Ron Paul endorses Mike Lee

[Fozz]

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/...d=news_view&newsId=20100615007088&newsLang=en

 

[Fozz]

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]

Improving and promoting the use of E-Verify—a nationwide immigration-status verification system

[...]military action would be justified.

Fuck him.

 

[Fozz]

This endorsement is proof that Ron Paul is not a purist when it comes to endorsing people. And he shouldn't be.

 

[John Taylor]

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]

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.

 

[Fozz]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Fozz]

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]

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.

 

[Fozz]

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]

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

 

[Fozz]

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]

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!

 

[Fozz]

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.

 

[Fozz]

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]

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]

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]

saw that one coming! glad to hear it.

He's far better than the other guy.