As libertarian leaning as this website tends to be, we try our best to be fair about Ron Paul’s presidential run. We realize that his name has the same qualities as Beetlejuice - say it a few times and you conjure up some of the most ghastly and annoying people - likely originating from some bizarre underverse. However, for the most part, the handful of articles we’ve done about Dr. Paul have brought in the some real great thinkers, especially as of late.
The reason for this entry, in case the reader is living under a rock, is that Dr. Paul has surprised once again - but not for anything the man himself has done. On their own, Paul’s supporters came up with a fascinating idea - a November 5th “money bomb” - a single day to reign down cash on their beloved presidential candidate. Though the official campaign had nothing to do with it at all, they were the ones to benefit from the over $4.2 million donated yesterday. That’s right - 4.2 mil in one day!
This from the guy who the Republicans initially wanted out of the debates - especially after his tiff with Rudy Giuliani. After the second debate on May 15th, Michael Steel was bold enough to say that Ron Paul was “done.” But in reality, that debate was the major kicking off point of Paul’s “revolution” - perhaps if Giuliani had the moment back, he would surrender the short term applause for Paul’s long term success since.
If there was any doubt of Ron Paul’s ability to sustain himself through the primaries, it should definitely be assuaged now. Even though it is still not likely that he’ll win the nomination - the ideals of liberty and Paul’s pro-constitutional message is going to be around for some time.
Way to go Ron Paul! It is great to see somebody other then Hilliany getting some good press. Dr. Paul is definately the best American for the job.
We support Ron Paul because we support a return of freedom and Constitutional government. We are tired of a bloated government that ignores the Constitution, tramples on our rights, loves to tax with no end in sight, and does not represent what the founders of this country intended. Ron Paul represents real change and a real opportunity for those of us who love having freedom. We are the Sons of Liberty. Welcome to the Revolution.
Welcome to the Overlook Hotel.
Hereeeee’s Ronnie!
^ hehehehehe
Did they purposely choose Guy Fawkes Day for the money bomb? If so, that’s awesome. It’s like the Gunpowder Plot, but instead of blowing up Parliament, they’re blowing up the Primaries.
I wish somebody had told me about it. I would have donated money on November 5.
Why do you people constantly make the claim that he is unlikely to win?
Could it be that the actually so called scientific polls are out dated?
First they said we were 36 people in moms basement eating hot pockets.
Then they said we were just spam bots.
Then it was we stack the deck in online and text polls.
When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee : We are more than 30 people, we are not spam bots and our money is not in virtual dollars.
How about trying to find the real story that there are more of us than you thought and just admit it.
Congradulations Dr. Paul and all his supporters keep it up.
NOW THE REAL WORK BEGINS PEOPLE REGISTER REPUBLICAN AND VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES.
I heard about it yesterday morning, but I didn’t actually donate. The article I read suggested that he may raise $1 million in one day, but I honestly thought that was a bit optimistic. As it turns out, that was quite a conservative estimate. He’s got my vote, but only if he gets the Republican nomination or if he runs third party or independent - the reason being I can’t vote in the primary because I’m registered Independent. And I hope no one tries to talk me into registering as a Republican again, because its not gonna happen.
“And I hope no one tries to talk me into registering as a Republican again, because its not gonna happen.”
Actually, the jury is still out on this one. But its unlikely, at least.
Ron Paul is like Leonidas now, screaming “THIS IS AMERICAAAAAAAA!” The Persian army in this analogy is made up of democrats, republicans, the military industrial complex and the main stream media.
We are DONE with the terrorist government that has taken this country from the people.
The very idea of “electability” is an interesting one, in that, WE THE PEOPLE determine someone’s “electability.”
It’s not the polls, or MSM or…whatever. It’s US!
The object of an election is to put into practice, at the governmental level, the ideals, that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, I as a voter/taxpayer/American citizen deem beneficial to me personally and me corporately (being a legal citizen who cares deeply about my country).
It’s really quite simple: if enough of US decide that we want our government operating under such-and-such ideals, and we vote based on that desire (not the “lesser of two evils”), it can and does happen.
History, recent and not-so-recent, is replete with examples of “underdogs” triumphing: “Navy Beats Notre Dame, Ending 44-Year Losing Streak” (Nov. 3, 2007); “Appalachian State 34, No. 5 Michigan 32” in “one of the greatest upsets in college football history….” (Sept. 1, 2007); in early-2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic Presidential nomination yet failed to win any primary; in early-1991 Bill Clinton was at 2% and went on to win the Presidency; in early-1975 Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% and went on to win the Presidency.
Would to God that we as citizens would approach the election process with the fervor, intensity and no-holds-barred approach that we can see in life’s other activities. I can assure you that, although some members of the Navy and Appalachian State teams had their doubts, they were encouraged to believe in themselves and to make the best possible effort they could, being unwilling to settle for anything less than that best effort.
No, no, NO, folks! Our job as U.S. citizens and patriots is not to “pick a winner,” which seems to me to be a view which trivializes our opportunity and responsibility as citizens. We’re to carefully consider all our options and then vote based on what is best for our COUNTRY!
One by one, as each of us decides that our vote IS important and that we are modern stewards of this great country, for which so many have given so much, THEN we begin to realize what we must do.
For me, that means expending whatever resources I can to make right what so many have worked so hard to destroy: my country…the United States of America. This great land deserves nothing less than the best I have to give. Can I truly call myself a “patriot” having done less than I could for this great country? What kind of American am I to see an opportunity to install into the White House a man with demonstrable and impeccable credentials and then do little to nothing to forward that effort?
No! I will have no part whatsoever in sitting idly by as others who, in the name of God or Money or “Compassionate Conservatism” or “Honor” or whatever do their utmost to denigrate and dissolve this great country…MY country! RON PAUL for President! Viva la Revolución!
P.S. If someone doesn’t like the way the U.S. was designed to operate and opposes a return to that way of thinking and governance, I politely suggest they find another country that DOES provide all the services and care they desire from their government. (“Paging a Mr. Robert Altman and Mr. Alec Baldwin…Final boarding call for any and all flights departing America….”) But that is NOT the way the U.S. was designed and I, and millions of others, intend on returning the U.S. to it’s roots…it’s Constitutional roots.
I urge you to change to repub if you have to at least in the primary season. Not sure how your state works but in mine you can change any time you like. Ron Paul needs all of us to have a shot at getting the nomination. The biggest obstacle he faces is ‘will people actually vote for him?’. If he does not get the nomination from the primaries you have no opportunity to vote for him, other than a write in.
And there are more ‘money bombs’. One on the 11th for veterans day, one on the 16th for the moston tea party, one on thanksgiving to give thanks for liberty, and one on christmas to give the gift of a Ron Paul presidency to America. These are the times I intend to send at least $100 bucks to the man who has a real chance at winning, if only you give him that chance.
It is time to look beyond your party. They really mean nothing when you have a man running who’s personal conduct and integrity have shown that no party really deserves his name to be associated with him. Political parties are designed to divide us. Ron Paul is uniting us!
Wow, the termites sure come out of the woodwork when RP is mentioned.
“Ron Paul is like Leonidas now, screaming “THIS IS AMERICAAAAAAAA!”
That is Awesome imagery! Go Ron!
Ron Paul Supports…
1. The right to form unions
2. Getting rid of the unconstitutional income tax.
3. Having the US treasury and not the FED print our money.
4. Having our money backed by something real.
5. Legislating strictly according to The Constitution.
6. Balancing our budget.
Obama and his wife are members of the CFR (she is a director). The CFRs goal is to implement Fabian Socialism world-wide, which would require The Constitution to be effectively abolished. Hitler was officially a member of the “National Socialist Party.” Obama and Hilary are admittedly socialists. David Rockefeller and even more powerful financial elites are the force behind the tri-lateral commission and the CFR. Both the Neo-cons and the Socialist Democrats (All the mainstream candidates) are puppeteered by these financial elites who want to eliminate The Constitution.
The Neo-Cons are fascists. Rudy, Mitt and McCain are all in favor of pushing forward with this fascist war.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY SENSIBLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT!!! The choice is clear… RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT.
Dan Warner, thanks for the info on the upcoming money bombs.
Fortnighte, I get what you’re saying about electability. We shouldn’t nominate someone based on some preconceived notion of electability, we should nominate a candidate who represents us. My response to that is this: Ron Paul does not represent the Republican party. He represents a small faction, and I do not believe that support will translate into a win in the primaries.
I hope I’m wrong. His campaign has already surprised me by raising so much money. Wow. But I’m still looking at poll results and I don’t see much evidence that the Republican party as a whole even knows Ron Paul exists. If he can pull out a surprise win in one of the early primaries, maybe he will get enough media attention to turn him into a household name, but that’s a long shot.
I wonder if Ron Paul could get more Republican support by emphasizing his pro-life beliefs.
Hitler, fascists, socialists… oh my! I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, Toto.
No, we’re in the People’s Republic of Kansas.
$4.2 million from 35,000 new donors in one day. Sounds pretty first-tier mainstream to me.
Go Ron Paul! His message of liberty, small federal government, sound money, and a humble forign policy is really catching on! I sent in money for Guy Fawkes Day and I’d send more than the $2300 limit if I could.
If you are not for a constitutionally mandated government, then you are not for the rule of law and are not American.
nathaniel,
If you are not for a the war on terror, then you are not for the rule of law and are not American.
Statements like yours are totally incompatible with a message of liberty.
Yeah, the UK operates on the rule of law without the need for a written constitution. You can be an advocate for the rule of law without supporting any particular constitution.
However, I do agree with nathaniel that the rule of law is a core American value. It’s not uniquely American, though. Most modern democracies accept the rule of law.
“If there was any doubt of Ron Paul’s ability to sustain himself through the primaries, it should definitely be assuaged now.”
Agreed; and if that doesn’t translate into a nomination, the Republicans’ death wish will finally be confirmed.
“We support Ron Paul because we support a return of freedom and Constitutional government. We are tired of a bloated government that ignores the Constitution, tramples on our rights, loves to tax with no end in sight, and does not represent what the founders of this country intended. Ron Paul represents real change and a real opportunity for those of us who love having freedom. We are the Sons of Liberty. Welcome to the Revolution.”
Ever feel like you’re becoming a broken record Victor?
I am constantly amazed at why this is so hard for people to understand.
Frankly, I believe in the ideas penned into the Constitution. Historically even the men who came up with this grand “separation” of government into 3 branches failed to follow their own road map. Personally, I believe we’ve spent the last 200 years attempting to perfect what to and not to do constitutionally and sadly, we’ve yet to get it right.
I believe it is well past time (maybe too late, but I’m no quitter) we actually strive to perfect our constitutional republic. I see my children, ages 6 to 15, and I worry a great deal about the debt our generation is saddling them with. For what? Security? Prosperity? Some may say if we don’t march forward with our “war on terrorism” we won’t have a country left to bequeath to our heirs, but as with all things in life, at some point you come to an impasse where the greater harm is usually that thing unseen in the future you’ve envisioned.
Currently we are financing our war on terrorism by borrowing money we don’t have from other countries. What do you expect the outcome of such run away spending to be? What will Americans do once the “rent” comes due? How can you squeeze anymore in taxes out of a population already overtaxed? I do not merely equate “security” with “economics”, but given our current propensity towards welfare we will soon be faced with a country too overburdened by the non-producing the effects of which can easily be seen in any poverty stricken country in the world today. A citizenry that cannot support itself is a citizenry that soon crumbles.
None of this is intended to preach giving in to “gloom & doom” predictions. The reason I’m here, typing this response, is because I believe there is hope and we do have opportunity to change the road we currently travel. I believe that opportunity is a Ron Paul Presidency. The President is supposed to be limited in what he or she can and cannot do. Instead, we have a President dictating to the American people against many of their concerns, about what he IS going to do. To blindly follow and support someone just because they bear the title President isn’t really all that far removed from living in a monarchy. Isn’t that something we, as Americans, have been taught to fear and reject?
I think it was best put by JFK, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country..”. This is so important now more than ever before. You can serve your country best by believing in liberty and the ideals of being self-supportive. You can serve your country best by taking at least a small amount of time to consider, FULLY consider, the ramifications your actions today will have on future generations.
Americans didn’t ask to be attacked on 9/11, but we also never asked to be the world’s policemen. Once again this country is faced with being controlled by the few at the expense of the many and individual liberty. Rights don’t belong to you because you’re black or white, male or female; Christian or Atheist. Your rights belong to you because you can think and act, whether you believe they stem from a creator or whether you believe they stem from being human, history shows us the societies who flourish best are those in which liberty is protected vigilantly. Once liberty is sacrificed on the altar of security, great civilizations soon founder and crumble.
Consider these things with grave reflection. Pick up a book, study your history and simply imagine the possibilities…
It isn’t utopian and never would I hope to achieve that level of perfection, but I’d like to at least say I gave it my best shot.
Game ON!
I am sick and tired of the lies
I am sick and tired of income tax
I am sick and tired of over regulation
I am sick and tired of the same old politics
I am sick and tired of my rights being trampled
I am sick and tired of the increasing levels of violence
I am sick and tired of the propaganda/media
I am sick and tired of losing medical benifits
I am sick and tired of hearing about losing my social security
I am sick and tired of the “war for freedom”
I am sick and tired of the fearmongering
I am especially tired of the republicrats!!!
and I’m not going to take it anymore….
Knowlege is power
Wisdom is knowing how to use it.
Welcome to the revolution!
rev·o·lu·tion Pronunciation: \ˌre-və-ˈlü-shən\ Date: 14th century
2 b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.
You go RON PAUL! Whatever it takes!
Steve, as you mentioned, the “scientific” polls have been outdated for YEARS for the GOP. They work for the Dems because the average Dem IS a putz who can’t afford a cell phone, still has a land line, can’t afford to go out to eat (even McDonald’s) and thus IS at home during dinner hour and has so few friends or so little going on in his life that he DOES answer the land line instead of letting it roll over. Thus Ron Paul folks are UNDER-sampled, while within the GOP Rudy and McCain support is OVER-sampled since they’re more like Democrats - Unemployed Muslim-Hating LOSERS for Rudy, and War Widows on a Pension for McCain.
Indeed, Steve, if you guess that STRAW Polls are a better proxy for who will ACTUALLY vote in GOP Primaries, it’s been Ron Rompson for months now, not Rudy McRompson as othrs claim. Just look up GOP Straw Polls and Wikipedia and you’ll see.
Watch now within what’s LEFT of the GOP for an ANYBODY-BUT-RON-PAUL movement. This has happened before. It happened to AuH2O, and he still got the nod. UNLIKE Barry, Ron Paul OPPOSES the “let’s nuke ‘em” mentality, has a broad base of support amongst Dems and GOPers and thus will WIN. I don’t know when you should do this, but at some point if you have the stones to SHORT OIL, it could already be that it will be going straight down to $20 a barrel by Nov. 6, 2008.
Ron paul can no longer be called a “long shot” candidate. He has clearly surpassed John McCain and is now a “top tier” candidate.
Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fundraising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement.
Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
Who’d have thought that a mainstream Republican with a classically conservative message could end up sounding so liberal that he is accused of being a radical, and by others as, “certifiably crazy”? I guess this illustrates just how far the neo-cons have dragged this country into the bottomless pit. After hearing Dr. Paul’s views, several of which I do not agree, I am now left with no other choice than to become a registered Republican so I can vote for him. As president, he will probably do a lot of things that piss me off, but at least I’ll be pissed off in a free country.
Passing McCain doesn’t mean anything, McCain is not a top tier candidate, the media just likes to make him one.
If consistently polling as the #2 or #3 candidate behind Giuliani and Thompson doesn’t qualify McCain as a top tier candidate, I don’t know what does.
Ok, what measuring stick does one use to define a “top tier” candidate? McCain is 4th, polling in the single digits (except in some states), and steadily falling. It speaks poorly of Ron Paul’s chances that only now is he pulling ahead of McCain, who has been going nowhere for six months.
“Passing McCain doesn’t mean anything, McCain is not a top tier candidate, the media just likes to make him one.”
I don’t know whether passing McCain means what some people wants it to mean, but it does mean something - especially this early in the race when name recognition is such a big factor. It may indicate that people want to get behind someone who is anti-war rather than pro-war. I mean McCain is a former POW who went to Iraq and met with the troops, yet Paul is raising more military money. That’s got to mean something. But yeah, I agree. McCain is no top-tier candidate for sure.
I’m been expecting McCain to drop out before Super Tuesday.
Darius, which polls are you looking at? Most polls that I’m seeing (CNN, Newsweek, ABC, Fox News) put McCain second or third, with numbers in the 15-20% range.
Those are nationwide polls, and we’re still in the run-up to the primaries, so of course they are very rough numbers. But I think you still have to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and not write him off as an also-ran.
National polls don’t mean much. It’s polls of Iowa and New Hampshire that matter. National support will disappear for candidates that don’t fare well in those states.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html
The graph in the middle of the page shows McCain’s precipitous drop in the national polls. I agree with Jasen, national polls mean squat. But if that’s true, McCain is in much worse trouble, averaging 8% in Iowa polls, 12.3% in South Carolina, 10% in Florida, 9% in Nevada, and 12.3% in Michigan. His best state is New Hampshire, and that’s only 16.4%.
Meanwhile, Paul is polling at 3.6% in New Hampshire. He won’t be still standing by Super Tuesday. Thanks for playing, Ronnie.
The mainstream media is running scared and that’s why they won’t give him the time of day. The internet is such a wonderful resource and his campaign is a true grassroots movement of the little people. Hillary Clinton may have the corporations giving her money to keep her in their pocket, but Dr. Paul has the little people, the ones that really count, backing him up. Money talks. Corporations can give large amounts, but the fact the Dr. Paul gets tons of small donations speaks for itself. The country is sick and tired of the empty promises and the raping and pillaging of it’s citizens by those who are supposed to protect us. They are ready for a change and his name is Dr. Ron Paul. We need to get back to basics and pass control of the government back to the people. His record also speaks for his integrity. A lot of people don’t understand his ideas and policies, but if they’d just open their minds and try something new, great things could happen. We’ve been doing the same things for decades now and it’s not getting any better. Smaller government with less dependency on it is the way to go.
“Meanwhile, Paul is polling at 3.6% in New Hampshire. He won’t be still standing by Super Tuesday. Thanks for playing, Ronnie.”
Very funny, Darius. But I’ll tell you this: Paul has proven the naysayers wrong at every turn. I don’t believe the poll numbers at all. I don’t trust them. In fact, I will admit my impressions of the race are entirely unscientific. I’m not saying Paul is going to win, but no one in the mainstream media would have predicted the success he has had thus far. Stay tuned, baby. It ain’t over yet.
By the way, Darius, who’s your man (or woman as the case may be)? Anybody you like right now? I’m guessing its not Paul or McCain.
Darius, I don’t think that graph shows what you say it does. It shows McCain in third place with 15% support. Only one of the seven polls puts him in fourth place behind Romney.
I do agree that his support has been steadily declining, though. I don’t expect him to get the nomination. He’s still a dangerous candidate, especially if Giuliani falters, but the trends do not look good for McCain right now. And that’s perfectly fine by me. I don’t want him as president.
Jew, I mixed them up, nationally McCain is still somewhat ok, but state-by-state he’s in big trouble.
Chris, what “success” has Paul had so far (other than to get quite a few quacks to come out of the woodwork)? I suppose he’s done better than expected monetary-wise, but that doesn’t mean anything if he gets blown out of the water in the primaries.
No, I’m not a Paul or McCain fella. McCain does what is good for McCain and to be a media darling before he does what is conservative. I actually like much of what Ron Paul stands for, it’s primarily just his foreign policy positions that worry me.
Currently, my choice is Fred Thompson. In my opinion, he’s the closest to a true conservative of the Republican candidates (at least, the ones who can win).
Primarily though, I’m more anti-Giuliani than anything else.
People have claimed every election since 2000 that there would be a “massive upswelling of non-traditional voters”. While this MIGHT be more true regarding Ron Paul than in the past, in recent history NOBODY has inspired the non-voters to show up at the polls. Ron Paul is massively popular online and among the young, but neither are “likely voters”. It is entirely possible that the “non-traditional voters” will be mobilized and take action, but there is a huge difference between the thousands of avid supporters needed to generate internet support and money, and the MILLIONS of supporters needed to win a primary. Honestly, other than Paul’s naive view of foreign policy I think he’s one of the most attractive candidates. Hopefully, his huge support base will convince SOMEONE with a chance of winning to support government size reductions.
I agree completely with Atanamis. If not for his naivety in respect to foreign policy, I like him very much. Both his political positions and his personal life indicate someone who at least appears to be authentic. But considering I know of very few people who don’t spend their lives on the internet who have heard of Ron Paul, I don’t see him getting more than 4-5% in any state.
The GOP has abandoned almost every traditional Republican belief - non-intervention, balanced budgets, mixing religion and politics, limited govt, strong dollar, endless social programs. To win, they should nominate a conservative against the war. So who’s the frontrunner? A liberal in love with war. They manage to alienate both the GOP base AND the 75% opposed to the war. Quite an achievement.
Those who decry Paul’s foreign policy see our strength in a huge costly empire when it’s actually in our ideals. Many who yell the loudest for liberty at home are the first to cheer war against sovreign nations who are no threat to our security. The world likes America but sees the contradiction between our lofty words and our actions. Why not return to the words of our Founding Fathers? As RP says:
“We don’t want to tell you how to run your life
We don’t want to run the economy
We don’t want to tell other nations what to do”
Darius wrote: “In my opinion, he’s the closest to a true conservative of the Republican candidates (at least, the ones who can win).”
Interesting that you wrote this in light of this blog’s “pragmatic voting” article. Could you provide a counter-argument to the aforementioned article? I’m avidly against voting with my nose plugged and would appreciate hearing from you on this topic.
Also, Darius and Atanamis: could you elaborate on how you think RP’s foreign policies are “naive”?
“Primarily though, I’m more anti-Giuliani than anything else.”
Well, that’s something we can agree on at least.
“Also, Darius and Atanamis: could you elaborate on how you think RP’s foreign policies are “naive”?”
Do you really want to open that can of worms? Let me some it up for you: the Muslim extremists are coming…War on Terror…run for your lives…9/11 changed everything, etc. etc.
Chris is basically correct. We need a leader who can address and counteract the spread of Islamofascism. George Bush did a great job of it militarily and politically, but a very poor job culturally. His “political” hand was fighting the terrorists in the Middle East while his “cultural” hand was shaking hands with terrorism sponsors and sympathizers in this country. As many people realize (few in this country as of yet), the bigger battle is for the culture. Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are important, but if we allow sharia to creep over the whole world, they won’t really matter in the long run.
Ron Paul hasn’t shown that he understands that… Rudy Giuliani also doesn’t understand the cultural aspect. Fred Thompson does, or at least seems to from what he’s written and said in the last year. Plus, Ron Paul’s naive and disgusting belief that 9/11 is primarily to be blamed on America shows he is unworthy of election. This is a clash of cultures first and foremost, not a clash of governments or political systems. One culture offers freedom, the other demands subjugation. One offers education and enlightenment, the other demands ignorance and illiteracy. One offers democracy, the other demands tyranny.
One culture offers religious, ethnic, and racial equality, the other demands dhimmitude.
Darius said: “Plus, Ron Paul’s naive and disgusting belief that 9/11 is primarily to be blamed on America shows he is unworthy of election.”
I can understand if you don’t think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the best way to protect America, but to say that Ron Paul blames America for 9/11 is disingenuous. Ron Paul’s comments to that effect were based on reports by the 9/11 commission and the CIA, which identified American foreign policy as a contributing factor to the motivations of the terrorists. This isn’t some outlandish theory. It’s right there, in the reports. Ron Paul had the audacity to draw the obvious conclusion: if American foreign policy influenced the terrorists to attack us, then a different American foreign policy could have resulted in them not attacking us.
Now, whether a move to isolationism is the correct foreign policy choice going forward is another question. If you believe the fight is already inevitable, then you might consider Ron Paul’s foreign policy ill-conceived and impractical.
Personally, I’m worried about whether Ron Paul is willing to deal with the world as it is. It’s great to act on principle and decry US foreign policy when you’re a Congressman, but as the President, you can’t just decide that America is going to abruptly change direction, reject a century of imperialism, and embrace isolationism. That’s not realistic. I have yet to hear from Ron Paul how he would address the situation as it is, given that America does not match up with his ideal libertarian Constitutional views. As President, can Ron Paul work with a Congress that is decidedly not libertarian?
But I’m still going to vote for him.
Gurr8, all voting is pragmatic (unless you’re voting for yourself). No one candidate exactly matches you on every issue, so you have to pick and choose the values and policies most important and germane to the race. Take the Republican candidates for example. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a huge issue (foreign policy), plus he is, in my opinion, HIGHLY unlikely to be elected (much less get past Super Tuesday). Same goes for Huckabee, he’s a big government fan and is unelectable. McCain is an imbecile, and supports policies without thinking them through, usually in the name of bipartisanship. Romney has some big-government and liberal skeletons in his political closet that worry me. Giuliani is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Thompson is the only candidate that I would feel comfortable holding the reins.
As for the pragmatic issue of voting for Giuliani vs. Clinton should Giuliani win the nomination (not a sure thing yet), that’s a separate issue. I would say that sometimes, pragmatism is the better part of voting, at least when the ideological difference is large between the candidates. And in some ways, this is true of Giuliani and Clinton. Giuliani is hard on crime, Clinton coddles criminals. Giuliani knows that we have to be resolved in the fight against Islamofascism, Clinton only cares about taxing the rich to give health care to the slightly-less rich. However, they are also very much alike on many other issues, abortion being the most important one. So, I’ve come to the conclusion that if the choice is either Clinton or Giuliani (third party are a waste of time), then I will abstain from voting for a President. I would much rather see Giuliani win than Clinton, but what a Giuliani win would do to the Republican Party would be much worse than anything Hillary could do in 8 years. Social conservatives would no longer be needed in national elections to get a Repub win.
Jew, I’m not saying that our foreign policy choices in the last 30 years didn’t contribute at all to 9/11, but that if we hadn’t involved ourselves so significantly in Middle Eastern politics, we likely would have still been attacked, and what’s equally as evil, sharia would still be creeping over the globe. Most politicians understand the need to fight terrorism, few understand the need to fight multicultural stupidity.
“Jew, I’m not saying that our foreign policy choices in the last 30 years didn’t contribute at all to 9/11, but that if we hadn’t involved ourselves so significantly in Middle Eastern politics, we likely would have still been attacked, and what’s equally as evil, sharia would still be creeping over the globe.”
Darius, what are you basing this assumption on?
We are going to be free! Ron Paul is likely going to sweep the 2008 elections! Id say the probability he is the next POTUS is 90-95% now.
People are screaming FREEEDOM! like William Wallace rigt now. They are going to have to kill Ron Paul like they did JFK or RK to stop him now, and I fully expect the MSM, military industrial complex and the CFR types to go after his life because the smear tactics are backfiring!
VOTE RON PAUL FOR FREEDOM, its your **LAST CHANCE** We will never see a man as good, honest and consistent as Ron again.
Chris, the basis for the first part (the cause of Islamic terrorism) is twofold. One, look at the issue as a whole. Many terror attacks have not been inside or even against the U.S. or Israel or “Western” countries. For example, here are the last 10 major attacks on Wikipedia:
- Varanasi bombings in India, 2006
- Amman bombings, 2005
- Delhi bombings, 2005
- Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort
- London bombings, 2005
- Attacks in Demsa, Nigeria, 2005
- Murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, 2004
- Train bombings in Spain, 2004
- Casablanca bombings, 2004
- Bali nightclub bombing, 2002
Only 3 of these attacks took place in Western countries. It would seem the biggest driving factor for Islamic terrorism is that they want to indiscriminately kill as many people as they can before they get their 72 virgins.
Two, which I just hinted at, is the fact that their interpretation of Islam demands militant jihad.
Next, to deal with the second part of your question (why I assume that creeping sharia would still be occurring)… I am guessing that you only were asking about the first part, even though I said the cultural war was just as important, if not more so. However, in case you were including the latter aspect as well… my basis is the fact that sharia has been creeping over Europe for 20 years, and has little to do with the American foreign policy (how does German courts allowing the use of sharia law in their justice system in 2006 tie into what some U.S. president did in Iran 30 years ago?). Sharia will continue to overtake Europe and darken the continent unless Europeans realize that while a secular government is preferable, a secular culture and society is not. Furthermore, an obsession with intolerant tolerance is not a way to assimilate immigrants.
“Giuliani is hard on crime, Clinton coddles criminals. Giuliani knows that we have to be resolved in the fight against Islamofascism, Clinton only cares about taxing the rich to give health care to the slightly-less rich.”
HOW do you expect to be taken seriously?
? By whom? You, or politicians?
Quick! Someone mention Bernie Kerik!
Because nothing says tough on crime and Islamofascism like making your friend with mob ties* Police Commissioner of NYC, and then nominating him for head of Homeland Security.
*Pled guilty to accepting money from mob-tied contractors
If you guys want to ignorantly pass off New York City’s amazing crime drop, fine by me. But there is no question on this point that Giuliani was an amazing leader in fighting crime.
That said, let me reiterate… Giuliani has extremely weak on almost all other political positions. So what if he is so good at cleaning up crime if he doesn’t mind the biggest crime of all, abortion?
And also, mentioning Kerik just to slander Giuliani is low. And pathetic. Much like slandering the Clintons for what some business partners back in Arkansas did. Unless there is an obvious tie to a politician, it shouldn’t be brought up. A man’s sin is his own.
This coming from someone who doesn’t like Giuliani.
Sorry if that last comment came out harsh, but it annoys me when people use guilt-by-association in politics. Politics are dirty, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every politician has mud on his hands.
All right, fair enough, I suppose. It’s more fun to look and see how the national crime rate was dropping at the same time the NYC crime rate was, anyway. Either the NYC rate drives the rest of the nation, or the NYC crime rate was going to drop whether or not Giuliani was mayor.
A more convincing argument to me is the numerous anecdotal evidence provided by NYC residents, who now talk about how much safer they feel in the city. I don’t think crime naturally drops by itself, leadership is necessary. Whether that was all atributable to Giuliani or maybe some to his predecessor, Mayor Dinkins, is debatable. But most of the policies that were implemented during the time of the shrinking crime rates in NYC were done so under Giuliani’s watch. As for the national trends, the NYC rates drove that at least somewhat. Plus, the success NYC had in fighting crime was studied by many other metropolitan cities. So there might have been a bit of a snow ball effect involved nationally.
Either way, this whole debate to me is beside the point, since Giuliani would not be presidential material to me even if he had completely eliminated all forms of crime.
A more convincing argument to me is the numerous anecdotal evidence provided by NYC residents
*mindboggle*
“So what if he is so good at cleaning up crime if he doesn’t mind the biggest crime of all, abortion?”
Ironically, it was the latter crime that reduced the former.
Giuliani had nothing to do with the crime drop in NYC. There is a chapter in Freakonomics that provides a ten minute reader on why Giuliani got lucky on that one. Just comparing numbers with other cities should eliminate any thought that Giuliani reduced NYC crime.
Actually, read Freedomnomics… abortion doesn’t reduce crime.
Darius said: “Actually, read Freedomnomics… abortion doesn’t reduce crime.”
That’s because we’re not using enough of it. When we get the abortion rate up to 100% then we’ll see crime drop.
Does the eye roll emoticon still work?
Jew, you have a point there. A very morbid one, but valid.
excerpts from Ron Paul newsletters… this is why I don’t support the morally confused twerp.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923481/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923491/posts
No wonder so many liberals support the guy, he uses their rhetoric.
excerpts from Ron Paul newsletters… this is why I don’t support the morally confused twerp.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923481/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923491/posts
“Twerp” - real classy Darius.
Also did you even read those searing indictments? There’s nothing wrong with anything in there that Paul said.
Here is Ron Paul’s (aka “twerp”) “morally confused” rhetoric:
from: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts
from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923481/posts
from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923491/posts
Twerp was a poor word choice…
Ok, for those who can’t read between the lines…
Ron Paul supports terrorists.. it has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
Ron Paul accused our soldiers of war crimes.
Ron Paul insinuated that Reagan was a Commie-sympathizer.
Ron Paul is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.
That’s a better choice of words.
Colin, let’s see what the termites have to say.
I just lambasted their Messiah.
Darius, I don’t know how you get pro-terrorist sentiment out of that quotation. It’s clearly a First Amendment free speech issue.
Closing a terrorism-supporting branch is repressing free speech? Ok then.
That particular law was struck down by the courts, I think, or at least determined to be unenforcable. In U.S. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the District Judge wrote:
“Ron Paul accused our soldiers of war crimes.”
Do you honestly think that American soldiers have never committed war crimes? In 300 years of history there has pretty well never been a time when American soldiers were not “involved” somewhere…do you really believe that a war crime was never committed.
I don’t understand how an accusation is wrong in and of itself! Heck even Canadian soldiers committed war crimes in the 1990’s and they were only peacekeepers.
I”m not saying they haven’t committed war crimes, but to accuse them without any proof other than some conspiracy theory is, at best, extremely irresponsible and shows Paul’s true colors.
Personally, I’m not convinced bulldozing trenches is a war crime. It’s a war, people! You’re supposed to kill the enemy. Just because you do it with bulldozers instead of bullets doesn’t make it a war crime.
Personally, I’m not convinced bulldozing trenches is a war crime. It’s a war, people! You’re supposed to kill the enemy. Just because you do it with bulldozers instead of bullets doesn’t make it a war crime.
Under the geneva conventions killing a surrendering soldier in any international conflict (it doesn’t have to be a declared war) is a war crime - and rightfully so.
“The apparent fact” that they were surrendering is not a fact. Paul was being very irresponsible, and no leader of this country can be that much of a schmuck with the facts.
Let’s do a little intellectual honesty test…
A few weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh got in a bunch of trouble (among liberals) when he called certain military personnel “phony soldiers.” He was referring to the handful of liberal soldier wannabes who were claiming that they had committed war crimes in Iraq while the closest they had gotten to the Middle East was playing Desert Storm on their computer in their mother’s basement. Harry Reid called for Rush to be taken off the air, and a bunch of the media picked up the story.
Contrast that against what Ron Paul did, accusing our troops of war crimes with no solid corroborating evidence, just conjecture and a piece by a reporter. Who should actually have gotten criticized for his comments, Paul or Limbaugh?
Sure, killing a surrending soldier is wrong, but I’m not yet convinced that was what happened.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for information on these incidents coming out. But I guess that’s what Darius is counting on.
“The apparent fact” that they were surrendering is not a fact. Paul was being very irresponsible, and no leader of this country can be that much of a schmuck with the facts.
Seems to me that the given premise for this second Iraq invasion was based upon a conspiracy theory and bad information regarding WMD’s and the like. Yet, I’ve seen on numerous occasions, you “schmucks” support Bush and even defend his “misinterpretation” of the “facts”. The shoe is a little sore when placed on the other foot, isn’t it Darius? The funny part? You like Ron Paul except for his “naive foreign policy”. Which is hilarious, considering you would rather have a tough anti-terrorism idiot than someone willing to defend the very basis of our freedoms in this country. Gee, that Benjamin Franklin line comes to mind. You know, the one about “perceived safety” and “freedom”. Perhaps you should tattoo backwards to your forehead so you can be reminded of it each time you get up in the morning.
By the way, thanks for twisting what he said. I guess it’s not just the liberal media that has it’s own agenda, does it Darius? You become more and more freeperish as the election day grows closer. I’ve read over all three reports, and it seems to me that Paul takes the stand of level-minded interpretation. Even if we don’t like what they have to say, they still have the right to say it. And also, if indeed the soldiers WERE surrendering, it IS considered a war crime by the Geneva convention. Beyond all that, before we start defending everything the US military does, perhaps we should consider that the very tactics in Iraq that we call “insurgent” and “terrorist” were what we used to fight the British. You know, hiding behind trees and in houses, snipers, etc. We’ve become the bloody British, and I don’t think you could be more proud.
BTW, Darius. Hilarious that you go to freerepublic for your political commentary. I should just start quoting the Daily Kos just to piss you off, since they are the freerepublic of the left. But wait, you won’t accept information from there, will you? But no, we are supposed to gobble up, hook-line-sinker whatever you post from the freeper network? What next, are you going to quote Michael Savage as biblical truth in politics? Really Darius, I had expected more from you.
Ornot, you may not realize this, but those links are Paul’s OWN words. I found the links on a different site, otherwise I don’t even really know what freerepublic is.
I guess I really hit your Messiah hard there, you really brought out the guns, misguided and deceptive as they may have been.
You like to say that Bush lied… why don’t you ever back your trash up with something the rest of us like to call FACTS!!! We’ve gone over this before… does repeating it make it easier for you to remember? Bush was going off the same intelligence that they had for TEN YEARS, the same stuff that Clinton was relying on when he signed an act calling for regime change in Iraq in 1998. Just because you don’t agree with the war, doesn’t give you the right to lie and insinuate that Bush lied his way into it. Definitions matter, a lie is NOT the same as a mistake. Let’s repeat that class… if one relies on what is considered correct intelligence and it turns out to be wrong, that person is not a liar. Ok, got it? Sinking in yet???
Okay, enough ranting. Just steams me to see someone lie or falsely insinuate and think they can get away with it. This is the Zeal for Truth blog for a flippin’ reason!
Also, just so you know, Ornot, there IS a difference in quality of information when it’s coming from a trusted government agency and a reporter. Paul relied on the latter, Bush the former.
I’ve gotta say, Darius, if we’re all as stupid and gullible as you make out, I’m not exactly sure why you keep dredging up these discussions all the time. I’d think it would get old.
Ardith, I was speaking to Ornot. Not sure where I used the word “stupid” but it does fit with some of you libertarians’ need to put words into people’s mouths or generally read things that aren’t there. Impugn the character, win the debate is the liberal and libertarian way. As for Ornot… again, I didn’t call him stupid or gullible (in fact, it seems like Ornot implied that us “schmucks” are the gullible ones). I called him a liar. And I stand by that; he is one as long as he keeps dredging up the same old “Bush lied, people died” bumper sticker mantra. He’s been corrected enough times to know that he’s no longer making his claims out of ignorance.
This is really irritating; so much for the Zeal for Truth. People have been called racists on here, others love to use guilt by association (Giuliani is just the latest victim), and others just yell the equivalent of “Blood for Oil!” This may happen plenty on conservative blogs, but it’s rampant on liberaltarian ones. No wonder Ron Paul has so much support from liberal quarters. I love the theological discussion on here, but honestly, some of you are nuts when it comes to politics.
I think what everyone needs to do (some more than others) is be PRECISE in your words and phrases. Words matter, as does the use of them. “Incorrect” does not necessarily equal “deceptive.” An opposing viewpoint doesn’t necessarily mean it is racist/sexist/fascist/hateful.
Dear Darius,
Please refrain from jumping to absolutely the wrong conclusions about what I was speaking of. YOU yourself called Ron Paul a morally confused twerp. Go ahead, read above. Why? Because he made accusations based on someone elses reports. Fine, I’ll grant you that. I never ever argued that Ron Paul was correct on this. I merely pointed out that the confused one is YOU, as you adamantly back up Bush’s mistakes, which sent us to WAR, yet attempt to crucify Ron Paul for making accusations based on reports. Go back, go ahead, I DARE YOU to go back and read what I wrote and FIND A PLACE where I mentioned “blood for oil” (something I’ve never said happened or agreed with), where I said Bush lied, or anything else that you’ve jumped to conclusions on. Nor do I consider Ron Paul to be my “Messiah” (nice choice with the capitals, btw), nor have I ever. He is indeed my current choice for president, but I don’t appreciate the you equating my support of his campaign to the equivalency of biblical purportions. Those, my friend, are YOUR perceptions.
Okay, enough ranting. Just steams me to see someone lie or falsely insinuate and think they can get away with it. This is the Zeal for Truth blog for a flippin’ reason!
You live in a world where you create conversations in your head, don’t you? I don’t remember accusing Bush of lying in any of my posts above. I merely used him as an example of making decisions based on other reports, whether falsified or mistaken or what-not. Does it matter? You then turn and accuse Ron Paul of the SAME THING, then get bent out of shape when I point this out to you? And no, a reporter isn’t much different from a government report, in all reality. Don’t forget, it was the Washington Post that brought down Nixon, not a government agency. So again, I repeat: I DID NOT SAY BUSH WAS A LIAR ANYWHERE IN MY COMMENT. I said you support his “misinterpretation” of the “facts”. Tongue firmly in cheek as in reality it was Bush believed falsified reports. There is a difference, and apparently you didn’t catch it.
And just for fun, I find it hilarious that you use the words “trusted government agency”. What a world we live in when private investigations aren’t trusted as much as “official government reports”. Geesh, Lord knows THOSE are never wrong or untrustworthy. I guess when it comes to statism, the apples doesn’t fall too far from the tree, does it? Oh, and please, spare us the lecture on precise usage of words and phrases. I’m not sure where you are getting this “racist/sexist/fascist/hateful” line, nor this accusatory tone of proper english usage, but you must be frequenting other blogs besides this one and getting it all mixed up. Just remember: before you accuse US of jumping to conclusions and drawing unnecessary links (ie Guliani and that mob guy), you might want to remove that giant forest from your own eyeball. So far, you’ve been the KING of that during our discussions for the past 6 months. Funny though, whenever I simply turn what you say around and point it at you again, you become completely unhinged. Ah well, we all have a weakness for certain styles of trolling, don’t we?
Addendum: My apologies, as I figured you were a frequenter of FreeRepublic.com, hence me calling you a “freeper”. Whether or not you quoted Ron Pauls “exact words”, quoting the FreeRepublic would be like anyone else quoting the DailyKos, even if they just reported actual statements. It doesn’t help your cause much. Just keep that in mind, as I said before, freerepublic is the dailykos of the right.
I called him a liar. And I stand by that; he is one as long as he keeps dredging up the same old “Bush lied, people died” bumper sticker mantra. He’s been corrected enough times to know that he’s no longer making his claims out of ignorance.
Funny, I missed this in my first read for some reason. So now I’m a liar, and you stand by that? Really? Once again, I never said Bush was a liar in ANY of my above posts. Let me quote you what I said, just so you can read it again:
Seems to me that the given premise for this second Iraq invasion was based upon a conspiracy theory and bad information regarding WMD’s and the like. Yet, I’ve seen on numerous occasions, you “schmucks” support Bush and even defend his “misinterpretation” of the “facts”. The shoe is a little sore when placed on the other foot, isn’t it Darius?
NO WHERE do i say Bush was a liar. Nor, am I “dragging it up” again. I never drug it up. I was involved in ONE discussion, and as I remember, beyond your poor anecdotal feelings on the subject, you never corrected me. Besides the point. I said, literally, that our second invasion to Iraq was based on…wait for it…conspiracy theory and bad information. Not lies, not even mistakes…but BAD INFORMATION. On this BAD INFORMATION, we invaded. (the conspiracy theory part was a joke, but it didn’t go over well) I mentioned no lies. Then I merely said that Ron Paul based his accusations on a reporters thing, and you attack his moral character. THAT was my point about the shoe on the other foot. You can’t seem to take what you dish out.
As for Ron Paul’s morals? Funny, because the reason I tend to trust him and what he says, is because he hasn’t given me any reason NOT to. Does that make him not capable of mistakes? No. But look at his voting record…he’s never voted in a way that was outside of what he said he’d do, and what he says he believes. NEVER. NOT ONCE. He is actually one of the FEW congressmen with a record clean in this area. Therefore, I DO tend to believe him, given his track record.
While I don’t appreciate being called a liar, I will give you a benefit of the doubt. I will let you re-read what was written, and realize that you possibly made a mistake and misinterpreted when I wrote, jumped to a few conclusions, then realized I never lied, then take it back. Then we can all be civil.
Or, you can call me a liar again, and I can come up with an appropriate title for you as well.