Title: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA Source:
CNN URL Source:[None] Published:May 2, 2008 Author:CNN Post Date:2008-05-02 18:28:55 by a vast rightwing conspirator Keywords:None Views:8659 Comments:534
First, he told Blitz that he can't endorse McCain.
Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better which is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while.
10 minutes ago, on CNN. Wolfie interviewed him. He was careful to say that it's not 'an endorsement' (because he's still in the running) so he called it a 'preference'.
He posted what he heard on live television. It's easy to miss a sentence or two. After I posted the video, he realized he overstated what Dr. Paul said and corrected it in the posts that followed.
10 minutes ago, on CNN. Wolfie interviewed him. He was careful to say that it's not 'an endorsement' (because he's still in the running) so he called it a 'preference'.
It's strange that he didn't mention Barr. He noted that both Hillary and Obama voted to fund the troops in Iraq but, on balance, he found Obama 'better'.
#15. To: RickyJ (#12)
I would like to see the transcript myself. Of course, you should not change your views just because Ron Paul's are different from yours now but it's interesting that someone both of us respect seems to be in total agreement with me. Even to the 'nuances' level.
#19. To: robin (#17)
Let's see the transcript but, based on my imperfect recollection, RP called Obama 'slightly better' than Hillary. Not 'less evil'. This is exactly my view. He's a minor positive which is A LOT, when compared to the past few presidents and the 2 monsters he needs to defeat to get the job.
#23. To: robin (#18)
Thanks for posting the videos.
In Ron Paul's words, Obama would be 'slightly better' in foreign policy. His main concern: where would Obama spend the money he would save from stopping the wars. I have the same concern myself but... let's get the wars stopped first.
I agree that 'supports' may be a tiny bit too strong a word. 'Expresses' or 'announces' or 'states a preference for Obama' would have been a more proper headline. But... the essence of his commentary was something that one must be blind or extremely biased to ignore - it is possible to rate the 3 current contenders. They are not the same. We need to be wise and make the best of a not so good situation.
Yes, it's a simple idea: the three candidates to the U.S. president job are not interchangeable. One of them would at a minimum maintain and likely expand our ruinous involvement in the Middle East. Another would somewhat reduce the Iraq occupation force but, like her husband, is likely to stay 'engaged' and bomb lots of innocent people dead. Mr. Obama may drastically reduce our military presence in Iraq and is unlikely to initiate new wars and occupations.
Back in 2000, some of us saw no big difference between Gore and Bush. We saw both of them as 'evil' and we refused to back the 'lesser evil'. The common wisdom amongst the FR members, and I believe I was one of them at the time, was that Bush was actually the lesser evil. I supported Buchanan.
Now, let's be honest. If Gore got the U.S. presidency, it's hard to imagine how the central government would have gotten any bigger or any more intrusive. It is also very likely that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
What a difference would a Gore presidency have made? We would have hated it because we would have had no idea of how worse the W Bush presidency would have been but... how about hundreds of thousands of human beings, including over 4000 Americans still alive and how about a couple trillion dollars not wasted? I would NOT call that 'insignificant'.
It's easy to say 'it does not matter' but when reality screams at us that it DOES matter, we ignore reality at your own risk and at our own expense.
Now, let's be honest. If Gore got the U.S. presidency, it's hard to imagine how the central government would have gotten any bigger or any more intrusive. It is also very likely that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
I agree, but I asked that question about a month ago here to a few posters and they all disagreed.
#106. To: robin, a vast rightwing conspirator, all obamaneocon deceived Believers (#103)
Now, let's be honest. If Gore got the U.S. presidency, it's hard to imagine how the central government would have gotten any bigger or any more intrusive. It is also very likely that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
I agree, but I asked that question about a month ago here to a few posters and they all disagreed.
How much bigger does it get than EU-like Super State Regional and Global governance ??