I guess he really doesn’t give a rat’s ass about human rights after all – you know, like a true believer in freedom and liberty would. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to……

Simple conservatism, cutting federal spending, not rehiring the government employee infrastructure that is retiring, lowering the coporate tax rate, these things will help keep otherwise sane people from glomming onto Paul. If McCain is as “conservative” as Bush has been count on Paul becoming more popular and becoming more of a problem in primaries.
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I don’t think you’re giving McCain enough credit. He’s fully capable of losing this election without Ron Paul’s help.

The Democrats will not be openly running as Socialists anytime in the near future, so the soft votes aren’t going to be fiscal conservatives. The die is cast for this election; Democrats will be campaigning primarily on an anti-war platform.

That’s where the (pardon the expression) battle lines are drawn. Throwing in a third-party candidate who’s even MORE rabidly anti-war than the Democrats will not help them. Sure, McCain’s middle-of-the-road approach is going to soften his support in general. But Ron Paul would be at least as likely to steal anti-military supporters from either Obama or Hillary as he would be to steal anti-social spending votes from McCain.

If the Democrats want a third-party candidate, it would be somebody who’s pro-family and also pro-war. That keeps them off the Democrats’ table.

My guess is we’ll know more about that in exactly four days, 20 hours and 16 minutes.

If you judge a man by the company he keeps (Jeremiah Wright) or his devoted followers and acolytes(Alex Jones, the misnamed “The American Conservative” magazine, even Jesse Ventura) – then Ron Paul is a flipping nut job. Trying to parse his reactionary insanity is not going to do it.

Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I don’t know so much about the popularity of Paul. He has been distorted and marginalized by the MSM. He will remain in congress, make speeches, and sell books. What I do see is congressional candidates inspired by his brand of limited government conservatism and opposed to the big government policies of current mainstream “conservatism”. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party is shrinking. The “look over there” tactic to scare and shame voters into voting for the pitiful Republican candidates is now obsolete though many do not realize it yet.

The only way to win majorities again is to return to the principle of 1994, of course many loyalists might not like it. During the 90s we fought Clinton on policing the world, loosening warrant oversight on wiretaps, and worked with him to balanced budgets. All these things scare the crap out of the current crop of kool aid drinkers.

amerpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I also said:

The longer the GOP acts like Ron Pauls support exist for no reason the larger his following will become.

I am not giving a compliment to Ron Paul. I am admonishing conservatives not to ignore the reasons that he is popular. He does have the ability to draw dissatisfied conservatives not just kooks. If we have to deal with McCain signing left leaning legislation for the next four years Paul will become all the more popular. Simply dismissing his popularity as Palestinians and kooks is unwise. Do we need another Ross Perot like defection of conservative votes in a general collection? Is our memory that short? What if the primary field had been McCain, Romney, and Ron Paul? McCain’s campaign was DOA, it would have been Romney vs. Paul for months, imagine how much more influence and stage time he could have had. Simply saying “HAHA the kook speaks” is unwise.

Simple conservatism, cutting federal spending, not rehiring the government employee infrastructure that is retiring, lowering the coporate tax rate, these things will help keep otherwise sane people from glomming onto Paul. If McCain is as “conservative” as Bush has been count on Paul becoming more popular and becoming more of a problem in primaries.

I don’t think he believes them to be unconstitutional. His votes on many of these resolutions reflects his view on foreign policy.

but of course, he’s a lying hypocrite that has no problems with these type of Resolutions which has been shown in this thread. So he cleary doesn’t think that they are “Unconstitional” and outside of COngress authority. He’s just against taking the side of Freedom, whether in Isreal or Tibet.

If he was truely “Neutral” he would either not vote or vote “present”.

jp on April 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM

That is incorrect. If you advocate Neutrality, you obviously would be against the resolution. You are voting against the resolution itself, not voting for or against either party mentioned in the resolution. That is like voting on “No Child Left Behind”, if you are a true conservative who believes the Federal Government should stay out of matters involving education you vote against the bill, not “present” or not vote at all.

Not that it really makes any difference, but the original story by CNN said that Ron Paul had dropped out of the race, the newer version says that he hasn’t dropped out.

he’s refusing to officially drop out. He wants a speaking gig at convetion, absent that he’ll probably lead protest outside against the GOP

but I always assume the sincerity of other people’s politics–no matter how absurd or silly.

Some people are sincerely stupid. And it’s still a virtuesomehow, huh? Btw, I’m not referring to Ron Paul. He’s not stupid.

JiangxiDad on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

No, no. I don’t hold that sincere stupdity is a sign of virtue. I hold sincere stupidity is a bull’s eye.

And I agree Ron Paul is not stupid. I went to him speak recently and was impressed, even if I only agreed with 10% of what he said–about the same amount of the time I agreed with Hilary when I heard her speak recently. Amusingly enough, I was the sole person in Ron Paul’s large audience to clap when he Paul advocated abolishing the Department of Education.

This reminds me of the question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody to hear it, does it make a sound…

Yes. I know. But couldn’t Paul vote “Present” or not vote all in the House?

Separate note: It seems that on substantiative issues Obama has a track record of merely voting “Present”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I made this point about this before in regards to the Israel/Hezzbo “NO” votes of Paul. If he was truely “Neutral” he would either not vote or vote “present”. A “No” vote recognizes the merits of the Resolution just as much as a “Yay” vote.

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Ah, very eloquent response on the subject…

Did you come over from KOS?

I see the typical Leftard personal attack, without of course, any actualy answering of the questions, or debate of the postion…

So, snark aside…
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Snark aside?

Dude, get a clue. I’m not saying your knowledge of Constitutional law is imperfect; I’m saying you are a psychotic idiot.

You’re only debating yourself; and that field is already way too crowded for me to get involved.

I’m fine with Paul voting against this kind of crap. I want my Congress to limit their “symbolic” votes. It’s not what we pay them for.

Karol on April 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Big mistake. The more time Congress spends on symbolic votes, the less time it has to engage in malevolent schemes — or benevolent schemes that turn out to harm us. Appropriations and symbolic votes. Then go home.

Yeah, I’m kidding, but only a little.

Why so quiet, Andy?

logis on April 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM

So, snark aside…

Is it your position that the Logan act is Unconstituional?

That there is no seperation of Powers in the US Government?

Or, that the US Government should not speak with ONE voice when dealing with foreign Nations?

Why is it crap, any more than people protesting is? I posted something the other day about how all the Olympics protests are making the Chinese nervous. A high-profile vote in Congress gives the issue even more attention. Also, are you against expressions of solidarity with Israel after Palestinian terror attacks?
Allahpundit on April 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Don’t you get it? The Constitution grants every American citizen freedom of expression – except members of Congress who, according to the Constitution, must remain silent.

Therefore, what the House did was an unconstitutional userpation of power that will doubtless lead to tyranny and a collapse of the Republic.

And, at the exact same time, it was a completely useless “symbolic” gesture which accomplished absolutely nothing and was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Ergo, Ron Paul could not in good conscience abstain; instead he had to vote in support of China’s atrocities in order to avoid officially expressing any opinion whatsoever on foreign affairs.

More importantly – and there is no way to stress this strongly enough – Ron Paul is most definitely NOT totally batshit crazy!

JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Yep, but that’ll never sway the hardcore Paulnuts. But it is fun to make ‘em squirm.