Hide shortcuts

Who is your choice for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination?

Comments

Fine batch up there.

By ericgl

timscoffee

To me it's no surprise that Ron Paul is running away with your poll. I am a supporter of Paul. I believe he stands for what the GOP once stood for many years ago and has strayed from. The constitution, the rule of law and far less government in people's lives. Paul is certainly out of the mainstream Republicans and I believe that's what makes him so appealing to Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike. I hope the party doesn't shut this man down as they tried in the past. He must and should be heard. I am not some young, internet blogger type who's been falling in line with other Paul supporters. I was once a big supporter of President Bush. I volunteered in my own community for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I have since seen fit to track a new direction and away from the "mainstream" republicans. A friend of mine, a strong conservative, like me, suggested I look up Ron Paul. I did and have found his policies and views fall in line with mine. I will support Paul whether he gets the nomination or not.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee

i agree completely. though i'm relatively young, i've come from much the same direction you have. this is the first time i -- like many others -- have seen it worthwhile to enthusiastically support a candidate. i think this is a great opportunity for the republican party to gain some real momentum; attracting many new, young people and familiarizing them with, not just ron paul, but the traditional conservative ideas that he represents and so eloquently champions.

By Jacob --

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not ad

Don't me wrong. I am very pleased to see young voters energized with a candidate like Ron Paul. I'm 42 and I am quite conservative and not ashamed to admit it. The Republican party has strayed from it's principles too much to pander to the middle and even the left. But just because I'm a conservative doesn't mean I don't respect the opinions of others from other parties. Paul's candidacy is attracting Dems, Republicans and Independents and that's exciting. I'm glad to hear there are others in Washtenaw County who are thrilled to support Paul.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee

I am wondering what Ron Paul would do if Iran developed a Nuclear ICBM styled missle program that could initially hit Isreal, later hit Berlin and Paris - then London, and finally New York City?

At what point does Ron Paul believe an alley needs military assistance? Or, on the other hand, when does a dictator - bent on some serious destruction (suicide bombers to start, nuc's or nerve gas to finish) need to be dealt with?

How does his "leave Irag now" position make the USA any safer? What would happen if all our troops just left the battle in Iraq? Who would take over control? Who would control the OIL (3 million barrels per DAY)? What terroist organizaton would begin building training camps in the Iraqi desert? What would Iran do? Al Queda?

While I agree with Paul's positions - and they don't really differ from other social conservatives - The one major responsibility a President has is; foreign policy. And I think Ron Paul fails that test by a mile. His position is from the 1930's. Isolationist. He seems to assume we have no enemies and that if we just bring all our troops home from Korea, Germany, Iraq, etc, everything will just be fine. I think that would destabilize the world and worse - allow for certain rogue states to fully mature there WMD programs. I oppose the view that we should withdraw our troops before VICTORY.

By ericgl

While I don't agree with everything Paul stands for, I do agree with his opinion that only congress has the power to declare war. No declaration was ever issued by congress over Iraq. This runs counter to the constitution. I do believe that the U.S. should maintain a presence in Korea and I don't believe Paul, if elected president, would be able to or even willing to pull American troops from every corner of the globe. Paul is clearly a constitutionalist, not an isolationist as his opponents portray him. Today's mainstream republicans are all too willing to fall in line with what Bush and others dictate. I'm sorry but I no longer subscribe to the mainstream republican view.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee

Congress did not "declare War" you are right. I think that declaring war would have been the wrong piece of paper to play against a Middle Eastern country - Think how many other middle easterners would have been inflamed at simply the "declaration of war" against an islamic styled nation. Think of the term Crusade - is still fires up most Middle easterners.

Frankly, the UN did release the USA and others to attack Saddam. Saddam was given a timeline to let in inspectors - he refused. We attacked. He could ahve agreed to the UN demand. The world is trying to play nice, using the UN, the best the can. I am not a UN supporter but today - it is what it is. So the US is stuck using UN rules/reasons for various actions because everyone else on the planet has agreed to those rules. Two clear reasons why the Congress did not declare war.

Congress did authorize the president basically all means neccessary to defeat Saddam, a gathering threat in everyones opinion. (See Democratic Hypocrisy in Full Bloom in blogs section.) You may google that authorization if you wish. Hillary herself voted with "conviction."

So we destroy Saddam in a few weeks but leave behind a broken country with terrorists/Iran setting off some rather sophisticated road mines and looking to take over power and grab the assets (oil.) Like Germany in WWII - uncaptured hardline facists fought for years after Peace was acheived. So it is with Iraq - I am just not sure how long Freedom will take to clear the tyranny. Our troops are there, we are committed, we can not leave without clear VICTORY. Anything else would be a catastrophy.

Lastly, Paul himself, is prestenting himself as an isolationist - his own Youtube ad - USA out of UN, NAFTA, WTO, NATO (God help us), military out of Korea, Germany, and about 100 other bases we have established world wide, and yes Ron Paul wants our military to "just march" out of Iraq. Our war machine is expensive, the US could go into lots of debt, out military is spread thin - but that is the price we pay at this point in history.

By ericgl

Yes, NAFTA, the North American Union, UN are awful for this country. I don't believe in a total pull out from Iraq, but I believe its time for some troops to start coming home. Bottom line for me is that Ron Paul believes in the constitution, which has been eroded terribly over time by previous administrations as well as this one. The constitution alone is reason enough for me to support Paul.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee

I am wondering what Ron Paul would do if Iran developed a Nuclear ICBM styled missle program that "could" initially hit Isreal, later hit Berlin and Paris - then London, and finally New York City?

At what point does Ron Paul believe an alley (Great Britain) needs military assistance (NATO)? Or, on the other hand, when does a dictator - bent on some serious destruction (suicide bombers to start, nuc's or nerve gas to finish) need to be dealt with?

How does his "leave Irag now" position make the USA any safer? What would happen if all our troops just left the battle in Iraq? Who would take over control? Who would control the OIL (3 million barrels per DAY)? What terroist organizatons would begin building training camps in the Iraqi desert? What would Iran do? Al Queda?

The USSR developed their NUC program rather quickly, 20 years to ICBM's (frankly you don't even need the missiles) - the cold war ensued - so now - what of North korea, Iran, Sudan, and Al Queda? (BTW Did you know that Al Queda has "formally" declared war on the US.)

The Constituion is great. I agree with alot of what you say. But it does not address aggressor nations like Iran. We need to deal with them. These threats are REAL. Hiding your head in the sand does not make them go away. Putting our troops on the border does not protect us enough in today's world.

What would Ron Paul do with nuclear Iran??????

By ericgl

Not being a mind reader so I don't know what Ron Paul is thinking, but I assume that any president who takes an oath of office is sworn to abide by the constitution and protect Americans at home and abroad. If Iran posed a direct threat to Americans or American interests I would expect Paul would carefully examine the situation, hear from his cabinet as well as the voters (there's a new concept)seek appropriate action. If troops or military action were needed I would think Paul would go to congress for a proper declaration of war.
What does the constitution say? I would challenge that recent presidents, including the current one, haven't read it.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee

iran, much like iraq, is essentially a third world nation that poses no imminent threat to the united states or israel. they are many years away from having nuclear capabilities -- not to mention a means of transporting such a device -- and as crazy as ahmadinejad may be, he is not foolish enough to use any type of bomb, let alone a nuclear weapon, against either country. the consequences would be catastrophic for iran.

ron paul recognizes that we must eliminate the problem at the source, rather than escalating the tension, increasing threats, and ultimately prolonging the violence. without our careless intervention in the middle east, iran would have little reason to even consider attacking the US. and with fewer trade restrictions, they would likely see it more beneficial to trade with us peacefully as we do with countries like vietnam, even though we have differing cultures.

the continued pressure put on iran by president bush and congress, is only increasing tension, motivating iran to prepare for an attack and provoking terrorists whether or not they are iranian citizens. if iran ever did pose a serious threat to the US, i'm confident that dr. paul would handle it appropriately. and with congress' approval, he'd declare war if necessary, and fight it within the limits of our constitution -- without requesting permission from any corrupt world organization or other country.

being that campaign speeches are generally short and repetitive, i don't think ron paul has had ample time to express his reasoning in a convincing way. I encourage anyone who has doubts about his position to read his columns at...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

...and his book on the topic, "a foreign policy of freedom."

http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=1

I think we all owe it to him, since he has arguably studied the issue of foreign policy in more depth than any of the other candidates. this is also true of economics, and most importantly the constitution.

By Jacob --

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not ad

government officials take an oath of office, swearing to uphold the constitution which is the law of this land. by allowing any breach of this contract we are weakening the only barrier that protects "we the people" from the tyranny of our government.

middle eastern countries would have been no more inflamed had we declared war. it is clear to the entire world what we are doing. but you're right to suggest that they would be inflamed. they have been for quite some time, due to our presence on their perceived holy land, and the meddling in their affairs. we have created a great deal of animosity in recent decades.

I don't support the UN either, and along with organizations like the WTO and NATO, they serve only to undermine the sovereignty of the US. we should never have to consult a global organization when seeking our best interest. this isn't isolationism; it's constitutional republicanism, and it's vital to the interests of our country. that being said, we should never justify a breach of our constitution with permission from a global authority such as the UN.

i'm convinced that the hatred emanating form the middle east stems from a history of the US forming and breaking alliances. we gave military aid to saddam to invade iran, we subsidized radical islamists to help defeat communism(as though it wouldn't have crumbled on it's own), we overthrew a democratically elected iranian leader, we are now selling $20 billion in weapons to saudi arabia, we continue to increase aid to israel, and the list goes on. the resulting animosity and terrorism is precisely why george washington, among others, warned us of entangling alliances.

i'm afraid we won't see an end to this mess until we acknowledge that our foreign policy is horribly flawed. terrorism is not a discreet enemy. it's a tactic; a concept. it has always existed, and it always will. our attempts to eliminate it with more force, has been met with greater resistance and rapidly increasing terrorist attacks.

a strong defense is crucial to a secure america. convoluted alliances and nation building are not a legitimate form of defense.

By Jacob --

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not ad

Thank you for a great post. You practically said it all. The sooner this nation and its leaders get back to the fundamentals of what this country was founded and built on, the better off we all will be. Politicians of all stripes have missed the boat on this one entirely.

By timscoffee --

timscoffee