Ron Paul For US President: Thats what Bob Novak Wants
By: Roy | August 1, 2007
When Bob Novak was asked about the 2008 US Presidential Elections, he dismissed the front-runners for the Presidency and said he would like to see Ron Paul win the US Presidential Elections next year.
Bob Novak was asked about the Republican presidential candidates but he didn’t have anything good to say about the current top-tier field of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain.
However although he said he thought he expects Fred Thompson to forward, he expressed a liking for Texas congressman Ron Paul. “He’s a very engaging person… I’d like to see him as president,” Novak said. “Can you imagine him at the United Nations?”
What do you think of Bob Novak’s comments on Ron Paul?
Who do you think will win the 2008 US Presidential Elections?
Do you want Ron Paul to win?
Follow me on Twitter, or leave a comment on the above story.
Could Mike Gravel or Ron Paul Become President of America?
Who doesn’t hate Islamo-Fascists?
Easy answer. All those who apologize for them, like Ron Paul and 90% of his followers.
Explain this to me please. Why is it that we never hear any concern at all from Ron Paul and Paulists for the rise of Islamo-Fascism worldwide? All we hear are apologies. Or, they just ignore this issue.
Why the silence from Paulists on the death of Theo van Gogh?
Why the silence on the death of Daniel Pearl?
Anti-War Libertarians in the middle 90’s were all up in arms about Waco. Great. But then Oklahoma City hit, and there was complete silence from Anti-War Libertarians on the strong ties between McVeigh/Nichols and Islamic extremists.
If you all “hate Islamo-Fascism” than prove it!
Hi Eric,
I’m on a mobile device now. Difficult to write but I can’t resist jumping in.
“Easy answer. All those who apologize for them, like Ron Paul and 90% of his followers.”
You already know my response to your quote above. You’ve ignored it many times. Even in this blog.
But ask yourself this question,
How would you react if a country hired you as a political desenter, (USA). Trained you in those arts, (CIA). Financed you against a superpower that had invaded what your holy lands, (AFGHANISTAN), deserted you in your time of need. Then your unloyal employers invaded your very same holy lands themselves.
Would’nt you be just a little pissed? Would’nt you strike back anyway you could?
If a superpower nation attempted this in Missouri and Arkansas, every hillbilly, sodbuster, low-lander, crazy or not would be up in arms and committed to a insurrectionist war.
This is pure human nature.
And that is what we have in the middle-east today.
We are conducting our selves like the British empire did in the late 1700’s.
I would remind you that in the perspective of the late 1700’s, Our founding fathers were “terrorists”.
Dr. Paul is not apologizing for Bin Laden. He is researching and understanding his motives.
This particular point of discussion has been beat to death from one end of the blog-sphere to the other.
You’re resurrection of it stands as proof that you are particularly UN-informed, ill-read, and probably do not believe the rhetoric you are spouting yourself.
You’re just putting it out there because it is in your best financial interest to do so.
People ….
This “pundit” is an anachronism.
READ,
EDUCATE YOURSELVES,
THINK FOR YOURSELVES,
DO NOT ACCEPT AN OPINION FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT. FORM YOUR OWN,
VOTE,
Thanks for your time, Eric. It has be entertaining. See you later, revolution calls.
Sincerely
Mark
OH Yeah,
Still avoiding my main points of monetary policy I see.
Hmmmm…… don’t want to open that can of wasps?
Cya L8r
Lost_in_Samoa
Silence from the Paulists? What are you talking about? I seem to recall a lot of criticism of such atrocities from conservatives and Republicans. Many of them are “Paulists”.
Obviously, the worldwide rise of Islamo-Fascism is a concern. Your suggestion to “prove we hate Islamo-Fascism” is the kind of suggestion that scares us. Your language is imprecise and invites an open ended justification to go to war with a lot of countries and spread an empire by force. Scary. We prefer to defend our country and freely trade with the world. We have confidence that a non-interventionist policy will lead to more peace. By the way, what we are currently doing is not bringing much peace, nor is it containing Islamo-Fascism.
Eric,
You seem to be really confused by Paul’s stance on our Middle Eastern foreign policy. I suggest you go do some research on Game Theory. Ever hear of John Nash? It is amazing that we have decision makers in this country that couldn’t calculate a Nash Equilibrium to save their life.
Congressman Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination. I say this respectfully. The audiences in the GOP debates looked horrified at Rep. Paul’s responses, particularly when he declared he would dismantle Homeland Security in the middle of a war! Congressman Paul is a genuine man who has absolutely no understanding of the true nature of the threat that the Islamo-Radical movement presents to U.S. National Security. “Non – Interventionism” leads to the attacks of 9/11. A policy of enforcing broken UN resolutions and taking out a tyrant who defied the will of the International Community and continued to fire at U.S. patrols in the no fly zone despite signing a treaty that prohibited such action, is a legal and responsible act that libertarians should support. I ask you to refer to Dr. Randy E. Barnett’s Opinion Piece in the Wall Street Journal where he concludes that Libertarians CAN SUPPORT the war in Iraq. Dr. Barnett is a very prominent Libertarian thinker and far from being a Neoconservative or Libertarian Republican.
I’m sure Congressman Paul is a genuine man, I’m also certain he will not be the GOP Nominee for the Presidency. The Republican audience at the GOP debates look horrified every time Congressman Paul speaks. One particular moment was when he declared that he would dismantle the department of Homeland Security, in the midst of a war! These kind of absurd statements will keep Congressman Paul right where he currently is, in the fringe of American politics. I am not stating that he does not believe in his heart what he says, however he is not confronting the reality and gravity of the threat that the Islamic Radical movement presents to the United States. “Non-Interventionism” as a foreign policy is dangerous and already resulted in the September 11th attacks.
As prominent Libertarian Dr. Randy E. Barnett points out in his recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece “Libertarians and the War”: “Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is no”
I concur with Dr. Barnett, who is not a Neoconservative and not a Libertarian Republican, that the war in Iraq is part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic Jihadists, the philosophy that fueled the attacks of September the 11th (Barnett July 17 Wall Street Journal)
I believe, as does Dr. Barnett, that there was a legal cause to take military action against Saddam’s regime. The repeated ceasefire violations by firing on U.S. and British planes legally patrolling the “No Fly Zone” and its direct refusal to permit weapons inspectors into the country, which violated several United Nation Resolutions, and violated the terms of the Gulf War treaty once Saddam capitulated. Have mistakes in the Iraq war been made? Certainly. Name a war that has been flawless in execution? The threat of Islamic Radicalism will be with us far longer than Congressman Paul’s failed Presidential bid in the great and unending path of history. I respectfully thank you all for your time.
ryan c.
Didn’t you mean to say that “Interventionism” as a foreign policy is dangerous and already resulted in the September 11 attacks? “Interventionism” means: bases, troops, sorties, bombs, sanctions and stuff like that in areas of the world we don’t belong. You know… like we have been doing for decades.
But I guess his one man anti-Paul campaign is not SPAM…but all the Paul supporters who supposedly live together in one apartment in TX are…go figure?? Dondero…Giuliani did a great job not answering ONE question on Charlie Rose last night. He was like a dear in headlights! Great job regurgitating the evening news as his plan on getting the terrorists…even better job keeping the identity of his foreign policy advisors a secret…ewww he is so presidential. So Bigbrotheresque…
I will have to plead some ignorance on the rise of this so-called “Islamo-Fascism”. To me I have to be a little bit cynical about the idea of calling a largely religious movement as “fascist”, considering the implications of what fascism is all about.
I do believe that there could be some movement of Islam out there with grandiose ideas of world domination, but there is also a large amount of leaders in the West who have no shame in telling you their dreams for world government. What’s worse is our leaders have funded and trained these people to begin with. If you want to say ‘the “Paulites” are living in denial over “Islamo-Fascism, I will rebut you with the idea that you are largely in denial over the role we play in contributing to their movement.
We financed and built Al-Queda, our president’s family has close ties to the Bin-Laden family, Saddam Hussein was an installed CIA asset, we sold him the gas to use against Iran and his own people. We get on TV and talk all this bullshit about how we’re under attack from them, but who’s being occupied here? Who’s building pipelines through Afghanistan to the Caspian sea? Who’s building 14 permanent bases on foreign Iraqi soil? Who’s installing ex-CIA puppets to the Iraqi government? Who’s posturing their Navy for all out regional dominance? Who’s approving secret operations to be conducted in Iran?