Tom Davis signs on with Ron Paul.
Earlier this evening, Sen. Tom Davis put out this release:
SENATOR TOM DAVIS ENSORSES RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT“It’s easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations – it’s another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation’s capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on – and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians – including far too many Republicans – were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.”
“2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn’t have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt – and last year’s debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.”“I’m endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans – one out of every two people in this country – are now classified as poor or low-income.”
“Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn’t fixed our economy – which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn’t wedded to that failed approach. We won’t chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left – we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.”
“That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.”
“Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.”
“I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.”
“We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”
To learn more about Senator Tom Davis visit www.senatortomdavis.com
My first thought was “Wow.” I’ve always liked Tom and have a lot of respect for him, and even though he worked for Mark Sanford all those years and was so close to him, I never regarded him as being nearly as much of a radical libertarian as the former governor. But with this move, he has exceeded his friend in that regard.
But you know what? In his own way, he has done much the same thing that The State did in endorsing Jon Huntsman. Yes, in one regard he did the polar opposite — Ron Paul is the last of the GOP candidates that The State, or I, would endorse. As Cindi Scoppe wrote:
Like any libertarian, Ron Paul embraces the worst positions of the far right and the far left: no social safety net, unregulated markets, an isolationist foreign policy and no moral standards. He is the candidate for those who refuse to accept that they are part of a society and can’t see how much their vision of a crippled government would hurt all of us, themselves included.
But in another sense, the two endorsements were alike.
Surely Tom knows that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for president just as well as The State knew that this was not to be for Huntsman this year. But he went with the candidate he thought it should be, rather than the candidate that it would be. So good for him.
Oh, and lucky Tom. As hopeless as his candidate’s cause is, at least he won’t embarrass Tom by suddenly pulling out. Ron Paul’s candidacy is forever.
All in the family now.
Related Posts
Is it true that his illegitimate ‘daughter’ , Ru Paul ,will be VP?
Tom Davis is the first normal person I know in South Carolina who is supporting Ron Paul.
I think it was a bad endorsement. I’ve always liked Senator Davis as a fellow Catholic and reform-minded conservative. My personal opinion though is that an endorsement by a political leader of a candidate for president who blames the US for 9/11, defends the right of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and wants to legalize drugs is an incredibly irresponsible and foolish endorsement.
With Huntsman gone I’ll be voting for Ron Paul Saturday. At least he’s right on about half the issues (personal freedom and the military). And he seems to really believe the stuff he says. As for the others:
Rick Santorum does seem to believe in what he says. That’s the kind of principaled system that I can respect. However, I disagree with him on every single major issue.
Rick Perry. He’s not only dumb as dishwater but he’s just plain mean. How else to explain things like his giddy approach to the death penalty and cavalier attitude about soldiers urinating on corpses.
New Gingrich. His hypocricy is among the worst of any politician in modern times. And that’s saying something given the nature of hypocricy among politicians in general. He seems very unprincipaled and holds grudges to boot. I would be genuinely feerful if he were in the White House.
Mitt Romney. Over the course of the campaign I’ve grown to dislike Mitt Romney more than any of the others. He is even less principaled in what he says and does than Newt Gingrich. He’s an elitist that expemplifies the worst of Vulture Capitalism. And he seems to genuinely disdain working class people as some sort of chatel slavery class. The man just makes my skin crawl every time I see or hear him. He doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House.
Davis: “We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”
That’s it in a nutshell. We’ve tried the big government approach of Democrats and Republicans and look where it got us. It’s time for a real adult to lead the country.
I remember Ron Paul’s words about the uninsured in an early debate. No, I can’t vote for him. Also as today’s paper pointed out, he may be talking saving money, but he’s certainly using taxpayer money freely in his travels.
@Karen
As a doctor, Ron Paul has a long history of providing free service to those who could not pay. Check out some of the stories about his patients before you decide that he is heartless.
I don’t think he’s heartless. I just think he’s wrong.
I very much respect Doug and Tom for liking Ron Paul, particularly as I know part of the appeal is Paul’s sincerity and authenticity.
I just think he’s wrong about the stuff he’s sincere about. Except abortion. And maybe one or two other things if I studied it for a moment. But overwhelmingly wrong, otherwise.
Doug has trouble understanding how I could favor a guy who supported school vouchers. What Doug doesn’t get is that I’ve never found a candidate anywhere with whom I don’t have significant policy differences. If I waited for someone who agreed with me on everything, I’d never vote.
@Brad
In Huntsmans case, it wasn’t just vouchers. It was also his views on Obamacare and the war. I mean, those three things seem to be dear to you.
And if you want the candidate who best represents your views, why not make the effort to run for office? You’re probably in the best position to do so right now.
Here’s the critical question: Would YOU vote for me?
Doug, there’s just no one running with whom I would agree on a majority of issues. No one. So I look for character, and for someone who I believe would be good for the country — while at the same time trying to find someone I can agree with on SOME things.
As you know, I believe the fact that Washington is dysfunctional — mostly because of hyperpartisanship — is itself a major, major issue. It was an important element in my wholehearted endorsements of both John McCain and Barack Obama in their respective primaries last time.
I don’t want to discount issues altogether, of course, but the fact is that in endorsement interviews, a lot of our time was spent quizzing people about how they viewed the office and its responsibilities, and how they approached public service. There is such a profound lack of people in office who both understand the foundations of our system and are truly devoted to the principles upon which it is built that it it constitutes a crisis. And finding people who GET what our republic is about — whatever their ideology — is extremely important to me.
Huntsman persuasively projected such understanding.
And he also has demonstrated that he is more devoted to his country than to a political party, and that is enormously important to me when I’m trying to decide whom to endorse for high office.
Doug, If someone happens to live near someone who can and will take care of him/her after a major stroke or injury (including nursing and long term care, if needed) that’s great. But few are. Saying that people who don’t buy their own insurance don’t do so through their own choice, and should live (or die) by that “choice” is crazy. Many people cannot afford insurance. Others have pre-existing conditions that make it almost imposssible for them to get insurance at any price. To say that these people should “take responsibility” for their “choice” by dying exhibits either ignorance or selfish insouciance. It’s ignorance if the person believes that people actually could get effective health insurance if they chose to do so. Otherwise it’s a lack of empathy bordering on sociopathic.
I just find your reasoning bizarre. A McCain presidency would have been completely different from the Obama first term. No Obamacare, no withdrawal from Iraq, no repeal of DADT, more tax cuts.
If you’re happy with Obama’s first term, then the endorsement of McCain was a mistake.
@Brad
Would I vote for you for President? No. For Congress, maybe. For Mayor of Columbia, sure. For Columbia City Council, sure. For school board, sure.
I just really want you to run to see the election process from the inside. I think it would be insightful for you.
“There is such a profound lack of people in office who both understand the foundations of our system and are truly devoted to the principles upon which it is built that it it constitutes a crisis. ”
And yet you claim that 75% of the people The State endorsed got elected. Did you get duped?
Tom Davis is every bit as libertarian as Sanford and, from what I’ve seen, just as intransigent. I also think he’ll be South Carolina’s governor the minute he decides he wants to be.
I’d vote for Brad even though I disagree with him strongly on abortion, feminism and to role of the military. His underlying beliefs align with mine on communitarianism, and the rest is largely out of POTUS’s control, except for the military.
Here’s a campaign promise to you, Kathryn… if I’m elected president with your help, I’ll let you pick the very first country we invade…
OK, I was being facetious there. Just in case, you know, I get elected president against my will or something. I wouldn’t want Kathryn knocking on the White House door and, having gone power mad, demanding that I deliver on my promise and invade Switzerland…
Annex the Sudetenland….
Been done. Think of something original.
Ecuador’s been a pain in the arse lately. And it has some really awesome beaches. I’ve camped on one of them before, when I was a Boy Scout…
Oh, and it’s got oil.
Not funny Brad. If the Neocons get back in control some equally non-threatening nation like Equador is at risk.
I hear Iceland’s been having some money troubles–might could pick it up on the cheap, and it’s a rilly kull place.
Yeah, I can see my speech to the joint session of Congress now:
“This would not be a preemptive strike, but a rational and measured response to the unprovoked invasion of our country by Vikings in the first millennium.
“And it stands astride key sea routes from Russian ports, just in case they start to act up again.
“Besides, Iceland is said to be home to the world’s most beautiful women. Think on that, gentlemen…”
You have to know your audience. That deep, wonkish historical stuff doesn’t work with everybody.
Norway’s got a ton of oil….