Senator Ron Paul?

In June, I spoke with the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund about the impact of Ron Paul’s presidential bid on the Libertarian Party. Fund is now speculating about the impact an independent Ron Paul bid could have on the presidential election:

Should he choose to go the third-party route, Mr. Paul would enjoy far more visibility than in his haphazard 1988 campaign. The Libertarian Party national convention doesn’t meet until late May in Denver, and becoming its nominee would immediately guarantee him a spot on 26 state ballots. Another 20 state ballot lines would be fairly easy to obtain.

It’s also likely Mr. Paul would be the rare third-party candidate who could actually raise his own money. He’s on track to raise over $12 million for the GOP primaries in just the last quarter of 2008.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Mr. Paul would hurt the GOP candidate if he ran in the general election, an argument can be made his third-party run would also take votes away from the Democratic candidate. If he emphasized his support for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately, he would trump Hillary Clinton on the left. If he talked about his support for drug decriminalization, he would clearly appeal to a constituency ignored by both major parties. Hillary Clinton and the GOP frontrunners all support the Patriot Act, a major bugaboo for Mr. Paul. Calling for its repeal could increase his appeal to the ACLU crowd.


While I disagree with one premise of this article, John Xavier raises another important angle to speculation about Ron Paul’s future political intentions.

First of all, Xavier insists that Paul will not run as a third party or independent candidate. While, at this moment, I clearly wouldn’t bet the farm on a Ron Paul third party presidential bid, the possibility of one cannot be absolutely ruled out. Paul’s continued statement of “I have no intention of doing this” does not flatly rule out an independent bid for President. Dr. Paul certainly has a great enough command of the English language to categorically rule out such speculation any time he so chooses.

This said, Xavier has laid out an interesting case for Paul to run for John Cornyn’s Senate seat:


A Paul candidacy for the U.S. Senate would be interesting. Whether its just piss poor campaign management or strategic hoarding, Paul will have a lot of cash on hand when he eventually withdraws from the race for the Republican presidential nomination. That is cash that he will able to roll into another campaign account.

For the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Texas, that would mean he would have more cash on hand than incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn. Cornyn, who is in a dangerous position with an approval rating under 50%, would have his hands full with Paul, and a primary fight between the two would get ugly fast.

Paul, who has a proven national fundraising base, would also be able to retap any maxed out donors for more money and solicit new contributions from his continually expanding national fund raising list. He has also shown he can raise money locally in his previous runs for Congress.

A Senator Paul would be as equally interesting. The U.S. Senate is a more suitable soapbox for him where the statement is just as important as anything that gets done. Senators are also national figures who often represent more than just their home state, and the relative strength of Paul’s presidential candidacy shows that there is a national constituency that is underrepresented.


I’ve also been hearing a persistent rumor that Ron Paul is grooming his son for his congressional seat. While I’m asked about Paul’s third party intentions on almost a daily basis, I have no clue about his intentions or ultimate political destination.

Should Paul obtain enough delegates to receive a speaking spot at the GOP convention, this would certainly help springboard him into the Texas Senate seat.

Whatever Ron Paul ends up doing, I’m sure it will certainly prove interesting.

53 Responses to “Senator Ron Paul?”

  1. GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » A Ron Paul Senate Race? Says:

    [...] The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund is speculating about Ron Paul running as Libertarian Party presidential candidate, while John Xavier outlines a good case for Paul to run for U.S. Senate.  My take on both topics is available here. [...]

  2. Robert Milnes Says:

    Steve, have I mentioned how sick & tired I am of hearing about Ron Paul?

  3. Phil Says:

    Um, am I missing something here? The filing deadline for Cornyn’s seat is the day before the Iowa caucuses and the primary is going to be in early March. There’s zero chance of this happening. Absolutely none.

  4. Jonathan Cymberknopf Says:

    If Dr. Paul doesn’t run under a Third Party Ticket, there will be no more Revolutions, everything we have fought for would be worthless now and in the future.

  5. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jonathan Cymberknopf, I told you so.

  6. Robert Milnes Says:

    Not exactly. After Free of Ron Paul Day Feb 5, the REAL Libertarian race will begin realistically speaking. If libs listen to me that nominee might could actually get elected. AND…unlike RP have lots of lib & green coattails.

  7. Eric Dondero Says:

    There’s a huge problem with the Senate scenario. Ron Paul is 73 years old. And he looks older than his age. He has many health problems already. A Senate term is 6 years long. For a 73 year old man?

    Also, do not forget, that if Ron Paul runs 3rd party for President he will lose his Congressional seat.

    As a Chris Pedan supporter, I’m all in favor of that.

    Go Ron Go. Go the 3rd Party route for President. We need a Congressman who reflects our values here in Texas Congressional District 14. Not someone who hates the Military.

  8. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Phil and Eric,

    I’m well aware of Texas filing laws and watching this state very closely for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that it will provide a bigger picture of Paul’s third party intentions than his non-committal “I have no intention…” answers have.

  9. rj Says:

    Eric, I’m related to military and people that have been to Iraq. They’re closer to Ron Paul’s view on the war than George W. Bush. These aren’t some left-wing nutjobs, these are people that’ve voted Republican every election in their life.

    I can’t see Paul running for Senator. I can’t seriously see him beating John Cornyn in a statewide primary in Texas of all places.

  10. johncjackson Says:

    Dondero spreading lies as usual. Ron Paul has a lot of military support and is well known for helping out veterans when no one else would.

    Then alluding to “many health problems.” I have to admit RP sometimes has the “frail old man” look going on. But I would say in reality he is probably more fit and vigorous than most of my friends in their 30s.

  11. johncjackson Says:

    Though, I have to say I do agree with Dondero that he is probably too old to serve out a Senate term. And some of the writing about going in the Senate and then running for POTUS in 2012- Yes he will be too old then.

  12. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    I agree.

    After all, who could imagine someone in the US Senate past the age of 75, let alone 80?

    I was on the phone with my buddy from South Carolina and when I said that, he couldn’t stop laughing.

  13. Devious David Says:

    Next thing you know Dondumbass will be saying Dr. Paul suffers from acute AIDS and is a chronic pedophile.

    He’s just mad because he got fired and he’s willing to be libelous to fulfill his vendetta. What a neocon slimeball.

  14. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    Dr. Paul suffers from acute AIDS and is a chronic pedophile.

    Can you prove that this is not the case?

  15. rj Says:

    “Can you prove that this is not the case?”

    Reverand Pat Robertson, I believe you are a Pastafarian. :D

  16. Eric Dondero Says:

    Stephen, there’s a possible scenario that nobody has thought about yet. I don’t think even Chris Peden, Ron’s opponent has considered this possibility.

    Ron, in all the years I worked for him, always waited til the very last minute to file his papers with Austin. Sometimes he even filed the very day of the deadline.

    I wonder if he might be doing this now? I could be completely wrong on this. Perhaps he’s already filed. (Though, he could withdraw any time before the deadline.)

    But, if he hasn’t filed, that’s an indication that there’s a teensy weensy possibility that he might surprise us all, and not file for reelection for Congress.

    For you all, that means there’s a greater possibility he’d go 3rd party for the general election.

    For me, it means that Peden has an open shot at the Congressional seat. (Though, I sense that the Texas Dems will think that Peden is too much of a newcommer, and may see him as more vulnerable - though on the other hand, it will be too late for them to recruit a top-notch candidate.)

    So fun, to game all this.

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    RJ, I believe they’re talking of the Kay Hutchison Senate seat. Cornyn just won reelection, and Kay is talking of switching to Governor. And she’s being talked of as a VP choice too.

    Paul has serious problems with his knees. His other health is just fine. But anyone who has been around him knows that his knee problems are debilitating to the point that he sometimes is unable to walk. It’s a thing that comes and goes. I used to have to “guide him” out of the car. Not “carry” but allow him to lean on me so that he could get out and get to the door.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    RJ, if you think the Military “loves Ron Paul” I’d invite you to come on down to South Texas, and visit a local VFW or American Legion Post. I’m members of both, and can bring you in as a guest.

    Ask any VFW or American Legion guy. They can’t stand him down here. They feel like they were duped by the man. Ron Paul ran on Pro-Military/Pro-Troops, and now he’ Pro-Surrender. Amazingly, he’s holding on to that position even though the NY Times and Washington Post and USA Today is admitting that we’ve essentially won the War, and Bush is beginning to bring the Troops home.

    Go to the VFW or American Legion in your own area. Ask them what they think of Ron Paul.

  19. Carol Lane Says:

    Many Green Party leaders are also hoping to nominate Ron Paul as the Green Party candidate for president or Vice President.

  20. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    Green, like the flag of Libya?

    Why not just call it the American Baathist Party?

  21. rj Says:

    “RJ, if you think the Military “loves Ron Paul” I’d invite you to come on down to South Texas, and visit a local VFW or American Legion Post. I’m members of both, and can bring you in as a guest.

    Ask any VFW or American Legion guy. They can’t stand him down here. They feel like they were duped by the man. Ron Paul ran on Pro-Military/Pro-Troops, and now he’ Pro-Surrender. Amazingly, he’s holding on to that position even though the NY Times and Washington Post and USA Today is admitting that we’ve essentially won the War, and Bush is beginning to bring the Troops home.

    Go to the VFW or American Legion in your own area. Ask them what they think of Ron Paul.”

    And Eric, I invite you to my hometown of Havelock, North Carolina, home to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. This is in the 3rd district and the district’s representative for Cherry Point as well as Naval Air Station New River and Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, Walter B. Jones, Republican, is leading the charge for a withdrawel.

    Now Eric, you are clearly a smart person, so why would a person that sponsored the legislation changing the name of French fries in the Congressional cafeteria to freedom fries be openly declaring his support for a timetable? This is a district that is heavily heavily military and is heavily heavily conservative, so why would he support such a position, opening himself up to criticism from the majority of the district’s residents for daring to defy “the Fearless Leader”, George W. Bush?

    I thought about this as I lived in the district most of my life, and I could only come up with one possible reason for Jones’ change of face. He was approached by military residents and families in the district that wanted a stop to the war.

    I notice you say you were at a VFW convention and they don’t like them. Last I checked, veterans are retired and they don’t do any more fighting. You see, I live somewhere with actual standing military that are still fighting.

    You’re more than welcome to come to eastern North Carolina. I’ll introduce you to my father, who’s been to Iraq on two tours, will go for a third next year, and he will tell you his opinion of what he saw over there and if it is a worthwhile goal. He’s not alone in his opinion either.

  22. rj Says:

    And Eric, this is my overall point. If you believe this war serves a purpose, that is your opinion and I respect it. I invite you to enlist. If you think this war is important, shouldn’t you be doing your part to help ensure it succeeds?

    You see, this is why I hate country club Republicans. They sit in their armchairs, drink their wine coolers, and say anyone that uses common sense on trying to determine who we are fighting and what is our overall long-term goal is un-American. And yet, if these people or their children were ever drafted, they would be the first people to defect to Canada or make sure their kids dodged the draft by getting them a desk job defending this country in Missoula, Montana. I am sick of these people telling my neighbors to die for a cause that they themselves would not willingly fight for. “We must not soil our hands with this conflict. We are of high berth.” F***ing p*ssies, all of them. You’re not going to be high berth when I take my shotgun and ram it up your ass.

  23. rj Says:

    My personal reason that this war needs to stop is we are opening our military up to vulnerability. Our military was designed to fight two wars simultaneously. That was our military strategy throughout the Cold War and to now, despite the massive cuts in military done by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. We are fighting our two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why all these hotspots in the rest of the world are occurring: Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Lebanon. We don’t have much reserve capacity at all right now. That’s why these countries are pretty much sticking up their middle finger to us. Iran is doing uranium enrichment. How are we going to attack them? We don’t have the manpower for a third war. Our military was only designed to fight two wars, remember? Not to mention all our military infrastructure is severely weakened. There are junkyards over there of Humvees just stacked 10-by-10, row-by-row, where are we getting new ones? Those cost money don’t you think? The aircraft over there is in horrendously terrible shape. Nothing destroys machinery better than sand and maintenance on the aircraft is consistently being delayed partly cause squadron-level maintenance know how has severely dropped (hence making our military capability entirely dependent on contractors) and partly cause the aircraft has to do its missions. The V-22 Ospreys are about to be deployed there and when they do they will be an absolute nightmare (too many moving parts which means very easy for sand to penetrate which means lots of down time which means less missions for the military to do their job, absolute poor design on Bell’s and Boeing’s engineers). Bottom line: if you support this war, I hope you support higher taxes, cause we have to pay for all this somehow.

    The worst military mistakes in the history of mankind were carried out by leaders by Hitler and Napoleon, men with either great technological advantage or great military strategic reasoning over their opponents. The reasons they failed was overreach. The United States will be significantly weakened long-term if we allow that to happen. That’s why I oppose this war continuing: not because of emotions, but entirely on strategic grounds. And if you think this war should continue, then you are arguing that our military’s size should increase because we are currently overstretched. Our recruiting is having a hard time catching up, and we’re most likely going to need a draft. I would prefer a draft to overreach. If it screws me cause of my age, so be it.

    War is a national effort for it to work, and it cannot be a national effort when our president is telling the country to not make any sacrifices at all for this war to succeed. The American public has such a severe misunderstanding of the role of military in today’s society it really frightens me. People think we are invincible, no one can touch us, and we can win “perfect wars”, wars where we will not have a single casualty. I’ve actually had people argue this with me that we can fight perfect wars. It’s this belief that war is no longer a national undertaking, and is instead just a hobby that can be done by government.

    I’m scared for this country’s future. Not of pulling out of Iraq, but the complete stupidity of the American population on war, its effects, our abilities, and its limits. I look at Iraq, and I see what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union. Iraq is small potatoes. We need to worry about Russia, China, Iran. Places that actually have functioning militaries that can hurt this country. And right now we’re not worrying about them cause we’re letting an Arab teenager take potshots at us and Humvees that are driving over bombs.

  24. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    R. J.,

    That’s just a bunch of rationalization.

    I like your thinking about the draft, and if we have to raise taxes - well, you can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is just not a libertarian.

    9/11 changed everything, and in a time of war you have to make some sacrifices, like some of your money, your privacy, and your first born. So be it.

    We are in a war against Islamic terrorism, and Jesus says nuke Mecca! The only option is victory, and I mean total victory over Islam.

    Until we have wiped the last Mohammetan from the face of the earth, our struggle continues!

    We libertarians must secure the existence of our people and a future for Christian children.

  25. rj Says:

    How can it be rationalization when this war has clearly weakened our military?

    http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-will-save-fleet-before-its-too-late.html

  26. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    R. J.,

    That’s pre-9/11 thinking.

    In a post-9/11 world, libertarians understand that even if we must make certain sacrifices - like putting a randomly selected 40% of Americans on a strict ration diet of Alpo™ dog food - in order to adequately fund a military which can fight twenty wars at a time - or even installing NSA webcams in every home and public toilet in the country, it’s well worth the price of wiping the planet clean of the Islamist scourge.

  27. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    Besides all that, there’s only one country in between Iraq and Afghanistan. Looks to me like we should take them out, and then that becomes just one war.

    After we nuke Mecca that one might have to be expanded a little, or maybe a lot.

    Well, then, that leaves us with one more war we can fight at the same time. I’m thinking Venezuela. I’ve always wanted to give ol’ Hugo Chavez the heave-ho. Colombia is right next door, so while we’re down there we can give them a hand with the FARC terrorists. And while we are at it, Cuba is not too far away and we need more capacity at Guantanamo. How about the whole island? The existing population is in need of good paying jobs, and prison guards make out pretty well from what I’ve heard.

    I’ve discussed this with some of the Top libertarian Republicans like Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani and Tom Tancredo.

    Tom and Duncan were insisting we don’t forget Mexico while we are on that second front, but I’m thinking we just go ahead and merge with Mexico. We’ll need some of their excess population for the war effort.

    See, that’s the kind of brilliant plan libertarian Republicans can come up with when we put our heads together!

  28. Eric Dondero Says:

    rj, USNavy Veteran - honorable 1981-85, Aircraft Carrier and Guided Missile Destroyer - 3 medals including Expeditionary for service in a War Zone.

    Are you a Vet?

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric,

    Last I heard—we werent in Iraq in 1981-1985. Re-enlist if you support the War so heavily.

  30. rj Says:

    Then as a Navy veteran you will understand the full truth of the link I posted about the decrepit, falling nature of the Navy. Guess why the Navy is falling? TO PAY FOR THIS WAR!

    Excuse me for attaching more importance to defending our country from China and Russia in the future than a bunch of Arabs in their own country. I have little desire for us to become the Soviet Union after what they did in Afghanistan. I don’t see why you want to.

    And you say that Ron Paul is pro-surrender. Our administration is pro-surrender. We are withdrawing from villages and handing them over to Sunni militias, the same militias that a couple years ago were shooting at us!

    For the record, I’m a military brat. And will probably get drafted if we continue on our current course. So I would be defending you.

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    rj, so you’re 18? Or maybe a Medical Doctor?

    I serve on the Selective Service Board. I can tell you that there is almost zero chance of a return to the Military Draft under the Bush Administration. But even if Clinton is elected President, we’ve been told that the only ones who would get drafted would be 18 year-old males, and a limited number of Medical Professionals. And that would be an extreme case.

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    Trent,

    Iran/Iraq War 1982-89. Vicious War. Over 1 million were killed. And we were most certainly involved.

    Go back and read some of the press from the time. Remember the escorting of the oil tankers out of the Gulf? Remember the USS Stark when 37 US Sailors were killed by an Iraqi missile?

    Those instances were only the tip of the iceburg of our involvement. I was there for 9 long months, right in the thick of it.

  33. Sean Scallon Says:

    Yes Eric all those vets really hate Ron Paul. In fact they hate him so much you know what happened? He got re-elected both in 2004 and 2006.

    Try something else Eric. Or better yet, quit while you’re behind.

  34. Eric Dondero Says:

    And who was Ron Paul running against all those times? Paper candidates on both the Democrat and Republican sides. Not this time. He’s got a touch reelection bid for the first time since 1996.

  35. rj Says:

    If you are for this war Eric, than why aren’t you for the draft? Morale is shot and our soldiers need to take a breath.

    I’m 25. Ages are always flexible, government can tell us what to do and when to do it unfortunately, you know that as well as I do.

    You did not answer a single one of my points on why I believe this war needs to cease not in the short-term but in the near long-term. (And I fully expect G.W. to withdraw anyway, the man’s record shows he talks a tough game and then never carries it out.)

    Eric, if you’re an intelligent person that believes this war is correct than you should have no problem defending your position. I post it again.

    “My personal reason that this war needs to stop is we are opening our military up to vulnerability. Our military was designed to fight two wars simultaneously. That was our military strategy throughout the Cold War and to now, despite the massive cuts in military done by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. We are fighting our two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why all these hotspots in the rest of the world are occurring: Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Lebanon. We don’t have much reserve capacity at all right now. That’s why these countries are pretty much sticking up their middle finger to us. Iran is doing uranium enrichment. How are we going to attack them? We don’t have the manpower for a third war. Our military was only designed to fight two wars, remember? Not to mention all our military infrastructure is severely weakened. There are junkyards over there of Humvees just stacked 10-by-10, row-by-row, where are we getting new ones? Those cost money don’t you think? The aircraft over there is in horrendously terrible shape. Nothing destroys machinery better than sand and maintenance on the aircraft is consistently being delayed partly cause squadron-level maintenance know how has severely dropped (hence making our military capability entirely dependent on contractors) and partly cause the aircraft has to do its missions. The V-22 Ospreys are about to be deployed there and when they do they will be an absolute nightmare (too many moving parts which means very easy for sand to penetrate which means lots of down time which means less missions for the military to do their job, absolute poor design on Bell’s and Boeing’s engineers). Bottom line: if you support this war, I hope you support higher taxes, cause we have to pay for all this somehow.

    The worst military mistakes in the history of mankind were carried out by leaders by Hitler and Napoleon, men with either great technological advantage or great military strategic reasoning over their opponents. The reasons they failed was overreach. The United States will be significantly weakened long-term if we allow that to happen. That’s why I oppose this war continuing: not because of emotions, but entirely on strategic grounds. And if you think this war should continue, then you are arguing that our military’s size should increase because we are currently overstretched. Our recruiting is having a hard time catching up, and we’re most likely going to need a draft. I would prefer a draft to overreach. If it screws me cause of my age, so be it.

    War is a national effort for it to work, and it cannot be a national effort when our president is telling the country to not make any sacrifices at all for this war to succeed. The American public has such a severe misunderstanding of the role of military in today’s society it really frightens me. People think we are invincible, no one can touch us, and we can win “perfect wars”, wars where we will not have a single casualty. I’ve actually had people argue this with me that we can fight perfect wars. It’s this belief that war is no longer a national undertaking, and is instead just a hobby that can be done by government.

    I’m scared for this country’s future. Not of pulling out of Iraq, but the complete stupidity of the American population on war, its effects, our abilities, and its limits. I look at Iraq, and I see what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union. Iraq is small potatoes. We need to worry about Russia, China, Iran. Places that actually have functioning militaries that can hurt this country. And right now we’re not worrying about them cause we’re letting an Arab teenager take potshots at us and Humvees that are driving over bombs.”

  36. Rev. Pat Robertson Says:

    R. J., haven’t you been keeping up with the news?

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are already won.

    The war in Iran has been won before it started.

    Mission accomplished!!

  37. rj Says:

    Winning is irrelevant in this context. We won in Iraq in April 2003. We accomplished our objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Baathist government.

    We are an occupation force and we have to continue occupying because we made Iraq and Afghanistan de facto colonies after the respective overthrows of Hussein and the Taliban. So since we are still there, we are committing resources, and if we are still committing resources, that means those resources are getting used up and they cannot be used up, which means it is taking a wear-and-tear toll on our military with its infrastructure and its manpower.

    How much of a toll is it going to take before it distracts from the “really bad guys” that our military needs to keep its attention on, China and Russia? Did you know that in the past month the Chinese navy did a naval exercise where its two fleets were preparing for a blockade of Taiwan? http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/11/29/2003390345

    Do you know that the U.S. has a treaty with Taiwan that we will defend them if China ever declares war or tries to take over? Remember that a blockade is officially an act of war.

    Our enemies are not going to take actions to weaken our power when there is peace in the world and we and our military are in bliss and ready, they’re going to do it when our attention is distracted toward actions that are trivial at best and we are in a position where the state of our infrastructure and military limits our ability to defend or live up to our treaties with our allies. After four years of this exercise in Iraq, our military needs to reload.

    China’s and Russia’s ability to inflict damage on this country > Al Qaeda.

  38. rj Says:

    “So since we are still there, we are committing resources, and if we are still committing resources, that means those resources are getting used up and they cannot be used up, which means it is taking a wear-and-tear toll on our military with its infrastructure and its manpower.”

    The above sentence does not make sense above. Just remove “and they cannot be used up”. My apology.

  39. Eric Dondero Says:

    You guys won’t believe who just gave their backing to Rudy Giuliani for President. This could be the biggest libertarian endorsement yet for Rudy, save Steve Forbes.

    Hint: American’s Number One Tax Cutting Champion.

    Find out who at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    Why aren’t I for the Draft?

    Because Draftees make poor soldiers and sailors. Don’t want someone who doesn’t want to be there as my shipmate.

    Plus the Draft is essentially involuntary servitude. It’s putting a gun to a young man’s head and saying “You must serve!”

    Plus, it’s inherently discriminatory. Men must serve. But women get a free pass.

  41. rj Says:

    Eric, are you going to completely ignore my points?

    I expect more out of you.

  42. rj Says:

    There’s more to being a libertarian than cutting taxes.

    Like…cutting spending maybe?

  43. TPW/CD Reader Says:

    Save for Ron Paul, what Presidential candidates either D or R will tell us what programs they will cut? I don’t know of any.

    What programs is Rudy planning on cutting to pay for his empire?

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    TPW/CD Reader, Giuliani has a detailed plan for straight across the board 10% cuts in all departments save Defense. He also outlines his plans for cutting government by attrition, not rehiring entrenched beauracrats after they’ve retired.

  45. Babblemur Says:

    There is no chance that Ron Paul would be nominated by the Green Party.

    NONE.

    More power to him, and his people, but he ain’t Green.

  46. Li Chao Says:

    dondero supports Chris Pedan for Dr. Pauls congressional seat? but eric, i thought you were gonna run agaist the good Dr. and show us all that amazing political prowess that allowed you to get Ron Paul elected in the first place? you know, way back before he fired your sorry ass?

  47. HaloIQ Says:

    Want to know who enlisted military really support?

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/iowa/the-military-supports-ron/

  48. keeper Says:

    Rev. Pat Robertson - You say that the war is won. We may have won a few battles but the war will go down in history as a big loss. In case you haven’t noticed, we have spent ourselves into a hole now. History will judge this war in economic terms.

  49. baccarat free Says:

    baccarat free

    components hunt exams,Virginian.terminologies.

  50. watchgreed Says:

    australia usa university you key we black global glass pets

  51. redwe Says:

    no minor water house free go watch green keyboard see england

  52. no limit texas holdem poker tournaments in las vegas Says:

    no limit texas holdem poker tournaments in las vegas

    oar conveyers unroll baneful

  53. cruise casino florida poiker Says:

    cruise casino florida poiker

    seep statisticians whirring patching!maniac.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.