Aller au contenu

Republican Presidential Candidates

Nico

Par Nico
dans Europe et international

Messages recommandés

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=4002

Le député Ron Paul est un outsider, un marginal, aux opinions parfois étranges pour l’establishment de Washington. (On se rappelle notamment son discours de février 2006 sur la fin de l’hégémonie du dollar.)

On a vu par ailleurs qu’une intervention de Ron Paul sur les causes de l’attaque 9/11 a attiré l’attention sur lui, et a été reprise par un commentateur de CNN. A l’inverse, l’essentiel de la presse MSM a joué dans cette occasion son rôle habituel de censure. On trouve une analyse de ce comportement sur le site MediaMatters.com, le 16 mai.

Il apparaît assez probable que cet ostracisme de la presse MSM mesure surtout la crainte nouvelle dans l’establishment washingtonien (républicain) à l’encontre de Ron Paul, anti-guerre, anti-Washington, adversaire du gouvernement fédéral puissant et ainsi de suite. Diverses indications montrent la popularité montante du marginal du Texas, qui tend à le rendre de moins en moins marginal. Sur le site Huffington.net, en date du 17 mai, Mark Jeffrey donne une mesure de la vraie popularité de Ron Paul.

«Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is far and away the most popular on the Internet. Yet, despite his massive online lead, the mainstream media has barely managed to cover him at all.

»On 5/14 and 5/15, Ron Paul was the #1 most-searched-for term on blog search engine Technorati. On post-debate polls on ABC.com and MSNBC.com, Ron Paul was voted the winner of the debate by a wide margin.

»In the past week, Ron Paul's website received more traffic than those of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (Obama only recently took the lead by a hair). His videos are among the most-viewed on YouTube and popular social news site Digg.com is literally choked with Ron Paul-themed articles and comments.

»So what's going on here? Why is there such a disconnect between the Internet and the mainstream media? Whether you are a fan of Mr. Paul or not, his apparent non-coverage is an extraordinary story just by itself.

»The so-called professional media has failed us miserably in recent years. The White House Press Corps — with a few notable exceptions — has shown a distinct lack of vertebrae in holding our leaders accountable. Instead, it has been the voices of the Internet that have stepped in with courage and fearlessness and demanded real answers. Blogs (like HuffPost and others), YouTube videos, podcasts and other media are already more trusted by many than mainstream media outlets. It is interesting that all of these are seeing something in Ron Paul that CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC and others are glossing over.

»If the Internet is any sort of democratic media organ, Ron Paul is not a marginal figure. Instead, he is (gasp) a frontrunner. That's right: he's apparently got more cred online than any other candidate. Remember, You were Time's Person of the Year, largely because You blogged, You uploaded videos, and You decided that you were a media mogul also, every bit as important and credible as the mainstream media. And You are speaking loudly that this Paul guy interests you, that he is in fact more important than Hillary, McCain, Giuliani or even Obama.

»At the very least, the mainstream media ought to cover him more than they have. There's something going on with this guy, he's touched a nerve out there. We ought to hear more about him.»

On ajoutera ce commentaire venu d’un partisan de Ron Paul, commentaire fait à un texte de Steven C. Clemons, sur TheWashingtonNote.com, le 17 mai. Robert Morrow met en ligne ce commentaire le 18 mai :

«I am down here in Austin and helping to promote and organize a fund raiser for Ron Paul this Saturday and I can tell you it is going absolutely gangbusters the last few days. Thank-you attacks from establishment GOP — like manna from heaven.

»Ron Paul is a real threat to the establishment GOP not just on his anti-Iraq war position, which is quite popular, but also because he is anti-tax, anti-federal government and pro-USA national sovereignty. These folks would not be attacking Ron Paul if he were not gaining support.

»Ron Paul is the GOP's strongest candidate and ironically the leadership is trying to marginalize or destroy him. Ron Paul is the GOP's best possible candidate against Hillary. He has very strong appeal to independents. The libertarian vote deserted the GOP in 2006 and they would come back if Ron Paul is at the top of the ticket. I think Ron Paul would be a much stronger candidate than Rudy Guiliani, who is our liberal sell out option to nominate.»

Hakill

Hakill

Posté
Posté
Associated Press

Giuliani: Nation Lacks Strong Leadership

By RANDALL CHASE 06.14.07, 8:18 PM ET

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, in an indirect swipe at President Bush, said Thursday the overwhelming attitude that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction reflects a lack of leadership.

The nation's bleak mood was evident in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll in which only 21 percent said they believe things in the U.S. are heading in the right direction, the worst mark since the AP-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.

Speaking at a Flag Day rally in Wilmington, Del., Giuliani told more than 200 supporters: "What we're lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan."

The same AP-Ipsos poll found public approval with the job Bush is doing at 32 percent, matching an all-time low.

In a brief meeting with reporters after the rally, Giuliani declined to take a direct jab at Bush. The Republican candidate said he has "tremendous admiration" for the president.

"I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly; he put us on offense against terrorism, and I will always admire him for that," he said. "But as far as the things that developed my ideas and thinking which developed as a much younger man, it was Ronald Reagan."

Giuliani served in Reagan's Justice Department.

The former New York mayor said he's running for president to keep the United States on offensive against terrorist and to challenge big government.

Before the rally, Guiliani attended a $1,000-a-plate fundraising breakfast that drew about 120 people.

He was joined at the rally by former FBI director Louis Freeh. Freeh, who lives in Wilmington, Del., serves as senior homeland security adviser for Guiliani campaign and heads the candidate's Delaware campaign.

Giuliani was making his second campaign appearance in Delaware this year. While the state has only three electoral votes, Guiliani said it could play a crucial role in the presidential race.

"When you look at 2000 and 2004, one state makes a difference," he told reporters after the rally. "You never know which one it's going to be."

Une horreur ce type. Pour un pouvoir fort, pour l'interventionnisme à l'étranger et au moins il a compris qu'en démocratie, le tout c'est de manipuler juste assez de monde pour se faire élire.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/14/ap3823714.html

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

C'était une évidence : sachant que 6 républicains sur 10 ne voulaient pas de Rudy Mc Romney, qui sont des Rhinos ( faux républicains, comprenez ) comment auraient-ils pu être assez sots pour voter pour l'un de ces trois là ? Thompson est bien plus conservative qu'eux, et le plus rigolo c'est qu'il n'est même pas encore candidat déclaré ! Qu'est-ce que ce sera !

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con…dential_primary

____________________________

thompson04.jpg

2008 Republican Presidential Primary

National Poll: Thompson 28% Giuliani 27%

There’s change at the top in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson earning support from 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attracts support from 27%. While Thompson’s one-point edge is statistically insignificant, it is the first time all year that anybody but Giuliani has been on top in Rasmussen Reports polling. A week ago, Thompson and Giuliani were tied at 24%.

It remains an open question as to how Thompson will hold up once he actually enters the campaign and has to compete directly with other candidates. To date, he retains the allure of the new kid in town while GOP voters already know the things they don’t like about the others. Still, Thompson’s rise to the top provides a telling measure of how the other GOP hopefuls have failed to capture the imagination of the party they hope to lead.

Once gain this week, Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are tied for a distant third. This week, both men attract 10% support. Last week, they were both at the 11% level of support. For McCain, this is a continuation of a downward trend. For Romney, it reflects a fairly steady position. Romney is doing well in selected state polls but has been unable to gain much traction and expand his support nationwide.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback are each the top choice for 2% of the likely voters.

The combined total for five other candidates in the race is just under 3%. Those candidates are Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Governor Tommy Thompson, Congressman Duncan Hunter, and former Governor Jim Gilmore. Eighteen percent (18%) say they’re not sure how they will vote.

This is the first Rasmussen Reports poll to exclude former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as a candidate. Gingrich earned 7% support in last week’s polling but has recently made statements indicating he is not likely to enter the 2008 race as candidate.

Giuliani remains the most well-liked candidate in either party. He is viewed favorably by 82% of Republicans nationwide and unfavorably by 15%. Thompson, not as well known, is the only other candidate with so few Republicans holding an unfavorable opinion of him. The actor turned Senator turned actor again is viewed favorably by 59% of Republicans and unfavorably by 14%.

Among Republicans, Romney and McCain both have lower favorables and higher unfavorables than the frontrunners. For Romney, those GOP numbers are 56% favorable and 28% unfavorable. McCain, among the nation’s best known political figures, is viewed favorably by 55% of Republicans and unfavorably by 40%.

While Giuliani is well liked, only 21% of Republicans view him as politically conservative. Twice as many, 42%, believe that Thompson is politically conservative.

Rasmussen Reports releases updated polling data on the Republican nominating contest every Tuesday. Results for the Democrats are updated on Mondays. The current survey is based upon national telephone interviews with 618 Likely Republican Primary Voters conducted June 11-14, 2007. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. The Rasmussen Reports sample includes not only Republicans, but also independents who say they are likely to vote in a Republican Primary.

In some states, independent voters are allowed to participate in Republican primaries. In others, only Republicans can participate. Among Republicans only in the current poll, it’s Thompson 29% Giuliani 24% Romney 11% and McCain 10%.

McCain’s recent decline in the polls has been tied closely to his support for the unpopular immigration reform bill. A Rasmussen Reports analysis of what happened to the McCain campaign noted that the man once considered a maverick is now the candidate most closely aligned with President Bush on two hot-button issues—the War in Iraq and immigration. That linkage is problematic when just 27% of voters nationwide say the President is doing a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq and only 15% give him favorable reviews on the immigration issue.

Rasmussen Reports continuously updates general election match-ups and other measures for all Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. Also regularly updated are favorability ratings for Members of Congress, Other Political Figures, and Journalists along with public attitudes towards Congress, the War on Terror, and other topics.

Rasmussen Reports releases updated polling data on the Democrat Nomination Process every Monday and on the Republican contest every Tuesday. Results for the Generic Congressional Ballot are updated monthly.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Ronnie Hayek

Ronnie Hayek

Posté
Posté

L' American Conservative consacre sa dernière couverture à Ron Paul face à Giuliani sous le titre "The Ron Paul Moment. The Debate the Republican Party Wants to Avoid"

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_18/cover.html

Lone Star

Maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul finds that being right is the one thing his party won’t forgive.

by Michael Brendan Dougherty

At first glance, he looks like every other congressman in the Canon Building. His suit is dark. His tie is striped. He is convivial with his colleagues, who genuinely like him. But there is something different about Ron Paul.

You can hear congressmen when they walk down the hall, strutting their own importance. After all, there are regulations to be implemented, special interests to serve, a teetering American Empire that would collapse without their management. They wear black or cordovan leather shoes—captoes, wingtips, and brogues—clacking down the hall, their bellies full of medium-rare steak from Capital Grille. They are surrounded by ambitious interns and legislative aides. They fiddle with their BlackBerries. You can’t miss them tromping out of the elevators.

Ron Paul is easy to overlook. He takes the stairs; he does not have an entourage. You can’t hear him coming because he’s wearing plain black tennis shoes. In a bag he carries a can of soup that he will heat for himself in the microwave in his office. Beneath pictures of Austrian economists Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, he will eat his lunch alone and in peace.

What is the purpose of Ron Paul’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States? Some longshots run because their egos demand it. Others want to raise their lecture fees. Some run because they have plenty of money and nothing better to do. Following a flood of viewer requests, the Texas congressman recently appeared on Fox News to explain himself. His answer was buoyant though laconic: “I want to be president because I have this dream. I’d like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” His answer was also revolutionary.

Paul’s doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label “conservative” or “libertarian.” Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a “constitutionalist.” His philosophy is simple: “no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”

Naturally he opposes almost everything Congress does. The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.

When Paul does propose legislation, it is simple, direct, and radical. He’s compiled an impressive list of bills that remain ignored to this day. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

His cheerful consistency doesn’t end there. Paul not only votes against nearly all government spending, he has refused to be the beneficiary of it as well. As a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, he has delivered over 4,000 babies. He accepted no money from Medicare or Medicaid, often working for free for needy patients. With his support, his five children finished school without subsidized federal student loans. He has refused a congressional pension.

Monetary policy is the issue that brought Paul into politics in the ’70s. Having read deeply in the Austrian school of economics, he was incensed at Nixon for going off the gold standard and ran in a special House election in the 22nd district of Texas.

It still preoccupies him. Paul gave a thrill to surviving goldbugs in the first GOP debate this year when he referred to “sound money.” Since bimetallism and William Jennings Bryan shuffled off the political stage, widespread passion about monetary policy has been in short supply. But for Paul, the issue is still one that pits the people against the Beltway: “I think it’s very convenient for them [politicians] not to worry about it—whether they are spending money they don’t have for a war, whether you are liberal and like big welfare or a neoconservative and you like entitlements. They know somehow or another if the taxes come up short, there is a system, of course they know we borrow it and they complain about that, but I complain about the printing to pick up the shortfall. It’s such a serious problem.”

This is what he refers to as the “inflation tax.” With a paper currency, Paul says, “You get too many bubbles. And people suffer. Whether it’s the NASDAQ bubble or the housing bubble. It’s also the reason people are poor. … There is this transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle class to the very wealthy. And it leads to conflict. There are lots of people in this country who haven’t had an increase in real wages in 30 years. The Republicans deny it. And the Democrats say, ‘Well we need more taxes on those who have too much.’ They tax productivity to give it to others. I would not immediately close the doors on the Federal Reserve. But the doors may get closed if there is a monetary crisis. There are no paper currencies that last for a long period of time.”

While he lost his first re-election to a Democrat, Paul came back to win in a 1978 rematch, then won again in 1980 and ’82. He later lost a 1984 Senate GOP primary to Phil Gramm. Not wanting to be a lifelong politician, he returned to the practice of medicine full time. Tom DeLay won his seat.

Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988, “just to talk to about the issues” in his own recounting. He drew a meager 0.47 percent of the vote but found an enthusiastic following.

In 1995, he decided to run for the 14th Congressional district, which had been redrawn to include his home in Lake Jackson. His opponent, Greg Laughlin, despite being a recent Republican convert, received the support of the party establishment, including then Gov. George W. Bush. Paul’s return to congressional politics was based on the results of the ’94 Republican Revolution: “I thought, ‘Maybe they are serious and they will shrink the size of big government.’” Paul sighs recalling that burst of optimism, “but there was no truth to that.”

His second go-around in the capital focused on many of the same issues that animated his first tour. His principles never changed, though some of his libertarian supporters have been dismayed by his stands on trade deals and immigration.

While Paul considers himself a staunch free trader, he opposed CAFTA and deplored its predecessor, NAFTA. Paul explains, “I was on the side of the protectionists, and I’m not a protectionist. It’s not true free trade. It’s special-interest trade. It’s managed trade. … I didn’t like the trade deal because it was another level of government and a loss of sovereignty.”

On immigration, Paul finds himself on the side of restrictionists. On LewRockwell.com, Paul outlined a six-step approach: 1) Physically secure the border. 2) Enforce current visa laws. 3) Reject amnesty. 4) End welfare state incentives to immigrants. 5) End birthright citizenship. 6) Standardize legal immigration rules and waiting periods. When questioned by Reason about what he’d say to libertarians who disagree with him, Paul was brusque: “If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. — I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.”

Increasingly, foreign intervention has come to dominate the political discourse. “I had concentrated on monetary policy,” Paul said. “Over the years I’ve learned to tie that in with the war policy. You can’t fight wars without inflation. You never have a war without inflation. … The ’70s were hectic times. We had 15 percent inflation, interest rates went to 21 percent, we had the highest unemployment since the Depression. It came as a consequence of the philosophy of guns and butter. And of course the same thing exists today, except one thing is a lot worse: there are many more dollars circulating around the world, and we’ve lost our manufacturing base.”

Paul believes the Republican Party lost its way by not remaining the peace party. Recently, when speaking to a group of skeptical conservative journalists, he pointed out in his grandfatherly tone, “In 1952, Eisenhower ran as a peace candidate. In 1968, Nixon ran on obtaining peace with honor.” Paul also mentions that Bush won, in part, by touting a “humble foreign policy.” Even warmongers won elections that way: “Wilson ran on peace. FDR, same thing.”

When he is inevitably asked if he is running in the right party, Paul states plainly, “I don’t think the Democrats have any intention to change our policies in the Middle East. I want the antiwar position to be traditional, conservative, and constitutional and not only for the far Left. I don’t object to the Left being opposed to the war. But that Michael Moore image is not going to persuade housewives. I think a lot of Republicans have forgotten their traditional position of being antiwar.”

Making the antiwar message broadly appealing may be difficult for Paul because of his temperament. The exchange between Paul and Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina debate raised Paul’s profile nationally but was thought to have been the moment when Giuliani won the debate. After Paul explained that terrorists attack the U.S. not because they hate our freedoms but because they hate our policies, Giuliani rephrased his answer to suggest Paul thought America “invited” the attacks. He said he’d never heard such an idea and declared it “absurd.” Paul didn’t back down, but he gave a technical response about “blowback” that, while correct, didn’t connect with the audience emotionally. He was hit hard, and while he didn’t drop to the mat, he didn’t hit back.

At a press conference later, Paul presented a list of books to inform Giuliani that, indeed, policies do have consequences. On the list were the 9/11 Commission Report, Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, and Dying to Win by Robert Pape. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris appeared alongside Paul. The press conference underscored both the strength and weakness of Paul’s personality as a candidate: his professorial approach makes it difficult to dismiss his views as “loony,” but the academic style doesn’t motivate people to rally to him. His manner is always refreshing but rarely stirring.

When asked how he would confront his opponents’ charges, Paul’s answers are as straight and flat as a Texas highway. “The media would love it if you got real, real personal. But I just have trouble drifting from the issue itself. … I’m challenging them to think about policy. Nobody, liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats wants to challenge overall Middle East policy. It is sacred. There’s oil. There’s the neocon idea of spreading democracy. There’s Israel. You just shouldn’t dare challenge our eternal presence in the Middle East. So they attack the messenger in a personal way.”

When asked if any Republican constituents who had initially supported the war have thanked him for his foresight, he shrugs and says, “Some, but not too many. Someone told me once: ‘They never forgive you for being right. They’ll always forgive you for being wrong if you apologize.’”

Paul understands that electing him president wouldn’t by itself “reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” He is a realist: “You just can’t turn one switch and solve every problem. You have to build coalitions. I’d put a lot of pressure on Congress to live up to their responsibilities.” He does know what he can do on day one of the Paul presidency. His first act would be to begin cleaning up the mess we’ve made in the Middle East: “What you could do in ten minutes to send a signal to the world that things were going to be different is tell the Navy to turn around and leave the shores of Iraq. We have two aircraft carriers there, another arriving, and seven ships that just moved into the Persian Gulf. I would just tell them to turn around and leave. Tell the region that this isn’t my approach, and I’m willing to talk. I think that would immediately raise our standing in the world tremendously.”

It’s a vision that will inevitably be ridiculed as naïve by the imperial intelligentsia who helped American into this mess. But it’s also so noble in its simplicity that it is already causing Americans who are tired of the warfare state to look at this mild-mannered physician and see the politician they’ve always wanted: a man of unbending conviction, of proven fidelity to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

After his latest debate appearance, Ron Paul’s name leapt ahead of Paris Hilton in Google searches. Bill Maher, who had given him a tough time weeks earlier on his HBO show “Real Time,” became desperate to invite him back for this season’s finale, declaring “he’s my hero.”

Grover Norquist has said of the good doctor that in Congress “one Ron Paul is grand; and 218 Ron Pauls would be even grander; but 20 Ron Pauls could cripple the party since the usual half-steps toward less government and less taxation might not find support among the more ideologically rigorous.”

Fanatics, dreamers, and constitutionalists long for the day when hundreds of Ron Pauls disinterestedly discuss monetary policy and the philosophy of the founders each morning between the trees that line New Jersey and Independence Avenues. In the afternoon, they can go into the Capitol and maintain the Republic by leaving most of us alone. On weekends, they can fly home. We’ll even let them wear comfortable shoes if they want.

But until the day when scores of Ron Pauls overrun the Capitol Building in sneakers, we have one man who heats his own soup and fights for the Republic, not the Empire. If America elects him president, he’ll sit atop a bucking federal beast that withstood the taming of convinced small-government riders like Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. It would be a wild ride for the thin, unassuming Texan. He might never forgive us for putting him in the saddle.

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

C'est cool.

http://banquisetropicale.blog.20minutes.fr/

Ron Paul: Internet bouleversera t'il l'élection américaine ?

Marre des législatives françaises? Changez de paysage avec ce billet et transportons nous aux Etats-Unis et aux primaires du Parti Républicain. L'affaire semblait entendue, il y avait beau avoir 10 candidats au poste de George W. Bush pour le Great Old Party, cela serait de toute façon l'un des "principaux" qui l'emporterait: Rudolph Giuliani, John Mc Cain, etc. Mais malgré le black-out des grands médias sur les "petites" candidatures, un candidat monte tranquillement grâce à Internet et ce candidat est .. libertarien!

Ron Paul est représentant du Texas à la chambre des représentants et a déjà l'expérience de la campagne présidentielle puisqu'il a déjà concouru, en 1988. Vous ne vous en souvenez pas? Je vous pardonne, c'était à l'époque pour le Parti Libertarien. Entre temps il a rejoint le plus classique Parti Républicain tout en continuant à afficher haut et fort ses opinions libertariennes.

Et c'est toujours en se réclamant du libertarianisme qu'il se présente à l'investiture républicaine, en faisant ouvertement campagne sur le thème un libertarien à la maison blanche. Ce qui lui a valu et lui vaut encore d'être en porte à faux avec la majorité de son parti et des démocrates: Il a voté contre la guerre en Irak, contre le Patriot Act, pour la réduction des pouvoirs de la FED, refusé de bénéficier du régime de pension des députés qu'il considère comme un détournement des fonds publics, lutté pour une baisse drastique de la fiscalité, etc.

Une renommée qui grandit.. grâce à internet!

Malgré ou à cause de cela, il est peu couvert par les médias qui lui préfèrent des conservateurs bon teint. Mais c'était sans compter sur Internet! Sa notoriété s'est développée parmi les internautes comme une trainée de poudre, avec des manifestations impressionantes: Sur eventful.com, .. c'est devenu le candidat républicain le plus demandé ! Et sur Technorati, il a désormais pris la tête en terme de volume de recherches sur les candidats républicains. A l'instant où j'écris ce billet, son nom est repris dans en moyenne un billet toutes les trois minutes! CNN a pu constater la popularité sur internet de Ron Paul en contraste avec le boycott de sa candidature dans les médias classiques et le traitement qui lui est réservé par Fox News. (Voir ici également). On trouve même sur Internet des vidéos de Ron Paul Junkies!

Même en France, Ron Paul a des blogs de soutien écrit par des Français! Par exemple, Ron Paul France créé par Emmanuel, un parisien de 35 ans, tandis que Chacun pour soi s'enthousiasme pour Ron. Même l'inénarrable Nicolas Freeman a cédé à l'élu du Texas. Du côté de Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, l'emballement chez les français n'est pas vraiment là..

Et ça commence à payer! Malgré le black-out sur sa candidature, Ron Paul a été dans les trois candidats les plus convaincants aux yeux des américains lors des trois premiers débats télévisés pour l'investiture! A la surprise de tous les faiseurs d'opinon d'ailleurs qui se serait bien passé de ce trublion qui empêchent néoconservateurs et démocrates de tourner en rond!

Un candidat qui dérange l'establishment

Et pour cause! Parmi les sites francophones qui parlent de Paul, dedefensa.org pose clairement la question: Ron Paul est il une menace sérieuse pour "eux"? Eux, l'establishment de Washington. Car ses positions libertariennes et sa volonté de revenir aux sources de la constitution ne font pas que des heureux. Quand il dit vouloir supprimer le ministère de l'éducation, de l'énergie, de l'Homeland Security, le fisc, la CIA, les nations unies, l'OMC, l'Otan, etc, tout ceux qui en vivent font la gueule!

Alors rêvons un peu, un libertarien président.. ça ne serait pas génial?

Demandez vous aussi à Ron Paul de venir à Paris avec le bouton dans la colonne de gauche de ce blog!

Invité Arn0

Invité Arn0

Posté
Posté

J'ai lu récemment un article du figaro (je ne sais plus quelle date) qui parle des primaires démocrates et républicaines américaines : pas un seul mot sur Ron Paul !

Rincevent

Rincevent

Posté
Posté

Surtout, surtout, que la presse française ne parle pas de lui ! L'adhésion de la presse française à un candidat américain est toujours la première étape de sa chute.

Rincevent

Rincevent

Posté
Posté
You're right. French press have supported Kerry :icon_up:

Et Howard Dean.

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

Ah oui, l'agité du bocal !

180px-HowardDean2004cropped.jpg

J'espère que la presse française soutiendrait à fond la candidature de Guiliani, ainsi Fred Thompson aura un boulevard ( il est déjà à 21 % sans s'être déclaré ) !

Lexington

Lexington

Posté
Posté
On ne parlera de lui que lorsqu'il aura remporté un Etat, pas avant.

Ron Paul défend des idées intéressantes et j'adorerai le voir désigné. Cependant il ne fuadrait pas oublier qu'il est à 2% d'intentions de votes aux primaires républicaines quand même et pas en avance sur le fund raising :icon_up:

walter-rebuttand

walter-rebuttand

Posté
Posté
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul394.html

Je suis un peu déçu par cet article et le fait qu'il axe majoritairement sur l'immoralité de faire payer le contribuable.

J'ai la désagréable impression qu'il appuyerait une recherche "privée" sur les cellules souches.

C'est justement en cela que Ron Paul est un vrai libéral. Il a toujours privilégié les principes de la société libre par rapport à ses convictions personnelles.

h16

h16

Posté
Posté
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul394.html

Je suis un peu déçu par cet article et le fait qu'il axe majoritairement sur l'immoralité de faire payer le contribuable.

J'ai la désagréable impression qu'il appuyerait une recherche "privée" sur les cellules souches.

Même réponse globale que walter, avec cette remarque supplémentaire : quoi qu'on pense de la recherche sur les cellules souches, il vaut mieux si elle doit avoir lieu qu'elle soit menée par le privé que le public. Si, d'aventure, elle devait partir en sucette, le fait qu'elle soit privée rend l'opération coûteuse (médiatiquement, financièrement) pour une entreprise mouillée dans l'opération. Si, par exemple, le public (i.e. les gens) ne veulent pas de ce genre de recherche, le risque médiatique de se lancer dedans et perdre des parts de marché permet de balancer l'intérêt éventuel de telles recherches.

Avec une recherche étatique, quelques soient les garde-fous, il n'y a virtuellement aucun (ou très peu) de risques pour ceux qui la pratiquent.

Je ne pense pas apprendre quelque chose à quelqu'un ici si je dis d'ailleurs que des recherches sur les cellules souches sont d'ailleurs menées, actuellement, en France, en toute discrétion, par des labos d'état et le tout en totale illégalité…

Roniberal

Roniberal

Posté
Posté
C'est justement en cela que Ron Paul est un vrai libéral.

Non, en l'espèce, ça dépasse le simple cadre de la morale ou des "convictions personnelles".

Je ne pense pas apprendre quelque chose à quelqu'un ici si je dis d'ailleurs que des recherches sur les cellules souches sont d'ailleurs menées, actuellement, en France, en toute discrétion, par des labos d'état et le tout en totale illégalité…

C'est tout aussi condamnable, je n'ai pas dit le contraire.

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté
C'est justement en cela que Ron Paul est un vrai libéral. Il a toujours privilégié les principes de la société libre par rapport à ses convictions personnelles.

Il paraîtrait pourtant qu'il est d'accord avec les subventions si elle concernent sa circonscrption… Info ou intox ?

http://gopfrance.canalblog.com/

Sous-Commandant Marco

Sous-Commandant Marco

Posté
Posté
Mouais…

Nico, le sujet a déjà été discuté maintes et mainte fois ici. Il n'y a rien de honteux à bénéficier de la manne étatique. Celui qui doit avoir honte, c'est celui qui pique l'argent des autres, pas celui qui profite de la "générosité" d'un voleur.

Nico

Nico

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

Je comprends oui mais est-ce moral ? Il aurait pu refuser, m'enfin dans le tas ça restera toujours le plus libéral.

Sous-Commandant Marco

Sous-Commandant Marco

Posté
Posté
Je comprends oui mais est-ce moral ? Il aurait pu refuser, m'enfin dans le tas ça restera toujours le plus libéral.

Oui, il est moral de rendre aux victimes, sous la forme la moins injuste possible dans le système actuel, ce que quelqu'un d'autre leur avait pris.

Archivé

Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.

Aller sur la liste des sujets
×
×
  • Créer...