Why don't conservatives support R. Paul?

[LMT42]

Most on this site are conservative so I thought I'd ask. I consider myself an independent and would gladly vote for R.P.. He's one of the least corrupt and entrenched candidates. If the tea party and GOP base would get behind Paul, he'd virtually be guaranteed a win, as he'd easily carry the all-important independent vote.

There's a lot of talk about the constitution among tea partiers and the GOP base, so I'm constantly perplexed that there isn't more support for Paul! Especially when the alternative is four more years of Obama. Paul is the most constitutional and small government minded candidate. Romney might be able to beat Obama. I don't know how Newt will do against him, but the rest of the candidates don't stand a chance, IMO.

Anyway, I'm just curious why there isn't more support for Paul among the GOP base.

[jeepster09]

I am giving him serious consideration now. Having a struggle on some foreign policy issues though....

[TriggerMan]

Most on this site are conservative so I thought I'd ask. I consider myself an independent and would gladly vote for R.P.. He's one of the least corrupt and entrenched candidates. If the tea party and GOP base would get behind Paul, he'd virtually be guaranteed a win, as he'd easily carry the all-important independent vote.

There's a lot of talk about the constitution among tea partiers and the GOP base, so I'm constantly perplexed that there isn't more support for Paul! Especially when the alternative is four more years of Obama. Paul is the most constitutional and small government minded candidate. Romney might be able to beat Obama. I don't know how Newt will do against him, but the rest of the candidates don't stand a chance, IMO.

Anyway, I'm just curious why there isn't more support for Paul among the GOP base.I like his honesty and integrity. Probably the only guy who hasn't flip-flopped on a dozen issues. He says what he believes without seeing if its popular. He does seem too passive in the company of the other candidates. It's like he's not at the debate.

[JFootin]

I agree. Ron Paul has some good ideas. But I also agree that his foreign policy statements are downright alarming. Nice guy. Honest guy. And not corrupt. But there is NO WAY that he can win the nomination and beat Obama in 2012. So, that is your answer as to why the conservatives and the Republican base are not all jumping on his ship. If you're as much of a Ron Paul groupie as many are, I know it is very difficult to accept this. But facts are facts, and Ron Paul is not the right choice in the real world. Now, could he serve the nation in a valuable way as a member of the new president's cabinet? Yes, and I'll bet he will be asked and will provide a valuable contribution.

[OldLincoln]

I like some things he says, but I IMHO he is unelectable against the Chicago politics of the Obama thugs. I've never been a fan of Romney, liked Michele Bachman until she had issues, liked Cain until I learned more about his lack of understanding on foreign affairs. I used to not like Gingrich but he has changed through the years.

We've had an amateur in the White House now and I'll take a conservative statesman who is intelligent, articulate, decisive, and knows his way around Washington any day. In his interviews he expresses his philosophy and positive politics and I fing him closer to Regan than anybody to date. It may be an act but somehow I don't think so. Plus, I truly believe he can beat Obama in spite of his dirty Politics.

So that's why I'm not supporting Ron Paul. There are a lot of true conservative Americans out there with good ideas, but very few that can address the wide spectrum of world politics and cross isles in Washington.

[apheod]

i wholeheartedly support ron paul.

and gingrich? don't even get me started on that scumbag.

[LMT42]

I'm confused J, you don't support him because you don't think he's a viable candidate or because of his foreign policy?

[TheTman]

I like Ron Paul, I think he does some good things, but like others, I don't like his isolationist view on foreign policy, although some of it makes a lot of sense. I don't see why we continute to pour money into the pockets of corrupt dictators around the world that vote against us in the UN 90 percent of the time, and when that money is used to buy fancy goodies for the leader's rich relatives and supporters. Particularly at this point of time when our economy is in the pits and we don't have the money to throw around on nonsense like that. He doesn't say things the people want to hear, cause he tells the truth, and that turns a lot of folks off.
He could hold the Republican party hostage and threaten to run as an Independent in 2012, which would virtually guarantee Obama a 2nd term, I'm waiting to see if he tries something like that.

[jeepster09]

I'm confused J, you don't support him because you don't think he's a viable candidate or because of his foreign policy?


"because of his foreign policy":86:

[John222]

90% of the time Paul's making good sense and then he says something stupid. Like auditing all the gold in Ft. Knox because he believe there nothing there. Or some of his out right alarming foreign policy statements. Or eliminating the federal reserve. If I recall Jefferson kept talking about that. But when he had a chance he expanded it.

With respect to Perry, he's the best looking dumb guy I've ever seen. He makes Bush look like a scholar. God, don't vote for someone just cause they carry a gun.

Gingrich is a snake. All the time he was trying to impeach Clinton over Lewinsky, he was cheating on his own wife.

My favorite of the bunch is Huntsman, but he doesn't have support. So Romney is the only candidate. I think Romney is really a moderate republican pretending to be ultra conservative. I think he could be a good president.

Oh, I almost forgot Bachmann. I like her jobs idea. Let the minimum wage fall as low as it will and then small business will be able to hire more people for less. I'd like to know how these people will pay for their own healthcare and retirement accounts earning $4/hr. Ahh conservative logic..

[TriggerMan]

I like Ron Paul, I think he does some good things, but like others, I don't like his isolationist view on foreign policy, although some of it makes a lot of sense. I don't see why we continute to pour money into the pockets of corrupt dictators around the world that vote against us in the UN 90 percent of the time, and when that money is used to buy fancy goodies for the leader's rich relatives and supporters. Particularly at this point of time when our economy is in the pits and we don't have the money to throw around on nonsense like that. He doesn't say things the people want to hear, cause he tells the truth, and that turns a lot of folks off.
He could hold the Republican party hostage and threaten to run as an Independent in 2012, which would virtually guarantee Obama a 2nd term, I'm waiting to see if he tries something like that.I think there are others more likely to take a Third Party run (and help Obama). I hope not.

[O'Dell]

Since I got in late my thoughts have been posted already, but Paul would be a disaster in the area of foreign relations. He's a strict isolationist, and that's exactly what we don't need right now. That's coming from a member of the Libertarian Party since 1995.

[Longitude Zero]

Since I got in late my thoughts have been posted already, but Paul would be a disaster in the area of foreign relations. He's a strict isolationist, and that's exactly what we don't need right now.

He is also more interested in catching terrorist AFTER they attack and not use whatever means are necessary to PREVENT the attacks. He comes across as a weak/indolent/dottering old fool. He is unelectable and he has made noise that if he is not the Republican candidate he would run as an Independent. Another RP aka ross Perot did and we saw what that worthless POS caused to happen.

Ron Paul = Ross Perot. Not a dimes worth of difference and one is just as dumb as the other.

[LMT42]

He is also more interested in catching terrorist AFTER they attack and not use whatever means are necessary to PREVENT the attacks.

The government is going to play the terrorist boogeyman card until we have no freedoms or liberties left. I'd rather my family, friends, and myself be murdered as free people, than live in a police state under the guise of perceived safety.

I'm surprised so many of you place more importance on foreign policy than domestic policy. Of course, I never expected to see women, children, and senior citizens molested by government agents before boarding a plane either. We all feel safe though, right? ****, why not just turn in your firearms? The government will keep us safe.

[John222]

Yea, I like that bill that both the house and the senate approved that would allow the US military to detain anyone (even American citizens) indefinitely if suspected of terrorism. Wow, that sure over steps the line of freedom and smacks of police state. Most people would say it's OK since it's for terrorist, but remember Bush with the Patriot act. He was spying on Green Peace, the american catholic charities and even PETA along with anyone who was against him.

[rholmes69]

I think for the most part a true conservative (in office) would cause one to not be worried about domestic issues. As is, terrorism exists and is real. Iran says they would wipe us off the face of the earth if they could. They have told us they want nuclear power AND are in the process of getting it. It is like hearing a bully say if I get a gun, I am going to kill you. You don't stand by and wait for him to find a gun, and then act surprise when he starts popping shots off at you.... "never saw that coming...."

I like a lot of what Ron Paul says and in a world with no foreign terrorists, he would be my pick. I understand the constitutionalist as well and an isolationist attitude. I agree with a lot of it. Get the hell out of the UN. Kick them out of here. Stop foreign aid (for the most part). Stop contributing to the IMF. No libyia, get out of the Sudan, etc. My issue with constitutionalists who take a "hard line" view is the no help for others ever, only a cheerleader role; they don't envision a scenario where it is okay to "intervene" and offer "help". I take issue with the idea that what is good enough for me isn't good enough for others. That means I don't sit by and watch truely oppressed people get decimated. We don't need 100 mini USA's in the world or carbon copies of our country. We don't setup puppet governments. But when a nation screams for help and all we would offer is a go get 'em cheer, I find that offensive. Assist with funds if we can find it just. Give them military power or assistance. Overthrow a dictator, but then you leave. No Mubaraks, no Bin Ladens, we don't have any hand in the formation of rebuilding other than to say here is our knowledge of what works and we can give you the materials to build it, but we ain't building it for you and we ain't offerring any warranty.

We need to fix the ship at home, that is first and foremost. But we can't concentrate on pumping out the water from inside when a hurricane is on the horizon and ignore it or "hope" it passes us.

That's where I bump heads the most with Ron Paul fans, the die hard isolationists portion. One last parting thought. If a small country back in 1776 hadn't had the "intervention" of the French, we would all likely still be toasting to the health of the queen... How was it okay to accept the intervention then but a short few years later the founding fathers would see it as bothersome or not their role?

[ripley16]

Why don't conservatives support R. Paul?
Although a decent, honest man, Ron Paul is viewed by many as too wackadoodle on certain issues, most notably foreign policy issues.


Gingrich is a snake. All the time he was trying to impeach Clinton over Lewinsky, he was cheating on his own wife.
Clinton was impeached because he tried to fix a trial by encouraging people to commit purjury. He was later disbarred because of this offense. Lewinsky and Clinton's sexcapades had nothing to do with it. It just contributed to the cases already known of his womanizing. That the Senate failed to convict him is the real crime. The House did their duty. Clinton committed a crime, no doubt about it.

[muggsy]

Most on this site are conservative so I thought I'd ask. I consider myself an independent and would gladly vote for R.P.. He's one of the least corrupt and entrenched candidates. If the tea party and GOP base would get behind Paul, he'd virtually be guaranteed a win, as he'd easily carry the all-important independent vote.

There's a lot of talk about the constitution among tea partiers and the GOP base, so I'm constantly perplexed that there isn't more support for Paul! Especially when the alternative is four more years of Obama. Paul is the most constitutional and small government minded candidate. Romney might be able to beat Obama. I don't know how Newt will do against him, but the rest of the candidates don't stand a chance, IMO.

Anyway, I'm just curious why there isn't more support for Paul among the GOP base.

Ron Paul is weak on National Security issues and supports the legalization of recreational drugs. He's a libertarian who couldn't get elected as a libertarian, so he became a republican. He's far too liberal to garner the votes of true conservatives. Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party.

[muggsy]

Yea, I like that bill that both the house and the senate approved that would allow the US military to detain anyone (even American citizens) indefinitely if suspected of terrorism. Wow, that sure over steps the line of freedom and smacks of police state. Most people would say it's OK since it's for terrorist, but remember Bush with the Patriot act. He was spying on Green Peace, the american catholic charities and even PETA along with anyone who was against him.

Please offer proof of your last statement. Both Green Peace and PETA are liberal organizations that have participated in acts of terrorism.

[Longitude Zero]

Ron Paul is weak on National Security issues and supports the legalization of recreational drugs. He's a libertarian who couldn't get elected as a libertarian, so he became a republican. He's far too liberal to garner the votes of true conservatives. Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party.

Agreed. I just hope when he does not get the Republican nomination he does not try a third party candidate run that will split the Republican vote. As much as the wackos crow for it a third party it wil never be a viable option.

[John222]

Although a decent, honest man, Ron Paul is viewed by many as too wackadoodle on certain issues, most notably foreign policy issues.


Clinton was impeached because he tried to fix a trial by encouraging people to commit purjury. He was later disbarred because of this offense. Lewinsky and Clinton's sexcapades had nothing to do with it. It just contributed to the cases already known of his womanizing. That the Senate failed to convict him is the real crime. The House did their duty. Clinton committed a crime, no doubt about it.

It started as a Whitewater investigation, but Starr found nothing. So he turned to both the Paula Jones and Lewinsky business. He was impeached for trying to cover up his sexual escapades. Nothing more.

[TriggerMan]

Ken Starr witch hunt wasted millions of our money!

[MikeyKahr]

It started as a Whitewater investigation, but Starr found nothing. So he turned to both the Paula Jones and Lewinsky business. He was impeached for trying to cover up his sexual escapades. Nothing more.

....by breaking the law and perjuring himself. You forgot to mention that part.

Sent using Tapatalk

[ripley16]

It started as a Whitewater investigation, but Starr found nothing. So he turned to both the Paula Jones and Lewinsky business.

Nothing? Tell that to the 27 people that were convicted of various felonies in the Whitewater matter and went to prison. Both Clintons escaped from charges then just barely and most probably due to others committing perjury on their behalf. Whitewater was a big deal.

The women are just subplots, demonstrating Clinton's sexual preditory methods. Read the House charges, try to find anything about sex. Go ahead... read it before you comment.


He was impeached for trying to cover up his sexual escapades. Nothing more.

Now that you've read the charge, why do you think he was disbarred? Giving false testimony to a federal judge gets most people a paid vacation in a federal facility. Corruption in the White House during this period was out of control, rampant, a true left wing conspiracy gone wild.

Clinton makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. The difference between these two Presidents is that one thought enough of his country to go quietly, while the other wasted millions and millions of dollars fighting to save his sorry, lying, corrupt, rapist, Arkansas ass. If he were a man, he would have resigned.

[O'Dell]

It started as a Whitewater investigation, but Starr found nothing. So he turned to both the Paula Jones and Lewinsky business. He was impeached for trying to cover up his sexual escapades. Nothing more.

He was impeached because he lied under oath. I don't consider that "nothing more". I would be in jail if I did it.

[Dueeast]

I like him, except for his somewhat isolationist views on foreign policy. I do like Michelle Bachman. She looks like a true constitutional conservative.

[John222]

....by breaking the law and perjuring himself. You forgot to mention that part.

Sent using Tapatalk


He perjured himself concerning the Jones and Lewinsky affairs. Just a witch hunt. Like any one of us would do.

[Longitude Zero]

He perjured himself concerning the Jones and Lewinsky affairs. Just a witch hunt. Like any one of us would do.

True, however, if he had possessed a straight moral compass, which he never had, he would never have had to lie since the adultery would not have occurred.

[muggsy]

Ken Starr witch hunt wasted millions of our money!

Ken Star's witch hunt exposed Clinton for what he was. A lying liberal socialist.

[JohnR]

Most on this site are conservative so I thought I'd ask. I consider myself an independent and would gladly vote for R.P.. He's one of the least corrupt and entrenched candidates. If the tea party and GOP base would get behind Paul, he'd virtually be guaranteed a win, as he'd easily carry the all-important independent vote.

There's a lot of talk about the constitution among tea partiers and the GOP base, so I'm constantly perplexed that there isn't more support for Paul! Especially when the alternative is four more years of Obama. Paul is the most constitutional and small government minded candidate. Romney might be able to beat Obama. I don't know how Newt will do against him, but the rest of the candidates don't stand a chance, IMO.

Anyway, I'm just curious why there isn't more support for Paul among the GOP base.
Conservatives tend to be hawks on having a strong military and projecting it around the world to fill power vacuums, so our enemies don't. That's the short answer.

[vn6869]

Conservatives tend to be hawks on having a strong military and projecting it around the world to fill power vacuums, so our enemies don't. That's the short answer.

Not only short, but correct. If we don't "they" will, the Russians, Chinese and now the iranians.

Obama gave Iran (not only our most top secret drone) but the whole middle east.

And Ron Paul wants to totally ignore all that?!? :eek:

Look what ignoring what was happening in the world got us in "39, for you youngn's WWII that's what.

[TriggerMan]

Ken Star's witch hunt exposed Clinton for what he was. A lying liberal socialist.

I bet you knew that Before we wasted the money.

[LMT42]

Not only short, but correct. If we don't "they" will, the Russians, Chinese and now the iranians.

Obama gave Iran (not only our most top secret drone) but the whole middle east.

And Ron Paul wants to totally ignore all that?!? :eek:

Look what ignoring what was happening in the world got us in "39, for you youngn's WWII that's what.

Meh, you point to WWII as justification for our military engagements and I'll point to Vietnam. We wouldn't have to worry about Iran if we hadn't created a vacuum in Iraq looking for non-existent WMDs. What now, war with Iran? Syria? Will we then go to war with Russia or China to keep them out of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan?

What's with all the fear mongering about Iran anyway? There's what, nine nuclear powers right now, fourteen if you count sharing, what's one more? There's a little thing call MAD that keeps nuclear powers in check. North Korea is more dangerous than Iran and they're not lobbing nukes. Even if Iran decided to nuke Israel, Israel can take care of itself. Iran doesn't have ICBs, so there's no need for Americans to worry.

History has shown time and again that it always ends the same for over extended empires. We'll end up bankrupt and broken, too, if we continue this course.

[JCP281]

As a true republican, I cant see why Ron Paul is overlooked. Everyone thinks hes crazy because he...actually follows the constitution. Thats what we need as a country right now more than anything.

sadly enough though, if the media doesnt like you, you wont get time in debates and coverage on tv.

[Willieboy]

I fear Mr. Paul would have us all speaking Farsi in short order. His world view is unrealistic iMO. Continuing the policy of his predecessor by looking the other way while Iran continues development of nukes seems a recipe for disaster.

[muggsy]

I bet you knew that Before we wasted the money.

I had a clue.