Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, August 20, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fred Thompson's rope-a-dope
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


It's said that in life, timing is everything. And it could be that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson's entry into the 2008 presidential race, expected in early September, will prove to be timed perfectly.

According to a just released poll from the Pew Research Center, 52 percent of Americans have a negative reaction to the presidential campaign thus far and only 19 percent have anything positive to say. And the main complaint of the disgruntled 52 percent is that the campaign simply started too early.

This could be Thompson's "rope-a-dope." Recall this maneuver of Muhammad Ali's in his famous "rumble in the jungle" in Zaire with then heavyweight champion George Foreman. Ali leaned back on the ropes in the early rounds, his forearms up covering his face, and let Foreman pound himself to exhaustion. Ali then stepped up, fresh and strong, and knocked Foreman out.

Thompson has been sitting on the sidelines while the large field of announced candidates on both sides have been traipsing from debate to debate in a campaign begun earlier than ever.

When Thompson announces next month and formally enters the race, his timing alone might be appreciated by a public wondering why they have been forced to start listening to candidates more than a year and half before they'll go to the polls to vote.

In a Washington Post poll done last week, only one in five Republicans say they are "very satisfied" with their candidates. And although the Democratic field is more settled (almost half of Democrats say they are "very satisfied" with their candidates), the negative ratings for their front runner and likely nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton, remain at almost 50 percent.

So, Fred Thompson, a seasoned actor, may really know how to respond on cue. With Act One, Scene One played out, he may enter the stage in Scene Two and wake up the audience.

And, from what the Washington Post's David Broder reports, it may be more than just timing that wakes up this audience.

According to Broder, who reports on a two hour interview he just did with Thompson, the ex-senator and actor is going to be bold. He's got a nice life as a star in the popular "Law and Order" TV series, a beautiful young wife and young children, and is not running for president out of some ego-driven need.

He is stepping up to the plate out of a sense that there are things that need to be said that aren't being said, and that, if elected, he'll have a shot at getting these things done.

Anyone who has been reading what I have written these last few months knows my incredulity that the massive entitlements crisis facing this nation has not been part of the campaign discussion. It's been like hearing the social director of the Titanic announce shuffleboard times as the ship is going down.

It sounds like Thompson is ready to put the facts on the table before the American public and, yes, fasten your seatbelts, tell the truth.

He's going to talk about Medicare and Social Security and what we need to do to tighten our belts and get our lives back under control. And he's going to talk about national security and weigh in as a traditional values candidate.

This kind of honesty and candor is only possible with a candidate for whom the truth is more important than the job. And it sounds like Fred is ready.

Clinton, who in all likelihood will be the Democratic nominee, has just released her first campaign ad. In the short video, she lays out her cards about what her campaign will be about.

First, she'll run against George Bush. Second, she'll tell the American people they can rely on her to fix their problems. According to her ad, we're all "invisible" to the Bush administration.

The ad couldn't help but remind me of an exchange that occurred at the time when Clinton was making her first push at Hillary-care during her husband's administration. It took place between then Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, and Paul Starr, who was one of the crafters of the Clinton plan to nationalize health care.

Starr was pitching the government-as-mother-hen view of the world that defined Hillary then and, as evident in her new ad, defines her now.

Gramm said to Starr, "Don't tell me that you care as much about my grandchildren's health care as I do." Starr replied, "Excuse me, senator. But I do care about your grandchildren's health care." Gramm then rejoined, "Then tell me, what are their names."

No, Senator Clinton. The president of the United States cannot be and should not be our mother.

Freedom is for adults. It sounds like Fred Thompson is about to remind us all of this important truth.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I hope you're right
Also, if Hillary is basing her campaign on being "not Bush", she's making the classic strategic blunder of fighting the "last war" instead of the current one.

Bush isn't running ro re-election (Thank God).


I like Fred
I also think we have a pretty decent crop of front runners so far. Hillary is making this campaign a fairly plain choice between left vs. right. That is good for the republican candidate. The ultimate repub candidate should make every effort to frame the campaign in terms of statism vs. individual liberty and responsibility and the public will make the correct choice. There is always the chance that the leftists may win and allow us to fall from our lofty economic perch in the world and suffer like France for decades before realizing the futility of leftist (statist) ideology. The only democrat elected president in the last two decades was of the centrist DLC type with a predilection for the ladies. Hillary represents the fringe left, a true socialist. I don't think she can win.

Who brought up Ron Paul?
Okay, we Paulbots get blamed for bringing up the only candidate who supports the Constitution at every opportunity, but I hope you realize that we didn't start this particular thread.
As I read the article, it has nothing to do with Ron Paul. And as I read the comments afterward, I see a lot of hand wringing over FACTS.
I don't give a rats rear end about some moronic active duty officer's view of what the FACTS are. The Paul campaign didn't go make up these FACTS. The stats speak for themselves, and any moron that wants to deny that the government reporting of where the money has come from is just putting his head in the sand.
Moreover, Paul never blamed us for the fact that we were attacked. What he did say is that we should not be surprised if we get hit when we get involved in a mindless brawl. If you can't see that is true, then you aren't thinking.
It would make a lot more sense for those who don't like Paul to explain away the military support by saying that it is the reservists that support Paul, and not the active duty folks. That would make sense. But for you to just deny the truth is really, really stupid.

NOW, on to Fred Thompson...I hope he is everything that the author dreams of, but I doubt it. Frankly, I think that his timing is not so good. He's waiting too long for us activists; it is disrespectful to try to play the coy "oh-do-I-really-need-to-do-this-for-the-country?" game and dodge the polls and debates that are going on now. It may work, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it.

and just so you know....
yes...i did serve 8 years in the military, and retired as 1st louie with an honorable discharge. Ron Paul is clearly the best choice.

Fred's timing is impecable.
"When they made real men with giant gonads and good brains, Fred Thompson was the model. He is smart steel with a heart for America. He is diamond hard and love soft. He sees around the bend when others cannot. He is a human chess game. He is Knowledge plus Respect. He
is our Man.

Don Jones MyManFred.com

Vets are Signing up at VETS4FRED.net
You are correct, LT JT, most vets and active duty ones are signing up to back Fred Thompson at http://Vets4Fred.net. They are leaving comments that are very bold and right on target.

Okay, I'll mention it
Wasn't FDT SUPPOSED to have announced on July 4?
Now, it's gonna be in Sept...

Any ideas who he wants as a running mate?

Candidates
Always enjoy Star Parker's thoughtful articles. Personally, have some questions about Thompson. As a teacher I too often found that those who sat quietly didn't have a clue as to what was happening in a discussion.

Would like Ms Parker's opinion of Huckabee, the candidate with no money and no publicity from national news. Granted, the thought of a second one from Arkansas is painful, I found the Wall Street Journal article on him quite interesting. Also, friends from Arkansas all have a high opinion of him. Bill D.

THAT FRED? PRO-ILLEGALS, ANTI-AMERICAN?
http://www.steinreport.com/archives/2007_07_25.html#010594

Former Sen. Fred Thompson has.... appointed as campaign manager former U.S. senator Spencer Abraham from Michigan. Abraham is most famous as an arrogant open-borders fanatic in his work as chairman of the Senate immigration sub-committee in the late 1990s. He was so bad on immigration that in 2000 Michigan conservatives and Republicans voted for Spencer's challenger, pro-abortion liberal Democrat Debbie Stabenow, in order to drive Spencer from the Senate. Abraham lost his Senate seat because of his commitment to open borders, pure and simple.

Abraham is NOT "managing" anything
Has anyone seen or heard from Spencer since this announcement? He's apparently not even in the picture. He's just a background political hack. He is definitely not the "Campaign Manager."

Bad timing
I think Thompson has actually waited too long to get into this race. His support has waned the last few months and many of his potential supporters have left to support other candidates. Romney's following has increased as many have overcome ignorance and realized Romney is the real deal. Huckabee has shot out of nowhere to carry many of the fringe right and uber-intolerant evangelical votes. And Paul has even gained the support of those who are pissed off at America. I don't think Thompson will be able to get these supporters back. Additionally, his delay plays really well into the perception that Fred is a lazy person.

Not only that, Thompson has for all intents and purposes been in the race for several months now. He has been included in most polls, he has unofficially campaigned across the country, and he is in the news just as much as the other candidates. So it isn't as though Thompson will be a novelty to the campaign when he officially jumps in.

A third issue with Thompson is that he is popular largely because of the mystique that surrounds him. You know, big strong man who busts the bad guys in tv shows. Eventually, though, the mystique will disappear and people will realize he is as vulnerable as every other candidate and will make similar gaffes. It has been noted several times that some of his speeches have been less than inspiring. Plus, as his life becomes more and more public, his conservative credentials have come into question (abortion lobbying (you either did or didn't lobby for abortion, there is no "I don't recall ever doing so"), campaign finance, etc.).

Thompson is cool and all, but when he gets into the ring, I have my doubts that he will be everything that he is billed to be.


NOT SO FAST !!!
Fred Thompson has some clear strikes against him:

1. Pro-open borders.
2. Pro-abortion.
3. Recent divorce and remarriage to wife No. 3.
4. Born into the "Silent Generation", which has never produced a President.
5. Never served as Governor or in any other executive position.

It should be remembered that most often Presidents were most often Governors or Generals, both major leadership positions. Senators vote. A legislative leader is a deal maker, not an executive. Only twice in history has a Senator been elected President.

There are two Baby Boomer former Republican Governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas among the wannabees likely to last a while, despite the fact that they are not true blue conservatives likely pick up the endorsement of grass roots conservative leaders.

The Democrats rejected one of their Baby Boomer former Governors, Tom Vilsack of Iowa, despite his liberal rhetoric. Vilsack is a white Catholic with a wife and two sons and is an adoptee - not exactly politically correct. As things stands now, the Democrat candidate is likely to be either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, both Senators who were never Governors.

The 2008 election could well be a race between past and/or present Members of Congress.

These are the people that are currently
running Fred's campaign. The Spencer Abraham thing was blown way out of proportion.
You might spend a little time at this site and find out exactly where the man stands on the issues before trying to blow him out of the water.

Lt. Taylor, Thanks for your service....keep your head down bro'



http://www.imwithfred.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=292830f7-94e2-48c9-aa2b-2e3e4a988b81
http://www.imwithfred.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=9d594519-30fe-4026-83e3-3d5eda6fb1d1

Star, the only pundit who gets it!
You got it 100% right, Star. Exactly the same analysis I'd 'ave made! Well Said.

FDT the next POTUS! Yeah Baby!

yavapaidiane -check yer facts first dude
yavapaidiane writes:
NOT SO FAST !!!
Fred Thompson has some clear strikes against him:

1. Pro-open borders. ( WRONG! ex-tex)

2. Pro-abortion. (WRONG! ex-tex)

3. Recent divorce and remarriage to wife No. 3.
(WAY WRONG! ex-tex)

4. Born into the "Silent Generation", which has never produced a President. (WHAT??!!! ex-tex)

5. Never served as Governor or in any other executive position.
(WELL, HE'S SMARTER'AN YOU! ex-tex)

Thar's yer 3 strikes son. Now git on outta here!


abortion stance
Not that this is corroborated fully, but I've heard that Thompson's record has been very pro-life. Just saying.

Don't know about the borders though.

Federalist
Actually Sen Thompson is a federalist, which means he believes in the US government as envisioned by the founding fathers and as defined by the constitution. In general this means that the federal govenment has two functions; to ensure the states 'play nice' with each other and to deal with the rest of the world.

On the subject immigration, he is most definately NOT 'pro-open borders' as has been stated by some here. The most relavent writing by Sen Thompson on this is the TH article dated 5/19/07, where he states: "We should scrap this 'comprehensive' immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders..." Other articles on TH on this topic are those dated 7/26/07 and 8/14/07.

On abortion he is less clear, though I believe that he has stated (I'm still looking for the quote) that 'Roe v Wade' should be overturned on the strictly constitutional grounds. That since this issue is not explicitly defined in the US Constitution as under the perview of the federal government, it belongs to the state governments.

Spencer Abraham
Opditch: Just because you are not hearing from Abraham doesn't mean he's not involved at the highest levels of Thompson's campaign. Thompson showed extremely poor judgement in bringing in Abraham who is an open borders proponent and a jihadi sympathizer. I would not vote for anyone who make such a fundamental blunder. Unless it was not a blunder and Thompson really is for open borders and does support jihadis operating in the U.S. with impunity. Which is it, Fred?

Thompson's Long Awaited Debut

.....Star ...

.....
Fred had better come out with guns blazing ala Wyat Earp at the OK corral because Washington will be Dodge City to a Republican President ...

.....Walter Williams has said that he could never be President because he would be honest and that honesty is the last thing that the voters wanted ...the Democrats have understood this well and have been successful pandering to the needs of minorities and special interest groups ...

,.....GW tried to be honest about privatizing Social Security ...school vouchers that would allow students trapped in failing public schools a way out ...and medical savings accounts ...he even took a stab (half hearted in my opinion) at reforming the income tax code ...all attempts failed miserably even with Republican majorities in both Houses ...

.....Fred if nominated will have to be selective about his choice for VP ...being a Southern Senator he would most likely carry most of the Red States that went for Bush but how will he do in the Blue States that went for Kerry ...a Liberal anti-war candidate that many believe was a traitor during Vietnam? ...he will need a hook to capture a few blue states which precludes all the other Southern candidates ...

.....I doubt that Fred would want Giulani or Romney even if either was interested so I would suggest Duncan Hunter from California ...a solid conservative with good credentials ...

.....Timing might be everything but I hope that Fred has not waited a little too long ...the reluctant suitor is seldom the groom .....COLOSSUS

Robert,
honey, why don't you take a couple of aspirins and go lie down!!

Fred's timing is
probably more due to contractual obligations and the legal complications of being in a network show at the same time as a politician (he can thank Mccain). I am awaiting to see what comes out in September. I would like to see a Thompson/Gingrich ticket with Gingrich disavowing is AGW stance.

Worry not, Roberto
Rest assured, I ignore you as much as humanly possible.

thompson vs missus clinton
the right continually berates fred thompson as some type of light weight, more of a hollywood personality than the truly authentic and real missus clinton. I fmemory serves I recall how entralled the clintons were during bubba's reign to be seen with any hollyweird type. Missus clinton acted more than just a little star struck. But the dims continue to push her empty resume as one of great accomplishment and leadership. The left also implies that the attacks against missus clinton are based on her sex, exactly why anyone would care about that, and that should not be an issue. I see plenty of critism abainst missus clinton based on her beliefs in bigger govt and more taxes, not based on her being a woman. But she has entered a new stage. It has become very evident that oblahma and edweirds are mere media creations set up to help home her campaign. She sees both as ridiculous jokes and dismisses them accordingly. But then again this newly found arrogance may work against those two lightweights, it still doesn't change her unlikeable numbers. Despite her protestations to the contrary, she is not an unknown quantity. America knows all they need to about her and further discussions of her ideas and proposals will certainly raise that number to a higher level.America is not afraid of change per se but does not welcome her ideas of tampering with our accustomed lifestyles

Still trusting the GOP?
Really, how many more times are we going to trust another one of the elites? Thompson is such a candidate, and pretty much an opportunist as I see it. Since he was a supporter of McCain/Feingold, exactly what hope does he present for the future of this nation?

The whole idea of voting for any of these Dem/GOP candidates is just pure insanity, one more go around of voting for the lesser of two evils. That result will only serve to convince the elites that they have now secured power beyond the touch of the American people. They will continue to sell the lie that there truly is no other choice, nowhere else to go, and in the end, that their own agenda for the U.S. of more big govenment and less personal freedoms is what we want. How anyone can expect a different result from doing the same thing over and over is a mystery!

Unless we show the elites that they are not the ownwers of this nation, that they are not some aristocracy chosen to rule, we will be stuck with those outcomes I mentioned. This election, more than any other in the recent past, is a chance to reclaim our birthright. If we choose another of these elites, we will demonstrate just how powerless we are in face of the powerful political machines of the Dem/GOP/MSM elites!

If you are looking for a candidate loyal to the Constitution, to smaller government, and more personal freedom, and one who is staunchly against the internationalists, I urge you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Forget the propaganda, ignore the straw man argument that only someone with "experience" should be elected. What experience are they talking about anyway, more of the same old political ways that are steadily eroding everything we believe in? We are the rightful owners of this nation, not the elites, they are only hired help.

Check out the website, what is there to lose? The elites have already stolen our inheritance, we need only to take it back. Thanks, Joe

Fred Thompson
Is not pro abortion. He thinks Roe v Wade should be reversed.

He is for getting the borders closed. And quick.

He was married once in his youth. Was divorced for many years before finally marrying his 2nd and current wife.

He is for winning the war in Iraq.

And he's scaring the heck out of the libs.

His ex-wife is behind him 100%, and has said so many times.

He is for smaller government in our daily lives.

He's for keeping tax's low.

My choice for sure!!

BrianR
Good Morning!

If you recall, awhile back, I said Fred was waiting for The Seven Dwarfs to start falling. Tommy Thompson fell recently and likely more are soon to follow. As close to the vest as he plays his cards, Fred could probably do OK as a professional gambler!

P.S. How do you like your Crow cooked :)!



Hear, Hear
The one comment I completely agree with is that I find it equally incredulous that the massive entitlement crisis facting this nation is not even being discussed. The baby boomers started retiring this year. This means that every year going forward, the costs to the government are going to systematically rise. We can't remotely pay for this - but, of course, you get more votes spending money and cutting taxes than you do cutting spending. So - they've all put their heads in the sand. Hoping, I imgaine, that some miracle will come along so that they can keep ducking.

Thompson knows that this issue will begin to dwarf every other issue going forward - including Iraq.

Living in the past
The Democrats are always fighting battles of yesteryear. They are still defending communists, still trying to get the civil rights act passed, still protesting the Vietnam war, still crying about censorship, still shrieking about women's rights- even though most women work and many hold prominent positions in every realm. Now Hillary is running against George Bush. And they call themselves "Progressives"!

Thompson is a joke.
His only legislative accomplishment is the trainwreck that is the McCain-Feingold bill. (Thompson was one of its most vigorous supporters.) The Democrats will destroy him if he makes it to the general election. He has squat for a leadership record.

RINO
Thompson is a RINO. Beware, those of you who are "with Fred"

Fred
If he gets the nomination and wins the election I think he will only servr one term.Let us hope that he picks a good veep.Mike Pence from Indiana.

fred thompson's positions
it is always amazing that those on the left can evolve positions and that is called adjusting to new situations. Yet those on the right are always locked into the same attitudes that once took even 20-30 years ago. The libs tell us missus clinton has shown "growth" as her political prospects have enlarged. Only the dims can't show any new thinking that has come from any of their leading candidates, especially the missus clinton

hitchhiker
"I also think we have a pretty decent crop of front runners so far. Hillary is making this campaign a fairly plain choice between left vs. right. That is good for the republican candidate. The ultimate repub candidate should make every effort to frame the campaign in terms of statism vs. individual liberty and responsibility and the public will make the correct choice. "

I agree with the choice you laid out.
Statism vs. individual liberty and responsiblity

Problem is, we have a whole lot of statists in our own Party. Let's be sure we don't nominate one of them. Don't just listen to their rhetoric; check out their voting records and memberships held.

Let's choose very wisely. With new wars glooming on the horizon, our open borders, our failing dollar, huge trade imbalances and infringements on our Bill of Rights, we can't afford to make another mistake this time around.

Lt. Taylor
Thanks for the info I suspected as much as I blog with the military alot. God bless you! Stay safe and know I am behind you 110%!

If you have time please come to TH more. We love hearing from the military since the media is braindead.

Hillary as mother?
Yeah, right, Hillary as our "mother" calls to mind Livia from "I, Claudius". No thanks you.

Hillary delenda est.

Republicrats have *NEVER* been...
--
...the party of small, constitutionally limited federal government.

They started out as Whigs, and except for the addition of an antislavery plank in their 1854 platform, they've always been Whigs. It's just that their nominal opponents (the DemaGOP faction of the Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party) "went over to the Dark Side" in 1896, and have been playing Evil Emperor a helluva lot more enthusiastically than the Republicrats ever since.

Let's get that straight, okay? The Repubs are *NOT* conservatives except in the "social conservative" sense of psychopathic preoccupation with religious idiocies, particularly as they pertain to what other people do with their naughty bits.

Occasionally, there arise rare nominal Republicans (like Barry Goldwater) who *ARE* "government-get-to-hellangone-out-of-my-life!" conservatives.

But *they're* Republicrats in name only. Sanctimonious grafting statist slimeballs like Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani and the Bush family are the *REAL* instantiations of what the "Grand Old Party" was meant to be.

That having been correctly observed, what role might Fred Thompson (Whig) play in the election of 2008 to protect this helpless, prostrate nation from the dose of Darth-Vader-with-Tampax planned for us by the DemaGOP faction?

Well, Fred Thompson has a helluvan image advantage. Nothing else, but he's got great screen presence, and that might be enough. It worked, after all, for Reagan.

So consider Thompson for image and a real "small government" hard-line conservative for substance.

Thompson/Paul in '08?

Why not?

Hell, if Bush/Quayle could win in '88 - without *EITHER* substance or image - it might be possible to keep Bubba's Ball-and-Chain in New York, where they deserve her.
--

the baron
I thought the dims already had a mother and now she is running ofr office. Is mother sheehan the holder of the title or are the dims going to become a party of many mothers

Lt. Taylor
"Contrary to what some might claim
A lot of people that post on this site, RonniePaul freaks, are claiming that we in the military are supporting Ron Paul over all other candidates, especially with our wallets."

I'm unclear as to why you brought this up in this thread. And thank you so very much for referring to me and other patriotic Americans as "freaks", for supporting the only Constitutionalist in the race. Do you have a problem with the Constitution, Lieutenant? Is that it? You know, that document you swore an oath to defend? Or, did that slip your mind?

You continue to blather on this site that we are somehow lying about the FACT that Congressman Paul received more donations from the military AND veterans, than any other candidate. Actually, no, we're not lying, Lieutenant and if you don't believe the news reports I'm going to list for you, you can go to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) website and add them up yourself.

"Paul’s active service member donations get noticed"
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pauls-active-service-member-donations-get-noticed-2007-08-03.html

"The breakdown of military spending on the election"
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-best-q2-fundraising-from-soldiers.html

FOX news clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nwZGRrqhfs

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit terse, but you drew first blood.

Military donations
The breakdown? Here you go....

Army Navy USAF USMC VET TOTAL
Ron Paul 6975 7765 4650 1500 1250 22140
McCain 6225 6480 1570 1600 800 16675
Romney 2051 0 1500 0 1000 4551
Giuliani 1450 370 250 0 250 2320
Hunter 0 1000 0 0 0 1000
Richardson 50 750 0 0 0 800
Huckabee 250 0 500 0 0 750
Tancredo 350 0 0 0 0 350
Brownback 71 0 0 0 0 71
T. Thompson 0 0 0 0 0

By the way, thank you for your service. Come home safely.

Who said this?
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

Who said this? - part 2
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, BUT FORCING NOTHING (emphasis mine); establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard...."

SJ_Doc
"Republicrats have *NEVER* been...
...the party of small, constitutionally limited federal government."

Actually, you're wrong. Limited constitutional government is what traditional conservatism is all about. Barry Goldwater revived the concept back in the '60s, but was defeated by the big government statists. But, people didn't forget. Ronald Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform and actually used some of the speeches written for Goldwater. Reagan's most famous speech, referred to as, "The Speech" was actually written for Barry Goldwater. Reagan was the great orator and people heard the message of individual liberty. Unfortunately, he talked much better than he walked, but of course, he had to deal with a horrible Congress.

What has happened, IMO, is that many conservatives have forgotten President Reagan's words of small government, states' rights, personal privacy and responsibility, fiscal responsibility in government, a strong national defense and individual liberty. Many have fallen prey to the siren of big government statism, whether guised as necessary to combat terrorism, "keep us safe", or merely by being convinced to accept it, because the other side is so much worse.

Meanwhile, our country is slipping further and further into socialism; our Bill of Rights has almost been completely torn to shreds; the Constitution as a whole is largely ignored; much of our government seems to think they are above the law.

When are we going to stand up and stop this?

SJ_Doc
You discount the evolution of party politics almost entirely. Did you forget about Ronald Reagan? Have you forgotten that the Democrats have evolved the furthest left they have ever been? Or did you just choose to ignore it completely.

"The Speech"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s06YhQyv3w

There is a reason why Barry Goldwater, Jr. supports Ron Paul.

Lolo
The Democrats have moved left. Yes, I agree. But, don't you think the Republicans have too?

What happened to our traditional conservative principles?

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

Liberty
To an extent yes. Not as far left but farther left than I would like. That is why I have been working diligently, along with others, to clean out the libs.

Warren Small
You have an extremely strange intepretation of history.

DUMB AS HELL
Richard Nixon referred to Thompson as DUMB AS HELL. Well, we elected George Bush for eight years. Why not Fred?

Liberty, Lolo, Mr. Small - Republicrats
--
First, Goldwater was a deviant among the Republicrat "mainstream." If the year had been 1892 instead of 1960, and a proven performer like Grover Cleveland weren't available, Goldwater would have had a good crack at the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, running strongly against that idiot Republican rubber stamp, Benjamin Harrison.

Second, do not misperceive such deviants as Goldwater to qualify the Republicrat faction as having had any genuine adherence whatsoever to the "traditional conservatism" of Jefferson's concept of small and stringently limited government. Study the 51st Congress, the first "peacetime billion-dollar Congress" in U.S. history, which was completely in the hands of Republicrats.

The GOP did not begin its dive into the sewer with Teddy Roosevelt. It began in the muck and has remained there, splashing the filth about with gusto and glee, ever since.

Third, Ron Paul is precisely the same kind of deviant that Barry Goldwater was.

Ronald Reagan (who started out as a New Deal DemaGOP and never really parted ways with his allegiance to FDR) merely recognized that after a particularly dismal presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) had screwed up the national economy, the *only* way to beat the incumbent was to "run in the other direction," establishing a markedly contrasting image and set of policies.

Goldwater's example (and speech writers) were readily available for Reagan to adopt, and he mouthed the "limited govenment" principles as if he really believed in them.

Your "traditional conservative values" do not exist in the Republicrat faction of the Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party.

Never did. Never will.

If you want to *USE* the Republicrat machine to advance those values, you've got to destroy the *real* Republicans - the heirs of McKinley and Smoot and Hoover and Nixon - and take over.

Ready for it?
--

Lolo
"To an extent yes. Not as far left but farther left than I would like. That is why I have been working diligently, along with others, to clean out the libs."

Yes, I agree that we need to purge them. LOL.

Do you agree that these are the traditional conservative principles?

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

If not, please change as you see fit.

What Is Up!
Ronnie Paul’s ALCOAettes are more SCREECHY than usual today.

What’s Up With That?

ALCOA stock down?
ALCOA stock up?
Ronnie Paul running out of money?
Caffeine Overload?

ardis
The question is where you think traditional values should be legislated, or legislated at all. It used to be the case that most conservatives believed that the federal government should only be involved in those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution; leaving all other things to the States and the People.

Somewhere along the line, it seems like we started to believe that for anything to happen, it had to occur at the federal level. Why is that? On one hand, we say we want strict constructionists, but on the other, we seem to want the federal government to be all powerful. Which is it? Because if it is the former, abortion and gay marriage are not issues enumerated in the Constitution and therefore must be left to the states to decide.

Georgetwin
Did your meds wear off? Or, just your manners?

ardis
Rather than answering my question, you just reposted the same exact thing you posted earlier.

What gives?

Let's start with this...
Do you believe in States' Rights?

SJ_Doc
If you are inferring that I am a Republicrat, you can stick it in your ear, sir!

I am well aware that Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater share common principles, which is why I made that very point earlier in the thread.

I will say to you though, that to come over here and start wholesale insulting the Republican Party, is not a good way to get people to listen to you.

ardis
And your point is....? Two wrongs make a right?

Do you believe in States' rights?

SJ_Doc
"Your "traditional conservative values" do not exist in the Republicrat faction of the Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party.

Never did. Never will."

I beg to differ. Reagan spoke of these traditional conservative principles, which is why he was elected. As I said earlier, unfortunately he talked much better than he walked.

There are still a lot of Americans who agree with the words he spoke, even though they were actually Barry Goldwater's words. Many Americans still value independence, free enterprise, privacy and individual liberty.

I do realize the Republican Party has become a home to big government statists, just as is the case with the Democratic Party. However, I stay in this party, because I remember a day when all Americans stood up and cheered when we felt we just might be able to reinstate the dream that our Founding Fathers so diligently laid out for us, of small government and individual liberty. I have hope that more and more will remember and will seek to change our present course which is leading us into full-blown socialism and totalitarianism.

The Democratic Party on the other hand seems to me like one big happy pack of Communist slime.

ardis
The Supreme Court has done a number of unconstitutional things. Which is why we want strict constructionists, right? I don't want them "interpreting" or making law. I want them following the Founders' intent.

I also would like Roe v Wade overturned and I admit that I am a bit torn on the issue of where it should be legislated. My heart says at the federal level, because *I* don't want anymore murders. But, my head and my eyes in reading the Constitution tells me it is not constitutional, so it must be passed down to the states to decide.

Even though it is hard at times, I try my best to not be swayed by what I personally would like to see happen. Because, if I do that, then I also have to accept when an idea is hoisted upon me and enforced at the federal level that I do NOT like.

We as citizens have much more control over the outcome of things at the state level than we have at the federal and if we truly being in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and do not want to further federal government intrusion, then shouldn't we also walk our talk?

Fred's Falling
Why do we need Fred when we have Mitt and Rudy-- two individuals who have actually DONE something. Sorry, Fred may be a nice guy but he is most certainly unqualified to be president.

Liberty
Every time Fred Thompson is mentioned in a column or someone contradicts ANY OF THE ENDLESS PAUL PROPAGANDA you all post, Half a Dozen ALCOAettes start screeching! That is a FACT!

ardis
I forgot to ad that another advantage of getting the federal government out of the abortion decision, is that the current federal funding of baby-killing would also be ended.

"Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

Georgetwin
The thing is, you didn't attempt to contradict anything. All you did is "screech" and toss around insults.

If you would like to discuss an issue, then by all means, do it man.

postmaster
We have had enough RINOs with Bush. We don't need two more.

Georgetwin
By the way, I have no problem with you refuting something that a Ron Paul supporter says. In fact, that is a good thing, as long as you can base your refute in fact. Most of what I have seen however, is simple flailing and innuendo. And when some are proven to be doing so, they refuse to acknowledge it.

You may not like to admit it, George, but the common drawing point of people to Ron Paul is his strong stand on the Founders' intent of the Constitution and individual liberty, that he has backed up with more than 20 years of consistent voting. Fred also espouses some of these same things, although he has a rather weak history of backing up his rhetoric with action, in my opinion. Bottom line, supporters of Ron Paul share some common beliefs that Fred espouses. We disagree on the best way to take out the terrorists, but on a large number of other issues, we are pretty close. The thing is, Fred draws a bit of ire, because what he espouses, is unfortunately not matched by his actions. And then there is that pesky Council on Foreign Relations membership that he holds.

Ron Paul supporters are not your enemy, George. By-in-large they are very patriotic Americans, who place a lot of stock in the Founders' intent of the Constitution and want our federal government returned to its proper role. They most certainly do not want to hand the federal government more power, whether it is for extending the nanny state, or for the military industrial-complex and endless wars. In fact, I can't think of one traditional conservative principle that this campaign does not hold dear. If you liked Barry Goldwater, you would love Ron Paul. So there is no reason to be enemies here.

Ron Paul, 2006 article- pt1
Some of you may hate this, but I thought it was pertinent to the discussion and good food for thought.

-Federalizing Social Policy-

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population."

Ron Paul, 2006 article- pt2
"Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves."

Liberty
THAT IS MY ISSUE!

"Every time Fred Thompson is mentioned in a column or someone contradicts ANY OF THE ENDLESS PAUL PROPAGANDA you all post, Half a Dozen ALCOAettes start screeching!"

When Lt. Taylor & An Army Vet posted to the effect that soldiers thought Ronnie Paul was a WACKO, right away, CruiseMissile, who calls himself a PAULBOT, starts Screeching!

It is just predictable and quite frankly, HILARIOUS to watch!

No insult was intended.

typo
"and if we truly *BELIEVE* in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and do not want to further federal government intrusion, then shouldn't we also walk our talk?"

Georgetwin
What I saw from the Lieutenant was a sad attempt at refuting the FACT that Dr. Paul received more donations from the military than did any other candidate.

He was shown the proof of that assertion and even told he could go add up the numbers himself on the Federal Election Commission's website.

But, did he back down. No. The shrill continued.

Like I said, if you want to refute something with fact, by all means do so. Or, even just give your opinion. But, if you are shown to be wrong, please be man enough to admit it.

Georgetwin
Furthermore, you and a select few who continue to attempt to denigrate Dr. Paul by referring to him as "Ronnie Paul", just serves to expose the IQ of those doing the espousing.

That you could insult a man who has a near perfect Constitutional voting record over 20 years, is beyond belief. Are you some kind of leftist in disguise, George?

I'm still waiting...
for someone to tell me the answer to my "Who said this?" post (3 parts) that I posted at 1:24.

Anyone know?

Liberty
I never considered you my enemy, I disagree with MANY people on here to some degree or another.

I am sure there many fine Americans who support Ron Paul as well all the other candidates. As for me, when Ron Paul made his 09/11 comments, that ended him for me RIGHT THEN!

Also, it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to elect a President from The House. I am not all certain that Ron Paul could win Texas in should he win the nomination.

My whole thing is there are a FISTFUL of Ron Paul supporters who are EXTREMELY ENTERTAINING to watch/read/debate!

That is where the “Ronnie Paul & The ALCOAettes’ label came from. As soon as Fred is mentioned, on cue, this fistful of Paul supporters start singing!

P.S. Quite frankly, you’re starting to get SHRILL!

Fred Can Beat Queen Hillary
Should Fred not win the Republican nomination, I will certainly support Mitt, Mike or Rudy without hesitation. I do believe, however, that Fred has the best opportunity to beat Hillary, the presumed Democratic nominee. This is particularly true if Bloomberg enters the race as an Independent, a candidate with very little distinction from Rudy. Mike and Mitt are excellent candidates and gentlemen of the highest order, but I remain doubtful they can defeat fear Herself in the general election. My doubts originate from their inability to get Republicans fired up during the primary at the national level. Compare their poll numbers to Fred's, who has yet to formally declare his candidacy. I firmly believe Fred will continue to increase his polling numbers once he commits. My only concern with Fred is his willingness to address social security, medicare, and health care collectively when all other Republican and Democratic candidates seem loathe to do so. I personally applaud Fred for doing the right thing, but will the American electorate?

TO ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS

.....Libery etal. ...

.....I hate to be the one to break it to you guys but Ron Paul will never be President precisely because he supports the Constitution ...this makes him a quaint relic of a bygone era to the voters of 2006 ...

.....most citizens today give lip service to Constitutional rights but in reality they don't care a whit about them ...

.....except for the NRA who stands on the Second Amendment and the ACLU who uses the First Amendment to suppress religion in public places ...most citizens cannot name or explain the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights to Lilly, Phylo etal.) ...

.....Many citizens have been conditioned by the Liberal Media to view the Constitution as an out of date document that needs to be revised and updated (A Living Constitution) ...the Liberal Supreme Court (Pre-Roberts) ...ignored the Constitution completely by finding emanations and penumbras to rule on Roe vs Wade and other abominations ...the Liberal/Socialists use the courts to trash the Constitution all the time ...

.....so let's face reality guys ...Ron Paul is a relic of a long forgotten past ...I wish it wasn't so but I am forced to accept reality even when I don't like it ...Paul would have made a great President in 1864 .....COLOSSUS

.....postscript: Stand on a street corner in a major city and ask passers by to name even five of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights ...I think you will be there for a long, long time ...Life's a b*tch and then it gets worse .....COLOSSUS


Has anyone
REALLY paid any attention to the debates so far?? They don't interest me, theyre WAY too early.. Hell, the election is still over a year away.. The entire world can change in that time[took only 6 days to create]..
The thing about this thread is it talks about everything BUT Fred Thompson except in passing.. They have brought up a coupla things that Fred did years ago but don't mention he has repudiated the McCain/Feingold bill, is strong on the border closing, is pro-life and supports the war.. In fact, the fact that he recognizes this was as a war of world proportion not just Iraq, Israel and the USA is the main reason I support him.. That this will be a long, hard war.. One that liberals will screech and wail about all the way.. NO Democrat recognizes that, it's a bumper sticker to them and I don't know of any other Republican candidate that does, either.. I think Paul believes that if we leave the area all will be well.. How ridiculous in view of what the Islam leaders are spouting, constantly..
Fred Thompson in 2008!!

LIBERTY Re 1:24 Post Question

.....I'll take a stab at the question in your 1:24 post ...

.....I recall from history that George Washington warned of foreign entanglements ...so that is my guess ...George Washington ...

.....is your point that Ron Paul agrees with Washington? ...if so you merely illustrate how out of date Paul's thinking is today .....COLOSSUS

baseballdoc
Why do you believe George Washington's thinking is out of date? Seems to ring pretty true to me.

If we show favor to one nation over another, it ticks the other off and puts our nation at risk.

Seems like common sense to me.

Nightowl 871
"is strong on the border closing"

Then, please explain Fred's big fat C from Americans for Better Immimgration.
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TN&VIPID=743&retired=1

Did you also catch how he refuses to rule out raising taxes? Ya just gotta love that.

" The former senator from Tennessee, who is expected to enter the race next month, wants to be the conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani but refused repeated requests yesterday to rule out raising taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/2kwycj


Fred on our "fiscal crisis"
I am glad however that he raising the alarm about our coming bankruptcy. Better late than never.

"The man who spent some 20 years as a Washington lobbyist also proclaimed himself the only candidate willing to deal with what he sees as a looming fiscal crisis for the nation.

"The beginning of the discussion is to get everybody to acknowledge we've got a very, very serious problem,' said Thompson. "We haven't gotten to that stage yet.'

He said Republican candidates are largely ignoring the issue.

"Other than giving lip service to it ... I don't know that anybody is on the campaign trail," said Thompson. He ducked, however, when pressed on specifics."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070817/D8R2VUGG0.html

"We are in the process of gradually bankrupting future generations in this country," Thompson said of Social Security and other entitlement programs that will plunge the federal government deeply into debt over the next decade. "
http://tinyurl.com/2kwycj

Too bad he didn't think about that when he was voting for all those unbalanced budgets, eh?

I guess Congressman Paul has been right about the state of our economy, all along. And yes, he's been warning of the coming bankruptcy of our country, if we didn't change our ways, for years. He is, after all, the ranking member of the House Cmte. on Banking. Did I mention that he has NEVER voted for a tax increase and NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget?

Fox is showing
Hillary praising McCain before a speech at a VFW. What does that tell you about McCaine?

Liberty

.....George Washington's words were applicable in 1780 but this is 2007 and our enemies will have access to ICBM's with nuclear warheads ...I don't think that those were around in Washington's day ...

.....by the way ...the first President to seriously trash our Constitution was a Republican ...Abraham Lincoln .....COLOSSUS

Nightowl 871
"I think Paul believes that if we leave the area all will be well.. How ridiculous in view of what the Islam leaders are spouting, constantly."

Actually, that's not accurate. It's always a possibility, yes, but why should we risk one more American life to interject ourselves into an age old clash of religion that has been existing in this area for year upon year? A President's first duty is to Americans.

There's another issue too. You mention what the "Islam leaders are spouting, constantly". Yes, I have heard it too and don't like it one bit. However, have you also listened to WHY they are upset? For some odd reason, they don't like us occupying and overthrowing their countries. They also don't seem to like the fact that we finance and arm Israel. The same arms that Israel threatens them with.

I'm going back and reading George Washington's warning to us again. Seems like he touched on this very problem.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

You go to the polls
With the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had.

Reagan - Thompson
RockyJones,

Reagan did not hide from his consevative label, yet won in an electoral landslide over the incompetent Jimmy Carter and the liberal Fritz Mondale.

America is basically a conservative nation outside the socialist bastions of New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Whereas, Fred Thompson may not literally fill the Reagan shoes, he offers a clear choice over the left-wing policies advocated by Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic socialists. Who in the American mainstream truly desires income re-distribution, socialized health care, leftist social policies, etc., championed by the Democratic presidential candidates? Note that the Republican candidates are offering a governing philosophy that varies from the Neo-Conservative style of George W. Bush. Fred is a Federalist, fiscal conservative more in line with Reagan than Bush.

I appreciate your commentary, RockyJones, though we differ in our political philosophies.

Fred is not the Great Communicator. Mitt, Mike and Rudy fall short as well. My point is that, given the alternatives, America will select someone with more conservative values than Hillary Clinton.

baseballdoc-- pt. 1
Yeah, I know. I am no fan of Abraham Lincoln.

But, I disagree with you about George Washington. His words still ring true today. Our Founding Fathers studied the different government that had ever existed and chose the best parts out of each one to create our Constitution and our Republic. Do you recall why Rome fell? Or lets talk about something more recent...the Soviet Union. They didn't just fall because of Communism; they fell because they spent so much on their military and empire-building. We are repeating the same mistake, ourselves.

You mention ICBMs. Good point. But, who else has these? North Korea? Pakistan? China? Russia?.... Are we thinking that we need to go overthrow all those countries too, because of what they MIGHT do? Where's the money going to come from, doc?

I'm all for missile defense systems, but instead of threatening everybody, it seems to me that a better course would be to get our own act together, so we once again are something that others wants to emulate, rather than thinking we can force "democracy" on them through the barrel of a gun. It simply will not work. We should trade with these people and talk to them. People don't tend to want to bomb someone that they are making money off of. I would also like to see our military built back up, so we actually would have a military who could defend our OWN country. National defense begins at home, right?

baseballdoc-- pt. 2
If we truly are interested in national security, we should:
1. Physically secure our ports and borders. Build fences on OUR borders, rather than Iraqs. Keep our Border Patrol on our own border, rather than send them to Iraq.
2. Take a good look at all the locations (130 countries) we have our soldiers, all over the world, and determine where we can bring them home. I mean seriously, we still have soldiers in Germany ever since WWII. Do you think maybe Germany might ought to defend themselves now?
Note: If for no other reason, and there are plenty, we must do this because we are almost BANKRUPT!
3. Stop this lunatic nation-building/empire-building kick that we are presently on. It is none of our business what form of government another country chooses to have, or who they choose as their leader, as long as they do us no harm.
4. Talk to all nations. Conduct true free trade with all nations. Be well-wishers to all and play no favorites.
5. IF someone however dares to attack us, or poses an imminent threat, we should use everything we have to knock them all the way to hell and back. When finished, we should come home and resume minding our own business.
6. Get our financial house in order. Right now, we are 9 trillion dollars in debt and are borrowing over 2.5 billion dollars/day from foreign country, largely Red China. Just a week ago, they threatened the solvency of our dollar if we did not go along with their dictate. Is this national security, I ask you? Is it national security to leave the financial health of our dollar up to a foreign country, much less the Communist Chinese? This is pure craziness. On top of that, the FED is printing money like there is no tomorrow and loaning it to the government to cover their spending spree and recently injected billions into the market to cover the housing sector failure. This is exactly where inflation comes from and we have it in spades right now, but it's going to get much worse.

baseballdoc-- pt. 3
The piper is going to have to be paid very soon. We have been doing this for too long and were willing to listen to whomever would tell us that everything was just fine. The reality is that it is not. Our dollar is in the very real danger of collapsing entirely. Do you remember the peso? Yes, it can happen here and it will, unless we quickly change our ways.

This would have been entertaining but...

it's the same ol' pauletts skreeching the same ol' mantra... Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.......

Seems Lt. Taylor really got the pauletts' collective boxers in a bunch. :-) WOW! Insights from right from SOMEONE who is actually in FALLUJAH! Who would have though!

Of course, no one really KNOWS if Thompson will be elected POTUS, but what we DO KNOW is that it WON'T be ronniepaul!


Cheers. :-)




Anne
Are you still pouting over your spanking over under Garthwaite's article? LOL

No one is worried at all about Lt. Taylor. He, like you, doubted the assertion that Dr. Paul received more donations from our active military AND veterans, than any other candidate. And just like you, he was shown the error of his ways.

You make yourself look very foolish Anne, continuing on like this, but by all means, knock yourself out. LOL!

Am I better off today?
RockyJones,

Yes, I am better off today after six plus years of the Bush presidency. Would I be better off under a Republican administration that held greater resemblance to the Reagan era than the current administration? Yes! However, my stocks are higher, my capital gains are re-invested profitably following the sale of much-appreciated assets (thanks to the limited capital gains tax rate the Democrats want to end), my house has appreciated nicely, my law practice is humming along nicely, we have a 2007 Cadillac and a 2005 Jaguar in the garage, an ever-increasing 401(k) balance, etc. Life is indeed good. In fact, I understand that all levels on the economic ladder are doing better than before, though I do not have any statistics at hand.

Remember, I said that the Republican candidates are not running as George W. Bush II - they are proposing critical changes. The Republicans are proposing much greater fiscal conservatism than Bush, for example.

Fred must certainly improve with the campaign strategy. I mean, how much longer can he test the waters without drowning? I am concerned with the delay.

Nonetheless, I believe Fred or Rudy are capable of beating The Hillary absent appearances by Bloomberg or Al Gore, Creator of the Internet.

By the way, I notice you used the phrase "perceived competent" in reference to Gore and Clinton. Are you not in awe of these Democratic stars?

Sam
Yeah, a lot of Republicans wish they could resurrect Ronald Reagan, or at least his words. What they don't seem to understand is that Ron Paul is the closest thing they're going to ever see to Ronald Reagan. I say that, but I must add that Ron Paul has actually "walked" where Ronald Reagan only "talked".

I'm a Goldwater-Republican and I support Ron Paul.

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

Tampa Dave
"In fact, I understand that all levels on the economic ladder are doing better than before, though I do not have any statistics at hand."

You might be interested in taking a look at this.

America's Financial Future (Part 1) – David Walker, Comptroller General, GAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ

America's Financial Future (Part 2) – David Walker, Comptroller General, GAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY

His interview on 60 Minutes:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#controller_general_david_walker

From everything I read, we are in a lot of trouble. Even Fred is saying it now. See a previous post of mine in this thread for a quote and links to Fred's statement about our economy.


Tampa Dave: I agree, either Fred or Rudy

are capable of beating The Hillary. However, I prefer Fred as Rudy is really too liberal domestically for me.



Liberty; I accept your apology
in advance....

But, I'm sure that I'll have to wait until either Fred or Rudy get the Republican nomination....

That is, if you're man enough to apologize. We'll see! :-)





High-Risk Spending
"Last week this column addressed the train wreck that federal spending has become. To score political points politicians will make loud noise about fairly small matters such as earmarks, even while refusing to address the real problem. Namely, that our federal government is too big and does too much. Politicians prefer to pass a bill or create a program every time somebody points to a new social problem; this way they can tell their constituents how much they are doing to help. Instead of rationally explaining the proper role of government, politicians have attempted to play the role of friend, preacher, parent, social worker, etcetera – in essence, whatever any organized special interest can demand.

Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington.

One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur.

You see, while waste, fraud and abuse are very easy to attack, it seems they are much more difficult to actually address within the current federal behemoth. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) puts out a “high risk list” and describes this list as programs with “vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.”

There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts: The list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous.

High-Risk Spending-- pt. 2
What the GAO is saying is that a problem exists, we have been aware of it for 17 years, and it is still not corrected. Of course, with the size and scope of federal activity, including attempting to rebuild societies in the middle east, and massively expanding federal involvement in education (along with thousands of other “programs”), it is small wonder that this list doesn’t really get addressed. Yet it does seem reasonable to ask “If you can’t stop waste in 6 federal programs after 17 years, how exactly will you improve local schools or foreign nations?”

In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them." -- Congressman Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul403.html

Liberty, calm down
--
"If you are inferring that I am a Republicrat, you can stick it in your ear, sir!"

Tch! I would not so insult you. The "Subject" line setup in this forum is lamentable for allowing insufficient space to tuck in a "Re:" where it ought to go.

The one and only time I myself had ever voted for the Republicrat presidential candidate was in 1980, when I was in great dread of Carter achieving re-election.

The nation simply couldn't stand four more years of what that smarmy SOB was doing to us, particularly the crashing value (if you can call it that) of the dollar.

Can you believe spot gold prices topping out at $850 per ounce in 1980, with the *FAR* lower M3 obtaining in this country twenty-seven years ago?

The MSM root-weevils, after all, were calling it a "close election" right up to election eve, and access to alternate (i.e., non-"Liberal") media was not sufficient to disabuse me of the fear.

Talk about an over-the-top response to a terrorist threat....






--
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."

..-- H.L. Mencken

Anne
What on earth would I apologize to you for, Anne? You're such a child. LOL. Even when you're caught in a bold-faced lies, you refuse to apologize.

Anyone interested in viewing Anne's antics, just refer to the postings under Jonathan Garthwaite's last column.

Democratic Party - No Big Tent
I visited the Democratic Party website. Under the link captioned "People", they have a laundry list of constituencies... except white married suburbanites. Should I somehow attempt to fit within the "Rural Americans" label since we are certainly outside an urban locale, or does our Catholic faith entitle us a listing under the "Faith in Action" category? We are certainly not within the "Union Member & Family" category. The Democratic Party candidates want to re-distribute my income, eliminate my private sector health care policy, increase my tax liability, and impose their "It Takes a Village" mentality upon the traditional American family. Political correctness will reign supreme and the First Amendment rights oof conservatives will essentially vanish (Freedom Act). After all, liberals cannot survive or compete in the marketplace of ideas on public airwaves. Remember the Air America bankruptcy? Tolerant? Inclusive? Democrats? The words should never appear in the same sentence.

I favor Fred, Rudy, Mitt, Mike or Huckleberry Hound over the likes of Clinton, Obama, Richardson and Edwards. Oops, I forgot the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Give me a break...

Georgetwin
"I am sure there many fine Americans who support Ron Paul as well all the other candidates. As for me, when Ron Paul made his 09/11 comments, that ended him for me RIGHT THEN!"

Don't tell me, you're another one who thinks he blamed America, rather than telling us the truth that our foreign policy over the last 50 years has led to hatred of America. It does not excuse what the terrorists did for one minute, but in order to defeat them, we must understand their motivation. Is that it?

All I'll say to you George, because quite frankly, I'm tired of saying it, is that he didn't pull what he said, out of some hat. Every single thing he said came directly out of CIA Intelligence Reports, the 9-11 Commission Report, numerous foreign policy experts like Robert A. Pape and Chalmers Johnson, the Chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit and even Paul Wolfowitz. So, you may not have liked the truth, but it is the truth, nonetheless.

Here, read something and you'll know much more than Rudy.
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411

Truth = antics?? Ummm? That's new!

The bottom line is that ronniepaul as ZERO chance of getting the Republican nomination. It just ISN'T going to happen...

But the pauletts absolutely F-R-E-A-K O-U-T with that FACT!

And then they got all riled up when I shared that the troops on the ground actually weren't supporting ronniepaul as the pauletts claim.. Then, low and behold, didn't Lt. Taylor... who just happens to be in Fallujah, posted exactly what the troops thought... of ronniepaul..

But the pauletts absolutely F-R-E-A-K O-U-T with that FACT too!

Oh well..............................







baseballdoc
I understand that a large number of Americans only give lip service to supporting the Constitution. Truly, I do. And I understand the uphill battle in getting people, even Republicans, to actually do more than give it lip service and demand its restoration. The thing is, doc, our country is in deep trouble right now. Soon, those who are going along like everything is just dandy, will know it too. Whether it's George Bush continuing the globalists' plan to sell out our sovereignty to the SPP/North American Union, or the complete collapse of our dollar.

I keep hearing that the lessons from our Founding Fathers are old, as is the Constitution. But, in reality, FREEDOM is a very new thing in the history of this planet. It is totalitarianism that is old. Because of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote for us, we have been a shining beacon of Liberty for over 200 years. But the light is dying. This great experiment of FREEDOM, will soon be over, unless we WAKE UP!

Before its too late, perhaps we should stop to think what made us the freest nation in the world. Was it McDonalds? Or Circuit City? How about cable TV? Or, was it our Constitution? If it was, maybe we should think twice before relegating it to the trash heap of history, along with our FREEDOM.

ardis, you're much too timid
--
Let's establish a correction right at the start. There's no such thing as "a constitutional right."

There are specific articles in the U.S. Constitution which establish prohibitions - explicit limitations upon government infringement - on specified individual rights, but those rights are inherent in the American citizen's relationship with his/her government from the git-go, and serve as a binding restraint upon the officers of government.

The Constitution is the charter putatively conferring legitimacy upon the federal government in these United States, and - per the desires of that grabby little bastid Alexander Hamilton - the power to tax.

To get *that*, Hamilton and his crew of Federalist co-conspirators would have sold every human being with red hair and freckles into slavery, so it's no wonder that they were willing to concede protected status to the southerners "peculiar institution."

Second, the "right to life and liberty" is protected under the Constitution only against government action.

Save that the 13th and 14th Amendments make it impossible to treat any citizen as a chattel slave and impose upon the government officers of the several states the same restrictions protecting individuals' civil rights as are imposed upon the officers of the federal government, what a pregnant woman chooses to do per vagina with a curette or a coathanger is not a matter for legitimate government consideration under the Constitution.

For a number of really good reasons, you'd better hope to God that stays that way.

--

LOL ronniepaul would lose to himself!!!
.

Of course ronpaul BLAMED AMERICA!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

And I QUOTE.....
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."

If that's not blaming America, I don't know what is!!!!!

Which is exactly what Lt. Taylor said the troops objected to sooooo much.

Anyone who can't or doesn't see that is delusional, which is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

There is no dealing with delusional people....

So, let's all move on to Fred Thompson. After all, this column is about Fred Thompson!









Sam
Did you see this new video by Avaroth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ&eurl=

Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Anne...
Getting worried, aren't you?

Just last week....
*Congressman Paul WON the New Hampshire Straw Poll.
*Congressman Paul WON the Alabama Straw Poll.
*Congressman Paul came in 3rd in the Illinois Straw Poll, narrowly losing to Fred Thompson by less than 1 percentage point.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION and THE RULE OF LAW!

You're starting to realize, Anne, that what I've told you is true...

If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul.

If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose.

The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.

Anne - A pastor speaking out about RP
Just for you...

Listen to a pastor, fired up about Ron Paul. Geez, I hope we can get him to travel around and speak. Quite inspirational!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAj7fC82q5A&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIp7CpMj1UA&mode=user&search=

Anne
Check out Liberty this afternoon & the exchange we had. I guess Ronnie Paul gets The Manic/Depressive Vote, The Pschizo Vote and The Prozac Vote.

Georgetwin: Of course they're the maniac

depressive/psycho... delusional vote!!!

No where...on any thread...on any site, do you see anyone go so wild eyed crazy as the pauletts!

Both of us have read some pretty vile rhetoric about Fred and Rudy and Mitt, etc., but not once have we read such over-reaction, ballistic, irrational attacks such as we see with the pauletts if someone just disagrees with them.




Georgetwin: I'm really interested to see

the reaction when Fred does announce. He already has the Reagan folks and money backing him in Calif. :-)

It won't be an easy campaign either way, but I do think that the only two who have a realistic chance of beating the hildabeast are Rudy or Fred, and as I've said before, Rudy is way too liberal for me domestically. :-(





Anne
Some disagree, you on the other hand, just lie.

Cheers.

Anne - Fred
"He already has the Reagan folks and money backing him in Calif. :-)"

He doesn't have all of them, Annie. ;-) Not by a long shot.

Fred Thompson (25%)
Duncan Hunter (19%)
Mitt Romney (19%)
Ron Paul (12%)
Tom Tancredo (8%)
Newt Gingrich (7%)
Rudy Guiliani (7%)
Sam Brownbeck (3%)
Mike Huckabee (0%)
Tommy Thompson (0%)
http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com/news.htm?news_id=8&start=0&category_id=&parent_id=&arcyear=&arcmonth=

Anne
""...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."

If that's not blaming America, I don't know what is!!!!!"

Yeah, you're right, you don't know what is. What part do you have a problem with, Anne. The fact that he actually stated the fact that we had been bombing Iraq for 10 years, or is it the part where he talked about the implications of our actions? Which?

I don't know about you, but I was quite small, when I learned there were consequences to my actions. In fact, I believe that is what we all teach our children. Isn't it? So now, are we going to sit here and say we can do whatever we want to, whether it's occupying their countries, overthrowing their governments, or whatever, and none of it has any repercussions? Get real and grow up!

Nothing EXCUSES the actions of the terrorists. NOTHING. But, we'd better face that we're ticking people off with our interventionist foreign policy, or we'd better get ready to live with the consequences.

So now, when someone has the gonads to stand up and tell us the truth, what do we do... we shoot the messenger. My, that's bright. HE TOLD US THE TRUTH, people. What he said came right out of CIA intelligence reports and was substantiated by the Chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit, the 911 Commission, heck, even Paul Wolfowitz.

It's time to face reality, people.

Fred Thompson

He's a very good actor. How do I know when he's acting and when he is serious.??.

He's for sure CFR. Does that mean anything.??.

He's likable. Is that important to be potus.??.

He's a good ol'boy, I guess. Sounds that way anyhow when he talks. Course that is how he was raised.

But is he a good ol'boy.??. That is the question.

I don't want opinions. I want answers. Answers come the same way we got Bush, a day at a time.

Are we really that sure he's potus material for this constitutional republic you and I were raised up in.???????????.

When you smell of CFR, you smell of defeat for the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Several years later we relearned it with "under God"..........

Is God still in this republic.??.
Hillary says she prays to him all the time. Do you believe that.??.

WHO can WE believe.??.




I'm not going to vote Republican
I'm going to vote for whoever I think can beat Hillary.

Ron Paul is not a Republican, he's a losertarian. The losertarians will pat each other on the back while Hillary marches into the White House. They will be so proud of themselves for loosing on principles. They’ll take us all down the toilet with them.

We must defeat Hillary. If Hillary becomes president, it will be all over for the USA. Checkmate. There will be no more chances. Game over.

At least if Hillary gets defeated, we live to see another day.

Liberty
Are you going to come unhinged completely when RP loses? Because he is going to lose.

Liberty
In an earlier post you accused someone of having bad manners, WHAT GALL!!
Next -In another post you pointed out that "just last week" Ronnie Paul won the straw poll in New Hampshire, won in Alabama, came in 3rd in Illinois. How valid is any of this without knowing how many people were polled. From what I understand, only 300 or so people were polled in Alabama, hardly a mandate.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, Ron Paul came in dead last in every straw poll taken to date, would you still put credence in them then, I doubt it!
"There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see."

ardis is both timid and stupid
--
To the extent that the U.S. Constitution functions to protect your rights as a citizen, it focuses only upon the powers of government.

It is a charter prescribing certain powers and proscribing specific government infringements upon civil liberties (though not limiting those restrictions exclusively to those explicit prohibitions).

The Constitution says nothing about what the private citizen may or may not do to you. It is not binding on the private citizen in that sense.

The Federalists weren't stupid. The prosecution of crimes against private persons and their property were left to the several states. Failing that, most of those states would not have ratified the Constitution to begin with, and Hamilton's machinations would have come to nothing.

Per the Constitution, there is no "mandate" for any rights. It mentions certain civil rights - particularly those which the Crown had violated in the years leading up to (and triggering) the Revolution, and which were correctly considered casus belli therefore, and for which the anti-federalists fought to get specific protections hammered into the charter.

These rights were previous to (and superior to) the Constitution as well as the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution illegally superceded.

Whether a modern judge or cop - or IRS agent - duplicitously pretends to lack understanding of these matters isn't at issue. Any criminal may claim ignorance of the law, and when a government officer commits such usurpation (even if such conduct is generally accepted by idiots like you), he's still very much a criminal.

As for abortion...

Do you know anything abou *HOW* to terminate a pregnancy, dolt? Do you know how tough it is just to get some women through even the first trimester without a spontaneous miscarriage?

Savvy the expression: "Pregnancy Police," idiot?

No, you clearly don't.
--

What sort of chance did Bob Dole have?
--
In 1996, acting per long-established Republicrat policy, the political faction with the best chance to scour Waco Willie out of the Oval Office and get the rugs disinfected nominated the candidate who had the biggest was of bribes - er, "political contributions" - in January of that year.

Of course, the guy was Bob Dole (R, Archer Daniels Midland).

Even with the DemaGOP conspiracy gravely wounded in the '94 by-election, even with the entire country coming thoroughly to grips with what an unspeakable grifter they'd elected to the presidency, the Republicrats nominated *precisely* the kind of backroom Senate deal-maker and Beltway bandit that no honest American ever wants to see in the White House.

And also a guy who couldn't make his saving throw against Charisma if you spotted him extra dice and loaded every cube to come up with a "six."

"Stiff" doesn't even begin to describe Bob Dole. Hell, I used to live in Kansas during one or another of his interminable Senate terms, and the man had the personality of something you watch - from a safe distance - in a shark tank.

So the Republicrats *do* have a foot-shooting habit of nominating presidential candidates who don't even have a chance of getting into the White House for anything except coffee and a photo op.

I don't think that the Republicrat stalwarts really care about their 2008 candidate's "electability" because they've already decided they're gonna lose.

What *TERRIFIES* them is that they might be confronted by a real "small government" conservative who's going to force the campaign to address subjects they really, really don't want to have dragged out into the open.
--

CharlieS: I was waiting for you to post
"God's Busy." :-)


Lt. Taylor ROCKS!!!

And, OF COURSE, he is right! Anybody can make a contribution to any candidate and "claim" they work for this employer or that employer, or they're in the military, etc., etc., etc.

But, whether it's this issue of political support or contributions, or any other issue with regard to our troops, I prefer to get my information directly FROM THE TROOPS THEMSELVES whenever I can.

I've always found that it's best and more accurate to get one's information FROM THE SOURCE rather than rely on second or third hand "sources."

Thanks, Lt. Taylor! You're the BEST! :-)


P.S. I guess either pigs will fly, or you'll be retired before I get an apology from "you know who." :-)



Lt. Taylor
"So don't bother giving me your "facts" and your quotes and links from Ron Paul supporter sites, they don't matter to us..."

FACTS don't matter to you, Lieutenant? Well, ok.

I wasn't aware that FOX news or The Hill, were Ron Paul supporter sites. Is that what you are saying Lieutenant?

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset. Everyone here supports you and the rest of our military men and women.

"Paul’s active service member donations get noticed"
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pauls-active-service-member-donations-get-noticed-2007-08-03.html

FOX news clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nwZGRrqhfs

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit terse, but you drew first blood.

Military donations
The breakdown? Here you go....

Army Navy USAF USMC VET TOTAL
Ron Paul 6975 7765 4650 1500 1250 22140
McCain 6225 6480 1570 1600 800 16675
Romney 2051 0 1500 0 1000 4551
Giuliani 1450 370 250 0 250 2320
Hunter 0 1000 0 0 0 1000
Richardson 50 750 0 0 0 800
Huckabee 250 0 500 0 0 750
Tancredo 350 0 0 0 0 350
Brownback 71 0 0 0 0 71
T. Thompson 0 0 0 0 0

By the way, thank you for your service. Come home safely.

blbnan
"In an earlier post you accused someone of having bad manners, WHAT GALL!!
Next -In another post you pointed out that "just last week" Ronnie Paul won the straw poll in New Hampshire, won in Alabama, came in 3rd in Illinois. How valid is any of this without knowing how many people were polled. From what I understand, only 300 or so people were polled in Alabama, hardly a mandate.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, Ron Paul came in dead last in every straw poll taken to date, would you still put credence in them then, I doubt it!
"There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.""

And your point is.....? What I posted is the truth. Since when is it bad manners to tell the truth of Dr. Paul's placement in the straw polls?

The polls were open to the entire state, per my understanding. Perhaps they would have had more in attendance, but apparently with these polls, the other candidates were not willing to pay for over 100 buses and buy the straw poll voting tickets for people, to bus them in from all over the state, like they did in the Iowa Straw poll. Yes, democracy in action.

Lolo
"Are you going to come unhinged completely when RP loses? Because he is going to lose."

No, but you may. Because if you haven't noticed it yet, Lolo, our country is in BIG trouble right now. I don't particularly want to elect another man like Bush, do you?

I know what Ron Paul is made of, and it is the same type of mettle that we saw with Barry Goldwater. After more than 25 years of reading his speeches and books, and watching his voting record, I have great respect for the man and know he's the right person for the job.

So yes, I will continue to work to get him elected. You see, I don't particularly want to see my country die right in front of my eyes. Do you?

To those calling themselves conservative
Was baseballdoc correct in that Americans no longer care about the Constitution? Not even those claiming to be conservatives? Is this really what we've become?

If so, our country is already gone.

---------------------------

".....I hate to be the one to break it to you guys but Ron Paul will never be President precisely because he supports the Constitution ...this makes him a quaint relic of a bygone era to the voters of 2006 ...

.....most citizens today give lip service to Constitutional rights but in reality they don't care a whit about them ...

.....except for the NRA who stands on the Second Amendment and the ACLU who uses the First Amendment to suppress religion in public places ...most citizens cannot name or explain the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights to Lilly, Phylo etal.) ...

.....Many citizens have been conditioned by the Liberal Media to view the Constitution as an out of date document that needs to be revised and updated (A Living Constitution) ...the Liberal Supreme Court (Pre-Roberts) ...ignored the Constitution completely by finding emanations and penumbras to rule on Roe vs Wade and other abominations ...the Liberal/Socialists use the courts to trash the Constitution all the time ..."