antiwar.com — At last ? a Republican who opposes our interventionist foreign policy (consistently and articulately) and who has this to say about the Iraq war. Rep. Paul opposed this rotten war from the very beginning ? and, what?s going to be delightful, is that he is not going to be outdone by any Democrat regarding the Iraq issue.
Jan 11, 2007 View in Crawl 4
digitalomnivoreJan 12, 2007
It's only a problem if you care more about the party than the person. Hillary Clinton is closer to a neocon than Ron Paul. The republican party has a libertarian streak, hell Goldwater said the essence of Republicanism is Libertarian. It's too bad the party has been hijacked.
digitalomnivoreJan 12, 2007
A Hillary/Paul election could see all kinds of strange things happening.....Hillary is more pro war, pro big government, the far left anti war people would end up voting for Paul, and I can even imagine the neocons voting for Hillary. William Kristol (a big time neocon) once said, "I'd take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan". The neocons would defect to the democrats, and the far left would defect to the republicans. It would be amusing. Plus it would be cool to have debates with actual, intellegent people. A Wesley Clark/Ron Paul election would actually feature two competent people who aren't political opportunists. That could be fun too.
digitalomnivoreJan 12, 2007
You have a lack of understanding about presidential politics.The republicans are amazing at nation wide presidential elections. They lost to Clinton the first time because of Perot (despite what broken exit polls say). They lost to Carter because of the Nixon fallout. Other than that, they've been unbeatable since the southern strategy was invented, and their only two losses were from southernern democrats who managed to get some votes in the south and had circumstances helping them out...They've won 7 of the last 10 since the creation of the southern strategy.I do think they can lose (especially to Hillary, possibly to Edwards) but counting them out is silly. If anything you have to favor them...
esfisherJan 14, 2007
Ron Paul has a proven track record of voting against the war and against spending. You can say what you want about the 'suspected honesty' of politicians, but if you read a bill you can predict with 99% accuracy how Ron Paul is going to vote. If the bill calls for more spending or restricting freedoms, it's a 'no'. You can trust him on that.
Closed AccountJan 18, 2007
Unless democrats screw things up? Man, you need to start subscribing to the news, and no, the NY Times does not count.
Closed AccountJan 21, 2007
Danny's Nation must be the collectivist, socialist mess we've gotten ourselves into by wanting the government to give us everything at someone else's expense.
paullevMar 13, 2007
I'm very impressed with Ron Paul - not for his constitutional anti-war position, but for his opposition to censorship, and his pro-private enterprise in space positions. <a class="user" href="http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/ron_paul_at_very_least_the_mos.phtml">http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/ron_paul_at_very_least_the_mos.phtml</a>
househarkonnenMay 7, 2007
If you want to see Ron Paul move forward with his campaign support him financially - SEND HIM MONEY!!. Whatever you can afford.He brought in only $638,000 by donation from only 466 individuals.(versus 10-20 million for most of the "big names") He will not accept corporate donations so its up to us the truth seekers and patriots to support his campaign. We will make the media end their blackout of Ron Paul's candidacy. <a class="user" href="http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/04/ron-paul-fundraising-off-to-fast-start.html">http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/04/ron-paul-fundraising-off-to-fast-start.html</a>"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." --Samuel Adams
scimJul 19, 2007
And since the vast majority of war is not in our best interests, he's anti-war.
indyatticJan 6, 2009
This was the beginning of some good times.