Fellow Congressman Endorses Congressman Broun’s Senatorial Run

So, former Congressman and 2 time Republican (and 1 time Libertarian) Presidential contender Ron Paul of Texas endorsed Paul Broun’s senatorial bid.  From a fundraising email that was passed along to me announcing Congressman Paul’s support:

There are those in Congress who attack our liberties, push for increased government takeovers of private industry, and support out-of-control spending. They have put our nation on the path to fiscal ruin.

These “go along to get along” politicians in Washington are more concerned about re-election than about defending the Constitution from federal government overreach.

Thankfully, there are a few strong defenders of the Constitution who stand firm against out-of-control spending and overreach by politicians in both political parties…

Dr. Paul Broun of Georgia’s 10th District is one of those principled Constitutional conservatives in Congress.

He has worked hard to get federal spending under control by sponsoring a balanced budget amendment and a bill to repeal ObamaCare. He’s pushed for over $155 Billion in spending cuts over these last two years alone!

He has also been a strong proponent for oversight of the Federal Reserve and is now sponsoring my “Audit the Fed” bill in Congress. I cannot thank him enough for leading on this issue.

(emphasis is from original note)

I know a lot of Ron Paul folks have jumped aboard Congressman Broun’s senatorial train, but how much will this affect the Republican race in the long run?  We’ve talked time and time again about the meaningfulness (or meaninglessness) of endorsements.  Does this change your mind either for or against?


UPDATE:  You can read more from Congressman Broun’s endorsement here, and you can read the entire email here. (I’ve inked out the name/email of folks for respect to their privacy.)

UPDATE 2: Not everyone is thrilled.  The National Jewish Democratic Council has issued a statement calling for Congressman Paul Broun to reject the endorsement:

Keyak: “Republicans who seek and flaunt Paul’s endorsement cannot reasonably
claim to be a friend of Israel or the American Jewish community. Period.”

WASHINGTON, DC- The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) today demanded
that Georgia Senate candidate Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) reject the
endorsement of anti-Israel former Representative Ron Paul. NJDC Executive
Director Aaron Keyak said:

“During his House tenure, Ron Paul pushed for an end to U.S. aid to Israel,
bashed Israel on Iranian television, and used his national platform to push his
agenda during the 2012 campaign. Now Paul is building on his anti-Israel legacy
by founding a think tank with ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘9/11 truthers,’
according to a report published today. Republicans need to make clear that there
is no room for Ron Paul in their Party and reject his ideologically tainted
money — and Georgia Senate candidate Representative Paul Broun should lead the
way. Republicans who seek and flaunt Paul’s endorsement cannot reasonably
claim to be a friend of Israel or the American Jewish community. Period.”


  1. TheEiger says:

    “I know a lot of Ron Paul folks have jumped aboard Congressman Broun’s senatorial train, but how much will this affect the Republican race in the long run?” – Not at all

    “We’ve talked time and time again about the meaningfulness (or meaninglessness) of endorsements. Does this change your mind either for or against?” – No, it reinforces my reasons in voting for someone other than Broun.

    • David C says:

      Look out for the endorsement of the guy who pulled an impressive 6% of Republican Primary voters in this state while running for President, said no one ever.

  2. James says:

    Nine words for anyone who still doubts Ron Paul’s senility: “Evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.”

      • James says:

        You guys are joking, right? I’m supposed to believe that Paul Broun can meaningfully participate in the legislation of complex economic and public policy issues (let alone understand these issues) if he doesn’t understand basic science?

        Hell, why don’t we just elect my dog? She has an understanding of the economy and science commensurate with that of the good doctor, but has humped less legs.

  3. Stefan says:

    Good job NJDC, I assume that there were 5-7 people who weren’t going to support Broun, changed their minds again when Ron Paul endorsed him, and then changed their minds back upon reading that press release.

  4. northside101 says:

    Paul came in a distant fourth place in Georgia’s 20i2 Republican presidential primary—only 7 percent of the vote statewide. On the other hand that still amounted to nearly 60,000 votes (about 5,000 of which came from Broun’s current 10th CD). Could make a difference in determining who makes it to a likely GOP Senate runoff in August of next year, if just a (relative) few thousand votes seperates second place from third. (Recall for instance less than 20,000 votes seperated Deal and Eric Johnson in 2010 for second.)

    Interestingly, Pauls’ highest percentage in that primary came from John Lewis’ overhwlemingly Democratic (83% Obama last year) 5th CD—14 percent. The 5th CD includes the Emory area (some college students embrace libertarianism), along with Georgia Tech and Midtown—areas where libertarian-minded Republicans can get at least a modest level of support.

    Broun’s district cast about 80,000 votes in the presidential primary, fith ranking among the 14 districts (behind the 95,000 in CD 9, the roughly 90,000 each in CD 6 and 11,a nd the near 86,000 from CD 3). At the bottom in turnout—where else but CD 5? (Only 23,000 there, less than 3 percent of the statewide total of just over 900,000 votes cast)

  5. Loren says:

    Y’know, after his public displays of scientific ignorance last year, I *really* wanted (and still want) Broun off the House Science Committee.

    But putting him in the Senate isn’t quite the way I wanted that accomplished.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Other than being a Republican, nothing.

        …Except the hiking trip on the Appalachian Trail that was really a trip to see the mistress in South America.

        • Harry says:

          Yeah yeah. But, everything is relative compared to some others I could mention. How come we don’t apply the same high standards to certain Democrats?

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            “But, everything is relative compared to some others I could mention. How come we don’t apply the same high standards to certain Democrats?”

            …Because Sanford was a bad liar. Instead of saying he was going on a hiking trip in the Appalachians, he could have at least said that he was going to South America for a trade trip and greatly lessened his chances of getting caught in a lie so easily.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Well now hold up. Let’s think about that for a second. Would you rather be represented by a bad liar or a good liar? At least the bad ones you can count on to be telling lies.

      • Stefan says:

        Everyone else is walking away from him after the recent behavior. I am referring to the trespassing and inclusion of former mistress, with whom he forced his children to share a stage, though they had never met.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            You mean former D.C. mayor Marion ‘”That b–ch set me up” while smoking crack in a motel room with a prostitute’ Barry?

            …Totally priceless…if Barry can get re-elected than so can Sanford, who’s actually a pretty capable politician, but is obviously not all that great of a person.

    • Left-libertarian says:

      I’m LOLing so loud I felt the need to register to post here.

      I like Paul. I’ve donated money to him. But I would not vote for Broun or Sanford.

      Broun because of anti-science. Sorry.
      Sanford because he abandoned his state when he “disappeared.” I’m willing to accept personal faults but not abandonment of duty.

  6. Dirt Lawyer says:

    Well, I plan to vote for Congressman Broun. He introduces the right to life bill each year, and I agree with almost all of his votes in Congress. I do not believe he is “anti science”. He is a principled man who is frankly a breath of fresh air in the cesspool that is Congress. I include all of the Democratic Party members of Congress and most of the Republican Party in that assessment as well.

    • Left-libertarian says:

      Everything you need is in this quote:

      “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

      Science is the systematic search for what is true using evidence; if such findings happen to contradict a 2000+ year old holy book, and you believe the holy book wins, then you are anti-science. Period.

      I would venture to guess there are zero mainstream scientists in the field of geology or cosmology who believe the earth is 9000 years old.

      The big bang theory is supported by an overwhelming majority of cosmologists.

      Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists. In fact, evolution is key to understanding of biology & the fossil record. It makes me laugh that people feel America can be a world leader in genetics and other biological sciences and yet at the same time try to discredit evolution.

      • Harry says:

        So what’s your point? I mean, why argue about it? I’m not saying I agree with Broun on his comment but he may be looking at it on a different level of consciousness based on his literalist interpretation of the Bible. It’s really not a show stopper….your indignation is selective. Let’s talk about how much helium it takes to tip over Guam. Or more seriously, let’s talk about how to keep this country from hitting third world status.

        • Left-libertarian says:

          The point was to define what people are describing as “anti-science.”

          I agree Broun may have good voting record from a small-government perspective. I agree that is an important trait to look for when finding someone to vote for… and I also think Broun is probably pretty honest and reliable as far as “you get what you voted for.”

          However, despite all that, Broun lost my vote in perpetuity with these comments… I don’t have a whole lot of “disqualifiers” when it comes to voting for someone, but two of them are lack of honesty and a tendency towards religious extremism or religiously divisive comments. (Also why I can’t ever vote for Mr. Gingrich!)

          I know Paul was very religious but I also know Paul was freedom-minded enough not to interfere with religious freedom OR use his office to promote extreme religious ideas (In fact, he once shocked Fox News pundits by stating that “When fascism comes [to America] it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”)

          If Broun can convince me that he won’t let his faith squeeze out all reason in his decision making I would be willing to give him consideration. But I doubt that will happen.

          But beyond that, Broun’s comments along these lines make him a flawed candidate. I think his comments have turned off a fair portion of the electorate, even in Georgia, and you can bet they will be all over the TV and MSM when the general election comes. The Republican party would do better to find someone else to run for the open Senate seat.

          • Harry says:

            You protest too much. Rather than appreciating the positives of someone with a strong set of values and beliefs, you prefer dwelling on the downside of what you imagine would be a hypothetical vote based on his particular set of Judeo-Christian values which doesn’t exactly match your ideal worldview. I wonder if you would ever be able to accept anyone with whom you are not 100% in sync. The bigger problem is – although you see yourself as an independent libertarian – your judgement has been twisted by the larger mass media culture rather than thinking for yourself. Don’t be conned by the big money status-quo establishment.

  7. davidfarrar says:

    The Tea Party Exploratory Committee of Georgia has been created to help Tea Party candidates establish their Tea Party credentials throughout the country for the 2014 elections.  Besides the “taxed-enough-already” cry and the “not-enough-spending-cuts” Tea Party demand, the following lists some of the most fundamental constitutional issues all Tea Party supporters should support in 2014, and, hopefully, take a stand on the line.

    1. Demand a Congressional investigation into the qualification of Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States, and to do so by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
    2. Candidates must be born of two U.S. citizen-parents*.
    3. Candidates must support limiting U.S. birthright citizenship to only those born of two-U.S. citizens.
    4. Candidates must agree to accept no outside PAC funds during their primary campaigns. This is a decision for state citizens only.
    5. Congressional imperatives:
    (a) Immigration: Insist present immigration laws be enforced and our borders strengthened. And establish an effective E-verify program, with real penalties for employers** (including homeowners) who violate the rules.
    (b) Bring impeachment proceedings against Eric Holder over Obama’s Fast & Furious debacle.
    (c) Demand a Congressional investigation into the whole Benghazi affair.
    (d) Support for at least a five working-day waiting period before any bill is written and moved for a floor vote***
    (e) Support a “Caption” bill.
    (f) Demand verifiable federal elections.

    In addition, there is growing support for a Congressional investigation into the allegation that Marxist ideology has infiltrated our public school curriculum.

    ex animo

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I really think (1) is a waste of time. That’s one for the history channel to look back 50 years from now and decide where Obama came from. I don’t really understand why you can’t just pick something blatantly unconstitutional like Cash for Clunkers and stick it to Obama on that.

Comments are closed.