I would love to nominate Congressman RON PAUL. In my opinion, he is the best equipped to deal with the crisis that we're facing.
~Mark
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
I would love to nominate Congressman RON PAUL. In my opinion, he is the best equipped to deal with the crisis that we're facing.
~Mark
I predicted some time back here that U08 would be flooded with supporters for Ron Paul. It is starting to rain now. Soon it will turn into a deluge. Put all the candidates and their positions from both parties on the stage and he sticks out like a sore thumb. Never in my lifetime have the Ameican people been presented with the opportunity to elect a President of the staure of Ron Paul. His honesty, intellect, character and integrity are many degrees above anyone else's running.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
I'm torn because I'm positive Newt Gingrich is going to run and CAN BEAT ANY OTHER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, he's the Best Qualified to lead the Country through the Type and Scope of Problems we have to resolve, and in recent years he's demonstrated his understanding and dedication to Defending and Protecting our Constitution from Enemies Foreign & Domestic !!
Newt has developed common sense solutions to some of our most critical issues - and in recent months has been reaching out to Members of both parties - to gather as many members as possible from both sides of the aisle, to work together to conduct the peoples business in a more responsible and dedicated manner..
I've made no bones about it - since joining Unity08, Newt is by far the best qualified man for the job of President in this time and place, if we can't get Newt to run on a Unity08 Ticket with a Democratic or Independent Candidate for Vice President that can help break the partisan gridlock .. my second choice would be Michael Bloomberg ..
I sincerely believe either man - Newt Gingrich or Michael Bloomberg on a Unity08 Ticket, and an Agenda for the Political Reforms I've outlined in my previous presentations : CAN WIN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 2024 !!
Peter K (popo) Evans
I respect your opinion but Newt is the wrong guy for the job. He is another AIPAC backed neocon. At any rate not you or I alone will pick the U08 candidate, the delegates will and I am confident that once the polling on issues and candidates start up here Dr. Paul will be the choice. His message of liberty, peace and prosperity is contagious and the MSM and GOP have so far been unable to come up with a cure for this contagion.
Ron Paul, Hope for America.
Newt Gingrich? This is hardly a unifying force. He is as devisive as anyone in Washington. Maybe, Newt would be OK, if Ted Kennedy was on the ticket with him! (No, I am not advocating this - I just figure it highlights the absurdity of this nomination as a UNITY candidate).
Newt is a smart tactician, but he has little, if not zero, appeal on the other side of our bi-partisan effort. Selecting a firm-right candidate will only chop up the Republican vote, not draw from both sides. If we're in it to win it we need a candidate that appeals to (one third of) both sides. Bloomberg is much closer to that.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
So far the folks I have helping with the Ron Paul campaign locally are over half Democrats, er former Democrats.
No Newt.
His personal life is deplorable and shows what a hypocrite he is - pursuing Clinton for Monica while philandering himself.
I agree with HC, RA, and GP.
I want change - Newt won't bring change, and certainly won't unite.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
I would love to see a Giuliani / Leiberman (or vice versa) ticket. Like the majority of Americans, both are social moderates who understand that there can be no appeasement in dealing with the greatest and most threatening evil since Nazi Germany. The Democrats have already all but ostracized Leiberman and Giuliani will probably face the same fate at the hands of the Republican right. They both have notable experience in government. They are both highly recognizable. Any effort to form a much needed third party will require experienced candidates who have already proven that they can win, and can govern.
If I were hell bent on delivering the coup de grace to the USA a Liebreman/Giuilani ticket would be the one.
Before reading any of the nominations, I thought that this would be a very strong ticket. You have it right - two very strong leaders that do not adhere strictly to their party lines. Only concern, are they too tied to the system (lobyists, past loyalties, etc.) to be able to initiate the changes that are required. Another problem is Giuliani's view of our healthcare system, which in my view is (and, though neglected, has been for some time) one of the top priorities.
Both are fear-mongers - be afraid! be very afraid!
and delusional about Iraq. Iraq is a quagmire and stay the course will only achieve more deaths.
Giuliani is laughable when he stated any republican would be better than any democrat to protect the country... Right. Like Bush is remotely competent...
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Ron Paul is a straight up Libertarian. Although many people with Libertarian leanings, I among them, will be drawn to this attempt to form a third party, a Libertarian candidate would guarantee failure.
Newt Gingrich is very intelligent but could never unify a Centrist constituency.
I have no problem with either guy. They both have creative solutions to tough problems and are bold enough to stick to their guns and say things as they see them. I just don't think either would be an effective candidate in unifying the center. I do think both of them very good legislators.
The goal is to win. Libertarians have been trying for years and have been wildly unsuccessful. I'm not sure why you dislike Giuliani and Leiberman so much but any effort to marginalize the fringes of both parties will require powerful, well known candidates. I'm tired of having to choose between Democrats who pander to the acedemicians, college students (children still), and elitist lefties who actually despise their own country, and Republicans who pander to people who think we can actually return to the 1950s or want to put pants on Donald Duck.
HC explains his positions in this group of posts:
http://unity08.com/node/1382#22921
Please note the sympathy for Ernst Zundel, a known Neo-Nazi.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
You are going to have to do better than that! I know why don't you research Ron Paul's stance on the issues and attempt to smear him, after all I am not running for President. I am just trying to get the best candidate in the last 100 years that puts the American People first and has more integrity than anyone in DC elected.
We'll then you are talking about Joe Lieberman there HC. No one on Cap Hill or DC for that matter has more proven integrity and true political courage to gut out the tough issues and stand on principle than Joe L. He's a lackey for NO ONE!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
And you have every right to support him. If you want to post about AIPAC, you have every right to do that also.
If you go beyond that, I will speak out against you. Stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy lies, stop blaming the Jews for every problem, and stop giving support and sympathy to Neo-Nazi's such as Ernst Zundel.
http://unity08.com/node/1382#22921
Zundel is a pig, and beneath contempt.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
My problem with Ron Paul is that he is an activist and no different than any of the other candidates. Like them, he wants to force his ideology down my throat because he thinks we're all idiots and need to be told how to think. He wants to keep us distracted with his grandstanding and it's pathetic. I happen to agree with most of his beliefs, but that is only a coincidence. I still think he is a nut job.
I'd like to see a Gingrich-Lieberman ticket. Gingrich is really the most intelligent and level-headed figure in politics right now. If you actually take the time to listen to him speak, you will see that his ideas really are non-partisan...other than the typical differences between cons and libs. Lieberman seems to be equally level-headed. I think this ticket would fit in with exactly was Unity08 is trying to accomplish. Anyone who puts their own agenda ahead of what is right for the country doesn't deserve to be elected to any position.
Regardless of labels, there are liberals and conservatives and ideas vary greatly even within each of those groups. I'm tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion. These are personal issues that have nothing to do with the federal government and I really don't care what decisions people make in those matters. I'm hoping that MOST Americans feel the same way. I have a 7-month old with Down Syndrome. We found out at 19 weeks pre-natal. Liberals and conservatives would love to argue until the end of time over whether or not the pregnancy should have been terminated. But you know what? IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!! And even discussing it is pointless. The powers that be have the populace busy arguing over nonsense like this to keep them distracted. Anyone who votes based on issues like abortion and gay marriage should be stripped of their voting privilege (it's not a "right").
He is the only candidate that we can trust to keep his oath. To say he is no different than the other candidates is ignorant. You agreement with most of his beliefs is a coincidence?
Gingrich and Lieberman are both paid AIPAC shills. The Independents that elected Lieberman want him recalled. He turned 180 degrees from the stance he got elected on the minute he was re-elected. As for putting one's own agenda before the country's, Lieberman is the poster boy, putting Israel's agenda before anything else. So I agree with you he doesn't deserve to be elected to any position.
As for your last paragraph, no candidate agrees more with you than Ron Paul.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Take your country back, join the Ron Paul Revolution.
How can you explain your sympathy for Ernst Zundel in this post?
http://unity08.com/node/1382#22921
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
HC, he may be but remember you can learn NOTHING about how Washington really works nowadays by reading the Constitution. Not my choice but that is the way it is. and remember that Jefferson said we need to scrap and redo the Constitution probably every 50 years or so. So the fact that Ron is a Constitutionalist and all is all good and fine but it does not pass muster with me on getting a President that can actually get things done!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Ron Paul Revolution is real. He has more people on the ground than any other candidate. He has won all three GOP debates hands down. As far as getting things done goes, W thought a bare majority, that he had to steal by the way, gave him a mandate to be dictator. When Ron Paul racks up over 70% of the vote in the general election he will have his mandate too! He will also have an army of citizens to see that it is carried out.
Just wait until the U08 candidates/issues poll starts up and you will see first hand where Ron Paul stacks up.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Hey maybe I'll see Ron at the Iowa Straw Poll on the 11th. I'll ask him some good questions HC - he will probably be the one groveling the least to the Iowans. We'll see. Or better yet maybe I'll bump into him at the Iowa State Fair Butter Cow Exhibit wolfing down a deep-fried corn dog or something! See article below:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5024.html
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
All Things Considered July 25
2007 · Republican congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has distinguished himself from the pack with his libertarian message, and his campaign's momentum has been accelerating with impressive speed.
Although his overall poll numbers remain in the single digits, Paul has attracted ardent supporters, largely through the Internet. And while the money he has raised does not compete with the campaign funds of candidates like Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani, Paul nonetheless has about the same amount of cash in the bank as one-time Republican front-runner John McCain.
Paul is a doctor — an obstetrician and gynecologist who was an Air Force flight surgeon in the 1960s. He is also a former Libertarian Party candidate for president.
In Congress, he is a steadfast opponent of big government, voting against many tax increases, against the USA Patriot Act, and against two wars with Iraq.
Paul, the only Republican presidential candidate to vote against the current war in Iraq, talks to Robert Siegel about the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, congressional pensions and other issues he is highlighting on the campaign trail.
If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?
As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war…. Of course, in the overall foreign policy, I'd like to bring the troops home from most other places around the world, too.
Get the troops back on American soil? That's what you propose?
That is correct.
Withdraw the Navy from the Persian Gulf?
Yes, definitely, because that [having U.S. ships there] is very provoking and that sends a signal that we're there for the oil, and a lot of people do admit that. We don't care about some of the problems in Africa like we care about the problems in the Middle East, and oil is one of the big factors.
You would also, if you had your druthers, withdraw from NATO?
Yes, certainly. That is sort of an old right, conservative Republican position, and certainly after the Cold War ended, there was a lot less need for NATO. I think NATO is embarking in the wrong direction right now by moving right up to the borders of Russia and almost trying to renew the Cold War unnecessarily.
Out of the United Nations?
Yes, I certainly think so, because it's part of the draining of our resources. It's not like you have to close it down in one day…. If you could immediately limit it to the participation in war, it wouldn't bother me quite so much. But I don't think our interests are well served by giving some of our sovereignty up.
What you've described as an old, conservative Republican view of foreign affairs is called, in many quarters, isolationism.
Some people who would like to diminish its value call it that. I don't call it that, because to me, it's the opposite. It conforms with what the founders advised, and that is, yes, we don't get involved in the entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations, but they strongly advocated trade and talking and travel. And now that we follow that policy with Vietnam … [the country] has Westernized; we trade with them; their president comes here, we invest in Vietnam. So we achieved in peace what we couldn't achieve with war. But it's a far cry from isolationism.
Do I have it right that in your years in Congress, you have not taken advantage of the congressional pension system?
That is correct. Of course, you only take advantage [of the pension] when you leave. No, I don't participate. My wife sometimes asks me about it — the wisdom of all this.
Why don't you take part in it?
On principle… [i]t's probably not quite as biased an advantage as it used to be. But when I first went into Congress, it was such a biased system, and so I saw this as an abuse of power, and a privilege that members of Congress should not have.
You have not taken congressional trips overseas.
No…. I don't because too many times they're junkets. Sometimes they're done with great sincerity, but since I'm a noninterventionist, I already know what our dealings should be with other countries. I don't need to go and check on how our money's being spent. I don't want to spend the money.
Have you traveled on your own nickel overseas as a congressman?
Not very often. I did… a lot of traveling as a flight surgeon. But since that time, I've only made one major trip, and it was a major economic event: a translation of a major economic textbook… into Czech, and so I went to Prague to help celebrate this translation, and that was done with personal finances, as well as help from the University of Prague.
I want to ask you a couple of quick things. I want to ask you first about your exchange with [New York] Mayor [Rudolph] Giuliani in the recent debate when you said, look at why al-Qaida struck at New York — the U.S. had been bombing Iraq, the U.S. presence in the Middle East was what they were objecting to — and Mayor Giuliani turned on you as if to say, you've just said it was as if the U.S. deserved the attacks of Sept. 11.
It was a political deal for him to try to jump on that, but it was absurd. It's sort of like, we find a murderer and we look for the motive — then you're blaming the victim. No, I'm not blaming the victim, I'm not blaming the American people, but I am blaming American policy for contributing to the problem. I defended that with quotes from the 9/11 Report, quotes from [Paul] Wolfowitz... and then the most preposterous thing he said was that he had never heard of such a thing. Well, where has he been? That's why I presented him a list of books — if you just read this, you would know where these ideas come from, because it's a condition that has been described clearly by the CIA, that there is blowback. These things come back to hit us..... If you look at the Iranian problems today, that started in 1953 when we first threw over a democratically elected leader, and we've been suffering ever since.
Realistically, what chance do you give yourself of winning the Republican nomination?
A lot more than it was six months ago, I tell you that. We're in the top tier now; we're third and fourth in money and money in the bank, and our numbers are growing. But I know what the odds are. But I also know how many young people and others are very receptive to this, and said, you know, it's about time we talked about freedom rather than how the government is going to take care of us from cradle to grave, invade our privacy, fight these war[s], and run the economy.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and put America and Americans first!
Unfortunately i don't see either one breaking from their party to support Unity '08.
Too many ties to break. Lobbyists have a good grip on some of these presidential candidates that it would be impossible for them to break those bonds just to please our group.
You see, once you owe favors, you have to pay them back. Thats how they rack up as much money as they do, in such a short time.
I think Gingrich may be too polarizing but I do agree that he has the most refreshing ideas at this point. Regarding the gay marriage and abortion fixations all I have to say is AMEN BROTHER! Well said!
If he is rebuffed in the early primaries and perceives that he can't win the Republican nomination, he might break away. He seems to have enough fire in his belly to do so.
In the event that neither Giuliani nor Gingrich are available, I need to learn more about Bloomberg. He meets the criteria of being well known, and possibly electable. He also would have enough money to compete, although it is somewhat unfortunate that personal wealth or the lack of it is a factor. I will henceforth ignore the radical ravings of HC. I will not read or respond to his posts. I advise anyone who is serious about forming a viable third party to do the same. He is wasting our precious time.
The idea of massive amounts of money in the process leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth so to speak, but it is part of the electoral process as it stands today. It's a necessary evil, and perhaps the most necessary of evils since we need to break the 15% "awareness barrier" long before next fall to qualify for the televised debates. If our candidate is not on TV next fall, we have no chance. Sad but true.
The fundamental reason we, as in we the people, dislike so much money in politics is because we're painfully aware of the special interests and corruption brought on by that money. The will of the people gets circumvented and laws are slanted in such heavy favor of those special interests that we find ourselves more and more in a political system where the citizens are treated as a rancher would his cattle.
Now in the case of Mike Bloomberg consider the following: Mike doesn't need to take a dime of special interests. In fact he'll be the only candidate in the entire race that hasn't taken special interest money, but will have a warchest to make a competitive race.
If we take a default position that all rich candidates are somehow evil, I think we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. If we can accept that huge amounts of money are necessary to win this thing, we need to either prepare to have everyone in Unity08 open up their pocketbooks, or we'll just have to be "proud" of our candidate's pauperhood and his or her 1% protest vote in 2024. I'd rather be in it to win it. That's going to take money, and we need to accept that.
No candidate is going to be perfect, but I'd take a self-made billionaire who will spend his own money before I'll take a candidate bought off by the same special interest money that has already bought and paid for the front runners in both parties.
Don't get turned off to a candidate just because he has money; get turned off when you find that the money is coming from the same sources that brought us the last 8 years...
If you'd like to learn more about Mike, here's his website:
http://mikebloomberg.com/
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Congressman Ron Paul has a long history of working for Freedom in our nation's capitol. As a member of the United States House of Representatives, Dr. Paul has consistently worked to limit the size of the federal government. He has always worked to reduce taxes. He has repeatedly supported the cause of free markets. And he has never voted to support any measure not authorized by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Some important facts about Ron Paul's record:
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He wants to remove Marijuana from the list of controlled substances
Ron Paul currently leads ALL '08 candidates with one-third of military contributions for Q2
(TheSpinFactor.com)
Military contributions among Republican presidential candidates place Ron Paul on top at 49.5%, with nearly as much as all Republicans combined.
A more complete compilation of statistics by Phreadom shows that presidential candidate Ron Paul leads all 2024 presidential candidates in military contributions from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans. Presidential candidate Ron Paul leads with an impressive one-third of all contributions this second quarter according to newly released data from the FEC.
Ron Paul currently has more cash-on-hand than John McCain this quarter, and this new information is indicative of Ron Paul's success. It appears that our soldiers and war veterans have an affinity to, or inclination for Ron Paul's non-intervention principle - defending our homeland and pursuing terrorists, but no nation-building.
Military contributions for Q2
Ron Paul 32.94%
John McCain 22.99%
Hillary Clinton 13.92%
Bill Richardson 7.03%
Barack Obama 6.85%
Mitt Romney 4.68%
Rudy Giuliani 3.06%
John Edwards 2.97%
Tom Tancredo 1.85%
Duncan Hunter 1.32%
Joe Biden 1.06%
Mike Huckabee 0.20%
Mike Gravel 0.09%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Chris Dodd 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%
Source: Finance Reports for the 2024 July Quarterly and compiled by Phreadom. Visit phreadom.blogspot.com for more detail.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=10375
1. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on Aug. 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh. His father was a dairy farmer.
2. Paul graduated with a bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College in 1957 and with a medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine in 1961.
3. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard until 1968. That year he moved to Texas to take over another doctor's medical practice.
4. Paul greatly admires Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), an Austrian economist who advocated laissez-faire, free market policies. A photo of the economist decorates his office wall. Paul became interested in politics in 1971 when President Nixon removed the country from the gold standard and set wage price controls disappointing actions to Paul (and presumably von Mises).
5. Paul was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in April 1976 to replace resigning Rep. Robert R. Casey. He was not re-elected later that year but did win his bid in 1978. He held office until early 1985, when he returned to his medical practice.
6. Paul ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party. He received over 400,000 votes (or 0.47 percent), finishing third behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.
7. Returning to the GOP, Paul won office again in 1996 to represent his Texas district in the House. He has been re-elected five times. He reportedly would like to be listed as both a Republican and a Libertarian, if Texas law allowed. And maybe also as a member of the Constitutional Party.
8. Paul received the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress for repeatedly casting "nay" votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: "I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don't have direct authorization, I don't vote for it, even if there are good intentions." In 2024, the Washington Post wrote: "He says, if his fellow Republicans are 'very desperate,' he may allow himself to be talked into changing a 'no' vote to 'present.' "
9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school yearsnot letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23paulfacts.htm
The Ron Paul Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Do America a favor and join the Ron Paul Revolution!
How is he going to appeal to the democrat vote? Remember: drawing away a large block of Republican votes only is going to make Ron Paul a spectacular spoiler at best. I think we're all aware that he has "true republican" credentials. The question is, how is that supposed to appeal to the other side of the aisle?
Outside of his Iraq War and Patriot Act stances, I see little that's going to appeal to the Democrat side, and a lot that will turn them off. There's some admiration for Paul in Democrat circles because he stands out relative to the other choices, but that's still a bridge quite far from being competitive with winning people away from the Democrat vote.
In the end we're trying to win one-third of each of the major party's votes. That's really the only way this can happen. If the Unity ticket appeals too much to one side, we'll end up only being a spoiler. I would also suspect that he'll be going the route of the Libertarian Party if he runs as an independent. Unity08 is less likely.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
If it turns out to be a Hillary/Obama ticket or even a Dem ticket with just one of those candidates on it he will instantly draw a huge section of the Democrat vote to Dr. Paul. The big thing, if he wins the GOP nomination, will be the ensuing debates where he will score big with his limited government stance versus the more government, more taxes, more spending Dem candidate, and that will be the case no matter who the Dem candidate is.
Dr. Paul has already said he will not run on a third party ticket if he does not win the GOP nomination. I would hope that he would reconsider if that turns out to be the case. As he says no one is more surprised at how well his campaign is going than he himself.
One of the things I believe will set him apart from the Dem candidate will be his message of liberty, peace and prosperity which as he says are the things that unite all Americans. But the coup de grace to the Dem candidate will be his integrity and it is easily recognizable when you hear this humble, partriotic intellect speak. I think Obama also has integrity but his lack of knowledge and experience in the matters that are most crucial to the country at this time are woefully inadequate.
The Ron Paul campaign theme is Hope for America, and I admit that even he might not be able to right the ship of state that is listing so badly. But I firmly believe he is our last and best hope and that his campaign theme would be more to the point if it was Ron Paul the Last Hope for America.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and let's work together to right the ship of state!
If it turns out to be a Hillary/Obama ticket or even a Dem ticket with just one of those candidates on it he will instantly draw a huge section of the Democrat vote to Dr. Paul.
Explain why this would be the case. Obama has massive appeal. If anything, his presence as VP will wipe out most of the dislike for Hillary. Dislike for Hillary extends from her almost-leaning-right positions. How would the dislike for right leaning politics within democrat party membership lead towards them abandoning their party to support....a OUTRIGHT right-leaning candidate like Ron Paul?
I understand why Paul appeals to the "broken-hearted Republican" contingent. I see nothing that appeals to the moderate Democrat who might not like Hillary.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
The reason that either Hillary or Obama on a ticket will draw voters to Paul, or for that matter whoever the GOP candidate is, is because there are many people of both parties who will not vote for a woman or a black man to the Presidency. Prejudice in present in both parties. Many Dems will simply not vote if either of them receive the nomination. I personally think Obama has more Presidential cloth than any other Dem running and the more he spars with Hillary the better he will do in the primaries. I think he is far ahead in the Dem race now and that Joe Biden is running second. IMO the internet polls are much more reflective of public sentiment in both the Dem and GOP races.
The job of the MSM is to sway the public into a Clinton/Giuilani finale, with Giuilani taking a fall like he did in his Senate race with Hillary and thus the "ordained" Hillary of Bush/Clinton crime family fame will continue the transformation of the US into a banana republic. The biggest problem with American politics of the last twenty years is the failure of the partisans on both sides to recognize the fact that the Bush's and Clintons are the same people! For goodness sake Rupert Murdoch is hosting fund raisers for Hillary! DUH! Why do people think Slick Willie hung Al Gore out to dry? Double DUH!
As for Obama's presence as VP "wiping out most of the dislike of Hillary", it might wipe out some but not most. Why should Obama accept VP when he is leading the race and Hillary is not even second any way? The MSM will probably attempt to smear away any real Dem contender to Hillary and be aided and abetted by the DNC. The motto of the DNC and GOP leadership is "For the good of the party", not for the good of the country.
Enter Ron Paul, an island of truth in a sea of deception, the PTB's worst nightmare. His light is getting brighter by the debate and soon the MSM will have to acknowledge it while they figure out a way to extinguish it. Not one candidate from either party can stand up to him in a debate. We are very fortunate to have him running. He is the right man, wiht the right message, at the right time. He is a man who has the potential to make Americans of all stripes sleep better at night knowing that after many years at least we finally have someone competent, trustworthy, honest, sincere, truthfull and who has America's and not their own or their cronies best interest at heart.
I believe you would have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find a President with the attributes of Ron Paul. Jackson refused to polish the boots of a British officer and Ron Paul refuses to polish the boots of the RNC. Jackson got rid of the central bank and Ron Paul with our help will do the same.
The Revolution is not being televised (because it is not going so well for the RNC, DNC, CFR or the MSM) but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and stop our transformation into a banana republic!
The people who won't vote for a woman or a black man are almost exclusively the far right, not the centrist middle, and certainly not the Democrat Party. We're not looking to win the far right. Those people are going to vote their straight Republican ticket regardless of other options. We aren't aiming for them.
As for your talk of the MSM and the artificial preference game being played, yes, that I agree with. I think it's quite evident that Hillary is being coronated by the powers that be. However, the fundamental problem with Ron Paul remains: he appeals to the broken-hearted Republicans club, not the democrats. I think a number of democrats admire his open stance against the war because he's in the party where such talk is not acceptable. But that doesn't mean that he'll garner Democrat votes. We need to be careful of that reality if we're to run a centrist ticket.
I admire Ron Paul myself, and I relish seeing him cause a ruckus in the Republican party. But it doesn't mean I'll vote for him. He's still too far right for my comfort zone, even if he's the "sexy rebel" right now...
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
I agree that most who won't vote for a woman or minority are hard righties but not all. There number of people voting a straight party ticket is declining with each election however, Clinton turned off a lot of die hard Dems and Bush has done the same to even more of the GOP faithfull.
Ron Paul is not far right, he is straight down the middle. He puts his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution before anything else. Tell me where he is hard right. He is the biggest champion of the Bill of Rights also and knows and understands more about both of them than anyone in DC, let alone any one else running. He is causing a ruckus in the GOP, but don't think for a minute his popularity is lost on the Dems, the real fireworks will occur if or when he gets the GOP nomination.
The Revolution is not being televised, yet!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and set yourself free!
But HC how will ron get anything done in Washington assuming the snowball's chance in hell he would ever be elected. He would be pontificator in chief, but the Presidency is constitutionally a very weak office. So just how would Paul get anything done esp since he has no essential governing administrative experience??
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
How about the abolition of the FDA? How about the abolition of the Department of Education? Voting no on every tax bill? I'd say that these things are the firm territory of the far right. They seem more the hallmark of stubborn, close-minded thinking, not virtue.
Now that I have answered your question, HC, please take a shot at answering mine (which is what started this exchange):
How does Ron Paul appeal to the democrat vote?
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Gov't granted power over education? How has education benefitted from Federal intervention? Voting no on unconstitutional taxes is a virtue not a vice. The FDA is nothing but a revolving door for the CEO's of major drug comapanies to push their often dangerous drugs and eliminate cost savings natural and genric remedies by the force of law while funneling bribe money to the politicians.
His areas of appeal to the Dems are the elimination of unconstitutional laws providing for the spying on American citizens, their emails, their bank accoutns and their phone calls. The ASAP return of all our troops from Iraq. The repeal of NAFTA, GATT and stopping the NAU. And much more!
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and elect a candidate for all the American people!
Yep! Those are all "winning" Centrist issues there HC! Once again I ask. How will he operationalize/implement his wonderful reforms in the real world??
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
What are some of your centrist issues? What do you percieve as the biggest threat to our Constitutional Republic? Who do you think is most qualified to address the centrist issues as President? Would 70% of the vote in the general election give him a mandate to carry out his plans? Bush claimed he had a mandate with less than 50z of the vote, and ram rodded it down the American people's throats without so much as a whimper from the spineless Dems.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and send the leadership of the DNC and RNC to the political graveyard!
Mine are Comprehensive Entitlements reform, Foreign Policy Grand Strategy, and Political Reform. All if not successfully addressed in the next 5 to 8 years will spell big trouble to the Republic. And on all 3 of these issues Ron Paul and his quaint crica 1790's ideas and his lack of experience comes up a cropper. There are numerous Centrists Moderate candidates with good real life governing experience on all 3 of the above issues that I could support - I like Governors above all!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Using the word "unconstitutional" as a trump card to death sentence whatever institution one wants to eliminate does NOT account for the fact those institutions (as imperfect as they may be) are serving a purpose. You can't indulge change that radical anymore than an obese person can chop off their fat with a machete; it takes a dedicated and healthy pace of change to enact change.
The whole point I am trying to make here is that the democrat side of the vote would rather see an effort to improve that which doesn't work, not a rabid chant to "Burn it down! Burn it down!" That's where Pauls' appeal fails.
Picture, if you will, the televised debates next year in which Ron paul is there as an independent candidate. Imagine the typical voter's reaction to him when his opponents paint him as a radical who just wants to bulldoze government institutions without any plan to replace their function. It'll be a joke unless he recants his views to a large degree.
If there's a mantra we should consider here, it's that we're not looking for bigger government outright, not smaller government outright; we're looking for SMARTER government. There are attributes of Paul I can admire, but at the same time I see a lot of default positions that suggest he is unwilling to consider compromise. And let's be honest, if Unity08 does win we're going to need a great negotiater, not someone who spends 4-8 years in office as a stubborn mule (we've already endured about 7 years of that).
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
If we as Americans cannot agree on the very thing that our elected representatives and the President take an oath to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic it is time for the overthrow of our government and the creation of something better. If peacfull means doesn't work (the ballot box) then I would advocate other means. Neither am I looking for larger or smaller government outright, I am looking for government who's size fits what is prescribed by the Constitution. I am looking for a government who acknowledges and works to assure our liberties and freedoms as prescribed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. IMO every step our government has taken beyond it's Constitutiionally specified duties has led to larger and more unresponsive government that has made the situations they are proclaiming to address worse than the situation was before. If you want something to flourish just let the government declare war on it, drugs, poverty and terrorism are three that come to mind.
The problem with Dems in general is that they think the Federal Government is the ultimate solution to the problems they percieve exists, real or unreal. We would all be better off seeking solutions at the local and state levels.
If the elimination of parts of whole departments of our government because they are clearly unconstitutional is not a suitable trump card then we have no avenue to address the problems caused by them. Like it or not the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If we find something that has been eliminated is essential and in the People's best interest then by all means reinstate it, but only after it has been made Constitutional.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and return our God given rights that have been usurped by the Federal Government to their rightfull owners!
If you're really at the point where you consider armed revolution to be a reasonable and justified endeavor, I think you need to take a step back and realize that you're a long ways from the rational center (and the voting public). The Constitution was not a document written by God(s), Ron Paul is not a Christ incarnate, and this is not the apocalypse!
Slow down and let's be rational and practical here. Yes, we need change, but we need sensible change that's only as radical as far as it's possible. It's, to borrow John Milligan's phrase, a marriage of the "ought to" with the "can do." Let's keep that thought as the anchor point and put away the blood lust. Please.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
What I said was that if peacfull resolution is not not doable then other means must be used. Someone once said the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and partriots. In case you haven't noticed the present administration has us on the verge of being a police state with their blatant disregard of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. For that matter the crimes of the past three administrations are legion. They all three lied through their teeth while taking their oath of office. The Dumbocrat Congress is just as guilty as if they had committed these crimes themselves for not enforcing the rule of law and living up to their oaths of office also.
The Constitution was not as you say "written by God(s), but by God it is still the supreme law of the land and until it is not I will defend it with every ounce of my energy, my money, my property and if need be my life.
Idiots who want to bend it a little here and a little there remind me of once when my kids were small and wanted to watch a TV program that contained some foul language. When my wife told them to turn the channel or turn it off they exclaimed that it only had a small amount of bad words. She was making spaghetti sauce at the time and told one of them to go into the back yard and bring her a little of the dog's potty. When they asked why she told them she was going to put it in the spaghetti sauce. They all screamed, NO!. She told them not to worry she was only going to use a very small amount. Get the picture?
The more liberty we have the more free and prosperous we are. We can have a little government and a lot of prosperity or a lot of government and a little prosperity.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and restore our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the rule of law and become free or don't and become a slave!
Jefferson is attributed to the quote you mention.
Before you run off to defend the constitution with every fiber of your being I think you should do a little research about it. Specifically, the circumstances under which it was created. Debate and disagreement was fierce. Like all things it was a product of compromise; the "ought to" with the "can do." It was NOT the product of uniform and easy agreement.
It was a starting point. It was meant to allow change. This should be obvious. Times change, and so should the workings of government. Change is not "idiotic" but it is something to be careful with. Trying to wisk us back to the golden days of constitutional glory is to wish to take us back to a time that never was.
Case in point: one of the reasons the founders wanted a weak central government was that they felt things should be resolved locally. You mention this yourself. Yet, in those times nearly all goods and services produced were done so locally, and by way of logic disputes would be resolved by local government. Yet in modern times VERY FEW goods and only some services are provided by local institutions. our food, the clothes you wear, almost all products you buy are from institutions that work nationally or internationally. The laws regarding such interactions thus are going to have to be a national level. Change is not "idiotic"; refusing to change is.
Get past the bumpersticker slogans, and let's aim for the rational and reasonable, not the stubborn and radical.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
And remember Jefferson said that the Constitution should proabbly be scrapped every 50 years of so and should probably be redone to fit the changing nature of society. I'm not for that and feel that the Supreme Court can and has adjusted pretty well over the years. And THAT is the prime Presidential power - Supreme Court nominees. Prez powers are constitutionally pretty weak, but the biggie is appointing Supremes. All other powers Pale and with that one power a Prez CAN affect social policy for 50 years.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Obama brings nothing xtra to the ticket, the voters he brings if VP would vote for Hillary no matter what. I think it will be Richardson they will play the Latino card. How about this republican ticket Gingrich & Thompson- Rudy will be tough to beat, Romney is also tough. With all due respect it's not come together we need, we need a leader who is strong, firm, lays out his agenda and sticks to it. There are no great moderates on Mt. Rushmore.
I disagree md on the Rushmore thing. ALL of them were moderates and successfully incorporated rivals and peoples of differing views. I agree that Hillary-Richardson would be a superior ticket to Hillary-Obama or anyone else the demos could muster. Any Repub ticket would be hard pressed to beat that one. Thompson and rudi have a lot of holes with the traditioanl Repub base and Thompson's governing quals are highly suspect. Romney-Huckabee might be very effective for them.
But no matter what both parties do we at Unity need to draw people to the Moderate Center as the 2 parties will undoubtably spin off toward their activist bases and pander-time will be in full swing. People like Hagel, Bloomberg, Bob Kerrey, John Danforth, Bill Bradley, George Mitchell, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, Phil Gramm, Evan Bayh, Chitstine Todd Whitman, Bill Cohen, Colin Powell, Gary Hart, etc are just waiting for us top tap into to form the true Moderate Middle that can steer this race to the Center rather than have the 2 parties pander to theie bases.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com