Ron Paul attempting to hijack Republican convention November 27, 2007
I’ve held off and held off and held off on this post, but it’s time to set the record straight about Ron Paul.
First, let me say this, and there are a few avid readers of this blog who I respect, but simply don’t support who they support. So, because of them, I have really held off writing anything negative about Texas Congressman Ron Paul because, well, he and his candidacy are irrelevant.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love people being involved in the political process. And, everyone out there has a right to their own opinions about who they support for President.
And, there is no doubt, the small amount of people who support Ron Paul are fervent in their beliefs.
At the beginning of the convention process, I said an outsider candidate with little support, but with a strong grassrooots organization, could come in and make a statement because of the wide open set-up of our new party primary convention.
Let’s be honest here.
Any Republican advocating surrender and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, allowing that country to completely implode is not going to get more than 2% of the Republican Party. And, that’s exactly what Ron Paul has.
When I saw the Gazette weep with excitement about the amount of money Ron Paul raised last quarter, I said, uh-oh.
You could see it coming.
So, the Ron Paul people have been coming out in droves and signing up to be At-large Delegates to the State Convention. In fact, at this point, I believe they are ahead in the ‘at large’ category of Delegates. Of course, in counties where there are contested elections, they will lose.
And, the problem with this, and the problem with me writing about it, is it only draws more attention to the Paul candidacy, exactly what they want.
First, let me debunk a few myths.
That Ron Paul’s fundraising is unbelievable. Please. Lyndon LaRouche would haul in millions as well and his candidacy probably had a better chance of winning than Paul, meaning 0.001%.
Secondly, Paul’s stance on an immediate surrender in Iraq simply won’t sell in a Republican primary.
But, he is a media darling and he is a media darling for two reasons. He is different. And, trust me, the media loves ‘different.’ It gives them something to write about.
But, more importantly, Ron Paul lines up with the liberal media and the Democrats on surrender in Iraq. And, the fact that a Republican candidate actually espouses something the rest of the party opposes is, well… different.
So, that means that despite only garnering 2% of the polls, Paul gets attention.
And, needless to say, he will get attention here because his near fanatical following is willing to drop $25 in an open convention process to get their names on the ballot. So, while his supporters who have signed up have little chance of winning their local county elections, they are again able to generate press because they are signing up people.
I have nothing against the people who support Ron Paul. They have every right to do so. But, the excitement and the reason they are even on the map is because they line up with the liberal media on the issue of Iraq. Thus being different generates press, Ron Paul generates press, heck even I couldn’t help but comment on his candidacy.
But, he won’t win the primary.
In fact, he won’t win a state.
Actually, he won’t garner more than 10% ever in any poll that is ever run and actually will most likely remain right where he belongs… among the 2% of contrarian Republicans who are against Bush and Iraq.
They will attempt to hijack the convention, but they will not succeed. Most Republicans realize this is a serious process for serious candidates. And, whichever of those candidates win, the one thing I can assure you of is that it won’t be Ron Paul.
378 Responses to “Ron Paul attempting to hijack Republican convention”
Who would we be surrendering to? Are we at war with Iraq? Are we at war with any nation? Hmmm…
Well, now you can say goodbye to YOUR political career, Senator Sprouse. You know all those people you will need to re-elect you? They will be Ron Paul supporters. Guess who they are NOT going to vote for now?
It truly is a foolish move to underestimate Ron Paul’s support. I suspect they are planning a replacement for you as I write this.
Bye Bye and thanks for indebting my children with the deferred payment plan view on spending.
You’re exactly right. Although I have encountered a few semi-sane Paul supporters out there, most of his supporters are paranoid, delusional, and totally out of touch with reality. As for Rep. Paul, he is hopelessly naieve about the world in which we live (yes, the Islamofascist terrorists are out to get us and will not stop until they kill or at least subjugate us) and totally out of touch with the reality of what can be achieved on the domestic front.
The next thing we have to worry about is a lot of these people filing to run for legislative and local offices and becoming potential embarassments for the party where they run in unwinnable races and wind up saying and doing incredibly outlandish things for which we as a party have to apologize.
Unlike Virginia, West Virginia does not allow its political parties to declare that they will not field a candidate for office. If someone wants to run for an office where we have no chance, he or she has the righ tot do so if he or she is legally eligible to run and pays the filing fee. We need a similar law in West Virginia.
I am a conservative and a realist. I also know that if we compromise too far in the quest to stop Hillary, we will wind up with a third party spoiler candidate who will appeal to a small but crucial percentage of the electorate who insists on casting a “pure” vote of conscience and alllow Hillary to win with a plurality when she would never win a 2-way race. That’s why I’m supporting Fred Thompson.
“If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how then shall we stand? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.” ~George Washington
Jim et all,
I read your comment here, and I was relatively horrified by your unfortunate experience in not running across individuals who can defend the principles of Congressman Ron Paul. I sat at a table with you with other presidents of the student chapters of the Federalist Society, and I do not recall you being particularly forward in any defense of Former Senator Thompson or any of the other “conservatives” running for the White House. I suppose you would lump me in with the ” few semi-sane Paul supporters out there” you have run across. How touching. I wish you had the courage to tell me that directly at our meeting rather than use internet anonymity to attempt to discredit principled supporters of a principled conservative. Your use of the term ” Islamofascist terrorists ” is mind-boggling. Are you even aware of what the definition of fascism is? It is far closer to the interventionist welfare-regime created by FDR, strengthened by LBJ, and expanded by GWB, than it is to the world-wet-dream of Osama bin Laden in a cave in Pakistan.
You wrote ” The next thing we have to worry about is a lot of these people filing to run for legislative and local offices and becoming potential embarassments for the party where they run in unwinnable races and wind up saying and doing incredibly outlandish things for which we as a party have to apologize.” Well, now you’ve personally launched insults at me, classy sir, classy. Ah, forgive me, I had not noticed I am not a lifelong Republican with conservative credentials far in excess of your own… how dare I contemplate civic action to advance the principles of individual liberty, the rule of law, government limited to the defense of life, liberty and property, and the strict enforcement of the text of the U.S. Constitution… how ashamed and abashed I must make you feel to open my heretical mouth. Apparently you are unfamiliar, or are disagreement with John Quincy Adams when he wrote “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” Apparently also in opposition to Henry Clay in his quip, “I’d rather be right than President.” I understand, you are not concerned with principles, but with power. It is a Machiavellian pursuit, to prevent one’s opponent from gaining the coveted reigns of the state-apparatus…charming thought. Perhaps you would listen to the words of Thomas Jefferson, “In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Why not support a strict constructionist for election to the White House? Why only advocate the appointment of strict constructionists to the courts when we need them in all branches? Do you even realize that you, with your current position and delegation of political support, would oppose Justice Scalia if he were running for office? If not, think on it. Would you support Clarence Thomas if he ran for political office? I mean, he does want to completely revolutionize constitutional jurisprudence… how wacky is that?
I happen to be a life-long conservative, from a proud family of Reagan supporters, son of two activist pro-life physicians. I am a graduate of Hillsdale College, a second year law student, the president of my chapter of the Federalist Society, the precinct co-chair and several-time state delegate for the Republican Party of Rochester, MN, and am a Blackstone Legal Fellow of the Alliance Defense Fund. I support Congressman Paul and his principles wholeheartedly.
Congressman Paul believes not in isolationism as has been repeatedly asserted, but in non-interventionism. A non-interventionist policy position is not based on sticking our government’s head in the sand as it were, separating ourselves from the world, but on the principle of non-encroachment in the affairs of other sovereigns, so long as they do not violate our sovereignty and the lives, liberties and property of our citizens. Iran’s interest, as is the interest of all nations, is in self-preservation. Actions have consequences, ideas have consequences: stationing foreign troops among a population opposed to their presence is an invitation for attack. I seem to recall a time when American colonialists revolted against the unwanted presence of foreign troops among our people… a revolt considered justly by us a liberating war for independence against tyranny.
Liberty is a good thing is that it means leaving people to live out their own lives in their own way, while we do the same. Congressman Paul extends this principle beyond his fellow American citizens, and believes that other peoples around the world, so long as they restrain from attacking us, should be left inviolate. If Americans truly believe in liberty, as part of our fundamental American principles, why shall we not stand by their champion? Why are we going to throw liberty away to enter upon an interventionist policy of foreign dominion and domestic regulation?
The republic the founders of this country formed was a dream in reality which demands and commands far more than a mere solitary word of respect and affection from a candidate for office before it passes away.The founders were not concerned with “national greatness;” they were concerned with the preservation of liberty. In America, there was never intended to be a grand over-arching interventionist diplomacy, because in the United States, Americans intended to mind their own business and not be involved with the intrigues and inevitable “blowback”–negative foreign reaction to intervention, of which foreign “statesmen” normally encountered.
Under the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution, there was to be no balance of power for which to sacrifice the lives, happiness and property of citizens. Government was to be limited, for our founders knew that foreign dominion would spawn leviathan at home. Government was to be economical, even should foreign statesmen peer across the waters and sneer at our “parsimonious” status. Taxation and regulation, in the absence of the regulations and controls made necessary by the warfare state, would be minimal, and only so great as necessary to secure and pay for the defense of liberty.
The citizen of the United States was to be a free man, a man who did not face the intrusive force of government in his daily life. It was to be a government whose primary connection to the citizen would be the delivery of the mails. Madison, Jefferson, Randolph, Taylor, Martin, Lee, Jackson, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Hart Benton, and a host of others agreed, that this country, this republic, was not to embark on “adventurous” policies of conquest, liberation, or ambition. The citizen should and would never be conscripted or enrolled to leave his family, friends, and property, to sacrifice his sons and his blood, leaving a wake of widows and paupers, to achieve “greatness.”
These are the principles our fathers fought for against England, these are the principles they left enshrined in the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, these are the principles and ideals by which the authors claim Ron Paul advocates that we be “isolated.”
If this be “isolation,” then we are “isolated” in a manner in which all the peoples of the nations of the world have viewed us with silent envy for a hundred years of our history. As did Thomas Jefferson maintained when he wrote, “I deem one of the essential principles of our government to be peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”
Congressman Paul maintains this position, the position of the founders, rooted firmly on the principles of the founding. These positions are not unrealistic, nor dangerous. They represent a return to what America stands for. Individual liberty, reason, the free and open discussion of ideas, which will be drawn through the pursuit of free intellects, toward that natural gravitational pull of that center of all knowledge: Truth. Jefferson wrote, “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.” We must not fall to such suggestions, despite the doubtlessly good intentions proponents of this position espouse.
Under a Paul administration, it is true that the United States may not be so great a “super-power,” but what of that? Why should this status be more primary to our concern than the preservation of liberty in our own land? The best manner in which to secure our good name among the nations of the earth is to maintain peaceful policies with all peoples, maintain free trade with them, and protect and maintain on our shores, those liberties which have, for two hundred twenty years, made our republic the exemplar of free peoples the world over.
Your fellow federalist,
Benjamin S. Kuipers
President Emeritus, Case Western Reserve Fed. Soc.
That the republican party in West Virginia is vulnerable to these attacks says much more about the party than it does about Ron Paul.
Dr Paul should have stayed with the Libertarian Party. He is more aligned with their philosophy than with ours.
Don’t get me wrong, I would very much like to see our party embrace some of the Libertarian doctrine; smaller government, less taxes, less government spending, less governmental interference with our personal lives, etc. Then they have taken weird positions such as legalizing drugs. I personally don’t mind a person exercising the freedom to ruin their health (assuming that they’re an adult), but I resent them wanting me to subsidize their habit. They have a well deserved reputation as a party of kooks.
The nail of truth has once again been hit squarely on the head. Thank you, Senator.
Ron Paul’s WV contingency has been hammering me via mail and phone calls for a couple weeks now. It’s driving me nuts.
I wil say this, no other candidate has tried so hard to get my attention.
Its sad that the only constitutional patriot is being attacked by Republicans who at one time was constitutional.
Ask yourself, why is the Republican party in the minority now? You will see they will be in more minority numbers in the next years to come unless that listen to the message like that of Ron Paul.
The nations of the middle east were created by Great Britain prior to WWI. There was no such thing as Jordan, or Iraq or Iran until Britain did this. After the Western nations made nations in the middle east, we started to go for power grabs. Then we reaarranged borders under Churchill. The people in the middle east got screwed several times by the west. They have reasons to be upset.
OF course I’ll get the arrogant accusations becasue the repuclicans are no longer readers of history but of Rush.
The people of the middle east are “people” created by God. I hate their religion but they are still people screwed by the west. And then we went in and took their oil.
So since WWI we have had to deal with this problem of Nation Building.
By bringing down Saddam, whom we support then killed only adds to their hatred.
But go ahead a spew the garbage that is causing the repuclicans to lose more seats.
Or listen to a constitutional, america politician for once in your life.
May God forgive us of our errors, Hatred and Ignorance.
You’re right, it’s a lost cause. I have no doubt the powers that be in Washington DC won’t stop until we become the Zimbabwe of the Americas.
Ron Paul has a real chance against the war pigs. I am a staunch Republican, and Dr. Paul’s message is the closest I have heard to sane.
“Let’s be honest here”
Does that mean everything you said before that wasn’t honest?
LOL
Wow,
You have a right to your opinion, but you should try and get your facts straight:
“So, that means that despite only garnering 2% of the polls, Paul gets attention.”
What polls are you looking at? The old ones taken back when the media was attempting to censor Ron Paul? (Because far from a “media darling” the media is afraid to cover him, and when they do they try and do it in a way that makes him seem illegitimate, similar to the way you wrote your article).
Rasmussen and others have Ron Paul close to double digits, 8%, in the current polls.
Get real and be honest with your readers about your anti-Ron Paul bias.
Methinks the Senator doth protest too much. But you did manage to fit all of the neocon buzzwords–’surrender’, ‘liberal’, and ‘irrelevant’–into the post quite nicely.
The Ron Paul juggernaut is coming and the establishment is getting scared. Really scared.
Ron Paul hijack the Republican Party? I’m sorry Senator, but it is the current makeup of the party, filled with fake republicans who have hijacked the entire party. What ever happened to fiscal conservatism, small government, low taxes, and the idea that we are not in the nation building business. The republican party changed not the supporters of the party. We have maintained and have been left behind which is the reason for the current decline of the republican party. Ron Paul may not have the answer on all the issues but I assure you the reason he has such a strong following is because he is more Republican than you and the rest of the thieves of OUR party. We are not loyal to a party who changes the foundation of their beliefs, it is you who should have been loyal to our beliefs.
Senator,
Perhaps you should stop being a hypocrite, and enlist for military service to fight this brave war for empire your so in favor of. Your ignorance of Ron Paul’s positions is exactly what I’d expect from an ass kissing, establishment chicken hawk such as yourself. Why is it that those most in support of offering up soldiers lives for nation building would never even think of serving or sending their children to serve. You discust me, you pathetic piece of human debris.
As a conservative Republican, I count all candidates except Ron Paul as liberal fear-mongers who happen to be registered as Republicans. The neocon policies are more typical of Democrats but while the conservatives were not paying attention, liberals have hijacked our Republican Party. No more. We’re here to stay and we will continue to rescue the GOP as a vehicle for promoting CONSERVATIVE values in government.
The 2008 GOP primary is important but if Ron Paul does not win, all his support will go away in November. None of the other GOP candidates have any ‘cross-over’ appeal for conservatives, libertarians, and independents. Without Paul, the GOP will suffer an embarrassing defeat in November. With Paul, the GOP will win in a landslide.
I love articles like this one that are written by people who don’t have a clue who Ron Paul’s supporters are. The Poison Fans who the media concentrates on are not Paul’s core supporters. The real support from Dr. Paul is coming from people you’ll never hear of; people who participate in local county politics and who will continue to participate after the 2008 nomination and the November election even though we will not cast a vote for any Republican except Ron Paul. We will continue to take back our party until EVERY candidate represents conservative values. We have a long ways to go since the GOP is run by liberals now. Having two liberal parties is not good for the USA. It is time to give the Neocons the boot and save the GOP.
Jahfre Fire Eater
you say ron paul wants to “surrender” in iraq. can you really surrender after you’ve been beaten? the u.s. has lost the “war” in iraq and now it’s only a matter of time before we are bankrupted there.
russ -
“I personally don’t mind a person exercising the freedom to ruin their health (assuming that they’re an adult), but I resent them wanting me to subsidize their habit.”
no libertarian would ever advocate that anyone be subsidized like this, or any other way for that matter.
“He is more aligned with their philosophy than with ours.”
republicans have no philosophy. they are whatever is popular at the time and the identity can be changed based on popular opinion, like the current leftists who hijacked the party under the auspices of neoconservatism.
Whats so different about Ron Paul hijacking the party as a Libertarian and Rudy’s camp trying to do the same as moderates?
Nothing, neither follow the platform.
I 100% agree with Aaron. The republicans who can’t see Dr. Paul’s vision need to wake up! This man is the only candidate republican or democrat who is speaking the truth to the American people and trying to set this country on a better path. The reason why Ron Paul supporters are trying so hard to get peoples attention is that they’re awake to the truth and know that this country is in for some dark times if things aren’t changed right now. Listen to Dr. Paul and go to his website. Read for yourselves. Wake Up and vote to put this country on a better path. Dr. Paul is the only candidate willing to do that.
so senator sprouse thinks it is alright to send our children over to iraq to be killed and maimed while he sits safe at home just so iraq won’t implode. hate to break the news but iraq is already imploding. keep up with the news, senator
How very typical of “conservative” “Republican” politicians…whose knowledge of history is on par with their understanding of the philosophy of freedom.
Lackey sycophants like this Senator for West Virginia! for Government, Government meddling(”better” govt education/more “efficient” Ministry of Internal Security er DHS/”more” equitiable distribution”SEIZURE” of others wealth to build better govt buildings and pay for OTHER GOVERNMENTS socialism ie Clinton-like NATION BUILDING!!!!” are indistiguishable to the alleged “opposite” Democrats…and certain 20th Century European political entities….
Ron Paul and his growing supporters dont care per se about politics in and of itself..it is the MESSAGE of freedom and LIMITING GOVERNMENT CONTROLS of all of our lives that drives us to spread the message of freedom…
Unlike the MEGALOMANIA and arrogant elitism of that drives the ruling elite…. and CONDITIONED demands of the Pavlovian masses clamoring for more bread and more circuses….and Republicans demanding more get tough! laws and more soldiers and unending printing of more and more Federal Reserve Notes ie INFLATION
I have been a over 2 decades political activist leader in California…watching the Republican and Conservative movements collapse in a sundry mess of hypocracy, “me too!” socialism, and irrelevance…
Mr. Senator and citizens of WV and readers, wake up to what is happening to our country…
Ron Paul irrelevant? Ron Paul a media darling? What planet have you been living on? The mainstream media has covered Ron Paul mainly with hit pieces and transparent attempts to marginalize him. The mud they’re slinging isn’t sticking too well because Dr. Paul is the single most knowledgeable, straight-talking, and honorable presidential candidate by a wide margin, and this has the established plutocracy very worried.
Never mind the military industrial complex. The single biggest industry as a group in the United States right now is the financial industry. More money is made merely moving money around than at any other industry in the United States, and they are killing our economy in the process. Dr. Ron Paul is a direct and growing threat to that industry. This is why the establishment will do everything it can do make sure Ron Paul never becomes president.
I voted for George W. Bush both in 2000 and in 2004 and when I heard that we had a traitor in our party running for President who wants to call it quits in Iraq I was outraged.
As time wore on, though, and now that the economy has faltered under the embarrassing national debt doubling spending of the past 7 years, I started to listen to little snippets of Ron Paul. The more I listened, the more I realized that he was truly conservative. His principles are legally strict and his faith to the Constitution is unmatched. The war in Iraq required a declaration of war from the Congress. Without the declaration, the war could be manipulated into just an action of the presidency versus an action of the Congress.
At first I hated Ron Paul, but now I can’t find a single issue to disagree with him on.
“Actually, he won’t garner more than 10% ever in any poll that is ever run..”
I hope you enjoy the taste of your hat, Senator. You’ll be eating it. The Neocons’ days are numbered.
If Ron Paul is irrelevant, then why did you see fit to attack him.
Though Dr. Paul is bringing together people from all backgrounds, this is not a phenomenon of liberals, and libertarians attempting to hijack the republican party as many conspiracy theorist suggest.
His support comes from people who long for freedom from a government that has grown, and continues to grow out of control, with complete disregard to the constitution and the basic rights of individuals.
I supported Bush in 2000, and considered the war in Iraq to be necessary. After careful consideration and research over the years — mainly thanks to Ron Paul and his vast knowledge of foreign affairs — I have come to acknowledge the error in my thinking.
the term libertarian, to me, seems to be the replacement for conservative, since neo-conservatives and republicans have drifted dangerously close to the big-government, big-spending, interventionist, progressive liberal democrats.
I am extremely grateful that we have an honest man of unmatched integrity challenging the status quo, and attempting to return this country to the Constitutional Republic it once was.
Why don’t you join the army and request to be sent to Iraq since it seems you so want the US to be engaged there…
If “serious” candidates are those that spout big government “conservatism” and mock the Rule of Law as “loony” I’ll stick by the fringe candidates all day long.
Senator,
I have a hard time understanding what you possibly have to gain by making these bold predications. If you’re right, Ron Paul and his supporters will fade away on their own. If you’re wrong, you have potentially put an embarassing mark on your political career.
Good luck in your career. Frankly, my own bold predication (safe because I would never consider lowering myself to a career in politics) is that you will never achieve anything more prestigious than being a state senator.
Russ writes: “Then [Libertarians] have taken weird positions such as legalizing drugs. I personally don’t mind a person exercising the freedom to ruin their health (assuming that they’re an adult), but I resent them wanting me to subsidize their habit.”
Russ, I’m a Libertarian. The strongest drug I regularly consume is caffeine (occasionally I down an Advil with my Diet Coke), and my Libertarian husband gives me hell about that (no, we’re not Mormons:) . But I do appreciate your broad-mindedness in ‘[not minding] a person exercising their freedom’. What confuses me is your comment about ’subsidizing their habit’. The *last* thing any Libertarian would expect/desire/demand is for other people to be forced to subsidize *anything*. If you’ve gotten that impression, I am happy to correct it. What Libertarians want is an end to the government subsidy of the *drug trade* that the so-called War on Drugs (WoD) creates. By increasing the risk premium for shipping/selling drugs, the WoD drives up prices and draws some pretty shady characters into the drug trade. I’d like to see much less of both _your_ money and _my_ money going to harass/protect (depending on your viewpoint) adults who neither need nor want our harassment/protection from the consequences of their own choices. The War on Drugs makes *everyone* - except for the top-level drug distributors - less well off. And I *do want to end the subsidy to those folks! I hope we can agree on that sentiment
The Republican Party’s ideological roots included Jacobinism from the very beginning. Read this speech by Charles Sumner in 1867.
Your worries about Iraq “imploding” if we leave are strange. We have already practically destroyed the country, with perhaps hundreds of thousands dead, millions fleeing, the infrastructure devastated. Did you notice the recent poll where 58% of the Iraqi people said they supported killing American soldiers? THEY DON’T WANT US THERE.
I’m sitting here wondering why I should care what a schmuck from West Virginia, whom I’ve never heard of, thinks about Ron Paul. Alas, I got the link from someone whose ideas I do care about.
But go on, don’t let me interrupt your drooling and poking forks in your eyes …
I agree. These Paulians are trying to hijack the convention. Reminds me of the 1860 election when a little known Congressman from Illinois hijacked the convention. You should read up on some of the tricks his supporters used. It was crazy.
So Senator, how much exactly do we need to spend to not “surrender” in Iraq? Would 3 trillion be high enough for you? Does it bother you that younger people like myself will have to pay for this?
I don’t think throwing money at some middle-eastern shit-hole is an effective or productive way to fight terrorism. Leaving is not surrendering. Staying is surrendering - to the will of al Qaeda who seeks to have us spend our all on this fruitless, immensely counterproductive war.
I’m a registered Republican and have been for over 30 years. I’m a little confused by all this talk of surrender.
Surrender? Ron Paul advocates surrender of Anerica? Surrender to whom? Who or what is dictating and going to accept the terms of surrender? Is the surrender unconditional?
I haven’t read anything about Ron Paul’s call for America’s surrender. I have read that he advocates withdrawing American troops currently unconstitutionally deployed and embattled in the Middle East.
Maybe I was brought up differently from the rest of the GOP, but . . .
If my son trespasses upon my neighbor’s land and punches my neighbor’s son in the nose without legitimate reason or provocation, I’d immediately call my son home, make him apologize, and make him pay reparations for his behavior. And I wouldn’t call his “withdrawal” from the fight a “surrender”. I’d call it civilized accountability. Makes for a better humanity, good and safer neighborhoods and other good things like that.
I also read that Ron Paul advocates withdrawing American troops from a bazillion other places around the world, most of which are doing nothing but spending American taxpayer’s bucks and subsidizing undemocratic, foreign regimes. I wouldn’t call that act “surrender”, either.
So what’s all this stuff about surrender?
Have a nice day.
“Surrender” in Iraq?
How can the US military “surrender” a place it has no right being?
How can the United States “surrender” territory that doesn’t belong to it?
If we “surrender,” wil our troops lay down their arms and turn themselves over to enemy troops or insurgents?
No. We will give the government of Iraq a firm date certain by which we will begin withdrawal, and by which they had better step up and defend their own liberties.
The enlistment oath I took didn’t include anything about destroying third-world hell-holes to liberate their opppressed, then staying on for the next fifty years to “nation build.”
Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in 2003. Our troops have done what they were sent there to do: topple Saddam and bring him to justice, and let Iraqis form a new government in which the people could have a say. If we “march them right out” the way we “marched them right in,” as Dr. Paul has said, we won’t be “surrendering” anything. We will be restating Bush’s declaration of vitory, and handing Iraq over to the Iraqis.
Ben Franklin’s statement, “A republic, if you can keep it,” should apply equally to Iraq and her people is it did to America and hers.
Frank in Phoenix
An anti-THIS-war evangelical conservative
“Cursed are the proud,
for they shall inherit the quagmire.
Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall be
called sons of b—-es.”
A “defense strategy” that depends on borrowing $1 trillion from China and another half trillion from Saudi Arabia and Russia is a good idea. The obvious flaws of this strategy are compounded when the government depends on knowingly lies to lead the American people into this risky situation. The flaws are compounded further when the government tells us that we must defend “freedom” by destroying the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment of our constitution!
You twiddle your thumbs preaching hate-filled speaches about “Islamo Facism” as our currency crisis gets worse and worse! Have you ever studied the origins of the Federal Reserve?…the history of monetary policy in this world?
If you support this insane “defense strategy” then you are a enemy to the safety and security of my family. You need to read some history and study what our government is doing to us.
All I want to know is if the acceptable Republican answer to the war is not “surrendering” or in fact victory, please tell me what victory is going to look like? The Republicans (neocons) don’t have an answer other than perpetual occupation and that is *not* victory. Is that what it takes to be a “strong” president? To throw money at the military to carry on with violence indefinitely? (after having spent their youth doing everything in their power, or daddies power, to keep them away from the barracks) Yes of course we’re going to kick tail, we’ve got money and we’ve got guns. What we’re lacking is a moral foundation and the money is running out as well. We’ve become accustomed as Americans to think that we have unlimited resources and power and that we can do anything we put our minds to. Well all the time we’ve been doing it we’ve been doing it on borrowed resources and borrowed (stolen) lives. You want to go to war, you want to stay in war, pick up a God damned rifle and pack, raise your own God damned money and go to God damned war! This is a crusade into insanity, not a defensive war of any kind. How can anybody be so simple minded as to listen to Bush Co’s lies and then still believe them after they’ve been disproved? This is a perpetuation of the military industrial complex, the Fat Cats who benefit and an empire whose foundation is crumbling beneath our feet. Why is the credit crunching? Why is the Dollar falling? How far is the bottom? Look out below people. Oh and when the bottom does fall out where will be those who perpetuated and benefited from this war? They won’t be gnashing their teeth in poverty I can tell you that right now. By the way “hijacking” is the establishment’s word for revolution. You want to hear the truth about war? Read up on double Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler’s writings and speeches after he retired. More specifically “War is a Racket”. The concept of that thesis is epitomized by this war.
Josh M
USMC
For a minute, forget about whether this war is morally right or wrong; it’s wrong, but let’s forget about that. What is it costing us versus what we are getting out of it? If you take your emotions out it, and if you let go of the need to save face, and if you let go of the juvenile need to appear triumphant, then the cold truth left to you is that this war is a loser. Let it go. Stop the hemorrhaging of lives and money. I’ve been fortunate in that none of my family members have been injured or killed over there - so far. However, the share of the bill to my household to pay for this war is over $20,000 and rising. I’ve already given (been robbed, actually) more than enough to something I’ve never believed in - all because the assholes in Washington decided that some foreign assholes weren’t obedient enough.
Enough is enough. Ron Paul is right.
Well, Paul is actually drawing 6% in national polls, and polling higher in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. So your piece is extremely poorly researched right off the bat - unless your characterization of Paul’s support being 2% is a deliberate lie, a possibility I suppose I should not immediately discount.
John Kerry was polling lower than that at this point in the 2004 cycle, and he ended up securing the nomination.
Also, national polls show that 28-35% of Republicans favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The number is, of course, much higher among independents, who can cross over and vote in many Republican primaries. In a divided field these numbers make it possible for Paul to win the nomination running on an antiwar platform. You may not like that, but it’s true.
In any event, your post here is internally contradictory to the point of ludicrousness anyway: You assert on the one hand that Paul has not support, but then turn around and worry that Paul’s supporters may “take over” the convention. If he has no support, how can he take over the convention? If he has limited support, but those supporters actually make an effort to participate in the convention process and the supporters of other candidates don’t, whose fault is that?
And to Russ Snyder - if you don’t want to subsidize people who take drugs, the simple solution is to just not subsidize them. What sort of crack-brained “kooky” ratiocination do you have to go through to decide that it’s more efficient to criminalize them, and spend tens of thousands of dollars per year to incarcerate each person you arrest? Just don’t subsidize health care. Problem solved.
Hmm - so the only issue that defines “Republican” is support for the war in Iraq? We’ve already won in Iraq - no WMD, no Saddam, an elected govt - what are we trying to achieve now? To leave is not surrender - its good policy - good Republican policy. To support any of the establishment candidates - democrat or republican is to support continued American interference abroad. Is that what we want? Or should we come home, get our fiscal house in order and revive the Republic as Dr Paul and the founders would have us do.
Senator - the philosophy of liberty espoused by Dr Paul will sweep this nation - I suggest you get aboard if you want to keep your seat.
Cheers
OF course the American people would like another Few Trillion Dollars worth of DEBT We love Serving China!!!! China can just own us forever and the Fed can do whatever it wants.
Let’s all bend over and take it like real Americans!
Todd,
Thank you, I was coming back to say the same thing.
Why is it when its “your” guy is winning, you say the people are behind him”?
But “your” guy struggles you call it “they’re attacked by the media or they don’t see the truth”?
What i hear in this blog is pouting, like a little child saying “I want my toy”!!!
One of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. Yes, you are very serious. Seriously whistling in the dark. Do I sense terror in your words? You must be very afraid of Ron Paul and his merry band of terrorists. Shame on them! Oh man, my sides are aching!
Dear State Senator from West Virginia, your heretofore discretion is commendable. Thanks for holding off on saying anything about Ron Paul until you could no longer pretend his campaign is not relevent.
I’m curious about which polls you see Ron Paul as being at 2%.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html
Granted, there are a couple 2’s, mostly back in June. But there are also some 5’s, 6’s, and 7’s. And a whole lot of momentum.
Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you are spinning. Which makes you lucky to be a mouthpiece for the current Republican establishment that values neither accuracy or fidelity. A group for which the Ron Paul recruiting revolution has never claimed to carry their baggage.
Relevance. It’s coming at you like a spider monkey!
Ron Paul supporters and neoconservatives agree on many things — we’re for lower taxes, Second Amendment rights, and protecting our borders. Where we differ, and where we feel the need to take power back from the Republicans currently in power, is on foreign and monetary policy. Our current foreign policy is like a household having a SWAT team go around the neighborhood busting down doors and looking for bad guys — it arouses resentment, maybe makes us safer for awhile, but costs far too much for the household to sustain for long. Since Republican leadership cannot pay for this war and this foreign policy in a responsible manner, Ron Paul supporters are intent on taking away the credit card so that adults can put our financial house in order.
I know I don’t feel a lick safer going after bad guys if it means we’ll be broke in 10 or 20 years.
Russ,
Paul isn’t a libertarian. He ran as president as that in the 80’s. Nothing to do with drugs at all.
We are trying to wake up West Virginians/Americans to the fact we are losing freedom here while we “free” Iraq.
See the irony??
Sen. Sprouse, if you have taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is my duty to inform you that you have violated that oath by what you advocate. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize any war to be conducted outside of an express declaration of war by the Congress, and Congress has NOT declared war on Iraq. Congressman Ron Paul offered the Congress a declaration of war, and Congress did not take that Constitutional route.
It is you who are “out of touch” with reality — a reality founded in the Constitution.
Further, you self-servingly equate withdrawal from Iraq with “surrender.” But the U.S. is the aggressor in Iraq, and as anyone who watches TV news knows, Iraq has never attacked the U.S.; even Bush admits this. An aggressor cannot “surrender,” only the attacked country can “surrender.” Since Iraq’s government has already “surrendered” to the U.S. federal government, and the U.S. government has already toppled Saddam Hussain’s regime — which was held out by the current administration as a “win” — then there is no longer any reason to remain in Iraq, or for my fellow Americans to continue to lose their money and their lives on a civil war which is not ours!
You lie when you say Ron Paul does not have more than 2% of Republicans on his side. You must be aware that he polls nationally at 5%, and in NH, now at 8%. But that is only polls taken of people who have land-lines. And by your admission, Ron Paul supporters are signing up to be on the ballot in “droves.” Surely these two contradictory statements cause some sort of cognitive dissonance in your brain. Where are the “droves” coming from, if he only has 2%?
You state: “But, more importantly, Ron Paul lines up with the liberal media and the Democrats on surrender in Iraq.” Again, you are completely out of touch with reality. The Democrats are barely discussing withdrawal — Obama and Hillary won’t even commit to withdrawing the troops fully until 2012 or later. So why smear Ron Paul with the term “liberal”? As you well know, he is the ultra-true conservative, one who wants limited government, and to follow the Founders’ advice to avoid entangling alliances with foreign countries. Withdrawing from an unconstitutional war would be one step in the true conservative direction.
Anyone who takes an objective look at the history of the conflict the U.S. government started in Iraq will realize that it is the U.S. government’s policies which have cause Iraq to “implode” already. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put it back together again — the crazy thing is to waste more money, more years, and real peoples’ lives just to “save face” — and “saving face” is the only thing you are really advocating.
Ron Paul appears to be the only sane man in the race, on both sides of the aisle of the insane two-party system. The problem is, in a world where mainstream politicians like you advocate actual sedition and disobeying the constitution, this sane man is smeared as “out of touch.” But my guess is, it is you and the rabid warmongers who are out of touch with Americans, 70% of which want the Iraq “war” to end.
Lifetime Republican here. Decades of voting straight ticket. Voted for both Bushes in every election they ran in.
I’m not sure, Senator, if you have any recollection of what Republicans were trying to sell the country just a decade ago: no foreign madness, reduce taxes, get rid of a lot of Federal government. Ron Paul’s on point for all those things.
I don’t believe that he wants to surrender Iraq. He proposed his solution to Iraq, a solution he would follow if passed by Congress. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican Congressman who sponsored a bill to declare war on Iraq. Only Congress can declare war. They have not. Ron Paul sponsored a bill to declare war. No one voted Aye for that bill in Congress.
When Ron Paul wins, he will do as Congress says to do. If they declare war on Iraq, he will go there , win the war, and come home.
The Republicans here are not even moderate, it seems. You’ve all been overcome by the socialism that is rampant in the party today. Thankfully, us old guys are excited about Ron Paul, and there are way many more of us voting than the polls would ever say.
I was telephone polled on my old landline, and when they asked me who I would vote for, of course I said Giuliani. The Ron Paul upset will be that much more savory when the liberal Republicans get the wind knocked out of them.
And some would say, warmongering neocons like yourself has hijacked the GOP and Ron Paul is trying to rescue it.
Surrender to who? The Evil Hitler™ Saddam Hussein is dead. His government has been overthrown for years. Al Qaeda in Iraq is out of business, the former Sunni insurgency have been befriended. The U.S./Iran backed Maliki government is doing just great. The Kurds have been friendly all along.
There is no one to surrender to.
We already won.
I suppose to you not “surrendering” means the right to occupy someone else’s country forever. Well you don’t have that right, and whether Paul or Giuliani wins, the empire will not be able to afford to stay anyway.
No matter how much the radio talking heads and the MSM tries to make it seem as though Benito or the other chick-hawks have real support, the truth is that Americans are not going to vote for more war.
Unless Ron Paul is at the head of the Republican ticket, they are going to be routed this coming election. The neo-conned Republican Party keeps gulping down the Hannity / Limbaugh Kool-aid of “winning” the so called war on terror and saying that those who are not for attacking Iran hate the troops. Are the Republicans saying that 70% of the Americans are America haters, or other such rubbish?
“That Ron Paul’s fundraising is unbelievable. Please. Lyndon LaRouche would haul in millions as well and his candidacy probably had a better chance of winning than Paul, meaning 0.001%”
So You’re TELLING ME THERE’S A CHANCE!! YEEAAH!
Our Troops Are Human
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEil9LukKk
Keep Hope Alive For Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TcNuPAQ7wc
Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden and those that attacked us. Iraq did not attack us. There is a difference between bringing terrorists to justice and nation building in Iraq. The action in Iraq is costing America too much money, and lives, and is making us less safe at home.
Just watch and listen to the Iraq war vets in the first video listed above.
Put aside your prejudices, open your mind and consider Ron Paul. He has a chance if you vote for him, and encourage others to do so.
Have a wonderful day.
-Marc
the Ron Paul campaign is now adding crow to the menu for those reporters and washington politicos who Must toe the party line and go along to get along. so please make your predictions about the Ron Paul campaign proudly and loudly so we can serve you better as the primaries commence.
our middle east foreign policy has brought a hefty serving of blowback (c.i.a. terminology) against our nation and our men and women in the military are paying with their lives.
but the washingtonians dont rightly care as long as their children arent serving in the military.
I am disappointed at seeing your dismissal of Dr. Paul’s campaign. I am a registered Republican, but have not voted for a Republican for President in the last two presidential elections due to the party leaving behind the principles of limited government and no longer following the constitution. Dr. Paul believes in these things, and that is why I support him.
His voting record backs up his words. Dr. Paul cured my apathy, and I cannot in good conscience waste my vote on those devoted to increasing federal spending and building a worldwide empire.
Respectfully,
Diana B.
Surrender
Surrender
Surrender
Surrender
Surrender
Since the good senator (I guess) didn’t get that word in enough I have helped out and typed it in a few more times.
BTW Rasmussen has Paul moving upward at 5% not 2% you silly boy!
But don’t surrender yet!
To Russ: You are a spring chicken sir; at least, you must be to make a statement like that. Paul’s views are what the Republican party was all about for most of its existence. I guess I’m much older than many here, but I remember well when the party stood for non-interventionist foreign policy, small government, lower taxes and sound currency.
As for the article, Sprouse is basically admitting that the Republican party is all about war. He states that Iraq would implode if we left; it has already imploded sir. Millions of Iraqis have left and half a million have been killed. Infrastructure will cost half a trillion to rebuild with no oil income in sight to pay for it all.
Sprouse, like most of the new conservatives (or neocons), proposes no method for paying for anything which doesn’t involve adding to our nine trillion dollar “credit card” debt. In case any of you didn’t know, YOU and YOUR childen’s/grandchildren’s/etc. share of that debt is 68,000.00. Have you got that much in your wallet?
Sprouse also forgets that the current own president’s father had good reason not to invade Iraq. His own VP, Cheney, stated back then as secretary of defense that it would be a “quagmire.”
one day amerika will find itself in the grips of a police state where the children of the crowd that today supports george bush and the neocons will also have lost their freedoms like the rest of us.
More recently, there has been the post 9/11 creation of a virtual avalanche of legislation and commissions designed to protect the country at the expense of the Bill of Rights. The two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 and the Military Commission Act or 2006 have collectively limited constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been disregarded in the rush to make it easier to investigate people, put them in jail, and torture them if necessary. A recent executive order of July 17th, 2007 goes even farther, authorizing the President to seize the property of anyone who “Threatens Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” The government’s own Justice Department decides what constitutes “threatening stabilization efforts” and the order does not permit a challenge to the information that the seizure is based on.
My grandfather went to West Point. Both grandads fought in WW2. My father is a asset manager for large institutions. We have been republicans for the last six decades. We want lower taxes and less government growth. I went to MIT and my wife is a PHD economist. We are educated people who will not be supporting fake republicans of your ilk any longer. We now see that you are supporting policies that keep financial pressure on the middle class…from the inflation and debt problem to the ridiuclous tax code that you tacitly support.
Even if it Ron Paul has only 2% he is important because 2% easily could have decided the last two presidential elections. Not to mention 1992 with Ross Perot.
Let’s get it out in the open: I want Ron Paul and I will NOT support Giuliani. Hillary against the Ghoul, I vote for Hillary. Any other Republican I will hold my nose and vote for him, but not Ghoul. Ron Paul voters CAN and WILL stop Giuliani, if not in the primaries, then in November.
When a Real Conservative runs, all the Neocons line up against him. At least we are finding out who the True Conservatives are.
Senator Sprouse,
You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s you and the rest of the holdouts still drinking the Iraq kool-aid who are in fact unelectable. Didn’t you learn anything in 2006?
No one is trying to “hijack” the convention. We are Republican voters supporting a Republican candidate for President.
Just because that candidate supports a traditional Republican foreign policy instead of the interventionist Wilsonian Democrat doctrine that you support doesn’t mean that we don’t have as much right to participate in the WV GOP Convention as you do.
And to call Ron Paul a “media darling” is ludicrous in the extreme. He gets very little media coverage despite his overwhelming support, and even then he’s usually written off by some would-be kingmaker as a ‘long shot’.
To be honest, I’d say that anyone who says that Ron Paul is a “media darling” is so out of touch with reality that they have no business serving as an elected official. You’ve just made me rethink my once-positive view of your competence as a Republican legislator.
Sorry Aaron, Mr. Paul is not the answer !!
Being of Arab decent I can tell you, you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
I will not debate you in this forum, it would be impossible to educate you on the need for the United States to have a presence in the Middle East.
Todd, remember that all candidates have pluses and minuses, it is the total that counts!
It will be a very entertaining day when you eat your words regarding this subject.
Politics are-a-changing because people have finally “had it” with the moronic and powerhungry government.
All Dr. Paul’s supporters are doing is exercising their constitutional right to get involved in the political process. They are actively engaged in dissecting the issues and advocating for what they believe is the best course for our country. They are willing to spend their own time and money to pursue this vision.
And you condemn them. Shame on you. You should be commending them and imploring others get involved.
Perhaps you should be decrying the political apathy that has gripped this country for so long. I think that is far more harmful and dangerous than an impassioned group of political activists can ever be.
“… government of the people, by the people, for the people …”
It’s not about the parties. It’s not about the government. It’s not about the politicians.
It’s all about the people.
I have to disagree that the media is ‘liberal.’ The best way to describe the media is pro-government. The ‘liberal’ media did not scrutinize Bush’s false claims before the Iraq war. Rather, they ignored them. The ‘liberal’ media did not publicize the fact that no congressman who voted for the Patriot Act had time to read it before they voted. The ‘liberal’ media does not harp on the fact that Bush has spent us into a record level of debt.
For the most part the media does not do its purported job of scrutinizing any politician. And most politician’s efforts are to acquire greater power for the government. This should not be surprising as the media is largely held by large corporations. And most corporations are interested in using government power to ensure their survival and discourage competition with their business.
Finally, I would contend that Ron Paul has mostly been ignored by the media. After all, I heard more stories about Fred Thompson, a small time actor and one term Senator, before he entered the race than about Ron Paul while he was actually in the race.
What a joke of an article. To claim that Ron Paul is suggesting a “surrender” in Iraq is laughable! Regardless of how many times the mission in Iraq changed because of proof of Bush’s lies, let’s just consider that getting rid of Saddam was the ultimate objective… We went in, we took control of the country, we captured Saddam, executed him, and we now have occupied Iraq for almost 5 years. The Iraqi government can’t get their assess in order to establish a working government. Is that the US’s fault? So if we leave them to their fate, how exactly is that a “surrender”? (I guess it could be surrendering the oil we worked so hard to secure; or maybe we’d have to surrender all of the rebuilding contracts because we wouldn’t have our troops there to protect these private companies’ workers?)
This is the same twisted logic the Republican party has used over and over again to rally support for military action against every perceived foe of the US. It’s the “Don’t Tread on Me” concept whereby we have to display our military prowess to the world by attacking helpless countries (unconstitutionally, I might add) and reshaping them in our image. It’s the height of arrogance (and criminal) to send the sons and dughters of US citizen’s to die in a campaign that serves only the oil interests of the United States. We certainly are NOT involved in this effort to thwart terrorism, as this campaign is generating more hatred of America in those Arab countries which only breeds more desire for terrorist actions against us. If the Republican party can’t see this, or admit it, then you’re just blind to the truth.
And to suggest that Iraq would implode if we left is ridiculous. The violence against our troops is a result of the fact that WE ARE OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY! They are fighting against us! Haven’t enough people already died in this war? It’s interesting how only the US casualities are reported on the news, not the Iraq casualties. We seem to not really care too much about them except when the argument about leaving is brought up, and the “bloodbath” rhetoric begins. But why shouldn’t we just leave these US sympathizers to their fate? We’ve done it before, plenty of times. Hell, that’s one of the biggest reasons they hate us in the first place. Anyone in the Republican party ever stop to consider that?
So to you Senator Sprouse, I say that you are wrong on just about every count in your assessment of Ron Paul and what he wants to do. You won’t agree, of course, as you seem to think the US has the right to use our military power to force the world into line with our needs, but that’s your prerogative. Too bad it’s a proven bad US policy that has created the web of problems we face on a global scale. But when has evidence of a failed policy ever stopped either party from continuing with it? Stupidity isn’t reserved for 1 party, it’s abundant in both. You’re a perfect example of it.
The mere fact that you’re worried about Ron Paul, enough to write an article about him even though you say he has no chance, is very telling. If he’s really got no chance, why the worry? Please answer this question as I would love to know the answer.
Hey Senator, I’ve got $100 that says he wins New Hampshire. Care to put your money (stolen from the tax-payers) where your mouth is?
I didn’t think so.
Oh, and quit referring to pulling out of Iraq as “surrender”. That implies that there’s an actual government we’d surrender to when the fact is we’re fighting a number of different guerillas. With senators like you it’s no wonder this country has gotten so far off track.
Your use of the word “surrender” when you talk about a change in policy is disingenuous. It is a cheap appeal to emotion as opposed to reason.
Did the Brits surrender when they left Basra, with a resulting 90%! decline in violence? Are the Aussies surrendering by pulling their troops out? Did Reagan surrender when he left Lebanon?
The world is desperate for a United States they can trust and admire. Right now what they have, and what you promote, is a bully building an empire.
You said: “Actually, he won’t garner more than 10% ever in any poll that is ever run and actually will most likely remain right where he belongs… among the 2% of contrarian Republicans who are against Bush and Iraq.”
He is already polling at 8% in New Hampshire with a month to go. Still think he won’t EVER poll higher than 10% in ANY poll?
And you must really hate our Founding Fathers considering Ron Paul’s stance on the Iraq War comes directly from their advice. Do you not believe in the Just War theory of Christianity? Because we have been violating it ever since WWII ended including presently in Iraq. I’m sure your constituents would love know that you oppose those very American principles. Are you sure that you are a Republican?
I do not support Ron Paul in the slightest, but I must applaud him for firmly standing for what he believes in and he has avid supporters who aren’t afraid to get behind