Ron Paul Won’t Endorse John McCain

Well, did anyone really think it would happen ?

Republican Rep. Ron Paul told the Tribune this morning he will not back Sen. John McCain as his party’s nominee unless the Arizona senator “has a lot of change of heart.”

“I can not support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war. That is just so disturbing to me,” Paul said. I think it’s un-American, un-Constitutional, immoral, and not Republican.”

As for his own campaign, Paul seems to think that there’s actually a chance he could still win this thing:

“It is true the numbers are not very positive. But you know we started off with eleven [candidates] in the campaign and now it’s down to three,” he said.

“I suspect it’s not totally impossible for something to come up about McCain that will totally discredit him. When the people know how liberal he is – that’s coming out all the time.”

Paul added: “It is true the numbers are bad, but influence is important too. If we have a significant number of people and we’re still here, why can’t we influence the party to become conservative again?”

First of all, Paul’s right, it’s not totally impossible that he’d win the Republican nomination. It’s also not totally impossible that, tomorrow morning, we’ll all wake up to discover that pigs really can fly. It’s just not very logical to think that either of these events will actually happen.

Update: Paul also posted a YouTube last night during which he urged his supporters to continue moving forward on the Presidential campaign and called for a “march on Washington” sometime in the spring:

Paul also called for supporters to mount a march on Washington to revive media interest interest in his campaign.

“Our numbers keep growing, and the funds keep coming in,” he said in his 14-and-a-half minute long online video message. “I’ve said all along the campaign is going to continue as long as there are new people coming into the campaign, and we’re going to be able to be financed.”

(…)

“It’s your responsibility to keep going and keep fighting and keep getting those delegates,” he urged viewers. “We need everyone to stay engaged and stay active and not be disillusioned and not to think this is all over … We can’t drop the ball right now.”

To recapture media attention, he suggested that Paul supporters should hold a rally in Washington, DC.

“We ought to make a grand display,” he said. “We ought to have a true march to show what our numbers are, and this is risky, just as it was rather risky for us to put right on our web site as the dollars were coming in.”

But “it would send a powerful message where the media can’t ignore us,” he added.

I’m not sure I completely understand what the game is at this point.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/tarran/ tarran

    Doug,

    Honestly, I think Ron Paul is making the same point you are.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    tarran,

    If it was me, I’d drop out of the race, concentrate on Congress and use the remaining $ 5 to $ 6 million to fund pro-liberty candidates for Congress.

    That’s something that could really make a difference.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    If it was me, I’d drop out of the race, concentrate on Congress and use the remaining $ 5 to $ 6 million to fund pro-liberty candidates for Congress.

    But ultimately it isn’t you, or me, or anyone else here who ran for President, so it’s his call what he chooses to do with the funds. Seriously, man, Paul’s done, his campaign’s a non-issue at this point…time to move on to relevant topics. And how a candidate in a losing campaign chooses to spend his remaining funds isn’t a relevant, or even interesting, topic.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    U.C.,

    True, but to the extent that this was supposed to be a movement rather than a campaign, it would be nice if they did something to actually help the movement.

    But I guess I shouldn’t set myself up for disappointment.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    it would be nice if they did something to actually help the movement.

    He may actually believe that he’s doing that with what he’s doing, and since he’s the one who raised the money it’s really his prerogative on how to spend it and I won’t second-guess him. If you or I were in his shoes, it would be our prerogative on what to do with the cash…but we aren’t so it isn’t. To each his own. If we don’t like that, we’re as free to run for office as Ron Paul is :)

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    U.C.,

    He can do whatever he wants with the money that was donated, no question about that.

    I’m just trying to understand what maintaining a doomed political campaign or scheduling a march on Washington for a time after both parties’ nominations are likely to have been largely decided accomplishes.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    I’m just trying to understand what maintaining a doomed political campaign or scheduling a march on Washington for a time after both parties’ nominations are likely to have been largely decided accomplishes.

    Why?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    U.C.,

    At this point, mostly because whatever Paul and his supporters do is being associated in the minds of mainstream Americans with libertarianism.

    I’d prefer that they now not ruin it for the rest of us.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    Yeah, but we can’t really control that. Most of the libertarians who felt a need to distance themselves from him seem to have done so unless he starts throwing out racist slurs or talking about how aliens are coming from Xenu to take us back to our homeworld (both of which are very unlikely), I seriously doubt he’s going to cause much damage to libertarianism in general from this point out. He’s pretty much a known commodity to anyone still paying attention.