Could a hot topic catapult a GOP second-tier candidate into the 2008 presidential nomination?

Earlier this year, it looked like illegal immigration could be that topic. It brought headlines to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and headaches for President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Now Republicans seem united in opposing illegal immigration. In last week's presidential debate, McCain, after making an insensitive reference to "the Guatemalans" on Mitt Romney's lawn, said, "No one, by the way, is for amnesty. I and the president of the United States, both of us from border states, came forward with a plan that we thought was comprehensive and workable with the priority being border security, which remains my position."
What remaining issue could spark an insurgency? Iraq. Anti-war Rep. Ron Paul of Texas articulated his anti-war argument in New Hampshire.

"(We've) lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed," he said. "How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there?

"How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home."

Given US commitments to Iraq, a pullout seems unlikely, and Paul will have plenty of chances to reiterate his views.

Much type and hype have been exhausted on the Hamlet of Tennessee, Fred Thompson. Perhaps Republicans, Democrats and Americans in general should instead follow the consistent and relevant candidacy of Ron Paul.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, anti-war voice of the Republicans, continues to blast his party for its militaristic stances.

The New York Times reported a testy exchange on Iraq between Paul and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Wednesday's GOP debate.

"The American people didn't go in," Paul said. "A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy."

"Congressman, we are one nation," Huckabee replied. "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America."

This isn't the first time Paul has drawn ire from his conservative colleagues. Pat Buchanan listed as "the decisive moment of the (Republicans' May) South Carolina debate" a confrontation between Paul and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"Hearing (Paul) recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War," Buchanan wrote, "(Giuliani) broke format and exploded:

"'That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"'I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it.'"

CNN reported in October 2002 that Paul was one of six House Republicans to vote against President Bush's resolution on Iraq. Consistency hasn't distinguished most of the other GOP presidential candidates. Can Paul's persistence make an impact?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

On Fox News last night, the GOP candidates -- sans Fred Thompson -- went at it again. There were some more fireworks than in previous face-offs and the race is starting to get more heated. Iraq, immigration, abortion and the greater War on Terror were the main topics with immigration and Iraq taking up the most time.

Winners would include John McCain although it's too little, too late and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had a sparring match with Ron Paul in which Huckabee definitely had the crowd on his side and in my opinion won the match. You can see why Paul attracts some devotees but I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds that his notion that the "neocons" led us to war and not the nation as a whole rings hollow. Paul is essentially rewriting history as he knows full-well that the President went to Congress for approval and went to the UN as well. In fact, the process was extended because of that and that allowed Saddam to set up the insurgency in my opinion. So the idea that a few "neocons" got us into war is ludicrous at best. Huckabee is running a decent campaign being that he came from nowhere.

McCain hit some good points and came across as prepared and on his game, unfortunately he sank during the "shamnesty" bill imbroglio and can never get back to the point he was, especially with Fred Thompson now in the race. A McCain upset in the early primaries is a possibility but not probable. The Arizona Senator had the funniest line of the night when busting on Thompson for missing the debate and doing the Leno show: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," although McCain is four years older.

Rudy Giuliani didn't make any huge mistakes but he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. He was Mayor of New York, we all know he was Mayor of New York and we all know his record in New York. Start talking about the rest of the country, Rudy.

Romney had the best soundbite of the night:

And if it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we're going to go. Because we're going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people.

And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do.

That's pure red meat to Conservatives and supporters of the War on Terror. He scored pretty well on that and his overall answers on Iraq and immigration were good except when Giuliani called him on "sanctuary" issues.

Finally, Duncan Hunter , Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo haven't been able to make a move and in the case of Hunter it's disappointing. He's a good candidate and I would hope he would at least be considered for a V.P. slot or at the very least a high-level cabinet position. As for Tancredo, make him the head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the border will be sealed immediately.

The next debate will be a bit more interesting as the entire field will be there and I would imagine one or two of the lesser candidates will have dropped by then.

Hit the link above as Instapundit has a roundup of those who blogged events as they were happening.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Here's hoping she's OK:

Carol Paul, wife of Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul, was hospitalized today in Iowa, where the couple was awaiting results of a statewide straw poll on the GOP presidential contenders.

Carol Paul, 71, was taken to a local hospital after suffering shortness of breath and low blood pressure, said Kent Snyder, a spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

A presidential campaign is a serious grind on all concerned and the fact that it is now starting two-years out doesn't help. The candidates spouses are there for nearly every event and have to glad-hand and smile the entire time, a process that has got to be tedious at best. The fact that she is 71, where most of the other candidates wives are younger is something to be taken into account as the travails of the stump must be trying for someone twenty years younger.

I hope that Carol Paul takes a break from the rigors of campaigning and gets some rest as there are more important things than campaigning for primaries that are 4-5 months out.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Republican, Dr. Paul Broun Jr. defeated the Republican State Senator Robert Whitehead for the seat formerly held for Rep. Charlie Norwood. Since no Democrat finished in the top two in the September primary, this seat was a given for the Republicans. So who cares? What is the big deal?

Dr. Broun was way behind in the polls. He had very little money. Somehow, he put together a coalition of liberal Democrats and unhappy Republicans and beat his opponent by 1% of the votes cast.

In his campaign, he promised that before voting he would apply this four way test:

"Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford? He has said that, like libertarian congressman and fellow physician Ron Paul of Texas, he will always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with him and consult it before voting. In an effort to limit pork-barrel "earmark" projects, he says he will even apply that standard to requests for federal funds made by local officials in his district."

The article provided the following comments:

"Columnist Robert Novak says Dr. Broun's victory has terrified those incumbent Republican House members who had thought themselves safe for re-election in 2008 primaries. The pro-free market Club for Growth, which helped knock off at least one pro-spending GOP House incumbent in a 2006 primary, should feel encouraged by Dr. Broun's victory."

Right now people are very unhappy with their elected officials. The spin isn't working anymore. People are beginning to wake up and vote what they believe in and they are listening to the candidate who really has something to say. It is possible that Ron Paul was the real winner in this campaign.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hey, why not?

The Ohio Democrat and the Texas Republican have a significant bond: They're antiwar activists detested by their party establishment who, on a bipartisan or third-party ticket, could command significant grass-roots support.

During Monday's debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich used his time extensively and expertly, detailing his anti-war credentials. His finest moment came in response to a questioner who cited the flags that "covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son," and asked, "By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?" Kucinich replied, "The underlying assumption here is that we're going to be in Iraq until the next president takes office, and I reject that totally. People can send a message to Congress right now -- and this is in a convention of this appearance -- they can text peace, and text 73223, text peace. Send a message to Congress right now, you want out."

If Kucinich really wants the U.S. out of Iraq, he should transcend party politics and connect with Republican candidate Ron Paul.

Describing a past Republican presidential debate, Pat Buchanan wrote, "Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, 'If I had only known then what I know now ...'"

As PJB implied, antiwar voices have more support than the establishments of both major parties would think. One-issue candidates, from Ross Perot to Steve Forbes, don't do too well in elections. But the Iraq war is one of the biggest foreign-policy issues of our time, and two determined candidates could stun the know-it-alls with a surprise run.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

One of Ron Paul's men in the field is worried about the nice group of followers the candidate has attracted:

Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."

Paul also said that he sees no problem with the John Birch society -- a group of conspiracy theorists who see bogeymen every where.

The Paul campaign has been interesting to watch. He has amassed a strong core of zealous supporters who act within seconds to engage anyone who they perceive as wronging their man. The problem is that -- just as described above -- the people he is attracting are fringe lefties and righties who have no where else to turn. A substantial portion of the groups believe that 9/11 was an inside job and rabid Israel haters.

I know this is a hit piece by the Times and they would never attack an John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Baracl Obama. But what they are saying is pretty damning. The facts are the facts and it paints a picture of a campaign that has been somewhat successful in organizing, but not in appealing to mainstream America. Paul's positions are not the norm and as such he has attracted a following that is dedicated, vigilant and small.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

We've known for quite some time that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther" (or at least supported by those who are)--one who believes that 9/11 was done with the knowledge or complicity of the Bush administration. Now he's agreeing that conspiracies that have not yet happened will in fact come to pass:

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.

"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

He believes that a terror attack will be staged to allow the evil Neo-cons of the Bush administration unimpeded access to attack Iran.

OK, I've had serious issues with Ron Paul's campaign. Besides his hypocrisy on earmarks and other issues, he's pretty much been...well, sane. Now, I'm not quite sure.

Here we have a presidential candidate (sure, one who is polling at 0%) who is saying on the record that he believes the current administration is capable of faking a terror attack, which will kill people, simply to advance their ideology. That's not campaigning, that's in the realm of JFK conspiracy theorists and Heavens Gate.

I was a huge critic of Bill Clinton and his policies -- including his non-action when the embassies and the USS Cole were attacked. I would never, ever, suggest that Clinton was capable of staging an attack to push his policies through. Maybe I'm naive in that assumption about any government official, but for Ron Paul to even consider this -- let alone say it out loud and on the air--is inconceivable to the average American.

Ron Paul's campaign has attracted a large Internet following, one that is boisterous and vocal (watch the comments to this post), but to think that they could defend this is preposterous and downright scary. The thought of the Ron Paul Brigades in tin hats is, of course, amusing though.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The esteemed representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul writes this on his Web site:

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours.

Hmmm. If that's the case, why is Rep. Paul asking for megabucks in earmarks for his district in Texas?

Read these requests (file in PDF) and note how vague they are and the lack of concrete numbers asked for. There are over a hundred requests for funding of various projects including "marketing wild American shrimp" to "construction" and "engineering services." The requests must be in the high millions or billions of dollars.

Paul seems to have adopted the "do as I say, not as I do" approach to governance so popular with the left. Perhaps Rep. Paul can forgo all earmarks to set a good example for the rest of Congress. He can be the anti-pork leader in the bloated legislature. Come on Rep. Paul, I challenge you to drop every single request for earmark funding and help us lower the debt. That seems to be your goal, but alas, I foresee you continuing your high-spending ways.

Hat tip: Ace, who is not nearly as nice as I've been.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Since it's Friday, I thought I'd write something on the light side. I couldn't think of anything lighter than the gravitas of the Ron Paul campaign.

Paul is a congressman from Texas who calls himself a Republican but is more of a neo-libertarian. He constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation is the only true interpretation. He has a rabid, small following who Google his name three times a day (this will help them find this piece: Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul) and comment on every Web site that mentions him. If what is said is derogatory, they become venomous and launch ad hominem attacks at the writer, kind of like LaRouchians. They go to every Internet presidential poll and vote for him repeatedly and then carp that America loves the man because he won a poll they rigged.

But let's look at Ron Paul on the issues. Let's start with national security:

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

He's against the Patriot Act, which has been used successfully in numerous cases and has proved to not be as intrusive as Paul and liberals have said.

I do agree with Paul on several issues -- immigration reform and tax relief -- but his stand on national security is one I'll never get past. We are fighting them over there and not here. We have not been attacked in the U.S. because of the WOT and Paul knows this. He just chooses to ignore it.

He's a small-time candidate who will maybe get as many votes as Ralph Nader in a good year. He has a bit of an Internet recognition thing going but ask 100 or so average Americans on the street what they think of Ron Paul and you'll get 99 blank stares and one guy who will agree with Paul (or his ghost-writing staffers) that the Israel lobby runs the U.S.

But Scott, you'll all say, "he's won every major poll after the debates on MSNBC, CNN, blah, blah, blah.."

I'll say, "so what?" These polls mean nothing. Does anyone think that Hillary or Rudy have an e-mail list that they send out information on these votes urging their supporters to vote? Of course not, because it means nothing. Look at Rasmussen or any of the other polls, at present, Ron Paul is carrying at best 3% and is not even a footnote at Real Clear Politics. In other words, his campaign is a sham.

It's nice that he has automaton supporters who bristle at every cross word said about their hero (believe me, I'm glad they're occupying themselves on the net), but that and twice as many of you might give you .0008% of the total American vote.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

And so it is in the year 2007 when you say something and become famous or infamous within minutes. Ron Paul's former assistant was perturbed at what the congressman had to say about the War on Terror and Muslim "root causes." Today, he decided to do something about it (note: the link to Redstate is a bit slow due to heavy traffic):

I am calling on Ron Paul to resign his seat, sooner rather than later. Otherwise Congressional District 14 voters from Victoria to Galveston will appear to be endorsing his treachorous, and near treasonous views on foreign policy.

...I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, the statements by Ron Paul and the rebuttal by Rudy Giuliani are the only two things to be remembered from this debate a year and a half out from the election. Paul may well have destroyed his career and Rudy bolstered his chances of gaining the nomination.

Paul is a ten-year Congressman no one, short of political junkies, had heard of until the last few weeks. Come November 2008, I suspect he will return to oblivion as Texans won't take too kindly to a sitting representative saying that America brought the attacks on ourselves. He's now an outcast and will remain so when it comes time for cash to be raised.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican candidate for president in 2008, has had his name linked to a group with rather specific reasons for opposing the Real ID program.

Paul "has appeared on the Endtime radio program," the AP reported in a March 11 article entitled "Biblical prophecy finds way to legislators in battle over ID plan." Endtime Ministries, the AP explained, is an organization " whose magazine, radio show and outreach examine (sp) current events through the prism of Christian apocalypse."

The article's title was referring to state legislators -- some of whom, the AP reported, believe the Real ID program for upgrading driver's licenses "is a beastly plot that will draw the world closer to the apocalypse." The article quoted Missouri state representative Jim Guest: "People are very concerned if the federal government gives you a number, it will be the mark of the beast."

Today, I took out my trusty King James and read Revelation to see what the book actually said about the mark of the beast. From Chapter 13, verse 11: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." Verses 16-17 continue: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

The public deserves to know about Paul's links to Endtime. An article in Endtime Magazine (May/June 2006 issue, pp. 20-21, "What is the Mark of the Beast?") explains one reason why the group opposes Real ID: "The mark of the beast will be required for a person to buy and sell," Endtime founder Irvin Baxter Jr. wrote. "The national ID, which will be implemented in America between now and 2008, will be required to hold a job or open a bank account ... Will the national ID soon become the mark of the beast?"

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Appearing on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Paul said he was at first reluctant to run, but that "a lot of people want to hear my message and I'm willing to deliver it."
...
"I'm very confident the Republican party has gone in the wrong direction," Paul said in his C-SPAN appearance. "We used to be the party of small government. Now we're the party of big government."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments