Ron Paul supporters who have decided that they can simply not bring themselves to support Mitt Romney or Barack Obama for President in November may soon get a clue from the Tea Party original himself as to who is the best candidate for disillusioned liberty lovers.
In an interview with Fox Business last week, Paul reiterated the fact that he has not offered any support for the Romney campaign saying: “I obviously haven’t announced in support for Romney, so that means that’s very unlikely. And I don‘t think anybody thinks I’m going to vote for Obama. So it’s back to that frustration level in not seeing a dramatic choice in how the system works.”
Paul also suggested a third-party candidate may be a better option for a voter who doesn’t want to be complicit in electing a President who really has little or no likelihood of dramatically changing the direction of the Nation.
“There are other people who are technically capable of winning because they’re on a lot of ballots,” Paul said, though he stopped short of offering a particular endorsement at this time.
The very conservative former candidate elicited shrieks from supposed conservatives like The Blaze writer Meredith Jessup, who, in a column entitled “Ron Paul Is Really Starting To Tick Me Off” writes a familiar “conservative nose-holder voting for Romney” response:
Countless conservatives voting for Romney this fall didn’t support him in the primary election but are now throwing their support behind the best chance this country has right now to avoid driving off a fiscal cliff. Countless conservatives don’t agree with Romney on many issues, but see that they agree with Romney much more than they disagree with him. Countless conservatives realize that voting for Romney doesn’t represent a rousing endorsement for every policy position he has. And countless conservatives also know that a president is only capable of change with cooperation with Congress and if they want real change, it’s more important to elect conservatives from their local districts to represent them in Washington.
Jessup also trumps up to selfishness Paul’s and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s ambition to change the direction of the country drastically rather than mutedly, writing: “But the threat of four more years of Barack Obama apparently doesn’t matter to Paul, Johnson and their supporters who think the principle of their protest trumps the best interests of the country.”
The writer’s opinion is interesting coming from someone writing for a website created by the same guy — Glenn Beck — who took massive heat from Republicans three years ago when he told Katie Couric he would have voted for Hillary Clinton over John McCain before boiling rubber frogs to demonstrate why. Beck’s hypothesis, aptly demonstrated with his frog toy, was this: Someone who polarizes the Nation and gives real conservatives a reason to resist heavily, is much safer than a fake conservative who is able to lull others into a false sense of security as they boil to death.
Despite his aversion to supporting a progressive in conservatives clothing in the last election, Beck seems to be happy to support his fellow Mormon in this election, despite a heavy stench of progressivism lingering in the air.
So-called conservatives like the aforementioned writer of the column calling out Paul for not backing Romney already know that Obama is a liberal. They know that he wants to raise taxes and do away with the Bush tax cuts. These things scare them to death. But, evidently, they don’t fear the unknown. They don’t fear a candidate who has been on the same side of the aisle as Obama on a number of issues including social issues, taxes, global warming, ethanol, “model for the nation” healthcare and others but isn’t now only because he says he isn’t.
It would seem — to borrow from Beck — that many so-called conservatives are ready to jump out of this nearly four-year-old boiling pot of water and right into a more slowly heating cauldron where they may be cooked in a more relaxing manner.
But while Paul may be ticking off columnists like Jessup and Beck may have lost the fervor he had back in his days at Fox, not much has changed in the time since the last election: Two guys are running, one a known liberal and the other with closeted liberal tendencies; the economy is in shambles; and neither candidate is offering a clear plan on how to fix it. The bottom line is that conservatives who believe voting for a real conservative candidate is a throwaway are simply telling you (again hat tip to Beck’s frog boiling), “I’m tired of fighting and would much rather be boiled slowly.”
In the meantime, America can probably (and hopefully) expect Paul to make headlines in coming weeks when he throws his support behind a candidate who is on the ballot in 48 States and has been steadfast in his political beliefs.
That candidate said this in response to the debate — which he was not invited to, some suggest illegally — last week:
Everyone, including President Obama and former governor Mitt Romney, gives lip service to reducing the deficit. But when you do the math — whether it be Obama’s, Romney’s or even Paul Ryan’s — there is no plan for eliminating deficits that adds up. When a politician, Republican or Democrat, tells you we can balance the budget while not reducing Medicare costs or while spending even more for defense, it simply cannot be done. And they know it can’t be done.
Americans deserve the truth. The truth is that our deficits are not only unsustainable, but represent a very real threat to this nation. And of the $16 trillion in debt our government in Washington has racked up, it is almost equally split between Republican and Democrat administrations.
It doesn’t have to be that way. I will submit a balanced budget in 2013. Yes, that budget will call for spending reductions of 43% — the reductions necessary to match revenues without raising taxes.
And it would only be fitting for Paul to support the Libertarian. Johnson never flip-flopped, instead spending a massive amount of time smashing down his veto stamp (750 times on bills and thousands of budget line items) during his two terms as New Mexico Governor.
Besides, why turn down the flame under the water pot when there’s a way to cut the gas?