Ron Paul running for President!

[KBCraig]

Hoooooh-yah!

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/new ... 438882.htm

Posted on Thu, Jan. 11, 2007

Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
JOE STINEBAKER
Associated Press

HOUSTON - Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.

Paul filed incorporation papers in Texas on Thursday to create a presidential exploratory committee that allows him and his supporters to collect money on behalf of his bid. This will be Paul's second try for the White House; he was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.

Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.

"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide."

Paul, of Lake Jackson, acknowledges that the national GOP has never fully embraced him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP's large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas. He bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

He describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.

Paul was not available for comment Thursday, Snyder said.

But he said the campaign will test its ability to attract financial and political support before deciding whether to launch a full-fledged campaign. Snyder said Paul is not running just to make a point or to try to ensure that his issues are addressed, but to win.

Paul is expected to formally announce his bid in the next week or two, Snyder said.

Snyder said Paul and his supporters are not intimidated by the presence of nationally known and better-financed candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

"This is going to be a grassroots American campaign," he said. "For us, it's either going to happen at the grassroots level or it's not."

Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans. He was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007.

The vote against the defense appropriations bill, he said, was because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he said was "not necessary for our actual security."

[repsychler]

I was beginning to wonder if there was going to be a candidate I could get behind. This is great news.

[Tom]

Hoooooh-yah!

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/new ... 438882.htm

Posted on Thu, Jan. 11, 2007

Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
"

When asked, he is always my personal example of what a Congresscritter should be.
And while he is exactly what this Country needs, I don't harbor any illusions regarding his chances for success.

I do hope that he does not give up his seat in Congress for this run.

And for Fox watchers, keep in mind that Brit Hume once referred to Ron as a "crank".
That should provide some idea of his position with the Republican party.
Don't look for much support from them.

Thanks for the link Kevin.

Tom

[jrosto]

I think there are enough folks tired of the GOP that Dr. Paul could get some traction on the fact that he is not being supported by the GOP.

What we need to do is get his name out there on our level, I mean, who here really wants to vote for a Giuliani or a McCain? Multiply that by just about every other conservative person who has watched what the GOP has done over the past few years, and Dr. Paul has a chance. Every person who stands behind him increases that chance.

[Mike1951]

What we need to do is get his name out there on our level, I mean, who here really wants to vote for a Giuliani or a McCain? Multiply that by just about every other conservative person who has watched what the GOP has done over the past few years, and Dr. Paul has a chance. Every person who stands behind him increases that chance.

Well, if Paul appears to be as unelectable as I expect him to be, he'll be weeded out pretty early in the primaries.

And anyone who votes for an extremist candidate because we believe in his views (as I do) will only succeed in electing Clinton or Obama.

If it comes down to Giuliani or McCain against any of the liberal Democrats now mentioned, you bet I'll vote for either one.

I would vote for Ron Paul in our Republican primary, if given the chance. But if he (or anyone else) tries to run as a third party or independent candidate, I will not squander my vote just to make a statement.

To reverse the travesty that occurred in November, we need every conservative vote to go to electable candidates.

[jrosto]

Mike;

I agree. The primaries are where we need to make a statement, not in the general elections. If Dr. Paul does not make it through the primaries, then I will most likely support whoever does.

But until then, my heart and soul will be working towards getting Dr. Paul through the primaries.

(I would have a very, very hard time voting for McCain though)

[Thane]

There are a great many things I agree with the Libertarian Party on, but there are a few thing that crop up pretty consistently that are deal-killers. I have four questions I want answered about Ron Paul before I extend one iota of support for him.

1) What is Mr. Paul's stance on the border? I've heard of some libertarians advocating open borders, a notoriously bad idea in this age of terrorism. I'm all for every freedom once you're in this country, but we do need to maintain our boundaries. Too many islamo-terrorists have been found who learned Spanish and snuck through just like any old illegal.

2) What is his stance on the current glut of illegal aliens in the country, and how does he want to go about fixing the problem?

3) I want to hear his justification for his opposition to the War on Terror, and what he plans to do instead.

4) I'm fairly sure that, being a libertarian-in-republican's-clothing, Mr. Paul is pro-gun, pro-2A. Even so, I'd like to find out exactly what his ideological stance and practical applications are.

If I can get good, solid answers to these, I'll know whether to support him or not.

[jrosto]

War on terror:

http://p218.ezboard.com/Congressman-Ron ... ID=5.topic

Illegals:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:
We can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants ... receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor ...

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever.

Guns: His voting record on gun control has been pretty much perfect. He has gone against a couple of bills endorsed by the NRA because those bills did not follow constitutional law. He has been the only representative actively attempting to repeal unconstitutional gun control laws.

I am not a Libertarian, but with the group of folks in the running at the moment, Ron Paul sure looks like the best candidate to me.

Don't take anything anyone says for granted. Call or write him yourself and base your opinions on the answers he gives to your specific questions.

[Mike1951]

There are a great many things I agree with the Libertarian Party on, but there are a few thing that crop up pretty consistently that are deal-killers. I have four questions I want answered about Ron Paul before I extend one iota of support for him.

I'm old and cantankerous and narrow minded.

There is ONLY one issue.

Give me two equally pro-2nd Amendment candidates and I'll look at other issues.

[Thane]

War on terror:

http://p218.ezboard.com/Congressman-Ron ... ID=5.topic

Wow. Reading that is... well...

I had a long post typed out, until I remembered that this isn't a political forum. Suffice to say that, unfortunately, Mr. Paul made some rather glaring logical errors in his reasoning, and I think I'll have to find someone else to support.

Pity, too, as he seems like a truly decent fellow.

[Dirt Dauber]

There are a great many things I agree with the Libertarian Party on, but there are a few thing that crop up pretty consistently that are deal-killers. I have four questions I want answered about Ron Paul before I extend one iota of support for him.

1) What is Mr. Paul's stance on the border? I've heard of some libertarians advocating open borders, a notoriously bad idea in this age of terrorism. I'm all for every freedom once you're in this country, but we do need to maintain our boundaries. Too many islamo-terrorists have been found who learned Spanish and snuck through just like any old illegal.

2) What is his stance on the current glut of illegal aliens in the country, and how does he want to go about fixing the problem?

3) I want to hear his justification for his opposition to the War on Terror, and what he plans to do instead.

4) I'm fairly sure that, being a libertarian-in-republican's-clothing, Mr. Paul is pro-gun, pro-2A. Even so, I'd like to find out exactly what his ideological stance and practical applications are.

If I can get good, solid answers to these, I'll know whether to support him or not.

I agree with you... all very important questions and need answers too. I know he has a column in our local paper pretty much every week. it's called "Texas Straight Talk". Last weeks article was about how "hundreds of thousands of noncitizens " can receive Social Security benefits through a 2004 agreement between U. S. and Mexico!!! DD

[KBCraig]

To find out Ron Paul's stance on every issue, start here:

United States Constitution

For every, "Yeah, but what about... ?" issue that makes you wary of the libertarian point of view, start with the Constitution and find the authority for the federal government to tackle that issue. If you can't find it, it's unconstitutional.

Coming around to a true Constitutional viewpoint requires re-thinking a lot of things you've always accepted just because they've been that way your whole life. None of us who are pro-gun rights accept the National Firearms Act as constitutional; why do (some of us) accept Social Security as constitutional? After all, it came into being a year after NFA'34, and has zero Constitutional basis.

You have to learn to start asking the right questions. Instead of asking why illegal immigrants are getting welfare, education and medical care, you should be asking why anyone is getting a dime of charity from the federal government -- or any government.

Instead or worrying about illegal immigrants not paying taxes, you should be outraged at the taxes you're paying -- the vast majority of which go to legal Americans.

Whatever your pet outrage is, stop and ask yourself: what business is this of the federal government? And how much better would it be if the government had never gotten involved?

Kevin

[anygunanywhere]

Bravo, Kevin! Bravo!

Anygun

[Thane]

Whatever your pet outrage is, stop and ask yourself: what business is this of the federal government? And how much better would it be if the government had never gotten involved?
Kevin

On this, I am in total agreement.

I find myself disagreeing most with Mr Paul in his lines of thought, and acceptance of certain questionable theories about international relations as fact. Given his opinions and positions, I'd far rather have him as a Congressman than President. However Libertarian our policies at home may be, we cannot afford to be isolationist in the face of islamo-terrorism. The easiest and most secure way to keep these lunatics from taking our very freedoms and using them as weapons against us is a two-fold action. Seal the border, except for legitimate commerce and entry ports, and take the fight to the islamo-terrorists' home.

The oft-repeated contention that "we are creating more terrorism" is a misconception. We're just finally noticing it. From the attack on the Israeli Olympic team in the 70's to the constant low-level war Russia has been fighting in Chechnya, from the African civil wars to the macheteros in the Philipenes, from the streets of Paris to the embassies in Tehran to the trains of Spain and to the subways of London; we have had islamo-terrorism in one form or another killing, destroying, and corrupting every society they can get their tendrils into. Iraq is just currently a magnet for the cockroaches, drawing them further into the open where we can see them. They've been there for over forty years, but we pretented they didn't exist. This is not even yet drawing into consideration the dozens of attacks on US interests and citizens by Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and myriads of lone wolves.

It is for this reason that I find Mr. Paul's logic faulty, and why I cannot trust his discernment as a Commander-in-Chief, sworn to defend this country.

HOWEVER

If Mr. Paul should win the nomination, HE WILL GET MY VOTE. For whatever distrust I have of his judgement towards foreign policy, I trust him FAR more in just about ANYTHING compared to the current crop of Democrats tossing their names in the hat.

[lrb111]

I still recommend Newt/Bolton '08