Paul says he won’t support GOP nominee

[Dos Equis]

Is this guy even a Republican?  How could he not support his party? 

Paul says he won’t support GOP nominee
Posted November 24th, 2007 at 11:10 am

Last month, during a Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Apparently, in the ensuing weeks, “not right now” has become “no.”

Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.

“They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?”

Apparently, he can’t. But it means that of the top seven candidates in the Republican field, Paul is the only one who isn’t prepared to support the party’s eventual nominee. It’s not the kind of thing that will go over well within the party, but then again, Paul’s interest in the Republican Party appears nominal — it’s a venue for him to advance his ideas and agenda, not necessarily an opportunity for him to lead the party.

It’s interesting to note the contrast between Paul’s comments and John Edwards’. A couple of weeks ago, Edwards hedged when asked if he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. When he initially hesitated, it caused a minor stir in Democratic circles — how can Edwards expect to be the party’s nominee if he’s not willing to commit to honoring the party’s nominating process?

No one seems to be saying that about Paul, in large part because no one seems to consider Paul part of the Republican mainstream.

For that matter, it also once again raises the specter of an independent Paul bid.

During an MSNBC interview earlier this month, Norah O’Donnell followed up on this point:

O’DONNELL: Congressman, as you know, most of the other Republicans running for president that you have stood onstage with during the debates, they support a continuation of the war in Iraq. You want to end the war in Iraq. If one of them is awarded the Republican nomination, will you choose a third party? Will you not back that nominee?

PAUL: No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neo-con position of promoting our–

At that point in the interview, O’Donnell interrupted, and the interview didn’t return to the subject. But the “I don’t plan to run” language, coupled by this week’s remarks about not supporting the eventual GOP nominee, should continue to raise eyebrows when it comes to Paul’s intentions.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13702.html

[Dos Equis]

is it possible Paul has a conscience ?

If his conscience results in him abandoning his party in a national election with such enormous implications then he should become a Democrat or an independent. 

[240 is Back]

If his conscience results in him abandoning his party in a national election with such enormous implications then he should become a Democrat or an independent. 

Beach,

I know you were a Clinton voter in the past, so you may not know this...

but many of the current candidates do NOT represent tradidional republican ideals of pro-war, anti-abortion, minor govt interference, and strong constitutional rights.  They disliked nation building. They disliked it when the dems overstretched our military.

I know, you say "Sure they do!" but their voting records and their stances on issues clash with what USED to be Reagan republicans.   Ron Paul is a traditional republican, the only one running.  I've been a republican since I was 8 years old and learned about the party system.  Been supporting those ideals for my whole life - it's the neoconservative flavor - which is very new mind you - that I don't like.  For you - a republican for less than a decade - you honestly don't realize that the party hasn't always been like this.

It used to be the democrats who grew the deficit.  I ask you to tell me what the deficit was at the end of Clinton's term, and what it is now. 

Ron Paul is a real constitutional republican.  The others are neoconservatives.

[Dos Equis]

Beach,

I know you were a Clinton voter in the past, so you may not know this...

but many of the current candidates do NOT represent tradidional republican ideals of pro-war, anti-abortion, minor govt interference, and strong constitutional rights.  They disliked nation building. They disliked it when the dems overstretched our military.

I know, you say "Sure they do!" but their voting records and their stances on issues clash with what USED to be Reagan republicans.   Ron Paul is a traditional republican, the only one running.  I've been a republican since I was 8 years old and learned about the party system.  Been supporting those ideals for my whole life - it's the neoconservative flavor - which is very new mind you - that I don't like.  For you - a republican for less than a decade - you honestly don't realize that the party hasn't always been like this.

It used to be the democrats who grew the deficit.  I ask you to tell me what the deficit was at the end of Clinton's term, and what it is now. 

Ron Paul is a real constitutional republican.  The others are neoconservatives.

1.  Yes I voted for Clinton twice, which is apropos of nothing in this thread. 

2.  I'm not a Republican, so your post is based on a false premise (again). 

3.  You have stated, categorically without qualification, that you are a libertarian. 

4.  This thread is about Ron Paul, not our respective voting records.  I am questioning his party loyalty.  If you have a problem with your party's positions, you question them and work to try and effect change.  If your problems with the party are so severe that you cannot support your party in a national election, you leave the party.  Pretty simple.   

[Hugo Chavez]

hahahahahahaha.... I hate to tell you this, but Ron Paul, if he goes independent, will mostly take votes from liberals, liberterians and TRUE CONSERVATIVES!  LOL, what's that say about where the republican party is at and when you answer that, you'll have your answer to why he won't support a GOP nominee.

[Dos Equis]

hahahahahahaha.... I hate to tell you this, but Ron Paul, if he goes independent, will mostly take votes from liberals, liberterians and TRUE CONSERVATIVES!  LOL, what's that say about where the republican party is at and when you answer that, you'll have your answer to why he won't support a GOP nominee.

He'll take nominal votes from all over, but not enough to get elected.  It's possible he could do what Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000 and affect a close race in some state.  But I doubt it. 

[Hugo Chavez]

He'll take nominal votes from all over, but not enough to get elected.  It's possible he could do what Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000 and affect a close race in some state.  But I doubt it. 

no, it will be libertarians, liberals and those who call themselves true conservatives.  neocons wont vote for him.

[Dos Equis]

no, it will be libertarians, liberals and those who call themselves true conservatives.  neocons wont vote for him.

O.K.  If even it's just libertarians, liberals, and "true conservatives" it still won't matter much.  At most, he could influence a state or two for one party or the other, but he has zero shot to win the election.   

[Hugo Chavez]

O.K.  If even it's just libertarians, liberals, and "true conservatives" it still won't matter much.  At most, he could influence a state or two for one party or the other, but he has zero shot to win the election.   

actually my statement was that he would do better as an independent and would stand a better chance in this election than any other time and I stand by that.  As an independent, you're going to be shocked at just how much of the vote he'll get.

[Dos Equis]

actually my statement was that he would do better as an independent and would stand a better chance in this election than any other time and I stand by that.  As an independent, you're going to be shocked at just how much of the vote he'll get.

You think Paul would do better than the 19 percent Ross Perot received in 92?  Yes, I will be shocked if that happens. 

[War-Horse]

My suspicion is that paul is a bait for the repubs to maintain power.    They know they have ZERO chance at an election.

So with 10 months or so to go, lets plant a YES man with the country and tell em all what they want to hear....  We'll even let him piss us off so as to avoid suspicions. 

The when in office, come up with some excuses to maintain course.

Most of the country knows what comes out of a politicians mouth is a self serving lie......   An independant could make a huge dent in the coming months.

Something up with this.

[Hugo Chavez]

You think Paul would do better than the 19 percent Ross Perot received in 92?  Yes, I will be shocked if that happens. 

Yes you will be shocked then

[Hugo Chavez]

Yes you will be shocked then

and remember, I'm not saying this stuff as a supporter.  I'm thinking about him, but have not made up my mind...

[Dos Equis]

Yes you will be shocked then

We shall see.  We'll both here in November. 

[240 is Back]

1.  Yes I voted for Clinton twice, which is apropos of nothing in this thread. 

2.  I'm not a Republican, so your post is based on a false premise (again). 

3.  You have stated, categorically without qualification, that you are a libertarian. 

4.  This thread is about Ron Paul, not our respective voting records.  I am questioning his party loyalty.  If you have a problem with your party's positions, you question them and work to try and effect change.  If your problems with the party are so severe that you cannot support your party in a national election, you leave the party.  Pretty simple.  

You don't know what a republican is.

Period.

[Dos Equis]

You don't know what a republican is.

Period.

   This isn't about me.  Or you. 

[240 is Back]

BB,

This is about Ron Paul.  He is closer to the ideals of the republican party than the other guys running.  I pointed out your unfamiliarity with traditional republican beliefs, as you voted Clinton. 

Ron Paul isn't betraying the republican party - he's staying true to its actual tenets.  The other cats running are of the neoconservative flavor, a shade that many traditional republicans cannot stand.

[Straw Man]

If his conscience results in him abandoning his party in a national election with such enormous implications then he should become a Democrat or an independent. 

maybe he sees supporting his country as more important than supporting his party

do you think any of his supporters care about the republican party....in it's present incarnation?

really why should anyone care about any party - they come and go

the country precedes all of them

[Deicide]

Go Ron Paul!

I think he gets the most support from Independents like myself. Life long Independent and proud of it; that's what individuality and personal liberty is all about! Ron Paul represents that!