Posted on 12/08/2011 12:34:17 PM PST by Bokababe
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin joined Eric Bolling on Fox Business Network’s Follow The Money Wednesday night, and chimed in on several hot-button GOP issues, including the Donald Trump debate and Newt Gingrich‘s rise in the polls. But her most interesting comments came when Bolling got into the weight that her endorsement may carry.
“You know the endorsement that I’m most interested in?” Palin asked. “Ron Paul’s, to tell you the truth.” Palin said she didn’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy, pointing out that he wasn’t even invited to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s summit this week. But she said that he was “absolutely right on” when it comes to his stand on domestic spending issues. “He’s the one that Americans need to listen to when it comes to dealing in reality about this bankrupt path that we are on,” she said.
“So Ron Paul’s endorsement — not saying he won’t get the nomination, but in case he doesn’t — who it is that he chooses to endorse will give us a clear indication of who is on the right path with domestic spending that needs to be addressed. I’m very interested in hearing what Ron Paul thinks at the end of the day.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
I’m voting for RP in the primary and A B O in the general.
Do you see alarming deficits or trends from 2003 through 2007 in the above chart? No. In fact, the trend through 2007 is shrinking deficits. What you see is a significant upward tick in 2008, and then an explosion in 2009. Now, what might have happened between 2007 and 2008, and then 2009?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html
Listening to him is fine (on his good points). Voting for him is not because of the rest of the package.
She is not a modern conservative who leads with family and moral issues.
She lives them personally, but appears to be uncomfortable imposing them on others.
My kinda gal.
Bachmann, Perry, Romney and Santorum could learn a thing or two from her.
The USA will not nominate or elect the sanctimonious.
The four mentioned above are certainly destined for political obscurity. Certainly.
What I take away from the "but" in this statement is she disagrees with what came before in. In other words, she doesn't think he has a chance of winning the nomination. That's why she is wondering who Paul will endorse. Rep. Paul will endorse no one, because he is a libertarian, not a conservative.
That is not the definition of a sound domestic spending policy.
Dr. Yes....YES to earmarks!!!!
Sarah Palin fell off of her snowmobile on this issue.
Detractors keep wanting use the word "isolationism" on Ron Paul's foreign policy, and it's nonsense. What do they think? That Ron Paul wants to turn the US into North Korea? That's ridiculous!
Someone a while back, and I can't recall who, posted the following quote here on Free Republic and it fits:
In 1943 Garet Garrett wrote: ...If you say of this history that its intense character has been nationalistic, consistently so from the beginning until now, that is true. Therefore, the word in place of isolationism that would make sense is nationalism. Why is the right word avoided? The explanation must be for the wrong one, for that is what it is intended to do, it is the perfect political word. Since isolationism cannot be defined, those who attack it are not obliged to defend themselves. What are they? Anti-isolationists? But if you cannot say what isolationism is, neither can you say what anti-isolationism is, whereas nationalism, being definite, has a positive antithesis. One who attacks nationalism is an internationalist. The use of the obscurity created by the false word is to conceal something. The thing to be concealed is the identity of what is speaking. Internationalism is speaking. It has a right to speak, as itself and for itself, but that right entails a moral obligation to say what it means and to use true words...
Ron Paul is an anti-globalist, American nationalist. He cares about what is good for the American people, not what is good for the international bankers or international corporations that are protecting their overseas interests on our dime.
Everyone wants to believe that we are fighting Islamists. But every single NATO intervention since the end of the Cold War has done the precise opposite of fighting Islamism -- the fact is that since the 1990's we've empowered Islam and Islamism from the Balkans to Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya -- and in the process, sent Balkan and Middle East Christians running for their lives. NATO destabilizes regions, it doesn't stabilize them. And even Israel's security has never been in more jeopardy since these interventions. NATO has been hijacked by the globalists to their bidding, none of which is in the interests of the American people.
There is a reason that Ron Paul has more support from US military members than all the other Republican candidates combined -- because those boots on the ground know that our interventions are not what we've been told that they are.
Now people can love or hate Ron Paul for whatever reasons you want. But there is no need to paint him into what he isn't to do that. The guy doesn't want to build a moat around the US -- or turn us into wimps. But we are broke and can't keep spending on forever wars to bankrupt ourselves because that is a bigger threat to our security than any terrorist will ever be.
The opposite is true too. When push comes to shove, I seriously doubt that any of the current GOP candidates would endorse Paul should he get the nomination. They’d immediately back a third party or even back Obama given that choice, IMHO.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.
REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.
Thank-you for publishing that. I have come across it many times, but it is amazing how few people are aware of the truth. Too much emotionally charged bad information circulating—a lot of it coming from the Paul camp.
Sarah is smart to say something like this, not only because she is right, but also because it may help dissuade Paul from launching a certainly disastrous third-party bid.
Paul is a bit nutty about some things, but he is dead-on about spending and about the Fed. And we need to keep him in the Republican party.
I've always believed that the only way Palin could be talked into a 3rd Party run would be if Paul or Huntsman got the nomination. I also believe that this is exactly what Trump is talking about when he indicates there are scenarios where he might consider it.
Fear not: There is ZERO chance that Paul gets the nomination, so it is a hypothetical not worth losing too much sleep over.
Amazing how well it coincides with Democrats regaining control of the House, isn’t it? In spite of all of his big spending and reluctance to use the veto pen, Bush had the economy headed towards a balanced budget and every quarter the reduction in the deficit exceeded economists predictions—sort of a reverse version of the Obama Administrations “unexpectedly” syndrome.
Personally, I think that spending as much on defense as the next twenty countries combined, while we increase our national debt by $1.5 trillion per year, is just as insane.
It's "puzzling" because it's a you can't get there from here any other way -- and they are praising the financial route ignoring the fact that it requires changing our foreign policy to achieve it.
Is "Israel has 3 or 400 nuclear weapons, let them worry about their own defense," a sane suggestion to the threat from Iran? Does any sane person believe that a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran would lead to anything but complete chaos and mayhem throughout the Middle East? Any such occurrence would destroy the world's economy cause worse mayhem and destruction than a complete collapse of the European Market.
Which is why Ron Paul was the only one in the debate to preface answering that (stupid) question with saying that Israeli experts don't see that eventuality ever happening and would think it insane to even contemplate -- but they kept pressing the hypothetical answer to the hypothetical question so there was his answer.
What I find "suicidally insane" is that here we are jerking around on the question of "Iran's hypothetical nukes" and "Israel's hypothetical response" while everyone seems bent on ignoring what our current policy has done to completely destabilize Pakistan -- who has real, operational nukes and has no great love for Israel either. Want to start running potentially relevant hypotheticals, there's one for you -- What if Pakistan falls to al Qaeda or an al Qaeda subsidiary and wants to target Israel? There's your damn nightmare scenario.
Many here still dont grasp how broke we are.
Palin, like Ron Paul, is a rebel at heart. I am glad she is sticking up for him.
Screw these neo-con hacks who want to give us more George Bush types and want endless war, endless spending, endless govt.
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.