Ron Paul: No, I won’t be endorsing Romney any time soon; Update: Convention disruption “against my plan”

posted at 1:36 pm on May 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Larry Kudlow asks the most pertinent question about Ron Paul’s continuing efforts on the campaign trail after Mitt Romney has all but wrapped up the GOP nomination, which is what Paul hopes to accomplish by continuing to contest it.  Paul says he’s not ready to follow Rick Santorum’s lead by endorsing Romney in the near future … and why should he?  He’s raising money with a low burn rate, grabbing enough delegates to have the party establishment worried, and putting himself in position to force some policy changes in the party platform.  Ron Paul is having the time of his life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq6fqEzQLJI

With virtually zero chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he has no immediate plans to endorse Mitt Romney.

“Not soon,” he said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”

“I’m not thinking about that as much as what kind of presence we’ll have, how many people we’re going to have there, and what kind of an influence we can have on the platform in Tampa,” he added, noting that there were still plenty of delegates still up for grabs. “It may turn out that we may end up winning Iowa, and we’ve won a couple of these other states.”

Just how close to zero chance is it for Paul, anyway?  Let’s assume that Paul can capture all of the delegates in caucus states, thanks to his organizational strength and ability to play the long game.  Right now, Romney has 722 untouchable bound delegates from primary states, up through last night’s elections.  He’ll get at least half of Indiana’s 46 delegates even if Paul can claw some from the caucus portion of the allocation, so bring that to 745 delegates.  Romney should win all of the rest of the primaries by majorities, so California puts Romney over the top by June 5th no matter what happens.  It’s over, and it’s been over since at least Santorum’s withdrawal.

But the endgame, as Kudlow puts it, hasn’t been the nomination anyway, at least not for Paul. He wants to influence policy in exactly the way he states in the interview, but more importantly, he wants his supporters holding the levers of power in local and state party organizations.  That will make it much easier to move the GOP in his direction — and eventually give his son Rand a clear path to a presidential nomination.  When he’s finished setting up his organization and generating as much in contributions as he can, he’ll give Romney his blessing in this election, because by then Romney’s win this year won’t matter to Paul.

Update: CNN asked Paul about rumors that his campaign planned to use its muscle on the delegate floor in Tampa to stage demonstrations against the Republican nominee, or at least the party establishment.  Paul disavowed that intent:

COSTELLO: Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Cain, they’ve all dropped out. Why haven’t you?

PAUL: Well, it certainly isn’t for the reason of disrupting a convention as you were alluding to. That is not in my plan. That is against my plan. I don’t like that being a suggestion.

I’m in it for very precise reasons to maximize our efforts to get as many delegates as we can. I’m still a candidate and to promote something that is very, very important. That is a change in the direction for the Republican Party to be a fiscal conservative Republican Party.

To not be a party that supports endless wars and a party that would look into the monetary system so that we can understand the business cycle.

So we have very precise goals and we are being quite successful in accumulating more and more votes and delegates. Quite frankly, I think the reports early on that we weren’t winning anything, it turns out we did win some of these states like in Maine and Minnesota and these other places. We’re doing quite well.

COSTELLO: I want to ask you about that, Congressman. Your supporters do seem to be taking a page from Evangelical Christian activists in the ’90s.

They’re taking control of state conventions to win you enough delegates to get your name placed formally in nomination. I mean, is the goal to get you a prime time speaking role at the Republican convention, is that why they’re working so hard?

PAUL: Well, being nominated is one thing and you get to give a speech, but that is different than just the leadership conceding sometime and giving you a speech. One is monitored and one is not.

So just to give a speech for the sake of giving a speech and have it edited doesn’t have much awe peel to me, but I think moving in an agenda is very important. The best way I can do that is to maximize is number of delegates that we have.

Say what you will, but my experience in Minnesota has been that Paul supporters have organized well enough that they don’t need to disrupt the proceedings.  They’re making themselves the new establishment.  They look disciplined and focused, so a pointless disruption on the floor of the convention in Tampa would be not just be out of character, it would mainly be self-defeating.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You say the most rediculous things, there’s little point in trying to refute them. Ron Paul dominates the establishment? Do you think that people who read blogs like this are a bunch of idiots?

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Why do you keep refusing to answer my questions?

And yeah, how do you describe the fact that Ron Paul dominates the caucuses and conventions which are insidery meetings of party hacks and doesn’t get more than 10% in primaries and high-turnout caucuses?

You can’t have it both ways: you can’t take over the party structures and get to keep accusing the other guys of being the establishment.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Let’s be honest Ron Paul has already said he wouldn’t have sent anyone to fight in Europe…and if he means it that means he is willing to have Germany declare war on US, but not respond…And of course there’s his belief we could have avoided the Civil War by buying up all the slaves…Ron Paul and his Lew Rockwell guides are potato heads…and no Ron Paul isn’t a Constitutionalist, certainly his intellectual mentors aren’t; they oppose the US Constitution, pretty much all government, in fact.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM

“Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks.”

jaime on May 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Interesting that the article (and all others on this subject) never print a full quote, just chopped up bits and pieces. He was speaking of all whistleblowers. I agree with him. Our government and military lied and said it didn’t know how children were injured in an attack. Leaked video proved they did know and the military had to walk it back.

At a campaign stop luncheon on Thursday, 36-year-old local Jonathan Streeter quizzed Rep. Paul for his take on the Manning incident:

“I believe that open and transparent government is an important part in a government being accountable to the people, and indeed Obama made this same sort of promises and has obviously failed on that; The most visible example is Bradley manning and the WikiLeaks issue,” explained Streeter. “In your administration, what would you do to safeguard government transparency and specifically what would you do about Bradley Manning?”

Before divulging an in-depth explanation, Congressman Paul was quick to cut to the chase.
“I’d have him protected under the whistleblowers act,” explained the presidential hopeful.

I think this issue is a very important issue because I maintain that government becomes more secret and the people’s privacy is being destroyed. We should protect the people’s privacy and we should make the government much more open,” said Paul. “We can start with the Federal Reserve system.”

Although President Obama campaigned on a platform of increased government transparency, the US government is currently in the process of taking PFC Bradley Manning to trial over his alleged contributions to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks site. Accused of handing over top-secret military files, including the now infamous “Collateral Murder” video that shows US troops firing at civilians, Manning is being charged with aiding the enemy. Ron Paul argues that even if Manning did provide that footage for WikiLeaks, no one was impacted to the degree that the prosecution insists.

“I imagine people ought to think it through, but from what I can do see from my viewpoint, is that his motivation had nothing to do with helping the enemy,” he said. According to the military prosecution, the video aided al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s battle against US troops fighting overseas.
“You know that if anybody had ever suffered a consequence because of the release of those thousands and thousands of pages, we would have heard about it by now,” added Paul.

Before Manning was recommended for court-martial, his attorney David Coombs told authorities that White House officials described the leaked documents that landed Manning in prison as of a “rather benign nature” and as not “of any real damage to national security.” In their own report last year, Wired explained that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) “concluded that all of the information allegedly leaked was dated, represented low-level opinions or was already commonly known due to previous public disclosures.”

Whistleblowers should be protected if they are telling the truth and they are not doing it for the purpose of being a traitor,” added the congressman. Bringing it into a historical prospective, Rep. Paul reminded the San Antonio crowd of Daniel Ellsberg, the former US Department of Defense employee that released what became known as the Pentagon Papers. By exposing the truth behind the government’s handling of the Vietnam War, Ellsberg is today often credited with helping end America’s involvement overseas in the early 1970′s. At the time however, Paul said, others weren’t as understanding.

“Daniel Ellsberg in the 60′s, the early 70′s I guess, was a traitor as far as the people were concerned,” said the congressman. “For me, he’s really a hero in the sense that we have good history now about Vietnam. Too bad we haven’t learned about what was going on, but his own remorse about this wasn’t that he did it. Ellsberg’s remorse was: why didn’t I do it sooner?”

link

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

He is more accurately described as a leftist Republican. His views on foreign policy are no different from those of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, et.al.

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

By your defective logic, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was far more liberal than the Bush’s because he didn’t start a bunch of preemptive wars and spend trillions of dollars nation-building our enemies.

But in fact you have it backwards: Reagan’s foreign policy was more conservative than the Bush’s, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is even more conservative than Reagan’s.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

They’re making themselves the new establishment.

See Floating Rock? Exactly what I’ve been saying.

You can’t have it both ways. From now on, you can’t keep playing the establishment card. Not when you’re winning the establishment primaries, when only the party hacks vote.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Question: If Ron Paul is the only true conservative then why does he get so much support from liberals? Liberals aren’t suddenly becoming conservative. So that pretty much destroys the paulnut myth.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Do you remember those happy time when the word “liberal” did not mean “raving communist lunatic”? when the Republicans have become the party of Patriot Act and Terry Schiavo rather than the small-government, fiscal-responsibility party is used to be, some types naturally started looking for an alternative.

Archivarix on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Gentleman, Ladies,

Please do not confuse Ron Paul with the “libertarian” label, or with our libertarian movement.

He is more accurately described as a leftist Republican. His views on foreign policy are no different from those of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, et.al.

Civil liberties? Paul would sell this country out to the Islamists who would institute Sharia Law quicker than you could say “Allahu-Ahkbar.”

Yes, he’s good on economics. But his pro-Islamist stances on the other two legs of the stool, cancel out any good positions he has. You can’t be against totalitarianism only 1/3rd of the time.

Eric @ LibertarianRepublican

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Eric Dondero is no libertarian and never has been. He is a former worker of Ron Paul’s who was fired and has been acting out of his personal grudge.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

ericdondero on May 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

It’s the people who believe in the liberal use of military interventionism and the liberal application of nation-building objectives that hold “liberal” foreign policy views.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

No. What you said was that Ron Paul should drop out, before delegates are decided in many states, and before voting in places like CA and TX have even occurred

John he SHOULD drop out…he cannot catch Romney…BTW, please note where people VOTE, to be distinguished from where they caucus, Ron Paul LOSES…he can’t catch Romney and he won’t get any votes in CA or TX. Sure he has every RIGHT to stay in the race, but to what end? He cannot secure the nomination.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

No. What you said was that Ron Paul should drop out, before delegates are decided in many states, and before voting in places like CA and TX have even occurred.

Which pretty much makes you either a shill or a jackass. Although I’m willing to believe in your case that it is not mutually exclusive.

As I say, you are clearly looking for a more totalitarian governing system. Take a left, and keep going until you hit the Democratic Party.

Don’t worry… it’s not far from where you are.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM

So Ron Paul has no chance of getting nominated (as you’ve conceeded) but suggesting that he drop out so as not to be a completely classless loser makes me a totalitarian government lover.

Yep. I’m looking for a totalitarian government. You’ve got me pegged. I think I’ll move on to the sane commenters now.

Scrappy on May 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM

By your defective logic, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was far more liberal than the Bush’s because he didn’t start a bunch of preemptive wars and spend trillions of dollars nation-building our enemies.

But in fact you have it backwards: Reagan’s foreign policy was more conservative than the Bush’s, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is even more conservative than Reagan’s.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I don’t like nation building or interventionism, but Paul and Rothbard were huge opponents of Reagan’s foreign policy, especially his hard stance on Soviet Union.

Rothbard/Paul’s foreign policy isn’t conservative. It’s as ideological as nation-building fanatical interventionism. Two sides of the same coin.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ok what’s the difference it’s 1931 and Japan has attacked China, what does Ron Paul do/ It’s 1937 and Japan continues the war in China, what does Ron Paul do? It’s 1938 what does Ron Paul do about German revanchism in Europe? What’s his stance from 1939 on? What’s the difference between ISOLATIONISM and Non-Intervention? Does the US liberate Kuwayt?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM

What’s the difference? Isolationism would not allow diplomatic relations and trade with other countries. Non-interventionism means not meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations and minding our own business. It’s the same foreign policy of the Founders and for most of American history up until the Progressives took over with Teddy Roosevelt.

You are advocating the foreign policy of progressivism.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I don’t like nation building or interventionism, but Paul and Rothbard were huge opponents of Reagan’s foreign policy, especially his hard stance on Soviet Union.

Rothbard/Paul’s foreign policy isn’t conservative. It’s as ideological as nation-building fanatical interventionism. Two sides of the same coin.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Then if you don’t like interventionism, you would also be opposed to Reagan’s foreign policy.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM

My explanation: Our young’uns are afraid of having to fight and die in Eye-Ran and really want a Prez who’ll play foreign policy ostrich for them.

How soon our progeny forgets our parents’ lessons from WWII.
Freedom is NOT free. Isolationism no longer protects us, nor do the two oceans on either side of us.

Yiwen on May 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM

My experience with young Ron Paul supporters, a surprising number of whom were veterans, was they aren’t afraid to go and fight and die for America.

They’re afraid of having to go and fight and die for nothing. And after the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, who the hell can blame them?

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Obviously not. Republicans have tolerated the likes of Dick Lugar for decades, right?

To me, loyalty to the GOP suggests voting for their candidates (and incumbent candidates) 100% of the time.

MeatHeadinCA on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM

And the party primaried him and he’s out.

I’m not suggesting that party loyalty means blindly supporting everyone who calls themselves a member. It’s more about being willing to agree to disagree on the 5% and work

together

on the 95%. Work to reshape the party one candidate at a time, but when your cadidate doesn’t make it, you don’t throw out the entire party.

Scrappy on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

You do realize that by conducting his campiagn in this manner that he may well be responsible for the eradication of the caucus system of electing representatives to political office.

The Republican Party, you know the ones running the very system that these games are trying to disrupt, are the same ones who set the rules.

Say goodbye to caucusi and hello to closed primaries every where.

D-fusit on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Ron Paul’s guru in foreign policy – and most of the other stuff – physically applauded Khrushchev, the Stalin protege who was threatening a civil war over Berlin. He commemorate when the Khmer Rouges seized the power in Cambodja.

There isn’t anything conservative about Rothbardianism. A conservative foreign policy is based on sound prudential judgements, not blind ideology.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

errr. “together” itallics, not blockquote. duh.

Scrappy on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I think Dr Paul should forge ahead and let his supporters voices be heard come convention time. Dr. Paul will never be President, so at least by staying in he might have some effect on establishment types./

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Let’s be honest Ron Paul has already said he wouldn’t have sent anyone to fight in Europe…and if he means it that means he is willing to have Germany declare war on US, but not respond…And of course there’s his belief we could have avoided the Civil War by buying up all the slaves…Ron Paul and his Lew Rockwell guides are potato heads…and no Ron Paul isn’t a Constitutionalist, certainly his intellectual mentors aren’t; they oppose the US Constitution, pretty much all government, in fact.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM

If you understood anything about non-interventionism, then you wouldn’t be so confused. If you knew anything about Paul’s stance on foreign policy and defense, then you wouldn’t make such ignorant statements.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Then if you don’t like interventionism, you would also be opposed to Reagan’s foreign policy.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Your mindframe is ideological and anti-conservative.

I don’t “like” or “dislike” interventionism in that conceptual way.

I’m a conservative in foreign policy.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

What is it about Ron Paul that makes a certain subset of HotAir commentators turn into childish MSNBC race-baiters? You realize it’s the liberals who are supposed to be the immature name callers. Come on people. We can do better.

ModerateMan on May 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Question: If Ron Paul is the only true conservative then why does he get so much support from liberals? Liberals aren’t suddenly becoming conservative. So that pretty much destroys the paulnut myth.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Because freedom and liberty appeals to people in the middle of the country on the left, right and center.

Also, because Ron Paul has a conservative foreign policy, too conservative for my tastes, and some people on the left are attracted to that as well.

Those are two big reasons, but there are all sort of reasons why people should support Ron Paul and not the corrupt establishment that has caused, and continues to cause, the disease that is destroying our nation.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

No, Paul is staying in to influence the platform and to help lay the groundwork for Rand’s eventual run. I should say his actions are helping Rand, but only to an extent.

Rand ain’t his Dad, and that’s a problem for him.

This will be a problem for Palin in the post-Romney GOP, because Paultardia doesn’t translate well to Palinland, but the Paultards do get a lot of the new non-interventionism that is afoot in the GOP. Palin is somewhat more of a traditional Reaganite in foreign policy, and I assume in the GOP that if Romney loses, there will be a big fight on the right between Palin and Paul for that space.

Paul has the early advantage, but don’t sell Sarah short. She has a huge upside, and her people know how to organize. Plus, there’s no Stormfront baggage with Palin.

victor82 on May 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So Ron Paul has no chance of getting nominated (as you’ve conceeded) but suggesting that he drop out so as not to be a completely classless loser makes me a totalitarian government lover.

Scrappy on May 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The fact that you demand the game be called in the third quarter, because the champagne is on ice in the locker room, makes you totalitarian.

Or, you can do like we do, and actually show up, participate in the process of selecting delegates to our national convention, and actually do something productive, instead of whining about sore losers, before the game is even over.

But politics is hard, especially in a free society. Asking some people to do their part is just a little too much I suppose.

Laziness… the root of totalitarianism.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Your mindframe is ideological and anti-conservative.

I don’t “like” or “dislike” interventionism in that conceptual way.

I’m a conservative in foreign policy.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Oh, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.

What an Orwellian post you’ve just made.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

What ever happened to Spathi…?

Seven Percent Solution on May 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Also, because Ron Paul has a conservative foreign policy,

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

He has a super-ideological, rothbardian, foreign policy. There isn’t anything conservative about it.

It’s attractive to the metaphysically mad and the ideological, schematic, dogmatic minded.

That’s why he attracts so many liberals.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Disavowing the intent won’t matter. It’s going to happen because the Paul cultists (the crazy half of his supporters) will NOT be denied.

michaelo on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Your mindframe is ideological and anti-conservative.

I don’t “like” or “dislike” interventionism in that conceptual way.

I’m a conservative in foreign policy.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The question is not “Are you a conservative on foreign policy?”

It is “Are you a realist on foreign policy, or are you an idealist?”

The last GOP Administration was as Idealist as Wilson. We need Realists down at Foggy Bottom.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

There isn’t anything conservative about Rothbardianism.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Nor is there anything conservative about you and your pathetic unproven smears and allegations.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Oh, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.

What an Orwellian post you’ve just made.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

What?

Nice non-answer.

You’re out of depth, so you decide to run with the “that’s Orwellian” line – even though it doesn’t make any sense at all.

An ideological foreign policy isn’t conservative.

Have you ever read Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He has a super-ideological, rothbardian, foreign policy. There isn’t anything conservative about it.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy views were shaped by our founding fathers.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

The question is not “Are you a conservative on foreign policy?”

It is “Are you a realist on foreign policy, or are you an idealist?”

The last GOP Administration was as Idealist as Wilson. We need Realists down at Foggy Bottom.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Ron Paul is as idealist as Wilson.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

The fact that Paul (and you) think it’s “heroic” and “patriotic” for someone, anyone, to decide on their own that all U.S. classified material should be made available to the world, without any controls whatsoever says all that needs to be said about crazy.

jaime on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

So just to give a speech for the sake of giving a speech and have it edited doesn’t have much awe peel to me, but I think moving in an agenda is very important.

uh…

Sachiko on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

From now on, you can’t keep playing the establishment card. Not when you’re winning the establishment primaries, when only the party hacks vote.

They haven’t been winning establishment primaries, but using gaps in delegate selection procedures to gain delegates out of proportion to the actual vote in some caucuses and primaries.

Most of the time, less people join their party’s county central committee than there are available seats, which makes it fairly easy to fill seats with supporters, then use those supporters to elect like-minded members to the state central committee and the county executive committee.

In addition, at caucuses and precinct meetings, since most people don’t want to spend the $40 – $50 it might cost to be a delegate at the county convention (where delegates are selected to attend the state convention,) a dedicated minority –perhaps with some donations from a candidate or like-minded contributors — lock-up many delegates to the state convention.

Once at the State convention, where delegates to the National Convention are elected, they can use the rules (which by now, their members of the state committee have somewhat altered to their benefit,) to delay any real business long enough that other delegates get disgusted, discouraged, or just plain worn out (especially if they’re elderly) and then leave.

Yeah, this can work, but it completely alienates potential allies, many of whom will never want to work with a Ronulan again.

Reno_Dave on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy views were shaped by our founding fathers.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Nope. They were shaped by Murray Rothbard who would re-write history to indulge the fantasy his delirium was inspired by the founding fathers.

Of course, I doubt you’ve ever read Rothbard in your life.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

What?

Nice non-answer.

You’re out of depth, so you decide to run with the “that’s Orwellian” line – even though it doesn’t make any sense at all.

An ideological foreign policy isn’t conservative.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Your turning the language inside-out is Orwellian. Like Freedom is Slavery, you’ve given us “I don’t like nation building or interventionism,” followed with “I don’t “like” or “dislike” interventionism in that conceptual way.” Then you also say, “I’m a conservative in foreign policy,” followed with “An ideological foreign policy isn’t conservative.”

Please.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Ed,

Thanks for “bumping” atheist fevaaaaaaaaah

(Although I’m sure that was not your intention)

Eph on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I mean, Paul is a great standard bearer for the very important economic issues. But the other stances he trumpets are just wacko (let’s legalize heroine!!!!) to downright treasonous (US is to blame for 9/11 and everything else that’s wrong with the world including the invention of peanut butter and jelly in the same jar). Other than that ONE set of issues, just can’t see him getting any votes. Which is why he consistently DOESN’T get many votes. That old dog don’t hunt.

search4truth on May 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Nor is there anything conservative about you and your pathetic unproven smears and allegations.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Geez, is this the best you can do?

Why do you always need to resort to childish ad hominem attacks?

You need to grow up.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Nope. They were shaped by Murray Rothbard who would re-write history to indulge the fantasy his delirium was inspired by the founding fathers.

Of course, I doubt you’ve ever read Rothbard in your life.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Paul’s foreign policy of non-interventionism is that of our Founding Fathers, that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Rothbard came on the scene much, much later. Paul’s foreign policy is also that of the Republican Party before liberal hawks left the Democratic Party and infected the Republican Party.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy views were shaped by our founding fathers.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

236 years old and counting. I’d tend to think that even the founders views on foriegn policy would evolve and not regress.

D-fusit on May 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I mean, Paul is a great standard bearer for the very important economic issues. But the other stances he trumpets are just wacko (let’s legalize heroine!!!!) to downright treasonous (US is to blame for 9/11 and everything else that’s wrong with the world including the invention of peanut butter and jelly in the same jar). Other than that ONE set of issues, just can’t see him getting any votes. Which is why he consistently DOESN’T get many votes. That old dog don’t hunt.

search4truth on May 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Paul’s stance on drugs is that it is not Constitutionally the province of the federal government. The right to decide on legality belongs to the states. He also rightly points out that the federal drug war has led to loss of liberties, bloated federal government, the lurching toward the police state, and runaway spending.

He has not said the U.S. is to blame for 9/11; he has said that we shouldn’t be surprised that our interventionist foreign policies invite blowback. And he’s correct.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Your turning the language inside-out is Orwellian. Like Freedom is Slavery, you’ve given us “I don’t like nation building or interventionism,” followed with “I don’t “like” or “dislike” interventionism in that conceptual way.” Then you also say, “I’m a conservative in foreign policy,” followed with “An ideological foreign policy isn’t conservative.”

Please.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I don’t like interventionism as a foreign policy ideology and I don’t like non-interventionism as a foreign policy ideology. Foreign policy shouldn’t be dictated by concepts or ideologies – regardless if it’s Kristol’s or Rothbard’s.

This has been the position of most conservative political philosophers since Burke. Why are you surprised about it? Orwellian? Or lack of intellectual knowledge from your part?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The endgame is defeating Barack Obama.

dczombie on May 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I thought the endgame was shrinking the federal government and restoring our constitutional principles.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM

The latter cannot occur with Obama in office. So, yes, this election cycle the endgame is defeating Barack Obama. After we get Obama out of office then the endgame is shrinking the federal government and restoring our constitutional principles.

Susanboo on May 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

236 years old and counting. I’d tend to think that even the founders views on foriegn policy would evolve and not regress.

D-fusit on May 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Evolve? Do you mean that they would suddenly view the occupation of other nations, the running up of national debt, attacking without being attacked, and wasting American treasure and lives to suddenly be moral?

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

But in fact you have it backwards: Reagan’s foreign policy was more conservative than the Bush’s, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is even more conservative than Reagan’s.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

..proving that the political spectrum is a circular continuum.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Ron Paul is as idealist as Wilson.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Nonsense. RP isn’t as realistic as I would like, but he is far more realistic than an Administration that vowed to democratize the Middle East, and end tyranny as we know it, worldwide.

That is Idealism, on the juice.

RP insists we deal with the Middle East as we find it, not as we would like it to be. And as we find it, just happens to be on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. We have to deal with that, and we have to deal with it in terms that are real.

Reality is that, short of invasion, occupation, and full-on client state status for the foreseeable future, we are not stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Nobody is.

Which, IMHO, and from a realist perspective, we had better be prepared to engage them diplomatically, or go to Congress for an authorization of war. And that, I believe, sums up Ron Paul’s position as well.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Plus, there’s no Stormfront baggage with Palin.

victor82 on May 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You guys can pretend Ron Paul is a racist all you want but the fact remains that there is no evidence Ron Paul has racist views, and the fact remains that he has, by a multiples probably, the most racially diverse grass-roots movement of any Republican since Lincoln. So attempts to apply guilt by association aside, in fact Ron Paul’s appeal to minorities is far greater than Palin’s ever has been or is ever likely to be.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The fact that Paul (and you) think it’s “heroic” and “patriotic” for someone, anyone, to decide on their own that all U.S. classified material should be made available to the world, without any controls whatsoever says all that needs to be said about crazy.

jaime on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Thank you for providing us with the imperial government’s argument.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Personally I like Palin, but to say that she has an edge over Ron Paul in the multi-cultural appeal is laughable.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Paul’s foreign policy of non-interventionism is that of our Founding Fathers, that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Rothbard came on the scene much, much later. Paul’s foreign policy is also that of the Republican Party before liberal hawks left the Democratic Party and infected the Republican Party.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

It’s just an idealization that Rothbard fabricated.

Case in point: which Republican Party leaders you can name that are examples of your claim?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I don’t like interventionism as a foreign policy ideology and I don’t like non-interventionism as a foreign policy ideology. Foreign policy shouldn’t be dictated by concepts or ideologies – regardless if it’s Kristol’s or Rothbard’s.

This has been the position of most conservative political philosophers since Burke. Why are you surprised about it? Orwellian? Or lack of intellectual knowledge from your part?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM

So tell me, what are these “sound prudential judgments”? Let’s have some examples.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Nonsense. RP isn’t as realistic as I would like, but he is far more realistic than an Administration that vowed to democratize the Middle East, and end tyranny as we know it, worldwide.

That is Idealism, on the juice.

RP insists we deal with the Middle East as we find it, not as we would like it to be. And as we find it, just happens to be on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. We have to deal with that, and we have to deal with it in terms that are real.

Reality is that, short of invasion, occupation, and full-on client state status for the foreseeable future, we are not stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Nobody is.

Which, IMHO, and from a realist perspective, we had better be prepared to engage them diplomatically, or go to Congress for an authorization of war. And that, I believe, sums up Ron Paul’s position as well.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

From a realistic perspective, a military intervention in Iran might be the best course of option.

Paul will reject that hypothesis as “interventionism” – which is what makes his foreign policy idealist.

It’s just the other side of idealism.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM

..proving that the political spectrum is a circular continuum.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yes, and the statist authoritarians comprise the extremes, the middle are the regular people who want to live their lives with the least outside interference from the extremists on the left and right that are always trying to take over and control more and more of their lives.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Case in point: which Republican Party leaders you can name that are examples of your claim?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Interesting how you’ve tried to switch the argument, just like Michael Medved does, by inserting conditions that weren’t present.

Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Dante, basically Ron Paul would follow the same course that resulted in the Second World War….kewl good to see True Conservatives learn from history. Guess you don’t expect to get much of the Jewish vote, eh?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

From a realistic perspective, a military intervention in Iran might be the best course of option.

Paul will reject that hypothesis as “interventionism” – which is what makes his foreign policy idealist.

It’s just the other side of idealism.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM

What do you think a major cause of our state of relationship with Iran today is? Do you think there has been no interventionism prior to today?

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Dante, basically Ron Paul would follow the same course that resulted in the Second World War….kewl good to see True Conservatives learn from history. Guess you don’t expect to get much of the Jewish vote, eh?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Actually, he wouldn’t. The course that engendered the Second World War was laid through the First World War (and our interventionism) and the draconian conditions placed during the Treaty of Versailles.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM

by a multiples probably, the most racially diverse grass-roots movement of any Republican since Lincoln

Again, please provide PROOF of your assertions…you are tiresome in your continual advancement of ideas from day-today that have no proof attached “conspiracies” between Limbaugh/Levin to undermine Ron Paul, or this claim you made yesterday and cold not substantiate.

I don’t know, but he sure doesn’t mind hanging out with and profiting from racists…..

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Paul will reject that hypothesis as “interventionism” – which is what makes his foreign policy idealist.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM

No. Paul will reject that someone who can read a balance sheet.

Take a look at the balance sheet of the US. We’re broke. We can’t afford another war. One which, BTW, would be a helluva lot bigger and more expensive than the one in Iraq that cost us $1 trillion+, took thousands of lives, and set the stage for Barack Obama.

He would also reject it as a political operator. Have any doubt about the sagacity (or lack thereof) arguing for an invasion of Iran? Propose it in Congress, and get your stopwatch out to measure how long it takes before you are laughed out of the room.

Those are very real constraints on your foreign policy options. Ones that Ron Paul acknowledges, and that far too many idealists on the Right are willing to gloss over completely.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So tell me, what are these “sound prudential judgments”? Let’s have some examples.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Who knows? But I think you’re missing the point: one can only make prudential judgement on concrete situations. Conservatism, unlike marxism and Rothbard/Paul brand of libertarianism, isn’t an ideology, as Russell Kirk explains. Do you want historical examples? Burke on the 19th century American and French Revolutions, Jefferson on the Barbary Wars, Polk on the Mexican Wars, Churchill on Nazi Germany, Nixon on Vietnam, Eisenhower on bombing China, Reagan Chuck Hagel on the Iraq War.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Dante, basically Ron Paul would follow the same course that resulted in the Second World War….

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

See, most people I know blame WWII on Adolph Hitler.

A little shocking to see you hold American policy responsible for WWII, I gotta say.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

A simple question: why can’t we have a Constitutional Conservative that wants to cut funding to countries that hate us and want to see us in ashes BEFORE we cut funding to Israel?

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Actually, he wouldn’t. The course that engendered the Second World War was laid through the First World War (and our interventionism) and the draconian conditions placed during the Treaty of Versailles

And Mr. Paul wouldn’t stand up to Hitler or the Japanese until it was too late….I mean for people that value ‘liberty” the would they would be create would be pretty hostile to liberty. iIt won’t stand up to Japanese imperialism and Genocide, German imperialism and Genocide, or Italian Imperialism…in Ron Paul’s world in 1945 we’d have Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, and Mao…and hopefully the Western Hemisphere would be safe from their onslaught. But still what are a few million dead K!kes, Ch!nks, and Slav’s when there is the PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION to be upheld?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Buh-bye.

MadisonConservative on May 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

The biggest threat to our freedom, liberty and prosperity is our own ballooning crony-government police-state, not Iran.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

See, most people I know blame WWII on Adolph Hitler.
A little shocking to see you hold American policy responsible for WWII, I gotta say

It is pretty much the common wisdom…France would not act to oppose Hitler without Britain and Britain would not act without the US….and the US would not act. So, the large war that came, may have been driven by Hitler, but it was as large and destructive as it was, because no one would stand up to Hitler.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Why is that Buh-bye…Did I call anyone names?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM

But still what are a few million dead K!kes, Ch!nks, and Slav’s when there is the PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION to be upheld?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

We went to war against Japan and Germany, because they went to war with us first, the Jews, Chinese, and Slavs be damned.

The US military, and the foreign policy that it is the strong right arm of, exist to protect Americans. Not Germans, Russians, or Chinese, be they Jewish, Slavic, or otherwise.

Joana, I give you conservative idealism, embodied in the naivete of JFKY. Exhibit A…

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Interesting how you’ve tried to switch the argument, just like Michael Medved does, by inserting conditions that weren’t present.

Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

`
I’ve tried what? You were the one saying that the Republican Party used to share Paul’s views on foreign policy.

Senator Taft was the guy who wanted to drop bombs on China and send the army to invade China from Tawain.

Were you aware of that? Be honest. Generally, Paul supporters don’t know this – Rothbard (and then Paul and his minions like Rockwell) managed to re-write Taft’s political biography.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The biggest threat to our freedom, liberty and prosperity is our own ballooning crony-government police-state, not Iran

I don’t know many Conservatives who would dispute that, BUT Ronulans act as IF we cannot deal with both…but instead can only deal with one, the Federal Government.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

No. Paul will reject that someone who can read a balance sheet.

Take a look at the balance sheet of the US. We’re broke. We can’t afford another war. One which, BTW, would be a helluva lot bigger and more expensive than the one in Iraq that cost us $1 trillion+, took thousands of lives, and set the stage for Barack Obama.

He would also reject it as a political operator. Have any doubt about the sagacity (or lack thereof) arguing for an invasion of Iran? Propose it in Congress, and get your stopwatch out to measure how long it takes before you are laughed out of the room.

Those are very real constraints on your foreign policy options. Ones that Ron Paul acknowledges, and that far too many idealists on the Right are willing to gloss over completely.

JohnGalt23 on May 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

You’re confused. Paul would refuse it because of his idealism. Because ideology is everything to him. Because he’s a non-interventionist ideologue.

Would Paul be in favor of military intervention if the federal budget was balanced?

(I’m not arguing that a military intervention in Iran is wise or not. I’m arguing that the realist view is to not reject it on idealist grounds – these Lew Rockwell educated know-nothings would make one believe that realism is the equivalent to non-interventionism).

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

And Mr. Paul wouldn’t stand up to Hitler or the Japanese until it was too late….I mean for people that value ‘liberty” the would they would be create would be pretty hostile to liberty. iIt won’t stand up to Japanese imperialism and Genocide, German imperialism and Genocide, or Italian Imperialism…in Ron Paul’s world in 1945 we’d have Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, and Mao…and hopefully the Western Hemisphere would be safe from their onslaught. But still what are a few million dead K!kes, Ch!nks, and Slav’s when there is the PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION to be upheld?

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

As I said, you have no clue what non-interventionism is nor do you have any understanding of Paul’s national defense position.

But that’s cool how you are generous with other people’s money and lives, wanting them surrendered to our government in order to be spent on someone or some government overseas.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

We went to war against Japan and Germany, because they went to war with us first, the Jews, Chinese, and Slavs be damned.
The US military, and the foreign policy that it is the strong right arm of, exist to protect Americans. Not Germans, Russians, or Chinese, be they Jewish, Slavic, or otherwise.

And yet had we intervened SOONER, we’d have been safer and about 30-60 million Slav’s, Jews, Indonesians, and Chinese would be alive as well. And note the phrase,” because they went to war with us first” so Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy WOULDN’T have changed that…you admit it in your own complaint. So Ronulan Foreign Policy doesn’t yield any more peace, it just yields larger wars and larger body counts….

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You got it all figured out there, don’t ya sport?

So where were these meetings, who was at them, and what was said, when “The Conspiracy” arranged to sabotage RP’s campaign?

Akzed on May 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Obviously Akzed, you haven’t attended your county convention, congressional district assembly, or state convention. If you had, you would have witnessed the same dirty tactics that the establishment GOP has been employing to disenfranchise any delegates that do not support Romney. Arbitrary rule changes, not allowing delegates get credentialed, improper implementation (or downright lack of) parliamentary proceedure (Robert’s Rules of Order), and suspect vote counting, were just a few of the things that I witnessed at ours. If you think that the current hierarchy of the Party is all about “making every vote count”, you really have another thing coming. I used to think that only Dems tried to rig elections. Boy was I wrong on that one. So, sport, go ahead and snark about things you have no knowlege of. Come August, I’ll be in Tampa, attending the RNC as a delegate for Ron Paul.

realitycheck on May 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Who knows? But I think you’re missing the point: one can only make prudential judgement on concrete situations. Conservatism, unlike marxism and Rothbard/Paul brand of libertarianism, isn’t an ideology, as Russell Kirk explains. Do you want historical examples? Burke on the 19th century American and French Revolutions, Jefferson on the Barbary Wars, Polk on the Mexican Wars, Churchill on Nazi Germany, Nixon on Vietnam, Eisenhower on bombing China, Reagan Chuck Hagel on the Iraq War.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The Barbary Wars is not an example of interventionism.

But your “who knows” speaks volumes.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Here’s my advise to Paul supporters: you need to read more. Challenge the stuff they’re feeding you, especially in terms of history, foreign policy and money creation.

The part about Robert Taft being a non-interventionist like Paul is pure baloney – yet is a very popular myth among Paul supporters. It was a historical myth invented by Rothbard (one of many).

Read Hayek’s views on money creation for example. Most Austrian economists, including FA Hayek, didn’t share Paul’s views on the imposition of a metallic standard. That’s another myth created by Rothbard. Libertarians being against fiat currency is totally absurd.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

As I said, you have no clue what non-interventionism is nor do you have any understanding of Paul’s national defense position.
But that’s cool how you are generous with other people’s money and lives, wanting them surrendered to our government in order to be spent on someone or some government overseas.

No I think I have a pretty good clue, were Ron paul in charge from 1939-on the US and the world would be in pretty sad shape.

Funny Rothbard quotes Wm. F. Buckley about Libertarianism…”It is the Conservative Impulse to oppose Soviet Imperialism, that gives libertarians the space in which to debate the de-municiplization of garbage collection.” Rothbard, and no doubt you, think Buckley wrong, but most Conservatives see Buckley speaking the truth. Were it not for “conservatives” being willing to intervene, there wouldn’t much at home to demunicipalize.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

these Lew Rockwell educated know-nothings would make one believe that realism is the equivalent to non-interventionism).

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

This is rich.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

And get off my LAWN!

Ward Cleaver on May 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

The Barbary Wars is not an example of interventionism.

But your “who knows” speaks volumes.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

1 – You asked for sound prudential judgement on foreign policy. The Barbary Wars was one of them. How hard is this to understand?

2 – Yeps, who knows. Read Burke or Kirk and you’d understand.

3 – Taft wanted to drop nukes on China. Invade China. That freaking huge country. Yet, you thought he was a good example of how the Republican Party used to share Paul’s viewpoints. Doesn’t this make you question how solid are you grounds on this matter?

4 – Try to understand that conservatism is not ideological. Paul’s views are. Being anti-interventionist is just as bad as being in favor of interventionism. It’s the same philosophical ground.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

But that’s cool how you are generous with other people’s money and lives, wanting them surrendered to our government in order to be spent on someone or some government overseas

And it’s a good thing that there are folks like me and others who will….unless you think Hitler or Stalin were going to be stopped by some farcical Anarcho-Capitalist “defense” Policy.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

No I think I have a pretty good clue, were Ron paul in charge from 1939-on the US and the world would be in pretty sad shape.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So you are in favor of American citizens’ wealth and lives being seized by our government and spent on someone and some government overseas. This is wealth redistribution. We are put on this earth in order to work and have our earnings seized from us and given to a foreign government. This is what you are arguing, you realize. Your foreign policy is that of progressivism. That being told this doesn’t give you pause is quite telling.

And no, you have no clue on his positions.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

You are so full of it! Ron Paul has by far the most ethnically and racially diverse grass-roots of any Republican in the country, I’d bet.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

this is true, his chicago campaign chair is a white supremacist from the white supremacist American Third Party group, so is his California chairman, not to mention that he has conference calls with them regularly, let the REV9L()TION continue

golembythehudson on May 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM

And it’s a good thing that there are folks like me and others who will….

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

And there you have it. I don’t think you’ll ever realize the meaning of your statements.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I don’t know many Conservatives who would dispute that, BUT Ronulans act as IF we cannot deal with both…but instead can only deal with one, the Federal Government.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

We simply can’t afford an interventionist foreign policy anymore with all the boomers retiring, and we’re not going to be able to reform entitlements in any meaningful way because the people on the entitlements, or about to be on them, are the majority, and they show no indication of budging, and probably never will. That means in order to save America and not totally screw over younger American’s we have to cut spending overseas. We have to do it right now.

Republicans and Democrats just want to keep on with the status quo until they finally defeat the other team, and then they’ll cut spending, they’ll cut out all of the other team’s spending, but the result is that the many problems that are destroying America are being left to snowball while D’s and R’s fight a battle that neither of them will win, certainly not for decades to come.

We can’t wait that long to cut spending. We have to correct course now and can’t just stick our heads in the sand and pretend like everything is going to be OK because a lot of old D’s and R’s are retiring and don’t want to upset the cart, but America’s children, born and yet born, are the victims.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

3 – Taft wanted to drop nukes on China. Invade China. That freaking huge country. Yet, you thought he was a good example of how the Republican Party used to share Paul’s viewpoints. Doesn’t this make you question how solid are you grounds on this matter?

joana on May 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Really. Let’s see some citation. The man opposed the atomic bombings of Japan.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

So you are in favor of American citizens’ wealth and lives being seized by our government and spent on someone and some government overseas

Yeah I am…and that’s why you and the Good Doktor aren’t True Conservatives…you’re LIBERTARIANS. In the end it was both necessary and RIGHT to do just that, from 1941 until 1991…And that’s the difference between Ron Paul and Conservatives. People like you can’t grasp that. And I might add people like you apparently get D@mn close to the “Smash the State” Posse that pretty much says FDR=Stalin. Actually I would bet you ARE a member of that posse, Ron Paul is more circumspect.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM

The man opposed the atomic bombings of Japan

Shenanigans….I doubt ANY Senator would have opposed the Atomic Bombing of Japan in 1945….and Taft didn’t know of the Manhattan Project, any way…being a Senator AND a Republican. Sorry calling you a liar on this one.

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Why do you keep refusing to answer my questions?

And yeah, how do you describe the fact that Ron Paul dominates the caucuses and conventions which are insidery meetings of party hacks and doesn’t get more than 10% in primaries and high-turnout caucuses?

You can’t have it both ways: you can’t take over the party structures and get to keep accusing the other guys of being the establishment.

joana on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM

As 12 year old would say, owned!

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM

And yet had we intervened SOONER, we’d have been safer and about 30-60 million Slav’s, Jews, Indonesians, and Chinese would be alive as well. And note the phrase,” because they went to war with us first” so Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy WOULDN’T have changed that…you admit it in your own complaint. So Ronulan Foreign Policy doesn’t yield any more peace, it just yields larger wars and larger body counts….

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You say we should have intervened sooner…When, exactly? Besides the fact that neither the Congress nor the people would support such a preemptive intervention, certainly not on the basis of protecting other people overseas, when would you say that it would have been appropriate for the US to attack Germany? Should we have launched a full-scale invasion? Were we even prepared to do that? Of course, I am indulging your fantasy scenario but I would like to hear some specifics on how a preemptive attack on Germany should have occurred assuming that it were politically possible at whatever time prior to December 7, 1941 that you believe we should have preemptively attacked.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM

JFKY on May 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Not conservative at all. Try Wilsonian Progressive.

iwasbornwithit on May 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The biggest threat to our freedom, liberty and prosperity is our own ballooning crony-government police-state, not Iran.

FloatingRock on May 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Yeah, exploding nukes over cities in the middle east won’t bother us much right? It’s not like all the economy’s around the world are tied together. So let the entire middle east go up in a mushroom cloud. At least we won’t have crony capitalism.

Man, some people are just dense.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Romney vs. Obama.

Romney is clearly the more conservative. So, of course, Paul won’t endorse him.

When the struggle is on, Paul’s way is to attack the more conservative side.

That’s Paul. His ‘purity’ forces him to attack the camp most to the right. He’s always been this way, and always will be.

Paul’s only usefulness is as a (perhaps unwilling) dupe for the left.

shinty on May 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Paul needs either to take a hike or join the fight against Obama. We don’t need anymore whiny narcissists, we’ve been putting up with one for nearly four years.

rplat on May 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4