Rep. Ron Paul should get a speaking role at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, suggests Brian Doherty, a senior editor at libertarian Reason magazine. Brian Doherty writes at U.S. News & World Report that the party is wrong to shun the Republican presidential candidate who managed to last the longest in the race against his main rival Gov. Mitt Romney.
The Texas congressman brought new, young energy and money into the party more than any other GOP presidential contender, writes Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.
"The Republican Party has been, rhetorically, the party of limited, constitutional government that respects its citizens' liberties," Doherty writes. "Ron Paul has been the candidate who energized hundreds of thousands of active, involved, giving young voters to truly get excited about those ideas."
Let Ron speak, he goofy on some things, but when it comes to finance he's right on! I hope President Romney appoints him Minister of Finance. Maybe we can stop sending billions to countries who hate us and kill our troops. Obama seems too busy campaigning to deal with that.
Ron Paul activists uneasily embrace GOP ... http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/22/ron-paul-ac... ... Giving Ron Paul a primetime speaking slot would go a long way to convincing us that the "Audit the Fed" platform plank isn't just an empty promise.
Not every word. We can disagree on which ones but I'd rather focus on the points that we would agree. He should be allowed to speak at the convention as he did compete right up to the end and did pull quite a few delegates.
I like a lot of what Ron says. I voted for him when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and supported his primary bid in 2008 as well as this year.
The GOP has ignored the limited government libertarian wing of the party for way too long. It is well past the time that we have a government we can afford and not financed on the backs of future generations. I am also glad that Ron Paul has brought the question to the GOP establishment of what should a "conservative foreign policy" look like? Is it conservative to have an unaffordable foreign policy as we have now that includes such things as aid (welfare) to other countries? Is it conservative to borrow from foreign countries then to turn around and defend these very same countries? Is it conservative to go to war with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that were never a threat to us? What good does it do if we save Anbar, but lose Arizona? Taking care of matters at home never looked so good, but many will then call me an isolationist. Calling Ron Paul an "isolationist" makes about as much sense as labeling your best neighbor a "hermit" because he doesn't do donuts on your lawn or throw bricks through your windows.
As a Ron Paul fan I am constantly surprised he continues to back the Republican party at all when they give him zero support on a national level. It is great if he can win his district and represent his little area of Texas but the Republican party wants nothing to do with him when he wants to make a Presidential run. Gary Johnson saw the same thing happen to him, which is why he is now Libertarian. The national Republican party, in action, supports nothing Ron Paul stands for and would just be pandering for votes if they let him speak.
Ron Paul has refused to endorse Romney as the party's nominee. He's also refused to promise not to preach his foreign policy views from the podium, which are diametrically opposite to what Romney and everyone else in the party believes.
This is not a "free speech" issue. The convention is a publicity event put on by the Republican National Committee, whose goal is to elect Mitt Romney in November. Anything that detracts from that goal will not and should not be allowed.
"He's also refused to promise not to preach his foreign policy views from the podium, which are diametrically opposite to what Romney and everyone else in the party believes." And that is just one more reason that I do not consider myself a republican. I and many others like me want a foreign policy that we can actually afford, not one financed on the backs of our children. Most Americans today believe the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war were big mistakes, so perhaps it is time the GOP reconsider what their position on foreign policy is. With 10,000 boomers retiring daily and trillion dollar deficits as far the eye can see, we need to start taking care of matters at home. Here is a suggestion for the GOP, instead of acting as policemen of the world, how about we secure our border as we have S. Korea's border with our 28,000 troops? What good does it do us to fight a global war on terror when we can't secure our own border?
Ron Paul is the main attraction of the Republican party for any Republicans that are not completly insane, corporate owned or any real conservatives that are still left in America. Republicans are scared to let Ron Paul speak at their little get together, that means someone might tell the truth and we can't have that now can we?