Skip to comments.What We Are Left With - Is Ron Paul Better or Worse Than Romney?
Posted on 05/08/2012 7:23:22 AM PDT by redinIllinois
Instead of letting the establishment act like everybody is happy with Mitt Romney, how about if everybody in the remaining primaries votes for Ron Paul in protest?
What is the worst that could happen?
At least Ron Paul is pro-life and wants to get rid of the vile, evil, Marxist income tax.
Mitt Romney is saying a lot of the right things, but talk is cheap for politicians at election time.
It should be ALARMING for conservatives to see how many of Romney's people have been advising the Obama administration!!
If you look at their history, instead of their promises, is Ron Paul better than Romney?
“Libertarian my brother...Ron Paul is a libertarian...
He is NOT a conservative....and he should NOT be called one. “
Neither is Romney.
The thing we need to do is look at their history, not their promises.
If libertarians agree with conservatives 20 - 30%, and Romney agrees with conservatives 10%, who should we vote for?
Should we give in to the establishment and throw in the towel now, or keep fighting, even if it is only a token to show our displeasure with Romney?
While he is appealing on some fiscal and domestic fronts, Ron Paul is unacceptable on foreign policy.
Ron Paul has no chance of beating 0bmama.
Romney is unacceptable on many fronts.
Ron Paul is a nut case. And that is absolute best anyone can say about him. If you want a second term for BO, vote Ron Paul. Not happy about MR, but not about to commit suicide over it by voting for RP.
The insane who leans liberal, or the liar who is liberal; that is the question.
>I have to part ways with Ron Paul and others when it comes to legalizing harmful drugs, sticking our heads in the sand internationally, and other things.
I find the defense argument against Paul to be rather amusing: the whole point that Congress is involved in cabinet-positions is to make sure that they can be moderating influences on a President’s wacky ideas. (And let’s face it, EVERY president has had wacky ideas.)
As to ‘legalizing’ drugs; that’d be kinda hard when the current “illegalization” is itself invalid. Even by the principal of precedent, which I hate (as it is nothing less than the Judiciary playing the children’s game of Telephone with legal rights), they cannot legitimately do it: the 18th Amendment was required to prohibit a specific drug (alcohol) in a similar manner... and that amendment was repealed totally.
Furthermore, the dangers of keeping the War on Drugs (WoD) going is too great a cost financially, in human life, or legally. (I say legally because it is directly from the WoD that we get no-knock raids, pretrial confiscation/destructions, the “having a [large] sum of cash on one’s person is grounds for arrest” doctrine, and more.)
Ron Paul is nothing to be frightened of, because though he may prevent the onerous Romney from getting the nomination, in combination with the Santorum and Gingrich delegates, his people are not strong enough to get Paul the nomination.
So right now, the real conservative leaders are trying to figure out who they will nominate who is acceptable to the 60-70% of delegates who are conservatives. And no, if given the choice, it won’t be Santorum or Gingrich either.
Whoever it is will have to embrace the sane parts of the Paul agenda to get their support, tempered with strong conservatism on conservative’s core issues that are not repulsive to the Paul delegates.
And this could be a huge victory for both conservatives and for the country.
This potential conservative nominee is going to have to both give promises and get promises from the congressional Republican leadership for support if he hopes to win big, and the conservatives are going to watch this like a hawk to make sure that the leadership does not try to force him to “moderate”, which would ruin his presidency.
Some key issues I can imagine:
1) Giant cutbacks in the size and power and spending of the federal government. An end to “czars” and presidential signing statements and abuse of recess appointments.
2) Restoration of the 4th Amendment and the downgrading of the Intelligence-Police behemoth, to reasonable levels of security. “Foreigners are the enemy, not the American people.”
3) Securing the border with Mexico and an end to a lot of the stupid, internationalist treaties.
4) Massive scale energy development along with the return of a lot of the federally taken lands to the states.
5) The appointment of rock solid conservatives to the Supreme Court and federal bench.
6) Yes, the military is going to have to take some hits as well, but this needs to be done sensibly, such as much tighter controls over major weapons systems programs. We cannot afford any more destroyers that cost as much as aircraft carriers.
7) Get the federal government and most insurance companies out of routine medical care. This alone will drop its price by 50%.
Seems to me he’s more of a conservative than most of the GOP. I mean, he actually wants to cut the size of government. Where is the support for that among our “mainstream” GOP politicians (and voters)?
That said, his foreign policy is a bit odd. I think about halfway between his position and the general GOP position is about right. But, it is Congress which has the power to declare war, anyhow.
We have been left with a candidate for whom the alternative is not MUCH worse.
I feel like I need a shower now.
Mitt will never get my vote.
“I think the right combination of common-sense Libertarian and conservative principles would be unstoppable, but thats sure not Ron Paul. Not that he has a chance against Romney anyhow.”
The point is not that I think he can win, but for the people in the states that haven’t had primaries yet to protest being rolled over by the ‘machine’.
>Ron Paul is unacceptable on foreign policy.
Which, I observe, is precisely WHY the congress is involved w/ the appointing of people to cabinet positions. (i.e. if the President has some wonky ideas about foreign policies, it’s their job to ensure some with a tempering voice gets placed in those positions relating to foreign policy.)
I’d say he has no chance of being nominated. But if he were somehow nominated, I think he’d have an excellent chance at beating Obama, as he would peel off some of the peaceniks.
In fact, in such a scenario, I really don’t see how Obama could win, even if some of the “national greatness conservatives” stayed home.
Senator Rand Paul
Never said Romney the RINO was...just said Ron Paul aint...
Romney is the most socialist Republican that’s ever been offered to us. Our biggest crisis right now is the debt and the biggest driver of the debt is entitlements. Romney has shown he will cave and buckle every time a welfare entitlement is challenged so that he can pander for votes. He has also remained extremely supportive and positive throughout the primary about his great socialist entitlement Romneycare.
Even our military leaders have said our greatest national security crisis is the debt. The only reason we have been a powerful military force is because our economy has been so productive. Our debt will absolutely crush us as a world power and make it impossible to sustain a competitive military.
Despite Ron Paul’s faults on social and foreign policy issues, he is an extremist when it comes to fiscal conservatism and that is what we desperately need right now. We need spending austerity and slashing of taxes to save our economy. Whatever Paul might screw up on other issues, we can fix later. The debt is something we simply will not be able to fix if it gets any worse. It will be the end of America as a significant world power and will leave us vulnerable to all forms of military and foreign invasion.
I am pretty sure the Congress would make financing Israel a prime issue and force Paul to cave on that. That’s a bipartisan issue.
Bottom line, Ron Paul almost certainly can’t win the primary, but when you have a choice between him and Romney, Paul is the obvious and only choice for the desperate fiscal times we live in.
simple logic applies here:
fubo is a socialist
mcromney is a socialist
socialism is the enemy of the republic
therefore, if you support mcromney, you support socialism
that makes anyone and everyone who supports him an enemy of the republic
if the choice is between paul and fubo, I could hold my nose and pull the lever for paul.
Since I am not a socialist, not do I support socialism, there is not a chance I will cast my ballot for a socialist.
Not to forget though, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who’s the full package of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and strong support of the U.S. as a worldwide military power. If he’s on your ballot, Newt is still the best choice.
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.