Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member NCByrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    892

    GOP's Ron Paul Has Unusual Appeal

    GOP's Ron Paul Has Unusual Appeal

    By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press Writer
    AUSTIN, Texas Aug 3, 2007 (AP)

    An obscure congressman from Southeast Texas for most of his political career, Paul has metamorphosed into the favorite of those looking for a candidate outside the political mainstream. Legions of die-hard fans formed across the country after Republican candidate debates and Internet blogs exposed his contrarian views.

    Paul, 71, remains one of the longest of long shots for the GOP nomination, but that hasn't deterred supporters from making cold calls to voters in early contest states, plastering the Internet with plaudits, and loudly challenging Paul's White House rivals at campaign stops.

    "I honestly believe that Congressman Ron Paul, as crazy as it might sound, I believe he is the father of the modern Republican Party," said Jason Stoddard, 31, an Austin, Texas, entrepreneur who has no formal ties to Paul's campaign but has made more than a thousand calls to Iowa voters urging their support.

    The enthusiasm of admirers like Stoddard has boosted Paul's national profile and helped his campaign raise $3 million over the past three months a fraction of the double-digit millions chalked up by the top-tier candidates, but a respectable sum for an underdog.

    That enthusiasm, however, hasn't translated into widespread support in presidential polls for Paul, who was a Libertarian Party candidate for president two decades ago and is best known as a champion of small government, low taxes and minimal foreign intervention.

    National opinion polls of Republican primary voters generally show his support at about 2 percent. And while he's accumulated a cache of campaign dollars, Paul's not spending most of it. He has spent just $650,000 this year, the third-least of all 2008 presidential candidates, according to federal campaign finance reports.

    "Most of the oxygen is being taken up, especially on the Republican side, by those who look like they might have a prayer of winning in a Democratic year," said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.

    An obstetrician-gynecologist and former Air Force flight surgeon, Paul stands out from the other Republican candidates on several scores, including his long-held opposition to the Iraq war. As a result, he might benefit from President Bush's near-record unpopularity and the growing public discontent with the war, said Michael Tanner, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington

    But potential supporters may find some of the 10-term congressman's other views more difficult to accept, including calls for a return to the gold standard and a radically smaller government with no Education Department, Energy Department or Internal Revenue Service.

    Paul also is just as likely to turn off as many voters as he turns on with positions that straddle both liberal and conservative camps. He opposes the death penalty and votes against military appropriations. He also opposes abortion and gun control. He's known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No."

    Paul spokesman Jesse Benton acknowledged that Paul has formidable challenges to overcome before the first votes for the nomination are cast in about five months. The campaign just bought its first radio ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and has nearly tripled its staff to 25 in the past month.

    "We realize the odds are still pretty long for Dr. Paul, but we think that Ron is a real legitimate player now that people are starting to pay attention," Benton said.

    As comedian Stephen Colbert put it when Paul appeared in June on his mock right-wing talk show, "You are an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery."

    Ron Paul for President: http://www.ronpaul2008.com

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStor ... 185&page=1

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    655
    I really like Tom Tancredo, but more and more it looks like I may support Ron Paul after all.
    "If you always do what You've always done, You'll always get what you always got!"

    “If you ain’t mad, you ain’t paying attention.

  3. #3
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,707
    He opposes the death penalty and votes against military appropriations.
    The above is why I think I'm going to drop Ron Paul as my third choice for President of the United States.

    Choices yesterday: #1 Duncan Hunter, #2 Tancredo, and a distant 3rd, Ron Paul.

    Choices today: # Duncan Hunter and #2 Tom Tancredo.

    I just don't think I can get over his failure to support the death penalty. Furthermore, try as I may, I can't picture Paul as our next Commander-In-Chief. Sorry folks, it pains me to say this, but Paul has just dropped of my list of supportable candidates.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    659
    I like what I hear with Ron Paul. If he is on the level about reducing the size of our government, I will vote for this man.

    A smaller federal government would return this country to its founding ideas. It would improve our schools because communities could again take control of their curriculums and quality control. We also woudn't have some bueracrat in D.C. telling people in Idaho how to live their lives, hire their employees, or how they need to fork over their money to support crackheads in Memphis, TN. In other words, Ron Paul would put Idahoans back in charge of Idaho, etc. The desires of the Federal Government would play second fiddle to the needs of your family and neighbors.

    I am willing to concede the death penalty support if Paul can set these other goals in motion. Besides, I would rather have each state decide if they support the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. This makes it harder for the death penalty to be banned. One massive government would make it much more likely that the death penalty will be banned in the future.[/b]
    "We have decided man doesn't need a backbone any more; to have one is old-fashioned. Someday we're going to slip it back on." - William Faulkner

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    655
    im not keen on his military views, but everything else I like.
    "If you always do what You've always done, You'll always get what you always got!"

    “If you ain’t mad, you ain’t paying attention.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,310
    Quote Originally Posted by apropos
    I am willing to concede the death penalty support if Paul can set these other goals in motion. Besides, I would rather have each state decide if they support the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. This makes it harder for the death penalty to be banned. One massive government would make it much more likely that the death penalty will be banned in the future.
    I believe that the death penalty is already decided by states, since some have it and some don't. I think it's appropriate that each state decide this for themselves. So... a candidate's stand on the death penalty is immaterial. Ron Paul will be the first one to say that most things should be left up to the states to decide anyway (see the 10th Amendment).

    As for his votes against military appropriations, I believe he would say that he's against our military being all over the world fighting undeclared wars and UN police actions, and voting against these appropriations is the only way he as Congressman can make his voice heard on that issue, since all revenue bills have to arise in the House. You can be sure that as President, Ron Paul will use the military as the Constitution specifies.

    To me, the most important thing about Ron Paul is that he is such a strict Constitutionalist. We as a nation have moved so far away from that foundational document, that we are at risk for losing so many of the rights that we treasure, especially our rights to property, privacy, speech, and the free exercise of religion. In the larger scheme of things, I'm not worried about the death penalty. That will be the least of our problems if we continue down the road we're on!
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,707
    Imblest wrote:

    I think it's appropriate that each state decide this for themselves. So... a candidate's stand on the death penalty is immaterial.
    His position on the issue is far from immaterial to me.

    As for his votes against military appropriations, I believe he would say that he's against our military being all over the world fighting undeclared wars and UN police actions, and voting against these appropriations is the only way he as Congressman can make his voice heard on that issue, since all revenue bills have to arise in the House. You can be sure that as President, Ron Paul will use the military as the Constitution specifies.
    Are you physic.

    His actions on the military appropriations bill are not is only weaknesses in regards to our military and it's use. I know some people don't won't to hear this, but it's imperative that we protect our national interest and that of our allies, wherever they are. IMHO, Rep. Paul is not Commander-In-Chief material. I'm afraid he would get a case of the slows, or maybe even fail to act, in a crisis that required and/or demanded military action. I envision him as being easily bullied, and that's not what we need right now. His views on military usage would probably lead to less military spending, which means less technological advancements in weapondary, ships, submarines, etc., and further cuts in our active armed forces. I see the writing on the wall. Now I'm a physic too.

    For the most part, the Clinton reductions are the primary reason our NG is in Iraq as we speak. The operation should have been conducted solely with active duty military, but unfortuntely the Clinton cuts crippled our ability of maintaining two simultaneous battle fronts. Heck, our reserve forces weren't even large enough to compensate.

    These are dangerous times, we've got a multitude of potential threats to our national security and worldly interests right now. This is not the time to ignore the abilities and experience of our future president in dealing with issues that require a show of military strength. I believe Ronald Reagan had it right, "the reality is that we must find peace through strength." Think China, North Korea, Iran, etc. Anyone of them, or someone else, could be in our future. The thought of having confrontation with China scares the dickens out of me, as it should everyone. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is the right man for the job either. However, I do think Duncan Hunter is. Furthermore, Duncan Hunter is better on the border security and illegal immigrant issue than Paul is.

    For the record, I agree with you that we should not be running all over the world involving ourselves in every problem that pops up. However, we do have a responsibility to our allies and to our country's interests.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    1,726
    Ron Paul is against the wars and against our troops beeing all over the world.
    I LIKE THIS. BRING THEM HOME.
    Our troops must take care of our country, not countries around the world.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,310
    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    His position on the issue is far from immaterial to me.
    Why, if the President doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty? If it's up to the states, then the President's views on that have nothing to do with what the states do. (10th amendment again) Besides, we spend so many of our tax dollars defending and appealing for people who have been sentenced to death, that I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't do as well to just lock them up and throw away the key. How much of a deterrent can the death penalty possibly be when it's not carried out until 10-20 years after the fact? I'm not against the death penalty, I just don't think it's worth deciding an election over. Now you may have a personal stake in this that changes things for you, if so, I'm sorry, but looking at it from my point of view, this is what I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    Are you physic.
    Not sure about that, but I'm not psychic either
    However, I have read a lot of what Ron Paul has written, and I know how he feels about spending a ton of money on an undeclared war. The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, and the military actions we engage in today without a declaration would never have been considered by our founders. So knowing how highly Dr. Paul holds the Constitution, I do know that he will ALWAYS uphold it, unlike many of our politicians today. Here's a link to the Constitution:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    His actions on the military appropriations bill are not is only weaknesses in regards to our military and it's use. I know some people don't won't to hear this, but it's imperative that we protect our national interest and that of our allies, wherever they are. IMHO, Rep. Paul is not Commander-In-Chief material. I'm afraid he would get a case of the slows, or maybe even fail to act, in a crisis that required and/or demanded military action. I envision him as being easily bullied, and that's not what we need right now. His views on military usage would probably lead to less military spending, which means less technological advancements in weapondary, ships, submarines, etc., and further cuts in our active armed forces. I see the writing on the wall. Now I'm a physic too.
    I can't believe you think Ron Paul would be easily bullied!! Where did you get that idea?! He has been standing firm against the rest of Congress for years; what on earth makes you think he's going to start letting others push him around now? The Preamble to the Constitution says that the federal government is to "provide for the common defence," and I believe that is what Ron Paul would do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    For the most part, the Clinton reductions are the primary reason our NG is in Iraq as we speak. The operation should have been conducted solely with active duty military, but unfortuntely the Clinton cuts crippled our ability of maintaining two simultaneous battle fronts. Heck, our reserve forces weren't even large enough to compensate.
    Anything Clinton did is immaterial. Ron Paul is NOTHING like Bill Clinton. PLEASE tell me we at least agree on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    These are dangerous times, we've got a multitude of potential threats to our national security and worldly interests right now. This is not the time to ignore the abilities and experience of our future president in dealing with issues that require a show of military strength. I believe Ronald Reagan had it right, "the reality is that we must find peace through strength." Think China, North Korea, Iran, etc. Anyone of them, or someone else, could be in our future. The thought of having confrontation with China scares the dickens out of me, as it should everyone. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is the right man for the job either. However, I do think Duncan Hunter is. Furthermore, Duncan Hunter is better on the border security and illegal immigrant issue than Paul is.
    I believe the biggest threat to our nation today doesn't come from China, North Korea, or Japan. The biggest threat, in my opinion, is internal as the SPP prepares to hand over our sovereignty and our way of life to Mexico and Canada. This is why I think it is imperative to have a President who understands this threat. To me, border security and illegal immigration are all a part of the bigger sovereignty issue, and I think Dr. Paul understands that better than anyone else. If or when we end up in a war with China, we will be so screwed anyway. I think the best thing there will be preventing it from happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    For the record, I agree with you that we should not be running all over the world involving ourselves in every problem that pops up. However, we do have a responsibility to our allies and to our country's interests.
    Which ally were we defending when we attacked Iran and started the second Gulf War? How do we decide who our allies are anymore? I think Great Britain is about it these days. I think we have to look out for OURSELVES first, and that's not happening now.

    I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I respect that your opinion is your opinion, and mine is obviously different but just as valid.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #10
    Senior Member NCByrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    892
    My whole life I have been a staunch supporter of the death penalty. BUT, over 70 people and that was a year ago) have now been released from prison WHO WERE ON DEATH ROW........after DNA tests proved them innocent.

    I would rather see someone sentenced to life without possibility of parole, then kill an innocent person.

    If the death sentence is SELECTIVELY used, that would be discrimination. It's a hard choice, expecially when children have been murdered and people are mad about it.

    BUT as I said, better life sentences then the deaths of innocents.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •