T Nation

Ron Paul Seeking 08 Pres. Bid!

This is huge, how come nobody has put it up yet?

Congressman Ron Paul, who represents the 14th District of Texas, announced on January 11 that he will be seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

[quote]HOUSTON – Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican.

Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.
[/quote]
News links and Commentary:
http://digg.com/politics/Antiwar_Republican_Congressman_Ron_Paul_is_Running_for_President

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=013941

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/11/ron-paul-running-for-president-again/

Wikipedia info page on Ron Paul:

How many people here know who Ron Paul is and recognize the significance of this campaign? This is basically the last hope to save the American Republic from economic collapse. It is not a matter of him winning (highly unlikely) so much as getting his platform into the national discourse. This has the potential to stir up a major shitstorm all over the country. It is going to be very interesting to watch his campaign.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
This is huge, how come nobody has put it up yet?

Congressman Ron Paul, who represents the 14th District of Texas, announced on January 11 that he will be seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

HOUSTON – Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican.

Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

News links and Commentary:
http://digg.com/politics/Antiwar_Republican_Congressman_Ron_Paul_is_Running_for_President

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=013941

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/11/ron-paul-running-for-president-again/

Wikipedia info page on Ron Paul:

How many people here know who Ron Paul is and recognize the significance of this campaign? This is basically the last hope to save the American Republic from economic collapse. It is not a matter of him winning (highly unlikely) so much as getting his platform into the national discourse. This has the potential to stir up a major shitstorm all over the country. It is going to be very interesting to watch his campaign.[/quote]

It’ll be great only if he wins, Diebold will make sure he doesn’t, worse yet, Diebold will make sure Hillary wins…God help us all…

I cannot image he can raise the money to compete but I hope he can stay in it long enough to challenge the other candidates.

It would be nice to see the Republicans get pushed closer to the Libertarian ideals.

Here’s what I know, and why I’ll vote for him:

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Here’s what I know, and why I’ll vote for him:

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul?s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

[/quote]

I wonder why he’s an outcast in even his own party?

I’m a bit more conservative- in the cautious sense- than Ron Paul but I do wish his ideas could gain more traction in this country. He’s one of only a handful of politicians who isn’t on my “deserves the medieval lese-majeste treatment” list.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot image he can raise the money to compete
[/quote]

Sigh.

Not something you’d hear about presidential elections in other democratic countries.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Here’s what I know, and why I’ll vote for him:

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul?s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

[/quote]

Throw in anti-abortion and he’s got my vote. I hope he drinks, we need a drinker in the white house.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.[/quote]

I hereby officialy withdraw anything offensive I might have said in your regard and apologize for them.

From one of his recent articles:

[quote]About one-third of this (the 2008 budget) $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed mandatory entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.

[/quote]

Source:

He’ll leech votes away from the GOP candidate, so he has my full support.

He’s 2008’s version of Ross Perot.

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Throw in anti-abortion and he’s got my vote. I hope he drinks, we need a drinker in the white house.[/quote]

Might be out of luck there. He’s ONLY interested in what the Constitution says, as per this blog entry:

[quote]Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
[/quote]

Source:

Personally, I would prefer this view to someone who is more interested in enforcing his or her personal agenda.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
He’ll leech votes away from the GOP candidate, so he has my full support.

He’s 2008’s version of Ross Perot.[/quote]

A 2008 Nader at most.

If Michael Bloomberg goes ahead with his run then he will be a 2008 Ross Perot, minus the crazy.

[quote]etaco wrote:

If Michael Bloomberg goes ahead with his run then he will be a 2008 Ross Perot, minus the crazy.[/quote]

Au Contraire! Plenty of crazy to go around with Mr. Mayor as well.

Source:

[quote]etaco wrote:
A 2008 Nader at most.
[/quote]

The GOP can’t win with a candidate like Nader OR a Perot taking away mainstream GOP votes. They’re already behind the 8 ball with the candidates they’ve got, as it is…

Check out this site, best site I’ve found about Ron Paul, a true Leader by example.

http://www.todaysamericandream.com/ronpaul_2008.html

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

The GOP can’t win with a candidate like Nader OR a Perot taking away mainstream GOP votes. They’re already behind the 8 ball with the candidates they’ve got, as it is…

[/quote]

Are they? Here’s a page full of polls from Fox, Time, McLaughlin, ARG, NBC, Zogby, Newsweek, and more showing that he Republican candidates are either tied with or slightly ahead of the current crop of Democrats. Sounds to me like neither side can afford a voter leak.

Source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

The GOP can’t win with a candidate like Nader OR a Perot taking away mainstream GOP votes. They’re already behind the 8 ball with the candidates they’ve got, as it is…

Are they? Here’s a page full of polls from Fox, Time, McLaughlin, ARG, NBC, Zogby, Newsweek, and more showing that he Republican candidates are either tied with or slightly ahead of the current crop of Democrats. Sounds to me like neither side can afford a voter leak.

Source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm[/quote]

You have to remember Brad thinks Hillary and Obama are superstars and he doesn’t realize the revulsion they generate in most Americans. (Hillary especially)

A middle of the road Republican such as the current crop appears to be does not appeal strongly to the Republican base but is very electable.

The Dems are really pushing hard to appeal to the left wing base to raise money but it is costing them with most of America.

The Republicans are flying under the radar screen and thus not pissing off middle America.