Marijuana.com

newgrowerNY

Paul formally launches presidential bid
03.12.07|My San Antonio

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas formally announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday saying people want to hear his libertarian message of limited government — and he's willing to deliver it.

Paul also announced he will seek re-election to an 11th term in Congress under Texas state law that allows candidates to run for more than one federal office.

The Texas congressman made the announcements during a televised interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program.

Paul said he has raised more than $500,000 on the Internet for the race and was surprised by the support he has received.

"A lot of people want to hear my message,'' Paul said. "I am willing to deliver it."

This will be the second presidential bid for Paul, 71, who ran as a Libertarian in 1988. He placed third with 0.5 percent of the vote.

A staunch critic of the Iraq war, Paul derided government wasteful spending in that war-torn country during the half-hour television program. He also criticized federal efforts following Hurricane Katrina.

Paul derided the federal government handouts after the devastating storm and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's handling of the cleanup and aftermath, which hundreds of house trailers to Louisiana, many that were unused and left to rot.

"So often, FEMA gets in the way,'' Paul said.

Paul said he was running for the GOP presidential nomination to restore the Republican Party – which he said has become the party of big government – and return to a non-interventionist foreign policy.

"The American people are sick and tired of what they are getting," Paul said. "I'm confident the Republican Party has gone in the wrong direction.''

A medical doctor, Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies and is a pro-life candidate. He also supports medicinal marijuana and has argued for a repeal of America's drug war laws.

He opposes federal funding of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and argues for a return to the gold standard.

As a congressman, Paul, of Lake Jackson, represents the upper Texas Coastal Bend region, which stretches from Galveston to Port Aransas and includes the city of Victoria.

He was elected to a 10th term in Congress last November with 60 percent of the vote.

Paul set up a presidential exploratory committee in January and spent three days in New Hampshire last month to gauge support for a presidential bid.

He said he was encouraged by the enthusiasm, and has planned trips to Iowa and Arizona, where other early presidential contests will be held in 2008.

His campaign filed the paperwork Monday with the Federal Election Commission, making him a candidate for the GOP nomination.

"Congressman Paul has a long and consistent record of a true conservative,'' said Kent Snyder, a campaign spokesman, "a record we are eager to put against any candidate for the Republican nomination.''

Republican congressional colleagues have given Paul the moniker of "Dr. No'' for his consistent votes against spending bills.

Paul's lack of popularity in Congress is offset by a national following that adheres to his strict interpretation of the Constitution and libertarian leanings against big government and federal interference in people's daily lives

__________________
Posting Guidelines




Disclaimer: I love to grow

 

reggie_the_dog

If he gets the Republican nomination, the Democrats will have to throw up a really good candidate, like Dennis Kucinich or perhaps Howard Dean or I will vote Ron Paul. In my opinon Ron Paul (R. Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D. Ohio) are the two best legislators in the country as far as voting on issues such as the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the Patriot acts. They are both also very anti big business very pro small business (rare for both Republicans AND Democrats today). Hell if they ran as a president, vice president team as independents I would vote for them. To think that Ron Paul and George W. Bush are from the same political party in the same state baffles me. He is very Libertarian if you ask me. He also has a great deal of respect for the constitution, more than perhaps any other politician in D.C., except perhaps his counterpart Kucinich on the left who opposed the Patriot Act because he called it anti constitutional. Ron Paul is not a great Republican, he is a great AMERICAN!

Plainsman1963

Maybe Paul and Kucinich should become involved with the push for a bi-partisan ticket?
http://www.unity08.com/

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

Buzzby

It is projected that the winners will spend $100,000,000 on their campaigns.

Wow! One-two-hundredth of the vote!

A Libertarian would have said, "It's their problem, not the government's. They should have been insured."

For those of us who paid into the Social Security Insurance system for all of our working lives and are now living on the benefits, that would be a disaster. I'd be homeless and without medical care without Social Security.

There has not been enough gold mined since the beginning of time to cover the amount of money currently in circulation. On the gold standard, money is a debt that the government promises to pay off in gold on demand. In the contemporary world money is largely comprised of private debt, which is traded around. With an attempt to return to the gold standard the economy would grind to a halt.

If the Republican Party was dumb enough to nominate Ron Paul, anyone the Democrats put up would be sure to get elected.

__________________

reggie_the_dog

Why do you say "if the Republican Party were stupid enough to nominate Ron Paul?"

he opposes FEDERAL funding of medicare and social security, he does not oppose STATE funding of these programs. Its just a different way of organizing the system.


His ideas about the gold standard is an effort to have some kind of real asset backing our paper notes. The dollar, the Euro etc have value because the countries that use them are determined to be "worth the risk of loaning money to" in order to keep our economies running. With our current system the bankers that loan the govt. the money it uses control the USA. If they call us on our debt or even loan us less than we need the economy will grind to a halt.


Also when he talks about the government getting in the way of the Katrina effort he has also commented about the government actually getting in the way and stopping citizens from taking their little fishing boats down to New Orleans to help people.

Think about it, FEMA took 5 days to rescue people. France sent rescue workers to God damned Indonesia faster than that when there was the tsunami. FEMA fucked up and W. tells its director "Hey Brownie, yer doin' a heck of a job." Over here in Europe this helped make W. the laughing stock of world leaders.

It is not out of line for a libertarian to say that the feds fuck things up because they are too out of touch with the states. Hell if the Louisiana National Guard wasn't in Iraq they may have been able to help their own state, LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO!!!! Libertarians often do not want the FEDS helping because they believe they are overstepping their constitutional role but they are not automatically opposed to the STATES helping people.

Paul voted against the Patriot Acts 1 and 2, against the war in Iraq, he supports legalizing all drugs, supports states rights to legalize drugs and medical cannabis, and he has criticized W. for being a fuckwit. HE COULD SAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, which did not do too well in the last elections. Many people that vote in the USA are opposed to the war in Iraq and the Patriot acts. Combine that with folks who would just never vote Democrat and you will have a lot more than the 0.5% he got as a 3rd party candidate from and obscure party largely ignored by the media.

 

reggie_the_dog

I like the idea of a bipartisan effort to fix what is wrong in the USA. Looking at D.C. today however, it looks as if the Republicans (President Shrub anyway) are not even willing to work with the Democrats who control the legislature. Perhaps a bipartisan INDEPENDENT ticket could get a lot of votes. Hell if the choice is Clinton vs. Guiliani, well there isn't even a real choice. Democrats and Republicans that both voted for the war, the patriot act, the war on drugs etc. Give me a fucking break. Has no party learned a damn thing from the 2006 elections??? Do they realize how many VOTERS want the Patriot act to be repealed, or the disaster in Iraq to be ended??? Do they ever listen to us average folks????? No, they are too busy taking campaign contrabutions from weapons manufactureres, tough on consensual crime police unions, and basically all other lobbies with a shitload of money.

reggie_the_dog

I thought this over last night, and I understand where the gold statdard could turn a lot of folks away from Paul.

At the same time Buzzby posed the argument that "If the Republican Party was dumb enough to nominate Ron Paul, anyone the Democrats put up would be sure to get elected."

To counter this I pose a different hypothesis, open for critique of course, that if Ron Paul ran as a Republican, he could have the votes of many people that vote Republican IF he clearly explaind that social security etc. today run by the feds, should exist, but on a state level. I also do not really see his as alienating the religious right, his views on abortion and gay marriage are that these should be decisions left to the states. He does, however reckognize that roe vs. wade stops this, but knows that the legislature or the executive cannot change this. In my estimation these hardcore Republicans represent around 35% of the USA. You then have the right wing leaning swing voters who will likely like his calls for a balenced budget and like his "moderate" views on gay marriage and abortion as well as war and the partiot act. (These are folks that usually vote Republican that voted Democrat or did not vote last time because they think W. is running us headlong into a brick wall, imagine another 10% of the population. At the same time, lefties like myself will see that his pragmatic approach to Row V. Wade will not change abortion laws and that his states rights stand on gay marriage will lead to a situation where gay marriage will be legalized state by state, but will not bar this like W.'s proposed "protection of marriage bill". Medical cannabis supporters will like his call for states rights on this question. People against the war in Iraq, the war on Terror (how do you fight a war against a concept?), the Patriot acts, and the war on drugs could likely vote for him if the choice was pro war (all of them), pro patriot act Hillary Clinton. This would be a large chunk of the left. The fact that Ron Paul is pro small business and anti big business puts him on par with the economic ideals of many americans, whether they currently vote Democrat or Republican for other reason, so this will likely not alienate voters. I honestly think that the anti-war/patriot act vote could bring paul a 60 or 65% victory over a Democratic pro war candidate.

Lothar121

There's simply no way Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul could ever be on the same ticket. Their ideas are opposite when it comes to economic issues.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project