Why are the Republicans so worried about Ron Paul?

[grymster2007]

I took Paul's positions on his website one by one and while I agree with most of them, he did imply that we're responsible for 911 (incomprehensible.... and go ahead you America haters, flame away!!!) AND as Dust Monkey said he comes off as a KOOK!!!! How could anyone trust a whiney KOOK to run our country?

 

[Unregistered]

I honestly dont know so please enlighten me with the usefull legeslation that paul has sponsered over his carrear , after all if its fair to ask of thompson , gullionni , obama , hildibeast , ect its fair to ask of paul

If you really wanted to know you could always google.

 

[GoSlash27]

big-government Republican...

The scariest 3 words in the human language. I mean seriously... anyone who would use an overblown Federal government to push a socially conservative agenda instead of getting it down to size is just plain scary! But I digress...

like when he says that 911 was not the same as being attacked by "a country" so it's not a war.

More like if your congress doesn't declare war then it's not a war. And there's an extremely good reason for that. A war declaration is a gut-check that requires serious deliberation and thought. It forces the politicians to come out and either declare war or oppose it. No nuances. No finger pointing. War, as we think of it these days merely requires a scapegoat, some plausible deniability, and cherry-picked intel. The vast majority of us can look back now and see that in hindsight that Iraq was a mistake. Not as many can take the next logical step; had we just followed the rules in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

Paul is right. That's kinda relavant what with Iran just around the corner and all.

 

[Erik]

The media's paying attention to him, which means we are. Now why might the media pay attention to him? Hmmmm. I have my ideas.

Regardless, he's a long shot who won't survive the process for better or worse depending on your view of him.

 

[orionengnr]

In between now and the actual candidate selections, he could also end up splitting a lot of support of a nonstatist Republican and give the nomination to Rudy or Romney, which would not be much better than just letting the Democrat win.

Not much better? In Rudy's case, not much better than starting the day with a double-shot of hemlock. Romney? Maybe hemlock mixed with good Scotch. Maybe not quite that bad...maybe.

I voted for Perot (as did several of my friends, and my sister), and I'm well aware of the result. I kicked myself for the next eight years. That said, my subsequent voting for the "lesser of two evils" has brought me nearly full circle. I will not vote "against" someone again.

I will vote "for" Hunter, Huckabee, Tancredo (in that order, as of about four months ago, and unchanged as of today) in the primary. Then what?

In the general election I will either vote "for" someone I believe in, or if the candidate is Giuliani, McCain or (maybe) Romney), I will abstain from voting for a President for the first time since 1976.

I will still vote for Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial and local candidates...if I can find some that have remained true to their stated ideals. Being a Texan, I won't have much trouble there, Governor aside

...and Ron Paul? Hey, we finally got around to him
Ron Paul is a great American, but he is not a great speaker or statesman. While he is absolutely right on a lot of Constitutional issues (including the declaration of war) his just-come-home position on Iraq is going nowhere. He had my attention four months ago, and I still listen to what he says, but all kidding aside, if I were in the market for a cut-and-run candidate, there is no shortage of those out there...

I interact with a good number of people day-to-day, and get into some rather spirited discussions about politics and candidates. I know absolutely nobody who takes Ron Paul seriously, and that is sad. I would welcome the discourse.

At this point, (IMHO) the only thing he can do is to help ensure Hillary's presidency by playing Perot (Part Deux). That is a sad commentary on both the State of the Union, and moreso, on the choices offered to us by the Republican Party.

 

[publius42]

I honestly dont know so please enlighten me with the usefull legeslation that paul has sponsered over his carrear

Well, his career has been kind of long for a short summary but his House website does have helpful links to legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored in the past few sessions of Congress. The more interesting ones did not pass, but since you don't seem to want to talk about any that have not passed, here are a few which Paul sponsored and which have passed:

last congress:
72. H.AMDT.271 to H.R.2862 An amendment numbered 10 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit any of the funds in the Act from being used by the U.N. to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person to rause revenue for the U.N. or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/15/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/15/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A024) Agreed to by voice vote.

75. H.AMDT.506 to H.R.3199 An amendment numbered 19 printed in part B of House Report 109-178 to express the sense of Congress that no American citizen should be the target of a federal investigation solely as a result of that person's political activities.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/21/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A018) Agreed to by voice vote.

107th Congress:
68. H.AMDT.480 to H.R.4546 An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/9/2002) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/10/2002 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A010) Agreed to by recorded vote: 264 - 152 (Roll no. 155).

So he doesn't want the UN to tax us, he doesn't want domestic politcal persecution, and he believes in national sovereignty, and he got laws passed on all those things. (If you think those are boring, try looking at the list of things he cosponsored which got passed. It's a study in banality, and will make you want to fire the entire Congress en masse.)

 

[Redneckrepairs]

publius42 first off thank you for your time in posting . I had hoped to see some bills sponsored rather than amendments but that is fine it is a record of his successes . Be they bills or amendments to bills tacked on in the course of voting . I honestly phrased my question as i did to avoid discussing pauls failures legislatively so i would not be pidgenholed as a paul basher .
Unregistered you said

If you really wanted to know you could always google.

This is true as could i on any topic or question , however there are a ready cadre of folks here who can easily answer the question on paul , as they can on guns . So i avail myself of the boards folks in good faith . I asked an honest question , and a board member gave me an honest answer .

 

[gattsuru]

I'm tired of this "Ron Paul is an isolationist" nonsense. He is a non-interventionist. There's a big difference between those two. North Korea is isolationist, almost every other country besides the US is non-interventionist. Why can't the US act like all other countries?

He's ranted against the Iraq War and NAFTA, voted against CAFTA, voted US-Au, voted against US-Singapore, voted for withdrawal from the WTO, voted against foreign planned parenthood aid.

Some of these may have been good ideas (our aid in Africa has not been very effective, for example). That doesn't make it any less isolationist when you spend amount of wasted air voicing opposition to military interventionism, foreign aid -- and just to clear the water in case you weren't being isolationist from an outside the borders viewpoint, also supported existing tariffs and duties getting in the way of free international trade.

You say potaetoe, I say potato.

 

[STAGE 2]

There isn't a right minded republican who is afraid of Ron Paul. There are many of us who are afraid that he will split the republican vote enough to either 1) lose the presidential election or 2) deny us a better nominee. Thats it. I don't fear what can't come to pass.

More like if your congress doesn't declare war then it's not a war. And there's an extremely good reason for that. A war declaration is a gut-check that requires serious deliberation and thought. It forces the politicians to come out and either declare war or oppose it. No nuances. No finger pointing. War, as we think of it these days merely requires a scapegoat, some plausible deniability, and cherry-picked intel. The vast majority of us can look back now and see that in hindsight that Iraq was a mistake. Not as many can take the next logical step; had we just followed the rules in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

A comment and a question.

All of the constitutional requirments were met for this war in iraq. If you are going to make the argument that, because the legislation didn't say "declaration of war" at the top of the page then it isn't valid, is ridiculous for several reasons. First, there is nothing in the constitution that requires a declaration of war to be titled as such. Article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to declare war. It doesn't say how the congress must issue the declaration. If they want to do it by a resolution or by a candy-gram, its up to them. Second, the idea that these three little words can turn a document from being meaningless (which I assume you think the resolution was) to authoritative is a really naive point of view.

Now for the question. How do you formally declare war on an entity. Those pesky framers didn't have entities back in the day, they just had nations. They didn't declare war against pirates (arguably the terrorists of their time) they just sent the navy out looking for them without congressional approval or oversight. So I ask, how do you declare war on an entity?

 

[mvpel]

The authorization for use of military force in Iraq also authorizes attacks against any nation that the President sees fit, as long as within 48 hours after making the attack he can offer some justification to Congress. How does that qualify as a Constitutional declaration of war?

How do you declare war on an entity, you ask? By granting letters of marque and reprisal, as provided for in the Constitution. Terrorist hunting licenses - open season, no bag limit. The US didn't sign the Declaration of Paris. Rep. Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to this point, not long after 9/11.

http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm

But somehow it's deemed more "civilized" to drop million-dollar bombs and suffer thousands of casualties than to just license or commit the assassination of an enemy.

Pat Buchanan peaked at 6% in polling but won the New Hampshire primary in '92 with about 34% of the vote.

 

[STAGE 2]

The authorization for use of military force in Iraq also authorizes attacks against any nation that the President sees fit, as long as within 48 hours after making the attack he can offer some justification to Congress. How does that qualify as a Constitutional declaration of war?

Care to show me the section where it says that?

 

[The Tourist]

I'm not against the man, per se, but the manner in which the Democrats have ran against each other (and syphoned off each other's votes) ought to be a warning to the Republicans.

It's no big secret that the Democrats are gaining ground over the state of the war in Iraq. And let's face it, the red and the blue is truly 50/50.

If RP syphons off just a few percentage points from Thompson it could be the edge that puts Hillary in The White House.

As you will remember, Willie not got more than 43% of the popular vote and was still elected twice.

No matter who carries the Republican torch throughout the primaries, the best thing for the conservatives is to find a horse, one horse, and ride him to the end of the race.

 

[STAGE 2]

If RP syphons off just a few percentage points from Thompson it could be the edge that puts Hillary in The White House.

As you will remember, Willie not got more than 43% of the popular vote and was still elected twice.

No matter who carries the Republican torch throughout the primaries, the best thing for the conservatives is to find a horse, one horse, and ride him to the end of the race.

Don't confuse them with reality or history.

 

[GoSlash27]

If RP syphons off just a few percentage points from Thompson it could be the edge that puts Hillary in The White House.

Siphons them off to....where? It's a primary.

the red and the blue is truly 50/50.

Not this year, it isn't.

Perhaps that's the problem: you seriously think that a pro-war candidate has a snowball's chance of winning. I don't see that at all. I don't think it's anywhere near 50/50. More like 70/30.
You need someone that can pull support from the left and it ain't Fred. He'd be crucified in the general election by a lot more than "a few percentage points".
But more to the point I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game. I don't like Fred. I don't think he's fit to be president. I'm not gonna vote for him.

 

[Unregistered]

If RP syphons off just a few percentage points from Thompson it could be the edge that puts Hillary in The White House.

Huh?

How does Ron Paul running in the primary affect how bad Hillary will beat Thompson in a general election??

 

[publius42]

publius42 first off thank you for your time in posting . I had hoped to see some bills sponsored rather than amendments but that is fine it is a record of his successes . Be they bills or amendments to bills tacked on in the course of voting . I honestly phrased my question as i did to avoid discussing pauls failures legislatively so i would not be pidgenholed as a paul basher .

You're welcome. His list of sponsored bills linked to his House website is actually very illuminating about his views, and you can click on the links to find out who co-sponsored various things which were then shuffled off to die in some committee or killed outright in a (usually lopsided) vote.

You'll also find that NONE of the really interesting/important bills is sponsored by someone as obscure as Ron Paul. That's reserved for heavy hitters. He has cosponsored plenty of them, but doesn't have the rank to actually sponsor them. So your original question actually leads nowhere regarding learning about Ron Paul's views. Better to discuss his sponsored failures and his cosponsored bills, if you actually want to study how he thinks. The link again. Scroll down and look on the right for the links, which lead to the Thomas site and list Ron Paul's sponsored or co-sponsored bill. Get a coke or some coffee before you click one. It's mind numbing.

 

[publius42]

How does Ron Paul running in the primary affect how bad Hillary will beat Thompson in a general election??

The concern is that Ron Paul will run a third party race. He has said he won't, and if he loses the primary the sensible thing to do would be to keep his House seat if he can and try again next round if things go his way.

The other concern is that there are people like me in the world, who when faced with Rudy vs Hillary and some minor party players, might just write in Ron Paul or vote for the Libertarian, and what's worse, we might do it in a swing state, where it will actually matter, instead of a state where the electoral votes are secure for one party or the other.

 

[The Tourist]

Siphons them off to....where? It's a primary.

I'm not speaking for the primaries. I am referring to RP staying in the race much like Peurot as a third party or independent candidate.

But having said that, I can see some disunity problems if two candidates make the primary process a personal battleground played out in public.

For example, wouldn't we laugh or at least feel complacent if Obama and Hillary had a huge public meltdown that cost them votes and support?

I just feel the same way for conservatives.

 

[Fremmer]

Republicans are not afraid of or worried about Ron Paul. Paul has a different perspective on things (especially the war on terror), and the Republican party welcomes his perspective.

I would note the difference between the Republican Party and the Demo Party concerning tolerance of different opinions:

Paul's view about the war on terror is not held by many in the conservative base. Nevertheless, he's part of the Republican party, and he is part of the race. The Republican voters in his district have voted for him even though he has a different opinion about the war than most Republicans. See also Hagel and Snowe.

Contrast that to Joe Lieberman, who was cast-out by his own party because he doesn't conform to the view held by the liberal base of the Democratic party regarding the war on terror. They kicked him out, and he had to run as an independent. The Demos are lucky that he still caucuses with the Demos.

Paul is not going to run as an independent. I saw an interview of Ron Paul yesterday, when he confirmed this. Incidently, he interviews much better than he debates. He was much calmer and less-whiney during the interview (although he did refer to the neo-cons during the interview ).

 

[mvpel]

I'm not speaking for the primaries. I am referring to RP staying in the race much like Peurot as a third party or independent candidate.

He has said repeatedly, and it has been repeatedly repeated, that he will not do it. And considering his track record in Congress, he's probably a man of his word.

So stop worrying about that scenario and cast your primary vote accordingly.

Fred Thompson's speaking style is along the lines of Reverend Lovejoy on the Simpsons, though, from what I've heard, and if he wants to get any traction, he's going to need to work on that right quick.