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.I note some of the dullards on gun forums have already started naysaying this decision, which will lead eventually to accusations of wasting our votes and demands to fall in lockstep behind whatever gungrabber with an (R) after his name is imposed on us.
The immediate effect will be to convince gun owners that this is a lost cause and thus a waste of their time, money and effort, that is, to discourage us from getting behind this. If we listen to such unimaginitive (or manipulative) counsel, we will squander a grand opportunity to afford Dr. Paul a mass media forum for advancing his ideas and educating our countrymen on liberty.
[Via JR, Kurt , and Tom]
11 comments:
If he runs, I'll darn sure vote for him!
I'd be all for Mr. Paul running, and winning. However, it will take a lot more than just one man to get things turned around. Especially in view of the current Congress.....
I would actually vote Republican if he makes it.
Who will step up to the plate and send him a check?
I have in his last campaign, and will do so again.
I work with limited income, well, sporadic income, but if I have to sell a kidney he's getting some from me.
Not just a check, but time. We need to actively campaign for Dr. Paul, on the gun boards and other internet forums, in person, and however else we can.
You want to see him elected?
Join the Republican party if you are a libertarian, and call his office and ask to be a local volunteer.
I know this is a gun blog and I want to see more people with similar gun/liberty ideals like Paul. But is it just me or do a lot of these libertarians not want to have America involved in World politics?
America is the world's hope, for reasons like this blog and its message, so why vacate the world stage?
Stan, I believe America's best hope for influencing the world stage is to live up to America's ideals. I don't believe the best way is to join with a bunch of statist thugs at the UN and involve ourselves in foreign strife. In other words, observe Washington's admonishment to "beware foreign entanglements."
Getting out of the UN doesn't mean leaving the world stage--it means America will engage in foreign policy on her terms.
Having domestic policies on rational immigration is not vacating the world stage--it is discriminating, that is FILTERING the very best of the world's influence into our culture.
Ensuring that "free trade" does not disadvantage American financial interests is not vacating the world stage--why should WE sign Kyoto and have our main competitor, China, unburdened--particularly when much of the "evidence" of man-made global warming is debatable at best, a downright fraudulent wealth distribution scheme at worst. Ditto, if "NAFTA" were "free trade," you wouldn't need governing rules the size of several telephone books. And it's not fair when we are regulated in everything from handicap parking to transsexual bathrooms while our competition employs slave and child labor forces.
I don't think we should be negotiating with the UN on gun rights--no need for NGOs like NRA to lobby if we do our job as Americans.
I don't believe Independence Hall should be a UN Heritage Zone.
I want that damned "gun sculpture" torn down and melted into something useful.
I'd love America to be "a friend to all"--with the caveat "who deserve it." Our foreign policy to those who don't should be represented by the Gadsden flag.
Boy, judging from your response you got me all wrong. I agree with you on almost everything you said.
Free trade is good, but we don't have to be fair to others unfair like China.
I wasn't talking about staying in the UN. We should leave. But we all but control the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, have much influence in the G8. I could go on.
I don't want America to isolate herself. We have a powerful economy, powerful military, powerful culture. LEt's use them, lest they collect webs and dust.
Kyoto was a pathetic attempt to harm America in the name of environmentalism. NAFTA is a joke. I am not suggesting catering to the world, I suggest acting like the leader we are.
Sometimes leaders tell people what to do, and sometimes leaders inflict justice. My idea of foreign policy is an active, John Wayne like policy. But I am at a loss when I see good libertarians advocating virtually no foreign policy, or a backwards policy such as protectionism and isolationism.
Yeah, wasn't sure.
A lot of libertarians are for no borders and no country period.
Post a Comment