Skip to comments.Ron Paul Could Be Obama's Best Friend
Posted on 01/10/2012 9:54:51 AM PST by mnehring
Congressman Ron Pauls campaign could lead to several doomsday scenarios. His base is largely comprised of several loud minorities who have all banded together to collectively give a thumb in the eye to Republicans, other conservatives, and the man. From here on out, his winning or over-performing in Iowa could have several unintended, yet disastrous consequences.
Not spending more than we take in, trimming the size of the federal government, and eliminating a few departments are things that almost every conservative and Republican can agree with. His foreign policy runs to the left of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan. His followers are so passionate that they would rather sink the entire country than see another Republican win. Theyre not only selfish, theyre irresponsible.
His foreign policy crosses over from naïve to dangerous. Paul is someone who probably wouldnt have declared war on Hitler. He sees no threat from radical Islam that is not our fault. For this reason and others, he could never make it through the GOP primaries. Even if he did, it would lead to a 1984-style landslide defeat. Even worse, if Paul wins in Iowa but nowhere else, he could run as a third party candidate, splitting the anti-Obama vote and becoming Democrats' best friend since Ross Perot.
Iowas GOP royalty worries that a Ron Paul victory will delegitimize the already-questionable caucus. People already wonder if Republicans can select a candidate that the majority of the country would support. This of course would not send the hallowed Iowa caucuses into history, but could lead to their being played down by a majority of candidates in the future.
For the first time, Congressman Pauls baggage is starting to be aired. In the 1980s, he published a newsletter which showcased a large number of racially charged articles. Tidbits detailing how Martin Luther King Jr. seduced little boys and girls and stating that African Americans who protest should gather at a food stamp bureau or crack house are just the tip of the iceberg. Strangely enough, these have not been exploited by the left.
Only conservative pundits like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Levin are talking about it, because theyre aware that sending Paul up against Obama is all but gift-wrapping him a second term. Thats also why so many liberals are keeping quiet. If he pulls off a miracle and wins the nomination, he would not only wound the GOP, but help seal its fate while they discuss his baggage on every nightly news program for nine months straight.
If conservatives want to win back the White House, they need to realize that there is no shame in nominating someone whom you only agree with eighty-five percent of the time. Never compromising on anything may allow them to pat themselves on the back, but it rarely works in a republic. Romney and Gingrich may not be perfect, but they would certainly help steer the country in a better direction.
America needs a good leader, not a political savior or martyr.
Nutjob Paul will run as a 3rd party candidate. Period.
Ron Paul Could Be Obama’s Best Friend
Ron Paul Could Be Obama’s RUNNING MATE
“....loud minorities who have all banded together to collectively give a thumb in the eye to Republicans, other conservatives,.......”
Stopped reading right there. Ron Paul is NOT a CONSERVATIVE.......He’s a Libertarian in Republican clothing.........
I’ve been saying this, FOR WEEKS!
The ONLY reason he is getting so much mainstream press is that he is DAMAGING TO THE REPUBLICAN BRAND, reinforcing the narrative that all Republicans are NUTZ AND RACISTS!
Let him run!
He’ll get 20% of the black vote (truther vote) EASILY.
A good deal of my former students, all black, are disgusted with Obama and see him as part of the system and Obama as the solution.
All we have to do is get rid of Romney and Paul will kill Democrat coattails.
Would you mind defining Conservatism in terms of running candidates, please? A comparison of Ron Paul's non-conservative values to ones true to definition would help.
Let him run!
Hell get 20% of the black vote (truther vote) EASILY.
A good deal of my former students, all black, are disgusted with Obama and see him as part of the system and RON PAUL as the solution.
All we have to do is get rid of Romney and Paul will kill Democrat coattails.
Sorry about that.
Pull up your socks and prepare yourself. What should have been a slam-dunk victory for Republicans in 2012 is going to be turned into a rout, because too many people are going to want to pick up all their marbles and go home.
The Untied States is shredding and fraying at the edges. An unsustainable national debt that has finally exceeded the Gross National Product, proposals from the now failing obama regime that only may be depended upon to exacerbate the current situation, total disarray from the opposition, and now the decibel level has risen beyond the ability of anybody’s ear to distinguish any actual meaning.
How about just one example from each of the three legs of Conservatism:
1. Economic- Earmarks are the most unConstitutional form of spending, redistribution w/ out legislation. Paul is one of the leaders of pork barrel spending via earmarks in Congress.
2. Foreign policy- Paul ignores large sections of the US Constitution on his foreign policy stances, specifically in regards to honoring treaties (as to be considered high law of the land per the US Constitution), yet never offering a bill to defatify mutual defense treaties as the Constitution prescribes. At that, treaties are the only thing the only law outside itself the Constitution requires to be considered high law.
3. Social- I can go on and on this one, but lets take Abortion. Paul ignores that the Constitution says no one can be deprived of life without due process of law- in other words, the individual right of existence trumps all, yet Paul treats this issue as a 10th Amendment issue as though States rights somehow trump individual rights.
....and so on....
Some more examples- Falsely claiming that the only way the Constitution allows the use of the military in our interest is through a formal declaration of war (specifically worded as he expects). This contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which gives three specific ways the military can be used for force (1. Punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations, 2. Formal war, & 3. Quelling insurrections). He has been screaming for a decade how the WOT is unConstitutional yet this falls under category 1 in how the military can be used.)
How about his claim that the Constitution says that only gold and silver coin are legal tender. This is again false. (albeit a decent practice). The Constitution limits States to only issue gold or silver for payments of debts but Article 1 specifically gives Congress the power to both mint currency and set the value, something they couldnt do if it were a commodity currency like gold where the value is set by the market.
How about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage act and saying the government has no role in recognizing any marriage? Again, this flies in the face of Article 1 that does give Congress the authority to set standards for weights and measures. How does that apply? Federalist 42 discusses how measures include definitions that apply to contracts and laws (ie what defines the parties in a Marriage Contract).
2nd Amendment? How about supporting Chicago in McDonald vs Chicago saying that States have the right under the 10th Amendment to restrict gun ownership. (he also took a similar ‘State’s rights’ position in Heller saying that State’s rights trumped private property rights. He goes to the extreme on the 10th Amendment (just the ‘state’ part, ignoring the ‘or the people’ part)- giving it the power to over-ride other areas of the Constitution...
..want me to keep going? Let’s not even forget Border issues where Paul has been given an F by NumbersUSA.
Ya, I guess being part of the 1% certainly makes me a minority.
For the role of Commander in chief of the US armed forces, foreign policy alone is a deal breaker. If having major failures in all legs of conservativism isnt a deal breaker for you, then it seems you’ve joined the Paul sheeple...
Again, alternatives? Seems like you’ve joined Obama sheeple - every other candidate is just that: Obama-lite. And yes, I prefer Ron Paul as Commander-in-Chief to any other pretender: I don’t want to be fighting others’ wars, let’s concentrate on OUR security. Giving States their rights back is conservative enough to me.
Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to this nation and the war in Iraq was for OUR National Security. It is the propaganda of leftists like Code Pink and Ron Paul that say otherwise and then even take it to the level of taking on other talking points and agenda points of our enemies.
The pervert Ron Paul uses his political clout to even help Iran in their efforts to achieve nuclear weapons. But then of course he seeks to downsize of military and force homosexuality on it.
Explain in your own words: HOW Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to this nation? No WMDs were ever found and no al-Qaeda existed there prior to our intervention. The guy was preoccupied with own internal problems and yet kept Iranians busy - win-win for us. Not to mention that we were stuck there for so many years for no apparent reason...
The pervert Ron Paul...
Any evidence? He seems pretty straight to me... :)
...help Iran in their efforts to achieve nuclear weapons.
Now, that's unfair - he is not our President yet. Preserve you argument for after inauguration :)
...force homosexuality on it. ???
First off you might try reading the Act by Congress that lists over a dozen reasons as to why Saddam Hussein was a threat to this nation and gave the Commander-in-Chief Congressional approval for military force in Iraq. You may also want to try reading the order by the Clinton administration that designated Iraq as a terrorist sponsoring nation and a threat to this nation.
Saddam Hussein did have WMD, he used WMD , was still seeking WMD and in reality you are wrong it was also found in Iraq and some also made its way into Jordan whereas terrorists intended to try and use it.
You are also wrong about there being no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before 9/11. There are multiple accounts and evidence which prove otherwise. Saddam even made a worldwide invitation to Osama Bin Laden to stay in Iraq in the late 90s as reported by CNN and other sources.
Saddam Hussein was an openly sworn enemy of the United States. Saddam Hussein supported, financed, and trained terrorists in Iraq. Terrorist training camps even sported large murals of Saddam celebrating 9/11. Saddam Hussein attacked American interests every chance he could find and attempted to assassinate a United States President. Saddam Hussein committed the largest act of environmental terrorism in the history of the world, dumping thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean and burning dozens of oil fields. Saddam Hussein was the ONLY WORLD LEADER TO OPENLY PRAISE THE ATTACKS OF 9/11.
Those who defend Saddam are the likes of Ron Paul, CodePink, the leftist Ramsey Clarke, the democrat party once it became to their political advantage and now of course you.
Ron Paul is a pervert (look up the word) being that he perverts the values of our Founders, perverts the meaning of the Constitution, and thinks that we must treat homosexuality equal to heterosexuality in our military, the Founders would be appalled by his perversions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.