Submitted by tremendoustie on May 5, 2008 - 12:21am.
I for one would never vote for Obama. It is true that of the three, I think his may be the most noninterventionist foreign policy, but he will increase the power of government domestically. People should have both personal and economic freedom -- Obama's not too bad on the first, but horrible on the second.
I'd probably vote Barr in November, assuming he gets the L nod.
The imposition of morality by force, is itself immoral. Generosity with stolen money is no virtue.
Submitted by Sandra Price on May 5, 2008 - 9:15am.
I have no such doubts about Obama. No, he is not my ideal candidate as I want a limited government. But he is the least offensive name on the list. Pollchecker, I am thrilled that Ron Paul may have come to the same conclusion about Obama as I have.
Let's not mistake Paul's statement as in any way supportive of Obama. He was asked to choose, if he had to, that's all. Unfortunately, that is the same option we are all faced with. We have to choose from these three, there are no other options, the Establishment has made certain of that.
I believe he referred to Obama as the least objectionable in terms of foreign policy. By no means an endorsement or any kind of conclusion.
I thought everyone was sick of this. You know, the lesser of evils practice of voting. Yet we've gone from being sick of it all to quiet acquiescence and timid surrender.
When the going gets tough, the tough fall in line in the interest of political expediency.
And yet, Grif, it is rather significant that Dr. Paul had nothing positive to say about either Senators McCain or Clinton regardless of your opinion of Senator Obama.
While that is true, it was hardly an in-depth interview. He was forced into saying that one small part of Obama's overall platform is the "least objectionable" to himself because the interviewer pressed it.
What I find interesting is why we've latched onto this "ringing endorsement" while disregarding the rest of the interview and what Paul really has to say. Such as limited government, personal freedom and a sane foreign policy.
Any Paul supporter knows what he means, and there's not one of us that'll be jumping on the Obama bandwagon anytime soon.
It's really too bad that we couldn't get an Obama-Paul debate. A real debate, not the Hollywood production we're used to seeing. I'm sure Paul would mop the floor with Obama and show him as the pretender that he is.
Saying that Obama's foreign policy is preferable to the other two is like saying that I'd rather have my leg chewed off by a bear rather than a lion. There's no way that any candidate is going to get my vote who doesn't support the concept of individual freedom in this country. If he is not willing to dismantle the Patriot Act and bring some domestic sanity back to our country, he'll never get my vote. Likewise the incredibly destructive monetary system and bureaucratic behemoths that are growing and festering daily. The country cannot survive it, and none of these candidate would do a thing to reverse the destructive course that we have taken during this administration. They don't even PRETEND to.
Why is it necessary that Paul endorse any of the other candidate? I think it would be immoral to abandon his position on government according to the Constitution and ask someone to support those whose record is, like that of the current White House squatter, that 'the constitution is just a g**damned piece of paper!'
Why would any Ron Paul supporter be bound to follow his recommendation? Were he to commit so grave a breach of ethical character, then I would feel in no way bound to observe it, and I would lose all respect for him.
It isn't necessary, but that won't stop the media from making it an issue. Since the Republicans don't want us, the Democrats seem to think that they can somehow convince us that Obama is our man.
No, we will continue to support Paul in the primaries straight through to the convention. We know what Paul meant by what he was cornered into saying, and by no means will he endorse any of the Three Stooges.
My apologies. I didn't mean to imply yourself as one of those, but merely as my opinion of the general perception regarding endorsements, particularly in the media.
However, the headline clearly states that Paul likes Obama's foreign policy. How they came to that conclusion is beyond me.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments
Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists and bloggers are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum.
Technorati Tags: 
I for one would never vote
Submitted by tremendoustie on May 5, 2008 - 12:21am.I for one would never vote for Obama. It is true that of the three, I think his may be the most noninterventionist foreign policy, but he will increase the power of government domestically. People should have both personal and economic freedom -- Obama's not too bad on the first, but horrible on the second.
I'd probably vote Barr in November, assuming he gets the L nod.
The imposition of morality by force, is itself immoral. Generosity with stolen money is no virtue.
I have no such doubts about
Submitted by Sandra Price on May 5, 2008 - 9:15am.I have no such doubts about Obama. No, he is not my ideal candidate as I want a limited government. But he is the least offensive name on the list. Pollchecker, I am thrilled that Ron Paul may have come to the same conclusion about Obama as I have.
Let's not mistake Paul's
Submitted by griff on May 5, 2008 - 12:50pm.Let's not mistake Paul's statement as in any way supportive of Obama. He was asked to choose, if he had to, that's all. Unfortunately, that is the same option we are all faced with. We have to choose from these three, there are no other options, the Establishment has made certain of that.
I believe he referred to Obama as the least objectionable in terms of foreign policy. By no means an endorsement or any kind of conclusion.
I thought everyone was sick of this. You know, the lesser of evils practice of voting. Yet we've gone from being sick of it all to quiet acquiescence and timid surrender.
When the going gets tough, the tough fall in line in the interest of political expediency.
And yet, Grif, it is rather
Submitted by pollchecker on May 5, 2008 - 1:10pm.And yet, Grif, it is rather significant that Dr. Paul had nothing positive to say about either Senators McCain or Clinton regardless of your opinion of Senator Obama.
While that is true, it was
Submitted by griff on May 5, 2008 - 1:34pm.While that is true, it was hardly an in-depth interview. He was forced into saying that one small part of Obama's overall platform is the "least objectionable" to himself because the interviewer pressed it.
What I find interesting is why we've latched onto this "ringing endorsement" while disregarding the rest of the interview and what Paul really has to say. Such as limited government, personal freedom and a sane foreign policy.
Any Paul supporter knows what he means, and there's not one of us that'll be jumping on the Obama bandwagon anytime soon.
It's really too bad that we couldn't get an Obama-Paul debate. A real debate, not the Hollywood production we're used to seeing. I'm sure Paul would mop the floor with Obama and show him as the pretender that he is.
Nice try, though.
I too would enjoy an
Submitted by pollchecker on May 5, 2008 - 1:54pm.I too would enjoy an Obama/Paul debate. that would be very interesting.
Saying that Obama's foreign
Submitted by freeman on May 5, 2008 - 10:36am.Saying that Obama's foreign policy is preferable to the other two is like saying that I'd rather have my leg chewed off by a bear rather than a lion. There's no way that any candidate is going to get my vote who doesn't support the concept of individual freedom in this country. If he is not willing to dismantle the Patriot Act and bring some domestic sanity back to our country, he'll never get my vote. Likewise the incredibly destructive monetary system and bureaucratic behemoths that are growing and festering daily. The country cannot survive it, and none of these candidate would do a thing to reverse the destructive course that we have taken during this administration. They don't even PRETEND to.
Why is it necessary that
Submitted by Flapsaddle on May 5, 2008 - 1:28pm.Why is it necessary that Paul endorse any of the other candidate? I think it would be immoral to abandon his position on government according to the Constitution and ask someone to support those whose record is, like that of the current White House squatter, that 'the constitution is just a g**damned piece of paper!'
Why would any Ron Paul supporter be bound to follow his recommendation? Were he to commit so grave a breach of ethical character, then I would feel in no way bound to observe it, and I would lose all respect for him.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
It isn't necessary, but that
Submitted by griff on May 5, 2008 - 1:47pm.It isn't necessary, but that won't stop the media from making it an issue. Since the Republicans don't want us, the Democrats seem to think that they can somehow convince us that Obama is our man.
No, we will continue to support Paul in the primaries straight through to the convention. We know what Paul meant by what he was cornered into saying, and by no means will he endorse any of the Three Stooges.
I don't believe anyone has
Submitted by pollchecker on May 5, 2008 - 1:57pm.I don't believe anyone has implied that his supporters would flock to any endorsement. Au contrair!
I started the piece because we have a lot of his supporters and I am genuinely interested in their thoughts on this piece.
My apologies. I didn't mean
Submitted by griff on May 5, 2008 - 2:32pm.My apologies. I didn't mean to imply yourself as one of those, but merely as my opinion of the general perception regarding endorsements, particularly in the media.
However, the headline clearly states that Paul likes Obama's foreign policy. How they came to that conclusion is beyond me.