Posted on 01/13/2012 7:26:17 PM PST by mnehring
Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.
The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.
The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.
Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.
The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.
Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.
You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.
For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.
Ron Paul is batshit crazy, he will nuke Cuba, Venezuela, Mecca and probably even China.
He is one of those people that believe that the world would be better off if it had 5 billion less souls on it.
I have no idea if ya mean McCain or the old man.
I’m not sure that Ron Paul hates Republicans but I AM SURE THAT THE LAST THING WE NEED IS A 3RD PARTY RUN.
That action would simply hand the boob another 4 years to destroy our country.
Be it the old man or whoever.
They have totally divided the once united. Only a matter of time until that occurs and is successful.
This is no longer your Daddy's America.
Because the enemedia would destroy any sane person of principle. I am of somewhat mixed feelings about Ron Paul's presence on the political scene. I suspect the enemedia have allowed him to speak some truths that other so-called Republicans won't because they hope that such truths will be discredited by their association with him. On the other hand, if he gains traction, people might start recognizing that some of the truths he's putting forth are true despite the identity of the person promoting them, and such recognition may help collapse the Liberal Mind Fog which has infested so much of the country.
Baloney. Associating with Code Pink is not conservative nor does it make someone "constitutional" or "logical" - Associating with 9/11 truth is not conservative nor does it make someone "constitutional" or "logical" - nor is endorsing and going out on the stump to aggressively campaign for a well-known Code Pink Activist, 9/11 truther, individual who went overseas to a military base and asked troops to abandon their posts, etc. a sign of being conservative or "constitutional" nor is it a sign of them being "logical." Saying that Israel set up Hamas is not conservative nor does it make someone "constutional" or sound "logical." Making absurd statements that the U.S. could have simply 'bought' all the slaves and prevented the Civil War does not make him conservative, "constitutional", or logical. Saying that a Yale Fraternity is controlled by the Trilateral Commission is not conservative, "constitutional" and certainly not logical. Saying that "If I were Iranian I'd want the bomb" is not logical, conservative, or "constitutional" - we aren't interested in what he would want if he were Iranian we are interested in what he would want as an American. Repeated appearances on the Alex Jones show do not make him "constitutional", conservative, or logical. Endorsing Cynthia McKinney is not evidence of him being conservative, "constitutional" or logical. Etc, etc, etc, etc...one could probably continue the length of a book with this silliness.
That's what clear thinking people have a problem with - not that he's an alleged "constitutionalist." It is disengenious for you to pretend you don't know this after it has been said repeatedly and just keep on posting the same cliche boilerplate talking points you are getting from your scripts. Learn to think for yourself. Your conduct is that of a personality cult.
End the Patriot Act laws that are NEVER used against terrorists, only against American citizens not implicated in any way with terrorists or terrorism.
Regardless of the overall debate over the Patriot Act, that is an obviously inaccurate statement.
Amen. And instead of making stupid moral equivalence arguments against our foreign policy, he could say: "You can't trust the statists in regards to economics, finances, inflation, 2nd amendment, freedom etc what makes you trust them to squander the blood of our soldiers and trillions of our dollars in their socialist nation building fetishes by means of endless, victory-less wars around the world?"
Ya got to love it.
Interesting.... Ron Paul feels about me, the way I feel about him...
nicely said
Baloney. Associating with Code Pink is not conservative nor does it make someone "constitutional" or "logical"
Ron Paul supports a lot of things that are wacky and not at all conservative. That in no way, however, detracts from the fact that he is also the only even-remotely-prominent candidate who is promoting the points listed by yefragetuwrabrumuy, most of which a Constitutionalist conservative should unequivocally support. That's what clear thinking people have a problem with - not that he's an alleged "constitutionalist."
If Republican candidates don't want to lose the votes of small-government conservatives to Ron Paul, they should start acting like small-government conservatives. Whether or not the threat of losing the votes of conservative voters would be enough of an enticement to make any other candidates support the Constitution, I can't think of what other incentive might be more effective.
If Paul were to take your advice he would jump 15% in the polls, if not more. again nicely said.
Ha!
“Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election.”
I neither endorsed nor voted for John McCain in 2008. No, I do not regret that decision.
Just going back to the script and the cliches and ignoring all of that is not an argument.
Paul’s pork is also not a sign of being a fiscal conservative - loading up bills with earmarks and getting others to pass them into law and then personally voting against them to try to pass himself off as being against earmarks is a sign of being a stereotypical politician.
Should we intervene in the Sudan with religious and ethnic killings? Should we have gotten involved with Bosnia?
headline should be “Hates rinos , loves constitution”. as for his foreign policy , im over giving money we dont have to countries that treat us like crap .
I am certain that Republicans would stand by the Constitution more if they really understood what it meant. Like many, they find no time to really study it as the instrument it is for endowing those who practice it with freedom. They find no time because, on the surface, the Constitution does not say very much, like the Bible. As with the Bible, the Constitution needs a spiritual transformation before one gets below its surface level and really understands.
So lets vote Romney!!! If it comes to Romney vs. Paul (which it will) GO ROMNEY!!!!
Matt, the problem I have with this little screed is that, at the top, the pubbies stand for NOTHING AT ALL. Why would any even semi-sane person endorse an establishment pubbie? Dr. Paul actually does stand for what the Republican party of yore used to promise IT stood for, but, come to think of it, never actually delivered. Except that “Silent Cal” Coolidge DID live up to those professed ideals, the same ones espoused by Dr. Paul, when he cured the 1920 depression by doing ... nothing at all. No intervention whatsoever. It was gone in six months or less. Yet, had he intervened, as did Hoover and, more famously, FDR, it could have been as bad as, or worse than, the crash of ‘29.
Herbert Hoover, though, was more typical of the pubbie party: besides his oppression of the Bonus Expeditionary Army (look it up), HE started intervening in the economy after the Crash, screwing things up and making way for the COLOSSAL screwing the nation got under FDR. No, you take your Newts and Mitts and Perrys and Sanctomoniouses and shove them and their establishment cronies, the McLames and Grahamnesties, who only promise more of the same. I’m ready for someone who’s got a record, distorted and maligned as it is by the RNC’s toadies, that’s consistently on the side of the Constitution and SMALL GOVERNMENT.
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.