Posted on 12/29/2010 3:22:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul is declining to offer his assessment of Sarah Palin’s libertarian appeal, or her chances of winning his endorsement in 2012.
Paul, a politician not known to mince words, is withholding judgment on a potential Palin presidential campaign, according to Jeff Deist, Paul’s chief of staff.
“[Congressman Paul] doesn’t comment on Palin, especially as she is not a candidate at this point,” Deist said.
Palin has been subject to significant criticism from establishment Republican figures, as well as potential rivals for the Republican nomination in 2012. Barbara Bush said in November that she hopes Palin “stays in Alaska.”
In December, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee criticized Palin for having “misunderstood” Michelle Obama’s advocacy of healthier food in schools.
I wonder what religion this guy practices?
Anyways, I know that for Ron Paul it will come down to whether or not she supports bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think it's likely that she supports ending the wars, as is probably the case with all Republican candidates unfortunately.
Sarah is closer to Paul than most of the other candidates. Also I believe that Jeffersonian Libertarians are very much in line with what Palin professes. The problem is we have a lot of libertarians that are liberal-tarians. They see no problem with thought crimes laws, reverse discrimination, weak borders, the abridgment of the freedom of religion, or the government promoting deviance.
I’m one who likes Sarah Palin and also Ron Paul.
I do not like Romney, Huckabee or Gingrich.
There might be some big government libertarians, who are actually liberals, but Ron Paul isn’t one of them.
She’s a pro-abort and a politician’s wife.
If Ron Paul is considering running himself, why would he comment on Sarah Palin?
I hope he doesn’t run, but that’s another issue.
There really isn't much to like.
Sara Palin is 10 steps above all of them when it comes to conservative political conviction.
I support ending the wars with massive firepower. Applied until the objective of total surrender is met. This namby pamby nation building routine of winning hearts and minds is absurd.
Who cares?
I spent a long time thinking about Ron Paul and his stance on the war on terror and have come to a conclusion. He is correct, this is something we have to completely rethink as a strategy. We are doing nothing but expending capital, and on some of the same ground that destroyed the USSR. I now firmly believe that we need to bring nearly all troops home, and when force is needed to be applied, use a HUGE HAMMER....then bring them home again. It should not take 10 years to reach an objective. If it does, that objective is not to win, but to do exactly what GW said he was against, NATION BUILDING..... That is not our job, take care of our own borders, people and the economy.
Your idea of what a war is, is disgusting....but 100% correct. If you go out with an objective to destroy a people AND their mindset, there is only one way. Tell the generals to make a plan to reach your stated goal, then approve it or come up with another. Either way, let the military go about it their own way. Without regard to borders, or civilians. War is hell, you cannot make It properly, aiming for Purgatory.
I now firmly believe that we need to bring nearly all troops home, and when force is needed to be applied, use a HUGE HAMMER.
I've come to the same conclusion. I am sick to death of our people getting killed for what has become a blurred, and incomprehensible objective. Don't even get me started on the suicidal ROE.
We're doing Vietnam all over again, as far as I can see. Either go in there to WIN, or ship our good people home. I want to see sufficient force applied (which we are fully capable of rendering) to accomplish VICTORY. The meat-grinder has got to stop.
It has to do his heart good knowing that Palin was one of the first name politicians who stuck their necks out to endorse Rand Paul when the Republican establishment was behind someone else.
Also keep in mind that the George Bush that Barbara Bush married was a liberal northeastern republican.
I hope there are a bunch of Mitch Rapps there whose guiding star is "F**k the rules of engagement."
I appreciate what both of you have said about the US avoiding “wars” such as Afghanistan or even Iraq, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the US will actually and fully avoid these kinds of military/nation-building ventures in the future.
Thus, I think we simply need to urge our government that it get better at doing this. Not that we have been so bad at it relative to how it might have gone.
But the idea that we’re gonna become fanatical isolationsists (as Ron Paul would have us become), or that we’ll just nuke ‘em back to the Stone Age when they act up (as I would have it), no, we’re not gonna do either of these things.
We’re gonna keep doing the nation-building thing. That’s the cold hard fact of the matter.
I have some respect for Ron Paul on certain matters, especially his desire to audit the Fed, but he is just as political as everyone else in Washington and no Republican there is committed to anyone or anything as regards 2012 at this point. On this one, Paul is just another political insider.
Ho hum.
We are going to Nation build, but only until we have no money left to do so. That time is not far off, then the only time we will do anything is at the bidding of our creditor....China.
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.