Ron Paul 2012 Campaign A Response To U.S. Involvement In 'Endless, Undeclared, Unwinnable Wars'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Texas Rep. Ron Paul is celebrating his victory in a Republican presidential straw poll, saying he's captured the imagination of people weary of U.S. military involvement in global conflicts and worried about the economy.

Paul tells NBC's "Today" show his candidacy is a response to "endless, undeclared, unwinnable wars dumped on the young people" and a soaring national debt.

The 75-year-old congressman says he doesn't believe he's too old to be president, saying he thinks young.

Paul won a GOP straw poll at a weekend Republican conference, garnering 612 votes, far ahead of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who got 382 votes. Huntsman is expected to get into the race later this week.

Paul says the U.S. "shouldn't be warmongers. We shouldn't be the policemen of the world."

WATCH:

 

 

Comments

[gggeorgewashington]

02:54 PM on 06/23/2011

Mr. Paul has a strong ground game, early fund raisers, high profile legislative endorsements, GOP fellow candidates who literally are echoing Mr. Ron Paul's stead fast platform, supporters not only from 1 "party" but supporters who are democratic, libertarian, republican, and all others. Most importantly, all those people who feel kind of "snowed over" by all the failed campaign promises of Mr. Obama, realize now that ideology and rhetoric never supersedes substance and track record. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Mr. Ron Paul does just that.

[Jeff Klenck]

12:34 PM on 06/21/2011

He is right but this is not a "war" its a coalition which we are part of just like Libya. Where were all these so called politicians when GW led us down the path to these wars?

[nickleby]

01:57 PM on 06/21/2011

Ron Paul took the same position. I am also curious as to what you would consider a war? If a blockade is considered an act of war how is bombing not?

[Jonathan Kirk]

01:14 PM on 06/22/2011

Look up "war" in the dictionary. I think you'll find the description fits our actions in Libya quite nicely.

[Difster]

07:41 AM on 06/21/2011

If the issue of war is important to you; if it's your top priority, you must vote for Ron Paul. He will immediately bring our troops home.

You may not agree with him on many of his other positions but he wants to get us out of the wars, and our economy on sound footing by reigning in inflation and bad monetary policy through the printing press.

He has more integrity than any politician I've ever seen. He's consistently voted his principals for 30 years and defied the GOP party line more times than you can count. He's a principled man and that scares the daylights out of both parties.

[Jonathan Kirk]

01:15 PM on 06/22/2011

Fanned and faved.

[TheRoosterman]

01:26 AM on 06/21/2011

I wish I had a magic wand to wave an get a blending of Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul.

[bigdaddycarl7]

12:39 AM on 06/21/2011

I think Ron Paul would make a good president ... he wants to take care of America ....

[BlackJAC]

11:37 AM on 06/22/2011

He'd be the first President successfully removed from office via impeachment after his philosophies led to some domestic sneak attack with no pursuit of the perps.

[rich07]

01:11 PM on 06/22/2011

What are you talking about?

[Jonathan Kirk]

01:17 PM on 06/22/2011

You're an idiot, Blackjac. Ron Paul voted for the resolution to go after those responsible for 9/11. He's against all of the mindless warmongering that has created more enemies and made us less safe.

[wom122]

09:12 PM on 06/20/2011

Ron Paul is consistently anti-war and I have nothing but respect for his integrity and character. His domestic agenda on the other hand is way too far to the right as far as I'm concerned.

[New by]

11:04 PM on 06/20/2011

Consistent absolutely watch this re the money supply, a domestic issue, same message 30 years ago, can't see how anybody would support the federal reserve, a private bank charging you money to print your money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixjuvMwHwBM&feature=related

[FLECKENSTEIN44]

10:24 PM on 06/22/2011

no worries though bud as president Ron Paul wouldn't try to push his morals on anyone, which i something we paulbots support! He thinks abortion,marriage and all that is a religious,personal and a state issue.

that being said Ron Paul 2012!

[Constance Goforth]

09:01 PM on 06/20/2011

Not that the media will cover it much, but Dr. Paul came in second in a New Hampshire poll last week, and first in another in New Orleans. If the Republicans want a party in the future, they should take a cue from the people and support Ron Paul. He's the only candidate with a message that resonates. http://rubylee1776.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/ron-paul-stealth-force/

[moutonnoir]

11:10 PM on 06/22/2011

we are ready to try anything!

if he backed away from privatization as panacea he would have my support..

[Constance Goforth]

08:58 PM on 06/20/2011

Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, one look at his record will tell you he is a consistent man of his word. and I defy anyone to argue against him on this point.

[georgechevrolet]

08:57 PM on 06/20/2011

Ron Paul is REAL change.....or you can keep voting party lines, that has worked so well for us after all.

[Pstein]

08:55 PM on 06/20/2011

I think I'd vote for the guy if i could. Its amazing how much sense he makes, and how far we have come.

[Brad Smith2]

08:38 PM on 06/20/2011

Ron Paul's biggest problem is that his message doesn't come through in two minuet soundbites. Most people don't really understand why Liberty works to help the economy. Property rights and sound money etc these are all things that take time to explain and to think about.

Many of the other politicians have honed their messsage for that two minuet soundbite. It doesn't work that way when you have to start from scratch trying to get people to understand a concept and a plan rather than a feel good God bless America, I'll be there for you, have some hope and together we can change things speech. It's easy to pander but much more difficult to educate.

[EdCorner]

07:32 PM on 06/20/2011

Ron Paul : ....... to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

....The administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal law in the United States!

.....The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future.

In our lawsuit against the administration, among other critical issues we are demanding that the courts provide relief and protection to the country from the administration's policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations and NATO without authorization from Congress, and that previously appropriated funds by Congress may be used for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries. These are fundamental Constitutional issues

[RPTwentyTwelve]

07:04 PM on 06/20/2011

Looking forward to vote Ron Paul in 2012!

[daddycool 67]

06:15 PM on 06/20/2011

I have to agree with Ron Paul on everything he said here. I don't think I can vote for him though because of his anti abortion opinions and the simple fact that he's a republican from Texas. Republicans from Texas are just dangerous. You've got to remember that to become president, he will need money. The only way he will get any republican money is when he begins to toe the party line. Anybody who is willing to toe the republican party line will not get my vote. The republican party is dangerous for America. If he shuns the republican party ... I would consider voting for him.

There's one more thing to consider. Whoever gets into the white house will be promptly summoned to a meeting where the owners of this country will explain to him how it all really works. Any notions he has about making changes to the country will just have to be discarded at that point. I am convinced that this happened to Obama within weeks of taking office and it will happen to every visionary who takes office. Our owners will not allow anything to change in America.

[raybee222]

07:30 PM on 06/20/2011

With anyone else I would agree. But, his money comes from a LOT of small individual donors. Lobbyists have stopped visiting his office because they know they can't get anywhere. The Dr knows how the country works now, and how it's supposed to work. HIs last three books are The Revolution, End the Fed, and Liberty Defined. He knows that WE are the owners, not the government or the corporations that own it. That's the reason you vote for him, not against him. If he gets elected, there will be no doubt that business as usual for the "owners" is over! You will remember it as the best vote you ever cast. No sleazy feeling leaving the ballot box.

[RPTwentyTwelve]

07:32 PM on 06/20/2011

1) 'Republican­s from Texas are just dangerous'

Prejudgmental bias

2) 'willing to toe the.. party line'

Candidate Paul has earned the nickname 'Dr. No' for singularly voting in opposition to party politics on the basis of principle (ex. against the Patriot Act)

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/dr-no-r-texas.html

[richj45]

05:53 PM on 06/20/2011

On this one issue, the wars, Ron Paul is 100% correct... when it comes to taxes, corporations and race relation the guy is in La La land..

[casperorchids]

06:03 PM on 06/20/2011

That's because you don't understand what individual rights are actually about, along with the Constitution and were you to listen to him on race, he said it as is. the government pushed all the segregation back in the day. All he wants to do now is nothing to change or push for a bunch of laws we don't need. People know right from wrong on their own and with the big information push on the internet, those that want to be racist will be exposed and condemned. Now on Corporation who can you say anything that could be done isn't better than what we have now? You need to learn and read. Wake up rich, you can't be that numb?

[RPTwentyTwelve]

07:39 PM on 06/20/2011

1) 'taxes'

Disagreement: the current governmental system is unethical because it elementally forces payment at gunpoint (ex. IRS), while corruption and abuse can readily follow

2) 'corporatio­ns'

Disagreement: the aforementioned system can also create monopolies (ex. mandated insurance, highways etc) while losing incentive without competition from other craftsmen and entrepreneurs. Let these individuals and companies prosper through ingenuity and innovation while consulting continuously evolving industry standards

3) 'race relation'

Disagreement: liberty oriented philosophy declares that the rights of the individual shall not be infringed by any other individual, fraternal entity, chartered organization or governmental chapter