In my last post on the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire I briefly touched upon the notion of a Ron Paul third party run. Even though the Texas congressman has denied any plan, the notion is plausible since he was the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1988.
Moreover, Paul has been ridiculed as a flake and a laughingstock for some of his political stances. During the debates Paul has been slapped around more than the hysterical woman character in Airplane! with his fellow GOP candidates lining up to get their licks in.
On the eve of Paul's visit to the region Seattle Weekly editor Mike Seely "The Most hated Man in Seattle Media" wrote that Democrats should support a Ron Paul run, for now, since it will encourage him to break ranks after he loses the nomination and will throw the race to the Democrats.
Very Clintonian - or Rovian - depending on how one views politics.
The effect of a third party candidate is always fascinating. The outcome of three of the past four presidential races were determined by 3PCs.
Oh?
Ralph Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1996 and 1992. (Conspiracy alert: I've always harbored a suspicion that the Clintons convinced one of the voices in Perot's head to run. If not in '92 then definitely in '96. Also Ross would have been elected Boss if he didn't go crazy in the summer of 1992 by deciding not to run, reconsidering and then accusing Republican "operatives" of sabotaging his daughter's wedding. Frightening...)
Who does a hypothetical Ron Paul third-party candidacy hurt more? Conventional wisdom would be Republicans. Right? I'm not so sure.
A Ron Paul 2008 Libertarian/Independent run just might hurt the Democrats since much of his support seems to come from that side. Especially when Hillary "Yes-Iraq-War-Vote" Clinton wins the nomination.
The reason Paul has gotten so much attention is because he is a Republican who is opposed to the Iraq War. How novel. This has made him a darling of the media and a messiah of sorts for anti-war activists and ex-Green Party types who chafe at being saddled with Democratic candidates who voted for the liberation of Iraq before voting against it. Or is it the other way around?
A bit of explanation, Paul's anti-war stance is quite dissimilar to that of the anti-war left who oppose America's role for one of essentially two reasons. You have your old-school commissars who stand against anything the United States does because the nation is an evil, imperialistic oppressor, etc, etc. They're your Ward Churchill types who feel America deserved to be hit on 9/11 or that it was an inside job. Then you have your "mainstream" Democrats who oppose the war because George W. Bush is a Republican. If Bush had a "D" behind his name instead of an "R" they'd be in favor of liberating millions of oppressed people living in two outlaw regimes.
Paul is neither. He is your classic 1930s-style isolationist crafted in the same mold as "Lucky" Charles Lindbergh. He misquotes George Washington's classic "no entangling alliances" speech. This was quite good policy during the Napoleonic Wars when America was a fledgling nation on the Eastern seaboard six-to-eight weeks sailing time from Europe. In a world of ICBMs, nuclear submarines, long-range strategic bombers, terror cells and outlaw regimes scrambling for nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, relying on two oceans to protect a country is a dicey proposition. But who cares about historical lessons learned in WWII, the Cold War, Korea, The Great War...
He has the legalize hemp crowd buzzing. Who would have thunk marijuana legalizers find Paul's brand of politics appealing?
Part of his support comes from folks who want to "Ellen Craswell" the GOP domination process. I refer to the 1996 Washington state gubernatorial candidate that local Democrats crossed over to vote for in the open primary knowing she would be the most beatable opponent. After trying to spike the punch I don't see too many of these Democrats sticking around to sample their concoction when the 2008 general election comes around.
Finally you have your "Big L" libertarians who, lacking a party candidate of their own have piggy-backed on the GOP nomination process.
None of these are your typical GOP voter. To be sure there are Republicans who now oppose the war but it's mainly because they feel Bush is not doing a good enough job at killing jihadists. For an example, tune to Michael Savage during one of his rants about nuking Afghanistan or carpet-bombing Fallujah.
Extra:
In this Winnie the Pooh Parade of would-be presidents it is surprising that you haven't heard of too many other credible third party types. Maybe it's because everyone and his brother seems to be aleady running as a Democrat or Republican?
Over the summer there was a lot of chatter whether New York mayor and bajillionaire Michael Bloomberg would be throwing his purse in as an independent candidate. After all, one New York mayor running for president is just never enough. One can only imagine what an Empire State ménage a trois between Clinton, Giuliani and Bloomberg would look like during the debates.
The so-called experts predicting a run postulate that Bloomberg would further split the GOP. I fail to see how since his positions on "illegal guns", affordable housing, environmentalism, health care, etc. seem culled from planks on the Democrat platform.
At any rate Bloomberg says that he is not running. So spare some time to tune in to the David Letterman Show to watch for an announcement.
I think there would be room on the constitution party ticket for him.
42% of people who claim to be independent just migh have had enough of the Demopubs
Posted by: Flo on September 14, 2007 10:47 PMI think there would be room on the constitution party ticket for him.
42% of people who claim to be independent just migh have had enough of the Demopubs
Posted by: Flo on September 14, 2007 10:48 PMI think there would be room on the constitution party ticket for him.
42% of people who claim to be independent just migh have had enough of the Demopubs
Posted by: Flo on September 14, 2007 10:48 PMTravis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 14, 2007 11:09 PM-------------
I stopped reading right there. You obviously weren't paying attention in ANY of those debates. Ron Paul stood his ground against an onslaught of ignorance en masse and came out on top EVERY SINGLE TIME according to the respective shows' own after-polls, which in Fox's case were text message polls that disallowed multiple voting.
This attack machine extends into the blogosphere and on TV shows as bought and paid for propaganda, no different than a political ad, seeking to discredit Ron Paul and turn people away before they even get a chance to understand his policies.
Journalism is supposed to be impartial. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased. Journalism is supposed to present the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, but in this day and age, what passes for "journalism" is nothing but propaganda and mass-hypnotic perversions of truth.
Ron Paul is NOT an "isolationist". He's a NON-INTERVENTIONIST!
You can tell a HIT-PIECE like this one because the writer will refer to Ron Paul as an "isolationist" knowing full well his policy is "NON-INTERVENTION" in foreign affairs, which is a scary proposition to the military industrial complex that owns and runs our politicians and our media and just about everything else in this imperialist nation we used to call the United States.
To the writer of this piece of fecal matter...get a real job. You obviously suck at this one.
Posted by: Brad, Evansville, Indiana on September 14, 2007 11:35 PMPaul is a fruit loop, and I have a better chance of winning the lottery then he does getting nominated, let alone elected.
Posted by: Hinton on September 14, 2007 11:39 PMAnd Don, most of us on the left opposed the war becasue we thought it was a distraction from fighting terrorism and a waste of lives and resources. Unlike the administration many of us also had the foresight to see that invading a county with forcibly constrained sectarian conflicts would result in instability and quagmire. We don't hate the war because of Bush, we hate bush because of the war. Its called accountability.
Posted by: Giffy on September 15, 2007 12:37 AMBush has accomplished absolutely nothing that he claimed he would do when he was campaigning. Social security is still an abortion. Humble foreign policy? Free trade? Nope! No matter what issue you are examining we are worse off now than before he took office. he hasn't done any of it. That's why, IMO, Repubs are shying away from the Bush.
Posted by: DavidM on September 15, 2007 01:00 AMDr. Paul answered the question, "If you don't get the GOP nomination, will you run as an independent?" He quickly answered NO without hesitation at a NH house gathering in early March. He's been there, done that, in '88.
Persistent ruminations of this possibility by the punditry is pure political 'what if?' mental masturbation that will not come to pass. Either Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination, or he doesn't run in '08 general election. This question has been answered by the man in question and knowing his principled consistency is not likely to change.
"But who cares about historical lessons learned in WWII, the Cold War, Korea, The Great War..."
The lesson is that the Fascist Reich's Bank, er, Federal Reserve Board, is implicated as having a hand in promoting all of them for their own advantage. The bankers are the original shadow government and have had a hand in dragging us in to all the wars of the 20th century.
You want to point a finger at an 'isolationist' you need look no further than the current POTUS.
LeeL
----
"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."
~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
America needs Ron Paul more than ever, and everyone who supports Ron Paul loves him as he is the closest thing to family we have ever seen in government.
Ron Paul, for what is just, what is right, and what is our Nation's root modus, the Constitution and Freedom and Liberty for All.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Posted by: Mick Russom on September 15, 2007 02:45 AMNew world order:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Income Tax Legal?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
Truth about Giuliani
http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/
Other than that, he's irrelevant.
Posted by: steve miller on September 15, 2007 05:33 AMI see, that is why Gibson, Billo, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Malkin, Kos, Huffington, WND, Goler, Wallace, all the Republican candidates aside from Brownback, and all the other talking head mouthpieces line up to take shots at him.
Vietnam too?
What lessons would that be?
Do those "lessons" tells us to we need 750+ military bases around the world, a military budget equalling the rest of the WORLD COMBINED, and a policy of supposed pre-emptive war on terror/occupation/nation building-shattering and constant covert activity toppling other leaders when we deem neccessary?
Plenty of Americans don't understand this. Please explain it to us.
Posted by: infragreen on September 15, 2007 07:28 AMAll they have are answers, with no real understanding of the questions, or the policies shaping them behind closed doors.
Conservative or liberal, same formula everytime.
All I have are questions, all they have are bad answers rooted in B.S.
The rest of them would be a vote against their opponent.
The treatment of Ron Paul by the media and the GOP is detestable. It will result in his running third party, splitting the conservative vote and giving the Kilintonistas the White House.
Now, where's that blue dress?
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 15, 2007 08:43 AMSomeone on here says Ron Paul's views are mainstream America - I lost 8 pounds this morning, I don't know if it was from being ill from a bug or reading that. What do you consider mainstream America? When 70% of the public agrees on something, that's pretty mainstream. When 30% or 40% is that mainstream? Seems to me mainstream would be that area where only a few fringe peoples are left out, not where a few fringe peoples on each end of a spectrum are the only ones in.
Posted by: Doug on September 15, 2007 08:49 AM
Meanwhile,Republicans need to focus on candidates who could conceivably carry a national election. A check of RealClearPolitics.com is not encouraging. Only McCain and Rudy seem to be really competitive with Clinton at this point.
I'd vote for a Homocrat first.
Except Homocrat Julie-Annie.
-
Trying to give the LaRouchies a run for their money in creepy cult behavior are we.
Posted by: Giffy on September 15, 2007 09:07 AM
Also, hemp != marijuana.
Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2007 10:46 AMThat's like talking about the pro-war right who favors the war for one of essentially two reasons -- because they want to spend a trillion tax dollars to help America's oil companies, or they want to see thousands of our brave soliders killed. You're setting up a ridiculous strawman and then mocking it.
The main reason most Americans oppose the war is that it was/is a horrendous waste of our soldiers' lives, our children's money, and our country's leadership role in the world.
Posted by: Bruce on September 15, 2007 11:35 AM* Assign unlimited government power to an elected king, even unto the power to spy on, arrest, and torture American citizens without warrant.
* Reward loyal political allies with unrestrained government spending.
This used to be a country where we had nothing to fear but fear itself, and where at least the Republican party once fashioned itself the party of real principles. Alas, no more. Now the Republican party's turn towards big-government authoritarianism (incompetently and corruptly administered, at that) makes even the feckless and corrupt-as-they-ever-were Democrats look appealing.
Paul's a dinosaur. Even Alan Greenspan can't stomach where the Republicans have gone: to a post-modern worldview where everything is political, there's no use for data, and there's no such thing as truth - only semiotics in service of power.
Libertarians are swing voters. We represent about 17% of the electorate. We love the free market and limited government. We love the Constitution because it is a highly (small "l") libertarian document. We are socially tolerant and know that the separation of church and state is what has lead to freedom of religion. Most of us are against the Iraq war, for immigration and against restricting abortion, but we are deeply divided on these issues.
We aren't too optimistic about the short-term success of the Libertarian Party. This is why only one or two percentage points among our 17% tend to vote for them. The rest of us divide pretty evenly between voting for D's and R's.
Our votes are therefore in play.
Our position is centrist. We are socially tolerant and fiscally responsible. There is something for both left and right to like in our postion. Adopting a mild libertarian position is an ideal strategy for "going right up the middle" to a win in November.
If you want our votes, you will have to run candidates that espouse our views.
The American people no longer support the Iraq war, even though a majority of Republicans still do. Here is what this means: the successful Republican presidential nominee will sound hawkish in order to win the nomination, but will then find some excuse to back troop withdrawals in order to move to the center before the November election. This will tick off the hawkish Republican base that put him there. This will make the candidate look like a hypocrite. It will also not be credible to the electorate. Everyone associates the Repbulican Party with the Iraq war. It is the stone that dragged down the R's in 2006.
Ron Paul is the only R candidate who has a credible voting record against the war. He is therefore the only candidate the D's should fear. Back the war and lose. That is the harsh reality for the R's. But they will never see this. They will fall on their swords over a failed and un-American foreign policy. The result will be another Democratic Party victory, with higher taxes, socialized medicine and increases in poverty.
Other posters above are right about Ron Paul's non-interventionism. He is pro-free trade and therefore not an isolationist. When goods cross borders, troops tend not to. His reasons for voting against NAFTA, CAFTA, etc, were that they violate our sovereignty and contained corporate welfare and special tarriff provisions that were unconstitutional. Any decent economist will tell you that unilateral tarriff reductions are in the interests of any particular nation, including the US. Look up Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage if you don't believe me.
But you are right, the GOP will never nominate Ron Paul. They have changed since their Goldwater/Reagan days. And this is why I do not vote for Republicans. This is why I am proud to say I vote for partisan Libertarians. When the GOP becomes the type of organization that can nominate the likes of Goldwater and Ron Paul, I may consider joining.
War is the health of the state, whether you are talking about military wars, the war on drugs or the war on poverty. War is the road to big government and to the loss of our liberty. It is usually Democrats who get us in to wars and Republicans who get us out. This has been mostly true since Woodrow Wilson. But too many of today's Republicans are big government Wilsonian socialists. I want no part of them and will not vote for the lesser of two evils. It just doesn't pay.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 15, 2007 09:52 PMThat said, Giuliani and Romney are both very electable. You're not fooling anyone.
Authoritarians: you're an idiot. Every power Bush has is either granted to him by Congress or the Constitution, or is an honest and legitimate disagreement about one of those two, to be settled by the Court. That is how our system has always worked, and no one with half a brain and any serious knowledge about the Constitution disagrees.
For example, you mention spying, which the Congress (both parties) knew about and didn't complain about it until it became news, and which they authorized. There's the so-called torture, which in fact is not torture, which in fact the Congress authorized. And so on.
Next you'll be ignorantly whining about "signing statements" and "unitary executive."
As to rewarding political allies, the Democrats have done that over the years far more than the Republicans. It doesn't make it OK, but it makes it nonpartisan, which shows you to be wrong.
Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2007 10:03 PMhttp://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
This survey was developed by a veterans website, and it looks pretty non-biased to me. My free trade Democrat wife discovered a D candidate she did not expect.
I came up a Ron Paul fan, but not by as much as I had thought I would be. And there is a free-trade Democrat, former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel who surprised me by coming in a close second. My usual second choices are Republicans.
I'll bet quite a few of you turn out to be Ron Paul-like libertarians.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 15, 2007 10:07 PMYou're in denial. Sure, a supine congress authorized warrantless surveillance after they learned about it. Doesn't mean it wasn't illegal before they learned about it. Doesn't mean it's constitutional, either.
The so-called torture is torture. I simply don't believe you wouldn't call sense-dep, sleep-dep, stress positions, and waterboarding torture if they were practiced against American troops.
And what of the executive's alleged authority to detain US citizens on American soil indefinitely?
I didn't say the Democrats weren't corrupt and didn't themselves participate in the spoils system. I said they're as corrupt as ever. I also said that the Republicans used to take principled stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility - and briefly pretended to abide by them.
Pudge, you are exhibit A with what's wrong with the party I was once proud to associate with. You call me names and rise to defend bad behavior by saying "the other guys do it." We're supposed to be better than the other guys. We're supposed to be the shining city on the hill.
Being a good Republican is no longer about doing what's right, and demanding that right behavior from one's elected representatives. Now it's just about rationalizing whatever "our team" does.
Nuts to that.
The first step to recovery is admitting we have a problem.
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R)
63.89% match
Did you notice where they show how all the candidates did matching up with the people who took this quiz? Ron Paul was dead last from all Republicans and Democrats (followed by Gravel and Hunter). Giuliani was first. For the record, on this quiz my top three were Brownback, Giuliani then Hunter so I would really have to wonder about how they figured that one out. My bottom four from worst: Gravel, Paul, Obama, Clinton. How did a 'republican' get in there?
There was another site that did that by matching which statements you agreed with. I went through and agreed on all of them to test it and sure enough some of the candidates were represented by three times as many quotes so naturally they would have rated higher on avg. Just saying, don't put much credence in these tools.
Posted by: Doug on September 15, 2007 10:36 PMNothing you said about me is true. I defy you to back up with facts and reason a single claim you made about me.
I am not asking for proof about your political analysis. I am asking for proof that I "think what works for the deep south or bible belt," that I "believe in the R's national franchise," that I "refuse to budge on the Party line," or that I am in any way "neoconservative."
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 08:44 AMWow.
Sure, a supine congress authorized warrantless surveillance after they learned about it. Doesn't mean it wasn't illegal before they learned about it. Doesn't mean it's constitutional, either.
Sigh. Key Congressmen knew about it before it was ever implemented, and only one of them (Rockefeller) raised objections, and his objections were very few (most of it was just CYA), and while he had the opportunity to do something about it (cut funding) he never lifted a finger. And there is no reason to suspect it is unconstitutional: the Democrat line all along has been that it is was only illegal because, in their opinion, it was forbidden by FISA, not because it was unconstitutional, because they know that Presidents of both parties have asserted that same authority for years, before FISA came along.
The so-called torture is torture. I simply don't believe you wouldn't call sense-dep, sleep-dep, stress positions, and waterboarding torture if they were practiced against American troops.
False. They are not torture because "torture" is a legal term and no law (including no treaty we are a signatory to) categorized them as torture. And you don't know me at all if you are going to pretend I wouldn't consistently apply my definitions regardless of the situation, because that is not me at all. Regardless, you are here complaining that Bush is ignoring the law, and then complaining when he follows it? Make up your mind!
And what of the executive's alleged authority to detain US citizens on American soil indefinitely?
Yes, what of it? Many of us Republicans, including me, disagreed with that -- claiming it is part of the party platform is a lie -- and the court properly overturned it. Notice that very few of these alleged infractions by Bush have been brought to court. Why do you think that is? Because the Democrats know that they would lose. This was one example where they (and we) were right, and it disproves your point that he is a "king," because the court overruled him and forced him to change his policy, which can't happen with a king.
Bringing up examples that disprove your point doesn't make you look good.
My view on such things all along has been to bring it to court, and that includes the "warrantless wiretapping." My position from the very beginning has been that Bush likely does not have the authority (sans Congressional act) to do this program, and that Congress should either authorize it explicitly, ignore it, defund it, or take it to court. Again, there's a reason they didn't do the latter: they didn't think they would win, because they didn't think they had a strong constitiutional case, but rather could defund it if they simply disagreed with it.
For that matter, I am also against some of the interrogation methods you mentioned, and I was on McCain's and Lindsey Graham's side during last year's fight over the Military Commissions Act. I am right there with McCain when he says we cannot have any legal exceptions to torture (though that doesn't mean the President cannot torture, it means that he would be violating the law to do so, and then the Congress would decide whether that torture was justified). That doesn't mean I have to pretend that any of those methods were properly defined as torture at the time: the law didn't call them torture, so therefore they were not.
I didn't say the Democrats weren't corrupt and didn't themselves participate in the spoils system. I said they're as corrupt as ever.
You directly implied -- intentionally or not -- that is is inherent to the GOP, because you (falsely) said it is part of the party platform.
I also said that the Republicans used to take principled stands for smaller government and fiscal responsibility - and briefly pretended to abide by them.
The overwhelming majority of Republicans do abide by them. Unfortunately, we have elected the minority of Republicans who don't. Do you spend any time in the grassroots? Republican voters are very angry at Republicans for acting like Democrats, which is why Republican voters stayed home in 2006. If your lies were true -- that the Republican platform is what you say, that Republicans don't take principled stands -- then Republicans would have come out to support our candidates in force last year.
Pudge, you are exhibit A with what's wrong with the party I was once proud to associate with. You call me names and rise to defend bad behavior by saying "the other guys do it."
I did not defend bad behavior. You're lying again: in fact, I explicitly said it was wrong! How the hell do you get "defend bad behavior" our of "it doesn't make it OK"? I was merely pointing out the fact that you were lying to imply that it was a partisan issue.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 08:51 AMYour puting me on your not a neo con,sittin there with your gloves on.
I don't know what I am gonna to prove
-n-I dont know what I am gonna to prove.
I swing at them you swing at me,what else am I going to see.
I dont know what I am gonna to prove.
-n- I dont know what I am gonna to prove
Why pick up their fight,n argue their right.
I don't Know what I am gonna prove....
Main Entry: con·trar·i·an
Pronunciation: k&n-'trer-E-&n, kän-
Function: noun
: a person who takes a contrary position or attitude;
Otherwise you would not be in goal for the neo cons.
You are not the political force you make youselves out to be. Perhaps it is delusion or your daily intake of "medical" marijuana that has distorted your perception of reality, but you clearly haven't a clue.
If each of you looks at the two parties and finds the Liberal Democrats closer to what you espouse, then you should vote for them.
But your idol threats don't stand up to logic. You state that if your nutcase Ron Paul isn't the Republican nominee, none of them will get your vote. Further, you state that you will not vote for a Democrat either. There goes any schred of political influence you may have had.
Each of you realizes that you are too small a group and as such as really not of consequence as a seperate party. That is why you all show up here to bitch and moan.
If society followed the true Libertarian philosophy, the green river killer would still be killing today. Pedophile would be free to abuse children. There would be no police at all because the distorted view of liberty you have is as distorted as the Democrat party misguidedly being called "Democratic".
You people of simply a bunch of whiny pothead who never grew out of doing the doobey post high school like the rest of society. So go back to Hemp Fest and leave running the country to the adults.
Posted by: pbj on September 16, 2007 11:13 AMRon Paul - hopefully he does not choose to run as a third party. If so, he will hand the presidency to the Democrat. His so-called debate wins translate into a 3rd (at best) or lower standing in all straw polls thus far and don't see it changing in the primaries.
Third party candidates kickback - that was the only way Clinton could have become president in the first place.
Posted by: KS on September 16, 2007 12:03 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMHe supports the rights of leftists to fire reservists who go on deployment in Iraq.
He believes racial discrimination should be legal.
He believes sexual harrassment should be legal.
Why would anyone want this nut
Posted by: michael on September 16, 2007 12:13 PMIf you truly have better odds of winning the lottery than Paul does winning the nomination than I suggest you buy some tickets. Paul is currently at 7:1 odds according to sportsbook.com
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 01:12 PMPlease sign and comment on the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
You can now also vote for Ron Paul & others in the Free Market Hall of Fame Poll of legislators and government officials at http://www.freedomfest.com/halloffame and now see the results. There will be a drawing for every thousand voters where the winner will receive a free registration to the annual FreedomFest Conference to be held in Las Vegas in July 2008. This is a regular registration valued at $495.00
You also might want to read “The Final Presidential Executive Order” a fictional story about a future terrorist attack against the US and learn how a government extreme response elected Ron Paul as President of the United States at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm
You had a response for people with different names than me, so I didn't read those responses. If you are afraid to respond to me, OK, but that seems kinda silly. But I am not going to get in the middle of this argument you have with someone else.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 03:25 PMYou can click on Pudges name and see videos and pictures with him in it and then you can google me and see my old campaign pictures and see we are not the same people. I simply wrote Pudge in the name response when I was trying to respond to him. If you want to harras someone and you are convinced we are one person, then please only respond the travis half of the persona, I am the one that made the mistake, not pudge.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 04:48 PMI just want everyone to know that not all those who oppose libertarian thought are like pbj and Michael above. It would be a straw-man/ad hominem/cheap shot for me to direct you to read their words above and then for me to conclude that my oponents obviously had no reasoned or valid arguments against me.
So I won't. :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 16, 2007 06:52 PMNice try at the new verse for my song, regardless. ;-)
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 08:36 PMUmmmm.......read your history and figure out the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist, only idiots think that the United States should be the world's police. Meanwhile back in China we are getting smoked in the manufacturing and technology sector. Go ahead and vote for your lying Hillary Clinton who knew all too well where that huge donation came from.
Posted by: Joe Lawson on September 16, 2007 09:41 PMI believe this was the one that turned me off on Rs. Crasswell was the icing on the cake, though.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 07:13 AMFor Democrats to think about. Hillary is elected and the war in Iraq continues for two more terms. What will you say in defense of the first woman President?
Posted by: Snuffy on September 17, 2007 07:32 AMRepublicans should not become Democrats in order to get elected. They should not become the clarion of the pot smoking, won't grow up, freedom to do drugs crowd.
While I don't agree with Craswellian direction, heading over the edge leftward trying to out left the leftists is something so dumb, only a THC addled brain would think of it.
Posted by: pbj on September 17, 2007 09:43 AMWho were the two Rs in the primary for governator in '92? Who did Crasswell run against in the primary?
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 10:30 AM