GOP Can Learn from Ron Paul

[Religious Dick]

Academics Join to Endorse Congressman Paul

Press Release
Updated: 12/24/2007

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

A group of professors from a wide range of academic disciplines have formed an "Academics for Ron Paul" group to declare their support for presidential candidate Ron Paul. The academics hold positions at national institutions including Northwestern University, University of Alabama, American University, The Citadel, Brigham Young University, Hillsdale College, Indiana University, Ohio University and The Hoover Institution.

In their announcement they wrote:

"Americans have lost faith in politicians, and for good reasons. Taxes, spending, and the national debt continue to rise, special interest bribes riddle the Congress, courts, and executive branch, and our schools are in shambles. Yet our government continues to wage a ceaseless assault on the American people's rights to make their own choices. It has done so through the USA Patriot Act, the REAL ID Act, the War on Drugs, McCain-Feingold, and countless other initiatives. The endless and inept foreign policy of interventionism of the establishment politicians has put our country in grave danger not only of a destructive war with Iran but a new financial crisis.

"The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.

"We endorse Ron Paul for president because we believe he is the candidate best able to solve these profound problems. We come from a broad and diverse range of academic fields and specialties. We unite under the banner of liberty and are proud to announce our support for Ron Paul." The full endorsement can be found here: www.academicsforpaul.com

Dr. Paul recently was also endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr., who served in Congress for six terms with Congressman Ron Paul, and is the son of former Republican presidential nominee and Arizona U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. His video endorsement can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch.

http://www.happynews.com/news/12242007/academics-join-endorse-congressman-paul.htm

[BT]

"We endorse Ron Paul for president because we believe he is the candidate best able to solve these profound problems.

Anything in his track record to indicate he can solve these problems?

What leadership skills does he possess?

Can he make his case directly with the people like Reagan did?

Can he build consensus and coalition within his own party as well as across the aisle?

Does he show management skills in the hiring of staff who will implement his ideas?

[Religious Dick]

The audacity of nope
By: Jeremy Lott and W. James Antle III
December 26, 2007 11:06 AM EST

Ron Paul's supporters aren't afraid to open up their wallets to aid the Texas congressman?s long-shot presidential bid.

On Dec. 16, they donated more than $6 million in 24 hours, easily shattering the $4.3 million single-day fundraising record they set on Nov. 5.

Relying on 200,000-plus mostly small donors, Paul has brought in more than $18 million this quarter and may lead the Republican field in fourth-quarter fundraising.

In return for their generosity, Paul is offering his enthusiastic backers ... absolutely nothing.

At least that's how it would seem according to the conventional ?pay to play? logic of big-time campaign fundraising.

The maverick libertarian Republican isn't promising ethanol subsidies to Iowans or free health care to New Hampshirites.

Paul opposes all kinds of corporate welfare and voted against the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Nor is Paul championing a federal bailout of cash-strapped home buyers or mortgage lenders. His solution for what ails the country is minimal taxes and hard money, not federal guarantees or easy credit.
Where other presidential candidates claim their policies will simultaneously create prosperity and financial security for millions, Paul actually says on the stump, "I don't want to run the economy. I don't know how."

Over his 10 terms in Congress, Paul has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against just about every trendy piece of legislation to come down the pike.

During the Bush administration, he has opposed the No Child Left Behind Act, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Internet gambling ban, amnesty for illegal immigrants and, above all, the war in Iraq.

Paul won't even vote to award congressional medals to Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa or Rosa Parks, instead offering to donate his own money in honor of these dignitaries if his colleagues will pony up as well.

Yet Paul inspires the most enthusiastic grass-roots following of any presidential candidate in either major party. The secret to his appeal? Call it the audacity of nope.

Paul's approach is vastly different from that of his opponents. Over the course of this campaign, other aspirants have taken a more expansive view of government's capabilities.

Some have promised to ?end? cancer in 10 years, others to eradicate global climate change or make all children above average in school.

One front-runner pledges to ?roll back? hostile foreign governments before they can threaten the United States.

Another promises to unleash ?weapons of mass instruction? to promote young students' appreciation of the arts.

And these are just the Republican candidates for president. Once it was the Democrats who put their faith in the messianic state.

Nuts to all that

Today the party of Barry Goldwater and Reagan has gone from considering government the problem to believing that when "somebody hurts, government has got to move." Washington can supply everything from universal health insurance coverage at home to universal democracy abroad.

Paul and his supporters say nuts to all that.

However alluring many voters may find Uncle Sam's embrace, those who have watched the federal government fail at everything from nation building to mail delivery have a different vision.

Tax reformer Grover Norquist summed it up with the phrase, ?Leave us alone.? The late soul singer James Brown said it better: ?I don't want nobody to give me nothing/Open up the door; I'll get it myself.?

As the federal government has grown larger, it has become even less competent at its core functions. National defense is being crowded out of the budget.

The borders remain porous. During Hurricane Katrina, even basic public order could not be maintained.

Difficult as it may be to believe in an era of resurgent liberalism and compassionate conservatism, for many Americans, being free from the government is more attractive than getting something free from the government. To them, the promise of liberty isn't just worth $6 million; it's priceless.

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator. Jeremy Lott is author of ?The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.?

TM & ? THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
   
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7551.html

[Religious Dick]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071226_agents_of_disinforma.htm

December 26, 2007

Agents of Disinformation, The Smearing of Dr. Ron Paul

By Anthony Wade

December 26, 2007
 

Gandhi said, ?First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.? This old truism seems to be playing out in the case of the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for president. At first he was ignored. He was ignored in the early republican debates, getting one question for every 2.5 his opponents received. He was ignored by the corporate media in the early running too, as they assumed everyone would naturally gravitate toward their pre-selected candidates. Something funny happened on the way to our corporate election though; the people weren?t buying it anymore. Paul started to receive huge grassroots support across party and ideological lines. Once they could not ignore him, they tried to laugh him out of the race by marginalizing him at every turn. The proceeding debates saw the opponents microphones elevated so you could hear the snickering at Dr. Paul when he was answering questions designed to make him look foolish. I remember Moderator Chris Wallace actually asking Paul if he took his marching orders from al Qaeda and Paul slapping the fake reporter back into his place by answering that he took his orders from the Constitution. I recall post debate ?analysts? dismissing the post-debate poll results showing Paul had clearly won the debates. One actually cried, ?Oh no not again! Ron Paul did not win this debate!? Paul?s answers were mocked and his positions derided. But something funny happened on the way to dismissing Dr. Ron Paul. The people weren?t buying it. In fact, his contributions exploded to the point where he now is better positioned financially then all of his opponents and it was all done through local folks, not mega-corporations. Unable to ignore him and laugh him off the national stage, we now see the third tactic in the Gandhi truism taking place; they are now attacking him.
 

The real problem is not the attack but the disinformation associated with it. Politicians with records as long as Dr. Paul should have plenty of ammunition lying around for opponents, but people are resorting to distorting that record and either boldly lying about what would occur under a Paul administration or simply being so ignorant, as to not understand how our system of government works. This is an attempt to clear the smear. I write this with full disclosure that I do not know if I would vote for Dr. Paul, as I would like to hear more specifics on certain policy issues. I am neither a registered democrat nor republican. I am a registered American. I believe that we are bound to a responsibility to listen and discern what would be in the best interest of our country and the people residing in it. If that person comes from the left, so be it and if not, so be it. I have written over 200 articles in the past five years about the abuses we have suffered under the Bush administration, so do not assume that I am some right-wing guy. I believe in the truth.
 

The truth is that I have heard a lot of reasons over the past several days why people think they could not possibly vote for Dr. Paul and a lot of them are just inaccurate on their merits. The first reason I have heard is that he is a republican. While that is true, the notion that you cannot vote for a republican, highlights what has been wrong with this country for too long now. The two-party system is designed to make the two parties rich, that?s it folks. While there are some fundamental differences, they exist for the continual existence of each other. They pit one against the other so you have someone to blame for your lot in life or the perceived shape of the country. They introduce ?wedge issues? to make us argue about minutia, while the larger problems are barely discussed. I could go on about the problems with blind party loyalty but since I just did an article yesterday about it, I will simply link it here:
 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071224_blind_partisanship_i.htm
 

The next rationale I have heard is that you cannot vote for Dr. Paul because he is a corporatist, meaning he will allow corporations to do as they wish at the expense of individuals. This is patently false on its face. In fact, Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is actively speaking out against fascism in this country. He has consistently voted against corporate control and does not take a dime from lobbyists. Do you know who takes the most corporate donations in either party? Hillary Clinton. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. It just really worries me when I see well intended people who consider themselves ?progressive? who will not vote for Paul because they think he likes corporations over people but they will have no problem pulling the lever for someone like Hillary, who is bought and owned, pure and simple. So are Obama, Edwards and the entire GOP field except Paul. Judicial Watch just put out their 10 most corrupt politicians list and among the ten were Hillary, Obama, Rudy and Huckabee. This is the same Judicial Watch that has been suing the Bush Administration for years now. We have had seven years now of a corporate president and I do not want another. If the machine gets what it wants however, we will have two choices both owned by the corporate powers that be. The only voice for the people in the field is Dr. Ron Paul. So if you are deciding the not vote for him, fine; but don?t do it because someone tells you an untruth. Listen to what the man has to say and examine his voting record. There are people who either wish to purposefully mislead you or are simply misinformed.
 

Another rationale I have heard is that Ron Paul will eliminate everything the government does! Ehh, not exactly if you understand how government works. The first mischaracterization is that Paul would allow services to disappear. Not true. He would return the power to the state level as was designed by our founding fathers. I have heard, ?but what about the Department of Education?? What about it? Has the federally mandated ?No Child Left Behind? worked? Was it even funded correctly? Go ask your local teacher if they like having the federal government interfering in their curriculum. Go ask them if they like having to stop teaching their kids to prepare them for tests so their schools can pull down federal dollars. I worked in education for eight years and I do not know if eliminating the Department of Education and returning power to the state and local levels can work, but I know what is not working. The second mischaracterization is that Paul can somehow do all of this on his own. The Executive Branch cannot. There are precious few people in Congress who lean libertarian folks. Dr. Paul would be forced to come to the center and soften his positions if he were to get anything done. But at least he would start his move to the center without a dime from corporate lobbyists. At least his core principles include ending war, restoring civil liberties and a sound understanding of the problem we face with our devalued currency. The notion that any president can walk in and impose his will on Congress is ludicrous. The only way that can happen is if the congress sets aside their responsibility like the last six years out of blind party loyalty. That could happen under Clinton or Obama, but not under the libertarian Paul. He would be forced to work with Congress and he would. The reason for the corruption the past six years is not that the people were republican; it was because they had absolute power. They had no checks and balances. The same would have happened if it was all democrats. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 

When faced with the inability to smear Paul on the above mentioned issues, we see them turn to the wedge issues. These are designed to distract us from what is truly important and to have us argue over issues that truly do not matter to the powers that be. I have heard, ?I can?t vote for Paul because he is pro-life.? That myopic view of voting is dangerous on both sides. I would not encourage any of my Christian friends to solely vote pro-life without considering the entire candidate and I would not recommend any liberal to solely vote for pro-choice. It is simply an ignorant way of voting. But moving past that, even if you are pro-choice, Dr. Paul can still be a viable candidate. As a libertarian, his stance on abortion is that it should not be the role of the federal government to decide the abortion issue. It should be left up to the states. Is he personally pro-life? Absolutely. He is a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Is that personal belief so surprising? The larger point is that he would not interject his personal beliefs into his governmental beliefs. To say that because he is pro-life personally so you cannot vote for him is to completely not understand how he views the constitution. He does not want the federal government in the people?s bedrooms or doctor?s offices. This of course leads to the next boogy-man, who will a President Paul nominate to the Supreme Court? His beliefs are that the federal government should not police the world or the citizenry. He is actually quite progressive on that, more so then the democratic front-runners. He would not nominate pro-corporate judges like Bush did or strict anti-abortion judges. He would nominate judges who believe as he does that the government should be protecting our civil liberties, not taking them away. Another wedge issue I have heard bantered around is what he believes regarding evolution. When I hear this I know the end of the attacks are coming because his opponents are running out of things to say. First of all, Dr. Paul did not raise his hand in the debate when the moderator asked for a show of hands those who did not believe in evolution. It is my understanding that he does in fact believe in evolution but once again, the larger point is not what he personally believes but what he believes the role of the federal government is. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in determining education. That should be left up to the state and local officials.
 

Look, I may not believe in everything Ron Paul believes in but the illusion is that any one candidate represents everything you would want. They sold you this two headed monster and you bought it. You believe that party is somehow more important than country. It is not. You fear the lie that Dr. Paul would side with corporations over people but are willing to vote for people like Hillary who is bought and owned by corporations. You fear Dr. Paul because you hear the lie that he wants to eliminate public education when all he wants to do is restore power to the states and localities but you will vote for people who got behind the ridiculous No Child Left Behind debacle. You fear the fact that he is pro-life and the lie that he doesn?t believe in evolution when neither would be an issue in a Paul presidency. You hear niceties such as universal healthcare and pre-k but do not realize that the candidates that are selling you these notions do not have the money to pay for them. I know we hear the amount of the national debt and shrug our shoulders but only Dr. Paul is talking about it for what it truly is, the greatest threat to our nation today. If our currency collapses we would see an economic 9-11 that would devastate this country. You are willing to vote for a candidate that supported this Iraq War and will not even commit to bringing all the troops home but Paul is somehow dismissed?
 

I do not know if I will vote for Dr. Paul, should he survive the primaries or run as an independent. But I do know that the main three planks of his platform are pretty appealing and progressive. He wants to bring all the troops home, stop using war as a policy and restore the constitution. Secondly, he believes in restoring civil liberties and is against a national ID card. Third, he understands the disaster looming in regards to our currency and will commit to paying down the ridiculous debt. The current debt is over 9 trillion dollars folks! Do you think it is ?progressive? to add to it? Those are three pretty good places to start as a candidate. Remember, Paul could not do everything he wants. He would have to come to the center. Bush did not have to because he had a GOP Congress that abdicated their oversight responsibilities. Paul will not have a libertarian congress to work with, ever. He will always have to compromise. But at least he will do so from a fundamental position listed above; ending the wars, restoring civil liberties and paying off the debt to stabilize our currency. He is the only sane voice amongst the GOP. He is the only one not taking lobbyist money so he is not beholden to special interests. He is the only one speaking about fascism, curtailing the expanded powers of the executive, CIA and FBI. He is the only one outside of the machine that has a legitimate shot of winning. That makes him dangerous to the powers that be.
 

So dangerous that we have seen smear after smear on him. They tried to ignore him but the people liked what they heard. They tried to laugh him off the stage but people started sending him money. Now they are attacking him, spreading lies and disinformation; hoping to scare people away from him. The only thing left is for him to survive that and win. I am not endorsing him because there are still 11 months before the election. Of course I would endorse him for the GOP field because he is the only one doesn?t want to blow up half the world. I am not suggesting you make your final decision either. Just remember what Gandhi said. They are attacking him for a reason. They are throwing fear dust in your eyes, hoping you will be blinded from the truth. Listen to what the man says. See what he has voted for. Inform yourself so you cannot be misinformed by others. The only thing that matters is the truth and Dr. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not reading off a script. It is actually quite refreshing. 




Authors Bio: Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 40-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.


Anthony Wade?s Archive:


http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm


Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com

Back

[BT]

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.

[Religious Dick]

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.

Maybe he's not the right man for the times, but then, the right man for the times doesn't appear to be running in this election.

He'll do until the right man comes along.....

[Lanya]

Totally Paul-ly

Here it is, a collection of some of Paul's "greatest" quotes, taken from seven of his monthly political newsletters written between 1990 and 1994. Because of the incredibly politically incorrect content, Morris asked Paul to release all past copies of the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. Paul promised to do so, but never did. Individual copies, however, can be requested from his surfside home, at 409/233-5854. As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.

* "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* Although "we are told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

* "Black males age 13 that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

* "The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend."

* "[Hillary Clinton] is one of the most dangerous women in public life. Not only is she a fanatical abortion advocate, she wants parents to register with the government as a condition for having children to be able to sue and `divorce' themselves from their parents. Maybe her daughter ought to sue her parents for attempting to raise her as a leftist. That sure qualifies as abuse to me."

* "...University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

* Disgruntled taxpayer "Dean Hicks fired bombs through mortars at night at buildings of the Internal Revenue Service in California. Hicks did damage federal property, but no individuals were injured... Hicks was sentenced to 20 years in prison, given a $45,000 fine, and ordered to pay $335,000 in restitution to the IRS. If he had been a serial murderer, he would not have gotten this sort of sentence."

* "Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?"

* "There is good news after the L.A. riots. Statewide, gun sales are up 45% over the same period last year. People have been purchasing a record number. If the cops are not going to take care of the problem, the people will."

* "There is no such thing as a hate crime, only crimes against person and property." -- A.M.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

[BT]

He'll do until the right man comes along.....

Perhaps the time is right for a do nothing president.

[Plane]

Care to contradict any of these?

[Universe Prince]

Care to contradict any of these?

Several quotes are presented without context, and most folks have no access to the source material or to Ron Paul to ask him about these things. How can they be contradicted?

[Universe Prince]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-real-conservati_b_78248.html

"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."

[Religious Dick]

From NationalLedger.com

DC Journal
Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?
By Matt Towery
Dec 26, 2007


On Christmas Day, I glanced at the memorabilia from my years in politics. The photos and notes from Newt Gingrich. Candid shots of me with the likes of Jimmy Carter and of the brilliant mastermind of his presidential victory, Hamilton Jordan. Next were shots of me posing with Bill Clinton and then with both President Bushes.
Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?

And oh yes, here was a young U.S. Senate aide Matt Towery with one Ronald Reagan.  Everyone knows there are plenty of people with photos of themselves with politicians. And there are loads of people who were close to Reagan. Many of them have both the credentials and the motives -- especially the motives -- to refute what I am about to write. Certainly my friends who still consider themselves respected experts and D.C. insiders would never dare write what follows. They would be cast off into the outer circles of the political establishment.

Personally, I could care less. So here goes. Reagan was once an Iowan. He once broadcast University of Iowa football games, and he later was "discovered" by Hollywood when living in Des Moines.

It is my personal belief that if Reagan were alive and living in Iowa today, and he had to choose among the Republican presidential candidates, that he would likely choose the man the GOP establishment and national media have written off -- Congressman Ron Paul.

To begin with, there is little doubt that for at least foreign policy, Reagan was basically a non-interventionist. He bragged about the fact that the United States did not occupy foreign countries. He stressed in virtually every speech about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union that they must be brought down, but not by use of force or war. When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.

Even the vicious murder of more than 200 troops in Lebanon did not provoke invasion or war. Instead, Reagan removed U.S. presence there in order to cool down an ultra-hot situation.  Oh yes, we did invade Grenada. More a military exercise than a true battle.

As for domestic policy, again Reagan's philosophy seems closer to that of Paul's than any other Republican candidate today. Reagan constantly railed against big government. In speech after speech, he emphasized the need to adhere to the Constitution, and to respect the powers of the individual states. Sound familiar?

As for some of Dr. Paul's more far-fetched positions, they may be "out there," but it wasn't hard for me to find quotes from Reagan that reflected nearly the same sentiments. For example, Paul's concerns about a monetary system based on something closer and closer to worthless paper was similarly expressed by Reagan as early as 1964 when he stumped for Barry Goldwater for president.

In a speech that year, Reagan expressed concerns about America losing its monetary independence. And, eerily, he alluded to fears about foreign nations owning American currency.

As I try to remind my friends who were around in 1980, Reagan was considered by the mainstream Republican establishment to be as kooky as many label Paul as being.

Gerald Ford in 1980 was quoted in Time Magazine as saying that Reagan was "unelectable." It is no wonder that when Reagan challenged Ford some four years earlier for the GOP nomination, Paul was one of only a handful of sitting congressmen who supported Reagan's effort.

What Paul lacks is Reagan's movie-star looks, and the credibility that comes with having been governor of California. Even without those attributes, Paul has managed to become the first Republican candidate I've seen since 1980 that can draw huge crowds so devoted to their candidate that they seem almost cult-like in their zeal. Believe it or not, that's what we thought of the Reagan crowds that gathered early in his bid for president in 1980.

The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same.

I still believe that between the Republican Party's longing to appear "mainstream" and the national political media's fear of appearing to give in to "fringe elements," that Paul's quest for the nomination will fall far short in the end.

But as I have said before, Lord help both parties if he decides to run as a third-party candidate. They may not like what he might say, but he would darn sure say it.

As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone." Paul might just buy one of his own.




? Copyright National Ledger, www.NationalLedger.com

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617901.shtml

[Lanya]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/12/post_6.html

Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent

[Universe Prince]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/12/post_6.html

Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent

Again, we have no context here. The article's opening paragraph says Ron Paul "left the door open Sunday to running as an independent, should he not win the Republican nomination." What the article doesn't mention is that Ron Paul also said he has no intention of doing so. It also left out that Paul has already turned down an invite from the Libertarian Party to be the party's nominee. Sheesh. If you guys were this gorram nit-picky about Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and Romney, they wouldn't be serious candidates. I ain't saying Ron Paul is perfect, and I ain't saying he is a saint. I'm watching Giuliani and Romney pride themselves on politically expedient position changing, Giuliani pride himself on being ignorant about the historical effects of U.S. foreign policy, Clinton suggest that Obama might not be fit for office because he's a typical black drug user or some such, and Obama pride himself for being a relative newcomer to D.C. And Then I see people picking on Paul because he might possibly maybe conceivably choose to run as an independent. Wow. 20-30 years ago he said something that we get no context for. And since he hasn't sought power and become Speaker of the House, he must be a horrible leader with no ability to manage. But Romney switches positions when political expedient, and wow, he must be a great leader. Giuliani doesn't seem to know the first thing about the consequences of U.S. foreign policy, and by golly we just gots to have him run the "war on terror". And don't even get me started on Clinton and Obama.

Yeah, I know. I'm biased. So are you. Deal with it.

[Lanya]

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.