He declined to endorse Romney. Good for him. Romney’s principals are, quite obviously, very much out of line with Paul’s and it’s good to see him stick to them (unlike some other Pauls out there). In declining to endorse Romney, Paul asked what I think is the most important possible question:
“What’s he going to achieve? I think it’s legitimate for us to continue the debate.”
What is Romney going to achieve? We don’t know, because he won’t tell us. His campaign has thus far not mentioned real policy, and no “Just do the opposite of Obama” doesn’t count. We know he wants to cut taxes and increase military spending while still balancing the budget and reducing debt, but those are competing goals. How will we reconcile them? We don’t know. Will he even try? Or will debt stop mattering once the guy in the White House has an R after his name (I think it’s this one)? What will he do about immigration? We don’t know. Ron Paul wants to continue the debate, and so do I. Mitt Romney will be the nominee and Ron Paul’s folks have no chance at stopping that. But if they at least force him to talk about some policy, they will have done something. I disagree with basically every policy position Ron Paul holds (very strongly, in many cases), but at least he has discussed them, and I know what they are. Romney, I have no idea. I’m not saying that presidential candidates should articulate their preferred policies in extremely minute detail, but some detail is required and from Romney we get nothing more than constant lies about Obama’s record and Obama himself, and platitudes like “double guantanamo”.
So what is Mitt Romney going to achieve? Keep asking, Ron, because no one in the press seems to be willing to.
(For the record, one area in which I do agree with Ron Paul: taxpayer funded conventions. What the hell?)
520 Chestnut 
Leave a Reply