0 votes

Mary Starrett on the GOP Field

Yesterday in DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS & THE 7 DWARFS, Mary Starrett provided a detailed analysis of all of the leading Republican candidates plus potential candidates like Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.

Here is what she said about Dr. Paul:

"Ron Paul: The Congressman from Texas is quite simply, ‘the best they’ve got’. The physician is the only candidate who has a 100% constitutionally-correct voting record. Because he votes against unconstitutional bills every time, he earned the label “Doctor No.' "

"...On every single issue he is a pure, unadulterated, founders-woulda-loved him conservative. "

Starrett shared the Constitution Party's current perspective on Paul's candidacy and cases where the media omitted or mistreated Ron Paul in reporting of poll results.

The full article is available at the following links:

DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS & THE 7 DWARFS
PART 1 of 2

DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS & THE 7 DWARFS
PART 2 of 2

Comment viewing options

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

Great Article...

Fuel for the fight.

Bill Kosloskey
MIForRonPaul.com
877-777-9909

Restore the Foundations - "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Constitution Party a favorable option?

I only have a slight problem with the Constitution Party and that is they're "biblical" ideas. To me, it seems like they get all the flavor of the Constitution except for the idea of freedom of religion. For instance, the idea that we should define a family seems to me to dictate the morals, ethics, beliefs and what have you for individuals. Marriage to me is a divine union and I don't think the government should have any right to say how that is defined, or even have the authority to license it. The fact that it is divine leads it to being protected under freedom of religion. I shouldn't be able to tell my neighbors whether or not they have a union under their beliefs. I didn't mean this to turn into a political debate, but just wanted to share how I veiw at least one of these third party options and why selecting one may hinder Dr. Paul's success.

Which leads me to the real question. I know Dr. Paul has said he would not run under another party, but I can't imagine he could say that right now even if he was thinking it. My question is, can he just run as Independent or does he actually have to have a party backing. Could his supporters petition to get him on the ballots, if the Republicans do not select him?

Just to clarify

I don't want to downplay anyone's political or religious beliefs, but one of the beauties of Dr. Paul's campaign is that his personal beliefs are put aside in the name of freedom. He says to keep all of that out of the federal laws. Solve it at the local level. That appeals to me because we can have more diversity and influence on our local laws. Plus, assuming there is enough diversity across the nation, if I really don't like the local laws, I can move and still be an American. If it's a federal law, well, I guess I could move to Canada. I think this is the "freedom" message that binds all of us from different ideologies to Ron Paul.

A MUST READ

.
Mary Starrett has done something pretty remarkable in her article, and it is worth bookmarking, maybe printing out and keeping handy.

She lists each republican candidate and explains their histories, their current status, and how they don't measure up. It's delicious.

The only candidate she deems worthy is Dr. Paul.

This reminds me. If you do a search on Giuliani on YouTube, you will find a very irate guy who lists---in detail---a variety of alleged criminal activities and cover-ups that Giuliani participated in. The guy is so furious with Giuliani, it's a real treat to watch. He has some choice words about Bloomberg also.

Over and out.

Third Parties

I'm wondering how possible it would be to convince the leadership of other political parties such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties to support Dr. Paul. We certainly share many of the same ideals, particularly with the Constitution Party. We're all on the same side. Would they be averse to switching to Republican just for the presidential primary vote, then switching back to their own party?

Do they realize that the election of Dr. Paul might be our last chance to save our nation? We who are awake should join forces to get this done. Shouldn't we somehow try to welcome them to the Ron Paul Revolution?

I would certainly trade all of my other votes to their parties in exchange. If this is illegal, never mind. :)

Good idea Roy

.
No, it's not illegal at all. Parties can endorse anybody they like, and Dr. Paul can be represented by the parties you mentioned. However, it would be - as you suggest - a better, more forceful presentation, if both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party just backed Dr. Paul outright.

You are right; the Republic needs a friend, and the clock is ticking.

If Dr. Paul accepted the

If Dr. Paul accepted the nominations of both the Constitution and Libertarian parties, it would give him nice momentum heading into the Republican convention.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."