Let me start by saying I agree with Ron Paul on virtually all of his platforms, domestically. But when it comes to Paul's ideas of foreign policy, a policy of non-intervention, a policy of letting the chips fall where they may, is an even greater blunder than invading Iraq with no clear post-war plan with too few troops.
Free Constitution fisks my post supporting Paul. I'm not going to do a detailed rebuttal because I just don't have the time, but I will come up with something general over the next day or so, dealing with the specific concerns of national security, foreign policy and overseas military deployments.
Suffice it to say we have been given an opportunity--unprecedented in my lifetime--to select a man who actually believes what he says. Because some among us reject that for the myriad of objections they raise, I believe based on current trends that the GOP nominee will be Rudy Giuliani, or possibly Mitt Romney.
If that's what pans out, even though he's said he has no interest in doing so, I will urge Rep. Paul to run as a third party candidate. As friend Russ Howard points out, if Ross Perot can get almost 20% of the vote, there's no reason why Paul--who actually stands for something--shouldn't be able to compete in a 3-way race. It's not my ideal scenario, but it beats the alternative.
Anyway, go read what Stan has to say and consider his arguments. Ain't no law says you have to agree with me...
9 comments:
Stan works for the organization that wants, needs, to keep the status quo. How can you expect him to stand up for freedom in a meaningful way?
David,
Thing is, I do agree with you. A while back I posted on some other gunblog that Mr. Paul looks like the ONLY option other than the status quo, and that in fact, the much beloved, Mr Thompson appeared to be basically the same as all the rest, just in a better suit.
Personally, I don't think that kicking in someone's door and pointing a gun at them is the best way to befriend them. Nor, do I think that it is the best way to spread a message of freedom, democracy and individual rights.
Just out of curiosity, how are the "truthers", even the lunatic fringe of the "truthers", any crazier than the Socialist/pseudo-Marxist/Communist lunatic fringe of the Democrat party?
I, like you, desire change. It looks like most of the people opposed to Ron Paul are scared of change and desire the Status Quo.
p.s. Why do so many people think that we should continue to shoulder the "white man's burden"?
Agreed. If the Republicans nominate Rudy or Mitt, I refuse to vote for either.
Frankly those attempting to malign Fred on 2A are reaching.
That said, while I don't agree with RP on everything, he has the most integrity of any public office holder I have seen.
For years we were told to put the Republicans in control of all 3 branches and they would right every wrong and turn the country in right direction. We have made compromises to our principles in order to cast votes for marginal Republican/conservative (ha!) candidates and rec'd nothing in return. The idiots blew an opportunity to do what they had promised me for 30+ yrs they would do. Ron Paul at least has the guts to speak extremely unpopular ideas at a time when most candidates are walking on eggshells so as to not make anyone mad. Sam
I say that the MSM and the copycats among the bloggers should be the only parties running articles such as "Will Ron Paul run as third party?", "Is Ron Paul the new Ross Perot/Ralph Nader/Lyndon LaRouche/John Anderson?".
I say that speculation of a Ron Paul third party run doesn't help the Ron Paul campaign. Nothing about US society at large has changed enough since 1988 (when I last voted for Ron Paul) that changes the presumption that third party campaigns are losing campaigns (if the goal is to win the office in question.)
The MSM-heads of the 2008 election season are only too willing to run Ron Paul as the new Ralph Nader stories from now until months after the November 2008 election (I'm pretty sure they are going to run plenty of them with no urging from anybody save the orthodoxy). Why does anybody who (in contrast) supports Ron Paul need to run even _one_ more article of the same sort? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
If you believe what Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer on November 8th at the 04:10 point at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btFP1tyAJbk
and if you believe that Ron Paul means what he says you won't repeat this speculation.
All that being said, "Go Ron Paul Revolution!"
However.. If you want to start running "Will Rudy Giuliani (or Mitt Romney or John McCain or Fred Thompson or ...) run as a third party candidate if he fails to get the Republican nomination" posts I'll setup a ChipIn to pay to publicize the series.
Yes, Thane, I absolutely believe him when he said "I have no plans, no intention of doing that...I right now don't have the stomach for that...my Plan B is I am still running for Congress..."
Haven't you ever had plans change? I don't see where he said he categorically ruled it out.
As for not helping, you're entitled to your opinion. Perot took about 20% and he didn't even have a message that invoked the Constitution. Paul could not only attract conservatives and libertarians sick of the betrayals and hungry for integrity, but also anti-war democrats. We'll never know if he can be encouraged to change his plans unless we're prepared to help him set up the framework and structure to use if we can show him enough support.
And maybe the goal won't be to win "the office in question"--as we've all experienced in life, plans change. Maybe the goal will be to deny the presidency to a fascist republican out of self preservation--because at least with Hillary in office, congresssional repubs might be able to produce gridlock, instead of letting Rudy lead us further down the path to hell out of party loyalty and the rewards and punishments that go along with playing along--or not.
So no, I'm not going to quit talking about it. This is, after all, my journal, the place where I express my opinions, and where I try to actualize my goals. There are plenty of other places that express other opinions if mine bother you overmuch.
I say Ron Paul will be drafted to run indy if he doesn't win the R primary.
I say he is telling the truth now, but will change his mind when millions of people demand that he run indy.
I say you will be one of those people.
I say that if it's really a "Ron Paul Revolution", then it won't stop at the primary either way.
I say Ron Paul is a credible candidate who would do better than Perot and is far more qualified to be President than Guest Worker Bush ever was.
I say if he runs indy it's not comparable to single digit fools like Nader & LaRouche.
I say 100% divided by three = 33 1/3%, hence a candidate could theoretically win a tight "3-way" with 33.3% of the vote or even less (i.e., > 3 candidates).
I say Ron Paul could beat both Hillary and Giuliani in a tight 3-way.
I say the speculation is good because people who want to believe it will suspect that their donations are going through to the general instead of just the primary, and that will make them want to donate more.
Is there anything else you don't want me to say?
P.S. Signed, RH
I'd love to be able to vote for Tancredo or Hunter, but they don't have a chance because so many "conservatives" are supporting Giuliani in the primaries.
Since when does someone who's a lefty on every issue become a "conservative" simply because he supports a police state and an endless occupation of a foreign country and happened to be Mayor of a city that got attacked thanks in large part to policies he has long supported?
i.e., Amnesty, "guest" workers, subversion of America's borders and immigration laws.
NOW he claims to oppose amnesty and support border control, like the rest of the RINO pack. Don't worry. You can trust him!
RH
Post a Comment