View Full Version : Ron Paul endorses Mike Lee
Here is his statement:
I am proud to endorse Mike Lee for United States Senate.
Mike Lee will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. We need people like Mike voting with me in Congress.
Mike Lee is a dynamic young leader who understands our Constitution and will fight against out-of-control government to restore our Liberty. Mike has the courage to stand up against the bailouts and government takeovers being forced down our throats by Washington insiders.
Through his support for sound monetary policy, his outspoken commitment to reforming excessive government regulation, or his pledge to balance the budget NOW, Mike Lee’s common sense conservative approach continues to impress me at every turn.
The American people need more than just another vote. We need a man of principle who will always stand up for what is right. We need a citizen politician who will represent US. Mike Lee is just that kind of individual.
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100615007088&newsLang=en
That said, I do not like his positions on Israel and Iran. I see Mike Lee as another Jim DeMint.
However, I definitely do hope he wins.
Knightskye
06-15-2010, 02:54 PM
Improving and promoting the use of E-Verify—a nationwide immigration-status verification system
[...]military action would be justified.
Fuck him.
This endorsement is proof that Ron Paul is not a purist when it comes to endorsing people. And he shouldn't be.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:15 PM
Fuck him.
Military action is justified when we are attacked. Ivory tower philosophers who make perfect the enemy of the good do harm to the spread of the freedom philosophy.
Mike Lee is an Austrian non-interventionist who favors commodity backed money and a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Saying "fuck him" because he isn't pure enough is pathetic. PATHETIC.
MRoCkEd
06-15-2010, 03:18 PM
Yeah, I also hope he wins, but you can't spin this really:
Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East, providing the United States with a stable and dependable partner in a hostile region of the world. Israel faces many of the same threats confronting the United States and we share a common interest in eradicating threats to peace worldwide. For these and other reasons, the United States has an undeniably strong interest in defending Israel’s national sovereignty and security.
No. We should be defending our national security only.
I will also support U.S. efforts to protect Israel, given the close connection between Israel’s national security and our own. I strongly support the maintenance of Israel's qualitative military edge and recognize the important role the United States plays in assuring that this military superiority is maintained. In the Senate, I would support security assistance for Israel to enable Israel to maintain this critical edge. Such security assistance to Israel plays an important role in helping to maintain our own national security.
Nope again.
The government currently ruling in Iran presents a threat to the security of both the United States and Israel. I will therefore support efforts to place pressure on the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with an eye toward persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Should those efforts prove unsuccessful, military action would be justified.
Nope a third time.
Hopefully it's just serious pandering.
Military action is justified when we are attacked. Ivory tower philosophers who make perfect the enemy of the good do harm to the spread of the freedom philosophy.
Mike Lee is an Austrian non-interventionist who favors commodity backed money and a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Saying "fuck him" because he isn't pure enough is pathetic. PATHETIC.
From what I read on his issues page, Mike Lee is NOT a non-interventionist. He is great on most issues, especially sound money, but he has a serious problem on Iran and like so many others, he seems to have sworn fealty to Israel.
My enthusiasm for him has chilled as a result, but I hope he focuses on issues that we like, much like what Jim DeMint has done in recent years.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:22 PM
Yeah, I also hope he wins, but you can't spin this really:
No. We should be defending our national security only.
Nope again.
Nope a third time.
In all three of those statements, he has issued hawkish responses to attacks that he is a non-interventionist dove in order to ameliorate the fears of Utahan primary voters. He's having to run to the hawkish side of things in the primary, that is clear, but he has stated that he is a non-interventionist, and that he only believes in U.S. intervention if attacked and with a declaration of war. His comments about Israel are sops. In any event, his opponent is far far worse, and is a neo-con through and through. At least Lee is governed by his principles, and is ameliorable to persuasion from someone like Rand Paul.
MRoCkEd
06-15-2010, 03:23 PM
In all three of those statements, he has issued hawkish responses to attacks that he is a non-interventionist dove in order to ameliorate the fears of Utahan primary voters. He's having to run to the hawkish side of things in the primary, that is clear, but he has stated that he is a non-interventionist, and that he only believes in U.S. intervention if attacked and with a declaration of war. His comments about Israel are sops. In any event, his opponent is far far worse, and is a neo-con through and through. At least Lee is governed by his principles, and is ameliorable to persuasion from someone like Rand Paul.
I mostly agree, but where did he say he was a non-interventionist?
he has stated that he is a non-interventionist, and that he only believes in U.S. intervention if attacked and with a declaration of war.
Can you prove this?
His comments about Israel are sops.
I sure hope so.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:25 PM
From what I read on his issues page, Mike Lee is NOT a non-interventionist. He is great on most issues, especially sound money, but he has a serious problem on Iran and like so many others, he seems to have sworn fealty to Israel.
My enthusiasm for him has chilled as a result, but I hope he focuses on issues that we like, much like what Jim DeMint has done in recent years.
He's "sworn fealty" to Israel in the same way Rand has, but only in a less calculating, neutrally construeable fashion. He has been under incessant attack in Utah for being a non-interventionist (labeled an "ISOLATIONIST" by Bridgewater) for urging disentanglement from Afghanistan. He is running in a very socially conservative state.
He's "sworn fealty" to Israel in the same way Rand has, but only in a less calculating, neutrally construeable fashion. He has been under incessant attack in Utah for being a non-interventionist (labeled an "ISOLATIONIST" by Bridgewater) for urging disentanglement from Afghanistan. He is running in a very socially conservative state.
The following statements go beyond what Rand has said:
I strongly support the maintenance of Israel's qualitative military edge and recognize the important role the United States plays in assuring that this military superiority is maintained. In the Senate, I would support security assistance for Israel to enable Israel to maintain this critical edge. Such security assistance to Israel plays an important role in helping to maintain our own national security.
The government currently ruling in Iran presents a threat to the security of both the United States and Israel. I will therefore support efforts to place pressure on the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with an eye toward persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Should those efforts prove unsuccessful, military action would be justified.
Mike Lee seems to support intervention for the sake of keeping Israel strong, including military aid. Rand Paul opposes all foreign aid and is on record saying that he'll only support Israel when it is in the interest of OUR country.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:31 PM
I mostly agree, but where did he say he was a non-interventionist?
He's made the argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy throughout the campaign, resulting in him coming under attack by the neo-conservatives, who have labeled him a non-interventionist.
http://biohazard-blog.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-letter-to-mike-lee-april-21-2010.html
I doubt that Mike Lee has ever been a non-interventionist, or else Mark Levin and Rick Santorum would have never endorsed him.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:36 PM
I doubt that Mike Lee has ever been a non-interventionist, or else Mark Levin and Rick Santorum would have never endorsed him.
I don't think Ron has a long history of endorsing neo-conservative interventionists...
Perhaps Santorum and Levin endorsed because of other issues, and because Lee, unlike either of the Pauls, did not make foreign policy the focus of a campaign 3 years ago...
Perhaps Lee hasn't been as focused on foreign policy, and he doesn't want his campaign derailed at this point? He's a vast improvement over Bennet or Bridgewater, that's for certain!
I don't think Ron has a long history of endorsing neo-conservative interventionists...
Perhaps Santorum and Levin endorsed because of other issues, and because Lee, unlike either of the Pauls, did not make foreign policy the focus of a campaign 3 years ago....
Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann both this year and 2008, and she is a hardcore neocon on foreign policy.
He also supported Virgil Goode, who attacked Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison for wanting to use the Quran for his oath of office, and suggested that withdrawal from Iraq would lead to Islamofascism in the US. Virgil Goode was anti-immigration and anti-NWO, but terrible on foreign policy.
Ron Paul does not use non-intervention as a litmus test for endorsements, or else there would hardly be any Republicans to support.
Perhaps Lee hasn't been as focused on foreign policy, and he doesn't want his campaign derailed at this point? He's a vast improvement over Bennet or Bridgewater, that's for certain!
I agree with your last statement, but if these positions are really his, I hope Lee keeps his mouth shut on foreign policy once he gets elected, much like DeMint.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:44 PM
Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann both this year and 2008, and she is a hardcore neocon on foreign policy.
He also supported Virgil Goode, who attacked Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison for wanting to use the Quran for his oath of office, and suggested that withdrawal from Iraq would lead to Islamofascism in the US. Virgil Goode was anti-immigration and anti-NWO, but terrible on foreign policy.
Ron Paul does not use non-intervention as a litmus test for endorsements, or else there would hardly be any Republicans to support.
Sure, there are a handful of interventionists that he's gotten behind, but Lee is not in the same corner as Virgil Goode or Michelle Bachman, he's a far sight better, on domestic policy, and on foreign policy. He believes in declaring wars, fighting them, winning, and returning home asap. Sure, he's playing to the hawks, but he is an out and out open Austrian... and most Austrians that I know of are not committed interventionists.
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 03:44 PM
i agree with your last statement, but if these positions are really his, i hope lee keeps his mouth shut on foreign policy once he gets elected, much like demint.
+1776.
sailingaway
06-15-2010, 03:53 PM
saw that one coming! glad to hear it.
He's far better than the other guy.
White Knight
06-15-2010, 04:09 PM
Where does he stand on the Patriot Act, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and repealing the 17th Amendment?
John Taylor
06-15-2010, 04:10 PM
Where does he stand on the Patriot Act, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and repealing the 17th Amendment?
1) don't know
2) Wants to abolish.
3) Wants to abolish.
4) Wants to Repeal.
White Knight
06-15-2010, 04:12 PM
1) don't know
2) Wants to abolish.
3) Wants to abolish.
4) Wants to Repeal.
Then I hope he wins on that alone, it's a good start. Do you know his positions on our current two wars?
Knightskye
06-15-2010, 05:14 PM
Mike Lee is an Austrian non-interventionist who favors commodity backed money and a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Saying "fuck him" because he isn't pure enough is pathetic. PATHETIC.
Military action is not justified for a country possessing nuclear material, let alone nuclear missiles. That's not non-interventionism.
If he's secretly a non-interventionist who doesn't favor intervening in other countries' affairs, and he's lying to potential voters on his issues page, I guess then it would be okay to vote for him.
Would he oppose a national ID card? It doesn't sound like it.
cyberdogg
06-15-2010, 06:10 PM
Let's say I cast a ballot early, and the decision is "easy" despite my reservation.
That said, Mike Lee is the lesser of two evils. Tim Bridgewater is a Neoconservative who will not change but follow Bob Bennett's precedent-setting path, nothing less.
If I find Mike's fealty to Israel overbearing (despite me advising him to read Geo. Washington's 1796 Farewell Address), I will not vote for anyone but third party (Constitution Party) come November.
Original_Intent
06-16-2010, 11:22 AM
Well, Ron's endorsement seals the deal for me. I was really on the fence between Lee and Bridgewater for various reasons and due to my own research. But I iwll vote for Lee in the primary. Probably end up voting CP in the general though.
Also, regarding Lee's comments on Israel. It will be interesting to see how he acts in office, but in Utah, if you bad mouth Israel in any way shape or form you are dead politically. When you are baptized a Mormon you are considered as adopted into "the house of Israel" and unfortunately many members cannot process past "I am in the house of Israel, therefore I must give unqualified support to the STATE of Israel....they both say Israel, right???!"
And trust me, that is not a church teaching that is the mindless stupor that most people wander around in though.
If he's truly for free market health care, where does he stand on medical self-ownership, i.e. abolishing all drug control laws?
John Taylor
06-16-2010, 12:11 PM
If he's truly for free market health care, where does he stand on medical self-ownership, i.e. abolishing all drug control laws?
Yes, because Rand Paul opposes free market health care because he is not campaigning and will not campaign on abolishing all drug control laws!
:rolleyes:
Once again, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the very very good.
Yes, because Rand Paul opposes free market health care because he is not campaigning and will not campaign on abolishing all drug control laws!
:rolleyes:
Once again, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the very very good.
I'm not asking for perfection. I just don't see how this guy is "very very good".
Moving past the drug issue, is this guy for bringing the troops home from all around the world? Because if he's not, he's not even good on economics.
Is he against the Patriot Act and good on privacy and civil liberties issues?
Or is he just another Republican that isn't a libertarian and this entire movement is just turning into a neocon-lite jack off session?
low preference guy
06-16-2010, 12:51 PM
More like .Tom is in an idiotic smearing-people-who-will-improve-the-Senate jack off session.
specsaregood
06-16-2010, 12:53 PM
Mike Lee is an Austrian non-interventionist who favors commodity backed money and a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution.
This trumps all of the foreign intervention/warmonger arguments. Because such a monetary system would greatly limit the ability to do such things. It is how you fool the warmongers in the republican party....
More like .Tom is in an idiotic smearing-people-who-will-improve-the-Senate jack off session.
Thank you for calling me an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Now please explain to me how this is any different than voting for McCain over Obama?
Gotta love them lesser of two evils!
low preference guy
06-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Thank you for calling me an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Now please explain to me how this is any different than voting for McCain over Obama?
Gotta love them lesser of two evils!
I actually believe that you are a dishonest person, in part for some of the lies you said about Rand Paul. I don't believe trying to convince a liar of something is worth my time.
White Knight
06-16-2010, 01:31 PM
I'm not asking for perfection. I just don't see how this guy is "very very good".
Moving past the drug issue, is this guy for bringing the troops home from all around the world? Because if he's not, he's not even good on economics.
Is he against the Patriot Act and good on privacy and civil liberties issues?
Or is he just another Republican that isn't a libertarian and this entire movement is just turning into a neocon-lite jack off session?
He wants to abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve, repeal the 17th, and get out of the UN. That''s good enough for now, come on.
Shotdown1027
06-16-2010, 01:35 PM
He wants to abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve, repeal the 17th, and get out of the UN. That''s good enough for now, come on.
Don't forget that he's in favor of the Gold Standard.
I'm glad to see Ron Paul people in Utah will vote for Mike Lee--and equally glad to see they'll use the November election to vote for the CP. In the general election, the Republicans will win by double digits in federal races--they don't need your votes. The CP does, in order to keep ballot access.
Depressed Liberator
06-16-2010, 01:40 PM
So he's a huge interventionist?
Not for me.
BlackTerrel
06-16-2010, 04:06 PM
Is his official page the first or second site that comes up on Google?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=mike+lee&aq=f&aqi=g2g-s1g7&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CMqkhykkZTL3xEKX4Mdrq-ecKAAAAqgQFT9AWfZA&fp=610e7dd948e54cca
Knightskye
06-16-2010, 05:01 PM
10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?
Saying "Yes" to that would mean withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and bringing the private contractors home as well.
If he really believes that, then he deserves to win, aside from lying on the issues page.
Distinguished Gentleman
06-16-2010, 05:24 PM
Its sad, very sad, but this is the conclusion I've reached about liberty candidates in big races. Polling has indicated that in order to win two tenants of non-intervention have to be deemphasized.
1. Nuance regarding Israel policy. There are legions of voters, much larger than us, who won't under any condition support a candidate who wavers on Israel. I use the Breitbart websites as a good barometer of traditional conservative opinion. Read the comments section on an Israel article and watch hordes of otherwise reasonable people get very defensive. Saying you support Israel isn't saying you support nuking Iran. It's saying that you recognize that its just not worth it to try to reason with people on such an emotional topic.
2. Guantanamo. I really hate this. Polling indicates that a large majority of Americans think politician's care too much about protecting civil liberties versus security. There's a reason Mitt "double guantanamo" Romney is the leading GOP candidate. We are a minority.
I'm happy that Mike Lee has been endorsed by Ron. The good doctor has been prescient in the past, and this is another example. Voters are typically depraved tribalists that hate the truth. Now that the world is burning around them, they're accepting more truth, but won't compromise on other "touchy" subjects. Now is the time to make practical inroads with "bridge" candidates like Mike Lee. Lee, Angle, and Rand are the best we're realistically going to do.
While there are problems with Lee I hope he wins. We will gradually return to a more libertarian society or we will not at all.
We will gradually return to a more libertarian society or we will not at all.
Tell that to the men who fought against King George.
low preference guy
06-17-2010, 01:07 PM
Tell that to the men who fought against King George.
They never achieved a libertarian society. Remember slavery?
They never achieved a libertarian society. Remember slavery?
My point was that fighting tyranny always comes down to violence, you can't take them down from within, because it will always be against their self interest to let you do so.
low preference guy
06-17-2010, 01:39 PM
My point was that fighting tyranny always comes down to violence, you can't take them down from within, because it will always be against their self interest to let you do so.
I don't think K644 was talking about violence vs. non-violence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.