Has Ron Paul Quit?

Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."

Comments

Real summary.

[Romancer]

FTA:

"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron"

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume]

You do realize that Paul (like most big-L Libertarians, though perhaps even more extremely than most) is firmly and explicitly opposed to any such "New Deal" domestic policy, right? (We are, after all, talking about a man who would seek to completely eliminate the Department of Education and defund education spending at a federal level.)

If an end to expensive and counter-productive military adventurism and a re-commitment to New Deal-style domestic programs is something you feel strongly about, you might find yourself better served by a candidate like Barack Obama.

Re:Real summary.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It's not entitlements that's killing us, it's INCOMPETENCE. When you're not doing billions in hand outs to your buddies and giving high offices to political hacks, things actually get done.

It's not enough that you cut taxes, it's that you cut spending as well. The opposite is true too. I don't mind being taxed if my ride to work is smoother and traffic is better managed.

Re:Real summary.

[uhlume]

It appears you're a little confused. (In fact, according to Wikipedia, "in Roosevelt's twelve years in office the economy had an 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP, the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country...")

Re:Real summary.

[cetialphav]

The Department of Education uses 2% of the federal budget. Their total budget is less than $60 billion dollars. Most of the money goes right back to the taxpayers in the form of Pell Grants ($13 billion) and various grants to the states ($24 billion). Those things do not sound like useless waste to me. Since this money goes into helping people go to college and improving schools in less affluent areas, I feel this is a good investment. A more educated workforce is great for the economy, and therefore good for me. Dollar for dollar, I think we get a better return on Pell Grants than we do on a new aircraft carrier ($13 billion).

Now, I think the debating the merits of Federalism vs state control and the proper role of the federal government of in education is a worthwhile debate. I enjoy hearing different ideas on the best way to fund and run the education system. But I can never take seriously any politician who just says that we should close down the Department of Education. That just ignores the important role that it plays today.

Misleading title and summary

[The One and Only]

Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:

But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

Re:Thank goodness

[Uart]

Lew Rockwell is not the founder of the Austrian School. He is the founder of a think-tank that advocates that particular school of thought.

The Austrian School was founded by Ludwig von Mises and (Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek, among others.

Re:Now there are 3 Liberals to decide between..

[XnavxeMiyyep]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 actually lists all three of the as conservative.

Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics

[the_raptor]

Or he actually realised that the world isn't black and white, despite what most liberals seem to think. There are times when things like waterboarding (which is NOT TORTURE, you can spin it however you want but it's not) are necessary. It's amazing how many 'smart' people are really so stupid.

So would you voluntarily undergo water torture to prove this point? Would you be happy with other countries using it against your spies and soldiers?

I don't see how something that tricks a persons brain into thinking they are drowning could not be called torture. Torture is not equal to causing physical damage.

Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?

[witherstaff]

Presidential contributions are separate from his congressional run. It's the law.

As to why this thread says 'quit' when it sounds more like scaling back for fiscal conservation is beyond me.