Restore the Constitution: Ron Paul for President
I don’t like copying others, but Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement of Paul was too good to pass up. This is why I support Ron Paul:
“Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites’ enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.”
- Andrew Sullivan
I support Ron Paul because Iraq was a mistake and he had the foresight to warn against it. I support Ron Paul because as Goldwater said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” I support Ron Paul because he represents the best of conservative principles and because he is beholden to a true patriotism that embraces the ideas this country was founded upon, not the “successes” of the state.
It’s rare that a man such as Ron Paul runs for president. He is honest, wise, rational, humble and incorruptible. As a former treasury secretary said, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the gang of 535” on Capitol Hill. John McCain even called him “the most honest man in government”.
Ronald Reagan once said, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!”
I couldn’t agree more.
This post was written by AdamRBitely on January 27th, 2008.
Comments: 14
Comments
Comment from Grozet
Time: January 27, 2008, 11:40 pm
THIS IS THE TIME FOR FREEDOM! HOPE IS HERE! MIKE GRAVEL! MIKE GRAVEL! MIKE GRAVEL!
THE ALIENS LIVE!!!
MIKE GRAVEL! MIKE GRAVEL!
. . . sorry, I couldn’t resist
Comment from Ron Paul of Virginia
Time: January 28, 2008, 12:27 am
Ron Paul’s support is alive and well in the Commonwealth. Hope you are signed up to canvass and be a delegate….I am!!
Comment from dennis
Time: January 28, 2008, 12:38 am
Paul-Kucinich 2008!!!!
restore the space program
non-interventionist policy in alien affairs
abolish the IRS, give the money to NASA
Paul-Kucinich 2008!!!!
Comment from Ron Paul of Virginia
Time: January 28, 2008, 7:49 am
dennis,
I can understand that comment coming from someone who obviously supports a President who looked into the eyes of Putin, saw Putin’s soul, and from that determined he was a good man.
I hope you feel more compassionate after 8 years. Do you? Or perhaps you believe we should be in Iraq for another 100 or 1000 years?
Or, maybe you support all this spending and putting Felix Dzerzhinsky on a postage stamp. (Of course this presumes you know who that is–go do a quick google search.)
The good news is that you have no candidate who can match the credentials of Paul so you are reduced to mocking him.
Comment from Mr. Churchill
Time: January 28, 2008, 11:02 am
Hey wait a minute. That was a semi-lucid comment from the same guy who’s been spamming this blog for the better part of a month now.
Of course, I would prefer that lucidity be aimed at a candidate that can win (progress, or in Paul’s case, regression, through pragmatism).
The good news is, we’ve already had several candidates who could match Paul’s credentials AND his positions. They happen to be from the late nineteenth century, but we HAVE…
Comment from Bert
Time: January 28, 2008, 2:04 pm
If you seriously think Paul’s ideas are regressive, I’m not really sure why you’re in the republican party…
Comment from Mr. Churchill
Time: January 28, 2008, 6:10 pm
If you seriously don’t, I’m not really sure what history books you’ve been reading.
If you seriously think that Ron Paul’s ideas mean diddly without the power to implement them, I’m not sure of which Utopian dreamworld you call home.
If you seriously think that I wanted to destroy an otherwise awesome congressman because he swam in a pond too big for him, I’m not sure that you know me.
Seriously.
Comment from Ron Paul of Virginia
Time: January 29, 2008, 3:22 am
Mr. Churchill,
I suggest to you that there is no regressive or progressive. There’s only up or down.
And how is Paul a pragmatist?
PS - Which candidates from the late 19th century do you speak of? I didn’t know any existed that late.
Comment from Mr. Churchill
Time: January 29, 2008, 10:13 pm
The late-nineteenth century comment was in regard to his antiquated monetary policy. Paul is not a pragmatist, which is in large part why he will never be a viable candidate.
The “up or down” comment is simply vacuous. It is a meaningless platitude designed by a pragmatic campaign worker to inspire the masses; which, by the way, amount to somewhere between three and fifteen percent, depending on which state you look at.
Comment from Bert
Time: January 29, 2008, 10:56 pm
The republican party has become the party of pragmatism, ergo why nearly double the amount of young people consider themselves democrats instead of republicans. Pragmatism is neither inspiring nor does it change the dismal status quo.
And I love how after using gold for money over the last 10,000 years of human history, it’s suddenly “antiquated” and “regressive.” Sure, using political fiat money is incredibly progressive - if you favor big government and giving the government control of the macroeconomic aspects of the market. Gold has its drawbacks, but calling it “regressive” is purely naive. It is so much more complicated than that.
Comment from Ron Paul of Virginia
Time: January 29, 2008, 11:15 pm
The real Churchill would have disagreed with you–vehemently–about Paul’s policy being antiquated. As you know Churchill returned England to the gold standard in 1925.
I hardly think it practical or pragmatic to think that paper money can be made to act like gold. Indeed, you’ll have accomplished something that no other society has ever done. So to say that Paul’s views on money are antiquated seems a bit unfair don’t you think? A quick look at paper money untethered from the gold standard shows you the disgusting filthy inflation tax that eats the substance of man’s labor without him even knowing. I would say his monetary policy is far advanced.
“Paul is not a pragmatist, which is in large part why he will never be a viable candidate.” I disagree again. Rep. Jeff Flake is not a pragmatist and he’s as principled as Ron Paul.
“The “up or down” comment is simply vacuous. It is a meaningless platitude designed by a pragmatic campaign worker to inspire the masses; which, by the way, amount to somewhere between three and fifteen percent, depending on which state you look at.”
I hardly think Ronald Reagan would have agreed with you since he used those words. The “left or right” is simply a far more vapid Hegelian dialectic full of lies to control your “masses”.
Comment from Archimedes
Time: January 30, 2008, 1:32 pm
The reason the gold standard is regressive has nothing to do with big or small government, but with the basic principle of capitalism; that wealth can be created.
Since it is obvious, throughout these last 10,000 years, that wealth has been created, it is therefore necessary to give currencies the flexibility to grow in value, something the gold standard simply doesn’t do.
Regardless of his rhetoric, even Rep. Paul excepts this fact, unless he keeps all of his gold under his mattress or buried in his yard, thus keeping it out of the stock market and away from all of our filthy, untethered money.
Comment from Archimedes
Time: January 30, 2008, 1:36 pm
Oh and I would point you in the direction of Reagan’s 1992 GOP Convention speech where he said:
“And who could possibly have so little faith in our America that they would trade our tomorrows for our yesterdays?”
Comment from Mitch Mccarty
Time: November 12, 2008, 11:50 pm
5gi4yavt4wioz9xd
Write a comment