Paul's chances of getting the nomination are next to zilch.
He's the only one who might bring smaller government, but he is not particularly Christian.
I would say that he is more a doctor than Christian. I have yet to hear him proselytize, quote the Bible or refer to other religious figures.
Unless of course you're making some kind of judgment based on some half-baked stereotype
How about this:
People call Ron Paul "Dr. No", because he votes against pretty much everything.
No one calls him "Rev No".
Christianity and Libertarianism are vastly different ideologies, just as Capitalism and Christianity.
Jesus said "give your possessions to the poor and follow me", and yet, one never encounters bands of penniless worshippers roaming the bylays and highways, as one encounters in Thailand or even a harsh dictatorship like Burma.
Ron Paul seems to be a rather nice fellow, although he seems to have no problems with accepting donations from White supremacists. He doesn't tell them he doesn't want their money, and when he receives it, he keeps it. Would Jesus do this?
I would not say that Paul is a worse, or better person than Jesus, but he is a lot more like an American doctor turned ten-term congressman than any ancient Jewish reformer or Messiah. Hence I insist that he is more a doctor than a Christian.
QuoteI don't believe libertarianism or capitalism are as far removed from Christianity as you seem to imply here.
I imagine that you don't. But they are.
Giving away all of one's possessions to the poor and following a leader about is not a model for the capitalist.
Giving one's money to the poor is not likely to improve the economy, as the poor will most likely just spend it on food.
I did not say Paul was not a Christian, or behaved in an unChristian manner. I merely stated that his demonstrated values are more like those of a doctor than those of the typical Christian ideal.
It is one thing to tell everyone not to look to the government or others for help, and another to tell people who have something to give it to the poor.
I have often wondered, did Peter the Fisherman give his nets and lines and boat to the poor? This is not mentioned in the Bible.
Perhaps you could explain why you think Paul is more like a Christian than a doctor.
Surely you recognize that if a person gives all he has to the poor, it would be unreasonable to even EXPECT anything from the government.
Am I ever impressed. Now even foreigners can offer to buy the US presidency.
So Ron is going to give back any money if received from, say a Shao-Lin monastery, Argentine ex-Nazis or Putin's ex-wife? My guess is no.
The guy is not electable. This is a waste of money, in my opinion. I am not saying that people do not have the right to donate, but they are dumb.
I did not say...
First, I don't think that more money is likely to bring him many more votes, because what he has are people who respond to what he says, rather than those idiotic 30-second spots that candidates buy with their donations.
"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors."
Quote"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors."
How many of those donations are being made with stolen credit cards? Paul's campaign has become a popular place to "test" credit cards.
Paul is still better than Hillary, though.
Do I need to point out he's the only candidate the Pubies have that's bringing people into the party, rather than driving them to flee?
How many people are registering Republican because they're excited about Huckabee or Giuliani or Romney or, heaven forfend, McCain?
In your dreams
What effect did the Reform Party have? Zilch. Bupkiss.
Paul is going to need more than 24,000 new voters to defeat Hillary Rotten Clinton. That's not going to cut it.
[...]
Elections are about turning out your base and pulling in independents. All 5 top GOP would do that against Hillary.
Most of the Perotistas I know would not have voted at all, and have not voted since.
The few that did would have voted for Clinton.
Would they?
Yes, that's why I wrote it.
QuoteWould they?
Yes, that's why I wrote it. A majority of independents and Republicans are not going to vote for Hillary under any circumstance. She is doomed.
Any Republican, even Ron Paul, will defeat Hillary Rotten Clinton.
If both parties do an equally good job of bringing out their bases, the Pubies are pretty well screwed...
Paul is going to need more than 24,000 new voters to defeat Hillary Rotten Clinton. That's not going to cut it.
[...]
Elections are about turning out your base and pulling in independents. All 5 top GOP would do that against Hillary.
Would they? Last I checked, the candidate getting the press for attracting independents, disaffected Republicans and disaffected Democrats was not Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. It was Ron Paul. And frankly, Ron Paul's message is not all that different than George W. Bush's was in the 2000 campaign. So I confess I have a hard time believing that given a choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton that the Republican Party base would stay home or vote for Clinton. Granted this is only my opinion, but the candidate with the best chance to beat Clinton is Paul. Ron Paul is not only motivating people to want to vote, he is reaching and persuading Democrats who are not happy with their party. In a direct head to head, Clinton would lose. And I have serious doubts than any of the other Republican candidates can achieve that.
In assigning odds to Paul and Clinton, I would put Paul at ten to one to incur agenda abuse.
"... the GOP does occasionally needs a reminder of its roots in limited government and the Constitution. "
"We endorse Ron Paul for president because we believe he is the candidate best able to solve these profound problems.
I don't see Paul as being capable of translating ideals to policy. I certainly don't see him as an agent for change as he has had 20 years in the body that affects change and hasn't made a dent in the system nor has he built a coalition of like minded legislators willing to leverage their numbers to influence change.
Which speaks to leadership. And i don't think Paul is the right man for these times.
If that is an attack, so be it.
He'll do until the right man comes along.....
Care to contradict any of these?
| "I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today." He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit." |
| "You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do." |
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/12/post_6.html
Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent
Prince,
I'm not trying to nit-pick, honest. I just see a Ron Paul article, I know you and at least one other poster here likes him, he is certainly interesting, so I chuck articles in a Ron Paul thread.
And I STILL feel bad Air Force Amy didn't get her photo taken with him.
Well, I think it probably would have done some good. Though I find it interesting that people talk as if Ron Paul is unaware of political realities and then criticize him for having a staffer who suggests that something like being photographed with a stripper might not be politically prudent. Paul is damned no matter what he says or does. He gets criticized for wanting to actually shrink government, and people say this shows he isn't politically viable.
And of course, I'm supposed to be ashamed for preferring the guy with integrity. He can't be a leader or he must be some crazy xenophobic loony or he just isn't electable, so there must be something wrong with me for liking the guy.
Paul ought to beat Rudy. Rudy is just a fearmonger. His only plan is to take over, rule with an iron fist, and reimpose the rule of the disaccredited NeoCons. I used to think of him as a worthy candidate, but he is just a sack of ambition full of ego.
Paul says what he thinks. He has no real chance, but at least he's sincere.
QuoteWell, I think it probably would have done some good. Though I find it interesting that people talk as if Ron Paul is unaware of political realities and then criticize him for having a staffer who suggests that something like being photographed with a stripper might not be politically prudent. Paul is damned no matter what he says or does. He gets criticized for wanting to actually shrink government, and people say this shows he isn't politically viable.
Air Force Amy is a prostitute in a state that licenses brothels. Ron Paul is on record as saying he doesn't have a problem with that.
His staffer didn't suggest anything.
He refused to allow a citizen who works in a legal profession to have her picture taken with Dr. Paul.
The problem is simple. That act by his staffer indicates that the Paul Campaign is willing to compromise principles based on political expediency. The integrity and honor pedestal you placed Paul upon is not so stable if this action is any indicator.
It seems as if canadates must blandify themselvs to avoidlooseing the vote of the suerficial voter.
QuoteIt seems as if canadates must blandify themselvs to avoidlooseing the vote of the suerficial voter.
One would expect a candidate touted as so uncompromising in his ideals to not be so pragmatic.
Are you saying that Ron Paul is not as diffrent as he should be?
One would expect a candidate touted as so uncompromising in his ideals to not be so pragmatic.
I am saying there is no evidence that he is as different as his supporters say he is.
This is funny. First Paul gets derided for not being pragmatic, and now he gets criticized for being pragmatic.
No evidence? I guess a Congressional voting record isn't evidence. I am beginning to understand now why some people think Ron Paul cannot win. Apparently Paul is altogether too idealistic, too pragmatic, too unlike the other politicians and too much like the other politicians. Oh golly, it's all so confusing.
No evidence? I guess a Congressional voting record isn't evidence. I am beginning to understand now why some people think Ron Paul cannot win. Apparently Paul is altogether too idealistic, too pragmatic, too unlike the other politicians and too much like the other politicians. Oh golly, it's all so confusing.
He wasn't pragmatic, his staff was.
I'm not the one saying he is uncompromising in his principles. Yet while he votes no for pork expenditures, he lines up at the trough after the fact and delivers bacon to his district.
I can see why you are confused.
Welcome to the era of two parties whose mainstream basically support the same thing. It is all about personality and image now. Issues are for candidates who can't afford high quality PR firms.
Watching people insist first that Ron Paul cannot get anything done and then criticizing him for getting something done is humorous.
What is amusing is watching you place Paul on a pedestal then dismiss every valid criticism of him as grasping at straws.
Paul's staff was pragmatic in worrying what the blowback would be if a picture of Paul with a hooker surfaced. However Paul is on record as saying he doesn't have a problem with Nevada's legalization of brothels.
He says one thing, his staff says another.
When one of Hillary's staff contradicted a stance of hers, he was fired.
Paul seems to lack the same firm control of his operation.
That is the real problem.
XO postss about Bush being better suited to manage a Piggly Wiggly. I don't think Paul even qualifies for that.
You are the one bragging that Paul is consistently uncompromising in his principles.
You are the one making excuses for his managerial missteps.
Directing staff, making sure that your message is consistent, is not authoritarian nor is it dictatorial, it is what executives should do.
That is the position Paul is campaigning for. Chief Executive.
XO postss about Bush being better suited to manage a Piggly Wiggly. I don't think Paul even qualifies for that.
Firing someone off staff for making one mistake-
So far you haven't mounted a reasoned defense of Romney or Giuliani, merely tried to denigrate Paul.
Yes, I am sure Piggly Wiggly managers never allow mistakes. Certainly never more than one in any 30 year period lest they be fired for incompetence. Oops, I was being sarcastic again, wasn't I?
but what about the ongoing newsletter with the racist slurs.
I see no need to defend Romney or Rudy, as the subject is Paul.
I doubt a Piggly Wiggly manager would allow a store clerk to disrespect a customer like Paul's staffer did, so yes i think the manager would fire the clerk on the first offense.
I don't know because I haven't found anything about it other than some out of context quotes. But then the newsletter is no longer published as best I can figure out, and I'd be voting for the man as he is now, not as he was then. The reports about the newsletter are troubling, but I have a tendency not to judge who someone is now based on actions taken 20+ years ago.
The NYT also said that the mea culpa was not transparent. Who wrote the newsletter and held such explicit trust that Paul or another trusted party didn't even proof it. Paul never felt the need to reveal that tidbit. How convenient.
How could the ghostwriter be a scapegoat if he wrote things Paul didn't authorize.
Paul said he didn't write the newsletter. So who did? Why was Paul so intent on hiding his identity?
And yes the discussion is about Paul's fitness for office. You are the one who keeps want to bring in Rudy and Mitt and the rest.
Your guy shy of the spotlight or something?
It has to do with some things called integrity and honor.
You know, I've pretty much kept my mouth shut about Ron Paul for a while now.
I will say this, though. In a staunch Republican state like North Carolina, there are Ron Paul bumper stickers and signs all over the place.
And in the Democratic stronghold of Minneapolis, MN, there are Ron Paul bumper stickers and signs all over the place.
So, I would say that he seems to have wide bi-partisan support.
I like him as a candidate second only to Michael Badnarik, who is not running this time around.
A man with integrity and honor would not only take responsibility for the newsletter but also give an explanation as to why it was allowed to go on for so long.
And a man of integrity would not furnish a newsletter bearing his name if he didn't practice oversight of the product. That would border on fraudulent marketing.
Paul isn't presidential timber. He lacks management skills, The newsletter is the example.
Hey, I am not trying to tell Christians what to do. I just was pointing out that evangelism has always been a major feature of Christianity, if not since the crucifixion, certainly since St. Paul. All the major sects of Christianity send missionaries. Ron Paul, like perhaps many Christiand does not do this personally, but if we compare him with Huckabee, who was an active Baptist preacher, and Mitt Romney, whi spent the usual two years as a Mormon missionary, he is less fervent at his evangelism than either of those.
Paul may be a sincere man and a good man, but that does not mean he would make a good president. Maybe he is a good Christian, perhaps he isn't, that is nnot all that important to me.The idea of shrinking the government into something puny does not seem like too clever an idea in an age when transnational conglomerates, who have destroyed unions and crushed governemnts of smaller nations are growing more and more powerful.
I think he is less fascist than Giulani, less wacky than evolution-denying Huckabee, less opportunist than Romney, less bellicose and less militarist than McCain, but Republicans in general have always seeed like a bad idea to me. Of course all the GOP candidates have Juniorbush beat, and Cheney is worst of all.