Posted on 12/29/2011 1:04:37 PM PST by TBBT
Rep. Ron Paul’s surge in Iowa has triggered a theoretical question for his rivals this week: given his foreign policy views, would they be willing to support him over President Obama if he were the nominee? Newt Gingrich said “no,” Mitt Romney said “yes.” But it is also a kind of an intriguing gut check question for conservatives on how they balance foreign and domestic policy. Having thought about it over the last few days and debated it on Twitter for a bit last night, I’ve determined that I’d very begrudgingly back Obama in such a matchup.
Now, if we were just to look at what the candidates stand for on paper, I’d be much more inclined to support Paul over Obama. I’m not only much closer to Paul on domestic issues than to Obama, I’m probably closer to him than any other GOP candidate. And this goes beyond fiscal policy. Having somewhat of a libertarian streak, Paul’s opposition to the drug war is actually a point in his favor as far as I’m concerned. But if we move out of the realm of a person’s stances and into the reality of what a candidate can realistically accomplish as president, the calculus starts to change. The reason is that presidents have a lot more latitude on foreign policy than on domestic policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
At least Gingrich stood up and said he wouldn't vote for the nut case either. Better performance on this than Romney or Santorum.
Paul currently only serves as a Romney stalking horse...
All because Paul is against the UN, WTO, NAFTA, Global Warming, IMF, etc....is really not a good a reason to vote for Obama.
Some people think that Ron Paul gives them the right to go liberal
All because Paul is against the UN, WTO, NAFTA, Global Warming, IMF, etc....is really not a good a reason to vote for Obama.
Some people think that Ron Paul gives them the right to go liberal
Philip Klein. Have to remember that name. And that there are circumstances under which he could actively support Obama.
Philip Klein, Philip Klein.
Got it.
Ron Paul is very good at energizing the youthful base and busing in volunteers for straw polls and the like. But he has never done more than a few percent in actual elections outside his district (where he buys the voters with massive pork). So his numbers are always suspicious.
If it ever did come to Obama vs Paul, then I guess I’d write in Sarah Palin or whoever had the best chance as election day came around. (But NOT Donald Trump.)
I wasted my vote when I was 18 when I did a “protest” vote and voted communist party.
Never again.
Even Ron Paul is better than Obama.. Obama is that bad..
To NOT vote for him in that case is politically suicidal..
Only an adolescent mind(mentality) could do what you propose..
Congress would limit most things Paul would do anyway..
Maybe not adolescent but the mind of a little girl..
You know...... a PollyAnna..
Guess this means setting this election out really isn’t a vote for Obama after all. LOL
The hypocrisy on the right is astounding.
what the hell were you protesting?
Thank goodness we won’t be faced with such a horrible choice.
“All because Paul is against the UN, WTO, NAFTA, Global Warming, IMF, etc....is really not a good a reason to vote for Obama. Some people think that Ron Paul gives them the right to go liberal”
Some people? Conservatives, Independents and Reagan Democrats you mean...the people we need to elect an R POTUS. Paul is a Libertarian and are considered third party by reasonable people. Paul’s anti-semitism, racist overtones, isolationism and general goofiness are the reasons people are afraid of him. I won’t vote for him because of Drug Legalization in addition to the others. I see you conveniently left all those matters out.
Hypothetical circumstances. But worse: Very actual circumstances under which he feels it necessary to broadcast that fact to the world.
Regards,
Nope Nope Nope could never do it.
Could never bring myself to vote for Obama.
Obama will ruin this country domestically and economically before Paul could ruin it militarily. I’m not a Paul supporter, but I would vote for him over a man who equates Christianity to service and Islam to faith.
Could never vote for a man who despises this country and won’t stop till he sees it in ruin.
I don’t think Congress would go along with Paul’s anti-militarism anymore than Congress would go along with Perry’s ‘Cut their pay and send them home’ boilerplate.
Given the chance, I’d back over Obama and Ron Paul.
No matter how he does, Paul will be done after Iowa.
It is rather infantile, isn't it? I seriously doubt that Ron Paul would ever say something like, "If Gingrich is the nominee, I'll vote for Obama."
RP is nuts but zero is pure evil so it’s not even close. An eccentric nut job is way better than evil. obama is the type of guy, if given a chance, that could start imprisoning his enemies (conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals, vets) or worse. Remember FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans and Wilson took political prisoners, so it CAN happen here. zero could use the pretext of a war or economic crisis to accomplish these ends.
There is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, that I would vote for Ron Paul.
But I am not worried about it because Paul will NEVER get the nomination.
There is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, that I would vote for Ron Paul.
But I am not worried about it because Paul will NEVER get the nomination.
“An eccentric nut job is way better than evil.”
That’s why the country would be better off with Biden; he’s a nut, but Obama’s evil.
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.