Posted on 11/24/2007 1:24:22 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Last month, during a Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”
Apparently, in the ensuing weeks, “not right now” has become “no.”
Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.
“They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?”
Apparently, he can’t. But it means that of the top seven candidates in the Republican field, Paul is the only one who isn’t prepared to support the party’s eventual nominee. It’s not the kind of thing that will go over well within the party, but then again, Paul’s interest in the Republican Party appears nominal — it’s a venue for him to advance his ideas and agenda, not necessarily an opportunity for him to lead the party.
It’s interesting to note the contrast between Paul’s comments and John Edwards’. A couple of weeks ago, Edwards hedged when asked if he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. When he initially hesitated, it caused a minor stir in Democratic circles — how can Edwards expect to be the party’s nominee if he’s not willing to commit to honoring the party’s nominating process?
No one seems to be saying that about Paul, in large part because no one seems to consider Paul part of the Republican mainstream.
For that matter, it also once again raises the specter of an independent Paul bid.
During an MSNBC interview earlier this month, Norah O’Donnell followed up on this point:
O’DONNELL: Congressman, as you know, most of the other Republicans running for president that you have stood onstage with during the debates, they support a continuation of the war in Iraq. You want to end the war in Iraq. If one of them is awarded the Republican nomination, will you choose a third party? Will you not back that nominee?
PAUL: No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neo-con position of promoting our–
At that point in the interview, O’Donnell interrupted, and the interview didn’t return to the subject. But the “I don’t plan to run” language, coupled by this week’s remarks about not supporting the eventual GOP nominee, should continue to raise eyebrows when it comes to Paul’s intentions.
“NO! I didn’t get the nomination so I’m taking my toys and going home!”
ROFLMAO!!!
He’s sounding more and more shrill.
Edwards.
Paul is just a shill of the left wing
Should I take this comment by Paul to be an acknowledgment that whoever the nominee is going to be, it is not going to be him?
Twisted wreck....
Why was he ever driven to be a Republican?
We must surrender before we win!
Whatever credibility he once had is gone.
Please tell me oh non-shrill one, would you support Ron Paul it was the GOP nominee?
“Whatever credibility he once had is gone.”
He can’t lose what he never had.
Not a big deal. 95%+ of his “supporters” are leftists who see eye to eye with his surrender stance on the WOT and his 9/11 conspiracy lunacy. ...and they’ll be voting for the Dem nominee anyway. His libertarian, small gov’t supporters are a negligible few. ...and they rarely vote Republican.
More to the point—why were Republicans ever driven to vote for this fringe ideologue? vaudine
It just appears that way because he is just as nutty as they are.
“would you support Ron Paul it was the GOP nominee?”
HELL NO!
He is an egotistical moron.
We would be speaking German today if this nut had been in charge in the 1940’s.
Some things are worth fighting for Ron. Sitting around listening to Willie Nelson, smoking dope, and hoping to be left alone; isn’t what made this nation great.
Ron Paul is a disease that must be vaccinated against.
I can only surmise that it's because they aren't Republicans in the first place.
After all, in the blue state of Minnesota, Ron Paul wiped out ALL the other candidates in a "straw poll" and Minnesota certainly isn't considered a conservative state.
I'm feeling we're going to be seeing the mother of all elections next year.
It is difficult to support anyone who seeks to be the nominee of a party, and won’t pledge to support the nominee of the party. Let’s face it, you don’t exactly have to throw your back out supporting the nominee, all you really have to do is not oppose the person. To not support the nominee of the party is to say that the majority of the party aren’t good enough for you. Is this some kind of surprise? Or, it’s to say that the nomination is rigged, and you weren’t defeated fair and sqaure. Having gotten this off my chest, I’ll point out that both Same Brownback and Mike Huckabee were a bit hesitant in committing themselves to support the nominee of the party in earlier debates’ and, that Ron Paul has not yet said anything definite about this one way or the other.
And many of you can save the 'then you'll get Hillary for a president' remarks. I will not cast my precious vote for someone who does not represent quite a few of my values. I'm not looking for 100% agreement, heaven knows that is not going to happen. But I've grown very weary of voting for the party as the party drifts further and further from its conservative roots. It is time to take a stand.
Believing as he dos, Paul is right not to support the Republican party. Believing as we do, we’re right to think Ron Paul is a sad little guy who has melted down.
Paul doesn’t believe as the party does, but he thinks it’s an honorable idea to sabotage every poll asking views of Republicans. I guess he’s has so little character that he doesn’t mind stealing what he can’t earn.
Yes it is. And if the party won’t stand with us, it can stay seated. I won’t back it again.
Okay, if the shoe was on the other foot would you support an antiwar Republican presidential nominee?
Well, now we know who the klintoon is setting-up as the 'Ross-Perot' for 2008.
The beaste can't win in a two-way contest, and needs a single spoiler to siphon votes away from the Republicans.
Paul certainly stays on message, aligned with the anti-war, anti-America, moonbat crowd .............................. FRegards
I have already said I won’t be voting for Giuliana, Romney or Huckabee. They are one end of the party and Ron is the other end of two parties on at least one subject. That’s the donkey’s end.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
A protest vote will get you three more liberal US Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Justice Ginsburg that will suppress conservatism for the next 25 plus years. That protest vote will certainly cost you.
I respect that but then on that matter your position is no different than Paul’s. He is just being honest, like you are.
When is Ron Paul going to tag-team around the country with Cindy Sheahan?
Rudy & the other Republican candidates laugh and mock him during the debates.
Please explain to me what favor Paul owes to the GOP.
I hope he runs on an independent or other 3rd party ticket. He will definitely drag votes away from the Dims, win-win for the GOP.
Wrong. Most of Dr. Paul's supporters are conservatives & independents fed up with the GOP's big spending & big government social conservatism.
If true, this could throw the election to the dems. Remember Ross Perot? The election will be close and losing the libertarian wing of the republican vote would not be a good thing
It shows him to be a literal RINO. He ran against Bush in 1988, he didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 and won’t support the nominee in 2008.
Why is he even in the GOP?
I hope the voters in the 14th here in Texas send this guy packing next election assuming he does try to run for re-election.
Would you kindly tell me how voting for a 'liberal' republican is going to ADVANCE conservatism? And I guess you approve of the way that majority of blacks blindly vote for democrats in each and every election ... because that is exactly what you are asking me to do for the sake of the republican party. I won't contribute to the further decline of the party ... period.
Honest isn’t exactly what I classify Ron as these days. His minions flock to every poll and render them pointless. He utilizes the Republican platform to hawk the top aspirations of the left. The guy should run from a third party, or even the democrat party, but trying to pass himself off as a Republican is rich.
Hopefully, it will not be necessary to take the stand. Nominate a conservative.
Oh grow up! In the grownup, real world, adults understand that it is just as important to cast their "precious" vote to defeat someone as it is to cast their vote to elect someone. In the adult, real world, voting for, voting against, or not voting at all, ALL HAVE VERY SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS. Only toddlers think it's all their way or no way.
I am not asking you to do anything. Read my post again. Your protest vote will be a vote for Hillary. Hillary has already stated she will appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Ginsburg. There will most likely be three openings in the next five years.
I’m with you. Totally fed up with the leftward drift too.
Paul's not running as a 3rd party candidate, but it doesn't matter anyway. Nearly all of Paul's supporters are the fiscal conservatives, new voters, and independents fed up with the GOP. I guarantee you the GOP won't let Paul speak at the convention. They and their lock-steppers denigrate Paul but expect him to kiss their rings. ROFL. You guys keep denigrating Paul and his supporters will just stay home or write in his name, meaning that Hillary will win.
If leftists were really supporting Paul, there wouldn't be all these hit-pieces and FReepers wringing their hands wondering if Paul will run as a 3rd party candidate. FReepers also wouldn't pay any attention to Paul and would just let him crash and burn on his own.
Wish that were true, but it isn't. RP's campaign took off right after he expressed his cut-and-run WOT and loony 9/11 conspiracy sentiments in the fist couple debates. ...and that support was almost all on the left (with a few isolationists tossed in). His small-gov't positions have unfortunately received little or no air time or attention during the campaign. Obviously he has a loyal libertarian base, but as I said they're a negligible few.
I agree that Paul probably (though not certainly) won’t run as third party. If he isn’t the nominee, however, I suspect that a big write in campaign will be spontaneously organized by his supporters.
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.