Ron Paul as a leader

[SteelCore]

Ron Paul has proven himself to have no integrity on that score at all.

No integrity on the Constitution? Preposterous. He is the only member of Congress, and the only 2008 candidate, who gives a whit about the Constitution.

His racist views, published in his own newsletters over the course of decades, demonstrate that he does not favor equal protection under the law as set forth in the Constitution.

This smear has been repeated ad nauseam and debunked just as many times. There is no evidence that Ron Paul is a racist.

His detractors love to point out, for example, how he voted against giving Rosa Parks a gold medal. What they leave out is that he only objected to the medal because it's unfair to tax citizens to pay for such things. He was willing to pay $100 for the medal out of his own pocket, but the other Congressmen would not join him.

 

[SteelCore]

What Ron Paul said in the GOP debate in South Carolina, concerning Iran and its threat to our naval vessels, was completely assanine. He said "What is a speedboat going to do to one of our destroyers, come on". Remember the USS Cole, jackass? A speedboat packed full of explosives ramming the hull of that ship, would severely damage it, or possible sink it. Ron Paul made a very dumb ass, naive remark concerning this, doesn't he know that this is the tactic that they use? The destroyer should have blasted those idiots right out of the water, f***'em is what I say. We need a president who is not going to take any crap off these thugs, and Ron Paul is not the man.

You make a good point about ramming the ship with explosives; however, all of the above assumes that the US government isn't lying through its teeth about the incident and using fabricated video and/or audio.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? How about all the bald-faced lies that were told about Iraq's WMDs?

The US government repeatedly lies to its citizens in order to drum up support for wars on nations for whatever ulterior motives may exist. (In the case of Iran, it's because the Israel-firsters want us to attack Iran.) They know that most Americans trust "their" government and can be easily manipulated through lies and propaganda. Dissenters are ridiculed as "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorists. It's been working that way for decades.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Then you miss the boat entirely. Charisma, with the exception of the veto, is the most important power a president has. Wielded correctly, it can sway congress, the general public, or foreign governments.

Ron Paul would not have been able to sit down with Gorbachev and accomplish what Reagan did. He won't be able to work with democratic (or even republican) congressional leaders.

I don't know if it's the most important power, but I'd say it's way up there. Without charisma, nothing would get done.

Paul absolutely positively doesn't have what it takes to be a leader. All this talk about "wait 'till the Iowa caucus, you'll see just how many people are for Dr. Ron the Paul...". Well, after getting it shoved down our throats on the internet, he can't even garner the votes to even register more than a distant dot on the radar. Call it "grassroots", but along with grassroots you have to be able to win over the people. Obviously, he isn't.

It's too bad. As much as I think his foreign policy on paper is only good for toilet tissue, he does have some good principles and ideas that would greatly downsize the federal govt. and restore the Constitutional rights of the people. But, the most important thing is that he lacks the skills on HOW to speak to public representatives for them to actually LISTEN to him rather than HEAR him...

 

[nate45]

Ron Paul on Executive Power

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358&loc=interstitialskip

 

[Thunderhawk88]

He is the only member of Congress, and the only 2008 candidate, who gives a whit about the Constitution.

Oh thank you. I needed a good laugh tonight.

 

[Crosshair]

His racist views, published in his own newsletters over the course of decades, demonstrate that he does not favor equal protection under the law as set forth in the Constitution.

As said before, it has been debunked many times. RP did not write or endorse those writings. The only thing RP is guilty of is not paying attention to what went out under his name. He screwed up there, he is human.

The only thing the RP smear squad can prove is that newsletter used Ron Paul as its name. They cannot give any evidence that RP actually wrote or endorsed those articles.

 

[samoand]

cool hand luke

His racist views, published in his own newsletters...

Oh please. Not this debunked-over-and-over crap again.

BTW- What flavor of Kool-Aid are they serving at the Ron Paul rallies these days? and do they still give blimp rides?

see, here is an interesting thought. Ron Paul doesn't have much to succeed in politics. He isn't wealthy like Mitt Romney, and neither he has charisma of Bill Clinton, pedigree of Bush or assertiveness of Guiliani. He is an opposite of media darling - a severe handicap in a country where media elects a president. He really has only two things going for him, and both are minor from the standpoint of 'electbility' - his message, and the proven record of consistency in delivering this message. And these two things - minor as they seem - got him on the radar.

Perhaps you should consider listening to it and trying to understand what it is there that makes people - including outstanding economists and US military - endorse him.

Then again, you don't have to. Just keep repeating the "Kool-Aid" mantra.

 

[Pat H]

There are people who have a vested interest in having any of the other Republican candidates elected.

Waiting on contracts for that new weapons system? Ron Paul probably will determine we don't need it, so you'll have to earn your money elsewhere.

Counting on serving overseas in another tax free government posting? Ron Paul is going to substantially reduce those, so you'll have to be in some boring place in America, or get a real job.

Like to see how many welfare checks you can collect? You might have a problem with this, a lot of those programs won't be renewed by Ron Paul.

So, if you're dependent on an ever enlarging federal government, you'd campaign hard against Ron Paul, not caring one whit which of the dwarfs gets the nod.

The negatives in this thread really aren't to point up that Ron Paul isn't a leader; they're afraid that he is a leader and don't want him to have the chance to lead to smaller government, and God help us, they certainly don't want a smaller AND a lawful government.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

Spoken like a true Paulestinian.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

The negatives in this thread really aren't to point up that Ron Paul isn't a leader; they're afraid that he is a leader and don't want him to have the chance to lead to smaller government, and God help us, they certainly don't want a smaller AND a lawful government.

I think my statement pretty much hit the point on the bullseye. I stated accurate observations based on the results of two states so far, not some polls that Paul supporters were using to show "strong fifth basically means first". If he was able to be an articulate speaker and show mental toughness through the storm, I think he would be a viable candidate. But the FACT of the matter is he isn't bringing in the followers so far. As I have stated on my previous statement and other posts in other threads, I think he has some great ideas and beliefs. There's quite a few items that I have a problem with, but he still has good core beliefs. However, he has fatal flaws that won't get anything done his way even if he was in office because of two other branches of govt. that will cut him off. I'd rather have a president in there that can work the system over and get our country back on track. No matter who it is, it won't happen overnight.

And for your to put words into my mouth on not wanting a smaller and lawful govt. is showing just how little you know me. So, my advise to you is be very, very careful on your future postings. Take it for what you will....

 

[miboso]

You may not want a larger government but, for whatever your reasons are, you seem to have decided to accept a larger government.
I, on the other hand, will no longer accept a larger government, and I figure we can work out whatever problems remain after electing someone who will "lead" us to that smaller government.

 

[STAGE 2]

I, on the other hand, will no longer accept a larger government, and I figure we can work out whatever problems remain after electing someone who will "lead" us to that smaller government.

That makes no sense at all. You say you don't accept larger government, but then you cast a vote which will have no effect on reducing the size of government.

The you go on to chastize those of us who will cast a vote for smaller government which will make a difference. Thats simply ridiculous.

No matter how you slice it, flip it or spin it, the choice this election is going to be between Hillary/Obama and a republican who isn't Ron Paul. Thats it. No amount of fanciful rhetoric is going to change this reality. So, you have the choice to either be part of the solution, or not participate and be part of the problem.

 

[miboso]

The you go on to chastize those of us who will cast a vote for smaller government which will make a difference.

So you are telling me that if a republican who isn't Ron Paul is elected he will shrink the government. That will NOT happen.
I don't expect Paul to win, but DO NOT expect me to believe that any of the other Republicans is better. Or that, ultimately, they are better than the Dems. If two cars are about to go over a cliff, what does it matter if one is going slower than the other? The destination (aaahhhhhhh...SPLAT!) is the same.

 

[STAGE 2]

So you are telling me that if a republican who isn't Ron Paul is elected he will shrink the government. That will NOT happen.

Do you have a crystal ball? If so can you tell me next months lotto numbers? Can you guarantee me that Thompson will increase government. Can you guarantee me that Paul could stop the government increase? The answer to all these questions is no.

Your argument that Paul is the only one can stop the increase isn't really plausible. Either the government is a huge juggernaut that cant be decreased, or its something fully within the control of elected officials. If the government expands inevitably then one man, even Paul, can't do anything to stop it. If government is fully within control of elected officials, then Paul still wont be able to stop anything. Its clear that government has been expanding for quite some time, that means that the folks running the show favor this. As such, Paul will be outnumbered over 500 to one. He can veto every piece of legislation he likes, but 2/3's won't be that hard to get as he has no friends in either party.

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for folks who advocate limited government. I'm saying the idea that a single person can change things is simply ridiculous.

I don't expect Paul to win, but DO NOT expect me to believe that any of the other Republicans is better. Or that, ultimately, they are better than the Dems. If two cars are about to go over a cliff, what does it matter if one is going slower than the other? The destination (aaahhhhhhh...SPLAT!) is the same.

Well to use your analogy, I'd much prefer the car thats slower since it gives me time to figure out a solution. The same applies to politics. All of you Paul folks who are so ready to skip happily into oblivion don't really understand how difficult it will be to recover from that.

An all or none mentality usually results in the latter and not the former. Rather than handing america over to those that want to destroy it, I'd rather give it to folks that may be misguided but not openly hazardous. Since it buys time and still allows the possibility for change. There is no third choice.

If you let liberals run things for even 4 years then things will get so bad that even 100 Ron Paul's won't be able to fix things.

 

[miboso]

Liberals have been running things for the last 15 years.

 

[miboso]

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for folks who advocate limited government. I'm saying the idea that a single person can change things is simply ridiculous.

So, it doesn't matter who we vote for, we're screwed. Given that, I'll vote my conscience and my principles, thank you very much.

When in the Course of human events.......

 

[Unregistered]

Can you guarantee me that Thompson will increase government.

Yes, I will guarantee that government size will increase under Thompson. He has not suggested eliminating any government bureau, department, or office.

If he does not eliminate any part of the the federal bureaucracy, and the country continues to grow, then the federal bureaucracy will have to increase proportionally during his presidency to at least accomodate the increased population.

I am not singling out Thompson on this issue, and it would probably expand less with Thompson than it would with Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. But to vote for Thompson because you think he will reduce the size and intrusiveness of the federal government is absurd. His record shows that he is a big government Republican. If you don't believe me, allow me to remind you that he voted for Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act, all of which expanded federal government.

 

[STAGE 2]

Liberals have been running things for the last 15 years.

No, moderates have been running the country for the last 15 years. That's the main problem with you Paul folks. You see the spectrum as Paul and everybody else, suggesting everybody else is the same. Thats not even close to reality. Whats running this election cycle has the potential to make Bush look like Ron Paul.

So, it doesn't matter who we vote for, we're screwed. Given that, I'll vote my conscience and my principles, thank you very much.

Thats not the case either. There is a difference between big government and a loss of rights. While I don't like either, swallowing the big government pill is far easier than nationwide handgun bans or massive tax hikes.

Yes, I will guarantee that government size will increase under Thompson. He has not suggested eliminating any government bureau, department, or office.

And can you guarantee me that Paul would be successful at decreasing the size of government.

 

[Unregistered]

And can you guarantee me that Paul would be successful at decreasing the size of government.

Yes, given Paul's reputation as Dr. No, I believe he would veto any bills that increased the size of government. I do not believe he would increase bureaucratic spending. He might not be able to elminate offices completely, but if could simply hold the size of the government stable, then its relative size would decrease as the population increases.

 

[miboso]

Of course not, but he is the ONE candidate who will TRY!