May 16, 2007

Houston, We Have a Problem...

Ron Paul has got some ideas about the Constitution that might surprise some of our Founding Fathers, but that's fine. We could use more politicians with a restrictive view of the legitimate scope of Federal power.

He wants to pull American power back to American borders and essentially let the world fend for itself. He's convinced that Americans brought the 9/11 attacks on themselves, and suspects that the U.S. government itself may have orchestrated the attacks. Everyone's entitled to his opinion.

Well now he's decided to run for President again, and that's his right.

He's been garnering a significant level of support amongst certain grassroots Republicans--especially on the internet. Like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul seems to attract some of the most hardcore, no-compromise activists in politics.

Now, Paul's candidacy is something of a double-edged sword for the GOP. On the one hand, Paul's campaign may draw self-described "constitutionalist" voters back into the GOP fold who would otherwise stay home. On the other hand, these types of supporters tend to react quite negatively when they don't get the candidate they've got their heart set on.

So, as much as some of us might feel our head getting ready to explode when Rep. Paul tells us everything would be hunky-dorey if we'd just leave the Islamists alone, it may be a good idea to at least try to be civil to Ron Paul and his supporters.

That said, I can't deny that I got a charge out of Rudy's smackdown of Rep. Paul at the debate. Rudy said it came from the heart, and I believe him.

Posted by: Ragnar at 02:59 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What I am seeing out here in the SF Bay area are a group of some of the most "out there" left wing "progressives" pretending to be Ron Paul supporters.  California has an open primary.  It looks like they are trying to "poison" the primary by getting a ton of Democrats to vote for Ron Paul in the primary in hopes of getting the candidate least likely to win onto the Republican ticket.

Posted by: crosspatch at May 16, 2007 04:45 AM (y2kMG)

2 Ron Paul showed me he was an out of touch idiot last night, as did most of those stuffed suits.
Rudy's a pure Grade A politician/scumbag, but he does have a decent grip on reality.
Run Fred!

Posted by: dick at May 16, 2007 08:26 AM (iBXa9)

3 I doubt very much you will get too many of these people to vote for the GOP unless Paul is the canidate. These are the type of people afraid that the DIEBOLD! machines will scan their brain waves while voting. In the end, they aren't libertarian as much as anarchists opposed to any government.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 16, 2007 08:27 AM (oC8nQ)

4 Ron Paul reminds me of Barney Fife with his high octave voice and one bullet in his gun approach. The FOX News poll showing Paul practically winninig the debate was beyond laughable. It would suggest that there are alot of dissed Sanjaya supporters out there with too  many "anytime "minutes on their hands and proves that text message polls only serve to line the pockets of their sponsors who have no interest in reading an accurate barometer of public opinion.
 
I do agree that Paul supporters seem to be almost as militant as the liberal left from any dialogue I've had the misfortune to engae in with them online. He could very well become the "Ross Perot" of the 08 election should he decide to go that route, although when asked directly if he would consider a run as an independent he flatly discounted the premise.
 
 I am in the camp that this whole process will soon be in disarray with the late entries of Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Newt Gingrich thereby making Paul less relavent than he already is. "Being Nice" and placating Paul supporters only serves to continue to allow a platform to a man out of touch with the reality of the threats we face and poisons the dialogue from which we need to make one of  the most serious decisions of our time
 
Ron Paul believes that Radical Islam is a product of OUR loins. I have a feeling he would feel the same way about Hitler and the Nazis. Don't be duped.

Posted by: Billy at May 16, 2007 08:45 AM (t15F6)

5 Paul is a complete nut job. He is totally delusional about the Islamist and doesn't have a fucking clue about the constitution. Every time you get three of his supporters in a group you must have at least two copies of loose change.



Posted by: Randman at May 16, 2007 10:20 AM (Sal3J)

6 Ron Paul is in the wrong party. Must of made a wrong u-turn and ended up Republican. I cracked up at the poll FNC had about who won the debate. When I saw Paul as second I knew damn well the moonbats were voting.  I wonder if Paul supports the truthers with his remark about 9/11. Rudy shut him down and the rest were giving Rudy thumbs up. I am wondering though is Paul going to be a "Ralph Nadar"  of the Republican party?

Posted by: allahakchew at May 16, 2007 10:50 AM (BrndJ)

7 Dr. Paul had decided to run his last campaign as a Liberatarian.  It dawned on him that the reason he had held office for so long in his district is because he had an "R" behind his name and as a Liberatarian, he would be toast.
 
Paul has been a thorn in our (TxGOP) side for years.  He is just this side of totally insane.  He claims that we have no right to defend ourselves against foreign attacks if we are not fighting an "army".  The history behind Muslim jihad eludes him totally.  And his reason for wanting to pull ALL our troops from the ME is because we never "officially" declared war on Iraq (he voted "nay" on the Authorization to Use Military Force In Iraq).   While not a over the edge as Kucinich (who was writing articles for Al Jeezera) he is so close you cannot tell one from the other. 
 
It is apparent that Paul has never talked to Phil Grahm who learned that sometimes when you run for president, people learn more about you than you wanted them to know.
 
Having been in Paul's district (until redistricting) I can tell you that the people in his district are not going to be happy with Paul putting his moonbattery out there for the entire world to see.   He just may have killed not only any chance he had for the Oval Office, but his next election as well. 
Knowing Paul, and getting his "I'm Crazy As The Mad Hatter" letter every month, it is time.

Posted by: retire05 at May 16, 2007 11:02 AM (soP1A)

8 Ron Paul is politically dead to me.  I'll spend my energy telling my neighbors about Fred! Fred in 08' !!!             USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 16, 2007 02:11 PM (2OHpj)

9 Im a Paul supporter. This may shock you, but I am not a CT. Just an old school conservative who likes the constitution.

Going into Iraq was a bad idea, they were never a threat, and now that it is turning out that Iran is a real threat, we are screwed. The Republican party has always had a non-interventionist foreign policy. Also, the guy is the taxpayers best friend, I don't know why you hate him so much. He is the only Reagan republican in the race. In fact, Reagan once stood next to him and said "I like this man."

Seriously, if he doesn't come out for the republicans, the party is done for. The government will be solid blue for 12 years.

In 12 years, I really hope I am not here saying I told you so. As at that point we will have socialized medicine and 60% taxes.

Posted by: craig at May 16, 2007 05:03 PM (C2J4h)

10 Craig, have you ever met Dr. Paul?  Have you ever campaigned for him?  Do you really think that Paul is representative of his district which is solidly red? 
If an armadillo in an Astro's cap ran with an "R" behind his name in a race against Paul, the dillo would win. 

Posted by: retire05 at May 16, 2007 05:41 PM (soP1A)

11 The Republican party has always had a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Craig, that's just not true.  Go read a few history books and you'll find that you've made an unsupportable statement.

Just an old school conservative who likes the constitution.

Craig, we all like the constitution, but there's a difference between liking it and giving it a radical construction.  Yes, there are those who believe that everything the Fedgov does must be explicitly set out in the Constitution, but I really wonder if they think through what they're advocating.  This idea of the Constitution leads to some pretty nutty results.  About 90% of what the government currently does would have to be ended.  And yes, in some cases, that would be a good thing, but in a lot of areas, it would just be nutty.

And yes, it would probably be a better practice to amend the Constitution when we feel the need for a change, but we didn't, and most things the fed. government does these days are fairly popular.  I hear a lot more criticism of what the fed. govt. fails to do than what it does.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 16, 2007 06:12 PM (c/4ax)

12

I used to be in Ron Paul's district and he never had an opponent run against him.  I have a feeling that is about to change.  As sad as I am about it, I would never vote for him again either.  We did not deserve 9-11 for bombing Saddam Hussein who was mass murdering Kurds.  Just makes me sick to my stomach.


Posted by: Rep J at May 16, 2007 11:05 PM (PG8Vv)

13 nevermind, I shouldn't have said "always". But, recently, have republicans been elected to end wars?

What is wrong with getting rid of 90% of the government? What good does it do anyway?

Posted by: craig at May 19, 2007 12:27 AM (C2J4h)

14 I love how everyone says Rudy somehow won. He did not ever make a single point in his reply.

Posted by: craig at May 19, 2007 12:28 AM (C2J4h)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
39kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.0535 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0464 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.