Posted on 10/12/2012 6:25:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
At a town hall event in Ohio last month, Rep. Paul Ryan was asked why supporters of Ron Paul — the iconoclastic congressman from Texas — should back this year’s Republican ticket.
Appearing offended by the implication, Ryan scolded: “Do you want Barack Obama to be reelected?” Paul is a actually “friend,” he claimed, and the two are in agreement on key issues.
Baloney. Paul is one of only three GOP House members to not endorse Mitt Romney — and there are several reasons for this.
Leave aside that Paul is a man of deep principle, while Romney appears to have never held a sincere belief in his life. More important are their governing visions, which stand in profound conflict.
Paul was moved to run in the 2008 Republican primary largely out of his disgust with President George W. Bush’s foreign policy. You may recall the preemptive invasion of Iraq?
America’s misadventures abroad, Paul posited, have engendered “blowback” (i.e., anti-American resentment) around the world. This, in turn, has put our security at risk.
His rivals for the nomination were predictably outraged by the suggestion. A bitter Rudy Giuliani recently told me that Paul was intent on “blaming America” for the 9/11 attacks.
Those inclined toward Giuliani’s hardline way of thinking constitute the lion’s share of Romney advisers. Liz Cheney takes part in weekly conference calls with the campaign; former Bush officials and consummate warhawks like John Bolton and Dan Senor are major players.
By voting for Romney, then, Paul supporters would be voting for a return to the same neoconservative philosophy that mired us in the Iraq disaster, costing countless lives and dollars.
President Obama may have authorized a drone war and escalated ground troops in Afghanistan, but at least he has avoided launching another full-scale invasion.
This is not a petty distinction. Romney routinely gives assurances that he’d be far more likely to appease Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has designs to attack Iran — perhaps in the coming months. Paul’s passions seem to be most enlivened by his unflinching opposition to aggressive war; for him, this dark prospect would be a nonstarter.
But the unbridgeable divide between Paul and the GOP is not limited to foreign policy.
Many supporters were first attracted to the congressman for his blunt words on the scourge of drug prohibition. Romney has failed to evince an iota of rationality on this front. In May, he was asked for his view on the legality of medical marijuana. “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?” he rebuffed.
Yes, it is true that under Obama, the Drug Enforcement Administration has continued to raid marijuana distribution facilities, while Marines have been deployed overseas on ill-advised drug interdiction missions.
But it’s equally true that Obama has demonstrated some measure of amenability to reform, at least rhetorically. The famously puritanical Romney would likely bring us back to the era of “Just Say No.”
If Paul supporters still believe their aims can be best advanced vis-à-vis the GOP, they are deluding themselves.
Rather than continue this abusive relationship, they must reevaluate — bearing in mind Paul’s track record of fruitful cooperation with the left, most notably Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Ron Paul faithful should thus take a cue from the man himself and reject Paul Ryan’s phony entreaties.
In states like New York, where the outcome is essentially predetermined, they should instead vote for a third-party candidate: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party or Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.
In states that hang in the balance, such as Ohio, Florida or Virginia, they should pinch their noses and vote for President Obama — even if only to punish Romney, Ryan and the GOP.
Tracey is a journalist based in Brooklyn. He contributes to The Nation, The American Conservative, Salon and other publications.
BARF!
anyone who does so hurts Ron Paul
“In states that hang in the balance, such as Ohio, Florida or Virginia, they should pinch their noses and vote for President Obama — even if only to punish Romney, Ryan and the GOP.”
This assclown does not care how the country gets punished.
Why can't they be both?
Who care if the three people who support Paul vote for obama.
Give the insane bastard a sack of dope and a gold coin and let him wander off to happy land.
I’ve seen Paultards here say this
Punish the GOP? Nonsense.
These folks don’t understand this is not about them and their endless grudges. This is about the survival of the nation. They are infantile and self-centered.
Actually, this assclown just reinforces my belief that the most important things in the world to hardcore losertarians is cheap and easily available drugs and the absolute right to stick their c*cks in any orifice they please with the consequences borne by somebody else in either case.
Two things they share in common with BO.
Voting to punish people, or particular politicians, or a movement, is STUPID.
The Harlem paper of record has spoken.
Democrats trying to get republicans to vote for Ron Paul. My aren’t we getting DESPERATE!
“Leave aside that Paul is a man of deep principle,”
Bull ! The guy that ran for congress in the 70s on term limits and is still there in 2012. Principles indeed.
If they can't bring themselves to vote for Romney, then they should "throw their vote away" on Johnson.
This "authors" entire screed is an attempt at fishing for hanging chads...
Agreed.
If they can't bring themselves to vote for Romney, then they should "throw their vote away" on Johnson.
You know, I'm one of those people who cannot vote for Romney, and I'd much rather vote for Johnson (he did a very good job as Governor in New Mexico; actually good enough to get reelected in a then very solidly Democratic State). As it is though, I'm likely to vote for Tom Hoefling [FR's EternalVigilance] or Virgil Goode [I don't think my State will have Libertarian party, but likely will have Constitution].
Anyway, back to point:
Romney is a great candidate for the Republican party, precisely because he talks one way and acts [governs] another... this is just like the Republican party which for any of its major planks does nothing to pursue them [as a party]. (Look at how they treat abortion, or repeal of NFA/GCA, or government accountability [F&F]: absolutely nothing, except [perhaps] kabuki theater.)
“Tracey is a journalist”
Really?
In a pigs eye.
As for EV... "If you can't say anything nice about someone..." No thanks.
“For too long in this society we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over the common community.” ~Joe Biden
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” ~Hillary Clinton
Paulbots I assume wish to keep property rights, and a stake in how the fruits of their labors are distributed. One final quote that I hope Paul supporters mull over.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” ~Ayn Rand
Ron Paul may have attracted some young people who have vague understandings of politics, but those who believe in libertarian ideas certainly can't support a statist like President Obama.
*nod* - It's kinda interesting to note how the Democratic and Republican parties have made it so that their national conventions are given monies from the taxpayer...
As for EV... "If you can't say anything nice about someone..." No thanks.
*shrug* - My point was more that I think any of the three (Johnson, Goode, or Hoefling) would be a better President than either Romney or Obama. (Of course that's kind of a really low bar, so I suppose it could be taken as a backhanded complement, even if it's not meant as such.)
Romney is a great candidate for the Republican party, precisely because he talks one way and acts [governs] another.
You have no idea how the man will govern until he is or is not President. Frankly Scarlett, he could govern however he will and conservatives would like and appreciate it far more than what is presently an empty suit in an empty chair.
Of that I am supremely confident. You of course have every right to throw your vote in any direction you choose and depending on the outcome, we of the opposite view have every right to hold you responsible if the empty suit is granted four more years.
All that said, I couldn’t agree more with your other issues. Let’s just talk NFA for one. Eighty plus years that anti Constitutional travesty has been in place, and it isn’t even on the congressional radar screen. If the government had left well enough alone, who knows the mobsters may have all done themselves in and the good guys would own all the Thompsons.
I can dream.
Romney is not my favorite candidate. But he is enormously better than Obama. Just one of the reasons to vote for Romney - Eric Holder.
Agreed.
*beer*
“Romney is not my favorite candidate”.
Nor mine, but now it is past decision time.
Some seem to think, (poor choice of word) an empty chair is a better choice.
This is ridiculous. Even if you wanted to vote against Romney, you’d at least vote for Johnson...not Obama. Obama is as far away from Paul as you can get. He actually is the worst of Bush, the worst of the left...the worst of everything.
There's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to begin:
First, I didn't say anything about supporting Ron Paul.
Second, the "ends justify the means" is far more of the spirit of the War on Drugs [WOD] than those who deny that policy's legitimacy.
(
OBAMA ROMNEY
Elected Elected
| |
| |
| |
RADICAL FABIAN
SOCIALIST SOCIALIST
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
|
|
IMPLEMENTS
SOCIALISM
This is sickening. I believe Ron Paul is senile if he wants me to vote obama.
I'be heard that some where before... Oh, right: "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
So now you're ascribing to Pelosi's mindset to promote Romney?
*Unsuccessfully tries to refrain from laughing*
That's not Ron Paul, it's some reporter's opinion. [As far as I can tell.]
Probably one of those jackass libertarian left-wingers. lol
A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Zero.
Your flawed “principles argument” aside, MATH AND NUMBERS NEVER LIE.
Go ahead, waste a vote on some goofball third party kook, but just remember two words...ROSS PEROT.
“I’ve heard that some where before... Oh, right: “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
I thought your WOD logic was pretty well done. The above statement is in direct conflict with reality.
Romney/Ryan have announced their plan, it includes specifics.
Unlike the affordable care act, which even after reading, left everyone wondering what was in it.
Thank you; I have a fairly low tolerance for BS, and the more I look into the WOD and the specific "arguments" supporting it [particularly the legal arguments] the more I realize what as sack of BS it is... add that to the rampant injustice it actively promotes and I don't think it incorrect to term it evil.
The "we have to pass it" remark was actually in direct response to "You have no idea how the man will govern until he is or is not President." [See post #23]
That sort of non-logic deserves to be called out, just like it was here (to some extent) on Pelosi's statement.
How is my principals argument flawed? Please show me.
Go ahead, waste a vote on some goofball third party kook, but just remember two words...ROSS PEROT.
So, everyone in a third party is a kook? That's ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as saying that anyone who opposes the War on Drugs is a druggie.
If the republican party wanted my vote then they should have done something in the past fifteen years to further their major platform planks; as it is they have not:
And don't give me any shit about "party loyalty" -- NY-23 proved that the party is not loyal to us.
The person who wrote this article is the one full of baloney!!
Ron Paul may not agree with Romney on a lot of things .. but I have never believed Ron Paul would do anything to ruin Romney .. especially since it would mean another 4 years of Obama - which would destroy the country even further.
I’m not a Ron Paul follower, but for him to refuse to support Romney is just plain not important enough to worry about. A lot of people don’t support Romney .. SO ..??
Romney or Obama will be the next President.
Romney is a pragmatic business man. We will have to work daily to keep his feet to the fire but he will listen to us. Obama will work tirelessly against us.
If Obama is reelected by 2016 we will be so far over the fiscal cliff there will be no climbing back. Romney sees the chart below as a problem. 0bama thinks the problem is we have not spent enough!
FY 1992-1993 Bush 1 and Dem Congress. FY 1994-95 Clinton and a Dem Congress. FY 1996-2001 Clinton and a GOP Congress. FY 2002-2003 Bush 2 and GOP House/Dem Senate. FY 2004-2007 Bush and a GOP Congress. FY 2008-2011 Obama and Dem Congress. FY 2012+ Obama/GOP House/Dem Senate.
Obama added planks favoring Gay Marriage and taxpayer funded abortion on demand up to birth to the 2012 Democrat Party platform.
By contrast the 2012 GOP platform is the most Conservative one in their history.
No matter how much one might hate Romney, no one with a brain would refuse to see the stark difference between Romney and Obama on both fiscal and social issues.
With Romney Fiscal and Social Conservatives have a seat at the table, while Obama will actively promote everything real Conservatives are against.
By 2016 everything Conservatives claim to be so passionate about will be legislated. As Roe V Wade should of taught Conservatives once something is legislated it become almost impossible to undo.
Once 2016 rolls around the Judiciary will be so packed with Obamabots anything Conservatives DID manage to legislate would simply be undone by Judicial Fiat.
If Obama is reelected there will be nothing left to win.
After another 4 year term of Obama the USA will be a European style 1 party state with a state directed media, that will allow just enough political window dressing from a “loyal opposition” to keep their peon classes passive.
And those around here who feel their political sour grapes from the 2012 GOP Primaries are more important then the future of our country will have been the active allies of that destruction
Romney or Obama will be President.
Romney has promised to repeal 0bama’s executive order authorizing taxpayer fund to be used to pay for abortions overseas.
By that act alone the number of abortions will go down under a Romney Presidency.
The NRA has endorsed Romney as “the only hope of firearms freedom”.
So the only vote a real pro lifer/pro guns right voter can make is for Romney.
Anything else is merely clinging to sour grapes because your candidate of choice did not win the 2012 GOP nomination
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls “partial-birth abortion”, often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
Here is the weak point in your whole argument: it is the Congress that decides the budget.
That is to say, the President Constitutionally has very little [read nothing] to do with our debt.
And of course, the FR50 is still voting for half a dozen other candidates as silly as Ron Paul..............
Irrelevant; just because we're presented with a vote Stalin or Mao situation does not mean that I have to acquiesce to saying that one of them is good.
Romney has promised to repeal 0bama’s executive order authorizing taxpayer fund to be used to pay for abortions overseas.
By that act alone the number of abortions will go down under a Romney Presidency.
Using his own executive orders... ignoring the questions of if that's a proper use of an Executive Order, or if they are themselves legitimate.
But ignoring the questionable legitimacy of executive orders, that will do nothing to stop the infanticide here; IOW, it's a "feel good" measure that has nothing to do with the issue here.
The NRA has endorsed Romney as “the only hope of firearms freedom”.
The NRA, quite frankly, is either a bunch of cowards or in collusion with those who would enslave us. They will not take on unambiguous State-level cases that relate to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; to wit NM's Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that "abridge the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense" yet NMSA 30-7-2.4 is a state statute which prohibits firearms on university campuses. [Note, it's a State Statute, private property does not come into play in its contraconstitutionality.]
So the only vote a real pro lifer/pro guns right voter can make is for Romney.
The man who signed his own Assault Weapons Ban into law?
Anything else is merely clinging to sour grapes because your candidate of choice did not win the 2012 GOP nomination
Look buddy, I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008; after that I resolved not to be taken in again by "the other guy's worse", and in fact I think it not inconceivable that Romney would be worse than Obama. {Consider how many pople will think "we changed things!" and be lulled into complacency, think how much bad legislation the Congress could pass with him as President; the Patriot Act springs immediately to mind, yet thanks to Obama's abuses there've been more and more people waking up to government abuse/corruption like that internet-censorship act or the NDAA and they have begun to stir against them. Would they do so if Romney was president? Would YOU do so if Romney was president, or would you give him "the benefit of the doubt" because "he's one of us"?}
This is the great thing about you Ron Paul supporters.
Once we pin you down with the facts, you always resort back to your emotion based drivel. The Paul crowd, and the Left, share that character flaw. You assume emotion based drivel screamed at volume make up for a complete lack of reason and fact.
The veneer of reason the Paul crowd affects is about a millimeter thick.
Funny; I don't think I've mentioned anything about supporting Ron Paul on this thread.
Once we pin you down with the facts, you always resort back to your emotion based drivel.
Um, I'm sorry; but I believe that most of the facts are supportive of my arguments. -- Romney is a horrible choice for president he CANNOT save us from fiscal collapse because the president CANNOT LEGALLY do so (budget is Congress's job), Romney has a proven track record of appointing people like Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany (there was a better link to another, better [and extensive] article detailing many of Romney's appointments, and why they were bad and objectively liberal and/or activist), Romney supports legal abortion "when the mother's health is a concern" which really translates [from politi-speak] to anytime and anywhere, Romney signed into law a gun ban, Romney signed into law socialized medicine, the man is not going to be good for the country.
The Paul crowd, and the Left, share that character flaw. You assume emotion based drivel screamed at volume make up for a complete lack of reason and fact.
Go take a look at my Post 29, specifically my reasons for being against the War on Drugs... can you honestly say that those reasons are "emotion based drivel screamed at volume"? (Or do you need me to lay them out step by step?)
The veneer of reason the Paul crowd affects is about a millimeter thick.
Where exactly are you getting the reasons for lumping me in "the Paul crowd" if I haven't really said anything in support of him on this thread.
Could it be that you are emotionally reacting to my rejection of Romney, someone I consider to be just as dangerous as Obama?
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.