Is Ron Paul Playing To The Evangelicals?

[mrjarrell]

He's come out with a new stance, in regards to Israel and he did it before a crowd from the evangelical right. Looks like he may be going after the Santorum leftovers. It's certainly something new from him, even tho it sounded like something he'd say.

Ron Paul Says He Would Recognize Jerusalem As Israel's Capital - Business Insider

 

[88GT]

What was his old stance? On the capital question specifically?

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Good Move

 

[strahd71]

What was his old stance? On the capital question specifically?

i'm not paul bot but i would assume that he would have said "its their choice as long as they pay for it themselves" seems like what he would have said

jake

 

[Fletch]

He's always been for cutting both aid to and control over Israel:

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He argues that they are an independent nation, able to stand on their own two feet, and America's micromanaging of the Middle East doesn't help them in any way.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Does it really matter that Paul is selling out now?

He has absolutely no chance, I don't think it matters, right?

 

[msr]

He has absolutely no chance, I don't think it matters, right?

 

[nawainwright]

Does it really matter that Paul is selling out now?

He has absolutely no chance, I don't think it matters, right?

I don't think "selling out" means what you think it means. That or maybe you didn't even read the article. There is no where in there where he advocated subsidies or anything other than recognizing one city as the capital of Israel. How is that selling out?

I'll just assume you read "Ron Paul says.." and left it there, labeled him as a sellout, and moved on to your own soapbox.

 

[Darral27]

How is saying that Israel has a right to decide where their capital is "selling out" kirk? It is no different than what he has always said.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Come on everybody. Don't pile on Kirk for the selling out comments. He has a point. If Ron Paul was honestly going to make a go of the presidential campaign, he should have sold out a long time ago (and to far more people).

It's way too late in the game to sell out (even though I think Paul's comments were in line with many of his previous comments)... The media has already declared Obama the winner.

Plus, everyone knows that Paul is just working out a deal with Romney to get Obama re-elected.

 

[rambone]

"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."

"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.

Sounds exactly like something Ron Paul would say. I don't understand the controversy.

 

[hornadylnl]

In before all the mod wannabes. (not the real mods)

 

[88GT]

He's always been for cutting both aid to and control over Israel:

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He argues that they are an independent nation, able to stand on their own two feet, and America's micromanaging of the Middle East doesn't help them in any way.

The last 2/3 of that round-up make Paul look like an idiot, but it doesn't answer my question.

I would have thought that this would have been Paul's position all along. He is nothing if not consistent, which means he would have had to believe at all times past and present that Israel had the right and authority to determine it's own capital location.

In order for this to be newsworthy, it would have to represent a change. But a change from what?

I would be inclined to think this was nothing except for the fact that his own people were surprised. Surprised by what?

 

[Bond 281]

The last 2/3 of that round-up make Paul look like an idiot, but it doesn't answer my question.

I would have thought that this would have been Paul's position all along. He is nothing if not consistent, which means he would have had to believe at all times past and present that Israel had the right and authority to determine it's own capital location.

In order for this to be newsworthy, it would have to represent a change. But a change from what?

I would be inclined to think this was nothing except for the fact that his own people were surprised. Surprised by what?

Apparently it's newsworthy because Paul an anti-semitic Israel hater or something as far as idiots are concerned. This stance is about as new to him as ending the Fed.

 

[88GT]

Apparently it's newsworthy because Paul an anti-semitic Israel hater or something as far as idiots are concerned. This stance is about as new to him as ending the Fed.

So why were his own people surprised?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How is saying that Israel has a right to decide where their capital is "selling out" kirk?

Because it is a shock to Paulians.

There's no question that Paul is selling out to strengthen his secret deal with Romney for something after the convention.

I would be inclined to think this was nothing except for the fact that his own people were surprised. Surprised by what?

The Paulians will tell us that they are surprised because Paul is even more consistent.

It's a shock to them as they did not think Paul would sell out to the evangelicans who they despise.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Because it is a shock to Paulians.

There's no question that Paul is selling out to strengthen his secret deal with Romney for something after the convention.



The Paulians will tell us that they are surprised because Paul is even more consistent.

It's a shock to them as they did not think Paul would sell out to the evangelicans who they despise.

I am confused. You say Paul has absolutely no chance, so why is it that Romney would even need to worry about a deal with him. Either your no chance statement doesn't work or your long running Romney/Paul deal doesn't. Paul has cash on hand and supposedly the fewest delegates. Why would Romney need to make a deal with him? To attempt to sway the Paul supporting Independents and Democrats who don't like Obama? Not sure that will translate well.

More likely deals would be Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich has delegates and majorly in the hole. He's probably been waiting by the phone for a call from Willard for weeks now because he financially needs it. Santorum will get a promise for his delegates since he doesn't need the money as much as Gingrich. And Santorum has an attractive number of delegates.

Seriously, why wait for Paul to try and swoop in on the evangelicals if you can just buy off their beloved wonderboy Santorum now? Makes little sense.

Wait! Unless Paul is helping Romney who is actually helping Obama! Oh my god! Kirk, you were right all along. Romney is going to throw the election to Obama. Damn. I don't know why I didn't see this before. You'd think the banks bouncing from Obama in '08 to Romney now would have been the tip off, but I was chalking that up to them just reacting poorly to all the fraud charges against Wall Street banks and not them actually just bankrolling the dive he plans to take. Wow. I can't wait to call Glen Beck about this one.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Sounds exactly like something Ron Paul would say. I don't understand the controversy.

////////////THIS!\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[Bond 281]

So why were his own people surprised?

Wead added that Paul's position "makes sense after the fact," noting that the candidate has frequently emphasized Israel's sovereignty.

They were probably surprised that he explained his position in a politically smart way. That's Paul's main weakness as far as electability goes, that he doesn't explain his positions in such a way that most people would agree with, even though I think more people would agree depending upon how a stance is framed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

so why is it that Romney would even need to worry about a deal with him

The deal between Romeny and Paul was struck a while ago. We had a thread on it.