Ron Paul supporters say Mitt Romney still has competition

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 3, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    RonPaulbots voting for Obama? That doesn't indicate to me that they cherish the Constitution.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    May 2, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    I cannot imagine a sincere Ron Paul supporter would ever vote for BO. That defies all logic. I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I have some reservations about Mitt Romney, but I'd certainly vote for him over the present president. The problem with supporting Ron Paul is that he doesn't have enough support. It is a sad dilemma, but the bottom line is that we don't have enough people who do care about constitutional principles.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    May 1, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    @ JLFuller 3:08 p.m. May 1, 2012

    The only ones I see throwing tantrums are those blindly following Mitt for "demographic" reasons because Dr Paul is being a fly in the vasoline that is the American political process.

    To which I say, Good for Dr Paul.

    p.s. What is it Reagan said about the status quo?

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    May 1, 2012 3:08 p.m.

    Competition? Not according to the Republican National Committee. But then Ron Paul never has been a real Republican. He is a Libertarian running in the Republican Party because his own Libertarian Party can pay its own rent let alone put up a legitimate presidential candidate. People voting for Paul are just acting out, kind of like a 14 year old whose parents won't let her go out on a school night.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 3:06 p.m.

    I don't support Ron Paul, but he is consistent and has opposed the stupid middle east wars. He is the class of the GOP field.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 1, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    @ RockOn 11:16 a.m. May 1, 2012

    "these Orwellian Paulatrons are a bit hard to stomach. They need to "wake up" and all those other cliches they love to throw around after their seance in planet UnObtainia."

    And there are no partisan hacks (Limbaugh, Carville, etc...) or goofy cliches trotted out by either major party?

    "You are now either part of the problem or part of the solution, guys... So, will you throw a snit and stay home or vote for Obama or vote from Romney."

    Paul is the beginning of the solution. Having 2 Ivy League grads as the candidates for POTUS again is the problem. I plan on voting for Former NM Gov Johnson who should get the Libertarian nomination.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 1, 2012 1:01 p.m.


    I agree 100% Well said. People have to learn to accept change outside the bounds of mainstream conservatism and liberalism if they truly want this country and our freedoms back. But yet they cling to insanity by voting for the establishment republican or democrat and expecting different results.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    May 1, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    There is a guy who sings in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir who looks just like Ron Paul, I think Ron Paul has more of a chance to be that guys double, then he does to become president. Oh, he would have to become a Mormon, and that was in my factoring of his chances to be the GOP candidate or President. But I do like Ron Paul and do feel he has some very good points.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 1, 2012 12:51 p.m.


    Isolationism? No, North Korea is isolationist. I don't think you know what you're talking about. You probably heard something about isolationism in your high school U.S. History course 20 years ago, and now you feel like you can throw the term around. Non-interventionist more accurately describes Ron Paul's position (which you obviously do not understand anyway). It's the difference between North Korea and, say, Switzerland. Also, who, pray tell, is going to be the big bad "bully" to the United States? China? We've already sold our economic souls to them, so that's already been done. Oh, you mean Iran...yeah...SO scared of little old Iran. Let them cross the Atlantic and do something to us and see how that works out when we have secure borders, and a strong military at home.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    May 1, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    Ron Paul has some very great ideas if you believe in freedom and understand prosperity. However, he will not be the nominee, and will never be president. But for ANY of his supporters to say that if he doesn't get the nomination, they might as well vote for Obama--shows just how naive some of these folks really are. Romney isn't perfect, and I don't agree with all his stances on everything past or present. However, he's so far ahead of Obama that they're not even in the same league. Obama is all about government running everything, jacking up deficits, increasing taxes, introducing burdensome regulations on every facet of business or innovation, letting invaders flood in here and take everything they want, putting incompetent and corrupt people in positions of authority and even calling them "czars," pandering to big campaign contributors and special interest groups, opposing anything tied to Christianity or any other morale foundation, etc., etc. Romney is basically the opposite.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    May 1, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    Aren't we all tired of:

    Undeclared Wars
    Deficit Spending
    900+ overseas military installations.
    Businesses which are too big to fail.
    Laws that are passed before anyone reads them.
    A government too willing to "spread" our wealth.
    A Federal Reserve that doesn't want to be audited.
    Candidates who don't live up to their campaign promises.
    A Federal government that doesn't follow the Constitution.
    Spying on U.S. born and raised citizens without a court order.
    Candidates who flip/flop their positions in order to win votes.
    Bank bailouts even while they foreclose on hundreds of thousands of homes.
    Huge bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac executives while both lose money.

    As Americans, we know that the above things are wrong! And yet, we keep electing the "same types of individuals" who keep leading us down the same pathway.

    America needs a change in direction, and that isn't going to come from Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama; both are just flip sides of the same coin.

    Ron Paul is the only real change, left in this election.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    May 1, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    @IdahoStranger--You are right to put Ron Paul's foreign policy here in black and white for clarification. It still looks to me like it can be summed up as isolationism. In a perfect world, isolationism is a reasonable and appealing approach to life. In reality it's leaves us dangerously exposed and vulnerable to the bullies, despots and empire-builders of the world. Bullies don't refrain from building alliances. There are plenty of corrupt governments who are more than willing to listen to and collaborate on power schemes that will allow them access to the world stage and fill their coffers. Bullies tell lies and make compelling promises in order to muster their coalitions.
    Because we know the corrupting nature of power and money, and because there will always be evil leaders, it behooves us to be wise and proactive in forging alliances of our own, not only for assistance when attacked, but also to serve as a deterrent to the world's aggressors.
    Ron Paul preaches isolationism because it appeals to our peace-loving nature, but his willingness to ignore the lessons history has to teach us is his Achilles heel.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 1, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    I just find that Ron Pauls ideals embrace gospel principles a lot more than Romneys. There are many people out there who draw near the constiution from their lips but their hearts are far from it when they support things like the patriot act, TSA groping, attacking foreign countries with no clear goal in mind and Cybersecurity. All of these thing have more in common with Nazi Germany than the constiution.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    May 1, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    Ok to all the Paulbots out there yes he has a five state plurality. How ever Rick santorum and newt will pledge their delegates to Mitt. By may 22 Mitt will surpass the 1,444 count and so there will be no brokered convention. To trigger rule number 40 subsection b in to motion. Then what are you going to do? Run turd party? just so you assure a victory in November for Obama? If you write in Ron Paul it is a vote for Obama if you sit out and pout it is a vote for Obama. If Ron Paul really loved this nation the best thing he could do right now is check his ego and support Mitt. and encourage his minions to support Mitt.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 1, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    I'm not selling my soul by voting for Obama or Romney. Ron Paul has my vote no matter what.

    The only thing Obama and Romney will bring is more of the same. Real change will never happen with these bought and paid for clowns in cahrge.

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    May 1, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    Ok, let me make the most basic argument about Romney besting Obama. And this is why I will pick the former over the latter - even after the latter’s three years of being president. And anyone with a fair and functional brain will make, at least start, with this comparison. Strip Obama and Romney of their positions on issues and things, strip them of their achievements, in business and politics (though Romney will also outdo Obama in that category 8 to 1). Let’s look at their core qualifications pertaining to the POTUS as an executive post.

    Obama when he ran in 2008 had almost no applicable experience. And such ineptness has shown in his three years as president. Using that as our most basic premise of being successful (as president), Romney will have done a much better job. And considering the mess America is in now, economically, Romney becomes even more relevant. Common sense should at the very least remind America who the better man is at THIS VERY TIME to lead our country. Romney trumps Obama. Case closed. As for Ron Paul, sorry, next time!

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    May 1, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    Unlike Santorum and Gingrich, I think Paul's continued candidacy is about getting out the ideas of Libertarianism. Paul has energized younger voters with Libertarian ideals. Yes, Romeny will be the nominee but Paul has played an important role in getting younger conservative and Libertarian type voters engaged again in politics and thinking about these issues. This is a good thing.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    May 1, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    What Romney did in saving the 2002 Winter Olympics from their economically disastrous beginnings is more important than anything he did as Governor or any other thing that may sound like he is going to indulge the nation in continued extravagant spending. He is not. He has the ability and the desire to curb the spending and allow states the power to enact their own solutions to more local problems. No matter how idealistic Ron Paul may be, he just doesn't have the expertise with economics that Romney has. The only concern I have about Romney facing Obama in the fall is that too many Americans don't feel like they can trust Romney because they have been taught to distrust all Mormons. This prejudice is far worse than it was for Kennedy in 1960.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    May 1, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    Romney should agree to appoint Ron Paul either the director or secretary of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Education. And give him carte blanche.

    That I'd like, but, these Orwellian Paulatrons are a bit hard to stomach. They need to "wake up" and all those other cliches they love to throw around after their seance in planet UnObtainia.

    You are now either part of the problem or part of the solution, guys. You've had your fun with Ron Paul but now the election is strictly between keeping Obama or not. Romney is on the ticket and you will not be. So, will you throw a snit and stay home or vote for Obama or vote from Romney.

    Life must always be "compared to what."

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    May 1, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    I hear a lot about Ron Paul's "crazy" foreign policy ideas. But when I hear him talk about war, and just causes for war, it sounds a lot like what I read being taught in the Book of Mormon. To wit, we may use violence to defend ourselves, our homes, our families, our freedom of religion; but not otherwise. Is this "crazy" talk?

    Of course war policy is distinct from foreign aid, offering to help people suffering deprivation -- but shouldn't that help come from voluntary citizens, rather than being mandated by Congress and enforced by the IRS? Is the latter not the definition of socialism?

    But I personally am not nearly as concerned with the aid issue (it is humanitarian, and it is a tiny fraction of the budget) as I am with the war issue, and the massive military-industrial complex.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    May 1, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    I would no more vote for Romney because he is a "Mormon" than I would vote for Nancy Peolosi because she is a "woman" or Obama because he is half black and half white. In fact I tend to agree with those Protestants who see Romney as Mormon but insufficiently so.

    Reading the statements of successive presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the subjects of War and Provident Living I see a far greater similarity between them and Ron Paul than they and Romney. In fact they are similar to Paul and dissimilar to Romney.

    I usually snigger at those who say that "you can do anything you really want to or that you truly believe" envisaging users of hallucinogens jumping out of high rise buildings truly believing they can fly and hitting the sidewalk like flies on a windscreen, and candidates who mostly say they are "the next president of the United States of America" when obviously only one of them can be.

    Somehow their infallible beliefs and dreams disintegrate at the possibility of a Paul presidency, something definitely still possible if somewhat unlikely given the fatalism and defeatism of his countrymen.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    May 1, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    Dear Tenx,

    There are hundreds of other countries for you to choose to live in. Take your pick.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 1, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    Re: "People are already beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors of the mainstream candidates."

    I've seen no evidence of that whatever. The vast majority of Americans are on political autopilot. Plodding on, projecting their own beliefs onto whatever candidate seems most attractive to them, caring little for the effect of their vote on our Nation.

    Politicians are counting on the fact that, only the unusual voter takes the time to analyze the positions of a candidate, look hard at the people and advisers he surrounds himself with, or examine the actions the candidates take when they think no one is looking.

    That's what sadddest about this, and pretty much every other election -- the only choices are between bad, and not as bad.

    Modern American politics would be a much more palatable and honorable pursuit, and would attract more decent people, if it weren't so heavily populated by politicians.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 1, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Well, no doubt about it - we are definitely winning the War on Drugs! NOT!

    We have thrown billions at this problem and are not making any headway, unless you count filling up our prisons and making the drug business very lucrative for the drug lords.

    Why don't we handle the drug problem like we do the "other drug problem" we have in society?
    That of course would be alcohol. Did prohibition stop alcohol use? Nope. Did the money to be made in it go up? Yep. Did crime go up? Yep.
    Take the big money out of it and a huge part of the problem will disappear. The cost of producing these drugs is not that much. What makes them expensive is that they are illegal and some people will do anything to get at something that is illegal. Passing laws usually doesn't stop them.

    Make them available in a state regulated store just as alcohol is. Take the big money out of it.
    About 3% will partake and then we will have to deal with the health issues it creates. We already do that with alcohol. Not a perfect system, but much better than now. Your ideas?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 1, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    per David King 10:32 p.m. April 30, 2012

    "then you will get exactly what you desire, a general election between two candidates who pretend to represent vastly different views and philosophies of government, who actually agree on a host of fundamental issues such as: individual mandates, bailouts for banks, government stimulus bills, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, fighting undeclared preventative wars of agression, protecting the Federal Reserve, and in short, growing both the size and scope of government."

    Agreed. I hate to beat the same drum again yet when the 2012 candidates for Potus are IVY league Grads what do you expect?

    per Aggie238 11:20 p.m. April 30, 2012

    Could not have said it any better. Dr. Paul is that lone voice in crying out in the political wilderness. I'm tempted to make a biblical analogy but won't. Until a candidate (a Libertarian or Independent with strong Libertarian leanings) rises up and shakes both major political parties to their core nothing good will come of American
    politics. You think things have been strange since 1988; they are about to get even more ridiculous.

  • Te Amo Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    Democrates "and" Republicans are the problem. They have the power to make the changes necessary but instead their efforts go to fill their own bank accounts at the expense of us tax-payers. Use your head a little bit. If you are happy with what you have, just keep voting for them. If not, anyone is better than more of the same. As I see it, Ron Paul is the only POSSIBLE solution we voters have. We cannot continue financing forign aid, forign wars, lobbyists, paying farmers not to farm, oil depletion allowances, insurance companies to rob us blind and laws made to keep lawyers working. The war on drugs is a joke and needs to be cleaned up. Right now it just serves to make drug dealers rich. I'm writting in Ron Paul and will do my best to point out the problems subsidized by the Democrates and Republicans every chance I get.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 1, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Examining Ron Paul's so-called "dangerous foreign policy ideas":

    Wiki-pedia states:

    "Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.

    Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others. He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending what he deems massive, unaccountable foreign aid."

    From Ron Paul's official website:

    * Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

    * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

    * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

    * Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home."

    If these are "dangerous", then I wonder what one would call all the death and destruction of our no-win, undeclared wars?

    President Washington warned against entangling alliances - we should listen!

    "What on earth is wrong with the United States simply minding its own business?" Robert Welch

    Support our troops by bringing them home and defending US!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 1, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    Both major parties are irrelevant! No political party or man, including ron paul, will change people that are already blinded by their own ignorance and willfulness! Very little will change with the coming election. Barack Obama just makes the worse changes(He has done more damage than any president in American history) come a little sooner!

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 1, 2012 7:41 a.m.


    Exactly how are Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas dangerous? Do you even know what they are? Sounds to me like you're just repeating tired talking points you heard from Glen Beck like all the other rank and file Republicans.

  • Gail Fitches Layton, UT
    May 1, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    As I read the comments, it appears to me that many people are repeating the same information that is on the lamestream media. Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who stands for freedom, and will not be bought off by globalist united nations agenda corporate America. I can tell people here do not realize these globalist are on a fast track to take away all of our freedoms and kill the constitution. No matter what, I will be voting for the ONLY ONE who stands strong for our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and freedom to run our own lives. Parent rights are under attack, private property is under threat and many have had their property taken away from them in this country, non-toxic cancer treatments are kept off the market by Big Pharma and Chemical, we are forced to eat genetically modified foods without our consent or knowledge, that will destroy our health, and it goes on and on. Our country is on a fast track to being totally taken over, and I suggest that people do more research on the global threats we are under. I will vote for Ron Paul regardless of outcome.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    May 1, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    @aceroinox, President Reagan (who most recognize as a "Republican") stated that "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

    In other words, it's absolutely silly to chase people off into these non-viable third parties of Big-L "Libertarians" and "Constitutionalists". If the Republican party can't embrace liberty and binding down far-away centralized government to its Constitutionally limited functions, then the Republican Party has truly lost already.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 1, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    Pauls ideas of foreign policy are dangerous and will do more harm than good. He is in the Republican party because he can receive more voter there than he can as a general election candidate in the Libertarian party. He has no chance to win anyway.

  • Thoughtful Voter Spanish Fork, UT
    May 1, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    I've never yet met a Ron Paul supporter that voted Obama in 2008 or that plans to vote Obama in the general in 2012. If there were some who believed his Obama claiming that he was different than McCain or Romney on foreign policy and civil liberties in 2008, they have no reason to believe such hollow promises this go round. U of U's Chambless obviously has no idea what he's talking about. And Roche doesn't appear to have checked with any of Paul's many supporters. It's not like they're hard to find. :)
    Chambless has it half-right, it's a tough pill to swallow to support Republican nominees who campaign on fiscal discipline and Constitutional limits to government but who really advocate unsustainable deficits, sending our defense forces into pointless and unjustified conflicts, and growing the scope, cost, and powers of the centralized Federal government.
    In 2008, this active Republican Ron Paul supporter did not support McCain in the general, but neither did I support Obama. In 2012, if Romney doesn't listen to the well-reasoned 20%+ that support Paul, I can't see supportig Romney either.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    May 1, 2012 6:20 a.m.


    I am a Democrat, and proud to be, but there is absolutely no way anyone, even a former President of the United States, can definitively state what another President would or would not do in a given situation.

    Do I blame George Bush for a lot of the problems in handling the wars we find ourselves in? Yes. Do I think President Obama should have done more to to get us out of Afghanistan? Yes. Do I think Mitt Romney is the best choice for President? No. I will still vote for President Obama in the next election, but that doesn't mean I am going to make pronouncements about what Mitt Romney will or will not do in order to score points on an emotional level. You can't win an election simply by voting 'against' a person. You can only really win an election by voting for someone, and people should really put some effort into minimizing all of the end-of-the-world hyperbole, on both sides.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    May 1, 2012 5:49 a.m.

    I would NEVER vote for BO. But Romney is McCain warmed over. What a sad state of affairs. I am beginning to feel there is no hope for us.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 1, 2012 5:31 a.m.

    I find it hilarious to watch Republicans embrace Ron Paul only to be hocked by his willingness to allow pot and other ills of society. It just proves Republicans want to interfere with our lives despite saying they are for less government.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2012 12:05 a.m.

    @Paul supporters

    I've heard it theorized one step further beyond what some of you are saying about spreading his message... Ron Paul has a rather logical successor, Rand Paul. Do you see Rand running for president in 2020 (give or take a cycle depending on how things shake out in these elections)?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    April 30, 2012 11:20 p.m.


    I think you are missing the point. Most Paul supporters like myself don't really expect that Ron Paul will win the nomination. Probably not ever, as he's getting up there in years. The point is to force people to listen to his message as much and as long as possible by sticking in the race until someone else forces him out. People are already beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors of the mainstream candidates. This election has been a testament to that fact, as he has garnered exponentially more support than in times past. Many of my friends and family, on both sides of the political aisle, who scoffed at Ron Paul's philosophies 10 years ago, are now seeing that there was more to those ideas than they chose to admit. Another point to consider is that Paul commands an overwhelming lead among young people. A few years from now, we will make up the majority of voters, and when we do we're going to clean house. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about freedom. We're not going to quit, and in the long haul we are playing to win.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    April 30, 2012 11:11 p.m.

    The whole concept of a Ron Paul candidacy is skewed. Ron Paul is, and always has been, a libertarian, not a Republican. Because only a very small percentage of Americans have any interest in embracing libertarianism, the Libertarian Party has always floundered. As a result Congressman Paul and his supporters have made a valiant effort to drag the GOP toward libertarian positions and ideology, but to no avail. Time to abandon the attempt and return to your native party.

    The GOP will survive or "become irrelevant" quite nicely all on its own.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 30, 2012 10:58 p.m.

    @David King

    I think many of Ron Paul's ideas are dead on. But he's never going to be the nominee. The title of this article is 'Ron Paul supporters say Mitt Romney still has competition'

    My point ins that Ron Pauls supporters are wrong. Mitt Romney is the nominee. Ron Paul is wasting money if he thinks he's going to win the nomination. If he is just trying to bring awareness to the issues, fine. But he is not relevant to the actual race at this point. I think his supporters think there are more Ron Paul supporters than there really are.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    April 30, 2012 10:54 p.m.

    @ Brother Chuck

    Dearest Brother Chuck...

    On the honesty point, Politifact reports that President Obama has kept only 162 out of over 500 promises he has made to the American people. Those darn facts getting in the way.

    Also, I happen to remember that you voted for Mitt Romney in FL primaries and confessed it to us friendly neighbors here on the DN comment boards. I understand that you may have changed your mind, but really, be balanced when talking about Obama and lets not over use the K-street or Koch brothers anymore. Most of us Republicans are just hoping the government will balance their checkbooks like we do and are not anywhere near the 1% and don't live on any K streets.

    Finally, the Huffington Post is about as liberal leaning as any website I have read in my life. Which is fine, but I might use other sources if you want to be convincing. I think they also came to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is a thug, thief, and likely murderer.


    Comment board friends

  • David King Layton, UT
    April 30, 2012 10:32 p.m.


    Before you make the declaration that "Ron Paul is irrelevant" you should ask yourself the question "is he right?" I suggest a video that can be found on the internet if you search for "Ron Paul-the Philosopher's Stone". It shows some of the predictions that Ron Paul has made about the current state of our economy and also the growth in both the size and spending of the federal government. If after watching that short video, you still feel that Dr. Paul is "irrelevant", then you will get exactly what you desire, a general election between two candidates who pretend to represent vastly different views and philosophies of government, who actually agree on a host of fundamental issues such as: individual mandates, bailouts for banks, government stimulus bills, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, fighting undeclared preventative wars of agression, protecting the Federal Reserve, and in short, growing both the size and scope of government.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 30, 2012 10:05 p.m.

    1) Ron Paul is officially irrelevant. He's not ever going to be the President of the United States....ever. Ever...Never.

    2) Mitt Romney would absolutely have made the decision to get rid of bin Laden. ANY American President, post 9-11, would have done that. To say otherwise is dishonest.

  • David King Layton, UT
    April 30, 2012 9:53 p.m.

    Great to see an article about Ron Paul in this paper. Many Utah Republicans claim to care about the Constitution, but will ignore Mitt Romney's support of things like the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or going to war without a declaration of war by Congress. When Ron Paul says he cares about the Constitution, he has a thirty year record to back it up. You might say we need Mitt Romney because we need "someone who understands the economy" but did you know that Ron Paul was talking about the collapse in housing prices and coming recession long before any of his Republican counterparts? Ron Paul has never supported an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. In contrast, Mitt Romney suggested tax penalties for those not purchasing health insurance as part of national reform. (search Mitt Romney USA Today health insurance op-ed 2009) Ron Paul never supported the TARP done by President Bush or the stimulus package by President Obama. At the end of the day, only Ron Paul has been a consistent and clear voice for individual liberty and fiscal conservatism.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 30, 2012 7:49 p.m.

    Sorry DNews, to burst your private small bubble, about YOUR "poster child" Mitt Romney, but, Ron Paul supporters say Mitt Romney still has competition, and Obama is it, Romney can't beat Obama in the only 3 debates he's got. Romney's done before he gets started. No matter who he picks for a veep running mate. That's the TRUTH and that's my civil dialogue among DNews readers. You may now censor me and block all my truth's. Like my thoughtful comments or not. I don't care.

    Here's why we need Obama in 2012

    Arianna Huffington, founder of the popular news site The Huffington Post, has criticized the Obama campaign for an ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed terrorism kingpin Osama bin Laden, calling the move "despicable."

    In May 2011 President Barack Obama authorized the raid that did away with the al-Qaida leader. But a video ad released by the Obama campaign last week, which included former President Bill Clinton trumpeting Obama's achievement, also had wording which suggested that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mormon Romney would not have made the same decision.

    The GOP lie to much.