So what do you know about Ron Paul?

[proud2BlibKansan]

I am on a couple strange email lists. Usually their nonsense is quite entertaining. Now some of the people on those lists are pushing Ron Paul as a candidate for president. I was interested because he voted against the war in Iraq. But digging deeper, I find he was an early Reagan supporter in the 70s. And of course, that 'R' after his name is a big concern. LOL

So is he a legitimate candidate?

[MoonRiver]

1. VERY anti-choice. VERY anti-governmental "entitlements."

He's a true libertarian conservative.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Ok that makes sense

thanks

[Nite Owl]

2. He is right about the war and some

other things but he is a libertarian, he doesn't want to fund anything. Small government with no involvement.

[Robbien]

3. Ron Paul was the early anti-PNACer

which is why he is against the war.

Otherwise, pure GOPer.

[youngdem]

4. Ron Paul is a real Libertarian who just happens to have an 'R' after his name

because he had to have a major party affiliation to get elected. He is in a rural district of Texas that has lots of anti-government sentiment.

He is consistent, and is principled, which is exactly why he has zero chance in the Republican party. He votes his conscience, and if I remember correctly, even voted against the war because he is against ALL government spending except in the rarest of circumstances.

Not a bad guy. But, he has as much chance of winning as Kucinich. Maybe less.

[Warpy]

10. Sure he is

You can tell that by his attacks on the rights of half the US population.

[youngdem]

11. How so?

He opposed (and continues to actively campaign against) the Patriot Act.


(Honest question)

[Warpy]

21. True libertarians want a hands off approach to

social issues and "victimless" crimes. Prochoice is part of their platform.

Paul is a rabid antichoicer who wants to see half the population thrust back into reproductive slavery. That is NOT libertarian.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – 9-term Congressman from Texas, 1979 - 1985, 1997 - present. Member of the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, he serves as the Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. Former Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force.

Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on." http://www.total911.info

Bio: http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

[GregD]

6. I would go with him before I voted for Hillary

Since you are apparently not familliar, go listen to some of his speeches. This guy really lets it fly. He talks about how the government is corrupted by corporations and how "we the people" have lost all control of policy. He attacks BushCo for their actions, and talks about a lot of what might otherwise be referred to as "conspiracy theories".

He's basically a Libertarian, and I shudder at the notion of supporting a Repuke, but if I were to be forced to choose between him and HC, I'd hold my nose and hope for the best. I actually think we might make better progress with him. Not that I want another Republican administration, but I don't have much hope for what a HC administration would look like.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Wow--there is no way I would vote for him. He is so far out of the

mainstream in terms of government involvement--except for the war, he is the polar opposite of the Democratic party. He is principled, but unfortunately, most of us LIKE things like OSHA, and some regulation of industry, and entitlements, etc. A little Libertarianism is a good thing, IMO. But an idealogue like Paul would dismantle or weaken some very necessary gov functions that not even regular 'Pug conservatives would touch.

[GregD]

15. Well, like I say

I frame this in the context of him versus Hillary, and in response to the OP as to his suitability as a legitimate candidate.

Looking at the rest of the Repub field, if you were given a choice, who would you choose? You want Newt? Giuliani? They scare the shit out of me.

I guess one could look at the race and say "I want this guy to win the R nomination because I think we can beat him. But if you look at it from the perspective of "who won, now what?" I fear further corporatization and globalization with Hillary. She could give a shit about whether our votes are counted correctly, and that is clearly demonstrated by the legislation she has sponsored.

Now I didn't know he has such a strong anti-women stance and that stuff. But I'd feel a lot less threatened with him then some of the alternatives.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I absolutely would not vote for any 'Pug even if Hillary was the nominee--

that said, I don't dislike Paul--I respect someone who "does their thing" without regard to changing political winds. But you can be principled and wrong at the same time, and his philosophy is just too out there for me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Thanks for being so honest

I definitely agree about Hillary.

[GregD]

22. Check out his floor speeches

He posts them on his web site. It blows my mind to hear someone talking about the stuff this guy brings up. I have an idea that he would be a rabid participant in the 9/11 forum if he were a DUer.

[dkofos]

7. He is the only Texas R that I have ever agreed with.

He didn't vote for the war, and he has no respect for *ush.

[Warpy]

8. He's a libertarian who has bought into the anti woman social

bullshit of the GOP.

In other words, he's GOP. He wants to dismantle the government except for the service of the Pentagon. He wants to starve everybody to fatten the rich, since he's bought into the fairy tale of a free market regulating itself.

He's nuts.

[libnnc]

18. I'm shocked at how much support he has

among young people. Lots of MySpacers have him on their pages. He scares the crap out of me. I think he's nuts too.

edit to add: His anti-PNAC stance is great but, the anti-choice stuff really pisses me off.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I am starting to see that yes, he is nuts n/t

[Hepburn]

9. Rabid, hysterical anti-choicer to the max. n/t

[mmonk]

13. A libertarian state's rights small government guy

that happens to get the war and checks and balances right. Overall, not worth consideration but not a neoconservative.

[Captain Angry]

14. Ron Paul is the guy who asked Bernanke about the secrecy of the Fed.

It was a pretty wild speech, and Bernanke had to sit through the whole thing. He is concerned that the US government does not have control over its own money supply, that a private organization does. The moves made by the Fed are supposed to be for the good of the economy, regardless of short-term popularity. However, their history hasn't been fantastic at pulling that off.

As far as legitimacy goes, probably not. He would never raise the rock star kind of money that he'll need to compete. Since he's a Libertarian, he wants to see far more limited government. So all of the companies that benefit from big government spending will give their money to his competitors (i.e. defense contractors, energy companies, etc.)

I would love to see him stick around for the Republican primaries and debates. He would bring up some wild stuff that the popular candidates just couldn't answer competently.

[GregD]

17. Imagine the debates

If he could start taking some shots at the sort of stuff he talks about in his floor speeches, the public would really get their eyes opened.

[Captain Angry]

23. I think that's what the debates used to be for.

I remember people being mad about Sharpton and others wanting to debate in 2004. He has concerns at the top of his list that aren't on the radar for other candidates. He's may be the only candidate with those concerns, but he's not the only citizen.

The same can be said for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and any other candidate who the popular kids say aren't REAL candidates and are wasting our time.

[orwell]

25. Ron Paul...

...is one of the few principled Republicans left.

He would be a tremendous addition to the Republican debates.

His stances on monetary policy are a breath of fresh air.

As such, he has zero chance of getting elected...