Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Ron Paul Says He Won’t Support GOP Nominee

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 7:12 AM on November 25, 2007.


Steve Benen: This once again raises the specter of an independent Ron Paul bid for the presidency.
p000583
Paul

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

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.

Digg!

Tagged as: election08, republican party, ron paul

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A third (& fourth) party anti-war choice for POTUS is good for the country
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Nov 25, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure why this quite obvious eventuality should be considered a "specter". It is going to happen with virtual certainty if the DNC is so scared of running on a true anti-war platform and we end up with pro-occupation choices from both the Dems & the GOP. It makes perfect sense for the Libertarians AND the Greens to run serious anti-war third-party candidates (i.e. Paul and Kucinich).

Its the first real opportunity to get enough support in this country for alternative parties. Who knows, we might actually see a day when there are 4 way power splits in the congress which forces true consensus building rather than this bi-polar back and forth we've had for as long as I can remember. Where's oregoncharles' comments when I need him? ;-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overly nasty but correct Posted by: oregoncharles
BFD!
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 25, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't support the GOP nominee either.

:P

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Paul
Posted by: constitution, what constitution on Nov 26, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to have fooled a lot of people. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a strong three or even four candidate race for the White House. However, just because Ron Paul is anti-war does not mean he is a great candidate. Check the voting record.
I can not see myself voting for anyone that is anti-choice or anti-gay marriage. I see abortion as a human right, not something to be regulated by the government. Therefore, when someone comes along and says we need to get out of Iraq, but also turn abortion laws over to the states, I get a little scared.
The war is the flavor of the month, year, possibly the next ten years if any mainstream candidate is elected, but we must remember not to sacrifice other values. Why settle? It's our country. We have a right to elect someone that will do great things for our country, not just themselves or the 51% of the population that elected them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr Paul Posted by: aedwards
Ron sticks with his guns!!
Posted by: xvictor on Nov 26, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Faux News' Sean Hannity had asked Mr. Paul if he would support the eventual GOP nominee after one of the last debates. Ron said he wouldn't support any GOP candidate because they don't share his views, so why should he, says Ron. Hannity seemed shocked and taken aback by Ron's response and asked him again just to make sure. And he got the same response.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul
Posted by: michael098762001 on Nov 26, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul
Via Huffington Post and FireDogLake last Friday the 23rd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Not Go All Gooey Over Ron Paul...
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Nov 26, 2007 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our haste to find someone, anyone, willing to carry the anti-war - “U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW!” ball onto the campaign trail and, hopefully, into the White House it’s important that we’re not seduced into supporting someone whose overall political outlook overlaps the progressive viewpoint in only the most minuscule segment of a Venn diagram… which is the case with Ron Paul.

What’s not being well broadcast in the progressive media (never mind the MSM) is that Ron Paul is an unreformed extreme Right-Wing Libertarian who ‘made his bones’ with the 1980’s & 90’s militia, tax revolt, and posse comitatus movements that were so diametrically opposed to progressive values that it was as though they’d been designed to be so on purpose.

Before anyone gets all soft & fuzzy over Ron Paul, read these:

IN PAUL THEY TRUST (THE FEDS MAY DIFFER)

MAN OF THE HOUR

RON PAUL: WHITE SUPREMACIST

Why Are White Supremacists So Attracted to Ron Paul?

RON PAUL COMPETES FOR THE UNABOMBER VOTE

RON PAUL SUPPORTERS CAUGHT USING THEIR OWN CANDIDATE INSPIRED CURRENCY

RON PAUL'S RECORD IN CONGRESS

RON PAUL AND HIS FOLLOWERS (also has a list of other articles)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul in 2008
Posted by: Dr T on Nov 26, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 when he ran as the Libertarian Presidential candidate and I'd gladly vote for him again.

Clinton, Giuliani, Romney - retch, puke, vomit!

Go Ron!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: on Paul in 2008 Posted by: janetc