With all of the negative attacks and focus on minutiae in the current 2008 Presidential primaries, issues of actual importance to everyday Americans are forced to the back of the bus. Perhaps it’s time to return to them.
The right to keep and bear arms is essential to a free society. Which is, of course, why our founding fathers put it into our Constitution.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.
On the Republican side, there is only one top-tier candidate that truly understands this, both in his issue statements and in his record. Mike Huckabee. If you happen to consider Ron Paul as top-tier, then there are two.
Surprising, isn’t it? That is, the notion that top-tier candidates for the President of the United States would so easily dismiss a fundamental right spelled out clearly in our constitution. Don’t believe me, check it out for yourself: Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney.
What, you say? ‘Ol Fred is a solid supporter of the second amendment, right? Wrong. While he might look tough holding a gun in a movie, look at his actual voting record. Gun Owners of America tracked 33 votes while he was in the Senate. He voted pro-gun 61% of the time. How could a guy that supports the second amendment less than 2/3’s of the time be considered pro-gun? Spin, of course. Deception. Obfuscation.
It’s especially enlightening to contrast the differences in the reactions to crises between Huckabee and Thompson. Recall that in 1999, the shooting at Columbine created an atmosphere of gun hysteria in which seemingly “everyone” wanted to institute new controls on guns. Thompson, a sitting senator at the time, fell for it.
Huckabee had his own crisis in Arkansas the year before Fred capitulated. A shooting at a Jonesboro high school had brought out the big guns demanding restrictions on gun ownership. Bill Clinton, so often compared to Huckabee by opponents, lead the charge. But Huckabee refused to cave, recognizing the wisdom of the founding fathers.
Katie Couric: Governor Huckabee, this is the third deadly shooting to take place in the South in the last five months. And some criminal experts have ventured a guess that southern society, which has a more permissive attitude towards guns and hunting, and perhaps in some circles even glamorizes those things, that that might have been a factor in some — in this recent spade of shootings. What’s your view of that?
Gov. Huckabee: I take strong exception to that kind of view. Southerners may have a very positive view toward the ownership of firearms and even hunting, but we don’t have a positive view about murder, and we certainly don’t have a positive view toward murder in a schoolyard.
He also resisted the type of lawsuits that Rudy Giuliani pressed against gun manufacturers:
“Gun manufacturers make the Second Amendment a viable right rather than some theoretical proposition. I will not abuse my authority as governor to pursue their demise or dictate their business practices through coercion,” he wrote.
“I will not seek the capitulation of firearm manufacturers through the use of asinine lawsuits or the doling out of taxpayer-funded government contracts. I regret that you feel either of these tactics to be worthwhile endeavors.”
Governor Huckabee also signed a law prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and eased restrictions on concealed carry permit holders in Arkansas.
Who’s a friend of gun owners in this race? Don’t believe the spin, the hype, the negative attacks or the outright slander. Only Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are true friends of gun owners.
Filed Under Front Page ·
BIG:
I think that Squawk, Hammy, Sarge, malcolm and fasternu426 are also gun owner friends. (amongst others) Of course we’re not running for President or running away! I can hardly wait to see what the grand jury says about Joe Horn!
Big Jolly says:
“If you happen to consider Ron Paul as top-tier, then there are two.”
How would you not consider Ron Paul as top-tier?
Number 1 fundraiser on the GOP side for the 4th quarter with close to $19 million.
Mike Huckabee who you definitely state as top tier has raised $5 million. That would be $1 million less in 90 days than Dr. Paul raised in one day.
When has a none top tier candidate raised as much as Dr. Paul? That is ‘what would be never Alex’.
AOL’s straw poll of 187,000 people shows Dr. Paul dominating with 30% of the vote and leading in 45 out of 50 states.
The ONLY indicator where he is not the leading candidate is the telephone polls. Who buy lists of people who participated in the primaries in 2004. Only about 6% of Republicans voted in the primaries of 2004 because President Bush was running unopposed. Those polls are hardly a mandate.
What other indicators show anyone but Dr. Paul as the front runner?
In all seriousness, IMHO, we do not have a choice of a true, honest-to-goodness conservative running for President. If only two of the several candidates actually are FOR the second ammendment the remaining candidates are certainly not conservatives. The same holds true for their respective stances on other constitutional issues. One would think/hope that there would be one person out there who would embrace the majority of the country’s positions on various constitutional and personal issues and have the fortitude to say so. That person either doesn’t exist or doesn’t want to get into the political fray of it all. I can’t say I blame him or her but if someone doesn’t step up and do something pretty soon, the country we know and love will not be the country we know and love.
It’s all about the polls, spin and hype and the candidates saying what someone want’s to hear at the time. The quest for control, money and greed are all powerful.
Don’t forget that we are a country of three levels of government that naturally counter each other. The president does not make law.
Ya know what is more important than picking a figurehead IMO, who is elected to Congress. I for one, do not see a Democratic Congress after ‘08.
I think a “top tier” candidate is one that consistently averages 10% or above in REAL polls. The ONLY indicator where he is the leading candidate are the polls that spammers can manipulate. Money raised ≠ support. RP is a phenomenon, an aberration. RP is not a top tier candidate.
Talk about spin or obfuscation…. Perhaps it’s sincere opposition to the other CRAP that got attached to those bills???? It seems that every time I hear one of our local politicos talking about bills, they talk about the unintended consequences of those bills that came about because of amendments, and earmarks that got attached. Perhaps if you look at the dreck that got attached to the bills for which Fred did NOT vote, you’ll find the kind of things that you’d be barbequing him for, had he voted FOR those bills!
#2 - First of. Huckabee has raised probably over 7 million at least during the 4rth quarter. Your RP number includes money he raised off line and in private fund raising.
The Huckabee 5 million number you gave only includes online money as well as maybe 10% of off line money.
As far as RP being a front runner….. well….99% of people will not agree with you but I am glad you are enthusiastic about politics.
I wish we had you on the Huckabee side though.
Bigjolly - looking at the page on Thompson I noticed they classified these as an “anti-gun” votes:
It’s a bit of a stretch to include things such as roving wiretaps, the nomination for Surgeon General and McCain-Feingold-Thompson as “anti-gun” votes.
If you look at the links, quite a few of them are not exactly “gun laws” that were deemed “pro” or “anti” gun by the authors.
Is bj getting paid by the Huckabee campaign for these endorsements? Any Senator on the list would necessarily come up not-exactly pro-gun, while governors would have the better chance to appear pro-gun.
This is as bad as the Chronicle EVER was in their distortions.
Do any of the current authors remember why Lone Star Times / Chronically Biased came into being? Where’s my way-back machine to remind them?
This story illustrtates precisely why I hate single issue voters. Single issue voters do not investigate what was attached to their favorite issue that might have caused the candidate to vote down THE ENTIRE BILL that inlcuded their pet peeve. The ultimate spin from the opposition.
Also, if you take the questions asked of Huckabee and apply them to Thompson’s voting record (the only fair way to compare the two) you’ll find that Thompson was probably 100% pro-gun just like Huckabee.
Wino
Congratulations you have won a Squawkbox Noise “Gittzit” award.
#12 SB
No FauxtoShop plaque?
I feel slighted.
Squawk, I’m curious as to why you don’t think the Dems will hold congress. Is that a gut feeling or do you see something I’m missing?
Wino
#13
Due to circumstances that I control, I have neglected to create one. This oversight on my part will be corrected.
Hamous
#14
Gut feeling based on the polls. Nothing more.
I mean lookit, the Congress approval rating hovers around or below the President’s and just above used car salesmen. I can’t help but believe there will be (cough cough) blowback (can’t believe I said that) becuase of the way the Democrats have handled these past 2 years.
#9 Wino
BJ doesn’t need Huck’s money. He lives in a luxurious, three story mobile home bought and paid for by John Cornyn !
#16 Squawk - Those approval ratings can be misleading, though. Most may think that congress as a whole is doing a pee-poor job but they generally feel its all the other congressmen but not theirs so they will vote for them again.
#18
hamous
Dunno bud. Like I said it is my gut feeling. Maybe the Dems will win the house but not in the current incarnation of personalities.
Sigh, I was trying to take the high road of hope for a change too.
#17 Texpat
No, he moved out of that one. Here’s the highrise that Huckabee bought for him. It was Huckabee’s Arkansas vacation home:
Bigjolly’s New Highrise
http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/redneck_highrise.jpg
Hmm… I must’ve messed up the link…
#12 Senators & Governors as Presidents
In the 48 years since 1960, we have elected exactly one U.S. Senator to the White House. We have elected three former Vice-Presidents and four former governors to the presidency because governors always appear to be more conservative. Four out of the last five Presidents have been governors. The majority of them have to work within the confines of constitutionally mandated balanced budgets in their states. Because of the Byzantine rules of the U.S. Senate, Senators are often accused of supporting apparently bad bills and opposing seemingly good legislation. That is why they don’t get elected anymore.
Note: Johnson served 6 years and Nixon served 2 years in the Senate before each was picked as VP. Nixon came to the presidency as a former VP and Johnson as former VP and incumbent POTUS.
The problem is - as so many have noted - NONE on the current candidates is perfect. The only way I’m going to find a candidate that always agrees with me is to run myself. (And I’m not sure even that would work!)
So, we have to evaluate each of the candidates on a variety of issues. Is Gov. Huckabee strong in a number of areas? Absolutely. But I have to balance that against other areas where he varies from woefully inadequate to downright silly. As for Dr. Paul, he’s either really good - or he’s nutso - depends on the topic.
Interesting. Sort of the opposite of the tax question. Governors would necessarily come up not-exactly fiscally conservative, while Senators would have the chance to appear fiscally conservative.
#24 BJ
I disagree.
“We have elected three former Vice-Presidents and four former governors to the presidency because governors always appear to be more conservative. Four out of the last five Presidents have been governors. The majority of them have to work within the confines of constitutionally mandated balanced budgets in their states.”
Texpat, on the whole, I agree with you. But I was addressing a specific issue. In this campaign, McCain and Thompson are given a pass for their roles in the enormous spending from Washington, while Romney and Huckabee (and the mayor, Giuliani) are defined as free spending liberals because spending went up in their states, nevermind that both states had legislatures controlled 85% by Dems.
Presidents that never held another elected office:
Zachary Taylor
US Grant
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
I also posted these two comments on Thursday:
texpat Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm e
Everyone complains about the lineup in this campaign from the GOP. Why is this one in 2007-08 so much worse than Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Lamar Alexander, Dick Lugar and Alan Keyes in 1996 ? Personally, I recall feeling in that primary season a great deal of disgust and hopelessness. Why would those guys be better on the issues we face today ? In 1988, we had VP Bush, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Pete DuPont and Pat Robertson, but would they be better than the candidates today on terror, security, immigration, taxes, abortion, healthcare, etc ?
texpat Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
#10 Squawk
I agree, but why does everyone keep saying it is so much worse this time around ? It hasn’t been very good for a long time, if ever, with the exception of Reagan. I actually believe the present candidates may be a better crop than we’ve had since Reagan left office.
texpat,
I think you are correct. Across the board, the field of Republican candidates is very strong. As many have pointed out, none are perfect but then again, none ever are.
Most people spend so much time tearing the candidates apart that they fail to see their strengths.
#26 BJ
They were chief executives and Fred and John were but two of 100 members. I know it doesn’t make sense, but much of that is due to the confounding stupidity of the MSM.
Exactly.
And then you have the antithesis in the form of the apologists that ignore the “weaknesses” of thier politican and play the political NIGYSOB games so well themselves.
Is it not possible for a voter to look at both the strengths and weaknesses of a particular candidate and decide that the strengths of candidate C outweigh his or her weaknesses as compared to candidates A or B?
And my final observation on this whole mess can be summed up this way:
(my comment earlier in the week)
(Oh and I am a Hunter or Thompson kinda guy)
(Oh and I have given Thompson down the river for his stance on McCain/Feingold)
See you all next week on Friday, so you can explain what happened in Iowa. Iowa Gop chairman said he thinks RP will place as high as 3rd today on C-Span.
Hamous - can you explain to me what a REAL poll is?
Do you have proof the AOL poll is spammed/manipulated?
I’m afraid of getting colon cancer from all the second hand smoke being blown….
|-O
“Do you have proof the AOL poll is spammed/manipulated?”
Don’t make me do the Jedi Mind Trick!
I started out this season with two candidates I would not support if they became the nominee: Giuliani and McCain. Over the last few months I have taken every one of the “issues tests” the LST readers have been posting links to. I’ve noticed a trend. McCain has always been in the top three. That really surprised me. I still have two candidates that I will not support in the general but McCain … well, I’m on the fence about now.
Abolishing, or limiting, the Second Amendment would be really hard for any president to do. That, my friends, would be under the jurisdiction of the Congress.
So the concern over that may be a bit over the top. We must make sure that we have Congresscritters and Senators that are pro-2nd. It also falls under the heading of “states” rights and states like Texas would not be real thrilled with having their elected elites voting to take our guns away.
I would say that you would have to weigh 2nd rights against a candidates record on illegal immigration, another major problem for the U.S. Huckabee, from personal observation, has been a lightweight on illegals. Northwestern Arkansas, home of Tyson, Paul’s, and other poultry plants has been overrun with illegals as Tyson not only fired Arkansans who had worked those plants for generation, but sent recruiters to Mexico to bring back low wage scale illegals. And Huckabee did what? NADA.
Hell, the last time I was in Rogers and Springdale, all the signs in Wal-Mart were in Spanish. Rogers was the first time I ever encounted a W-M employee that spoke no English.
Take a look at the campaign contributions. How much has the poultry industry given to Huckabee and when.
hamous
That’s the spirit.
One that the RP Leukocytes cannot manipulate to their advantage. You can find some good examples here.
Or you can continue with the Dorothy method: Click your heels together and repeat three times - “There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul.”
#5
“Money raised ≠ support.”
Thanks. Now I understand why when Huckabee’s grassroots holds a moneybomb and 600 people donate $89,000 and when Ron Paul’s grassroots holds a moneybomb and 60,000 people donate over $6 million it is not a sign of support.
That makes sense, thanks.
#41
“One that the RP Leukocytes cannot manipulate to their advantage. ”
Yeah, those polls aren’t manipulated. Let’s survey the same 6% of voters over and over again and see if we get a different result. Well, we can try out the different neo-cons and see if one sticks. Einstein would be proud.
#42 And do you understand that despite RP’s vaunted “money bomb” he’s still polling less than 5% in Iowa while Huckabee’s polling 30% despite his meager $89,000 moneybomb?
Ooooh! The dreaded “neo-cons”! Scare me!
#44
Who are you polling?
If he is so popular, you would think he would raise money like others.
Still waiting for your example of someone who has raised as much money from grassroots and was not a top tier candidate?
#45
Neocon is a simple way of distinguishing between the new (neo) republicans and the old (paleo) republicans. Don’t be afraid. I’m sure one of the other good ol’ boys will hold your hand if you need them to.
#46
Like I said, despite all the money Dear Leader has raised it doesn’t translate into support.
Keep waiting. Money is not the deciding factor. Just ask Howard Dean. Votes determine who will be the nominee.
And as for your lesson on the meaning of “neocon” I have become painfully aware of what that means to many RP supporters.
LOOKOUT HAMOUS
You know your argument is a winner when the opponent has to resort to the
gambit.
I reviewed the Rombies tactics of debate booklet
Page 52
Paragraph C
Sub paragraph (x)
Line 32
Says:
#49 Ahh, the old “Watch my right” trick!
#48
Well YEEHAW!! NOW I’M GONNA GO TO FLORIDA, AND NEVADA, AND MICHIGAN, AND CALIFORNIA, YEEHAW!!
Thanks for the help.
Sincerely,
Howard “I might have won if I didn’t scream like a lunatic” Dean
I can’t believe he pulled the tired old “neocon” crappola.
That is on
Page 28
Paragraph E
Sub paragraph (n)
# 52
Great, I found neocon just where you referenced it. It is right between “Jedi Mind Trick” and “Leukocytes”.
Thanks for the help.
Got to get back to work. See you next friday. Happy New Year!
Now how do I get out of here…hmm…oh yeah,
Click my heels together and repeat three times - “There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul.”
Here ya go aj
This is for you. You are going to need it. You might want to print it out and place it on the wall. I would hate for you to break your monitor.
Why is my coffee so stale????
I dunno, Daniel. Did you forget to drink it?
If I forgot to drink it I wouldnt know it was stale.
Drinking a fresh cup of Starbucks Colombian as I type. Fresh. Very fresh.
#7
If .99% will not agree with him, then that means the other 99.01% are RP supporters. Easily the the most favorable statistic for Ron Paul I have seen on here, ever.
#52
Why? There is no difference between this and the anti-Ron Paul and anti-(whoever my other least favorite candidate) rhetoric that gets posted in the comments (and in some of the blog entries).
This is good.
Whether he wins or loses, as a Republican or as a third-party candidate, he has opened Pandora’s box to the treasures of freedom to a generation from whom it was hidden by the public school system. The tremors being felt throughout the Republican Party could well be precursors of an upcoming upheaval in the Republican platform. The power of Ron Paul’s message could erupt and spread the principles of freedom all over the Republican National Convention.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59421
Daniel,
I’ve been saying for months that RP should go third party. Think he will?
Wanna see what happens when you take on the Repub establishment AND they think you can win?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/29/as_huckabee_gains_steam_establishment_sees_a_threat/
I’ve been wondering, is it possible to combine the supporters of both camps?
He’s gotta do something with all that money. I say he goes third party. If the Libertarians were smart they’d start a “draft RP” campaign right after New Hampshire. If the nominees are Clinton and Giuliani he could probably pull Ross Perot numbers…if he could keep the lunatics off the path.
64. Hamous, that option will always be open for him… Be patient
Just mho, but I think all of you give the American people far too much credit for being thinking, rational human beings. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an unrest and an escalating urgency for change sweeping the land. Most don’t study polls or dig into the deeper motives of candidates. They watch the 10:00 news inbetween Dancing With The Stars and Letterman, vote according to gut instincts and who they like best on the surface and what they hear which addresses their most important concern - Iraq and the Middle East, immigration, the economy and taxes, guns, healh care, etc..
Liz, wrong wrong wrong! Here’s the number one issue.
And the most frequently watched YouTube video for 2007 is…
“Angry Ron Paul supporters save buffalo calf from a pride of hungry lions.
Have you noticed how confused the MSM is, because Iowans are doing exactly what we are doing. They are listening, asking, and trying to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I think it’s so funny, the MSM has tried to spin, cajole, and lie to get the candidates they prefer. Those pesky Iowans just won’t listen. Let’s see what Iowa does. I am really curious. Those Iowa farmers may just surprise us.
bob, that’s a pretty cool video. I’ve never seen that one.
…and from the Department of Redundancy Department:
Network evening news (ABC/CBS/NBC) viewership continued its 27 year decline with average daily viewers estimated to be a little less than 25 million or roughly 24% of the total votes cast in 2000 national elections. Network viewers constitute approximately 12% of the population eligible to vote in the USA.
Fox, CNN and MSNBC suffered the first actual decline in prime time news viewership in 2007. The average total audience for the three main cable news networks was estimated at 2.5 million viewers. On any given day, about 27.5 million Americans are getting their news from NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. The balance of 287,500,000 Americans are clearly seeking their news somewhere else. If only 9% of US citizens are watching the top 6 news channels for news, it is obvious Americans are not looking to television to get their information.
Well, it’s obvious the internet has become an important news source and campaign tool.
Just look at the AOL headlines and most newspapers are available for free online.
LizBV
That is my point. Television news consists of much sound and fury and little else. If you’ll notice, the print media (and radio) repeats or critiques much of what goes on between candidates on TV so it gets attention beyond its importance.
Texpat & LizBV
Very rarely do I venture into the land of the MSM. No I am not blaming BSue here…. she is the newsy in the house….. she watches Foxnews and when it is on here in the domicile it is just background noise to me after about 2 minutes of any given major news story.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. I don’t formulate my opinion from anyone. I do find my news alerts from on line though. There is so much “from their own mouths” information available that anyone with a penchant to look can find exactly how a man’s words and actions meet up. I am so sick of sound bite news surrounding the candidates.
All too often the arguments that occur here are more like arguing about who’s sources are more credible. That is what has led me to investigate sites like the Congressional record, voting histories of the candidates if they are governors or state reps via their state web pagees… you get the picture. It is a lot of work but it removes the personality arguments that are all too prevalent in the “debates”.
He said, she said arguments are worthless, I wanna know the context in what was said and to whom and the information is out there. Ya just can’t get that from the MSM.
I completely with squawkbox and LizBV on the MSM. I just to count on Fox News for information and over the last few years I’ve figured out how wrong that was.
I figured I should go ahead and announce this, not that it will surprise too many people. I downloaded and listened to a lot of Ron Paul’s interviews and speeches over the holidays. You can find them all from this year at http://www.ronpaulaudio.com. I even listened to all the Alex Jones interviews that I could find, in search of “off the wall” or “kooky” statements. I failed to find them. There was quite a few good radio interviews where tough questions were asked and he was given the appropriate amount of time to respond. I listened to him debate with liberals, conservatives, and libertarians on many issues.
I am now leaning distinctly for Ron Paul. I can definitely suggest that anyone interested in RP should download some mp3’s from there and listen to them.
I also dug through his congress related website. http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml I am hard pressed to find anything this man has done or tried to do that I have more major disagreements with than Huckabee (fiscal spending), McCain (immigration/compromises way too easily/called us all stupid), Thompson (I’d rather have Gingrich, thanks but no thanks), Guiliani (more of the same with extra corruption), and Romney (social issues/flip flopping/trust/more of the same…..).
# 3 malcolm
“In all seriousness, IMHO, we do not have a choice of a true, honest-to-goodness conservative running for President.”
Sure we do.
Ron Paul
Let he who has eyes see, let he who has ears hear.
Sorry Ronalammadingodngers (said with the greatest humor and tongue in cheek) - RP’s initials are identical to Ross Perot’s and it’s sad that the similarity of initials will mirror the result should he run in ANY party or as an independent and garner a measurable vote - aka a Dem in the White House. Be vewwy VEWWY careful what you wish for!
Mr.Fish, that’s my fear, and the dem’s are hoping RP chooses to run as a third party candidate. I’m with squawk. I think the dems are going to get cleaned in the house and senate. But, Hillary or Obama will be president if RP chooses to do this.
#80 american woman
Anyone who spends time with Ron Paul supporters knows that this is not true. This is completely false. There are at least as many young democrats supporting him as there are republicans. Just go find your local Ron Paul meetup group and you will immediately find what I am talking about, even in Texas. He would be damaging to all. He will not run as a third party because too many states will not allow it, by law.
ecow
You know, a lot of what RP says is eminently sensible. The problem’s that the parts that aren’t are really scary, especially in the area of foreign affairs. I don’t want a President that will simply hope that Kim Jong Il or some other egotistical madman will respect our Constitution like he does. Going to Congress after a nuclear weapon has destroyed a major city and asking for a declaration of war is not acceptable foreign policy. Neither are letters of marque and reprisal. Our Constitution may recognize them, but I suspect that the rest of the world will not.
We need a leader in the White House, not somebody who simply says “No we can’t do that” all the time.
I would be much more impressed with the good doctor if he had, at least once, in this time in congress managed to convince some of his fellow congresscritters to actually go along with one of his ideas.
As for the “young democrats” supporting him, the vast majority are there simply because he supports an immediate withdrawl from Iraq (not to mention every other place in the world), or because they think he supports the legalization of recreational drugs.
My coffee is stale again today. What gives?
I can already see it. If Hillary wins it will be all Ron Pauls fault. It will have nothing to do with the loser repuke party.
I guess I am stuck with stale coffee.
I wager Hillary or Obama will be in the oval office no matter what Ron Paul decides to do.
Bow down to Dear Leader, for he is without sin, and he will save us from ourselves. He is our only hope!
/There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul. There’s no place like Ron Paul.
#82 fat albert
It appears you have completely missed the boat / ignored / assumed what Ron Paul’s complete policies are. You described an isolationist. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Again, I can only suggest that you visit ronpaulaudio.com and listen to interviews, speeches, and Q&A sessions where we actually has the time to respond.
Do you make up imaginary reasons for not liking other candidates?
You have to choices, stick to your principles or negotiate/give democrats what they want/collude with lobbyist/sign on to other people’s bills that they disagree with. I don’t want a another George W Bush who goes into office saying one thing and gives us something entirely different because he compromises nearly everything.
Again I can only suggest looking at his congressional record. I find it more interesting to look at what my current representatives didn’t vote for that Ron Paul supported, simply because they didn’t receive corporate money to influence them to do it:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
Theres a lot of talk around here about the negative influence from lobbyist in the state and federal governments, yet we refuse to look at a candidate who actually refuses to accept corporate donations.
That would be putting all of them in one box, which is absolutely not true. There are a substantial number that agree with the fact that Ron Paul wants a fast pull out of Iraq. There are others involved because they are tired of being restricted by the federal government. Less than 1% probably support solely because of drugs, but if it makes you feel better then just keep thinking they are all druggies. There are also a lot of democrats who now believe in fiscal responsibility and have moved their support to Ron for that issue alone. Why are they concerned about fiscal responsibility? Let’s let the General Comptroller of the Government Accountability Office explain it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXIufIXPsYs
Wow…1st, I get stuck in a tornado, then I get knocked senseless, and somehow I ended up here!
Please # 86, tell me again how I get out of this nightmare where everyone is afraid of Kim Jong Il bombing us. Even though the country can’t afford to feed it’s own people. Help me, this vision that we have to bomb everyone into submission/democracy is reminding me too much of the Roman Empire. Help me out of this senseless place.
#82,
You would rather have a leader who waits until Osama Bin Laden drives 4 jets into buildings and kills thousands, than one who will try and build relations with foreign leaders through democracy and trade….interesting.
excuse me…I meant diplomacy and trade…not democracy and trade.
Isolationism - The policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Sure sounds like RP’s foreign policy to me.
hamous
You can thank George Bush and the fauxcons when Hillary wins.
Atleast you will have plenty to ridicule.
Gotta go…Alex Jones just came on!
Go Ron Paul!
Daniel - If Hillary wins I won’t be blaming GWB, the Democrats, Ron Paul, MSM, Foxnews, illegal immigrants, islamofascists, Kim jong Il, the Chinese, Putin, the Government/Media Complex, Military Industrial Complex, NWO, CFR or any other nefarious bogeymen. I’ll be blaming no one but us, the American people.
#89
I did not know Osama was a world leader. That is news to me.
Oh we can play diplomacy and trade with Osama Bin Laden?
Good luck with that.
#88
Apparently you do not read the papers. OH damn I forgot Kim has just little nukes that can reach Hawaii. That should not matter. Now should it.
We can’t invade or nuke everyone w/ nuclear power or wants nuclear power. What else are our options? Build allies and then go after the rest with all we’ve got is the only thing I can think of. But we MUST be united first in order for this to succeed. And that means take care of “home” first and foremost. We are currently divided and spread too thin.
I am more afraid of my government than I will ever be of the boogie man Bin Laden.
I am buying ya’ll a round of stale coffee.
That’s a dangerous position…unless you believe your government flew four jets into buildings and killed 3000 of your fellow Americans.
Does being divided mean we capitulate to the dems and give them the power back they so longingly crave? In order for these factions to get together, there has to be common ground. Find me some.
AW, regrettably, another 9/11 would do it. And for some concrete-between-the-ears types it would take something that drastic.
Hamous you got email
#91 hamous
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_isolationism_isnt_wha.html
That is not isolationism.
Hamous, Tommy’s rockin’ and rollin’ again.
Who really knows what’s going to happen in these first few primary battles? The party loyal democrats and republicans both wish Ron Paul would just go away, or at least go independent ASAP (The two party duopoly is skilled at handling that.) But the way things are shaping up, that ain’t gonna happen. Paul may or may not spoil the general election, but he will clearly spoil the republican convention.
But what if Ron Paul actually does much better than expected?
- Bill O’Reilly places fingers in both ears and yells, ‘I can’t hear you!’
- Major networks cancel all Sunday programming after several talking heads explode on live TV.
- Sean Hannity, missing for several days, is finally found under his desk at FoxNews HQ, curled up in a fetal position whispering to himself, “He’s NOT a great American. He’s NOT a great American. He’s NOT a great American.”
- Rush Limbaugh finally Googles Ron Paul.
It could happen
ecow:
You know, the foreign philosophy you and Dr. Paul espouse works wonderfully……. as long as it takes 3 or 4 weeks to get from the US to any other country. And, when doing substantial damage to another country required a large army and the concerted will of another country. You know, like it was in the days of Washington and Jefferson.
Today however things are a wee bit different. Hawaii is a 15 minute ICBM flight from a madman with nuclear weapons. Two dozen fanatics can kill thousands with commercial airplanes. And all it takes to threaten a country with a holocaust is a good biology lab and a few soulless scientists.
In a world like that the last thing I want is a President that insists that he has to have instructions from a body of imbeciles who can’t agree on anything except new ways to fleece the public. The Constitution makes the President the Chief Executive, not simply the mouthpiece of Congress.
Regardless of the isolationism topic, I fail to see how an immediate response helps in any of these situations. You don’t need congressional approval to attempt to shoot down and ICBM. Immediate response could do nothing to stop 9/11, it took time to get a clue about what was going on anyways. If someone releases a deadly virus on our soil, I seriously doubt we would have immediate knowledge of which country sent spies to start it. North Korea would be insane to launch an ICBM at us when we can turn them into glass.
Ron Paul does not rule out having ongoing foreign operations that are acting in our defense. Currently we are meddling that extend beyond that.
Who said the president had to have instructions? The constitution does not require that.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
109 ;
“Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there’s an imminent attack on us, we’d never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. There’s no way.”
September 11, 1991. Or did you forget? It took just 19 men, and they didn’t telegraph their intentions in advance. And before you tell me they weren’t from Iran, there’s nothing to say they won’t be next time. I’m not saying that we need to go to war, but we d**m sure better figure out how to stop it over there if we don’t want it here.
The idea that we can just call all of our troop home, leave everybody alone and they’ll leave us alone is criminally stupid.
It’s no us