Sarah Palin: Ron Paul ‘Is The One Americans Need To Listen To’ On Domestic Spending

Mediaite ^ | 12/8/11 | Nando Defino

[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.”

[Dead Corpse]

I’m ok with endless war, if that was what we are actually doing. “Endless police actions and Nation building” is what I think you were aiming for as it more accurately reflects what is happening.

[Bokababe]

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.

So many keep bringing a potential "Ron Paul third Party" run, in spite of the fact that the man has done everything but swear on his firstborn that he has no plans for it. It is Ron Paul's plan to win the Republican nomination.

If people do want to think about realistic third Party runs, Gary Johnson has already said that he is considering it given the treatment he has gotten within the Republican Party. If Ron Paul loses the nomination, it's possible that Johnson could pick up the Ron Paul votes screwing over whoever is the nominee.

And before you think that is dirty pool --even though it's not planned that way -- there is another realistic potential 3rd Party contender to muddy the waters if things aren't going his way -- and that is Donald Trump. Trump said that after moderating this debate, if he didn't like what he saw, he'd run himself. Personally, my bet is that Trump would jump into the race ONLY if Ron Paul became the Republican nominee. He'd rather contribute to Obama 2nd term and see the Republican Party explode into flames than change the DC status quo that is his low interest loan gravy train for real estate investments. (So why should any respectable Republican candidate be kissing the Donald's ring or even appearing in the same room with him?)

[algernonpj]

Also by cutting all foreign aid and eliminating 'nation building', Israel will benefit.

Paul: "Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea. "

[La Enchiladita]

LOL. I would be one of the few not at all surprised when Palin endorses Ron Paul.

[algernonpj]

We have already aided and abetted the Moslem Brotherhood take over of Egypt and Libya. The Moslem Brotherhood and al Qaeda are siblings.

[algernonpj]

I do like what Paul said about foreign aid - taking from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.

Me five.

[Bokababe]

Also by cutting all foreign aid and eliminating 'nation building', Israel will benefit.

Ron Paul did a couple of good interview on Israel recently, including this one:

Jack Hunter Interview with Ron Paul on Israel

Ron Paul has also said that "If Netanyahu can say that Israel doesn't want or need US troops, why can't I?"

I have some Israeli friends and there is a big difference in the discourse going on among Israelis in Israel about where they want to be, vs what America and American Jews think needs to be done. According to them, most Israelis want the US out of their politics and are sick of being treated like a bastard stepchild who gets ordered around and judged by us.

But the US view is different. Over 80% of American Jews tend to vote Democratic, so what's left in organizations like the Republican Jewish Caucus are the Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle neocons extraordinaire that aren't about to give up their power over government with some new ways of looking at things, even if it was to Israel's benefit.

[greene66]

I’ve always viewed Palin as an incredibly balanced and almost unique mix of traditional conservatism, western libertarianism, and mid-American populism. It’s a quirky mix that often doesn’t mesh together well, but somehow Palin manages to live and express it with a natural ease. I like it, because it frankly fits my own ideology like a glove. It seems like I’d been waiting decades to find a politician/leader who matched so well with me.

[Bokababe]

We have already aided and abetted the Moslem Brotherhood take over of Egypt and Libya. The Moslem Brotherhood and al Qaeda are siblings.

Yes Amin Al Husseini was the the father of the Muslim Brotherhood which led to al Qaeda. This website ties much of the historical roots of real WWII Nazism and Islam together to show how Islamo fascism was produced.

Rather coincidental that the rise Islamofascism coincided in a timely way with the reunification of Germany and the rise of the German sponsored EU -- or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence at all.

[Sudetenland]

Ron Paul's "non-interventionist" policy would be nothing more than a return to the policies of pre-WW II France and Britain. It is the Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy. It is what gave us the European Theater of WW II.

It is naive and dangerous and based on the flawed idea that what worked in the age of sail will work in the age of ICBMs, jet planes, suicide bombers and people who are willing to kill indiscriminately both combat troops and innocent civilians.

It is the sophomoric fantasy world in which most Libertarians live and it demonstrates a poor comprehension of human nature and history.

Ron Paul and his supporters don't understand a simple fact of human nature, aggressive and belligerent people never interpret politeness or "non-interventionism" as anything but a sign of weakness--an invitation for them to exploit that weakness. They only understand strength and firmness they only understand implacable opposition.

Paul can talk all he wants about his fantasy world, it will never be the truth.

[Sudetenland]

No doubt about that, he’s one of the most selfish, most self-enamored, and most petty people in Congress.

[algernonpj]

Thanks for the link.

[Bokababe]

Ron Paul's "non-interventionist" policy would be nothing more than a return to the policies of pre-WW II France and Britain. It is the Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy. It is what gave us the European Theater of WW II.

Don't want to scare you here but Ron Paul's policy is a lot closer to the Ronald Reagan Cold War model a time when we were very careful about directly going to war because "Mutually Assured Destruction" was always the possibility if things got out of hand. Today we are much more careless and cavalier about "who needs a good bombing" --it wasn't always so in America and we were better off then.

I've always wondered why we shelved the "dealing with Communists" model when it came to Islamists -- I mean it works, it's applicable and we didn't have to turn into a police state or be constantly at war when we were dealing with communists who wanted to destroy us, our freedoms and our way of life.

Reagan talked big but he only lost a few hundred US troops in 8 yrs in office and he lost most of those in one fell swoop in the Beirut Barracks Bombing. Reagan and many others who were powerful always understood that war was a court of last resort because "the threat of war" was always going to be easier and more frightening to the enemy than the actual war which would cost money and lives, potentially create unintended consequences -- and which you could lose.

I recall just a few years ago when John McCain said that we could be at war in the ME for 100 yrs -- and everyone gasped -- like what a horrible thought -- not possible! But at the last debate, I a watched general consensus from virtually all of the candidates on that dais (other than Ron Paul) that "Yes, we'll be at this for the rest of our lifetimes." So you've got to wonder, "Who really is drinking the Koolaid? Him or us?"

[algernonpj]

Yes Amin Al Husseini was the the father of the Muslim Brotherhood which led to al Qaeda. This website ties much of the historical roots of real WWII Nazism and Islam together to show how Islamo fascism was produced.

Rather coincidental that the rise Islamofascism coincided in a timely way with the reunification of Germany and the rise of the German sponsored EU -- or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence at all.

Once again thanks for the website. I had been aware that the grand Mufti of Jerusalem was Arafat's mentor, but not of Amin Al-Husseini's extensive connection. I have only skimmed it, but will read more carefully later.

Having read about the NWO globalists, I would vote no coincidence.

Two interesting essays from Dennis Cuddy connecting the Nazis with the NWO:
link1, link2)

Oh what a tangled web the enemies of freedom weave!

[Sudetenland]

Got news for you, "mutually assured destruction" can only work if both parties view self-immolation as insane. Ron Paul's problem--and presumably yours as well--is that we already know that Islamic terrorists are more than willing to destroy their own people, their own mosques, their own nations if it means killing the "infidels."

MAD only works if both parties are sane, Islamists manifestly are not.

[Bokababe]

Having read about the NWO globalists, I would vote no coincidence.

Nor does a friend of mine, advisor to the British government, Rodney Atkinson, who gave this speech tracing the EU's Nazi roots at the British House of Parliament.

Have to wonder why we are now bailing them out.

[Bikkuri]

[oneamericanvoice]

Paul has no chance at the nomination. You are right. He’s only there to spoil. I hate that, and that people can’t see him for who he really is. Like others have posted here, he has some good ideas, and then goes off into crazyland.

Rick Santorum has economic and foreign policies that are good for this nation. His economic plans are superb. Sarah Palin and Mark Levin like and respect him.

[reasonisfaith]

It’s logically impossible to disagree with Palin on this, from a perspective of conservatism.

[rintense]

Also agree. And I do give Paul credit for going on the View with those liberal harpies, and giving a rational reason for repealing RvW. They actually *listened* to him.

Too bad he's so damn kooky on other things.