User Name
Pass Word:


Ron Paul for President
Previous | Next by rich 08 May, 2007 - 3:57 PM

I have decided to support Ron Paul (wikipedia) for President. This man's ideas line up better with my own than any candidate running for anything that I have ever known. It almost makes me want to move to his district in Texas.

I have contributed to his campaign and I ask you to do me a favor and spend a few minutes reading up on him and his positions at some point this election season.

You may not agree with him on all points, but from all accounts he is the exact opposite of the slick political types we have all come to expect.  I will be switching affiliations (or rather affiliating as I am currently unaffiliated) to the Republican party for the purpose of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries.

5/9/2007 >> muhgcee

I am sure I wouldn't align well with him on social issues, but with hundreds of thousands of lives at stake, his foreign policy views are much more important. Obviously, he didn't have the time to answer nearly all of my questions, so I thought you might be able to help.
Does he support Israel?
Would he significantly reduce the military budget?
What of global warming? Does he think the market will sort that one out too?

I am, however, nervous about his pledge to get rid of the IRS. What kind of effect would such a drastic change have on America? Would it not be best to make gradual change towards a goal, monitoring its progress as we go along?

Definitely very intriguing, and based on foreign policy alone (and from the sounds of it, probably not based on anything else), I would likely support him more than any other Republican candidate.

So, Rich, do you think he's got a chance?

5/9/2007 >> ben

from what i read about him on his myspace/wikipedia (granted - not exactly highly respected news sources for their accuracy), he did look like the best candidate on the republican side... now if only more people knew who he is... hehehe

5/9/2007 >> jmcd303

Yeah, he'll be great when he picks Buchanan as a running mate and appoints Grover Norquist as chairman of the federal reserve. He is anti-immigration, supports isolationism and closed borders, tried to do an end run around Roe v. Wade and thereby limit a women's right to choose, and is a complete effing hypocrit when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights, which he doesn't support. At least he believes in evolution...

You're right, I hope he wins the nomination.

5/9/2007 >> lawnczar

As of yesterday Rasmussen had him with a favorable / unfavorable of 14% and 27% among likely Republican voters nation wide, which means that he's unpopular among those primary voters who have bothered to know his name by a two to one ratio. He's the weakest in the field right now.'s aggregate tracking polls have him with 0.4% support among the same constituency. OpenSecrets hasn't updated their fundraising data in a while, and it's possible that his debate showing might have helped him a bit, but according to them Paul has raised just under $640,000 compared to Romney, who has well over $23,000,000. There might be better numbers out there, but none jumped out at me.

Anyway... a lot of what he says would be a disaster for social policy and the budget but that doesn't matter, because he isn't a serious candidate. He's trying to drag the conversation towards genuine conservative principals, which aren't popular with the party anymore. Also, "libertarian" and "pro-life" seems like a wee contradiction to me, but what the hell.

5/9/2007 >> rich

Actually after a little more digging on his abortion position.

He is personally pro-life but does think that the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate it.

In fact, that is his stance on many things. Regarding global warming I think (I have not seen it documented) he would say, show me what authority the Constitution gives the Federal Government to regulate CO2.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now, challenge him on if he favors constitutional amendments regulating these things... I do not know what his answers would be.

Let me say, I like what he says on the whole of it. However, some of these things are just not practical, in an immediate sense. You can't get rid of the IRS and the income tax on the first week of his Presidency. There would be DECADES of beurocratic simplification and military draw down before any of that could happen. However, I am ready to start that process.
I hope he can be a spark in these general directions, like Perot was towards a reduction in deficit spending in the early 90's. Now, I would like him to win, because that would be the biggest spark possible.
Realistically if he won he would be up against a very hostel congress of what ever party. He would not be able to rule by fiat.

5/9/2007 >> rich

He is personally pro-life but does NOT think that the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate it.

5/9/2007 >> muhgcee

Continuing the political discussion...

I am getting a little depressed by the Democrats. Every Democratic candidate except for Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson want to increase the size of the military.

What wing of the left could they possibly be pandering to?

5/9/2007 >> rich

If I had to vote for a Democrat it would be Bill Richardson. He seems like an upstanding guy as far as politicos go.

I think he would be their guy if not for Senator Clinton. At least I think the Democrats would be wise nominate him.

5/10/2007 >> lawnczar

@Rich - Just last month the Supreme Court found that the current administration was bound to enforce the Clean Air Act, specifically rejecting your argument. That's under the Roberts court, by the way, just to help put the decision in perspective.

Perot was an impetus towards balanced budgets to the degree that he drew votes away from President Bush and allowed President Clinton to take office.

I like Richardson. I don't see him getting the nomination, either, but I like him.

5/10/2007 >> jmcd303

@Rich - He is not personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. He does not mean that the government should have no business telling women what to do with their bodies. His specific stance is that abortion regulations are up to the states. This means that individual states can outlaw abortions and an individual in those states would have no recourse to appeal the constitutionality of that law to the Supreme Court of the United States. Its an Orwellian construct. He's anti-choice, which is an odd stance for a guy who "believes" government has no business regulating private lives.

5/10/2007 >> rich

lawnczar - I was unaware of that ruling. It does seem that the "regulation of interstate commerce" goes a long way doesn't it.

Thowing around Orwelian construct" bombs aside I don't disagree with your interpretation jmcd. As a retired OB/GYN I am sure he has his reasons.

Libertarian "my neighbor should have a nuke if he wants to" Ralph - What say you?

5/10/2007 >> muhgcee

Libertarian "my neighbor should have a nuke if he wants to" ... I thought that was Casey and I thought he was on lurker status now.

5/15/2007 >> rich

Stu, I think you are right... sorry Ralph.

A second GOP debate is on Fox News tonight. I recommend you watch it if you can. I expect Ron Paul to do well in the debate at least.

here is an e-mail I sent to Fox News

My question(s) for any and all of the Republican Candidates who chose to
answer it:

Can you explain what the concept of habeas corpus is, and why it is
important to the functioning of a free society?

Do you agree with Attorney General Gonzales as he asserted in Senate
testimony (on January 17th of 2007) that while habeas corpus is "one of
our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not
expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

For the TV-less...

Live feed on da web

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

OK, a bit of "liveblogging" here...

My oh my, Giuliani sounds like a douche bag.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

McCain wants to keep the tax cuts around.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Bill Richardson (I think) "We have a Congress that has spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

That's not going to go over very well...

edit: That was Mike Huckabee

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Brownback evidently thinks we are being held hostage by Hugo Chávez.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Ron Paul has been asked twice now why he is seeking nomination for the Republican Party.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Ron Paul really gets it when it comes to Iraq. He points out that we were attacked because of our interventionist policies.

"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They attack us because we are over there. What would we think if they did that to us?"

Rock on.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Tom Tancredo thinks that it is equally possible that global warming is a natural phenomenon or that it is caused by humans.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Tom Tancredo says that it is a part of "their religion" that terrorists attack us.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

McCain came out strongly against abortion.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Tancredo would look for Jack Bauer in the event of a future terrorist attack.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

One questioner very nicely pointed out that all of the candidates are white males.

5/15/2007 >> rich

Fox News is scoffing at the top showing Ron Paul has currently with their text msg poll. Ron Paul is leading the field with 30%.
They are scoffing their own results, hinting that someone must be altering the results of THEIR OWN POLL.

Fox doing their post debate interviews of all the participants is apparently going to interview Ron Paul last.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

hah nice...nice indeed.

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Holy crap...come on now Fox News...

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the strongest applause at Tuesday night's First-in-the-South Republican primary debate when he lashed out at Texas Rep. Ron Paul for suggesting that the United States' non-interventionist policy invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

the story

5/15/2007 >> muhgcee

Holy crap, even the New York Times fucked up their coverage:

Representative Ron Paul of Texas, gave what turned out to be a big platform to Mr. Giuliani when he appeared to suggest that the United States invited the attacks of Sept. 11 by having originally invaded Iraq.


All the candidates once again offered strong affirmations of their support of the war in Iraq, reflecting the general consensus among them.

NYTimes story

5/16/2007 >> ben





thank you for the blow by blow, though

5/16/2007 >> ben

"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They attack us because we are over there. What would we think if they did that to us?"

Showing again that I think these guys get it... partly. We USED to have an assload of credibility in the world, but now we're viewed as 19th century Great Britain - putting our flag in every time zone etc. However, that's not why we were attacked... We did invade places, but anyone with a library card knows that we were also invited to, and had the support of the Muslim world at the time.
There's no cut and dried single reason - i mean, you don't go to a religious school for 13 years being told one thing over and over again and keep believing it without supporting "evidence"... I'm pretty sure there were dozens of points that they came up with, including being rich, being pluralistic, being imperialistic, owning everything, allowing jews to marry women, fucking their goats, not believing that Mohammed is a prophet, eating pork, fucking their goats some more, and on and on...

i actually had a Palestinian friend in middle school who blamed Jews for everything... i shit you not. I was in his house at the time, 7th grade, he ranted about the "fucking Jews"... for everything

5/20/2007 >> rich

You must be logged in to comment.


This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Kheiligh. Make your own badge here.