Excellent comments by a soldier serving in Iraq...
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Monday, January 7, 2008
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Ron Paul: The Next President?
A candidate with brains, passion and morals
Note the above video was intentionally posted out of sequence.
Also Read: An Anti-Neocon Republican
Note the above video was intentionally posted out of sequence.
Also Read: An Anti-Neocon Republican
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Zogby: Republican Candidate Analysis
John Zogby
Zogby founded the polling firm Zogby International in 1984. Since then, he has conducted polls around the world, though he has gained the most notoriety for his polls of United States Presidential elections
If we have learned one thing this year in American politics, it's that there is no such thing as an inevitable President.
Rudy Giuliani: I believe Rudy had a flawed strategy right from the outset. The whole idea was that his name recognition and national numbers would turn him into the inevitable candidate and that he needn't spend time in or worry about Iowa or New Hampshire because his national numbers would just automatically lift him up. If for some reason they didn't, he would be a sure shot to win in Florida, and then proceed into the big states on February 5, where he would be automatically have the money on hand to be able to compete in the television markets of New York and California and umpteen other states.
I always thought that was a mistake, because Iowa is extremely important, and a loss there, particularly an embarrassing loss, would produce several days of negative stories. The primary system is all about momentum and I think everyone is beginning to see that. He can still win the nomination, but even he has begun to see that he might end up in fourth- or even fifth-place in Iowa, third- or fourth-place in New Hampshire. Now, he's even down in Florida, because someone else - Mike Huckabee - has gained momentum in Iowa and built on it nationally.
Mitt Romney: Romney, interestingly, had the exact opposite strategy of Rudy: to spend a lot of money in the early states and build a compelling lead, so he'd roll in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then carry that momentum with him. And for a while it looked like that was working. He can still win the nomination. I suspect he will end up doing well in Iowa and he continues to lead in New Hampshire and is among the leaders in South Carolina and Florida. What he did not count on was Mike Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee: In addition to Huckabee's numbers going up dramatically in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, we've also seen a dramatic decrease in the numbers of undecideds among Republicans. Translated: Many conservatives have told us they were unhappy with the field of candidates and were looking for a conservative leader and winner. Frankly, they hadn't considered Huckabee because he just didn't look like he had a chance. You combine his strong numbers with conservatives and respectable showing among independents and moderates, because he appears to be so affable and rational, and the Republicans right now are experiencing a Mike Huckabee "boomlet." The key question, is, however, are these just Huckabee's few days in the sun, at a time of the year when daylight is at its shortest?
John McCain: Talk about a little boomlet. John McCain seems to be getting his now, too. His candidacy bottomed out several months ago for a number of reasons, including internal campaign disputes and overspending, as well as a redefinition of McCain that undefined the John McCain of 2000: the war hero, the maverick, the straight-talker. But for those Republicans who want to believe that the surge in Iraq is working, that issue is less on the table, no longer hurting McCain, and he's very much back to being the maverick warrior. McCain's numbers in Iowa are disastrous, because he never campaigned there and he opposes ethanol subsidies. But he may just do better than expected, moving into third or fourth place, then on to New Hampshire where he runs a respectable second for now. His biggest problem is he has no money.
Fred Thompson: I've never seen the point of his candidacy. I still don't get it. There are some who suggest that he's caught some fire and he could come in second or third place in Iowa, as Huckabee or Romney fades. But right now, his candidacy has all the qualities of Baltic Avenue in a Republican sea of St. Charles Places. (Note: If Thompson wins the nomination, my comments here are for entertainment purposes only.)
Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."
Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes are also running and they have no chance.
There is a real possibility that there will be no clarity on the Republican side after February 5. The best-laid plans of front-loaders may have backfired. Figure out that mixed metaphor.
Zogby founded the polling firm Zogby International in 1984. Since then, he has conducted polls around the world, though he has gained the most notoriety for his polls of United States Presidential elections
If we have learned one thing this year in American politics, it's that there is no such thing as an inevitable President.Rudy Giuliani: I believe Rudy had a flawed strategy right from the outset. The whole idea was that his name recognition and national numbers would turn him into the inevitable candidate and that he needn't spend time in or worry about Iowa or New Hampshire because his national numbers would just automatically lift him up. If for some reason they didn't, he would be a sure shot to win in Florida, and then proceed into the big states on February 5, where he would be automatically have the money on hand to be able to compete in the television markets of New York and California and umpteen other states.
I always thought that was a mistake, because Iowa is extremely important, and a loss there, particularly an embarrassing loss, would produce several days of negative stories. The primary system is all about momentum and I think everyone is beginning to see that. He can still win the nomination, but even he has begun to see that he might end up in fourth- or even fifth-place in Iowa, third- or fourth-place in New Hampshire. Now, he's even down in Florida, because someone else - Mike Huckabee - has gained momentum in Iowa and built on it nationally.
Mitt Romney: Romney, interestingly, had the exact opposite strategy of Rudy: to spend a lot of money in the early states and build a compelling lead, so he'd roll in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then carry that momentum with him. And for a while it looked like that was working. He can still win the nomination. I suspect he will end up doing well in Iowa and he continues to lead in New Hampshire and is among the leaders in South Carolina and Florida. What he did not count on was Mike Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee: In addition to Huckabee's numbers going up dramatically in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, we've also seen a dramatic decrease in the numbers of undecideds among Republicans. Translated: Many conservatives have told us they were unhappy with the field of candidates and were looking for a conservative leader and winner. Frankly, they hadn't considered Huckabee because he just didn't look like he had a chance. You combine his strong numbers with conservatives and respectable showing among independents and moderates, because he appears to be so affable and rational, and the Republicans right now are experiencing a Mike Huckabee "boomlet." The key question, is, however, are these just Huckabee's few days in the sun, at a time of the year when daylight is at its shortest?
John McCain: Talk about a little boomlet. John McCain seems to be getting his now, too. His candidacy bottomed out several months ago for a number of reasons, including internal campaign disputes and overspending, as well as a redefinition of McCain that undefined the John McCain of 2000: the war hero, the maverick, the straight-talker. But for those Republicans who want to believe that the surge in Iraq is working, that issue is less on the table, no longer hurting McCain, and he's very much back to being the maverick warrior. McCain's numbers in Iowa are disastrous, because he never campaigned there and he opposes ethanol subsidies. But he may just do better than expected, moving into third or fourth place, then on to New Hampshire where he runs a respectable second for now. His biggest problem is he has no money.
Fred Thompson: I've never seen the point of his candidacy. I still don't get it. There are some who suggest that he's caught some fire and he could come in second or third place in Iowa, as Huckabee or Romney fades. But right now, his candidacy has all the qualities of Baltic Avenue in a Republican sea of St. Charles Places. (Note: If Thompson wins the nomination, my comments here are for entertainment purposes only.)
Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."
Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes are also running and they have no chance.
There is a real possibility that there will be no clarity on the Republican side after February 5. The best-laid plans of front-loaders may have backfired. Figure out that mixed metaphor.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Rudy Giuliani’s Dubious Leadership
Joe Conason, New York Observer
Before Rudolph W. Giuliani started to run for president, he specialized in writing books and delivering inspirational lectures on the topic of “leadership,” which is the theme for his campaign. He is telling America that in a time of war and terror, he is the leader we need. And he seems to be saying that the determination of “the leader” matters more than where the leader wants to take us or whether he knows where he is going.
If that sounds like the same primitive mind-set behind our current disaster, then consider yourself forewarned. Giuliani is a fervent admirer of George W. Bush—whose election he considers a result of “divine guidance”—and a dauntless supporter of the war in Iraq, which resulted from exactly the kind of leadership he advocates. Despite that highly unpopular position, the former New York City mayor leads the Republican presidential field in many polls.
Much of the Giuliani appeal is based on his admirable performance in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He has profited personally and politically from the real leadership he provided then. But his ambitions demand a dispassionate examination of his ideas and his record.
Giuliani’s fundamental argument is that 9/11 endowed him with special qualifications for the job he is seeking. “What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he told voters in Iowa. “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”
What exactly does he mean? If he is suggesting that he should be trusted to make critical judgments about national security and foreign policy, there is plenty of contrary evidence.
During the months and years leading up to 9/11—as reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins proved in “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” their superb book debunking much of the “America’s Mayor” mythology—he made decisions as mayor that would later prove disastrous.
Against the advice of real experts, he stubbornly insisted on placing his immensely expensive emergency command center in a World Trade Center building, although terrorists had struck there already and were determined to do so again. The command center went down with the rest of Ground Zero, leaving the mayor and his aides to wander downtown as the buildings fell.
Their frantic efforts to cope with the disaster were lethally hindered by faulty communications equipment purchased by the Giuliani administration—also against the advice of experts who knew better. Such fateful errors are more troubling when viewed against the backdrop of political and financial influences that probably distorted the decision-making process.
Yet while Giuliani is often wrong, he is never uncertain. That same attitude prevailed in his promotion of the dubious Bernard Kerik to police commissioner. By the time Giuliani appointed him to head the New York Police Department in 2000, evidence of Kerik’s ties with a mob-connected construction company had emerged in a background investigation. Kerik had obtained jobs for his brother and his best friend with that company, and interceded with city authorities on the firm’s behalf. Moreover, federal prosecutors had indicted Kerik’s friend, Lawrence Ray, along with a reputed Gambino crime-family figure.
In testimony before a Bronx grand jury investigating Kerik last year, Giuliani didn’t deny that he had been briefed on those issues before promoting his former bodyguard to the office of police commissioner. But he insisted that he didn’t remember that briefing—and noted that his investigators had “cleared” Kerik.
No doubt Giuliani’s dim recall allowed him to enthusiastically recommend Kerik to President Bush as a suitable candidate for secretary of Homeland Security in late 2004. That ruinous choice was averted only because New York newspapers published timely exposes of Kerik’s embarrassing past. Giuliani now says he “assumed responsibility” for the “mistake” of recommending his old friend and business partner.
There is a persistent flaw in Giuliani that makes such errors inevitable. He promoted Kerik because he preferred the loyal sycophant to William Bratton, the smart, independent and competent police commissioner whom he had fired. He ignored the threat of terrorism until it was too late, and arrogantly rejected the advice of those who knew more than he did.
Over the past six years, this brand of leadership has become all too familiar. We don’t need it anymore. In fact, we never did.
Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
Before Rudolph W. Giuliani started to run for president, he specialized in writing books and delivering inspirational lectures on the topic of “leadership,” which is the theme for his campaign. He is telling America that in a time of war and terror, he is the leader we need. And he seems to be saying that the determination of “the leader” matters more than where the leader wants to take us or whether he knows where he is going.If that sounds like the same primitive mind-set behind our current disaster, then consider yourself forewarned. Giuliani is a fervent admirer of George W. Bush—whose election he considers a result of “divine guidance”—and a dauntless supporter of the war in Iraq, which resulted from exactly the kind of leadership he advocates. Despite that highly unpopular position, the former New York City mayor leads the Republican presidential field in many polls.
Much of the Giuliani appeal is based on his admirable performance in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He has profited personally and politically from the real leadership he provided then. But his ambitions demand a dispassionate examination of his ideas and his record.
Giuliani’s fundamental argument is that 9/11 endowed him with special qualifications for the job he is seeking. “What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he told voters in Iowa. “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”
What exactly does he mean? If he is suggesting that he should be trusted to make critical judgments about national security and foreign policy, there is plenty of contrary evidence.
During the months and years leading up to 9/11—as reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins proved in “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” their superb book debunking much of the “America’s Mayor” mythology—he made decisions as mayor that would later prove disastrous.
Against the advice of real experts, he stubbornly insisted on placing his immensely expensive emergency command center in a World Trade Center building, although terrorists had struck there already and were determined to do so again. The command center went down with the rest of Ground Zero, leaving the mayor and his aides to wander downtown as the buildings fell.
Their frantic efforts to cope with the disaster were lethally hindered by faulty communications equipment purchased by the Giuliani administration—also against the advice of experts who knew better. Such fateful errors are more troubling when viewed against the backdrop of political and financial influences that probably distorted the decision-making process.
Yet while Giuliani is often wrong, he is never uncertain. That same attitude prevailed in his promotion of the dubious Bernard Kerik to police commissioner. By the time Giuliani appointed him to head the New York Police Department in 2000, evidence of Kerik’s ties with a mob-connected construction company had emerged in a background investigation. Kerik had obtained jobs for his brother and his best friend with that company, and interceded with city authorities on the firm’s behalf. Moreover, federal prosecutors had indicted Kerik’s friend, Lawrence Ray, along with a reputed Gambino crime-family figure.
In testimony before a Bronx grand jury investigating Kerik last year, Giuliani didn’t deny that he had been briefed on those issues before promoting his former bodyguard to the office of police commissioner. But he insisted that he didn’t remember that briefing—and noted that his investigators had “cleared” Kerik.
No doubt Giuliani’s dim recall allowed him to enthusiastically recommend Kerik to President Bush as a suitable candidate for secretary of Homeland Security in late 2004. That ruinous choice was averted only because New York newspapers published timely exposes of Kerik’s embarrassing past. Giuliani now says he “assumed responsibility” for the “mistake” of recommending his old friend and business partner.
There is a persistent flaw in Giuliani that makes such errors inevitable. He promoted Kerik because he preferred the loyal sycophant to William Bratton, the smart, independent and competent police commissioner whom he had fired. He ignored the threat of terrorism until it was too late, and arrogantly rejected the advice of those who knew more than he did.
Over the past six years, this brand of leadership has become all too familiar. We don’t need it anymore. In fact, we never did.
Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Ron Paul: An Anti-Neocon Republican
By KEVIN LANDRIGAN
Telegraph
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said his opposition to the Iraq war, his strict adherence to the Constitution and calls to change the monetary standard all fueled his GOP fundraising record via the Internet.
"I think the attention-getter is the war because it's a big issue, but I think that prompts a lot of people to go look at our Web site and say, 'Oh, I agree with these other issues,' " Paul said during an interview with The Telegraph editorial board on Wednesday.
The 72-year-old, soft-spoken Texas congressman already had a legendary individual donor base, the third largest in Congress as far back as 1994.
"I have always done my fundraising by direct mail. I have never been able to call people up and say, 'hey, send me some money,' and I don't deal with the special interests," Paul said.
"Do you realize how many mailings you would have to send out to get 20,000 new people? Many, many pieces of mail, hundreds of thousands of dollars and yet, this money all came in for free. All of the sudden they found us, sent money and are on our list. It's sort of like on autopilot now."
Despite the newfound largesse, Paul is mired in single digits in New Hampshire and national polls. But he insists a surprise showing in the first-in-the-nation primary is possible even though he's campaigned here less than better-known candidates.
He shrugs off criticism that his Iraq war opposition is a losing issue with a GOP base who, by a clear majority, want to finish the job of helping that country form a power-sharing government among secular factions.
"They say I'm anti-military, but who has the most contributors of any candidate, Democrat or Republican, from our fighting men and women? I do," said Paul, an Air Force surgeon during the Vietnam War era.
Paul was the only Republican in Congress to oppose the Iraq war in 2002.
If elected, Paul would withdraw all American troops from Iraq and opposes spending any more foreign or domestic aid to rebuild the country.
"They are a rich country, they have oil, and that's how it should be paid for," Paul said.
"We have to give up the principle of blowing things up around the world, as well as rebuilding. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get back to fiscal sanity."
The threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has been overblown, and their chances of using one are "slim to none," he said.
"We either subsidize people or we bomb them. Why not try another option?" Paul asked. "We shouldn't get hysterical that in 10 years or more they might have a nuclear weapon."
Paul voted to authorize force against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but said Bush turned it into a nation-building exercise.
To confront terrorists bent on violence against the U.S., Paul would pursue a "marque and reprisal" provision used by the Founding Fathers to empower private individuals to bring pirates to justice using legal means.
"I would place a lot more confidence in a Ross Perot approach to going after a band of individuals who orchestrated that against us," Paul said.
At least $200 billion a year would be saved by getting out of Iraq and cutting back on U.S. foreign intervention in 130 countries, Paul said.
Even taxpayer-paid humanitarian aid to treat the genocide in Darfur is not a wise course, he added.
"There is not much evidence that much of this is successful, some of it has been, but we are also broke," Paul said.
"If the government got out of it, private individuals would come forward. The American people are very generous."
Paul claims he's voted against any increase in taxes during his 19 years in Congress and against more than 90 percent of federal spending bills.
He would focus first on cutting foreign aid before pursuing a desire to get rid of wholesale, federal agencies like the Departments of Education, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Reserve.
"In spite of the fact philosophically I don't support the programs, they should never have been started and it is part of the problem, but it is not part of the early answer," Paul said.
A gynecologist who's delivered 4,000 babies, Paul opposes legal abortions, but believes states should be left to make restrictions on the procedure and is against a constitutional ban.
Paul said anti-abortion leaders ignored his call to claim federal courts have no jurisdiction as when the Supreme Court overturned a congressional ban on late-term abortions.
And Paul said the practice of printing more money has made the U.S. a record debtor nation, and he would reinstitute gold and silver as alternatives to paper currency.
"History shows that paper never lasts. It ends terribly," Paul said.RON PAUL
---------------------------
PARTY: Republican.
BIRTH DATE: Aug. 20, 1935.
RESIDENCE: Surfside Beach, Texas.
EXPERIENCE: U.S. House of Representatives, 1997-present, 1979-1985 and 1976-1977; current member of House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EDUCATION: M.D. from Duke University; bachelor’s degree, Gettysburg College.
MILITARY: Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force, 1963-1965; Air National Guard, 1965-1968.
PERSONAL: Wife, Carol; five children; 17 grandchildren.
CANDIDATE WEB SITE: www.ronpaul2008.com.
---------------------------
PAUL ON THE ISSUES
Here are opinions of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas on major issues.
IRAQ WAR: Only Republican member of Congress to vote against war in 2002 and would withdraw all U.S. troops in three to six months.
IMMIGRATION REFORM: Supports strengthening borders with more federal patrols and enforcing laws against employers who hire illegal aliens. Opposes guest worker or any form of amnesty to the 12 million people who got here illegally.
HEALTH CARE: Supports free market solutions such as health savings accounts and transitioning a refundable tax credit so more families can afford health-care coverage; voted to let citizens buy and bring cheaper drugs from Canada into the U.S.
EDUCATION: Voted against No Child Left Behind; supports $3,000 tax credit for families who participate in school choice. Opposes school vouchers as philosophically that means other taxpayers are subsidizing another family’s schooling. He supports home schooling.
FEDERAL BUDGET/TAXES: During 19-year congressional career, Paul said he’s never voted for a bill to raise taxes and voted against most federal budget spending bills. Would dismantle the Internal Revenue Service, repeal the federal income tax and is open to a national sales tax in its place, but only if the Congress made deep cuts in federal spending first.
ABORTION: Has an anti-abortion voting record, but opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and instead favors letting states restrict the procedure as they see fit. Urges supporters to contend the federal judiciary that outlaws abortion restrictions lacks jurisdiction to take up the issue.
GLOBAL WARMING: Restrictions on pollution should be done at the state rather than federal level. He favors federal tax credits for research of alternative energy sources and says expansion of nuclear power is a “safe, clean” way to cut back use of fossil fuels.
GAY MARRIAGE: Would let the states set restrictions on marriage and voted against federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2004. Says marriage is a religious institution, but would not oppose states issuing licenses that recognized the union of same-sex partners.
STEM-CELL RESEARCH FUNDING: Supports expansion of research, but opposes federal funding for it.
Telegraph
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said his opposition to the Iraq war, his strict adherence to the Constitution and calls to change the monetary standard all fueled his GOP fundraising record via the Internet."I think the attention-getter is the war because it's a big issue, but I think that prompts a lot of people to go look at our Web site and say, 'Oh, I agree with these other issues,' " Paul said during an interview with The Telegraph editorial board on Wednesday.
The 72-year-old, soft-spoken Texas congressman already had a legendary individual donor base, the third largest in Congress as far back as 1994.
"I have always done my fundraising by direct mail. I have never been able to call people up and say, 'hey, send me some money,' and I don't deal with the special interests," Paul said.
"Do you realize how many mailings you would have to send out to get 20,000 new people? Many, many pieces of mail, hundreds of thousands of dollars and yet, this money all came in for free. All of the sudden they found us, sent money and are on our list. It's sort of like on autopilot now."
Despite the newfound largesse, Paul is mired in single digits in New Hampshire and national polls. But he insists a surprise showing in the first-in-the-nation primary is possible even though he's campaigned here less than better-known candidates.
He shrugs off criticism that his Iraq war opposition is a losing issue with a GOP base who, by a clear majority, want to finish the job of helping that country form a power-sharing government among secular factions.
"They say I'm anti-military, but who has the most contributors of any candidate, Democrat or Republican, from our fighting men and women? I do," said Paul, an Air Force surgeon during the Vietnam War era.
Paul was the only Republican in Congress to oppose the Iraq war in 2002.
If elected, Paul would withdraw all American troops from Iraq and opposes spending any more foreign or domestic aid to rebuild the country.
"They are a rich country, they have oil, and that's how it should be paid for," Paul said.
"We have to give up the principle of blowing things up around the world, as well as rebuilding. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get back to fiscal sanity."
The threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has been overblown, and their chances of using one are "slim to none," he said.
"We either subsidize people or we bomb them. Why not try another option?" Paul asked. "We shouldn't get hysterical that in 10 years or more they might have a nuclear weapon."
Paul voted to authorize force against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but said Bush turned it into a nation-building exercise.
To confront terrorists bent on violence against the U.S., Paul would pursue a "marque and reprisal" provision used by the Founding Fathers to empower private individuals to bring pirates to justice using legal means.
"I would place a lot more confidence in a Ross Perot approach to going after a band of individuals who orchestrated that against us," Paul said.
At least $200 billion a year would be saved by getting out of Iraq and cutting back on U.S. foreign intervention in 130 countries, Paul said.
Even taxpayer-paid humanitarian aid to treat the genocide in Darfur is not a wise course, he added.
"There is not much evidence that much of this is successful, some of it has been, but we are also broke," Paul said.
"If the government got out of it, private individuals would come forward. The American people are very generous."
Paul claims he's voted against any increase in taxes during his 19 years in Congress and against more than 90 percent of federal spending bills.
He would focus first on cutting foreign aid before pursuing a desire to get rid of wholesale, federal agencies like the Departments of Education, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Reserve.
"In spite of the fact philosophically I don't support the programs, they should never have been started and it is part of the problem, but it is not part of the early answer," Paul said.
A gynecologist who's delivered 4,000 babies, Paul opposes legal abortions, but believes states should be left to make restrictions on the procedure and is against a constitutional ban.
Paul said anti-abortion leaders ignored his call to claim federal courts have no jurisdiction as when the Supreme Court overturned a congressional ban on late-term abortions.
And Paul said the practice of printing more money has made the U.S. a record debtor nation, and he would reinstitute gold and silver as alternatives to paper currency.
"History shows that paper never lasts. It ends terribly," Paul said.RON PAUL
---------------------------
PARTY: Republican.
BIRTH DATE: Aug. 20, 1935.
RESIDENCE: Surfside Beach, Texas.
EXPERIENCE: U.S. House of Representatives, 1997-present, 1979-1985 and 1976-1977; current member of House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EDUCATION: M.D. from Duke University; bachelor’s degree, Gettysburg College.
MILITARY: Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force, 1963-1965; Air National Guard, 1965-1968.
PERSONAL: Wife, Carol; five children; 17 grandchildren.
CANDIDATE WEB SITE: www.ronpaul2008.com.
---------------------------
PAUL ON THE ISSUES
Here are opinions of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas on major issues.
IRAQ WAR: Only Republican member of Congress to vote against war in 2002 and would withdraw all U.S. troops in three to six months.
IMMIGRATION REFORM: Supports strengthening borders with more federal patrols and enforcing laws against employers who hire illegal aliens. Opposes guest worker or any form of amnesty to the 12 million people who got here illegally.
HEALTH CARE: Supports free market solutions such as health savings accounts and transitioning a refundable tax credit so more families can afford health-care coverage; voted to let citizens buy and bring cheaper drugs from Canada into the U.S.
EDUCATION: Voted against No Child Left Behind; supports $3,000 tax credit for families who participate in school choice. Opposes school vouchers as philosophically that means other taxpayers are subsidizing another family’s schooling. He supports home schooling.
FEDERAL BUDGET/TAXES: During 19-year congressional career, Paul said he’s never voted for a bill to raise taxes and voted against most federal budget spending bills. Would dismantle the Internal Revenue Service, repeal the federal income tax and is open to a national sales tax in its place, but only if the Congress made deep cuts in federal spending first.
ABORTION: Has an anti-abortion voting record, but opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and instead favors letting states restrict the procedure as they see fit. Urges supporters to contend the federal judiciary that outlaws abortion restrictions lacks jurisdiction to take up the issue.
GLOBAL WARMING: Restrictions on pollution should be done at the state rather than federal level. He favors federal tax credits for research of alternative energy sources and says expansion of nuclear power is a “safe, clean” way to cut back use of fossil fuels.
GAY MARRIAGE: Would let the states set restrictions on marriage and voted against federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2004. Says marriage is a religious institution, but would not oppose states issuing licenses that recognized the union of same-sex partners.
STEM-CELL RESEARCH FUNDING: Supports expansion of research, but opposes federal funding for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)