Paul Raises More Than $3.5 Million

By JIM KUHNHENN

No votes yet

As President and a Republican would he be able to shape or influence the party with his stated platform?

Could he put in place policies that reflected his oft repeated comments that many fail to adhere to the constitution?

Would congressional leaders be so inclined to allow this?

Could he some how reduce the size of the government, whereas predecessors in his party have made the same campaign pledge and yet government and spending increased during their terms.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

I finally win a race and I didn't know I was in it!

Ahahahahahah

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

In answer to all your questions - I'd sure like to see him have the chance to do it.

whereas predecessors in his party have made the same campaign pledge and yet government and spending increased during their terms.

I dont really think the words HIS PARTY need to limit that statement...

...he'd have as much of a mandate as the current congress said it did when Democrats gained the majority...

If he were to win, there'd have to me a lot more soul searching in the GOP than what occurred after 2006...

And, considering Ron Paul's record in Congress, I think he'd be pretty consistent in any action he'd take as president.

President Paul would have a mandate from Congress?

I thougt it was the other way around.

Are there that many that claim they can undo what has been for over 200 years?

"And, considering Ron Paul's record in Congress, I think he'd be pretty consistent in any action he'd take as president."

well, sure his record is consistent but could he accomplish his goal in 4 or 8 years?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

In a statement released today, Michael Tanner, Cato's director of health and welfare studies, writes: "Ron Paul's extraordinary fundraising success is a clear sign that there is a yearning by the Republican grassroots for the party to return to its historic small-government roots. Paul's message of limited government, free markets and peace obviously has touched a chord. Perhaps the other candidates and the big-government conservatives in Washington should take notice."

hear, hear...

Paul is certainly refreshing to see in comparison to those other jackasses in the Reichpublican Party. Hopefully, this wave of underground support will translate into primary votes.

Two questions for Paul supporters here:

1. Do you agree with Paul's view on Iraq (out now)?

2. Does Paul support a Federal law to ban abortion? If so, does this run contradictory to his 10th amendment views?

RON PAUL, FULLY LOADED

Confounding many skeptics, the Ron Paul campaign for the GOP presidential nomination raised over $4.2 million in one day yesterday - almost all from small-dollar online contributions. As the campaign noted in an email to supporters, the most successful one-day online fundraising effort was by John Kerry who raised $5.7 million "on the day he accepted the Democratic nomination." In context, this was, by far, a more impressive feat.

There's no way to spin this an anything but an extraordinary organizational success and show of support. However, this still does not propel Paul into the top tier of GOP candidates, despite claims to the contrary by some supporters. A campaign's viability is not determined by money alone, and Paul's hefty take yesterday still leaves him far behind the front-runners.

What this DOES do for the campaign, however, is give the candidate far more credibility than he has enjoyed from competitors, the GOP establishment and much of the mainstream media heretofore. And make no mistake, this outpouring of support for Ron Paul isn't because of his anti-war positions. No, Paul's support is derived from his support for and fealty to the Constitution, which he uses in articulating his anti-war positions.

Ron Paul has clearly mined that vein of Republican discontent which caused so many limited-government conservatives and libertarians to stay home or vote for third party candidates last November, resulting in Democrats regaining control of Congress. His support is real, significant...and growing.

And here's the very real danger for Republicans: If Paul, as expected, fails to obtain the GOP presidential nomination - and should the eventual GOP nominee fail to woo and attract Paul's growing legions of supporters with a believable pro-Constitution platform - don't be surprised to see enough Ron Paul voter support swing over to the Libertarian Party nominee on the general election ballot a year from now and throw the race into the Democrats' column.

All the press attention over the past few weeks has been on the possibility of Christian conservatives rallying behind a third-party candidate should the GOP nominate Rudy Giuliani. But the party's growing libertarian-leaning wing could have the same effect. For the GOP to have a chance of beating Hillary next November, its nominee is going to have to find a way to appeal to both its pro-life wing AND its constitutionalist wing. A pretty tall order.

By the way, Ron Paul is pro-life.

"Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career," writes Christian-conservative talk-show host and columnist Chuck Baldwin today. "Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas.

"Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions?" Baldwin continues. "Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down."

Again, Paul's impressive fundraising effort yesterday doesn't catapult him into the top tier...yet. But if social conservatives and libertarian conservatives somewhere, somehow unite behind the man down the road, this could end up being an entirely different election.

think this might answer Chris's question on abortion???

...of Ron Paul's opposition to the war, he did take a Constitutional approach to his position in that the Congress did not declare war. He's said on numerous ocassions that 'authorizing action' is not the same as declaring war. I think that, had Congress declared war, he'd have a different take on it. But, I do not know how he would have voted if the vote had been to 'declare war' rather than 'authorize action.'

As a libertarian-leaning conservative and a member of the GOP, I can appreciate his position on the war in Iraq given this understanding.

is sounding better all the time.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Quite frankly living in the real world as we do, how do we go about accomplishing a downsizing of government and following the constitution as suggested and without bringing in parties into the discussion.

How do we do it?

When the system is so crushingly large and complicated.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

You beat me to it-was just coming here to post this LOL

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

actually, I meant mholdri-I was going to post the same thread-so I put it up at TT instead. ;^D

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Without the support of his party he can accomplish little unless of course he was a one man show and the system here prevents that.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

... I didn't say Ron Paul would have a mandate from Congress. I said he'd have as much of a mandate that the current congress claimed to have from the 2006 elections.

...whether or not he - or any presidential candidate - could accomplish stated goals is solely dependent upon us and whether or not we'd push for them...

So according to this, he does support a federal ban on abortion rather than leaving it up to the states?

Yes, and I agree. But the question is, do you agree with his stance that we should get out now?

It does and it further shows us that there is no artticle or wording in the constitution with regards to abortion and therefor there can be none and also there can be nothing to stop it.

It is a personal choice?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

And Paul and the constition;

"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; "

Two years!

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Now how would he as commander in chief as well as leader in chief, reconcile this.

And where does it state that the commander in chief can detain people as we all want to follow what the document says and not what it is intended to mean some 200 years later.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

And in Ron Paul's own words from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called

Oh...............so in other words he would accomplish little as he has no mandate.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
<