Ron Paul proving to be a force in 2012 GOP contest

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • The Reader Layton, UT
    Oct. 6, 2011 2:32 p.m.

    It really doesn't matter who the republicans put forth as their candidate. The republicans in the house (T Party) and the senate. Are making such a name for themselves and the republican party as the party of NO that the public will reelect President Obama again. So far this yea the republicans have brought the country to the brink of default THREE times. I expect they will do the same in November (the 13th) when the appropriations bill comes up for a vote. It is also clear they republicans do not even intend to work with the president on his job bill. Obviously it need some tweeks but they are doing nothing to help - just stall. These tactics will do nothing the help the eventual republican candidate win the white house in 2012. My opinion!

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Oct. 5, 2011 12:28 a.m.


    Are you saying that the value of gold would be less than the value of the paper
    That our money is currently printed on?

    You realize your statement does not make sense right?

  • Particulars of no Consequence Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 4, 2011 4:37 p.m.

    bricha, you seriously think that anything Ron Paul would do would lead to more stress on the stock market than what the Big 2 political machines have accomplished? What exactly do you picture in your vision of "absolute havoc."

    Are sure you aren't just using the same empty rhetoric/political scare tactics that have been used against those outside of the political machines for many decades?

  • libertarian Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    Even just a "cursory glance" reveals that the current two "parties" are just flip sides of the same statist coin. No matter which side "wins" we get more government and less freedom. Study the "Hegelian Dialectic" to see why. RP is NOT in this loop and advocates actual liberty, and always has. More and more Americans are waking up to this fact. The media is part of the dialectic and will try to discredit RP at every opportunity, even calling him "unelectable". Think for yourself. Ron Paul 2012.

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Oct. 4, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    I am a little bit offended when so many of the Ron Paul supporters think that all people that don't like him only think that way because of the media, that no one in their right mind who really researches the man could disagree. Well I have and i still disagree with a lot of his stuff. Like I have said in other posts in a Government philosophy class I would love most of his ideas (though not all), but the implimintation of a these ideas could bring more problems than good. Think of the stress on the stock market if he was able to make sweeping changes, that alone could cause absolute havoc.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:11 p.m.

    Don't give me any garbage about his foreign policy either. Active and retired military seem to think his foreign policy is pretty good considering that he has gotten more military contributions than Obama and the other GOP candidates combined. 71% of all military contributions. I think we should pay attention to these contributions he's getting because the military knows whats really going on overseas.

    Paul is Ronald Regan and Obama is Jimmy Carter. It will be that much of a landslide.

    So tell me naysayers, would you vote for Obama over Ron Paul? Really?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:04 p.m.


    "Let's support the only candidate who has the chance of defeating Obama, shall we? Let's be rational and see REALITY!"

    No Thank You. I will stick to supporting the constitution. I'm will not be a contributor to continuing the corruption in this country.

  • Particulars of no Consequence Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 6:39 p.m.

    Before you dismiss this man and buy into the so-called mainstream thinking pushed by much of our media in collaboration with the two accepted political parties. Consider that if we had elected him in previous elections we would have avoided (1) the current near-catastrophic debt and (2) the Iraq war and subsequent nation-building effort.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:48 p.m.

    Ron Paul is dead on when it comes to the Federal Reserve. This nation will never be financially free as long as the Fed is a private corporation with the monopoly right to print money.

    Ron Paul is far off the mark on most non-financial policies.

    That is why he will continue to be a farce in the presidential race rather than a force.

  • Thunder Down Under Orem, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:24 a.m.

    The only thing we should be worried about is defending the constitution. By standing by the constitution all other problems we face will be corrected. Every major problem we have was caused by not following the constitution as laid out by our Fore Fathers. In D&C 101:

    77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

    80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

    There is only one candidate that even upholds the constitution and has since he was elected. Ron Paul is the only one. Mitt is maybe 50% in support of the constitution. Perry maybe 20%. This is based off their records while in office. If we are to defend the constitution and uphold it there is only one candidate, RON PAUL!

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:50 a.m.


    I'll answer that. He goes off the deep end with Iran, and the Gold Standard.

    1) Iran: Paul is correct in noting that a lot of the military turmoil faced by the U.S. is a result of our military meddling in foreign affairs. We do police the world way too much. We probably should begin withdrawing troops from most regions over the next 2 to 5 years - though as a caveat to that notion, I am not closed to the idea that perhaps our military intelligence people have very good reasons for disagreeing with that notion, so I could change my mind. Still Iran, is not going to start behaving peacefully when we get out of the Middle East. Even if they pose less of a direct threat to the U.S., they will still be a threat to Israel - and U.S./Israel politics aside, that's still not a good thing. Prevention is the wisest course.

    2) Gold Standard: Gold is hardly the stable commodity and basis for economic trade that it once was. It has very little universal utility, and is just a speculative index like cash money these days. It would also stifle economic growth.

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    This is all good for Ron Paul in the primaries, BUT, please understand that with the exception of Romney, Obama will bury all these other GOP candidates with landslides come November 2012. They make Obama look like a great president deserving of a second term. Let's support the only candidate who has the chance of defeating Obama, shall we? Let's be rational and see REALITY!

  • Riles Midway, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    Three cheers for the last statesman, Ron Paul!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    Paul's stand on gold reminds me of Andy Jackson's specie circular that destroyed the US economy in 1837. All we need is another "KnowNothing" president to really wreck things.

  • Eric P Boise, ID
    Oct. 2, 2011 10:33 p.m.

    Ron Paul is electable as long as the American citizens understand what the scope of the debate is or should be. Recent media-promoted debates have shifted the debate to focus on policy making issues. For example, the focus of most debates is on what policies will strengthen the economy. What Ron Paul understands and has consistently promoted during his years in Congress is a free market system where the competition of market ideas among the various participants (all of us) is healthier for the economy than any group of policy makers can provide. Unfortunately, the media-backed debates ask questions that focus on pro-business, corporatist policies that may do something to bring about a change in the economy but suffocate the vital competition of a free-market system. His policies on the Fed, gold standard and regulations are rooted in his commitment to free-market principles.

    Ultimately, the debate should focus on the principles of liberty versus tyranny; self-governance versus statism. Ron Paul has consistently won those debates through his consistent voting record. Now, the question that remains is, will the American people focus on the debate that matters most.

  • UtahVoter Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 10:20 p.m.

    I wonder if those that are so certain they don't agree with certain of Paul's "radical" policy suggestions really know what those suggestions are.

    For instance, despite many inaccurate reports on the matter, anybody who actually watched the GOP debate with the question about the uninsured man would have seen Paul state unequivocally that he should not be "left to die" despite the real world consequences of his choices. Paul has deep experience in the matter. He was a practicing doctor for decades - with most of those decades being before the inefficient Federal insurance programs. None were turned away. Likewise, when it comes to the dependency of so many on those programs, Paul has said again and again you can't just "pull the rug out from under people". Paul has suggested many other places where Federal largesse could be reined in as the inefficiencies and problems in Medicare and Social Security are reformed over time. Yet, you may not know this from the Saturday Night Live skits or even FoxNews.

    On every issue, Paul has clear, compassionate, thoughtful leadership that he has thoroughly documented in entire books over the last four years. :)

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 2, 2011 9:29 p.m.


    "Ron Paul CANNOT win, doesn't expect to win and will go back to Congress after he doesn't win. On top of that, he is too old. He's a good and sincere man, but he's a little off the deep end on foreign policy.

    Please, let's not waste any more votes or treasure on someone who can't win. We really have a chance to defeat Obama. We need to unite around a strong candidate who actually can win. Please everyone, let's get out of denial and not waste our time on a spoiler who CAN'T WIN. "

    What does being too old have to do with running for president? That is the most idiotic thing I ever heard. A vote for any other phony GOP candidate IS a vote for Obama. There is no difference between Him and Romney. I will not compromise at all and I won't throw away my sacred vote for a guy like Romney or Obama.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 2, 2011 9:23 p.m.

    He has my vote and I'm not voting for the party i'm voting for the man.

    Oct. 2, 2011 7:39 p.m.

    Ron Paul is exactly what we need. Hes the only guy that would actually change something. Romney, Obama, and Perry will all continue the big spending and wars and then blame their lousy performance on the previous president. Ron Paul votes consistently and doesn't change like the others. He is 100% right about the 9/11 causes, it was pathetic to see Guiliani call him out and get him booed in the 2008 debate. He didn't shy away from it when Guiliani asked him to, he stuck with it like he always does. The war propaganda is rediculous and I want the government to admit the real reasons we are in the middle east. If it were for WMDs then why aren't we in North Korea,Pakistan, and Iran. Its not our job to police the world, and even if it were the cost to do so is ruining our economy and destroying our currency.

    Mitt is electable, but he is much more moderate than most mormons want to admit. I don't think he'll dramatically change policies like he should. Every politician is bought by corporate donors that fund campaigns. Might as well call it legal bribery.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 6:56 p.m.

    "he's a little off the deep end on foreign policy"

    Why do we have to spend over 6x more a year in defense spending than 2nd place china? What was the purpose of spending a trillion and losing thousands of soldiers to fight the iraq war? Why does the man who is explaining why Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11 get booed while listing the reasons bin Laden himself explicitly stated were the cause of it? Bin Laden listed our relationship with Saudi Arabia, our Israeli policy, and our military presence in the middle east as the reasons for 9-11. Guess what? "Hating us for our freedoms" wasn't one of them and Paul was correct to state that but he gets booed for the truth by the audience full of jingoists.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    I like his foreign policy when it comes to the military, and some of his streaks of libertarianism, but with everything else I very strongly disagree with him so he can't possibly earn my vote.

    Oct. 2, 2011 6:29 p.m.

    Maybe they need a little spoiling." I have to disagree with Ron Paul on this; you cant spoil what is already rotten.

    The media (especially the arrogant Associated Press) helps perpetuate the fiction that there is actually a fundamental difference between the two parties; they are both pro-war, pro-bail-out, pro-big government.

    Paul is the freshest thing either party has had in years, and it scares the heck out of the status quo.

  • Deborah Huntington, WV
    Oct. 2, 2011 5:41 p.m.

    After studying Ron Paul's platform, I think that Ron Paul CAN beat President Obama in a head to head election.

    Many people are rethinking this being the World's policeman policy that is draining our once rich economy.

    We need to be nation building right here in our own country, not in the oil-laden countries as the oil companies and the military machine corporations wish. THEY are the ones prospering from this policy as we go more and more into debt to a communist nation.

    Ron Paul has consistantly said this policy would bankrupt our nation and he wants to do the nation building right here at home, for the American people.

    Ron Paul has my vote.

    Sign me "An ex-Obama supporter"

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 5:40 p.m.

    @ Cats

    For someone who gets more donations from the military than all the others candidates combined, I don't think his foreign policy is too far off. I personally want the troops to come home.

    If you refer to Mitt Romney as the person we can all rally around, you are mistaken. I will bet you 50 cents if Mitt Romney gets elected, the debt will keep increasing, the wars will keep going and things will not change. I will not support him. His tune changes as he changes what he is running for.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    I have to disagree with you on several points:

    "he is too old"
    Ron Paul is a doctor who has taken good care of himself, runs and walks everyday. His health is just as good as most if not all the candidates.

    "he's a little off the deep end on foreign policy"
    You say that, but what do the troops say? You know, the ones actually fighting these wars and risking their lives? Ron Paul receives more money from active duty military than all of the other Republican candidates COMBINED. It seems that those who know the situation firsthand and are most affected by it agree with Ron Paul's ideas of non-intervention and bringing the troops home.

    "let's not waste any more votes or treasure on someone who can't win"
    the only wasted vote in a primary is one for a candidate who you don't believe in and won't hold to your principles. As for money, Mitt Romney doesn't need any of mine. I'll use my treasure on the man who doesn't have the advantage of corporate buddies to finance his campaign. I'm proud that my small contribution keeps a discussion of liberty moving forward.

  • UtahVoter Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    Ron Paul is the candidate that impresses me most with his sincerity, preparation, understanding of the issues, and commitment to time-tested principles that our nation was founded upon.

    I'm continually fascinated by how little the general GOP electorate knows about the man that is accurate. The Washington Post ombudsman recently did a study of their own reporting and concluded that -- while they didn't completely shut Paul out of reporting -- the few mentions Paul got in general articles tended to be short, shallow, and often inaccurate. That seems to be a common trend. I honestly think most political pundits and reporters have no idea what to do with the man or his ideas.

    He's not the most polished on the stage, his voice is quite as mellifluous, and his body language seems the most un-coached. Yet, what he has spent his time doing is studying, learning, voting with principles, and inspiring grassroots interest in many ignored or misunderstood issues of liberty.

    The man spent his first career delivering thousands of babies. He has a genuine commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look him up and read his actual views. They're refreshing. :)

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Oct. 2, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    For what it's worth, Paul has said that he will not campaign again for his seat in the House.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 4:09 p.m.

    Ron Paul CANNOT win, doesn't expect to win and will go back to Congress after he doesn't win. On top of that, he is too old. He's a good and sincere man, but he's a little off the deep end on foreign policy.

    Please, let's not waste any more votes or treasure on someone who can't win. We really have a chance to defeat Obama. We need to unite around a strong candidate who actually can win. Please everyone, let's get out of denial and not waste our time on a spoiler who CAN'T WIN.

  • Rick2009 MESA, AZ
    Oct. 2, 2011 3:06 p.m.

    Ron Paul is the only person running our that run in the last presidential elections that 1) understands the constitution, 2) votes like he understands the Constitution, 3) understands why we are really in the mess we are in, and 4) has voiced the correct ways for us to get out of this mess. Both the democrats and the republicans eat at the same table, they are the same. We need to elect a president that truly understands the constitution, and doesn't give it just lip-service. That's what both Mitt and Huntsman do as well as everyone else running.

    As whether he can be elected I think he can be if people really understand what he is for. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul for President!

  • SteveinPA Tyrone, PA
    Oct. 2, 2011 2:07 p.m.

    Wonderful comments, David King! Ron Paul is the only candidate who has upheld and will uphold the U.S. Constitution. This is even more significant than his principled opposition to the Federal Reserve (important though that is). From a Latter-Day Saint perspective, the Lord his clearly put his seal of approval on the U.S. Constitution; why then do so many of us permit ourselves to be led hither and thither by pied pipers who prioritize jobs, war, and other, lesser policy objectives? Would that we all loved liberty more than jobs, the stock market, our military forces, our government handouts, and the like. This nation will stand or fall on the Constitution -- not changing political fashions -- now and forever.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    If you're saying we need someone who understands the economy, Ron Paul is that man. Mitt Romney did not predict the housing crisis, Herman Cain did not anticipate the recession. It's one thing to understand how to turn a profit, it's another to understand how the economy works as a whole, where booms and busts come from, and the damage that the Federal Reserve has done, especially to the savings and purchasing power of the poor and middle class. Maybe Mitt Romney knows how to make a buck, but does he understand those who are suffering because the dollar is falling? Does someone who receives most of his money from hedge-fund managers and Wall Street millionaires represent the common man? Ron Paul receives mostly small donations from thousands of grassroots supporters. He is the ONLY candidate in the race who has made strict obedience to the Constitution a major facet of his campaign. Samuel Adams once made a statement about those who love "wealth more than liberty" and I fear that is what America has become. We have forgotten that liberty, not wealth, has made America great and allowed it to prosper.

  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 1:05 p.m.

    Ron Paul might be a good man but to me he is way to old and a little bit off on a few things. He is not what this Country needs at this time. We need to get back to where we are the greatest nation on earth again. We need jobs, jobs and more jobs. We need someone who can turn things around and make this Country again like we use to be. We need either Mitt Romney or Herman Cain to get in there and do what they do best and that is improve our economy. I might just be more for this than others as this economy has taken a great big toll on me and my family over the last three years. We are not better off than we were in 2007 and with our age it will be hard to ever have what we once had. It can be very depressing but I have faith in Mitt Romney or in Herman Cain that they can get us back on track to become the great Nation we call America.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    Thank you DN for publishing this. I'm convinced if more people can hear Dr. Paul's message straight from his mouth, they will see the wisdom in his words.

    Ron Paul receives more donations from active duty military than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

    Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis and subsequent recession. No other candidate can say that.

    He's the one candidate who understands the economy as a whole, not just business and making money. He's the one candidate who has dedicated his life to defending the principles of our Constitution.

    Don't believe what you hear. Look up Ron Paul for yourself and believe in liberty again.

  • BeingJohnGalt JORDAN, MN
    Oct. 2, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    @ CJB: Ron paul knows that if congress passes an appropriations bill, HIS constituants will have their money taken from them. This is not good and this is why he votes against the bil. Now, the reason he asks for something for his distric in the bill, is because it will probably pass, so why not try to get some of HIS constituants at lease SOME of their money back?

    If you were being mugged, but the mugger asked if you wanted to be mugged, you would vote NO. Now, if the mugger offered to give some of your stuff back if you asked, would you ask? I think so.

    This is the reason Paul does as he does. It is perfectly logical.

  • BeingJohnGalt JORDAN, MN
    Oct. 2, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    Who are you to say that Ron Paul 'probably won't win'? Please don't pretend to know who will and who will not win. Please stop trying to convince the public that it is no use supporting Paul, as if he doesn't have a chance. We The People can judge for ourselves.

  • Gruffi Gummi Logan, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 11:04 a.m.

    Why a "spoiler"? The very purpose of the current vetting and subsequent primaries is to give people a real choice between the candidates and their programs. The time for compromises will only come after the primaries are over, and the party will need unity (based on compromises) for winning the general election. Now, we choose WHO and WITH WHAT will represent the Republican Party, and I hope it will be Ron Paul.

  • Heitah Rexburg, ID
    Oct. 2, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    Ron Paul could very win the nomination. Perry is on the outs now. Paul and Cain are battling for the top 3 spots alongside Romney.

  • Great State Of Utah SANDY, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    Where does he go off the deep end? Please state facts.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 2, 2011 10:35 a.m.

    What I have heard about Ron Paul.

    He attaches riders to spending bills that benefit his district, but then votes against the bill when it has enough votes to pass anyway.

    This way he helps his district and gets to claim that he doesn't support any "unconstitutional" spending.

    Those people who are Ron Paul groupies, ought to be aware of this.