Las Vegas Sun

October 22, 2014

Currently: 83° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Election 2012:

Ron Paul backers won’t ‘take over,’ but he hopes party will embrace them

Image

Leila Navidi

Joe Sword of Las Vegas rallies with others while waiting for Rep. Ron Paul to arrive at a campaign stop at American Shooters, an indoor gun range and retail store in Las Vegas Friday, Feb. 3, 2012.

Nevada Republican Convention 2012

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul talks to delegates of the Nevada state GOP convention at John Ascauaga's Nugget on Saturday May 5, 2012. Launch slideshow »

Rep. Ron Paul on Wednesday laid out his hopes for the Republican National Convention in August, conceding that he didn’t have the support to “take over the convention” but asking for a speech on the floor or at a very minimum a “meeting” on-site.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have quite enough (delegates) to take over the convention,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

The Texas Republican and former presidential hopeful said that he had not asked convention organizers or Mitt Romney for a speaking slot, even as it was clear during the interview that he would like one.

“I have not asked specifically, and he hasn’t invited me to,” said Paul.

The libertarian crusader said his goal is to prove that there are advantages to including his supporters and viewpoints in the Republican Party.

“If I’m not going to the be the nominee, the goal is to show that there’s a political benefit toward accepting some of the views that we have,” he said. “All I want to do, if I don’t get a speech on the floor in the convention, all I want to do is have a meeting and say, ‘Look, we have numbers, we have people, we have enthusiasm, we believe in something. Why don’t you pay a little attention?’ And actually I think they are. They don’t know quite how to handle it.”

Asked if the Republican Party had lost its way, Paul argued that there are — on many issues of substance — no serious distinctions between the Republican and Democratic parties.

“I think (the GOP) has lost its way. I think a long time ago. I can’t see the difference” between Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Paul argued. “They’re both very militaristic, interventionist, pro-war. ... Do Republicans really stop welfare expansion? No. Do they really cut back and balance the budget? No. They usually introduce bigger budgets.

“When it comes to the philosophy of government, there’s not enough difference for me. I would like to change those convictions of the Republican Party because there were times when they had much better positions. And there’s no reason why we can’t restore those and improve upon them.”

And on Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, Paul declined to go after him personally.

“I would say he has core convictions, but I just disagree with them,” he said.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. What else does this man have to say? Anyone with an interest has heard everything he has had to say repeatedly. I figure if he can continue to gain in the polls each election cycle, by the time he is 100 years old, he should have enough votes. (Honestly, I would rather listen to Newt speak, and I really think that Ron Paul should revive his "news letters". Same old message, just a different year.)
    We need to get rid of all our cabs for Rickshaws, move every family member into one household with a pig and goat, and everyone will be in transportation or food industry..oh, and carry water from Lake Meade...or, camel transportation. This is how stupid some of Mr. Paul's ideas are to me. He wants us to stay home and close our borders at a time when that obviously has not worked for 3rd world countries. You have either the rich, or the poor. Fed Reserve or not, your camel is worth the same.

  2. I hope Ron Paul and his supporters rip the Nevada Tea/Republican Party to pieces, then jump up and down on it repeatedly, pound it to dust, then stand back and watch the strong desert winds blow what's left all over the place.

    That sounds bad, but the Nevada GOoPers deserve everything that happens to them after selecting a criminal to be in charge of their disorganised efforts.

    Goooooo, Ron Paulers! Rip it apart! Tear it to pieces!

  3. Ron Paul and his fellow Libertarians are fossils. The Tea Party can be characterized as Neanderthals. My god, they don't realize this country had their promised land back in the late 1800s. It's too bad that too many young Americans are so ignorant of American history not to know that.

    "There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

  4. 85% what Ron stands for I agree with, but it's that 15% that scares me and most others. The 15 is so radical and bizarre that is cancels the 85. Overall, one just can't take him seriously and I feel sorry for young voters who get sucked into his rhetoric.

  5. Instead of stereotyping Dr. Paul's followers as fossils or young people who are ignorant of American history, why not discuss Dr. Paul's positions and your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing?

    Here are a few thoughts about Dr. Paul's positions, and the reasons he makes a lot of sense to me:

    Foreign policy: Dr. Paul believes in a strong national defense, but butting out of other countries' internal affairs. He thinks that this causes negative blowback, including terrorism. We spend huge amounts trying to stop terrorism in one place without thinking that even if we're successful in one country the terrorists can find a new base of operations. Do our kids have to die overseas trying to stop terrorism when it's a completely unrealistic goal given our current foreign policy? Meanwhile we give Israel aid and give Arab countries three times as much aid. We use it to manipulate them and they resent it. Why not butt out and use the money at home?

    Dr. Paul supports a limited federal government with only the powers authorized by the Constitution. Both the R's and D's in Washington are bought and paid for by special interests and the result is that no solutions are forthcoming, because the politicians are beholden to the special interests. How can you make significant change when there are so many sacred cows that can't be touched?

    Dr. Paul believes in the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The R's and D's passed the NDAA Act (signed by Obama over the New Year's Eve weekend when it would get minimal attention). American citizens can be detained indefinitely without representation.

    Sound money: If you are OK with trillion dollar a year deficits, go ahead and vote R or D. Both only talk about reducing the rate of growth, not actually cutting anything. No problem: your kids and grandkids can pay the bill for you.

    The two real reasons Dr. Paul's positions don't get more attention: 1. They threaten the establishment and so the establishment ignores Dr Paul or paints him as crazy. If you think Dr. Paul is crazy I suggest you watch his 2003 speech on C-span via youtube. He's pretty smart at predicting the problems our policies cause. Unfortunately most Americans aren't very good at critical thinking, thanks to our weak public school system. It's easy for the media to manipulate people with sound bites. 2. Many Americans view government as Santa Claus. Freedom, on the other hand, also implies personal responsibility. This is scary for a lot of people, with good reason because they are unprepared to prosper in the 21st century.

    That's why I understand that many people don't support Dr. Paul. His supporters are trying to change the conversation. Hopefully more and more people will see the value of his positions. If you don't, don't complain when you get more of the same from the establishment parties.

  6. "Foreign policy: Dr. Paul believes in a strong national defense, but butting out of other countries' internal affairs." I could expand on Vietnam & Korea, but the worst military undertaking was Bush's Iraq War. There, Paul has a point. Perhaps Obama is listening to him & you by refusing to invade Libya & now Syria, despite John McCain's flag waving. Oh, BTW, did you vote for McCain/Palin?

    "Dr. Paul supports a limited federal government with only the powers authorized by the Constitution." Well, that's a fossilized dream. Look at the U.S. in the late 1800s you have your answer.

    "Sound money: If you are OK with trillion dollar a year deficits, go ahead and vote R or D." Problem is, there isn't enough deficit & debt need to put people back to work. Look at WWII, which got us out of the Depression. Massive employment w/ wage/price controls. (OMG! Socialism!) Massive debt after the war, but people had money in their pockets & spent it. Result? The debt nosedived in about a year's time.