May 16, 2007
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.
Posted by: crosspatch at May 16, 2007 04:45 AM (y2kMG)
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)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 16, 2007 08:27 AM (oC8nQ)
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)
Posted by: Randman at May 16, 2007 10:20 AM (Sal3J)
Posted by: allahakchew at May 16, 2007 10:50 AM (BrndJ)
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)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 16, 2007 02:11 PM (2OHpj)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Posted by: craig at May 19, 2007 12:28 AM (C2J4h)
34 queries taking 0.0464 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.