Topic: And just like that... Ron Paul ends campaign for 2012 nomination

[John Florida]

Don't let the door...

 !!!!!

 My response was to Paul pulling out not Janny.

[John Florida]

Still, I would prefer not to lose a member. We have precious few.

 I agree but nothing happened here that can't be worked out.

[IronDioPriest]

I hope I didn't drive her away.
I neither meant to offend or anger.

But, I will stick to my guns if I feel I'm somewhat correct and apologize profusely when I am wrong
Given the fact that we all care deeply for the country and where it's headed, we don't always agree on the specifics.

None of us have the power to drive anyone away with the exception of a ban for ToS violation. People are here or not here of their own volition. If she chooses to leave, it is not because you drove her, it's because she made a choice.

Your intentions were obvious to all others, and damn right you stick to your guns. She's the one who had the issue, not you or Charles or anybody else. I'm sorry to see her go too, but hey... whatevah. Eggshell-walking can happen somewhere else.

[trapeze]

Still, I would prefer not to lose a member. We have precious few.

 I agree but nothing happened here that can't be worked out.

She took her ball and went home, JF, so I don't think there will be anything worked out. I appreciate your optimism, though.

[Libertas]

What the frack was that?  CO gets lit up of all people?

I guess I missed an opportunity to pipe up last night!

Anyway, BOT, I am with you AP...I would add my concerns over certain social policies and and Paul's habit of attracting virulent Jew-haters to the list, he is first and foremost a person who is at least trying to get people to remain inside constitutional boundaries and wants a return to sanity in our fiscal and monetary policies.

Having said that I am not sure what he has to gain by refusing to endorse Romney or continue a delegate battle he is not likely to win.  He could be holding out for a better deal at the convention as to speaking slot and/or cabinet post...but, I think he is too weak to manage his own followers who would likely go apesh*t if he took the traditional route of endorsing and campaigning for the leading candidate.

[AmericanPatriot]

Paul certainly does attract some loons. But to have Liberty, we may need to put up with that as long as those loons indulge me. As long as we don't interfere with each other

He is naive in much of his foreign policy and, as I said, very weak on immigration.
But, I'm sure we could close quite a few bases and stop being the world's policeman as well as much of the endless wars

Domestically, and on the economy, he is far and away the only one who has a chance to salvage this sinking ship.
Returning to States rights and the Constitutional role of the Feds seems like like a good idea to me.

I never understood the fear that he brings to many of us.
Here and elsewhere.

Someone that scared the hell out of me was Santorum.
He was ready to start a new war on 1/21/13. He was big and bigger govenment and wanted to meddle in my life and yours.

I know that I'm not a full blown Libertarian. But have some tendencies.
Reducing the size of government is a great idea on so many levels.
He was the only one who had that message.

As far as what he had to gain?
Perhaps a true Paulistinian could answer better than me.

I can speculate, though.
Influencing the Repub party, getting the message out about Freedom and Constitutionalism and the Federal Reserve.

There are some who question the delegate counts that are out there.
I don't think he believes he can get the nomination. But, possibly, stop Romney on the first ballot

[Libertas]

Yeah, not sure what Paul hopes to gain, it's speculation and all we have to go on is past performance, which has been pretty relaibly independent of the GOP.  It has to rankle even non-Ruling Class Repub's that a guy who is more maverick than J-Mac ever hoped to be is out there doing his thing and yet has nominal membership in the GOP.  But, bottom line I don't think much will change from now to the close of the convention, so this is purely a discussion for future reference.

My only remaining point about Paul is, even if he won the nomination outright what natural constituency exists that makes even the most ardent Paul supporter think any pieces let alone a few key peices of his policies could be implemented?  He would have to be the anti-Obama in policy while being the equal of Obama in issuing executive orders in order to get his agenda going...so we would have traded a hard-left despot for a right-of-center despot.  I don't mean to imply Paul is a despot I am merely looking for a common term to highlight what would have to be done for him to have any success.  Hell, Boehner & Mytch bend over rock-ribbed conservatives all the time...Paul Ryan was absolutely raped last August...these guys are going to play nice with Paul?  Ending the Fed, getting departments shut down, etc?  Not under these clowns.

I think even if Palin would have swept the primaries and trounced Stymie in the general that she would have found to going tough in repealling/ending/eliminating all that is necessary.

All we are talking about is various degrees of slowing the decline vs speeding it up...I am willing to entertain the idea of Paul getting the big chair only so far as it stands to reason that Congress would block his more aggresive moves, which thankfully might include some of his goofier foreign policy, immigration and social views...

But I don't think he has a chance so, there we are.

[Alphabet Soup]

Paul certainly does attract some loons.

Paul is a loon. No serious player gave him a 2nd glance because he was a non-starter. If in the bizarro world that could ever possibly elect someone as goofy as he is ever actually did the deed we would be lamenting the return of Øbozo. What?! you say?

Øbozo is a hyper-partisan and affords zero representation to anyone except his cronies. But even at that the wheels continue to creak along. Paul is a whack-job and has no cronies. No one - left or right - would work with him (and vise-versa). The dysfunctionality he would bring to our government would redefine gridlock to look like a bullet-train.

No thanks - we got problems enough as it is.

[charlesoakwood]

If they had gridlocked Obama we'd be in a lot better shape today.

[Libertas]

Boehner & Mytch made sure something got done...

 

[AmericanPatriot]

Soup, you make it sound like gridlock is a bad thing.

[Libertas]

I'd have taken pure gridlock over the ankle-grabbing the GOP leaders did in a heartbeat!

[BMG]

LINK

   In the past few days alone, several incidents cast the campaign in an unfavorable light: Mitt Romney’s son Josh was booed off the stage by Paul backers in Arizona on Saturday, and Romney surrogates Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Mary Fallin received similarly rude treatment in Oklahoma. They were the latest in a string of recent disruptions from Maine to Alaska that threatened to tarnish Paul’s legacy and marginalize the ideas he believes will one day dominate the Republican Party.

    “It concerns him,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He wants to convey to everybody and our staff want to convey that we’ll lose more than we gain if we go and we’re disrespectful. Respect and decorum are very important to Dr. Paul.”

    “You need to give respect to get respect,” he added. “We are confident that there will be mutual respect at the convention. We want to make sure that we take every step we can to make sure that happens.”

    Paul will retire from the House at the end of this year, and his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, is widely expected to run for president in 2016 as a Republican. Against that backdrop, the Paul high command worries about Pyrrhic victories: hostile takeovers at state conventions that win hordes of delegates but generate a backlash that could hurt the younger Paul in four years and prevent up-and-coming libertarians from obtaining positions of leadership in local parties.

So there ya go - seems like he wants to do damage to Romney and in the long run I guess, help Obama win a 2nd term.

[AmericanPatriot]

Not sure if it's that, BMG.
Rand is pretty young.
The 2016 thing is a comment by the writer, I believe.
BTW, I also think Rand is more pragmatic than the old man.

Possibly, Paul just has some principles and wants to see the GOP have some

[charlesoakwood]

I read it that some of his skinhead followers are out of control
and Paul and his people are trying to get them in line.  I believe
he sincerely wants his son to succeed as much or more than to
himself scoring a point today.  He believes his son is a continuance
of himself therefore his biggest success will be Rand's.

 

[BMG]

Guess I just ain't convinced AP. If you're thinking he won't do anything too deleterious because the poo would stick to Rand as well, I donno. Politicians all over the country fling their crap left and right and it never seems to stick to their progeny. Murkowski, Clinton, etc. I don't see any kind of an overwhelming chance that if Ron Paul did something like I'm thinking that the stink of it would rub off on Rand Paul.

I could be wrong and you could be right of course. About all we can do about it is wait and see. Though I hope that Ron Paul isn't as big an a$$hole as I'm currently suspecting. So I hope I'm wrong and you're right.    

[IronDioPriest]

Possibly, Paul just has some principles and wants to see the GOP have some

I think that sums up the man in a nutshell. I don't know how anyone looks at Ron Paul and sees anything BUT a principled man. Principle above politics defines the man and his entire career. In the vacuum of principle known as Washington DC, it is no wonder that a man who over decades consistently means what he says and says what he means has garnered a hardcore of support.

It so happens that he has a few principles with which I disagree vehemently. But while I'm sure political calculation legacy, and his son's future are somewhere on his priority list I don't think they occupy a place on the list where direct conflict with first principles is much of an issue.

[AmericanPatriot]

I'm with you 100%, IDP.

Although the ideas of ending foreign aid, closing bases and bringing all the boys home, and Iran has a "right" to a bomb are probably correct in an ideal world, we don't live in an ideal world.
Our enemies don't hold those same beliefs.
Avoiding foreign entanglements was a lot easier in George Washington's time.
The world was a lot smaller back then.

My personal position is somewhere between Ron Paul's and the present situation.

All those bases and soldiers overseas remind me of outposts of an empire.
I know about forward deployment
Europe should be paying their own way, for example.

All those wars aren't about defending your interest and mine.
They are to protect some American interests but seldom the average American.

Iran may have the "right" to have the bomb. Same as a 6 year old has an inalienable right to bear arms. But, I wouldn't trust either to do the right thing.

I stand with Israel. They may not need us. I hear they have a bigger guy on their side than us.

My own view has changed a lot over the last few years.
I no longer think my country is always right in their foreign dealings.
Hell, we spend a lot of electrons here discussing what our government is doing to us, it's own citizens.

Why do we accept that they are bad for us here but good for us over there?

[Libertas]

Well articulated AP, I find myself in agreement with much that you have said.