanks to independent voters in the state who turned out, while Santorum -- who's social conservative message found traction in Iowa -- slid into a virtual tie with Gingrich behind third-place finisher Jon Huntsman.
"I sorta have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous," Paul said to supporters in a speech after the primary. "That's one thing they are telling the truth about, because we are dangerous to the status quo."
The GOP field will canvass South Carolina through Jan. 21 as each candidate attempts to pitch a conservative message to Southern voters who are skeptical of Romney's record.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Jan. 3 found that 26% of likely U.S. voters regarded Romney as a moderate.
Interestingly, Paul also ranked next to Romney as the perceived least conservative option in the GOP presidential field.
-- Written by Joe Deaux in New York.
And you are ranting.
When abortion was up to the States it was illegal in every State.
Ron Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and is anti-abortion.
More red herrings.
He endorsed as an individual Baldwin, a member of the Constitutional Party.
Try to deal with the facts.
A person cannot vote for all four people, so Paul was advocating that a person cast their vote for EITHER ONE of those parties INSTEAD of the Democrat/GOP Party, taking votes from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans.
Gee, you are starting to recognize the fact that Paul endorsed them. “Them”, including Cynthia McKinney. ‘Spread your votes as you choose, I endorse these four.’
Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.
He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com
“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”
“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”
http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/
So, he was saying vote for either one of these 4 parties INSTEAD of the other major two ones.
It is not an endorsement of what they believe but a way to fight against the two-Party monoply.
So, he was not endorsing Cynthia McKinney, and to say so is to drop the context and missrepresent what the intent of the endorsement of the 4 parties were for.
And if you keep posting me this nonsense, I will simply send you the same reply.
By saying that Ron Paul endorsed McKinney you are giving the false impression that he agrees with her political views, and ignoring the context in which he said that people should vote for her party.
In other words, you are lying.
We dealt with you Paul cult people in 2007. Stormfront has cut and pasted my responses to you guys.
Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.
He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com
“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”
“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both parties’ candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.
Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.
The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.
We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis on protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.
There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.
This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction – the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person – the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.
Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.
Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)
Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo – those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.
For me, though, my advice – for what it’s worth – is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.
A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.”
Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations. Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Ron Paul advocated voting for either one of the 4 minor parties as a protest vote.
Got it?
Paul endorsed four different Parties as a protest vote.
That is the CONTEXT of issue, and it has nothing to do with supporting any particular one of the Parties.
I am curious, is Rand Paul part of the Paul ‘cult’?
No wonder they don’t like me at that Nazi site called Stormfront.
Nazis, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader Chuck Baldwin, the Paul cult is tough.
I asked you a question-is Rand Paul a member of the Paul ‘cult’?
I supported Rand Paul in his race against Tray Greyson for the Senate seat.
Will Rand prove to be a good Senator, we don’t know yet.
Ron, we do have a history on, the man is an unscrupulous cult leader who feeds on humans, and craves celebrity and wealth.
In your lexicon, “red herring” means “something that reveals some crap about R.Paul and you need to shut people up by tossing crap at them.”
1. Anyone who thinks states should be allowed to kill the unborn in the name of the “constituiton” is not pro-life.
2. Newsletters written by Ron Paul for decades that now he says he didn’t write, or even read, while making big bucks from them is not a red herring.
In case you’re totally illiterate or stoned out of your mind, a “red herring” is a something that has no bearing on the situation. But since the situtation is discussing why R.Paul is a screaming lunatic hypocrite non-conservative non-constitutionalist liar cultleader scam artist jihadi suckup Jew hating Libertarian, any and all idiocy by R.Paul is entirely germane to the discussion.
I didn't ask if he would be a good senator, I asked you if he was part of a cult because he was supporting Ron.
Well, Rand would know that and yet he still supports him-why the hestitation in condemning him like you guys do all the rest of the Ron Paul supporters?
Talk all you want, constitutionalists believe in free speech, unlike some 'conservatives'.
Wow, you seem to be a nut.
Good luck with your troubled life.
?
?
?
You’re totally insane.
Someone posted a lot of stuff from the newsletters and they were nutz.
In your mind, “red herring” means “anything other than genuflection at the altar of Herr Doktor Ron Paul.”
You should seek help. You’re totally insane.
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.