Thread: Ron Paul's electability

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=58104
About one thing Mike Huckabee is right (OK, maybe two): The presidential hopeful told Chris Matthews that if Republicans want to win the 2008 election, they must nominate a candidate who'll appeal to as many independents and Democrats as possible. Dark horse Huckabee expressed the hope that he was the man.

Wishful thinking aside, when it comes to Iraq, Huckabee and the rest of the Republican candidates for president, bar Ron Paul, are at odds with the American people. According to every conceivable poll – Gallup, Rasmussen, ABC News/Washington Post – most Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, deem it a mistake and "support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within the next year."

Like it or not, these are the facts. Iraq, polls predict, will dominate the 2008 elections. Yet nine of the Republican candidates are still flogging that fiasco with brio. On this salient issue, they've adopted a position in opposition to popular wisdom; on Iraq, the Republican candidates are mimicking a man whose approval rating is in the low 30s.

Rabbiting on about how Iraq is part of a grander ideological war against terror won't wash any longer; Americans are hip to that hoax. The idea that we can rehabilitate what we ruined in Iraq is delusional – a function of a collective mindset that rejects reality and its lessons. We can't fix Iraq because of what we wrought – because of the original sin of invasion. The sinner cannot turn savior.

(Column continues below)



Paul understands this. His stance on Iraq makes him appealing to voters from the left, the (real) right and the center. He can thus also lower the Republican Party's considerable attrition rates. Like or dislike him, Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential contender whose position on Iraq comports with that of the American people – and hence with electability.

This may surprise conservatives, but bar Tom Tancredo, Paul is also the only candidate who'll seriously reduce undesirable immigration. Here, as on Iraq, Americans are united. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, "enforcement approaches with no increase in legal immigration" were the most popular policy options among a majority of voters. "Seventy percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to double legal immigration."
Unfortunately, the tyranny euphemized as political correctness dictates that border security is the only angle allowed in the immigration debate. It's now mandatory to pair an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace of all forms of legal immigration. The puppies on the Republican ticket are generally in compliance. They've embraced border security as their bailiwick, but not the burdens associated with the rapid transformation of America.
Although he has positioned himself (unwisely) as a moderate on immigration, judging from an interview he gave vdare.com, Paul takes one of the toughest positions yet – he is the only candidate who's vowed to eliminate all the incentives that keep unviable immigrants coming.
Both benefits and birthright citizenship will be abolished under a Paul administration. Free medical care, education, welfare largesse and the perennial promise of amnesty – Paul will do away with these federally mandated magnates. Immigrants who cost more than they contribute will be unlikely to come to the U.S. in the absence of what are substantial taxpayer subsidies.
No candidate has dared to talk about deportation. Paul has. "[I]f they're signing up for a benefit, they should be sent back home, instead of given the benefit," he told vdare.com. Nab trespassers when they come to claim undeserved entitlements.
Huckabee, on the other hand, has lent his ministerial blessing to the benefits bonanza. Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the governor has the dubious distinction of deploying the racist epithet to denounce a bill introduced in the Arkansas Legislature denying illegal aliens welfare and voting rights.

Huckabee now natters incessantly about recruiting more chicken pluckers and fruit pickers through guest worker programs: "We need to create a process to allow people to come here to do the jobs … unfilled by our citizens." This is one libel Americans are sick of. Seventy percent of voters nationally, says the CIS, agree that, at the right price, Americans will do menial work. (Huckabee should take time off to watch the Discovery Channel program "Dirty Jobs," where I've yet to encounter a garbage collector, sewer inspector, or tanner who wasn't an Anglo- or Afro-American.)
Huckabee, apparently, is also unaware of the labyrinth of visa programs on the books already. Besides (and this applies to all the Republican hopefuls), the future leader of a superpower should be emphasizing innovation-oriented, not labor-intense, forms of production. More mechanization and less Mexicanization.

Best of all, Paul will actually have the funds to plug the border, because, unlike Huckabee, he refuses to remain mired in Mesopotamia. All Republicans on the ticket, bar Paul, will be bogged down in Iraq for years to come. Having squandered men, matériel, and morale there, they'll be less able to respond to an attack on the homeland.
The paradox of the peace-loving Paul is this: Given his commitment to national sovereignty – to defending this country, not Israel, Iraq or Afghanistan – Paul will have the will and the wherewithal to smash any enemy entering our orbit.

Although he has positioned himself (unwisely) as a moderate on immigration, judging from an interview he gave vdare.com, Paul takes one of the toughest positions yet – he is the only candidate who's vowed to eliminate all the incentives that keep unviable immigrants coming.
Both benefits and birthright citizenship will be abolished under a Paul administration. Free medical care, education, welfare largesse and the perennial promise of amnesty – Paul will do away with these federally mandated magnates. Immigrants who cost more than they contribute will be unlikely to come to the U.S. in the absence of what are substantial taxpayer subsidies.

To Ron Pauls credit when asked about his stance on illegal immigration. He said the border needs to be secured and the laws enforced fully, which means he is going to do the right thing. He is not as vocal as Tancredo but I have no doubt that if elected he would stand by his word. I hope one of these guys makes it. American needs a hero BADLY!!!!

I was listening to Doyle via 960 on the internet last week and he pointed out something I did not know about Ron Paul. Evidently Paul must be ok with foriegn companies like "Dubai" buying out our stock market system or maybe even our ports. The free market agenda has to have a limit somewhere and I think that limit stops with radical muslims.

Doyle stated that only two out of ten or more candidates (repukes) had a problem with muslims buying out our infastructure and they were Hunter and Tancredo!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ameri ... vereignty/

American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Originally Posted by sturmruger

I was listening to Doyle via 960 on the internet last week and he pointed out something I did not know about Ron Paul. Evidently Paul must be ok with foriegn companies like "Dubai" buying out our stock market system or maybe even our ports. The free market agenda has to have a limit somewhere and I think that limit stops with radical muslims.

Doyle stated that only two out of ten or more candidates (repukes) had a problem with muslims buying out our infastructure and they were Hunter and Tancredo!

Yes, Paul said this in the debates. Yes, Tancredo and Hunter were the only 2 in the debates who took a pro-American stand on this issue. And yes, IMO Tancredo and Hunter are much better on illegal immigration.

Thousands of Ron Paul supporters had a " Ron Paul freedom walk" across the United States on Saturday. Ron Paul has over a 1000 meetup groups.
His support is growing daily, yet the MSM ignores him.

200 people show up for a Hillary Fundraiser or a McCain/Ghouliani/Romney fundraiser and the news is all over it!! YET, thousands march in support of freedom, and not a peep.

There is a revolution going on that is so much bigger than illegal immigration. Our illegal immigration policy, or lack thereof, is because of the CFR globalists agendas and you cannot do away with it unless you remove America from the control of the Elites. With these endless wars, our continual borrowing money from the chinese AND printing money to cover the shortfall is all the reasons why America is in trouble.

As much as I dig Tancredo - Hunter is out with abysmal fundraising and Tancredo is not far behind. Ghouliania/Romney/McCain are eating up their fundraising because they are ALL running on the same policy, mostly. Ghoulianii hijacked Tancredo's stance on being tough with illegal immigration..... so they neautralized him. The masses are just not 'hip' on the North American Union yet. Most Hillary/obama/romeny etc.. supporters think that its tinfoil hat stuff...... You will find a direct correlation between who owns the media, sits on the boards of directors, and who is part of the CFR.... Why else are we given 'certain' choices. I mean, look at hillary - a corrupt individual who has two fundraiser corruption strikes against her, yet the public doesn't know.

Anyways... we need to mobilize in a few months and stand behind one of the three.. hunter, tancredo or paul. else, seriously - I really believe this is our one last shot before the people of the United States become no more....

No other candidate in the history of modern day politics has had such a movement behind him even with the COMPLETE ommission, mostly, of any sort of MSM coverage. They constantly say he is insignificant, yet the MSM always seems to run "hit pieces". Why would a lion worry when an ant crosses its path?

I am really ok with Paul (would rather have Tancredo or Hunter), but I just worry that he would pull troops out too quickly. I suppose he also realy believes we don't have to fight for freedom in places abroad, but that just seems sort of naive. I worry he will be, exactly that -- naive on military matters. I don't know. Need to study it more.

I like how he's gaining momentum, though -- any momentum away from the Hildebeast is good.

How about Thompson? I like his back to federalism stance. Could these two ever combine?

Nah, probably not. Running mates also matter.

Originally Posted by jjmm

I am really ok with Paul (would rather have Tancredo or Hunter), but I just worry that he would pull troops out too quickly. I suppose he also realy believes we don't have to fight for freedom in places abroad, but that just seems sort of naive. I worry he will be, exactly that -- naive on military matters. I don't know. Need to study it more.

I like how he's gaining momentum, though -- any momentum away from the Hildebeast is good.

How about Thompson? I like his back to federalism stance. Could these two ever combine?

Nah, probably not. Running mates also matter.

Thompson is Globalist to the core and would cater to the coporations which is one of the huge things that is wrong right now. The only candidates that are going to listen to We the People are Tancredo, Paul or Hunter. People are gravitating toward Paul because they are sick of the war and Osama is still free,plus Paul has a record of doing what he says he will. It was stated on Paul's Good Morning America interview that most of his contributions are from the US troops and to me that says alot. These are the people in the line of fire and they are saying that change needs to be made. I think that is a HUGE indicator that the war is going in the wrong direction.MSM is trying to discredit him all the time because he has become a threat. To read more about him and how he stands on the issues go to:


http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Well we must begin now to help get an anti amnesty candidate in the White House !!! And there are only three to choose from. Tancredo and Hunter will go down due to their pro Iraq war (which 80% are against); whereas Paul has proven he can hang with the "big boys" in support from the average American populus. These are the only three choices we have, but we really need to join together to put one of these guys in the WH. Paul has many attributes that can hang strong against Clinton, the first being honesty.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Guliani, Huckabee have already stated they are going to give away the farm and even encourage more illegals to invade America. Romney is a flip flopper and Thompson a globalist that can't be trusted.

The time to campaign is now !!

This may surprise conservatives, but bar Tom Tancredo, Paul is also the only candidate who'll seriously reduce undesirable immigration.

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with that statement! Duncan Hunter has been working to stop illegal immigration for more years than both, Paul and Tancredo.

jjmm wrote:

I just worry that he would pull troops out too quickly. I suppose he also realy believes we don't have to fight for freedom in places abroad, but that just seems sort of naive. I worry he will be, exactly that -- naive on military matters. I don't know. Need to study it more.

Personally, I think your worries are warranted. After exhaustive research on Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter, I've come to the sound conclusion that Hunter is the only suitable candidate, of the three, to sit as our next Commander-In-Chief.