Skip to comments.Sarah Palin: Ron Paul is the "Only One" Willing to Rein in Spending
Posted on 01/28/2012 6:42:03 PM PST by traviskicks
Appearing on Fox News this morning, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin surprised her acolytes by singing the praises of the most libertarian-leaning GOP presidential candidate
I still sense his desire to be more of an isolated-type country and not be as aware and active on the international scene when it comes to protecting our allies like Israel and doing all that we can.
That is my hesitancy there still with Ron Paul's candidacy. However, on the domestic front, he is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets - $1 trillion a year, he's been specific about until we get our hands around this - I respect that.
I appreciate it. His austerity measures that he wants to see Congress adopt in order to rein in government and let the private sector actually grow and thrive and hire more people.
Fresh off his strongest debate performance to date, Sarah Palins kind words could not have come at a better time. The Texas Congressman, who has abandoned all hopes of winning Tuesdays presidential primary in Florida, is seeking delegates elsewhere by campaigning in Maine for the next two days. Paul, of course, is a long shot to win the Republican nomination, but a surprising victory in the Pine Tree State on February 4th could revive his faltering candidacy.
On the other hand, there is at least some reason to believe that Sarah Palins remarks may strike a chord with conservatives. After all, the former governors assertion that Ron Paul is the only Republican contender serious about cutting the size and scope of government is in some respects true. Indeed, his proposals to cut $1 trillion from the national debt and eliminate five federal departments are bold ideas that Tea Partiers and fiscal conservatives everywhere can embrace. While his isolationism is a deal breaker for some, reining in government spending has been a staple of his campaign since announcing his candidacy last summer.
In any event, if Ron Paul hopes to ride his newfound momentum to victory in 2012, he faces an uphill battle. Nevertheless, I suppose a little love from Sarah Palin cant hurt.
Not sure I understand your reply.
What I meant by MY remarks was that while spending in DC needs to be cut DRASTICALLY, because WE’RE BROKE; for anyone to believe that Ron Paul would do it is pure fantasy.
So do I.
Neither one of us is running for POTUS. We don’t even have a national audience.
In the netherworld of DC, what Paul is proposing is truly radical, I assure you. Closing even *one* department would be a highly radical agenda.
The one department with the smallest constituency might be the Dep’t of Ag. Let’s say that we transferred all the food stamp/EBT crap over to HHS, the national forests over to Dep’t of Interior, and then shut down the Dep’t of Ag. Phase out all ag subsidies in, oh, five years, declining payments by 20% each year.
You’d still hear a hue and cry like nothing we’ve ever heard. Go back and look at what the state employees did in Wisconsin last year... and multiply it by, oh, 100. That’s what it will be like the first time we credibly talk about shutting down a whole federal department.
So talking about eliminating three or five... that’s beyond radical. To DC insiders, it’s “holy crap, get the butterfly nets, that guy is a *loon*!” crazy.
The debt problem will never be solved. Start really cutting programs and we’ll see crime shoot up so bad we’ll all be living in war zones. What will happen is a total crash THEN the war will start.
I believe both RP and Sarah Palin will actually shrink government. I believe everyone else will actually GROW government while they TALK about shrinking it.
The main fantasy of this thread is FReepers projecting Palin’s explicit support of Ron Paul on to their own favorite candidate.
Be that as it may, I read Mark's column that you linked to and it was, as always, entertaining and informative. If you go back and read the column again, I believe you will find that Steyn is not endorsing Dr Paul's isolationist foreign policy; he is satirizing it. He is also critical of the GOP candidates at large for their lack of any meaningful proposed strategy for projecting military force worldwide in the coming era of reduced budgets and military spending. If you have the time and inclination to read the last two paragraphs again, I believe you will see what I am referring to.
Again, I really appreciate that you took the time to refer me to Steyn’s column. Thanks again!
Close enough for me!
The only politician that the powers-that-be hate more than Sarah Palin is Ron Paul. Both Palin & Paul receive bi-partisan hatred.
Its his non-interventionist foreign policy that allows Ron Paul to cut a trillion dollars from the budget so quickly. Half those cuts are going to be in defense spending.
If the race for the nomination were to come down to Paul vs Romney (God forbid), I would vote for Paul. I would buy me a football helmet a size too small, pick up some Thorazine, chocolate flavored, dress in a dark blue Spandex uniform with a yellow cape, put on a hockey mask and head out to the streets to support him.
It is smart to pick up Paul’s ideas that are good and leave the rest by the wayside. Perry has excellent ideas, too.
We need to eliminate Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Education, Energy, Transportation, HHS, HUD, and Homeland Security.
Gingrich has been nibbling at the edges of replacing the EPA with a smaller department. He's wrong. KILL IT and don't create another department to replace it. Otherwise it will just grow into what we have now.
Eliminate the EPA and IRS first.
But before that deport illegals and stop importing from China or make the currencies from China and the U.S. equal or their true value.
We need more Rumsfeld snake eaters and less make-work.
Artillery shells at $80,000 a pop because Ohio needs government make-work? In this era of supersonic aircraft (missiles) and gigantic ME air bases it seems that the only reason to fight the last world war by steaming nearly a dozen carrier groups designed for WWII’s Pacific Theater in virtual littoral zones is to provide a career path for Admirals. Each carrier nowadays cost more than the entire 1945 fleet yet pension collectors launch a new carrier with a third of its heads non-functional? WTF?
I watched a video about how the Chinese companies were bidding on the bridges and construction jobs from the stimulas etc. and the Chinese workers won over Americans to build these....I was livid!
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.