Comments on: Why Ron Paul Should Not Run for President Again

By: Janice Fritty

Janice Fritty — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:13:04 +0000

Cons are mad about Obama's trip because there are no spoils involved with diplomacy.

By: M Shannon

M Shannon — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:04:59 +0000

Third parties haven’t worked in the US because they always immediately go for the top job. A third party could work but it must start locally and build it’s support district by district. It shouldn’t run a presidential candidate in it’s first election or perhaps even the second. It’s aim should be to gain seats in local government and the House of Representatives in the first election…and governorships. After it has established itself then it can run senate and presidential candidates without the inevitable effect a third party normally has…electing the democrats or republicans they least want to see in office.

Ron Paul could be the first elected member of a new third party but he shouldn’t run for president..he’ll just give us four more years of Obama.

By: Samba

Samba — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:35:47 +0000

Ron Paul is a true statesman. He just needs a good VP; someone like Judge Andrew Napolitano who is a strict constitutionalist. The mainstream neocon talk radio heads don’t particularly care for him; and this is one obstacle that will be somewhat difficult to get past. But in terms of having a President who truly understands economics, monetary policy, foreign policy and always looks to our constitution to guide our principles and policy; Ron Paul would never let us down. Dr. Paul does not have a populism personality like Sarah Palin; but he has a record unmatched that is 100% pro-American, 100% pro-liberty. Dr. Paul understands clearly that the Constitution regulates the federal government, not the people. I plan on doing whatever possible if he runs again in 2012, and that 2012 bumper sticker on my truck gets interesting looks every day. Whether you are a 60′s liberal who believes in civil rights, or a conservative, you cannot argue much with Dr. Paul’s pro-liberty, pro-life natural right and limited government stance. He has the facts to back-up what he says.

I’ll be rooting for Dr. Paul in 2012. If he does not run, i’ll champion whomever he supports. I just don’t see the passion from the grassroots coming out if Dr. Paul does not run in 2012.

By: Felling

Felling — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:16:49 +0000

I am in my early 30′s and have never even voted before until last year were I ran into the booths to write Dr. Pauls name down twice.

I am not saying I would not vote for a candidate that had a similiar messege, but it would really take a truly constitutional style candidate with a record like Dr. Paul’s to bring me back to that level of enthusiasm again in a candidate. I could care less about his age.

I would take an 76 year old Paul than any President that I have seen to date since I have been at the legal age to vote.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:39:51 +0000

We need a Ron Paul / Andrew Napolitano ticket in 2012. If Dr. Paul doesn’t run, I would like the Judge to go for it.

By: Chick Dante'

Chick Dante' — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:57:35 +0000

Either Sanjaya (American Idol star) or Sarah (Palin, the current political media star) have more celebrity and star power than Ron Paul and Gary whatsisname. Shoot, Palin even has a book out which, though entirely ghostwritten, will be cited by her followers as proof that she can write or at least read (most of them having done neither). Possessing this kind of star power in today’s news vaccuum equals name recognition, the gold standard for getting elected to high public office.

To sort this all out, Americas will inevitably turn to “news stars” like David Gregory, Chris Wallace, or Brian Williams. They will tell us who is ahead in the polls, who is more likely to garner the most votes and who is too “quirky” or “polarizing” to be elected. Just ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

Besides, they don’t look “Presidential.”

Is this a great country or what!

By: A Young Supporter

A Young Supporter — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:42:49 +0000

If you want fresh blood in the libertarian movement to run for office, us young things are supplying it in buckets.

By: Sean Scallon

Sean Scallon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:18:03 +0000

Rep. Paul I think is very sincere when he says he has no plans to run in 2012 (the media hears that phrase and assumes the politician is lying, which in most cases they are. Dr. Paul is a refreshing example of non-power lust). Given his age and given the fact his wife had to be hospitalized not once but twice while out campaigning I think means a presidential bid is not something he either making plans for nor anticipating nor is something he really wants to do.

However, given this vacuum, it’s time for others to step up to the plate and show leadership for those who support, not so much Ron Paul, but his ideas first a foremost. Gary Johnson could very well be this person if wishes to be. Certainly Ron Paul would endorse someone like him would take up that mantle transfer much of his support to himself.. But if more time passes and no one emerges, then the vacuum becomes a vortext that sucks everything in and only lead to chaos. Hopefully that doesn’t happen.

By: Douglas Reinback III

Douglas Reinback III — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:25:16 +0000

His age isn’t a factor (that’s just a number), it’s his brain.
Gravel at 77 wiped the floor nightly with his Democratic debate counterparts. If Ron Paul is as smart in 2012 as he is now, he will have my vote.
Gravel, like Paul, kicked all sorts of ass in the debates.
Love those guys,

By: KS Huffman

KS Huffman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:47:31 +0000

I agree that Ron and Carole Paul would be very exhausted at their age if in the White House and first lady role. Just imagine all the gossipping paparazzi and endless meetings, travel, and other time consuming and freedom restricting controls on their lives by security people.