Congressman Paul under attack

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Congressman Paul under attack

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Hope he has a golden parachute...

historian · Senior Member

Actually, Cat, all congresscritters have an outstanding retirement package - even if they only serve one term - and if I recall correctly, Ron Paul has stated that he won't take it. He's an honest and admirable man, and it must hurt to have a former staffer turn against him.

Many of us have begged to have him run for a long time. That's one person whom I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for.

Here's another opinion about what happened last night. I don't know -- didn't watch it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...ation/45195576

Wed May 16, 12:29 AM ET

The Nation -- Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."

Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

The writer of that article has called for Bush's impeachment. Just so you know where his sympathies lie.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Historian,

I don't buy into what was written.

Up until last night I felt Ron Paul was a viable option. Now I know he is either cookooloos or else is completely clueless when it comes to getting along with others in this tiny world.

Guiliani would be dangerous too, for different reasons.

I'm down to two viable candidates. Hunter and Romney. I'm going to support Mitt.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The attack on Ron Paul during the second poor excuse for a debate showed some signs of collusion by Fox because Giuliani's microphone was turned on so that he could rebut Paul. How did Giuliani get an open mic while Paul was speaking? The microphones of the others are always shut off when their turn is over so as to not feed in noise to the system. Giuliani's was obviously left on when Paul was speaking, allowing him to jump in before Paul was finished. I think Fox was just waiting for something Paul would say that would give Giuliani a chance to respond and denounce, something he's good at. During that debate Fox was clearly an arm of the Giuliani-for-president campaign.

The insiders of the GOP are, in my opinion, desperate to prevent Ron Paul from delivering the full message he apparently hopes to give to Americans. The elite of both parties are scared stiff that a candidate who is not bought and paid for is generating this much interest and that the snowball is rolling and getting bigger every day. Their decision to move from ignoring him to actively smearing him has backfired in conservative/constitutionalist circles and garnered Paul the attention he might not have otherwise received.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Yep, that avalanche of Paul support gets bigger and bigger:

http://thehill.com/byron-york/ron-pauls-e-mail-army-2007-05-17.html

When I wrote a story in National Review Online criticizing Pauls position, I heard from Pauls supporters.

They love their man. Theyre very agitated. And theyre sitting at their computers, voting in Internet polls and writing e-mails telling off anyone who criticizes Ron Paul.

Many of them point out that Paul scored very high in the counts in which Fox News and MSNBC invited viewers to register who they thought won the Republican debates in South Carolina and, earlier, in California.

What does that show? It shows Pauls fans are more energetic than others in clicking his name. In the real polls, however, he is nowhere to be found.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Interesting theory Lund. I have to say that if anything the bigwigs at FOX may be in collusion with Giuliani.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

What others have said:

"I am ashamed to admit that Ive been watching Ron Pauls recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless.

Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. Im sorry that I didnt believe in possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power.

And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive!

A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul. " -- by Karen Kwiatkowski http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski183.html

"Ron Paul, a Republican congressman running for president, is saying what needs to be said about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war. Clearly, his rivals and the news media can't handle the truth. At the most recent Republican debate, Paul not only repeated his opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional war, but he also identified 50 years of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as "a major contributing factor" in al-Qaeda's attacks in 2001. "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack[ed] us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East," Paul said. Paul thus becomes the first person in mainstream politics--he's been in Congress many years--to acknowledge that U.S. foreign policy has had bad consequences not only for people in the Middle East but for Americans at home as well. A government cannot take sides in so many deep-seated conflicts for as long as the U.S. government has without acquiring enemies and provoking retaliation. It doesn't take much knowledge of history and human nature--not to mention the official 9/11 Commission report--to see this. It's about time it was said in such a prominent forum." -- by Sheldon Richmond http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/051807Richman.shtml

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

You can't wish away the past 50 years. You can't change the fact that we are engaged militarily and have economic interests all around the world. America cannot just withdraw to our "safety" in the Western Hemisphere. Paul's views are unrealistic and irresponsible.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Why is it unrealistic and irresponsible to want our government to exercise it's proper role and function as founded in the Constitution?

I'm so tired of the Republican knee-jerk reactions--any honest criticism of the War in Iraq or the Bush administration's foreign policy gets labeled as "not supporting our troops" or "traitorous."

Instead of spending the past 50 years forcefully maintaining our access to cheap Persian Gulf oil, we should have been using those resources for better protection at home and to lessen our dependence on Persian Gulf oil.

Yeah, we can't change the past 50 years. But Ron Paul could sure help us chart a new course for the next 50.

-- Edited by Roper at 21:10, 2007-05-19

historian · Senior Member

Thank you, Roper. Your post makes sense.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Traitorous was saying that 9-11 was OUR fault. That was traitorous.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

America will always be a target. Heck, since our nation's founding we've been fighting for our financial interests overseas when all we've wanted to do is trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I guess I could be accused of being a traitor. The only fault on OUR part, as I see it, is in having allowed murdereous combinations to get above us which are built up to get power and gain. I believe 911 was engineered by those same murderous combinations, operating from the "inside", using elements of government, and I believe it was done for the express purpose of providing excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. And I believe Ron Paul knows that, as well as he knows of the deceptive conspiracy to overthrow the American Republic and its Constitution & Bill Of Rights in order to set up and usher in a totalitarian World Government. A time consuming review of his past statements will confirm that.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Roper said:

But Ron Paul could sure help us chart a new course for the next 50.
OK. To quote my favorite band:

"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan "

What is his plan? Let's hear some specifics. How is he going to disengage the US from the rest of the world without the chaos that will ensue following us back to our shores? Let's hear something besides, "we went wrong 50-60 years ago," or "we need to get out of our entangling alliances." I took a look at his website. I actually like the overall goals of preserving US independence, securing the border, etc. But let's get down to brass tacks--how is he, or anyone, going to do those things? How do you get there from here? When the rubber hits the road, these lofty principles need some real, definitive execution. I don't see any from Congressman Paul, and I don't believe he would be able to achieve any as President. Instead, consider supporting a candidate that actually has a snowball's chance in a hot place of getting the nomination, or of being elected President, or of being able to accomplish anything as President.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

An important thing to consider is Congress. And with the Congress we have now, which I don't expect will change significantly, and with so many of its members apparently beholden to others having power over them, a President intent on defying the real "powers that be" would probably not get very far. Currently, President seems to have way more power than the Constitution permits the president, and Congress lets him have it. One good example is the Congress' abrogating its responsibility to vote on whether to declare war. Congress voted to give that decision to the President, in violation of the Constitution, which in no other way gives the CinC power to initiate aggressive war. Also presidents' executive orders and so-called signing statements, especially by Clinton and Bush 43, circumvent both Congress and the Constitution.

As much as I wish for and support candidates who stand fast by the Constitution 100%, Satan and his minions have gotten over us. Only a near total clean-out of the FedGov would get the USA back on the track that the Lord originally intended it to run on. And I don't see that happening in 2008. I won't be pleasant.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, there is a thing called checks and balances in our government. I don't think that necessarily implies that everyone but a radical is beholden to invisible powers.

As to declaration of war, the current president did not take us into war without affirmative buy in and sustaining vote by Congress. The government of Afghanistan at the time was not recognized as a legitimate government by many in the world. And, the president was acting on permission Congress had given the executive office since the end of the first Gulf War when it came to Iraq, with the added very public vote of confidence and support by both houses to remove the Hussein regime.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

In other words, circumventing the Constitution. Since WW2, as far as I know, Congress has not formally declared war.

arbilad · Head Chef

As to declaration of war, the current president did not take us into war without affirmative buy in and sustaining vote by Congress.

Affirmative buy in and vote is not the same thing as a declaration of war. Legally, for us to go to war with someone, Congress needs to declare war on them. Heck, they even decided that they need to do so with the so called "War on Poverty".

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Maybe I just don't get it... How is Congress declaring war at the request of the President any different / better for the nation than Congress deferring to the President's decision as CinC?

Seems to me Congress, in a rare instance of wisdom, realized that in some instances, it is not expedient to put something like national security against external threats to the long and delayed process of debate on the floor when time is of essence.

How many times before WWII did the president formally go to Congress like FDR did and ask that they draft a resolution / declaration of war? Isn't a declaration of war usually made against a foreign government that has also formally declared war against you. How many of the wars that we have been in since WWII have the foreign powers / enemy nations actually declared formal war against us?

Maybe someone can put together a list with specifics.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Radical Islam will want us dead no matter who is in the white House. I'm not defending Bush's handling of the war. Obvously mistakes have been made. My problem with Ron Paul's statement is that it smacks of the "Blame America First" crowd or that we somehow deserve to be attacked. I was actually interested in what he had to say until that came out of his mouth. He lost all credibility with me.

arbilad · Head Chef

Maybe I just don't get it... How is Congress declaring war at the request of the President any different / better for the nation than Congress deferring to the President's decision as CinC?

One is constitutional, the other is not. Congress cannot delegate its power to declare war to any other entity. To do so, legally, would require a constitutional amendment.
It is not a requirement to declare war that it be against a foreign government or against a government that has already declared war against us.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Congress cannot delegate its power to declare war to any other entity
Actually, that is not entirely true. What is granting a letter of marquee and reprisal, if it isn't delegating powwer to carry out economic warfare by business entities, essentially, which often included some bloodshed?

Anyway, what implicitly prevents Congress from delegating any power to anything it establishes or agrees to as a body? The Constitution does not state they can not delegate it. Maybe that narrow reading is what I don't get, the interpretation that if it ain't there, it wasn't thought about and can't be inferred.

From Article 1 about Legislative power:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed onthe high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, andmake Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation ofMoney to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of theland and naval Forces;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Lawsof the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,and for governing such Part of them as may be employedin the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authorityof training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed byCongress;
From Article II on powers of the President:
The President shall be Commander in Chief ofthe Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia ofthe several States, when called into the actual Service of theUnited States
he shall takeCare that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commissionall the Officers of the United States.Okay, seems to be a contradiction there, since first it says that the legislative has the power to appoint military officers, and then it says the president commissions all officers. Is there a difference? Is the president just rubber stamping the list congress puts in front of him? Who makes up the list? It doesn't state, so maybe whatever is happening today with the commission and advancement in rank of military officers is not constitutional. confused

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Generals and Admirals are appointed, the lower ranks are commissioned?

arbilad · Head Chef

Anyway, what implicitly prevents Congress from delegating any power to anything it establishes or agrees to as a body?
The constitution? Seriously, the various parts of the fed government only have the powers explicitly given to them. All other powers are held by the states or the people. That is explicitly stated.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, I didn't see Paul's statement as a "Blame America" statement. He was just trying to root out the causes of the war. His statement agreed with governmental studies.
For example, we obviously wouldn't blame a woman for getting raped if she walked through a high crime neighborhood in a low cut blouse and a miniskirt. She is not at fault for getting raped. But it is a very bad idea for her to be walking through a high crime neighborhood in an outfit like that.
It's the same thing here. Ron Paul is not saying that the US deserved it. He's pointing out what got the muslims all riled up and saying, "Let's not do that in the future".

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.I guess this is what you are referring, The 10th Amendment.

That is pretty vague and can be interpreted pretty broadly. It doesn't implicitly or inferentially imply that a branch of the Federal government is prohibited from delegated authority to operate a power it is vested with by The Constitution.

arbilad · Head Chef

That is pretty vague and can be interpreted pretty broadly. It doesn't implicitly or inferentially imply that a branch of the Federal government is prohibited from delegated authority to operate a power it is vested with by The Constitution.

Actually, I thought it was pretty clear. Unless the Contitution gives the government a power, it doesn't have it. It is not one of the enumerated powers of the Congress to delegate their power.
But I will not belabor the point, because you and I are looking at the same text and seeing totally opposite things.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Interesting how that works, isn't it?

Anyway, I keep hearing the calls of "it's unconstitutional" for a branch of government to do this or that, which as we know is up for debate depending on interpretation (and has been since day one of the nation), but what I haven't heard is what is the intrinsic value of something following a strict interpretation as opposed to a more liberal interpretation. For example here, what is the intrinsic value in Congress declaring war as opposed to the President? There should be some sort of compelling value add to the arrangement.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

We've only had a handful of "declared wars" in our history--WW1 and WW2, the Spanish-American, and Mexican wars, and the War of 1812. The rest were not "declared" by Congress, though Congress has authorized all the major actions of the past several decades, including Vietnam, Panama, etc.

I think the argument is that the President should not be able to lead the nation into war on his own--to further his own ambitions, Wag the Dog, etc. The decision to go to war resides with the People, through their Representatives.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a war without a declaration by Congress is illegal, and legal scholars are divided on the subject.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So, is that the root in the Dems (in particular) attacking the current president over the war? They are accusing him of wagging the dog's tailso that they in turn can be wagging their own dogs' tails?

So, has any president lead the nation into a war on his own?

But back to the original train of thought lundbaek began... Does anyone really think that Bush led the nation into the current war on his own? Did he really have the power given to him unconstitutionaly to take us into war?

I think not based on what I'm seeing from short term history (< 5 years).

A couple interesting articles:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/13/politics/main540591.shtml

And, then there is this document here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

And lastly, there is this little document:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml

And, then based on the wording of the bill and the roll call votes as indicated here, sounds like to me like Congress did authorize the president to go take the nation to war, even if the exact words of declaring war were not used.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Yup.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

New Gallup poll shows Ron Paul's support:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598

You'll have to scroll down a bit.

I'll try and restrain my laughter.

arbilad · Head Chef

Well, that's a pity if he's doing that badly. He's the one republican candidate worth voting for.
And Cat, if you allow the government to not be strictly limited by the Constitution, you also allow the government to infringe on your rights whenever it wants to.
Strict limits can be a good thing.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hey...are we having the wasted third party vote discussion again?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Ron Paul is a nut and has no chance of getting the Republican nomination.

arbilad · Head Chef

Well, he kept getting elected to Congress from his district in Texas, even with tough opposition from his own party. I would not write him off so quickly.
Besides, if he doesn't get nominated on the Republican ticket, hopefully he will run with the Constitution party and I will vote for him there.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

According to the Utah Constitution Party Chairman, Frank Fluckinger, Ron Paul has stated that he will run only as a Republican, and not switch parties, and that he will run again for his Congress seat if he does not get the GOP nomination for president.

In 2006 the Republican Party ploughed big $s and a big name (a prominent international lawyer married into the Sanatra family) into beating him in the primary election. It has surprised me every time he got re-elected.

I forget if I mentioned it here, but from Constitution Party associates I've heard scuttlebutt that Jerome Corsi may be the CP candidate for president. See http://www.newswithviews.com/Corsi/jeromeA.htm and Google (or MSN) search his name for info about Corsi. He is death on the North American Union, amnesty, illegal immigration, among other things.

I'll let the moderator address the calling Ron Paul a "nut".

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

He's from Texas and since all the fruits and nuts come from California Rue Paul can't be a nut!

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

lundbaek wrote:
I'll let the moderator address the calling Ron Paul a "nut".

While the opinion may feel inflammatory, to you... it was stated as an opinion of another person, not a personal attack on any member of this forum.

If someone called you or another member of the forum a nut for liking a particular politician I would think that to be a very naughty statement... It is my understanding that stating the opinion that a politician is a nut or not is protected by the constitution, though I personally think it's better personally not to go there. If people are going to talk politics sometimes those peole are not going to like what others say.

I would like to remind everyone to PLAY NICE when you are posting!!! AND, I leave you with this quote from President Hinckley: While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. Common guys, you want a place where you can talk about politics with others of your faith, don't battle each other, that's just "not" nice... blankstare

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

salesortonscom wrote:

He's from Texas and since all the fruits and nuts come from California Rue Paul can't be a nut!

That is true.

Perhaps it would be more precise to say he spent one day too many at The Alamo? Or maybe he has been wearing too tight of a cowboy hat for too long?

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Reason I should not call Ron Paul a nut:

It is not a constructive comment.
Some who consider him as their candidate may be insulted by extension. (though extension of insult was not meant)
Nuttiness is in the eyes of the beholder.
Ron Paul is a fellow Texan.
He's got some good positions.

Why I called him a nut:

That's the way I feel. smile

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 11:53, 2007-05-22

arbilad · Head Chef

I just wanted to point another thing out - Think about the amount of discussion we've been having about Ron Paul. Even though many on this forum think that he is out there, we are discussing him a lot. I think we've only discussed Mitt Romney more. There is some amount of truth to the statement that any publicity is good publicity. Like Lundbaek, I'm amazed that Ron Paul kept getting elected to his seat in the House. He has some seriously strong campaigning skills.
I imagine, too, that he's not running for Congress while he's running for President. I imagine that either he thinks he has a good chance of winning the Presidential election, or he thinks that it's worth the effort and, even if it doesn't succeed, he did a lot of good by campaigning.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

He's from Texas and since all the fruits and nuts come from California Rue Paul can't be a nut!

That is true. Perhaps it would be more precise to say he spent one day too many at The Alamo? Or maybe he has been wearing too tight of a cowboy hat for too long?

We have saying, big hat, no cattle but that's not half as fun as saying, "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."