Paul: No independent bid, but probably no support for Republican nominee

posted at 3:05 pm on November 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Ron Paul probably disappointed some of his followers in yesterday’s interview on Fox News Sunday, when he told Chris Wallace that there is no chance of him launching an independent bid for President if he fails to win the nomination. Paul gets a laugh out of Wallace after the newsman asked why, and he says, “Because I don’t want to!”   Most Republicans are probably breathing a sigh of relief, however, at his nearly unequivocal rejection of the idea (via Greg Hengler):

I say nearly unequivocal because Paul frames his answer in the present tense.  Of course no current primary candidate will entertain a notion of an independent bid; it would be electoral suicide.  It doesn’t make sense to think about it now or plan for it before the first caucus arrives, certainly, but Paul has plenty of cash to think about it later.  However, he’s pretty adamant about not wanting to go rogue in the fall of 2012 in this answer.

That doesn’t exactly mean that Paul will be cheering the eventual nominee, either, as he explains in this clip, and that made some news, too:

But Paul said that if he’s not the nominee, he’s not certain that he would support the GOP nominee.

“Probably not unless I get to talk to them and find out what they believe in. But if they believe on expanding the wars, if they don’t believe in looking at the Federal Reserve; if they don’t believe in real cuts, if they don’t believe in deregulation and better tax system, it would defy everything I believe in,” Paul said.

“And so, therefore, I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I’d say, all we’ve done is for naught. So, let’s support anybody at all … even if they disagree with everything that we do,” Paul added.

How about thinking as he does on foreign policy?  In another part of the interview not shown here, Paul again rejected the idea that a nuclear Iran would be much of a threat:

Asked Sunday about U.S. policy on Iran in light of reports that Tehran continues striving to build a nuclear weapon, Paul called for a diplomatic approach rather than any kind of harsh or militaristic response.

Instead of sanctions or backing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Paul said, the United States should change its approach to the Iranian government by “maybe offering friendship to them.”

“I mean, didn’t we talk to the Soviets, didn’t we talk to the Chinese?” he asked of U.S. relations with nuclear-armed superpowers.

The former Soviet Union had much greater nuclear capabilities than the Iranians, who “can’t make enough gasoline for themselves,” Paul noted.

“For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region, I think, is just blown out of proportion,” he added. “People are anxious to use violence against the Iranians. I think it would undermine our security. I think it would be very destructive to Israel, because this is going to blow that place up.”

So anyone who believes that a nuclear-armed mullahcracy in Tehran is a real threat won’t get Paul’s endorsement?  The bad news is that no other Republican will get Paul’s backing, if that’s the case.  The good news is that no Democrat will, either, and I suspect even the Libertarian nominee might have a qualm or two about echoing Paul on this point.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

..yessier, you young whipper-snappers will regret the day you didn’t vote ol’ crazy Uncle Paul in, by crackee..

..four more years of Obama.

The War Planner on November 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Why do Republicans think Paul would hurt them as a 3rd party candidate? His platform would be protectionist, anti-war, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, legalize drugs.

Does that sound like a guy who would get more Democrat or Republican votes?

angryed on November 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Paul said, the United States should change its approach to the Iranian government by “maybe offering friendship to them.”

You think maybe the reason that Ron doesn’t get invited to the family Thanksgiving party anymore is because he shows up without any pants on?

*batass crazy*

Bishop on November 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Well, I’ll give him props for discounting a third party run. And you can’t expect him to be all raa-raa for another nominee; always the option to go fishing (and would prefer he do so.)

michaelo on November 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Paul said, the United States should change its approach to the Iranian government by “maybe offering friendship to them.”

We shoulda offered them friendship decades ago.

Of the high yield category.

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Good enough. Enjoy your retirement.

Y-not on November 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM

probably no support for Republican nominee

No interest in doing anything that doesn’t benefit him directly.

itsnotaboutme on November 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Flashback: Ron Paul refuses to endorse McCain/Palin vs. Obama

Sept 10, 2008: Ron Paul endorses instead Marxist Anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Baldwin’s campaigns….while not finding it in him to endorse the McCain/Palin ticket

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Why do Republicans think Paul would hurt them as a 3rd party candidate? His platform would be protectionist, anti-war, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, legalize drugs.

Does that sound like a guy who would get more Democrat or Republican votes?

angryed on November 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

If we nominate a perceived “RINO” establishment guy, Paul will pull away some conservative voters with “Limited Govt” and Liberty rhetoric while demonizing GOP nominee.

unless Fox and the GOP attack him and show who he really is, though its true he would also win some of the Far-left base as well.

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Why would any Republican Nominee want Ron Paul’s support?

wren on November 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM

From the Ron Paul link I made above, Sept. 2008

The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Just. Go. Away.

OhioCoastie on November 7, 2011 at 3:23 PM

*batass crazy*

Bishop on November 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

What’s crazy about saying diplomatic rapprochement could be more effective than our current approach to the Iranian problem? Let’s examine the different ways we as a nation can deal with Iran, and see which is most likely to result in stability and peace in the Middle East, which is our goal here.

Well, given that sanction regimes punish ordinary citizens rather than the government, applying sanctions against Iran gives the Iranian government a scapegoat for their massively poor governance. We need to remember that under the current Iranian regime, a nation with one of the largest oil reserves in the world can’t even refine its own petroleum. The mullahcracy is massively incompetent, and the Green movement protests over the last several years are only one reflection of that. The Islamic government is becoming discredited in the eyes of the Iranian people, but by applying sanctions, support for the government will typically increase because the Iranian government will be able to use them both as an excuse for their mismanagement and as a rallying cry to unite the people behind them to stand up against ‘foreign oppression’ or similar propaganda.

That might be alright if there was a reasonable expectation that sanctions could stop Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon if it wants one, but no serious person believes that. Sanctions couldn’t even prevent North Korea from acquiring the Bomb, and NK is far poorer and more geographically, economically and diplomatically isolated than Iran. So, if they couldn’t stop North Korea, they will assuredly fail in the case of Iran.

So Ron Paul is correct that sanctions are a poor way to go about handling the Iranian problem. What are the other options?

Well, we could try to bomb their nuclear program in a targeted way, but that would assuredly fail. The Iranian nuclear program, whether military or civilian, is widely geographically dispersed, parts of it may be in secret locations, most of it is in the deep interior of a very large nation, and the key components are in hardened bunkers under mountains that would resist any sort of conventional bombing. In addition, Iran could easily retaliate against our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran, so any ‘limited’ campaign of airstrikes probably couldn’t stay limited for long.

A limited air campaign would fail and would likely escalate, so what about the next alternative, a full-on ground invasion and occupation of Iran? No one is suggesting that, and for good reason: as Robert Gates himself said, it would be madness. Our armed forces are at historically low readiness figures between the tough occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the recent Libyan campaign, we’re teetering on the brink of a total fiscal collapse, and such an enterprise would demand nothing less than the occupation of the 18th largest nation on earth, whose land area is one and a half times larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. This is a nation whose estimated armed forces, including paramilitary units, are larger than the US military, so we couldn’t fight them on the cheap. And we can be sure that none of our NATO allies or Arab partners would support us in such an invasion. America would literally have a bond crisis if we tried to pay for such a war alone.

So what’s the only remaining alternative? Diplomacy and containment, which is what Ron Paul is suggesting. That doesn’t seem ‘crazy’ to me, that seems realistic. There’s some chance that Iran’s leaders could be convinced it is in their own interest to not pursue nuclear weaponry, or alternatively that the government will be overthrown in a domestic revolution without a sanction regime to use to excuse their failures.

None of the other candidates are calling for an invasion of Iran, so the only difference between Paul and the others is that most of them support using sanctions against Iran, which we KNOW won’t work, and Paul supports using diplomacy, which has a small but finite chance of working, and then using containment if that fails. I think taking the option that has at least some chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the way to go, personally.

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I just hope the goodness paul’s son doesn’t prove to be as outta here as dad is? ron scares the daylights out of me on many issue, foreign mainly.
L

letget on November 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM

World ignores Israel’s 200 nukes yet pressures Iran’s 1 nuke

Today, the Israeli political lobby is a powerful political force. Two to three hundred nuclear weapons, under Israel’s control, make Israel more powerful than all the Arab and Muslim countries put together. But that’s not where the real power lies. The UN can labor tirelessly in “controlling” one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn’t exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, the world community rarely even admits that Israel’s nukes exist–and at the same time Iran has never been ruled in noncompliance with the NPT. The fact that Muslim nations become annoyed with this policy is written off by most in the West by charging anti-Semitism.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.317 Apr 19, 2011

Certifiable

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:30 PM

More disgraceful, dishonorable stupidity from Ron Paul in “Liberty Defined”

Sanctions are precursor to war, not an alternative

Sanctions & blockades are extremely dangerous and should be considered acts of war. This policy was a prelude to our unwarranted and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. There’s reason to fear the same will result from our trade barriers against Iran Blockading the Palestinians in Gaza has proven to be a dangerous and inhumane policy. The result has been to make the region much more dangerous. Many members of Congress falsely believe that sanctions are an alternative to war instead of a precursor. Even members who are part of the unofficial antiwar coalition almost always support sanctions, even though they see themselves as strongly opposing war. What they fail to see is that blockades for whatever reason can be enforced only through violence and even killing. This moves the countries involved closer to outright war. Iraq is a good case in point: Sanctions were imposed through the 1990s and then the real war followed.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.296-297 Apr 19, 2011

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Why do Republicans think Paul would hurt them as a 3rd party candidate? His platform would be protectionist, anti-war, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, legalize drugs.

Does that sound like a guy who would get more Democrat or Republican votes?

angryed on November 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Ron Paul isn’t anti-Semitic or anti-Israel and he believes in free trade. You’ve been misinformed, friend.

He’s been standing up for Israeli sovereignty for his entire career, from condemning Obama for trying to make Israel return to its 1967 borders (“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.”), all the way back to 1981 when he was one of the few Republicans in Congress to buck the Reagan administration and GOP leadership when he refused to support a resolution condemning Israel for bombing Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant. Most politicians wanted to support our then-”buddies” in Iraq, but Ron has supported Israeli sovereignty for his entire career.

And Ron Paul is one of the foremost free traders in Congress. He wants to unilaterally repeal all trade barriers – you can’t be more of a free-trader than that!

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM

The only reason Paul is in the race, is to score some last-hurrah campaign cash from his cultists before retirement.

Even a lot of those folks have jumped his ship – the difference in batsh!tcrazy “enthusiasm” between four years ago and today is quite remarkable.

Rebar on November 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM

We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad

It is commonplace for the would-be tyrants to create fear on purpose so that people will actually rush to the government saviors, demanding safety with a willingness to sacrifice liberty. Fear is constantly being manufactured by our leaders, Republicans Democrats, by invoking a current “Hitler” about to attack us: Saddam, Ahmadinejad, the Taliban, the communists, al Qaeda, or whomever. This fear is required to get the people’s support for fighting unnecessary wars and supporting the military industrial complex. The fear is concocted. The war is very clearly not necessary. The results are devastating to our security and our prosperity. The real fear ought to be directed toward our own leaders and instigators of our policies. Pres. Bush constantly preached war while couching all his speeches in freedom-loving language. It was always because we were free and prosperous that Muslim radicals wanted to kill us. The real reason was never hinted at: that it was a reflection of our failed foreign policy.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.131 Apr 19, 2011

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike

If we hate racism, we must also hate war since it is war that has bred malignant types of racism. In our time, we observe the same happening to those of the Islamic faith. Members of both parties demonize people and encourage an anti-Islamic feeling. Christians are being told, as in George Orwell’s 1984, that “we’ve always been at war with Islam,” that Islam is an inherently warlike religion, that “they” are taking over America with their mosques, clothing, & law. This whole campaign has the earmarks of a new Cold War, and perhaps hot war, in which Islam replaces atheistic communism as the enemy.

What is striking about this form of racism is how little it has to do with reality. The 9/11 hijackers were not devout Muslims, but we are often led to believe that they were. The government of Saddam Hussein was secular.

What none of this mentions is that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism lived in peace, sometimes in the same regions of Europe, for some 700 years between the 8th and 15th centuries.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.239-240 Apr 19, 2011

Either insane, or a dangerous, disgraceful liar shilling for Jihadist and by default, Sharia Law.

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Ron Paul isn’t anti-Semitic or anti-Israel and he believes in free trade. You’ve been misinformed, friend.

Yeah, he’s not anti-semitic. He just lies constantly about the facts with regards to Israel and the palestienian situation.

Ron Paul has voted against every Free-Trade Agreement while in Congress. He is a “free trader” in Rhetoric, not real world action. Same with “Liberty”, he’s actually an enemy of liberty.

jp on November 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM

You make me laugh Ink. :)

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM

You make me laugh Ink. :)

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Why, thank you.

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Even a lot of those folks have jumped his ship – the difference in batsh!tcrazy “enthusiasm” between four years ago and today is quite remarkable.

Rebar on November 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Very true.

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Very true.

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Actually, no. He has about 4 times the support in the polls he had at this point last cycle, and about 5 times the level in Iowa.

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Sorry, Ink.

If this were 07 or 08, this thread would already be pushing 1000 comments and anyone uttering a word against the good Doktor would have already been threatened with death and the execution of their children and families.

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:51 PM

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Well, even though I wasn’t here in ’08, I’m going to go ahead and be a bit skeptical of that claim.

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM

He is not a conservative, He’s an old leftwing neo libertarian who suscribes to a twisted form of libertarianism ala the mental midget Ayn Rand’s objectivist non-sense philsophy who despite her success as a novelist , was not a logical nor reasoned woman. Her “objectivism” is clearly the work of a person with ADHD and a drinking problem

Ayn Rand also had arguements as deep as “Because I don’t want to”

Like her pro abortion one …… Nails and hair are human and people dont’ mind cutting them so no different than an abortion

The part of the hair and nails you cut isn’t even living. The follicle and part of the cuticle are. You don’t even have to mention that a fetus actually grows into a seperate human to demolish her.

Its no wonder only truly odd people are Ronbots and only the logically challenged adhere to neo-libertarianism

It’s all or nothing for Ron Paul and his supporters. .
Ron Paul SHOULD run as a third candidate. His supporters won’t vote for a Republican no matter what he says.
They are liberals and Obama potential Obama voters. It’s best to keep their staunch vote for Ron Paul instead of Obama . I suspect Paul could even take some Obamabots from the dear leader,, although not many.

LeeSeneca on November 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM

You can be as skeptical as you like. I think I still have a couple of e-mails I got from that time from Herr Doktor supporters doing that very thing. I know Ed and Allah did.

It isn’t just the over-zealous nature of many Paulbots that inspires derision…

catmman on November 7, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Ron Paul isn’t anti-Semitic or anti-Israel and he believes in free trade. You’ve been misinformed, friend.

Inkblots on November 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM

He doesn’t hate Jews. Why, just the other day he said some of his closest friends are Jewish.

angryed on November 7, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Just. Go. Away.

OhioCoastie on November 7, 2011 at 3:23 PM

.
He is. It’s either Prez or Lights Out! He is not running for his house seat in 2012 (as of now).

ExpressoBold on November 7, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I worked for Ron for 12 years as his personal assistant/travel aide. I wouldn’t call him an Anti-Semite. He has no problem with American Jews. I can honestly say that in 12 years working for him, being with him sometimes 10 hours a day, I never heard him utter a single Anti-Semitic statement, or anything close.

He is most certainly Anti-Israel. He would argue with me for hours in the car about the very existence of Israel. He clearly sided with the Palestinians from a “rights” perspective. He held the attitude that the Israelis were much more of a problem for the U.S. than they were worth, and that we should completely cut them off.

He also didn’t like the Israelis “warmongering” as he put it. Ron is a total pacifist. It runs deep with him. He is totally against the death penalty, for example.

He also would be quick to put forth “cutting off aid to Israel,” but had to be pushed to acknowledge that the U.S. also funded Turkey and Egypt and scores of other countries.

He’s say, “oh, yeah, them too.” But only after a lot of prodding. It was always “Cut off aid to Israel now… Israel is bleeding America dry…”

He is also quite unpleasant personally to anybody who supports Israel. I was aghast one time when he snubbed a delegation of 6 Jewish Republican leaders from Houston at our office in Freeport. He berrated them. He was so rude to them, that they essentially walked out. I literally had to run down the hall to apologize to them. (This incident can be confirmed by contacting any Jewish YR in Houston. I remember the leader’s name – Joshua Berry. Happened in 2002 I believe?)

Ron Paul? Anti-Semite. No! Anti-Israel. Most certainly.

Eric Dondero, Personal Aide/Travel Asst.
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Draft Ron Paul for President campaign coordinator, 1992
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress 1995/96
Senior District Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Senior District Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM

.
Thanks! I saved your comment and labelled it “The Real Ron Paul.” Anybody that tells me why Ron Paul should be president, I’m going to start them off with your comment and ask them “How many of Jimmy Carter do we need?”

ExpressoBold on November 7, 2011 at 5:12 PM

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Fascinating, thank you for your honesty.

saus on November 7, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Ron Paul will not run 3rd party unless he has some personal vendetta against the GOP nominee. He doesn’t, so he won’t.

Pro-Israel folks have a strong tendency to equate anti-israel opinions with being anti-Jewish (myself included), but Ron Paul is not an anti-semite. Much of what he has to say comes from years of dealing with the reflexively Israel-centered foreign policy. And frankly, if we cut off foreign aid to Israel and its neighbors, and left them alone to settle their grievances, Israel would take care of itself.

The difference between Paul and Obama is that Paul wants out of the middle east and its (US-aid-fueled) troubles. Obama wants to actively use US power to cripple and destroy Israel.

spmat on November 7, 2011 at 5:51 PM

And us pulling out of the Middle East is precisely what the Islamists want us to do. They feed on our weakness. Remember, Osama bin Laden said he made his final decision to have a full-fledged War on the United States in the early 1990s when he witnessed us pull out of Somalia, and realized how weak we were.

The only way to fight the Islamists is through strength showing them no sign whatsoever of weakness.

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Senior District Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Thank you, that was truly enlightening!

VBMax on November 7, 2011 at 6:26 PM

You’re quite welcome. I wish to say to my fellow HotAir.com readers that not all of us libertarians are antiwar or non-interventionist.

There is a significant “pro-defense” wing of the libertarian movement. We view Radical Islam as a serious threat. We acknowledge that if the Islamists were to take power they’d make booze and gambling illegal, jail marijuana smokers, outlaw free speech critical of Muhammed, stone “loose women” in the town square, execute our gay friends, and force our wives/girlfriends to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe.

Their agenda is entirely inconsistent with libertarian beliefs in basically “legalizing everything.” An area where we dissent from our conservative brothers and sisters.

Pro-defense libertarianism? LibertarianRepublican.net

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I was sure hoping that the mother ship would have dropped in by now to have given him his ride home.

JFS61 on November 7, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Why do Republicans think Paul would hurt them as a 3rd party candidate? His platform would be protectionist, anti-war, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, legalize drugs.

Does that sound like a guy who would get more Democrat or Republican votes?

angryed on November 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

You forgot to add homophobic and racist.

How is that Paul derangement syndrome working for ya?

V-rod on November 7, 2011 at 7:25 PM

He also didn’t like the Israelis “warmongering” as he put it. Ron is a total pacifist. It runs deep with him. He is totally against the death penalty, for example.

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Wow, I agree with you. You totally confirmed some of my questions that I had for over 3 years. I did believe that he was an extreme pacifist from seeing a very low key interview he did in 2008, with comments that were not really explored in many other interviews and speeches he did.
I touched upon this impression I got of him to other supporters, and they were in total denial, and just repeated his talking points about going on the offensive when appropriate.

I still believe he is an open minded person, and makes great philosophic arguments on foreign policy. I’m on the fence, but I am leaning toward Ron Paul based on the other candidates we have. Our debt problems will NOT be worked on unless we have Paul or maybe Gingrich.

V-rod on November 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM

V-rod, you gotta look at it from the perspective of Ron Paul as a 50%-er.

He’s 100% right on 50% of the issues. He’s great on economics. The best! But he absolutely, undoubtably, frightenly sucks on foreign policy.

Do you really want to vote for 50% of the equation?

Hell, Romney is called a squish. But he’s about 60% right on economics, and 90% right on foreign policy. Much better than Paul.

Of course, Perry and Cain are the closest to the ideal libertarian-conservative.

ericdondero on November 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Just so everyone is keeping track, jp had 8 of the first 42 posts. The guy hardly posts in any other threads on this site and goes all out in his Anti-Paul posts.

I can understand disagreeing with a candidate as I don’t mind a good conversation regarding Ron. But if jp really thinks Paul is a loon, then ask him why 20% of the total posts in this thread are his own and they’re not even from replying to anyone. Just random spamming.

Notorious GOP on November 7, 2011 at 9:16 PM

All of you are wrong on foreign policy. You have been wrong for years.

As a former neo-conservative I will no longer bury my head in the sand of government propaganda and war profiteering for the sake of allegiance to the Republican party.

I’m tired of our 60+ years of killing little kids and women so that we can supposedly keep people from killing our little kids and women.

To continue to believe that a policy of draconian intervention that kills the innocent is going to somehow eventually add up in our favor is nothing more than a foolish game of Russian Roulette with the nation’s security, and a greater offense to a Christian God than abortion or homosexuality ever could be.

bmowell on November 7, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Why would any Republican Nominee want Ron Paul’s support?

wren on November 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM

I betcha Mitt wants it. He’ll whore himself out to anyone to be president.

Extrafishy on November 8, 2011 at 5:41 AM

JP seems to me to be another chickenhawk who never served a day in the military in his life while all too comfortable sending others’ children to unconstitutional, pointless wars. No matter.

All I know is that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination I’ll be voting Constitution or Libertarian party for pres. RJ Harris looks promising.

RightXBrigade on November 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM

V-rod, you gotta look at it from the perspective of Ron Paul as a 50%-er.

He’s 100% right on 50% of the issues. He’s great on economics. The best! But he absolutely, undoubtably, frightenly sucks on foreign policy.

Do you really want to vote for 50% of the equation?

Hell, Romney is called a squish. But he’s about 60% right on economics, and 90% right on foreign policy. Much better than Paul.

Of course, Perry and Cain are the closest to the ideal libertarian-conservative.

HAHAHA
Yeah and the Bush and Obama administrations police the world foreign policy has really been great for us! How many friends have you lost to this pointless war?

RightXBrigade on November 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM