Posted on 08/09/2007 10:44:11 AM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers
By John Fout TheStreet.com Political Correspondent 8/9/2007 12:20 PM EDT
Why haven't conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?
I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestreet.com ...
Hmmm...
Yet he continues to be reelected to office in the very red state of Texas.
Real simple... a declaration that a state of war exists between the United States of America and (__________) means that we are committed to WINNING and going home. A congressional “resolution” telling the president he can do as he likes opens the door to unlimited “warfare” for as long as the president thinks he can keep the money coming, and the real possibility of a change of heart by the congress, as appears to have happened quite a bit. Because there is no clearly defined goal, no way to measure its completion and no commitment to WINNING. So, while the deliberation (or what passes for it) may be the same, the end result is no more than a bastard child that NO ONE wants to acknowledge... or a Frankenstein’s monster of Biblical proportions. Or some combination of the above. All of which get our people killed and maimed to exactly ZERO purpose, which is the situation we face right now. Someone noted on this very forum that we have a situation which was far short of total war (which we SHOULD have had) and far beyond a civil police action which is NOT a military mission and should not even be CONSIDERED as such. Does that answer your question?
“Are you denying that close to 200 Israeli citizens were rounded up by our government days after 9/11?? Are you suggesting Brit Hume is a liar?”
I can just picture the droplets of spittle flying onto your keyboard and monitor as you angrily type.
because you are as interested as I am in the reasons behind a candidate’s votes, here is a possible resource on Paul’s reasoning:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
All reaons are “esoteric” to folks too lazy to look for them.
Ron Paul: Still gaining acceptance.
“Most popular candidate on the internet”? Where does this guy get this? Not even. RP proposes some interesting stuff, and then spins out of control. RP isn’t even considered seriously among my friends and Republican Club for very good reason.
The “no” vote on the gunmaker’s lawsuits was because he didn’t think the Congress should get involved in a private tort matter between a plaintiff and a defendent.
The stem cell bill was the difference between public funding and private funding, the Govt shouldn’t meddle in private enterprises endeavors.
If Amgen wants to spend 20 billion to develop stem cells, then what business is it of the Federal Government?
When Ron Paul states that he is for a limited Govt, that is exactly what he means, no matter the issue.
“IMO, no, Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who could win the general.”
Just say no to drugs
Ron Paul
Converting one voter at a time!
AVG time 10 minutes
Weekly converts
100
Monthly converts
435
Yearly converts
5220
Target
100,000,000 votes in presidential election
Target year
21164
DK
“Real simple... a declaration that a state of war exists between the United States of America and (__________) means that we are committed to WINNING and going home. “
We officially declared war on Japan and Germany. We are still there. The ‘going home’ part, a ficticious requirement of a declaration of war, makes no sense. Your strategy would have handed Western Europe to the Soviets.
“A congressional “resolution” telling the president he can do as he likes “
Do as he likes? This is revisionist history regarding the Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq.
“Because there is no clearly defined goal”
You didn’t read the acutal authorization, did you?
“All of which get our people killed and maimed to exactly ZERO purpose”
Ousting a murderous tyrant, freeing millions from tyranny, and killing countless Al Qaeda fighters abroad. All of which have ZERO purpose to the anti-war people.
“The other GOP candidates are heading up sh’t creek next election”
That’s nonsense. Giuliani would wipe out Clinton in all of the swing states and make her spend money on her own turf. Whether he’s the nominee is another story.
In anycase, if the GOP goes soft on national security, we lose. The Dems to this point still don’t have the courage to defund the war— they blame their lack of conviction on being “bullied” by us, which amuses me greatly.
Alberto Gonzalez stated in Congressional Testimony that this (the war in Iraq) was not a “Declared War”.
It ends when the islamic terrorist threat will be greatly reduced. This goal will be achieved in the next 10 years but the Iraq and Afghanistan theater battles are almost over, we are going to achieve the ultimate victory in both theaters by mid of 2008.
Because he doesn't support the most conservative values of all, support for liberty, and support for our troops enagaged in battle against enemies sworn to our defeat and freedom's destruction.
Yeah, Joy Behar is hoping Ron Paul wins the GOP nominee.
Thanks - I hope your assessment is correct. I think that turning "moderate" Muslims against the terrorists will have to play a large role in the longer-term anti-terrorism strategy. I hope our actions embolden Muslims who are sick of being caught in the crossfire to police their own.
On the other hand, I think the "slow jihad" of Muslim immigration and population expansion may not have a military solution. It's going to be a harder problem for the non-breeding West to solve and will require some finesse, getting the general Muslim populace to refuse to be led down the fundamentalist path. I have been ruminating on it but can't articulate an answer (at least not tonight).
So explain to me just what is the goal? To “free” the Iraqis? Done long ago... Remember “Mission: Accomplished” and the party and photo op aboard the carrier? But why was it OUR business to “free” the Iraqis in the first place? It’s THEIR country after all, not ours. What ELSE is there? That passes Constitutional muster, I mean? Is it the American Empire complex rearing its ugly head again?
As for still being in Japan and Germany, we should have been gone decades ago. We have NO Constitutional authority to maintain forces in foreign countries at U.S. taxpayer expense. None. Zippity doo dah... Oh... sorry, it’s that empire thing again, isn’t it?
A proper declaration of war would not permit open-ended conflicts. This resolution does just that. So Bush has now got us into a perpetual state of war, which, in his view, can last for decades, with no incentive to actually go out and WIN, but every incentive to keep wasting the lives of our sons in perpetuity. Is this what you want?
Who are the “moderate” Muslims who you speak of?
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.