The Ultimate endorsement of Ron Paul

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 05:15 AM

One of the loudest mouths in the neo-conservative kampf is former communist and Black Panther apologist, David Horowitz. Guess what, he doesn't like Ron Paul because Dr. Paul opposed the neo-crazies war on Iraq.

Quote:

All the Endorsement He Needs

Monday, March 5th, 2007 in News, Antiwar movement, War party, War on Terror, Libertarianism, Politics, Ron Paul, Israel Lobby by Matt Barganier|

Rep. Ron Paul receives the ultimate recommendation: David Horowitz’s condemnation.

Quote:

Some of my best friends are libertarians and the greatest intellectual influence on me was Hayek. However, in practical political matters, libertarians tend to live in alternate universe, without regard for the real world consequences of their actions. Ron Paul – the only Libertarian in Congress – is a disgrace. He has waged a war against America’s war on terror, in lockstep with the left, and against the state of Israel, the frontline democracy in this war.

Actually, Ron Paul is not a capital-L Libertarian, he’s a Republican, but whatever. The real laugher in here is Horowitz’s assertion that Friedrich Hayek is his “greatest intellectual influence.” That’s rather like Al Sharpton citing Thomas Aquinas as his lodestar.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/03/05/all-the-endorsement-he-needs/

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Horowitz is Ann Coulter without the Adam's apple.

Jim Richards · 03-06-2007, 05:27 AM

Yep, he's a piece of work.

lendaddy · 03-06-2007, 07:26 AM

I hear Paul is polling just under "statistical anomaly", so things are looking up for him and his supporters. I do believe this is his year to take that #14 spot from Ronald Reagan.

Rearden · 03-06-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
I hear Paul is polling just under "statistical anomaly", so things are looking up for him and his supporters. I do believe this is his year to take that #14 spot from Ronald Reagan.

It's hilarious that Pat takes this campaign seriously. It's like the Larouche supporters who are convinced that, this time, he'll finally make it.

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 09:36 AM

Dr. Paul ran for president one other time as the candidate of the Libertarian Party. He is running to become the candidate of the Republican Party, who, if they know what's good for them, will be glad that he is. Dr. Ron Paul will be the only Republican that has a chance of beating anyone the Dems put on the ballot for the Presidency.

Pretty simple, really.

Rearden · 03-06-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Dr. Paul ran for president one other time as the candidate of the Libertarian Party. He is running to become the candidate of the Republican Party, who, if they know what's good for them, will be glad that he is. Dr. Ron Paul will be the only Republican that has a chance of beating anyone the Dems put on the ballot for the Presidency.

Pretty simple, really.

I know that this is what you think. But in the real world, he will never poll above 3% until he drops out. Let's make a wager.

turbo6bar · 03-06-2007, 10:17 AM

I wasn't aware popularity of the candidate was indicative of a candidate's worthiness.

I do not agree with Ron Paul's full stance on iRaq, but I do like his viewpoint on other issues.

I believe if Ron Paul or other minority candidate received a nominal vote count, it would convince the Dems-Repubs to consider this new group of constituents. However, my preference would be dissolution of both parties, incarceration of incumbents, and a fresh new start.

lendaddy · 03-06-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by turbo6bar
I wasn't aware popularity of the candidate was indicative of a candidate's worthiness.

No one said he wasn't worthy, just that he is NOT going to even make the radar. Pat on the other hand seems to belive that Paul has a real chance...he does not. I am sure there are 100's of thousands of "worthy" people out there with only a slightly worse chance than Paul. That is all I'm saying.

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
No one said he wasn't worthy, just that he is NOT going to even make the radar. Pat on the other hand seems to belive that Paul has a real chance...he does not. I am sure there are 100's of thousands of "worthy" people out there with only a slightly worse chance than Paul. That is all I'm saying.

If you t hink that either Giuliani or McCain have a chance of winning the White House, you are disillusioned. If Giuliani were to win the nomination (virually impossible in my opinion) he'd loosen the foothold the Republicans have enjoyed in the South. That's something I'd applaud, but it's not likely.

Except for Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican cupboard is completely bare. They'd be just as well off to nominate Bob Dole again, than either Giuliani or McCain.

lendaddy · 03-06-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
If you t hink that either Giuliani or McCain have a chance of winning the White House, you are disillusioned. If Giuliani were to win the nomination (virually impossible in my opinion) he'd loosen the foothold the Republicans have enjoyed in the South. That's something I'd applaud, but it's not likely.

Except for Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican cupboard is completely bare. They'd be just as well off to nominate Bob Dole again, than either Giuliani or McCain.

Ofcourse Guiliani and MCain have a chance(without making any comments toward their worthiness). It's like you're in a different world.

Paul has ZERO chance, none, nada (again, making no comments toward his worthiness). I have to believe you're kidding us by claiming otherwise.

Reality may suck, but you have to live in it regardless.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Yup, I'm no huge fan of the major candidates, but they all have a decent shot at winning, while Ron Paul does not. Face facts. I like Ron Paul too, but I also like plenty of others who would never ever win. I might vote for him if he makes it to the VA primary. But he'd be super lucky to make it even that far.

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Yup, I'm no huge fan of the major candidates, but they all have a decent shot at winning, while Ron Paul does not. Face facts. I like Ron Paul too, but I also like plenty of others who would never ever win. I might vote for him if he makes it to the VA primary. But he'd be super lucky to make it even that far.

I think the so-called "major candidates" are not only not major candidates, they're weaklings on the order of Bush I (actually much weaker than he was) and Bob Dole. Any notion that any Republican candidate other than Ron Paul might have a chance against the Democrat nominee is misplace to be kind.

The Republican candidate must be able to call the Democrats on all of their issues, which only Ron Paul can do without complete hypocracy.

Think how Rudy Giuliani will play in the south; is anyone seriously thinking that southern voters will ignore his leftist stands on most social issues, and swallow any pro-gun stands he might take? Imagine Rudy getting a few photos hunting in South Carolina; he'll look goofy'er than Kerry did.

Jim Richards · 03-06-2007, 03:10 PM

Yep, and that's pretty hard to do.

dd74 · 03-06-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Dr. Paul ran for president one other time as the candidate of the Libertarian Party. He is running to become the candidate of the Republican Party, who, if they know what's good for them, will be glad that he is. Dr. Ron Paul will be the only Republican that has a chance of beating anyone the Dems put on the ballot for the Presidency.

Pretty simple, really.

Real conservatism was long ago in an America far, far away. It will come back, but not with Iraq imploding on the horizon.

I'm not sure to whom Giuliani plays. What's he about? Who is he other than the ex-NY mayor and a spokesman for "Life Alert," (or something like that)?

Romney, BTDT (remember Schiavo). Christianity is played out in U.S. politics - or so I hope.

That leaves McCain, who just wants to escalate the Iraq fiasco.

The Right has to come up with something better.

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Real conservatism was long ago in an America far, far away. It will come back, but not with Iraq imploding on the horizon.

I'm not sure to whom Giuliani plays. What's he about? Who is he other than the ex-NY mayor and a spokesman for "Life Alert," (or something like that)?

Romney, BTDT (remember Schiavo). Christianity is played out in U.S. politics - or so I hope.

That leaves McCain, who just wants to escalate the Iraq fiasco.

The Right has to come up with something better.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Several folks are poo-poo'ing my suggestion without, in my opinion, thinking about a follow through. If Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate (actually he's more serious than any other Republican) then which one of the others are?

They can't answer that.

lendaddy · 03-06-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
That's exactly what I'm getting at. Several folks are poo-poo'ing my suggestion without, in my opinion, thinking about a follow through. If Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate (actually he's more serious than any other Republican) then which one of the others are?

They can't answer that.

I doubt we're having a definitions agreement, so when I say he's not a serious candidate I mean he has no chance. You need the machine behind you and Paul is anti-machine. Is that right? No. Do I like it? No. But it is what it is.

fastpat · 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
I doubt we're having a definitions agreement, so when I say he's not a serious candidate I mean he has no chance. You need the machine behind you and Paul is anti-machine. Is that right? No. Do I like it? No. But it is what it is.

You're correct, but the one thing a machine can't stand, and that's being affiliated with candidates that can't win; i.e. Giuliani and McCain. Paul can win if he gets the nomination, unlike the other two. Political machines have a way of finding "their own level" in this regard given the opportunity. When Bush I and Dole ran, they had no choice in that regard, with Dr. Paul, they have an opportunity to win in an election predicted to be a Democrat victory for the taking.

Rearden · 03-06-2007, 03:55 PM

The only way Ron Paul has even the slightest chance of success in the 2008 election is if he pulls a Perot '92 (without the implosion at the end) and is an extremely-well funded third party candidate with extremely talented political hired guns to get it done. And that's not going to happen.

For the 19th time in this thread, I'm not arguing that he's not a worthy candidate. The simple fact is that he will be out of the race long before it's over.

fastpat · 03-06-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rearden
The only way Ron Paul has even the slightest chance of success in the 2008 election is if he pulls a Perot '92 (without the implosion at the end) and is an extremely-well funded third party candidate with extremely talented political hired guns to get it done. And that's not going to happen.

For the 19th time in this thread, I'm not arguing that he's not a worthy candidate. The simple fact is that he will be out of the race long before it's over.

Yes, I've seen your opinion.

You're not seeing, I suppose, the fact that the nation is looking for a candidate that isn't a pro-war neo-con; since you're one of those, it's understandable that you don't see this fact.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that can stand toe to toe, and in fact go well beyond that, with any Democrat candidate that's likely to get the nomination. Dr. Paul is retired military, which Democrat can claim that status?

You need to decide right now, in 2007, whether or not you want a Democrat in the White House, or Ron Paul. This wasn't true in 2004 and won't be true in 2012; but in 2008 that's your choice. Ron Paul or a Democrat.

It's really that simple. Any whining to the contrary is wasted.