Whatever happened to Ron Paul?

[Gunny]

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The excitement of Rep. Ron Paul’s unorthodox presidential campaign has faded since last fall. The chances were always slim that Paul would get to go to the White House to collect President Bush’s endorsement, as Sen. John McCain did Wednesday.

But Paul scored a victory Tuesday night, crushing challenger Chris Peden in the Republican primary in his Texas congressional district.

Paul’s victory in his heavily Republican district means the 33-year House veteran will be around for at least another two years to voice his dismay both at America’s overseas entanglements and at Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s policies.

Despite McCain having clinched the nomination, Paul said Wednesday he’ll continue his Republican presidential bid.

“I’m still involved, nothing has changed,” he said in an interview just off the House floor Wednesday afternoon. “For the last several weeks, I’ve concentrated on Texas. Even though I was concentrating on my district, I had some pretty big rallies (outside his district). I was at the University of Texas and we had 5,000 people show up.”

Paul said he planned to continue travelling around the country spreading his limited government creed.

Will he speak at the convention?
The Texan said he hadn’t spoken to McCain recently, but would like to address the Republican national convention this summer “if somebody wanted me to. It would be nice. I always assumed it would be unlikely. They might not want to me to.” He said he had 40 or 50 delegates pledged to him.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23485858/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23485858/

I'd say it's highly unlikely he'll be asked to speak at the convention given the way he's been treated by the GOP so far.

 

[jillian]

I'd guess they think someone who got 14 delegates is pretty much a non-issue for them, particularly when he said he wouldn't support any other republican nominee but himself.

Why wouldn't they cut him loose?

 

[midcan5]

Being the good libertarian, he decided darn this is great, all this campaign money, so off he went to libertarian happyland, where he counts his money and praises the free market on Sundays.

 

[trobinett]

Is it true that Ron Paul is the illegitimate son of H. Ross Perot? Its the ears!

 

[Paulie]

So instead, the GOP gives us McCain.

Like that's somehow any better.

 

[rayboyusmc]

What exactly happens to this money that he collected? He sure didn't use a lot on adds.

Does he get to keep it for future campaigns?

 

[Paulie]

What exactly happens to this money that he collected? He sure didn't use a lot on adds.

Does he get to keep it for future campaigns?

He used most of it. Last I checked, he had 8 million left on hand. He may be free to use that in his congressional race, or if he decided last minute to run 3rd party, he could use it for that also.

The man is incredibly frugal, and probably the staunchest fiscal conservative in US politics. When everyone else was going broke and taking public matching funds, or borrowing money to fund their campaigns, Paul was spending his wisely on states he knew he could compete well in.

There's nothing bad to say about that at all.

Also, he has in the past donated his leftover campaign money to the US treasury.

You'll be hard pressed to find another politician who can make that claim.

 

[JeffWartman]

I'd say it's highly unlikely he'll be asked to speak at the convention given the way he's been treated by the GOP so far.

Why would the GOP want him to speak at their convention? Paul preaches low taxes, cutting spending, restoring government to its Constitutional limits, and limited government.

The Republicans Party believes NONE OF THE ABOVE.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Why would the GOP want him to speak at their convention? Paul preaches low taxes, cutting spending, restoring government to its Constitutional limits, and limited government.

The Republicans Party believes NONE OF THE ABOVE.

This is exactly what the GOP believes. It is simply not practiced by the NEO Cons that control it. But that is about to change with McCain at the helm.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

 

[jillian]

This is exactly what the GOP believes. It is simply not practiced by the NEO Cons that control it. But that is about to change with McCain at the helm.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

He doesn't believe in ANY, not any, of the foreign policy or social goals of the repub party. I figure that just because he does the dance on what he *says* the Constitution means, isn't enough for the party to embrace him. And, again... he already said he wouldn't support any nominee but himself.

Watch for Third Party Candidacy...

 

[Gunny]

Why would the GOP want him to speak at their convention? Paul preaches low taxes, cutting spending, restoring government to its Constitutional limits, and limited government.

The Republicans Party believes NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I couldn't say. Maybe because he's closer to being a true conservative than about 75% of the GOP?

The fact that the GOP doesn't support him says a lot about the current state of the GOP.

 

[Gunny]

This is exactly what the GOP believes. It is simply not practiced by the NEO Cons that control it. But that is about to change with McCain at the helm.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

You mean that's what the GOP used to believe in.

McCain is going to change just about what Obama is going to change ... nothing. First off, McCain is running for President of the US, not Chairman of the GOP.

Second, if you want a party that actually believes in fiscal responsibility I'm afraid you'll have to create it. I find it hard to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats anymore where fiscal responsibility is concerned.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I couldn't say. Maybe because he's closer to being a true conservative than about 75% of the GOP?

The fact that the GOP doesn't support him says a lot about the current state of the GOP.

I believe that would be correct

 

[Paulie]

He doesn't believe in ANY, not any, of the foreign policy or social goals of the repub party.

Wow jillian. That's quite an amazing statement to make without backing it up with sources to prove it.

Let's see...social goals? Like pro-life? Pro-life is a Repub party platform, and RP is pro-life, so that's one strike against you so far. Actually, he takes it a step FURTHER, and instead of creating an amendment to ban abortion, he would rather OVERTURN Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states to decide.

Surely in your constitutional wisdom that you like to spread around here, you can at least embrace the idea of states' rights?

What's the liberal rebuttal to that?

And, again... he already said he wouldn't support any nominee but himself.

Well, why should he? Who says you have to automatically support whoever is the nominee? How can a politician be principled, if they are handcuffed and forced to support whoever gets the nom for the sake of the party?

The fact of the matter is, he has enough delegates to where he SHOULD have a chance to speak. You claim 14 delegates, but you get that number from the MSM. It's closer to 60, and that doesn't count states that haven't held their state conventions yet to choose delegates for the national.

It's likely he could have 100 before he even gets to the national convention. That just about earns him the RIGHT to speak, if those delegates make the demand.

Watch for Third Party Candidacy...

As far as I know, he can't run 3rd party while simultaneously running for re-election in his congressional district as a Republican.

You salivate for that though, because to you it means the Dem's are guaranteed the win. I have news for you, they're guaranteed the win REGARDLESS.

 

[JeffWartman]

This is exactly what the GOP believes. It is simply not practiced by the NEO Cons that control it. But that is about to change with McCain at the helm.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Try looking at the voting records and proposed bills of nearly every member of the GOP (save for Ron Paul and Jeff Flake). My statement stands: the GOP believes in NONE of those things.

 

[Paulie]

Try looking at the voting records and proposed bills of nearly every member of the GOP (save for Ron Paul and Jeff Flake). My statement stands: the GOP believes in NONE of those things.

You know what the problem is? There are probably a lot more than Paul and Flake in congress that believe in true conservatism, but the status quo has shifted towards liberalism, especially fiscally, and they don't have the balls to do what Paul and Flake do.

It's funny though, because look at Paul...he's supposedly a kook who spits on his own party, yet he gets re-elected every time he runs in his district.

Do you know about Murray Sabrin? He's running for US Senate out of NJ, my home state. The guy is awesome. He may very well beat the incumbent Lautenberg, who's been there since I was a little kid. We get a couple REAL conservatives back in congress, and maybe the status quo can be shifted back a bit. If anything, enough RP Republicans getting elected can help filibuster the blatantly unconstitutional bills long enough to kill them.

http://www.murraysabrin.com

 

[jillian]

Wow jillian. That's quite an amazing statement to make without backing it up with sources to prove it.

Let's see...social goals? Like pro-life? Pro-life is a Repub party platform, and RP is pro-life, so that's one strike against you so far. Actually, he takes it a step FURTHER, and instead of creating an amendment to ban abortion, he would rather OVERTURN Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states to decide.

Strike against me? Are we having a discussion or playing baseball?

And I thought the nutter was the great libertarian...... no?? Guess he's only into small government when it isn't invading our bodies.

As for overturning Roe v Wade, neither he nor you or the other cheerleaders who talk about his Constitutional acumen know a thing about the Constitution or the body of caselaw comprising our law.

Surely in your constitutional wisdom that you like to spread around here, you can at least embrace the idea of states' rights?

I'm not the one who claims to have all the answers... that would be the "strict constructionists" who sit in front of their computer screens repeating what the loony right has told them.

As for States' rights... no. That issue has been long disposed of when we a) got rid of the articles of confederation in favor of the Constitution; and b) when the South lost the Civil War... end of story, honey.

As the South lost that battle... the whole states' rights sham is only the battle cry of the radical religious right who thinks they should make everyone's moral decisions for them... youi know, the gay haters, the people who hate civil rights' laws, etc... those folk.

What's the liberal rebuttal to that?

Dunno... but you guys are radical, not conservative... by definition, conservatives don't want to destroy everything.. they want to maintain status quo.

You should find a new name for yourselves because you aren't conservative.

Well, why should he? Who says you have to automatically support whoever is the nominee? How can a politician be principled, if they are handcuffed and forced to support whoever gets the nom for the sake of the party?

He shouldn't do anything he doesn't want to. But then his supporters should stop whining that the repubs aren't giving him a platform,

The fact of the matter is, he has enough delegates to where he SHOULD have a chance to speak. You claim 14 delegates, but you get that number from the MSM. It's closer to 60, and that doesn't count states that haven't held their state conventions yet to choose delegates for the national.

He has 14 delegates... you've been saying how he's going to have all this support... get a grip and get it together. His candidacy went nowhere and he's the blip I said he was going to be. But the repubs certainly aren't going to give him a forum when he won't support their candidate. Do you think they're stupid?

It's likely he could have 100 before he even gets to the national convention. That just about earns him the RIGHT to speak, if those delegates make the demand.

He has no "right" to anything except death and taxes... like I said, you don't get to speak when you won't support the candidate. I'm sure he's a savvy enough politician to understand that.

As far as I know, he can't run 3rd party while simultaneously running for re-election in his congressional district as a Republican.

Awwwwwwwwwww... poor Ronnie... he had to makea decision. If it were about principle, he'd make the run.

You salivate for that though, because to you it means the Dem's are guaranteed the win. I have news for you, they're guaranteed the win REGARDLESS.

It would amuse me because it's what I've expected from RP all along. I never thought he was going to have any greater impact than Ross Perot.

But yes, would make the white house a hop, skip and a jump. I'm ok with that. But salivating? I just can't wait for the repubs to stop doing the damage they've done for the last 7 years... so it is a rather pleasing thought.

I can also tell you that I hate cults of personality. I think they're dangerous... regardless of whom the focus of the cult of personality is (at least politically... you want to worship someone, follow a rock band).

 

[nibor]

He won't be elected because he's NOT a "CLUB MEMBER"..................

 

[Zoomie1980]

Strike against me? Are we having a discussion or playing baseball?

And I thought the nutter was the great libertarian...... no?? Guess he's only into small government when it isn't invading our bodies.

As for overturning Roe v Wade, neither he nor you or the other cheerleaders who talk about his Constitutional acumen know a thing about the Constitution or the body of caselaw comprising our law.



I'm not the one who claims to have all the answers... that would be the "strict constructionists" who sit in front of their computer screens repeating what the loony right has told them.

As for States' rights... no. That issue has been long disposed of when we a) got rid of the articles of confederation in favor of the Constitution; and b) when the South lost the Civil War... end of story, honey.

As the South lost that battle... the whole states' rights sham is only the battle cry of the radical religious right who thinks they should make everyone's moral decisions for them... youi know, the gay haters, the people who hate civil rights' laws, etc... those folk.



Dunno... but you guys are radical, not conservative... by definition, conservatives don't want to destroy everything.. they want to maintain status quo.

You should find a new name for yourselves because you aren't conservative.



He shouldn't do anything he doesn't want to. But then his supporters should stop whining that the repubs aren't giving him a platform,



He has 14 delegates... you've been saying how he's going to have all this support... get a grip and get it together. His candidacy went nowhere and he's the blip I said he was going to be. But the repubs certainly aren't going to give him a forum when he won't support their candidate. Do you think they're stupid?



He has no "right" to anything except death and taxes... like I said, you don't get to speak when you won't support the candidate. I'm sure he's a savvy enough politician to understand that.



Awwwwwwwwwww... poor Ronnie... he had to makea decision. If it were about principle, he'd make the run.



It would amuse me because it's what I've expected from RP all along. I never thought he was going to have any greater impact than Ross Perot.

But yes, would make the white house a hop, skip and a jump. I'm ok with that. But salivating? I just can't wait for the repubs to stop doing the damage they've done for the last 7 years... so it is a rather pleasing thought.

I can also tell you that I hate cults of personality. I think they're dangerous... regardless of whom the focus of the cult of personality is (at least politically... you want to worship someone, follow a rock band).

Uhh. "strike" is a baseball term, not basketball....

 

[William Joyce]

Why would the GOP want him to speak at their convention? Paul preaches low taxes, cutting spending, restoring government to its Constitutional limits, and limited government.

The Republicans Party believes NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Indeed.

As symbolized by its new offering for president, it believes in multiculturalism, open borders, amnesty for illegals, affirmative action, endless wars, endless spending, no Constitutional limits on anything (except criminals), abortion (see what McLame says about it), and bashing Christians.

With a GOP like this, who needs Democrats?