Ron Paul: I won’t spend any more money to contest primaries

posted at 4:01 pm on May 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

He hasn’t suspended his campaign but he says he won’t spend any more money to contest the upcoming primaries with Romney, preferring instead to focus on electing Paul supporters as delegates to the convention so that they can influence the platform. BuzzFeed has his full statement but here’s the key bit:

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.

I hope all supporters of Liberty will remain deeply involved – become delegates, win office, and take leadership positions. I will be right there with you. In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned.

Lest you’re inclined to interpret this as anything other than a concession, here’s what his heir apparent had to say last week:

“For all practical purposes, it is over. The numbers are there and Mitt Romney’s going to win the nomination,” Rand Paul said during an interview Thursday…

“I think he’ll be head and shoulders above [President Barack] Obama,” [Rand] Paul said. “Because [Romney has] sort of experienced the success of the American dream and President Obama is very much for deriding those who are successful and saying they’re not paying enough of their fair share, I think … the election in many ways will be about whether or not we still believe as a country … believe in economic mobility; whether we believe that our kids or ourselves could be successful and whether we want to divide up the shrinking pie and make things more fair or more egalitarian or whether or not we’re willing to accept that some people will make more money and by letting them make more money their success also creates more opportunity for the rest of us.”

There are only 11 primaries left and all but one — Utah, which was a lock for Romney from the start — will be held within the next 22 days. Why didn’t Paul hang in there and play out the string? I assume it’s because two of those 11 are Kentucky and Texas, the latter Paul’s home state and the former Rand’s. Santorum decided to quit before Pennsylvania to spare himself the bad press of a loss on his home field; Paul is taking a more middle-ground approach, trying to minimize the blow to Rand by declaring that he won’t contest those races but refusing to formally suspend so that his supporters still have reason to go to the polls and get him some delegates.

I go back and forth between thinking his campaign was a failure or a success. Last year it seemed like he might ride the big red tea-party wave from 2010 to a few primary upsets, especially given the base’s contempt for our likely nominee. Lots of things had broken in his favor since 2008: Debt and spending had moved to the top of the conservative agenda and four more years of war had made his dovishness far less of a liability on the right. Those upsets never happened but he did, I think, build on his 2008 effort to popularize the Paul brand. Four years ago, seeing isolationist libertarianism at the debates was a shock; this year, he was a familiar figure of whom everyone knew what to expect. Rand, of course, is the beneficiary, and he knows just what to do with his bequest. Re-read his solid pitch for Romney in the blockquote above. You won’t get that from his dad, who’s always been more of a “pox on both their houses” type vis-a-vis the major parites, but Rand’s positioning himself so that he was one foot in Paulworld and one in the mainstream of the GOP. If he can keep them there, he’ll be a player in 2016 or 2020.

Exit question: What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway? I’m reasonably sure debt and spending will be covered regardless. Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.


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

In other news, Paulenstianians commit to write-in campaign for Ron Paul. “Commit to the Republican nominee? Hell no.”

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Libertarians for Romney!

ericdondero on May 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

He can’t afford no more fake eyebrows.

Akzed on May 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Disrespectful Ron fans to continue be disrespectful at future state conventions

Cripe

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Good, I hope this the last of that old coot! At least he said he won’t run again here in TX, but you know how some will lie to you?
L

letget on May 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway?

Complete and total privatization of all things currently socialized, and the socialization of the production, distribution and consumption of bacon shakes.

JohnGalt23 on May 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM

RP RIP. Old fool.

BHO Jonestown on May 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Ron delegates lost my respect after their rude display at the AZ convention

Pound sand imo

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Good riddance!

Conservative4Ever on May 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Let us all pause for a moment of silence in honor of those brave Paul supporters who will hold out until the very end.

Lily on May 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM

There are no conservatives left in the race for Ron Paul to trash.

Mission Accomplished (I guess, at least as far a RP is concerned).

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Loser

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Let us all pause for a moment of silence in honor of those brave Paul supporters who will hold out until the very end.

Lily

This word ‘brave,’ I do not think it means what you think it means.

chimney sweep on May 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Hardest hit: fake eyebrow manufacturers.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Tin Foil stocks just collapsed.

portlandon on May 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Iran hardest hit.

SouthernGent on May 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.

My collie says:

Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzz.

CyberCipher on May 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The Air Force just called. They want their alien back.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

He was still campaigning ?

He gets the same vote percentage whether he is “actively” campagining or not.

The 7% solution ?

Nevah.

FlaMurph on May 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Exit question: What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway? I’m reasonably sure debt and spending will be covered regardless. Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.

They will torn between abolishing the Fed, returning to the Gold standard, and marijuana legalization. Its hard to see any of those getting incorporated into the GOP platform, and they’ll end up settling for a primo speaking-slots for Ron and Rand at the convention.

Lawdawg86 on May 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

So he’s not going to campaign in the few remaining states, but rather continue to muck it up with delegates and shenanigans at the state conventions.

So nothing has really changed, right?

JPeterman on May 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Will Rand Paul be the new Ron Paul in….2012?

I’m assuming Romney get’s elected then re-elected.

Oil Can on May 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM

You won’t get that from his dad, who’s always been more of a “pox on both their houses” type vis-a-vis the major parites, but Rand’s positioning himself so that he was one foot in Paulworld and one in the mainstream of the GOP. If he can keep them there, he’ll be a player in 2016 or 2020.

Really good analysis, Allah. Let’s just hope he doesn’t screw it up.

cynccook on May 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM

The three great founding pillars of the Republic for which many risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor… Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Pot, Prostitution and Pornography.

mankai on May 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Smart move, eyebrow reattachment surgery is quite expensive from what I hear.

Bishop on May 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.

Ugh. No.

Lightswitch on May 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

There are enough jokers in this thread to film a dozen Batman movies. What are you, ladies and gentlemen, trying to achieve? Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy – is this your goal? Show some respect to an elderly statesman who has just not-so-subtly hinted that he is open to bargaining for an endorsement. Unlike Newt and Scrotum who want cash, he likely doesn’t ask for much: a keynote convention speech and official adoption of his less egregious platform positions, such as taking a buzz chainsaw to Fedzilla monster.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Rand is tired of his father embarrassing him, I am sure.

Pork-Chop on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

He is out……WAYYYYYYYY OUT.

search4truth on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

ETRonPaul: “Elliot, ETRonPaul Phone home.”

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Reynolds Wrap hardest hit.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I go back and forth between thinking his campaign was a failure or a success.

it was a failure.

Sachiko on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Rand is what Ron should have been– a principled voice of liberty-oriented conservatism who knows how to work within the party structure. Ron brought some good things to the table but was marginalized by his refusal to reign in some of his loonier supporters and his relative unwillingness to help build the party outside those few Republicans who hewed very closely to his viewpoint.

Rand has worked much more widely, and smartly, within the party, and has been far more willing to help out a much broader swath of Republicans. He’ll be a formidable force in 2016 and beyond.

constitutionalconservative on May 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy…

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Seriously, do you really think that these people were political allies? No..Really? Watch what percentage do no support Romney and pleadge support for either Johnson, Obama, or write-in Ron Paul. It’ll be less than a 1/3 that vote for Romney. Allies are mostly supportive and somewhat cooperative. These are not allies.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Dr. Paul has no job to perform with Rmoney™ the nom.

Bmore on May 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

+1 oldroy

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Travel expenses..? It’s a long war to and from Mars.

d1carter on May 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Plus what will Floating Rock and Dante do now? Gary Johnson I presume.

Bmore on May 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Romney/Rand?

(Longshot, but would certainly be… unexpected.)

cs89 on May 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Show some respect to an elderly statesman who has just not-so-subtly hinted that he is open to bargaining for an endorsement. Unlike Newt and Scrotum who want cash,…

Yeah, right. The irony.

Lightswitch on May 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Hehe.

So yeah. Should be fun to watch the Ronulans from last week’s Ron Paul should drop out of the primary thread do some backflips in here.

or crickets.

Scrappy on May 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Seriously, do you really think that these people were political allies? No..Really? Watch what percentage do no support Romney and pleadge support for either Johnson, Obama, or write-in Ron Paul. It’ll be less than a 1/3 that vote for Romney. Allies are mostly supportive and somewhat cooperative. These are not allies.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Yes they were. I would say the numbers of Paulites willing to pull it for Romney, adamantly loyal to Ron Paul, and stoned enough to vote for Johnson or Obama are about equal. A good, heartfelt endorsement from Ron Paul can easily shift this equilibrium to the right. As for them being allies – don’t YOU want to decrease size of government? If you do, you have at least something in common, and if you do not, please crawl back to DKos.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Loser

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Nah. I’m a self-proclaimed Romneybot, but let’s be clear here: Paul may be a ‘loser’ technically speaking, but he’s a winner. He has played a major role in dragging the GOP back towards the fiscal conservatism and libertarianism that defined its Buckley/Meyer fusionist glory days (and which we lost under Gingrich/Delay/Lott/Bush). If Romney has half a brain — and I think it’s pretty clear at this point that he does — he’ll salute Paul with a suitable encomium and ensure that the issues on which they have a good overlap with the GOP and the country (economic ones, mainly) are put forward in the platform at the convention, to make Paul supporters realize that there is only one home for people who feel like the do…the Republican Party, a Republican Party driven by fiscal conservatism rather than hardcore socon “compassionate conservative” Bush-era crap.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.

Rand Paul is against “gay marriage” so I doubt Daddy Paul will make this an issue. The big question is where his supporters go. Do they vote for Romney? Stay home? Will Ron Paul encourage them to vote for Mitt? Mitt sure could use their organization on college campuses…

Buy Danish on May 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Will Rand Paul be the new Ron Paul in….2012?

I’m assuming Romney get’s elected then re-elected.

Oil Can on May 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM

If you have a time machine and you’ve traveled here to 2012, why don’t you just go a little further forward and let us know.

rhombus on May 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

These are not allies.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Exactly. I’m getting the GOP crap sandwich with Candidate Romney, like all conservatives are…but I’m not taking my toys and going home like some of these Paulnuts are. I realize that beating The Emperor and getting him and his Marxist cronies out of office is the single biggest and most important political event of my lifetime. How many times have you basically heard a Paul supporter exclaim how “it’s Ron effin Paul or I’m voting for Obama” nonsense. No perspective.

search4truth on May 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

These are not allies.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Exactly.

search4truth on May 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Idiots. Do you know the difference between allies and friends?..

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

There are enough jokers in this thread to film a dozen Batman movies. What are you, ladies and gentlemen, trying to achieve? Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy – is this your goal? Show some respect to an elderly statesman who has just not-so-subtly hinted that he is open to bargaining for an endorsement. Unlike Newt and Scrotum who want cash, he likely doesn’t ask for much: a keynote convention speech and official adoption of his less egregious platform positions, such as taking a buzz chainsaw to Fedzilla monster.

This gets it about right. Paul voters are NOT about to go out and vote Obama. It’s quite possible they stay home, but they could well be convinced to come over to vote Romney if he makes the right overtures (and these are overtures that wouldn’t really hurt him in general election calculus…unless you think the average swing voter our there harbors an unstinting love for the Federal Reserve). I predict that, based on the longstanding friendship between Romney and Paul, that Mitt will do just that. Ron Paul will have to do an appropriately delicate dance (I predict something along the lines of “Romney isn’t great, because of [X foreign policy issues], but he’s a damn sight better than that socialist in the White House”), but it will happen.

I know Paul voters, both young and old. They had undying contempt for every GOP candidate other than Ron Paul (ESPECIALLY Santorum)…with the exception of Romney. Didn’t like him, thought he was “corporate” (whatever that means), but there was no question that they separated him from the rest of our dunce-like 2012 field.

Make it so, Paulbots.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Nah. I’m a self-proclaimed Romneybot, but let’s be clear here: Paul may be a ‘loser’ technically speaking, but he’s a winner. He has played a major role in dragging the GOP back towards the fiscal conservatism and libertarianism that defined its Buckley/Meyer fusionist glory days (and which we lost under Gingrich/Delay/Lott/Bush). If Romney has half a brain — and I think it’s pretty clear at this point that he does — he’ll salute Paul with a suitable encomium and ensure that the issues on which they have a good overlap with the GOP and the country (economic ones, mainly) are put forward in the platform at the convention, to make Paul supporters realize that there is only one home for people who feel like the do…the Republican Party, a Republican Party driven by fiscal conservatism rather than hardcore socon “compassionate conservative” Bush-era crap.

Exactly.

constitutionalconservative on May 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What are you, ladies and gentlemen, trying to achieve? Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy – is this your goal?

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Wow, effing shame you didn’t try giving that exact same advice to the effin Ronulans…

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

There are enough jokers in this thread to film a dozen Batman movies. What are you, ladies and gentlemen, trying to achieve? Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy – is this your goal? Show some respect to an elderly statesman who has just not-so-subtly hinted that he is open to bargaining for an endorsement. Unlike Newt and Scrotum who want cash, he likely doesn’t ask for much: a keynote convention speech and official adoption of his less egregious platform positions, such as taking a buzz chainsaw to Fedzilla monster.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

While I agree with you that RP would be great taking that buzzsaw to the Fed, I’m not sure if a lot of people here would rather see RP and his supporters just go away and live with the Fed.

That’s how bad RP supporters are. They are rude, obnoxious and really just an embarrassment both here and out in public (conventions, rallies, etc), so much so that people just want him (and his supporters) to go away.

You state that they are “loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy”, which sounds like another way to describe “liberals”. Who needs it? We need adults and if these “loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy” people can’t grow up and not need to be PANDERED TO, then we’ll take our chances.

Thanks, though.

kim roy on May 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

A good, heartfelt endorsement from Ron Paul can easily shift this equilibrium to the right.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

So Ron Paul supporters really aren’t loyal to conservatism, just to Ron Paul? Doesn’t sound like they are allies to me.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I know Paul voters, both young and old. They had undying contempt for every GOP candidate other than Ron Paul (ESPECIALLY Santorum)…with the exception of Romney. Didn’t like him, thought he was “corporate” (whatever that means), but there was no question that they separated him from the rest of our dunce-like 2012 field.

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

You have just described my opinion better than I could. I was tepidly supporting Ron Paul by the start of the primaries – mostly due to lack of conservative alternative who wouldn’t be too shrill (Bachmann) or too dumb (Perry and Cain), whereas the rest of the field were not conservative. As not-Romney candidates kept dropping off and Ron Paul’s chances were approaching negative territory, I threw my support to whom I saw as the most competent of the sorry bunch – Romney – and I still say that he’s the best we could end up with.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I`ll bet the Paul delegates and supporters will be classy and respectful at the convention. :-P

ThePrez on May 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Idiots

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

This fits you

Conservative4Ever on May 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

So Ron Paul supporters really aren’t loyal to conservatism, just to Ron Paul? Doesn’t sound like they are allies to me.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

They are loyal to Ron Paul, as well as to their own perception of what conservatism is. Their perception, unlike that of yours, for example, does not involve enforcing victimless crime regulation in any area – and no, it is not just about pot.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

This fits you

Conservative4Ever on May 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Go kiss St. Scrotum.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Paul voters are NOT about to go out and vote Obama…

Esoteric on May 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Well, no, as recent poll cited here at HotAir shows – most Paul supporters are actually closer to Obama politically.

As a matter of fact, Paul running as a 3rd party candidate would make it a walk for Romney, according to the poll.

Of course, Paul is instead choosing to bail out.

Paul always targets the most conservative camp when it matters.

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Idiots. Do you know the difference between allies and friends?..

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Yes – and both are a two way street. With Ron Paul and his supporters it’s only just one way or else they take their football and go home.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Go kiss St. Scrotum.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Gosh, why don’t more conservatives treasure these precious Paul supporters?

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Their perception, unlike that of yours, for example, does not involve enforcing victimless crime regulation in any area – and no, it is not just about pot.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Right – social conservatism doesn’t sell. Tell that to black democrats in North Carolina.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The three great founding pillars of the Republic for which many risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor… Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Pot, Prostitution and Pornography.

mankai on May 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I’d say all three of those safely fall under the Pursuit of Happiness clause.

JohnGalt23 on May 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Everybody knows the Paulbots will go for Obama. They only pretend to support the cause of liberty so they can get their pot and hookers. If they ever reach that goal they will then be pushing to have government subsidize the pot and hookers. Oh, and porn.

Fezzik on May 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I`ll bet the Paul delegates and supporters will be classy and respectful at the convention. :-P

ThePrez on May 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Just park an old bus outside, they’ll get distracted and spend the entire convention beating it to pieces with hammers and their bare hands.

Bishop on May 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Gosh, why don’t more conservatives treasure these precious Paul supporters?

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

In case you couldn’t be distracted from drinking for long enough to notice, I didn’t start that ad hominem exchange.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Gosh, why don’t more conservatives treasure these precious Paul supporters?

shinty

It’s like buying an ocelot for a pet. Sounds nice in theory but the reality is a face full of claw marks every morning.

chimney sweep on May 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Time for the Paulbots to go back to Obama.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Exit question: What exactly do the Paul delegates want from the GOP platform that won’t be in there anyway? I’m reasonably sure debt and spending will be covered regardless. Are we headed for a floor fight over … gay marriage? Man, that’s going to be some week of blogging.

MITT ROMNEY WILL HAVE MY VOTE (AS A RON PAULIAN) IF HE AGREE’S TO;

- Only go to war with a declaration of war from Congress.
- No covert operations in foreign countries we’ve not declared war on.
- No spending increases.
- No tax increases.
- Work to end major government departments. (EPA, TSA, EDU)
- No erosion of our civil liberties.
- Full and complete yearly audit of the Federal Reserve.
- Repeal Obamacare Mandate.

In fact, if Romney would, on video, swear on a stack of Bibles to follow this pledge..

HE’D HAVE MY VOTE.

And if he breaks his pledge?

THEN WE’LL USE THE VIDEO TO DESTROY HIM.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

A good, heartfelt endorsement from Ron Paul can easily shift this equilibrium to the right.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Did wonders for Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

And your going to get that full list of stuff from who else? If Romney doesn’t do all of that, who will be any closer to doing all of the things on your pledge?

So it’s all or nothing, right? Either Romney takes your list on or it’s curtains for RonPaulian support.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Curious, but what is the cut off for a politician to be a politician before he becomes part of the problem and not part of the solution?

Two terms?
Five terms?
Ten terms?

LoganSix on May 14, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Did wonders for Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Ron Paul did not endorse Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Check your reference.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM

…GEEEEZ…ok…his opinions about foreign policy weren’t for me on the most part…and I think he had a Jewish problem…but he is a decent man…I would not know that reading here!
I’d take him and his eyebrows over the gay goon any day.

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Sean Hannity for President!

dom89031 on May 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM

may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

…said the tape-worm to my lower intestine.

stefanite on May 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Bye, Uncle Kooky.

Philly on May 14, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Curious, but what is the cut off for a politician to be a politician before he becomes part of the problem and not part of the solution?

Two terms?
Five terms?
Ten terms?

LoganSix on May 14, 2012 at 5:15 PM

With most politicians it happens 35 to 40 seconds after they win their first election. Right about the time the realize the 90 percent of the laws in America no longer apply to them.

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:20 PM

…said the tape-worm to my lower intestine.

stefanite on May 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I have an interesting news flash for you. It’s not a tape worm there in your intestines. It’s a gay marriage endorsement. :)

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:20 PM

There are enough jokers in this thread to film a dozen Batman movies. What are you, ladies and gentlemen, trying to achieve? Alienating a population sector that is loud, politically active, extremely volatile, and may easily turn from a political ally to a bitter enemy – is this your goal? Show some respect to an elderly statesman who has just not-so-subtly hinted that he is open to bargaining for an endorsement. Unlike Newt and Scrotum who want cash, he likely doesn’t ask for much: a keynote convention speech and official adoption of his less egregious platform positions, such as taking a buzz chainsaw to Fedzilla monster.

In case you couldn’t be distracted from drinking for long enough to notice, I didn’t start that ad hominem exchange.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Are you drinking? Because you did start the “ad hominem” attack with the top post. BETA male.

Conservative4Ever on May 14, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Does anyone even support small government anymore?

Ugh.

mythicknight on May 14, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Sean Hannity for President!

dom89031 on May 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No. Ick….That nasally voice….not my cup of tea.

Mitt Romney for President. He is the nominee, no question about it. Will Ron Paul supporters vote for him, or will it be conditional on Romney taking on all of Ron Paul’s most cherished ideals?

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Are you drinking? Because you did start the “ad hominem” attack with the top post. BETA male.

Conservative4Ever on May 14, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Are you on crack or just sniffing dog butts for hobby, dude? Where is a personal attack in my top post?

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

And your going to get that full list of stuff from who else? If Romney doesn’t do all of that, who will be any closer to doing all of the things on your pledge?

So it’s all or nothing, right? Either Romney takes your list on or it’s curtains for RonPaulian support.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I would need a President who will take his oath seriously. No more half-measures. I will only vote for someone who will do these very basic things or else I will not vote for them. Period.

Which part would Romney not agree too and WHY??

The things I listed used to be common for Republicans to espouse, except for maybe the covert operations and Fed stuff. But look at what the Fed’s been doing. Look at how covert operations lead to conflicts and wars and because they’re covert, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THEM. Therefore they think people attack us because we’re “rich and we’re free”.

We’re no longer rich and we’re no longer free.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I just hope Romney isn’t as weathervaney as he has been. Having to choose between him, Obie, & Johnson…*heebiejeebies*

mythicknight on May 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Ron Paul: I won’t spend any more money to contest primaries

Fine, now go back to your cellar.

GarandFan on May 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Did wonders for Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Ron Paul did not endorse Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Check your reference.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Hmmmm

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Does Paul’s announcement mean that his supporters have to go ‘old school’ with tin foil and use it to, er, wrap leftovers?

joejm65 on May 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Does Paul’s announcement mean that his supporters have to go ‘old school’ with tin foil and use it to, er, wrap leftovers?

joejm65 on May 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Dude…. Even the dog won’t eat those left-overs…

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Hmmmm
SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I truly have no idea where you got that pile of used dogfood. Here’s the official announcement, courtesy of Google:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Have you heard Dana Loesch’s impersonation of Ron Paul supporters? It’s high-larious!

Kensington on May 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Point being is that you are not going to get Ron Paul in Mitt Romney, and you aren’t going to get your Ron Paul platform. Which of those things are most important?

Oh – this ain’t gonna happen. – “No covert operations in foreign countries we’ve not declared war on.” – You mean like North Korea, and that swell, trustworthy bunch in Iran? Um, how about covert operations in Pakistan?

See, just like you have a list, so do others. But most of us have a list of stuff we can live with as long as the major stuff is OK, or we need to defeat Obama. You want to defeat Obama, don’t you? You would rather see Mitt in office wouldn’t you? Or would you rather have Obama if Mitt doesn’t commit in totality to your list?

The whole isolationist “trust the Iranians – to hell with Israel” thing is a non-starter. Not going to happen in your wildest dreams. Nor will anyone commit to it. You’ll just have to be happy with the UN. They try to put Ron Paul’s world vision into practise every day.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Oh – this ain’t gonna happen. – “No covert operations in foreign countries we’ve not declared war on.” – You mean like North Korea, and that swell, trustworthy bunch in Iran? Um, how about covert operations in Pakistan?

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:38 PM

See, some Paulians are worse than others. While RP’s economic message should be screamed from rooftops, his foreign policy is an abomination which I hate with passion usually reserved for Obama and his minions. Adopting any of its elements – not that would Romney ever do such a thing – will likely keep me home drinking on Election Day.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Hmmmm
SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I truly have no idea where you got that pile of used dogfood. Here’s the official announcement, courtesy of Google:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Funny, it say’s right their in the article header… CNN… This is one of the reasons why people despise Ronulans. Pure unadulterated dishonesty.

Ron Paul made a public announcement that he was going to endorse Cynthia McKinney, never retracted that announcement, and then quietly did not endorse her after first claiming he was going to endorse her, as if announcing a forthcoming endorsement isn’t the exact same as making the actual endorsement.

SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM

St. Scrotum… sniffing dog butts…

Archivarix

Archivarix, you’ve somehow reminded me of the caucus I attended earlier this spring…

Tax payers who were caucusing & sacrificing time with their families watched as their time and support were wasted by a bunch of college kids hoping for legal pot…

Remember, Archiavix, Paul could be running as a 3rd party and knocking off Obama, but is instead choosing to sit out.

When the heat of battle is on, Paul will always undercut the most conservative camp.

shinty on May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM

How many times have you basically heard a Paul supporter exclaim how “it’s Ron effin Paul or I’m voting for Obama” nonsense. No perspective.

search4truth on May 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ummm, never? My experience has been as a delegate at the county and congressional district levels in my state and I have not met one Paul supporter that stated that they would vote for Obama. That’s not to say that they like Romney, but you are hugely mistaken if you think that they are somehow more inclined to vote for Obama. I have heard a LOT more Paul supporters state that they would vote for Romney if he were the nominee than I have heard say that they would vote for Obama (zero).

Now, is there some dude on the internet that is saying that? Sure. But I don’t know if that is very relevant or credible. Most Ron Paul supporters despise Obama. They despise Romney almost as much because he is so much like Obama.

iwasbornwithit on May 14, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The whole isolationist “trust the Iranians – to hell with Israel” thing is a non-starter. Not going to happen in your wildest dreams.

Well.. I should says it’s not going to happen unless Obama is re-elected.

oldroy on May 14, 2012 at 5:55 PM

See, some Paulians are worse than others. While RP’s economic message should be screamed from rooftops, his foreign policy is an abomination which I hate with passion usually reserved for Obama and his minions. Adopting any of its elements – not that would Romney ever do such a thing – will likely keep me home drinking on Election Day.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

His economic policies are not possible without his foreign policy.

Paul is consistent in his philosophy.

He argues that when the federal government intervenes into the economy to make things “more stable” things only get worse because debt grows and the market is perverted.

Likewise, when the federal government intervenes covertly or militarily around the world to make things “more stable” it only makes things (9/11..) worse and creates new problems and enemies.

IT’S THE EXACT SAME PHILOSOPHY.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2