You are here: HomeU.S. NewsPoliticsRon Paul Won't Endorse Romney, Sees "Essentially No Difference"
Friday, 12 October 2012 11:44

Ron Paul Won't Endorse Romney, Sees "Essentially No Difference"

Written by 

Ron Paul, the maverick Texas congressman who has twice run for the Republican presidential nomination, won't endorse the nominee of his party. Though Paul said last week it was "very unlikely" he would endorse former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, he made it definitive in an interview October 12 on the CNBC program Futures Now.

"No," he said, plainly and unequivocally, when asked about an endorsement. Neither the GOP challenger nor President Obama will change the course of fiscal and monetary policy that is leading to what has been called the "fiscal cliff," Paul said, because both are captive of special interests. And neither will act to stop the Federal Reserve from papering over the growing chasm of debt by inflating the money supply in a policy called "quantitative easing."

"Both [are] within the establishment where they need the Federal Reserve as lender of last resort to make sure that you can take all the risk in the world," Paul said, describing the "Fed" as an essential prop of what is essentially a "one-party system" in which both Republicans and Democrats refuse to cut federal spending.

"I've been in this business a long time," said the 12-term congressman, "and believe me, there is essentially no difference from one administration to another, no matter what the platforms [say]. The foreign policy stays the same, the monetary policy stays the same, there's no proposal for any real cuts and both parties support it."

Economic analysts are warning the already weak economy will be knocked back into recession by the December 31 expiration of personal and business tax cuts, an increase in the alternative minimum tax and the beginning of taxes related to the "ObamaCare" health care law — all combined with "across the board" spending cuts required by the sequester provision of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling made in Congress on August 1, 2011. In agreeing to an increase in the government's borrowing authority, the lawmakers stipulated that automatic spending cuts would occur unless Congress acted to reduce annual spending increases and lower the nation's debt, now pegged at more than $16 trillion. According to the financial journal Barron's, more than 1,000 government programs, including military spending and Medicare, will face steep cuts. Though some analysts claim the effect will be gradual, calling it more of a "fiscal slope" than a "cliff," nearly all agree the direction for the economy will be downward.

"They're not going to allow all those terrible things to happen on January 1, but they're not going to solve the problem either," Paul said. But as the Federal Reserve begins a third round of quantitative easing, called "QE3," the Texas congressman warned the cheap money policy will wreak havoc on the nation's economy.

"Eternities with QEs are going to happen," said Paul, warning that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "will destroy the dollar if we don't come to our senses, and really cut spending and live within our means."

Paul, author of the bestseller End the Fed, has made opposition to the Federal Reserve a hallmark of his political career since he was first elected to Congress in 1976. He made the formerly dry subject of monetary policy a rallying point for both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, with large crowds of college students and their elders enthusiastically cheering his call for abolishing the Federal Reserve System, created by Congress in 1913. His bill to audit the independent, privately owned central bank finally passed in the House this July by a lopsided 327-98 vote, despite Chairman Bernanke's objection that an audit would result in a "nightmare scenario" of political meddling in monetary policy. That argument had gone unchallenged by most members of Congress for decades. But many of the actions during and after the financial crisis of 2008 caused some lawmakers to question whether the "Fed" had not in fact encroached upon the authority of Congress with some of the extraordinary measures taken to rescue banks and buy mortgage and U.S. Treasury debt.

"I don't know how anybody could be against transparency," Paul said during debate on the bill, arguing that the American people have a right to know the details of the Fed's rescue deals and its support of foreign central banks.

"It's time that we stood up to the Federal Reserve that right now acts like some kind of high, exalted priesthood, unaccountable to democracy," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-Ohio) charged during the House debate. A companion bill in the Senate has been introduced by Paul's son Rand, a Kentucky Republican, though there is little chance of it passing this year.

The elder Paul, a 77-year-old retired obstetrician, is leaving Congress at the end of this year, having decided not to run for another term. Though a Republican throughout his career, he bolted the GOP to run as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party in 1988, drawing less than one percent of the popular vote. In an interview on the Fox Business channel last week, he hinted he might vote this year for the Libertarian Party candidate for president, Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor of New Mexico.

"There are other people who are technically capable of winning because they're on a lot of ballots," Paul said about alternatives to Romney or Obama.

"Like Gary Johnson, for example," the interviewer suggested.

"Yeah," Paul replied, though he did not say whether he would endorse or vote for Johnson

Photo:  In this Jan. 23, 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidates Rep. Ron Paul Paul and Mitt Romney share a laugh during a break in a Republican presidential debate at the University of South Florida in Tampa: AP Images 

8 comments

  • Comment Link fuzzywzhe Friday, 12 October 2012 14:33 posted by fuzzywzhe

    Daryl Davis,

    > He [Paul] would sooner see the nation subjected to Obamacare

    You bring up "Obama Care" but you forget it's modelled on "Romney Care". They are essentially identical. What are you fighting about, who it's named after?

    The hopelessness of this situation is that there are so many people like you that still hold out the belief there is a difference, when anybody who bothers to do any actual thinking about policies at all, knows there isn't.

    > There are real differences between the two candidates.
    > And if libertarians had any sense, they'd recognize that
    > a business man is the ultimate libertarian

    Romney is and was and always will be a crony capitalist. His big success was buying profitable companies, loading them up with debt, bankrupting them, and then dumping the obligations on the Federal government.

    He's just a government leach and nothing more. You might as well call Dick Cheney a capitalist, but turning Halliburton from an oil exploration company to a military contractor. How was this done? Well, political connections, because Halliburton certainly didn't have any experience at all being a military contractor, and it shows by their abysmal record.

    But vote for clone A or clone B, it doesn't matter a bit. The national debt has gone up 9.4% a year on average for 41 years, and it's doing the same now. You think that the deficits and debts are out of control? Well, they have been for my entire lifetime. It's not going to change with Romney or Obama.

  • Comment Link peter okeefe Friday, 12 October 2012 14:29 posted by peter okeefe

    I see only one idiot..you.
    republicans and democrats are just as dr. paul describes them "two sides of the same coin" one wants to fight the drug war by breaking into homes just because some idiot wants to poisin his body with drugs and then pay for a police state by driving taxes up.
    also they beleive that terrorism needs to be fought by taking away basic liberties. the OTHER side is of course socialists that want the same thing with different methods.
    as far as obama care. WE elected this man..it is what the country wants now that we no longer have a republican form of govt but a democracy.
    ben franklin describes democracy as"two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner and liberty as a well armed sheep contesting that vote.
    both are socialist and you will NOT see smaller govt no matter who is elected unless we wake up and rtealize the tree of liberty needs watering

  • Comment Link Nic Friday, 12 October 2012 14:17 posted by Nic

    Daryl,

    Your comment shows how naive you are. I have not decided who I will vote for yet, whether it be Romney, Gary Johnson, or maybe Jill Stein. However, voting is my right and I would rather use it on someone who I truly believe is best fit for the job, rather than vote for someone who the media tells me has the best chance in beating Obama. I want to vote for principle, not popularity.

  • Comment Link James Friday, 12 October 2012 14:06 posted by James

    @ Daryl

    Whatever...

    The are "some" good ideas in both platforms. (libertarianism and republicanism) and your purist definitions are off the mark, since most republicans and libertarians want the same thing. Limited Govt, personal responsibility, and a country that is based on it's founding values).

    Paul is making good points here (& especially about the fed bank), and stating that without transparency, there will be even greater difficulties ahead.

  • Comment Link Daryl Davis Friday, 12 October 2012 12:46 posted by Daryl Davis

    Ron Paul has every right to endorse or vote for whomever he wishes. But what a typical libertarian: He would sooner see the nation subjected to Obamacare and crippling taxes on the job creators than compromise his lofty principles and support Romney.

    There are real differences between the two candidates. And if libertarians had any sense, they'd recognize that a business man is the ultimate libertarian -- whether Romney has since compromised too much with Massachusetts Democrats as governor or not. If Romney wins, and Republicans take the Senate, we will see major changes toward smaller government.

    Believe it. Ron Paul won't even commit to voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate. What a dysfunctional idiot.

    http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/direct-democracy-vs-libertarianism-reason-vs-logic/

Log in
Sign up for The New American daily highlights