Ron Paul Won't Endorse Romney, Sees "Essentially No Difference"

The New American ^ | 10-12-12 | Jack Kenny

[kingattax]

Ron Paul, the maverick Texas congressman who has twice run for the Republican presidential nomination, won't endorse the nominee of his party. Though Paul said last week it was "very unlikely" he would endorse former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, he made it definitive in an interview October 12 on the CNBC program Futures Now.

"No," he said, plainly and unequivocally, when asked about an endorsement. Neither the GOP challenger nor President Obama will change the course of fiscal and monetary policy that is leading to what has been called the "fiscal cliff," Paul said, because both are captive of special interests.

And neither will act to stop the Federal Reserve from papering over the growing chasm of debt by inflating the money supply in a policy called "quantitative easing."

[Erik Latranyi]

He’s right there is no difference both are liberals...

....and Ron Paul supporters cut their own noses off despite their faces.

[Erik Latranyi]

Including Jim Robinson, the owner of this site?

If Jim cannot see that Ron Paul is nothing but a cult of personality, rather than substance, then he is not the man I think he is.

[montanajoe]

Ron Paul is a nut and I could never support his views on foreign policy and defense. But he is right about Romney..

[wiley]

Is there anyone around who actually cares what Ron Paul thinks?

[Erik Latranyi]

Ron Paul might have a larger messiah complex than Obama.

[Longbow1969]

If you want want a conservative you vote for a conservative its not rocket science..

That's what primaries are for - you're chance to promote and work for a candidate you can truly be excited about. General elections are a different animal. They are a choice between the only candidates that can win. In our 2 party system, that means you'll usually have 2 options and neither will be all the great. General elections are not an affirmative endorsement of any person or ideology, they are a simply a choice between the only candidates that can win.

If by now you can't see why Romney, despite all his flaws, is better than Hussein, well there is probably no getting through to you. Court nominations alone should be a sufficient reason to vote for Romney/Ryan. US Presidents tend to use court nominations to throw a bone to the base. Romney's nominations might be good or they might not be - we don't know for certain. On the other hand, Obama's court nominations WILL definitely be terrible - that we know for sure. And if Obama gets 4 more years of leftist judges, it may be near impossible to undo all the damage he and his Democrats are doing.

Let me give you one example to consider. Remember all the fighting in Wisconsin over collective bargaining? We had massive demonstrations, recalls, Democrats fleeing the state, etc, etc, etc. Most of us here were cheering Walker, perhaps he is the kind of conservative you do support? All that effort, all that standing firm against the unions - ALL undone by one liberal Dane county judge. One judge just reversed all our gains. Now this was a state judge not a federal one, but the point stands. The more liberal judges Obama appoints, the less likely it is we can reverse the leftist agenda.

[okie01]

Ron Paul Won't Endorse Romney, Sees "Essentially No Difference"

Then, Ron Paul is blind as a mole.

And, as usual, Paul is more concerned with his favorite passtime -- pissing in the Republican soup -- than in advancing the country's interests.

He's a little man. More Jimmy Carter than libertarian giant.

[Erik Latranyi]

Ron Paul is a nut and I could never support his views on foreign policy and defense. But he is right about Romney..

I bet Romney is better than both Bushs and Reagan with regard to fiscal policy.

[Erik Latranyi]

And, as usual, Paul is more concerned with his favorite passtime -- pissing in the Republican soup -- than in advancing the country's interests.

You nailed it. Ron Paul has said more negative things against Republicans than he has ever said against Obama.

Ron Paul only cares about his cult of personality.

[fortheDeclaration]

Ron Paul ran as a Republican and should have endorsed the nominee.

[Erik Latranyi]

That's what primaries are for - you're chance to promote and work for a candidate you can truly be excited about. General elections are a different animal. They are a choice between the only candidates that can win. In our 2 party system, that means you'll usually have 2 options and neither will be all the great. General elections are not an affirmative endorsement of any person or ideology, they are a simply a choice between the only candidates that can win.

These Ron Paul dipships think they are the only ones who understand the founders' brilliance, but fail to see the wisdom in party politics.

Let's face facts, Ron Paul supporters only care about the cult of personality called Ron Paul, not the founding documents.

[Erik Latranyi]

Ron Paul ran as a Republican and should have endorsed the nominee.

But Ron Paul happily swallows whatever the Republican campaign ejaculates into his campaign!

[stevem]

Ron Paul said, “Before I endorse Romney I will need to see that he’s a nut...like me.”

[italianquaker]

Coming from the creep who blamed us for 9-11-01, who cares

[Erik Latranyi]

“I have to say, people that say the two are the same are simply morons with no brain cells left.”

I have to say, people that cannot see the differences between the two (Romney and Obama) are simply morons with no brail cells left.

[montanajoe]

One of the biggest problems with Romney is the SC Justices. Obama would never get to appoint a replacement to a conservative to to the SC Scalia and Kennedy will hang on until as Republican is elected. If one of the Conservatives justices were to die in O’s term the GOP if they had any balls couls filibuster the nominees.

Romney on the other had will almost assuredly get to replace Kennedy ans Scalia and given his record in Massachusetts he will appoint liberals shifting the balance of the court to liberal for 40 years into the future.

As to only choosing between two candidates in the General election I just don't buy that argument. If the GOP looses this election because they did not nominate a conservative at the top of the ticket then something may change but if they get away with nominating ever more liberal candidates each time around then only more liberals will be elected and whether they have a R or D behind their name will make no difference..

[Erik Latranyi]

Coming from the creep who blamed us for 9-11-01, who cares

That's right.

Ron Paul thinks radical islam is only angry because of our foreign policy and not the inherent evil of their religion. That makes Ron Paul unqualified to be a dog catcher.

[Milton Miteybad]

Well said. Paul is a narcissist who would put his own interests above the good of the nation. His followers (as they are often called) are just that- lemmings that will follow him over a cliff.

The dirty little secret down here in Texas is that Ron Paul keeps running for President because it's now a quadrennial family business. He collects campaign contributions from his Paulbot minions, and the rest of his family works at salaried positions on his campaigns, which are generally designed to go nowhere except to the bank with his supporters' money.

If he endorses the candidate who defeated him in the primaries, it undermines any potential claim he may have as a viable alternative in the next election cycle. And in four years, if his health is still good, Big Ron Paul will be back, fleecing his earnest yet gullible supporters for yet more campaign cash. And once again, his family members who aren't otherwise employed will have salaried positions once again.

Pretty shrewd racket, I'd say.

[Erik Latranyi]

The dirty little secret down here in Texas is that Ron Paul keeps running for President because it's now a quadrennial family business.

I guess "Dr Paul" makes more money as a politician than as an MD.

[CincyRichieRich]

For a smart many he sure is stupid!