Ron Paul Endorses Steve Lonegan for Governor
The storyline:
LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed Steve Lonegan in the New Jersey Gubernatorial Primary. The endorsement was announced today in a statewide email to Dr. Paul’s thousands of fans and supporters in the Garden State.
Said Dr. Paul, “I was very impressed by Steve Lonegan’s record of budget restraint as Mayor of Bogota, NJ. Steve has been a vocal critic of runaway spending and taxpayer funded bailouts, and he understands that we must reject the nanny state and return government to its proper, restrained role.
“Sending Steve Lonegan to Trenton would be a tremendous victory for the people of New Jersey.”
Michael’s POV:
Steve Forbes who? Bret Schundler who? Rudy Giuliani who?
Finally a real true fiscal Conservative from A to Z has endorsed the only real true fiscal Conservative in the race for the GOP nomination for Governor. Congressman Ron Paul, who forgets more about the economy then Rudy Giuliani learned in a lifetime, has endorsed Steve Lonegan for Governor.
Huge endorsement for Lonegan from Dr. Paul, which supersedes and minimizes the endorsement of Chris Christie by Murray Sabrin. The Campaign for Liberty folks in the state, who already were heavily behind Steve, will now be even more energized for his candidacy now that Dr. Paul has thrown his support to Lonegan and involves himself in this race.
Let’s be truthful about some things here; the Sabrin endorsement of Chris Christie is nothing more then swinging back at Lonegan for endorsing Pennacchio for US Senate last year; political payback if you will, and everyone knows it. I wasn’t surprised by it, and totally expected it to happen.
There could be an extra benefit from the Paul endorsement, a huge windfall of political donations coming Lonegan’s way if a Money Bomb can be executed in time. My guess is that is already in the works.
Wow, stop the presses.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:21 amThat’s a very strong endorsement coming from a true defender of the Constitution of the United States.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:37 amI like Paul’s idea on a number of issues. But he seems to attract a lot of the “9/11 Truthers”.. spoiled upper-middle class brats, devoid of critical thinking skills, and embracing conspiracy theories. These people make me more than cringe, they make me enraged.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:08 amIts great to see national conservatives taking an interest in our bankrupt state and a passionate conservative candidate like Steve Lonegan.
He needs more endorsements like this. And the GOP needs to support candidates like Lonegan if they ever hope to survive.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amActually today, the 15th, is the Lonegan Money Bomb… Go Donate
https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/lonegan/lonegan_for_governor_-_primary/donate.aspx
Or watch the cool video first
May 15th, 2009 at 11:43 amhttp://minutes2midnightmoneybomb.com/
Ron Paul is great. Unlike the RINOs he stands up for following the Constitution, has a 96 percent rating by the National Taxpayers Union, and stands up to the Federal Reserve.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:48 amRon Paul received more votes in New Jersey than Forbes and Guiliani combined.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:49 amRon Paul is excellent on fiscal issues…but he right there with Pelosi and Reid in his opposition to the US military. Circumspection is warranted before relying to heavily on his endorsement.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pmEd,
Steve is a true follower of the Constitution. As such, he knows that a Governor does not carry-out foreign policy. He informed me that he will concentrate his efforts on fixing the problems of New Jersey.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pmEd, care to define “opposition to the US military?”
May 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pmGeorge:
When it comes to his opposition to the US military, Ron Paul remains true to his libertarian roots and true to the positions he took when he ran as the Libertarian Party Candidate for President. He is a pacifist like the Leftists on this list.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pmDi Marco:
I understand. I was not saying that Lonegan is a pacifist or otherwise imputing Paul’s positions on the military to him.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pmWow. The election is over. Why bother even opening the polls.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pmEd, you are not usually shy about giving specifics to support your positions. Why so vague this time?
May 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pmGeorge:
Thank you for the implicit compliment, whether it was intended or not. I was finishing up some work before hitting the road to travel on Friday, so I have not been able to respond to your request for more details until this morning.
Here is a link to an article authored by Paul from a quick google search I just did this morning, the title of which is “The Irrelevance of Victory,”
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10330
While disparaging the surge Paul condemns the Americans as “occupiers” instead of praising them as liberators. Now I think there are valid reasons to have been opposed to the war in Iraq - as it has come to pass, I know longer believe it was a worthwhile endeavor the way it was justified and fought. However, to call the Americans “occupiers” while ignoring the brutality of the previous regime is as dishonest as it gets. The “occupation” is inessential to the fundamental, which was “liberation.” However, liberation is nowhere mentioned by Paul in any of his writings or speeches.
And yet, while Paul opposes replacing Saddam Hussein with the American constitution (or whatever variation we foolishly allowed the Iraqis to vote on), he nevertheless claims that enemy combatants are entitled to the full panoply of protections of the US Constitution. This kind of gross contradiction is either the work of a very unserious man, or else it comes from someone who just opposes the American military period and will put whatever shackles on it possible.
Finally, Ron Paul has never recanted the position he took on the military during his 1988 run for president as Libertarian Party candidate. The Libertarian Party platform has consistently condemned all uses of American military power as unjust, in much the same way that someone seeing a police officer arresting a bank robber objects to the use of force in disarming the criminal. They oppose the American military no matter what.
The Libertarians have many things right on fiscal matters. But they are deaad wrong on military matters. Their policies would lead to the unilateral disarmament of America - and her destruction at the hands of thugs shortly thereafter. Any support they give on fiscal issues should be taken with the same care that endorsement from Nancy Pelosi would require.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:44 amEd Mazlish Says:
“Ron Paul is excellent on fiscal issues…but he right there with Pelosi and Reid in his opposition to the US military. Circumspection is warranted before relying to heavily on his endorsemenT”
this cannot be further from the thruth…ron paul is a non interventionist, not an isolationist….and he is for a strong national defense, not a global empire that polices the world, having 700 military bases in 130 countries is not needed and ridiculous….
May 17th, 2009 at 7:20 pmour current foreign policy and sinister habits of occupation can only incite hatred for us americans. there is no disputing that, why dont we ask and listen to the people whos land we occupy….these policies are ultimately not in the best interest to our national security and ron paul is correct when he cites the CIA in their investigations towards “blowback”..Paul and libertarians are not pacifists, if this is true, then our founding father were ‘pacifists’ and that ofcourse isnt true. At the turn of the 20th century did america change is noninterventionist policies towards an interventionist one and that is when all the problem started….we were fine for nearly 200 years…go figure…. Paul doesnt speak of liberation, because in actuality, there was very little of that..so the few that were liberated doesnt justify the travesty we have committed abroad… Ed I advise you to read up more carefully on a man you criticize..it obvious you are not to well versed with just foreign policy and our constitution…
May 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmRich:
For you, Ron Paul or anyone else to call American troops abroad engaged in “occupation” and say that “there was actually very little [liberation]” is an affront to our soldiers and a smear to America itself.
Whatever political mistakes America has made, we have not engaged in conquest. We have rebuilt every country against whom we made war - we even dropped food packages and other aid together with bombs in Afghanistan. Anyone who smears America like you have has no business invoking the Founding Fathers in support of your position.
Libertarians claim to be against military aggression, but somehow they find a way to always criticize the American and Israeli militaries but never criticize the Palestinians, Islamists or the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
For a particularly appalling and disgusting essay by the intellectual leader of the Libertarians, Murray Rothbard, that says the Cold War was America’s fault and that peace was there to be had if only the US had been willing to make peace with the peaceful communists, I post the following link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard111.html
Here is an article on Paul that identifies him as being in the “Paul-Rothbard tradition,” and in which it cites Rothbard for holding the position that
“Churchill, de Gaulle, and Khrushchev were equally “butchers.” Truman was the “butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”"
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+tradition+of+Ron+Paul:+defeated+in+the+Cold+War,+it+is+back+in%E2%80%A6-a0172050916
Here is another article where Rothbard is cited for the proposition that the problem at Munich was that the lesson the British and French took was to gurantee Poland, whereas Rothbard would have advocated completely backing off because “when, in history when, did one State, faced with belligerent, ultra-tough ultimatums by another, when did that State ever give up and in effect surrender-before any war was fought? When?”"
https://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=174
Rich: I suggest you learn a little more about the people with whom you associate before telling me to read up on anything.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:16 pmAbout the anti-military thing. Doesn’t Steve Lonegan serve in the NJ National Guard Reserves?
May 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am