Skip to comments.South Carolina Senator Tom Davis endorses Ron Paul
Posted on 01/16/2012 8:37:37 AM PST by Veritas_et_libertas
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul picked up an endorsement from popular South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) Sunday.
Mr. Davis is a popular Tea Party Republican in South Carolina, and he has been critical of front running Republican candidate Mitt Romney also, so his vote could sway some last minute undecided voters towards Mr. Paul in the upcoming South Carolina Republican primary election.
According to the Public Polling Policy poll of South Carolina voters released Friday shows 30 percent of the voters identify themselves as members of the Tea Party. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich did the best among that group though, finishing with 40 percent of Tea Party voters, rival candidate Rick Santorum came in second among Tea Party voters.
Mr. Pauls popular campaign rhetoric regarding a smaller strict constitutional government is similar to the Tea Party ideology as described in the mission statement on Tea Party of Americas website, which features a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding government.
Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nations capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on and that the Republican Party has promised to protect, said Mr. Davis in a statement Sunday. Yet while generations of politicians including far too many Republicans were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestatecolumn.com ...
This tells you these elected politicians don’t want to solve anything.
Senator Tom Davis - The Islamic Caliphate’s new friend
Good on him! He said:
[Romney] supported interventionist policies in lending, TARP and ethanol subsidies, and he seems to support currency manipulation instead of sound money. Do we really know what we would get with a President Romney?.
Now, I support Newt. But, at least, Sen. Davis had the guts to stand up to the GOP Estblishment and support the Tea Party principles— as opposed to Haley, Demint, Limbaugh, Coulter. et. al-—
I commend him for making the principled argument-
No kidding! Sounds like he may need to be replaced. I wonder if Mr. Davis agrees with Ron Paul’s stances on immigration
Ron Paul has his faults...but do you actually believe any of the other candidates will make any significant reduction in government?
Congress has the power to declare war, so that part is covered, should Ron Paul somehow get elected. More positives than negatives, in my opinion.
After all, what happens to our defense capability when we can no longer make interest payments on our debt?
Are you from SC? I’m not so sure that you are right.
At this point, however, I think that an RP win in SC is the best thing that could happen, though RP isn’t my candidate. Even with a win there RP would never be the nominee or President, but nothing would say “screw you” to the R-Establishment and their candidate Mittens than voters saying we detest Romney so much that we’ll support RP over him. Moreover, it would shake the race up enough that Mittens’ “inevitability” balloon would be popped and the conservatives in the race would be back on center stage.
The fantasy of conservative voters being able to think strategically and tactically aside, the R lemmings in SC will almost certainly give Mittens another win, and the R-Establishment will have succeeded again in giving us their candidate.
I don’t see anyone stopping Mittens at this point. Perry hasn’t recovered from shooting himself in the foot early (although his policy papers have been very good); Bachmann is getting no traction; Santorum is a little better than GWB, but only a little; Newt is weasel - who knows whether the good Newt or the bad Newt would occupy the Whitehouse or how many times they would trade places.
I don’t see a path forward for conservatives absent something unexpected and dramatic happening. Perhaps someone else does.
You’re analysis seems spot-on to me. And, I tend to think that the popping of the “inevitability” balloon would be a positive step toward forging a path forward for conservatives. This would require mittens to adopt an even more conservative platform, and like you say, the other conservatives in the race would be back on center stage.
I don't know let's put it out there and see
Ron Pauls six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. Thats a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Is Davis related to the faux conservative Barbour?
That will never happen the Fed will just print more money. A better question is what happens when a barrel of oil cost 500 bucks or more.
Check out his grade:
Let me ask a question, and please do not take it as an attack. It is merely a query I have on the manner in which people are sifting (and thereafter shifting) through the various candidates.
You said that Ron Paul has his faults ...but ...if people think any of the other candidates would make a significant reduction in government. You mentioned more positives than negatives. Is that really the case? Paul's views on foreign policy are not only highly detrimental for the US, but they are so detrimental as to approach suicide. Paul seems to hold a very simplistic view of the way things work - as if everything will be alright if the US decides on non-intervention. No, it will not. The influence of nations like China will grow at a frenetic pace, and the void left by the absence of the US will be filled. Furthermore, just because the US doesn't want to play game doesn't mean that other countries will not drag it kicking and screaming to the park (see: Pearl Harbor).
However, that was not my question. My question is this - why does it seem that a good number of people only see things as black or white? Why is it not possible to have the best ideas of a Gingrich, the best ideas of a Paul (he does have some good ideas on some constitutional issues), the best ideas of a Santorum, etc. For instance (just a play of ideas here), a Gingrich presidency, Santorum as VP, Allen West as Sec of Defense, Ron Paul as AG, etc. That is just something I pulled out of my behind, but it shows how it is possible to get the best attributes while avoiding the worst attributes.
Ron Paul has some good ideas on the constitution, but some of his other political positions are honestly not wacky ...they are downright stupid and very dangerous. Just because rat poison will eliminate rodents doesn't mean that it should be mixed in with mom's apple pie!
Reading FR posts it is easy to see Gingrich supporters attacking Santorum supporters. Santorum supporters attacking Gingrich supporters (here is one example from another thread: 'Newt is a big mouth fat slob who is probably the easiest politician to dislike in the last couple of decades. Imus is correct when he labels him a vile disgusting person!'). This is the same nonsense that arose between Sept-Oct 2011 (where the Perry supporters, all known and with one getting a zot drew first blood by attacking FReepers - not even candidates, FReepers - calling them 'lovestruck teenage girls,' 'stupid,' and all sorts of other names for not supporting Perry; and then when the Cain Train took off there was a huge backlash against Perry on FR that just cemented the 'heartless' remarks and debate performances on the forum). Looking at the tension slowly building up between SOME Gingrich people and SOME Santorum people seems like a redux of that. And of course there is Ron Paul, who has SOME very good ideas but has also many really bad ideas.
To use my analogy of rodents - it is like breeding rattlesnakes in the farm to fend off moles and voles.
Why is it not possible to support one candidate who can win (sorry - it is not Paul, and it is not Perry, and since I do not want to spark off another Gingrich/Santorum silly-fest let me leave it at that), and then see if the administration of Gingritorum/Santogrich will incorporate the best ideas available while leaving out the wacky ideas?
This dogmatic inanities are going to lead to a Romney win, and then an Obama re-election. And when FReepers even start considering Ron Paul because he has some good ideas (and overlooking his other ideas) it seems a tad myopic. Ideas are not anchored to one person. To accept Paul's (very intelligent) views on border control/illegal immigration and national debt do not require having to accept his (absolutely asinine) views on foreign policy and Israel. If a car has a great engine and nice interior, but a rusted chassis and electronic systems out of hell doesn't make it a nice car. It makes it a lemon.
Why is it not possible to have (say) a Gingritorum/Santogrich presidency, with a Santogrich/Gingritorum VP, with a focus on border immigration that borrows some of Dr. Paul's ideas, but with a continued focus on strong national defense, and a prudent concentration on tacking the debt issue? Why does it have to be 100% one package - warts and all (and in some cases, rattlesnakes and rat poison)?
That is my question. If you have read this far, thank you.
I am just looking at what he has put on the table, I like to think for myself. Why numbersUSA graded him as F I don’t know. Illegal immigration is one of my big issues
I think one major problem to thinking outside of the box is that it is currently every man for himself. Maybe in the end there will be some combination of candidates in positions within the govt that serve to highlight their strong suits, but I don’t know how they could all just shake hands and run as a team, if you know what I mean.
Plus, I think a lot of people have very strong aversions to certain aspects of each person’s candidacy, indicative of the distribution of support among the candidates and the vitriol of some of one guy’s supporters to the other guy’s supporters. For instance, there are certain things that I admire in Newt, but I have strong reservations about his views on the distribution of power among the three branches of government.. Specifically, he believes in a STRONG executive, imbued with large amounts of power, that is anathema to the intent of the framers of the constitution. That worries me to the point where I just cannot support him.
So, in general, I think you make some really good points, but I just don’t see a way of implementing those ideas.
Well, I can’t answer all that, but I will say that we could all benefit by taking it a little easier on one another here.
The ZOTs have been a bit too plentiful, as has the negativity towards candidates. I don’t attack any particular candidates...not even Romney. But I will point out strengths and weaknesses.
The hysterics some people here engage in really don’t help.
Totally agree. Thing is, as the candidates start to narrow down, some people who were chewing on each others ears will quickly realize they need the votes of that fella they were calling names.