No Choice Between Political Parties: Ron Paul

There is practially no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the main issues facing America, US presidential candidate Ron Paul said during a Sunday television interview.

During a Sunday interview on Meet The Press, host David Gregory quoted from Paul’s book, Liberty Defined, where the Texas congressman wrote, “When it comes to any significant differences on foreign policy, economic intervention, the Federal Reserve, a strong executive branch, a welfarism mixed with corporatism, both parties are very much alike.  The major arguments in hotly contested presidential races are mostly for public consumption to convince the people they actually have a choice.”

Gregory then asked Paul if Mitt Romney, should he become the Republican nominee, offer any difference or change from US President Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney

“Well, you could probably figure out some choices, but you have to figure out which position that we’re looking at with Mitt Romney,” Paul replied. “You know, it changes.”

The conservative-libertarian went on to say that, on the major issues of foreign policy, addressing monetary policy and the entitlement system, or making significant changes to federal spending to stop the economic crisis, there is no difference between the two candidates.

“Although, on the edges, maybe,” Paul added, conceeding that he felt Romney was “probably very sincere” on the right-to-life issue.

Showing how Obama was no different from the foreign policy of the previous Republican administration, Paul then noted that Obama “was elected as a peace candidate and he expanded the war.  And he goes into war without any congressional approval.” During the two terms of President Bush, Republcians “give you No Child Left Behind, prescription drug programs, and Sarbanes-Oxley,” Paul added.

“So, no.  The regulatory system, the spending, the deficits, the printing of money, they stay the same,” Paul said.

“And that’s what the streets are telling us.  Whether it’s the occupiers or whether it’s the tea party people, they’re saying, “Enough is enough.” They want some changes, and that’s what they’re looking for.”


  • Paul is right, just look at Romney.

    There is no fundamental difference between Obama and Romney. You could vote for either.

    Both Romney and Obama want to continue the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas, they each favored the bail-outs, both are pro-gun control, and neither is really serious about a meaningful reduction in taxes or the size of government.

    The only difference I see is that Obama has been relatively consistent in his abortion policies; I am not sure where Romney stands this evening on the issue of abortion

    Romney and the country club set who let him get this far are destroying this party.

    I am choosing a candidate based on simple pragmatism.

    Except for Ron Paul, every other GOP candidate has doubled-down on more air and land wars in Asia and Africa, they have endorsed TARP or other bail-outs, and their economic plans are simply nibbling at the edges (except for Cain, who wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class). Please explain how any of that will be any different than Obama in November? Are those winning issues in 2012? Obama-lite will not win the general election.

    No other candidate in the race motivates independents and young people like Ron Paul. No other Republican can capture so large a portion of the voters abandoned by pro-war, economy destroying Obama.

    America will not settle for the Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee rotation this election year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.