Ron Paul: My Supporters Wouldn’t be Okay with Condoleezza Rice
The
Capitol Column reports:
Texas Congressman Ron Paul believes that it would be a terrible decision for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to select Condoleezza Rice as his running mate...
“I don’t dictate anything to anybody, but they wouldn’t be very happy with her,” said Mr. Paul during an interview with the Fox Business Network. “She represents a foreign policy quite different than what energizes college campuses today.”...
“I was really surprised. I would be pretty amazed if she were to be picked,” said Mr. Paul. “I can understand philosophically why she might because even though she talked along with Bush in the year 2000 about a humble foreign policy and no nation building, it didn’t turn out that way, so she would fit the bill for him, but it wouldn’t help the Ron Paul supporters because they would like a different foreign policy.”
But as we've sadly learned Ron Paul won't have much of a voice in the election. Yes, Ron Paul supporters won't like her but the majority of conservative voters will, and if that helps get comrade Obama out of the white house, so be it.
ReplyDeleteIn the past that would be true, but the Paul voters will be the decider in this election. It is close enough as we speak that it will come down to a few swing states. The Paul voters will make up the voting block of people who will either largely sit out and not vote for anyone, which favors Obama, or votes against Obama, which favors Romney.
DeleteI would agree the GOP is stupid and won't realize this until after the fact, but the growing Paul/liberty movement voters in the US are the swing vote to capture that will continue to decide close elections. Romney cannot win without them, and picking Condi means he would have no chance of winning them over.
Thank God for Ron Paul refusing to be like his idiot son and continuing to speak the truth!
Who cares if fascist Obama gets out of the white house, if he is replaced by fascist Romney?
DeleteThere is no difference worth contemplating.
At this point i'd even be inclined to say that statist Republicans who voted for Romney (or any of the other neocon fascists) rather than Ron Paul deserve to be taught a lesson.
Since, apparently, the only way they will ever learn is for America to deteriorate further until they finally wake up.
So if i were forced to choose i would go for Obama, because Republicans don't deserve to be rewarded for their betrayal of small government and individual liberty. They deserve to be completely marginalized until they get back to regarding liberty and small government as real ideals, rather than platitudes to toss out to appear as if they are any better or different from Democrats.
For most of us libertarians it wouldn't matter who is in the white house, because as far as we're concerned, America is screwed whether the screwing comes from the statist 'right' or the statist 'left'.
Exactly! Remember, in politics, unlike in the market when you choose a brand, you are not at the same time excluding others from choosing their brand, you are excluding anothers choice. Hence, they are a slave to your ideology. What is the point of choosing Romney, at the exclusion of Obama, when they are two sides of the same coin? None. I choose not to vote for anyone who chooses to exercise power over others.
DeleteObama = Romney.
ReplyDeleteWho cares who Romney's VP is.
Is this article suggesting freedom lovers will choose the Banksta MIC puppet Romney based on his choice for VP ?
I am beginning to get RP fatigue.
I wouldn't infer too much from his statement. He seems to be just answering a very narrow question. He has said he won't back Mittsy already. Rice would be more of the same.
DeleteAs usual, Dr. Paul understates his view to the point that it's really easy to misunderstand. He does, as one commenter has said, make it sound as though his supporters would vote for Romney if only he didn't choose Rice as a running mate.
ReplyDeleteI've been listening to Ron Paul ever since he was one of the LP's contenders for presidential candidate. He would drastically understate his position to the point that I was more impressed with the clearly socialist Russel Means in that campaign.
Means would, at least, state his position clearly and unequivocally. He came across as the more principled candidate in the LP field, even though his principles weren't those of most of the libertarians listening to the statements of the candidate hopefuls.
She was a PNAC signer and a Bushbot who got promoted after leaving our defense shield down pre 9-11 and I hate her for doing those things, which cost thousands of innocent people to die.
ReplyDelete