Categorized | Submission

Why We Should Cast Our Votes For Ron Paul

Guest Submission by Morgan Rigg

Rick Santorum is out of the race, Newt Gingrich is no longer focused on winning, and Mitt Romney is being touted as the presumptive nominee while considering potential running mates.  For those of us who’ll be voting in upcoming primaries and caucuses (including here in my own state of Indiana), those of us who continue to have qualms about the former Massachusetts Governor, the question that could be asked is this: Doesn’t look good, does it?  However, as we all know, there is another candidate, one who is in the race to win, one who offers a different vision of our country than President Barack Obama, one who offers real hope and real change, one who offers the fundamental restoration of our country: Ron Paul.  Horrified, aren’t you?  Nevertheless, I am serious, and I’ll try to explain why.

The most common statement about the Texas Congressman given by people goes something like this: “I love where he stands on economic issues, but can’t stand him on foreign policy.”  Sarah herself has said something along those lines on multiple occasions, and unquestionably, his foreign policy stances have been and continue to be his biggest obstacles as a candidate.  He supports getting rid of foreign aid to other countries, including Israel, but he has also explained why this is a good idea, especially for Israel, believing this would make the Israelis independent (instead of being dependent on us).  It is also clear he supports Israel’s right to exist as a country, and would support letting the Israelis determine what’s best for them in dealing with their neighbors, including the Palestinians.

He is well known for his non-interventionist stances, his support for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and cease from engaging in nation-building, for closing down military bases overseas and focusing on our national defense.  Although regarded as a weak would-be Commander-in-Chief for his stances, he has supported targeting terrorist leaders including Osama bin Laden, and supports going into war as long as it’s done according to the Constitution and there is a clear plan for a quick victory.  His focus on national defense would include a focus on border security, making sure terrorists are unable to come into the country.  When it comes to cutting the military/defense budget, the focus is on eliminating wasteful spending, like in any other section of the overall federal budget.

He supports using free trade with Iran instead of applying sanctions against them, and this is one area I disagree with him on.  The idea an authoritarian regime like the mullahs in Iran will lose their hold on power over there because of the benefits of free trade is something I don’t see as plausible.  It brings me to mind of Communist China, where trade relations with much of the world was normalized at the end of the 1970’s, and yes, not only more economic freedom but also a thirst for political freedom followed.  The problem is Deng Xiaoping continued to rule Communist China with an iron fist as if his name were Mao Tse-tung, a fact which was demonstrated brutally in Tibet in March of 1989, and later (to the horror of the whole world) at Tiananmen Square in Beijing the following June.

This is only a paltry presentation of Ron Paul’s foreign policy stances, and there are definite disagreements (although maybe not as much as you initially thought), but if for no other reason, with what is happening to our country at the hands of the Obama administration, both economically and domestically, it leaves me to wonder: how can we enforce an effective foreign policy of any kind if we can’t afford it?  How can we put foreign policy on the top of our national priorities if we’re looking at bigger problems at home?  This leads us now to the very strengths of Ron Paul as a candidate, and why I ultimately concluded back in December of last year that he is the best one in the current field of candidates seeking the Republican nomination.

His economic plan, his Plan To Restore America <> , calls for drastic cuts in our spending, a trillion dollars (yes, trillion with a T) in his first year (not term, year) in office, and he backs up this seemingly hollow platitude with details as to where those cuts will take place.  It should further be noted that some of those cuts include the complete defunding of five whole Cabinet departments, which would mean a shrinking of the current size of the federal government; in other words, two birds would be killed with one stone.  The plan also calls for a balanced budget by the end of the third year of his first term, and many onerous regulations, including ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, would be repealed, as would all regulations enacted by executive orders.  My description of this plan doesn’t do it justice, so I hope you will take a good look at it.

He advocates free-market capitalism as a solution to the issues we face in regards to health care and energy, supports upholding the rule of law and securing the borders when it comes to illegal immigration (as well as removing the entitlements given to illegals when they come here), is in favor of Right-To-Work (as was passed here in Indiana earlier this year), believes parents should have the freedom to choose their children’s education (including homeschooling), and for those of you who were supporting Rick Santorum and put social issues on the top of your own priorities, in Ron Paul you have someone who is pro-life (I wouldn’t support him if he wasn’t), opposes gay marriage, and is pro-gun. Now supporters of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich could try and counter with responses of their own as to why their candidates should be supported; time to tackle those responses next.

Gingrich supporters say their candidate is still very much in the race and is in it to win, but I find that contradictory <>  to his interview with Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday.  It appears he is resigned to the idea of Romney winning the nomination, and wants to remain in the race in order to have an ideological influence in the Republican Party’s platform.  In addition, while Gingrich has not done well in his own base (the South), winning only South Carolina and his home state of Georgia, he has fared even worse outside of the South, with numbers decidedly in the single digits in most of those contests.  Ron Paul, meanwhile, has been focusing his efforts on getting the lion’s share of delegates in caucus states, and despite problems his supporters have faced in several states (including Alaska <> ), it seems to be paying off.

Romney supporters say he has the most delegates, his conservatism is genuine and we need to support him now so we can beat Barack Obama in the general election.  First off, the number of delegates cannot be known for sure, as not all of the states have fully determined how many delegates will go to which candidate.  As for the claim of genuine conservatism, it is used to counter his past statements in the 1990’s and his record as Governor of Massachusetts, but it hasn’t been a convincing claim, as evidenced by the fact in most of the states where he won, he failed to get a clear majority of the votes (which also calls into question his electability).  Add in the infamous Etch-a-Sketch moment from his aide, and you have a candidate a majority of Republican voters simply don’t trust.  And there’s also the matter of ObamaCare, something which Doug Brady brought up <>  as recently as ten days ago.  How can one make the case for a candidate on health care when that same candidate supported a system similar to his opponent’s?  It makes the contention of Romney being the lesser of two evils <>  more difficult to make.

In Ron Paul, we have a candidate who is a clear opposite of Barack Obama, is in this race to win, can defeat Obama in November and is consistent.  I hope I have made a convincing case for those of you about to vote to cast that vote for him.  Thank you.

Morgan Rigg (a.k.a. INCubbie)

Tags: ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Curt Cicotte

    I could never vote for Ron Paul.

    • HuntingMoose

      it is an interesting question and remark.

      I have been saying all the time I would vote against Obama irrespectible of whoever is on the receiving end of my anti vote but Ron Paul really makes me pause.

      but yeah, I would still vote against Obama. Ron Paul is naif but that can be compensated with good people surrounding him, something that is better than 4 more years of crucifying marxist minions surrounding Obama who are waiting for after the election when they have more flexibility..

  • john smith

    when you understand the monetary issue and the foreign policy issue and how they are in some ways linked, you cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone but Ron Paul.  Sorry, them’s the facts people.  I am 55, a republican, voted for RP in 2008 and will again in 2012.  He’s the only man with a clue AND a character.

    • HuntingMoose

      yeah right foreign policy issue.

      why not instead of dismanteling our nukes are we not giving a nuke to every nation in the world because that is basically what Ron Paul was implying.

      there is a reason why the first responsiblity of the presidency is the safety of the country against foreign threats. When your house is fiscally in order, you are a nice juicy fish, something that the muslim pirates in the 18th century already had figured out.

    • TheresaAK

      So he is your savior…that has to suck Joel…a one issue voter is an ignorant voter..

      The POTUS makes an oath to protect and defend the United States of America….now your little troll doll doesn’t see it that way…and that is a dangerous view…

      Paulbots view America as bad…Imperialistic, Empire…they hate Capitalism (corporations) and sound more like OWS militants, than Libertarians…

      Their tactics are as shallow as obama and his Saul Alinsky methods…

      Tell me again how he is "the only man with a clue and a character"…he is a character, that’s for sure…but I’m not looking for characters…I want a Leader.

      • ProudAmerican247

        I want a Leader too… someone who has actually accomplished something.

        That would be Sarah Palin.

        10.3 Comin’ To Tampa.

        PALIN 2012

    • Yankee4Palin

      When you say you support Ron Paul, you are also saying you do not support Israel.
      You support Iran and North Korea’s right to have nuclear weapons, that you support the Radical Left in congress on National Security as this is what ron Paul believes.
      Ron Paul also takes support from New Nazi’s such as StormFront.
      A majority of Paul’s supporters are 9/11 Truthers.

      On his forums some of his supporters call Sarah Palin Whor* of Israel

  • ? Jim ?

    Good argument for Paul . . .  but . . . .
    NO Thanks!

    What a SAD state of affairs the GOPE has this country in. We either vote AGAINST Obama [vote for Romney] or not vote at all.   << The lady featured in that video just about says it all.

    • HuntingMoose

      vote against obama and vote for the good persons up for reelection in the senate and house.

  • Josh Painter

    Sorry, Sarah Palin has gone out of her way to try to say positive things about Ron Paul. In return, he has had nothing but unkind things to say about her. His supporters, the Ronulans, have generally made a point of saying very nasty things about her. As a Palin supporter, tell me again why I should lift a finger in support of Ron Paul, even if he did not have foreign policy views that are nothing short of dangerous?

    I intended to vote for Gingrich until the point when he said he would endorse Romney. Since Romney’s supporters, the Mittwits, have treated Gov. Palin even worse than Paul and the Ronulans have, it will be a cold day in Hades before I vote for either Paul or Romney. At least Gingrich, like Gov. Palin, is a Reagan conservative. Romney has no core principles, while Ron Paul’s are a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. I’ll write in Sarah Palin’s name in both the Texas primary and the general election.

    • HuntingMoose

      primary is a done deal, for me too.

      general, well, I want to have Obama defeated with the biggest landslide possible and be railroaded as fast as possible out of DC. Your and my vote etchy-sketch should not need but I still want to know I voted against Obama and if you "trust" sarah with your vote, what if she urges to vote against Obama and do so by voting for the one we don’t want to think about?

      • Josh Painter

        I have been a solid Sarah Palin supporter since 2007, but if she endorses Romney, I will not follow her there. A Palin endorsement of Romney would disappointment me, but I would still admire and respect her nevertheless. I’ve never agreed 100% with her on all the issues, but her views are more closely aligned with mine than those of any other political figure are.

        On the matter of loyalty to political parties, however, I have more in common with Todd Palin than Sarah Palin. I’m an independent conservative, and unlike Sarah, I believe the GOP is corrupt and beyond any hope of redemption. The GOP-e will never let conservatives have anything but a few scraps from their table.

        • HuntingMoose

          ask yourself: will you help her get elected?

          the path she is following is not the straight path we all thought she would take but likely it was because of obstruction.

    • ForMotionCreatv

      This is a good point. I have a lot of respect for Josh Painter. I won’t vote for Romney. My financial support goes to Sarah Palin and some went to Newt. Maybe I’ll write in Sarah in #CA in stead of Paul, if possible. The difference I see between Palin and Paul is that Sarah has actually accomplished the kind of house cleaning reforms in Alaska that sets an example for what needs to be done in D.C. She has proven that she can be trusted to be loyal to the cause and effective in her actions. I’ve hoped to see Paul supporters recognize that Palin is necessary to carry out the mission to reform the Federal government. It’s up to Ron Paul to communicate to his supporters a better attitude that would inspire voters outside the 10%.

  • JamesColumbiaMo

    Hell will freeze over before I cast a vote for Romney-chum Ron Paul.  The guy is 100% ignorant of what is going on in the middle east.  He actually compared Russia to Iran in a debate saying that if Russia is allowed to have nukes, why not Iran.  Anyone who is that ignorant of foreign affairs will NOT get my vote for the White House.

    • HuntingMoose


      Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy makes Obama’s debacles look like cake walk.

  • 4rcane

    I find too many Ron Paul supporters are willing to believe all the lies about Palin by the media.They treat Palin as as a Neocon, who they hate more than Liberals. One thing Ron Paul have always lacked is charisma and leadership skills despite knowing his ideology intellectually very well. He have a hard time to convince others to his cause imho. While I subscribe mostly to his ideology, I did not come aboard because of him.

  • HuntingMoose


    yeah, let’s start another Ross Perot Debacle that gave us Clinton.

    Ron Paul is good on the fiscal conservative par but the other things that are of importance to the presidency are even more lunatic than Obama is.

    Ron Paul is about the only person on the planet who will loose from Obama.

  • HuntingMoose


    I rather write-in Sarah Palin for the primaries.

  • TheresaAK

    He also has stated he would put kooks like Dennis Kuccinich in his cabinet…NO Ron Paul…those he has touted as putting around him are as nutty as he is and worse..

  • Mrl Tav

    It is extremely disheartening to see a post on this site such as this because the last time I checked this is Conservatives4Palin & not Conservatives4Paul.  But I guess the site moderators had sympathy for Paul and allowed it, whatever the case may be, try going over to a pro-Ron Paul site and see if they allow you to post something positive about Sarah Palin & her record. See if that gets posted at any one of the Paul forums.
    It’s no secret, I do not like Ron Paul. How shall I put this– it will be a cold day in Hades before I cast my vote for Ron Paul.  One of the reasons being is that the very same supporters who are now asking us Palin-ites to vote for Ron Paul, were some of the same Paul supporters who, since the 2008 election, have been calling Palin things like: "dumb c—t, neo-con, lol– shill for the Republican establishment (that’s a scream), war monger" etc. So no, it’s not going to happen. You reap what you sow.
    Since my NY primary has come and gone w/ record low turnout I might add, I’ve done my duty, voted for Gingrich, and I don’t have to worry about voting for Ron Paul.
    The only reason I would understand someone voting for Ron Paul would be to get Paul more delegates, in order to deny Romney the nomination & have an open brokered convention in which it would be an outside candidate not in the race–ahem Mrs. Palin comes to mind– to walk away with the nomination, not Ron Paul.  But even if Paul does go to the convention, I have high doubts that Paul, not his supporters, will be committed to participating in a BC.  does anyone believe that a man like Mitt Romney who spent millions of dollars on a campaign he’s been running since Nov of 2008 is going to let a putz like Ron Paul walk away with the nom instead of him.
    nope sorry I believe that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney’s campaign relationship is way too cushy for my taste and the incestuous nature of some of Romney’s family members who have been supporters of Paul is all too weird for anyone. I will come right out and say it, there’s no way a man like Paul who has been a Congressman for 30 yrs— does the word establishment ring a bell or two— is going to go head to head with the establishment that he’s been a part of for all these years.  I believe that Ron Paul’s only purpose in this campaign of 2012 was to act as a stalking horse for Mitt Romney & the Republican establishment.  Paul & his supporters have attacked ALL the candidates who posed a threat to Mitt Romney & have curiously left Romney out of their firing squad.
    So what am I trying to say here?  I’m saying that a man like Paul who IMO has been helping Romney  will never deny him the nomination because it’s highly likely the two have cut a deal where Paul who people confuse him being as the ultimate tea party candidate will in fact, insulate Romney from any outsider opposition ala Palin at the convention.  In return for such an act of loyalty, Paul will have a nice night of espousing his libertarian whackadooery in a prime time slot at the RNC or a position in the Romney administration or both.  However, if Paul does go all the way to Tampa, it will most likely go over the way it did in 2008 with Hillary Clinton on the floor casting her delegates to Obama for show instead of the real deal brokering instead it would be Paul doing this for Romney.  All for show. 
    Speculations aside, Paul has never impressed me & neither does the usual expected braggadocio from this Ron Paul supporter inflating the man’s record when in fact, & I’m not the first one to point out, has been a Congressman for 30 years & has NOT ONE legislative achievement to his name.  His fiscal record has been inflated as well.  He can– as written in this post– "call" for fiscal cuts & budget balancing all the live long day, but can anyone point in his long career where he actually DID that?? you know, actually balanced a budget? or passed legislation that did so?  And I’m not the first person to bring this up but he’s got a really, REALLY bad record on earmark spending.  And yes, his foreign policy views are to the left of Obama.  Could you imagine a man like Ron Paul- who doesn’t believe that radical Islam is a threat– standing next to Obama in a debate?  Obama, spiking footballs or not, was the president when Seals killed bin Laden.  Ron Paul has gone on the record saying he didn’t think it was a good idea.  Like Romney or not, I can say Romney would’ve given the order to that no brainier decision to go ahead & kill OBL as Obama & his admin did.  Ron Paul wouldn’t. Why? Cause he told me so. 
    So no I will not vote for Ron Paul. 

    I would not, could not, vote Ron Paul in the rain.Not in the
    dark. Not on a train, Not in a car, Not in a tree. I do not like Ron Paul, Sam,
    you see. Not in a house. Not in a box.

    Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not vote Ron Paul
    here or there.I will not vote Ron Paul anytime, anywhere!

    I do not like Ron Paul I do not like him Sam I am.
    Mr.L’s Tavern

    • Sue Lynn

      Right on Mrl Tav!!!! SMACK!!!!

    • mark1955

      I have no use for Ron Paul at all. If it came to a choice of candidates between him and MITTEN’s,i would vote for MITTEN’S,but if Paul is the only and i stress only,vehicle we have to get to a brokered Convention,where we would have atleast the opportunity to work for a Conservative Presidential,or Vice Presidential nominee,than i say vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming primaries and Caucuses to get us to that point.MITTEN’S is a long way from securing the nomination and the least we can do is try to stop the coronation of the man who was picked precisely,because he would lose. By the way,love your show.

  • Yankee4Palin

    Morgan, in Ron Paul, you have a Radical Leftist on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
    It doesn’t make any difference what his economic views are  when Marxist to IslamOfascists
    take over our country or what is left of it after they attack it

    They don’t make pockets in shrouds.

  • famouswolf

    One word…..NO.

    The only use Paul has is, as another poster said, if he causes a brokered convention.

    I find this article particularly nauseating after Paul made the comment in support of the OWSers yesterday.

    Romney is a better choice (I gag to say it).

  • dave7777

    The only reason I would vote for Paul is to throw the convention open. Paul will never be president and he knows that. I don’t even think he wants to be. He wants to influence the Party in a direction I think we need to go. So, I’m rooting him on so as to deny Romney in Tampa. I have another motive.

    • mark1955

      Well said! That’s the only reason i am pushing for people to vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming Primaries and Caucuses. To force an open Convention. He seems to be the best vehicle to force that option,than so be it! Don’t look a ‘Gift Horse’ in the mouth. As they say in the middle east,"The enemy of my enemy,is my friend". 

  • NoMoreMeh

     * double facepalm, shaking head *

    Your views are definitely not mine, but thank you for sharing yours.

  • nala3325

    Sadly, Morgan Riggs, in all of two decades of Ron Paul’s stint in Congress, he could only boast of ONE legislative accomplishment – giving a piece of land to a historical society in Galveston (which is a part of his district). See here:

    He’s been saying and promising everything that the voters want to hear – without any proof at all that he can deliver.  All rhetorics, no results. Haven’t we seen the likes of him in 2008? We are trying to vote him out of the WH. We need true leadership with a track record of actual accomplishments. That’s Gov. Palin.

  • Paul

    You Tube "Ron Paul Predictions in Due Time" 

  • Spec 5

    I guess he is the only alternative left isn’t he.

  • Liberty2076

    Are you advocating for Paul in the general election?

    The best argument for voting for him in the primaries is that every delegate he takes gets us a step closer to a brokered convention.  If the conservatives would unite around that goal they could hit Mitt pretty hard and open up the door a bit more for Palin at the convention.  

    • INCubbie

      I’m advocating for Ron Paul in the primaries namely because I haven’t accepted the idea of Romney as the nominee just yet, but also because of the candidates who have run in this election, I regard him as the best candidate. The only way I could advocate for him in the general election would be if he wins the GOP nomination.

      Off-topic, I want to address some things brought up in the comments: I don’t deny the low regard for Sarah held by most of Ron Paul’s supporters, but I didn’t decide to support Ron Paul because of who his supporters are. I support him because of who he is as a candidate and what he offers as a candidate, which I consider to be better than what his opponents have offered.

      To those of you who haven’t voted yet, but are planning to vote for Gingrich or Santorum or write in Sarah’s name, let me say this: to do so in the primaries will only help Romney at this point. A vote for Ron Paul could go a long way towards a brokered convention. Something to think about.

      To everybody, thank you for the responses and for being willing to read what I had to say.

    • Spec 5

      If Ron Paul was the Republican nominee, I would vote for him.  I will vote for him in the NC Primary next week.  I doubt that he will get the nomination.  I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is in the general election.

  • Spec 5

    Is this a Sarah Palin support site or a Ron Paul support site.  I do not believe they are the same thing.

    • INCubbie

      Posts have been published in the past on this website making the case for Santorum, Gingrich, even Romney, in the race for President. I simply made the case for Ron Paul, and that’s it.

      • Spec 5

        No you have every right to do so, it just seemed to me that there has been a lot of it lately.  One thing I don’t like about some (not all) Ron Paul backers is their threat to bolt the Republican party if he doesn’t get the nomination.  Any vote for someone not the Republican nominee is at least a half a vote for BHO.  At least that is the way I see it.

        • INCubbie

          I wasn’t taking any offense at your comment, but there have been posts on this website in support of the Republican candidates, and I submitted one in support of Ron Paul. I wouldn’t say a lot of them have been published lately or at all; the main focus has always been on Sarah and issues related to her.

          As for those Ron Paul supporters who may decide not to support Romney (should it come to that), the reasoning behind it is pretty simple: Choosing between Romney and Obama is considered similar to choosing between 1 tablet of cyanide and 2 tablets of cyanide; either option is lethal. Romney is seen as someone who would only slow down the country’s descent into the abyss and nothing more.

          • Spec 5

            It takes longer for one tablet of cyanide to kill you than two, so you have more time to look for an antidote.  :o)
            Sad but true.

  • f. lindsay


    The ESTABLISHMENT is SCARED they SHOULD be -WHERE IS THE$? Audit the FED & let us FIND OUT-

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets