The Iowa Lead: Ron Paul Today, Who Tomorrow?
The speed with which the leader of the week keeps falling in the race for the GOP nomination is accelerating. As I predicted would happen last week, Ron Paul has now grabbed the lead in Iowa in two new surveys out from PPP and Insider Advantage, and the Newt Gingrich campaign in the state appears to be collapsing. Newt’s lead in Iowa polls was always shaky since he had not invested in the organizational effort required to win a caucus. Ferrying your supporters to the polls and finding articulate spokespeople to make the case for a candidate at the local caucus events are two keys to success.
Gingrich still has a small lead in the Gallup national tracking poll, now by two points over Mitt Romney, down from 15 two weeks ago. Newt has fallen to third or fourth place (behind Rick Perry) in the new Iowa surveys. Paul has also surged into second place ahead of Gingrich in New Hampshire in a new survey out from PPP.
Gingrich’s numbers have declined faster in Iowa than they have nationally, since he has been targeted by negative ads from Ron Paul and to a lesser extent from groups supporting Mitt Romney in that state. Ads are not running in many other states at the moment. Romney did not jump into attack mode with Gingrich in the final Iowa debate in Sioux City as he had in earlier debates with Rick Perry, when Perry opened up a big lead. Michele Bachmann, looking for some way to break out of the pack, instead led the charge on Gingrich in the debate both on Freddie Mac and abortion. Romney’s decision not to go after Gingrich likely reflected the mounting evidence that Gingrich was already faltering in Iowa, and therefore he did not need to pile on in front of a national TV audience.
Gingrich is still polling well in the south and some western states. But if he finishes a poor third or fourth in Iowa, his numbers in other states will likely drop off quickly. Will Ron Paul be the beneficiary if Gingrich falls back into the pack after Iowa, or will it be Mitt Romney? Or will voters give a more serious look at Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or, more improbably, Jon Huntsman?
Huntsman is banking on a strong showing in New Hampshire, where he is now in fourth place. But New Hampshire is a state with far more libertarians and far fewer social conservatives than Iowa, and it is an open primary, which will draw participation from independents since the GOP contest is the only competitive primary race on the ballot. It has to be discouraging for Huntsman that after all the days he has spent campaigning in New Hampshire, Ron Paul moved ahead of him there. If Ron Paul can sweep to a win in Iowa, a state that is not ideal for him except for the reward that comes with organization, he may find very fertile ground in New Hampshire with the added momentum that comes from winning Iowa. Paul’s numbers have been trending up nationally, now just over 10%.
So far, Paul has not been a factor in polling in the other early states: South Carolina, Nevada, or Florida. To the extent voters switch horses again after Iowa and move to Ron Paul, it will be a remarkable turn of events — perhaps the least electable Republican temporarily in front of the pack.
So far, Paul’s opponents for the nomination have largely given him a pass in the debates, except for his isolationist policies and his seeming defense of Iran’s nuclear program. But as his numbers continue to climb and more people who have not been focusing on the GOP race begin to do so, that will change. Already, criticism is surfacing over Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 1990s, which contain substantial racist content. Paul has tried to argue that he did not personally author all the material in the newsletter. But denying responsibility for what was published in a newsletter bearing his name seems about as sincere as Barack Obama claiming he missed all the inflammatory sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Paul’s eagerness to blame America for every anti-American sentiment that surfaces abroad is also beginning to draw fire.
For the first time, attacks on Paul are appearing in the mainstream conservative press. Will talk radio be next? So far, the crossfire among talk radio/cable giants has been primarily the Gingrich vs. Romney debate — arguments over which of the two is less reliably conservative. Are these conservative leaders concerned that for some period of time the GOP candidate most in the news will be someone with Paul’s views and history?
Mitt Romney appears to have bolstered himself a bit as Gingrich’s numbers have eroded in Iowa and to a lesser extent nationally. Romney had a very solid interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, much better than his time with Bret Baier a few weeks earlier. But many conservatives are still looking for “anybody but Romney,” or in some cases “anybody but Romney or Gingrich.”
Can Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Santorum mount a late charge in Iowa? For each of the three, the sad fact is that they are being held back by the other two. There is not a lot to choose from among the three in terms of policy. The main distinction is that Perry has been a successful governor, while Santorum and Bachmann served in the Senate and House. There has been a slow upward trajectory for all three the last few weeks in Iowa, and combined their poll showings would put one of them into a decent lead. Bachmann and Santorum have worked the state hard, Perry has had more money to advertise. Social conservatives do not seem to have a favorite among them, and so far social issues have not been the focus of the debates or most of the campaign. It is hard to see why one or the other would distance themselves from the other two in these final weeks in Iowa, though Perry may be a bit more likely to do so given his larger war chest.
Two weeks out, the leaders in Iowa are Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Perry. All but Gingrich seem to be on the rise in the state. In a race that has been unstable from the start, it will be no surprise if more surprises are ahead.
Gotta say that while I dislike Romney he’d be preferable to RP.
Romney I dislike because earlier this process felt more like a coronation for him.
Paul though gets a pass because I find nothing I agree with him on and his supporters are more like a cult than anything else.
Yes, many of Ron Paul’s supporters do seem like a fanatical cult. And Paul himself encourages their extremism with incendiary comments like “Michelle Bachmann doesn’t like Muslims” and “Rick Santorum doesn’t like gays AND Muslims.”
It’s time someone compiled footage of Ron Paul’s very unpresidential moments, combined with examples of the hatred spewed by his supporters, and broadcast it to the public (especially in Iowa) in a powerful, unforgettable way.
If Iowans pick Ron Paul in two weeks, they’ll make Obama the happiest man in America.
Nothing? Nothing?
Do you consider yourself a conservative? If so, there should be PLENTY of areas where you agree with, nay, where you APPLAUD Ron Paul.
On the domestic front, at least.
There is also plenty of reason to consign him to the looney bin, but don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater.
All you neocon baby boomers hiding in the garage from the old lady, looking at internet pictures of dead commies and muslims with your hands down your pants don’t like Ron Paul- of course. The rest of us not pretending to be conservatives know what liberty and small government means, and we are willing to pay for it with your old fat lives. Yes- that’s right. We’re willing to absorb attacks in order to maintain the moral high ground when it comes to war and foreign policy. It sure makes it easier knowing that the attacks will be (statistically speaking) borne by the ranks of bloated aging NAMBLA fans, such as the readers of PJ Media.
So speaks a typical Ron Paul fanatic: vile, vulgar, rabid, malevolent, full of hatred. People who spew venom like this aren’t motivated by notions of liberty and freedom. America doesn’t need a cult of intolerant thugs fantasizing about blowing their fellow citizens away.
I wonder how many of the youngsters who support Ron Paul want cheaper drugs, and how many others are unrepentant isolationists, perhaps antisemites? I wrote about Lindbergh and his following here: http://clarespark.com/2011/06/03/neo-isolationists-and-the-jewish-problem/. Meanwhile, check out Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America. It could happen here.
I wonder if you realize that my taunt was an exact parallel of the PJ marching orders to attack Ron Paul with wild mindless accusations of racism, anti-semitism, isolationism, hedonism, and idiocy? Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Sorry. I should have added the words “imperialistic” and “authoritarian” and maybe “fascist” in my attacks against you, but then I would admittedly sound like many Ron Paul-ers (and PJ Media bloggers) we both know.
Exactly. Ron Paul’s typical supporters are a good reason to fear a Ron Paul Presidency.
Maybe the status quo’s typical supporters are why we should fear keeping it. BTW way, my generation thanks all you fat old pigs for epdemic single motherhood, the communist education system, the welfare state, the global police force, more federal agenencies than a person can keep track of, a bankrupted social security trust fund, unaffordable healthcare costs, legalized infanticide masquerading as family planning, rampant illegal immigration, a mass exodus of industry & offshoring of our jobs, the loss of ground against developing nations in the economic arena, widespread obesity and mental health disorders, completely losing the war on communism despite the waste involved, and ghettos packed with shambling masses of drug addled morons. GOOD JOB BABY BOOMERS. GOOD JOB STATUS QUO. LET’S KEEP IT UP! You’re all so pathetic.
If cRaZy RoNpAuL has ANY decent showing in Iowa, it will be solely due to the
fraudulent carpetbagging PaulBots who temporarily establish residence in Iowa, only long enough to vote there and promptly leave. In my eyes THIS IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENT from ACORN’s filthy shenanigans.
These cultish robots are attempting to MANUFACTURE POPULARITY…and simultaneously damage the reputation of the ideology they claim to revere. Their actions disgust me.
I am sorry. I haven’t seen any report or news article that evidences your claim. Is this true?
It certainly has been true in the past and not confined to any particular race over another. Campaign workers typically do exceed the minimum residency requirements (30 days), not only in the primaries but also often in the general.
No matter how well he shows in Iowa, I don’t think Dr. Paul can capture the Republican nomination, for two reasons above all others:
1. His support is too regionally concentrated;
2. The GOP’s power-brokers will do whatever it takes to delegitimize him.
But that having been said, his candidacy this year is a good thing: it’s put Constitutional principles into the national discourse on the Republican side. Other aspirants to the Republican nomination have made casual references to the Constitution — the Supreme Law of the Land — but have seldom been challenged to rationalize the policies they espouse against the document’s text. Dr. Paul has been willing to do that, whether we’ve liked what he has to say or not.
Dr. Paul would not make a good president. His positions on foreign policy, and his attitude toward the intelligence directorates and the military, render him unsuited for a post whose principal function is to be America’s face before the world. But we owe him this much: the contrast he provides toward the other candidates’ willingness to waffle and pander has people thinking about fundamentals such as Constitutional dictates and natural right and wrong. Not all people, no; at this time, not even a majority. But more than a few — and as a certain well-regarded Person of two millennia ago told us, all we require is a mustard seed.
Mr. Porretto: I appreciate and concur with your excellent summation. Paul might however serve to better inform our conservative discussion along several lines.
I agree with much of what Paul has to say. Enough with the two Statist party system. I think Gary Johnson is a much better candidate with actual executive experience as a very successful governor.
I hope Johnson, Paul, and eventually Rand Paul will pull the Republican Party towards true fiscal conservationism and away from the social nonsense. I’m tired of watching Republicans trying to compromise with Democrats on slowing the rate of government growth.
I file the “Ron Paul is Crazy” stuff the same place the “Gingrich left his wife on her deathbed” and “Romney is a crazy Mormon” crap goes.
Social nonsense? Social conservatism IS the Republican Party. We are the anti-slavery party, the party of life and liberty. Fishcons need not apply. Come back when you are a conservative, not just a so-called fiscal conservative.
Or maybe come back when one is not a conservative on the fiscal issues, but then also a religious socialist on the social issues. I support small government; not government that attempts to dictate what citizens’ religious beliefs should be, or that try to define “life.”
So, who then DOES define it?
Or, to be more accurate, who defines who is human? Nobody is worried about killing germs or even sperm cells or unfertilized eggs. So the question is really not about “When does life begin?”, but “When does humanity begin?”. When is a person, a person?
If that’s not government’s job, whose is it? Shall we simply allow each group to define it as they please?
For the followers of Peter Singer, they would be allowed to kill children up to about 2 years of age, because these are not yet human, according to Singer. They are merely potentially human. (Like the fetus, remember?)
Is that okay with your limited government view?
How about the Neo-Nazis? They would be killing blacks and Jews. After all, those aren’t human either. I suspect that would be fine with Ron Paul.
How about you? Fine with you?
In fact defending the defenseless is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of government. Defining who is human is the FOUNDATION of that responsibility.
Dumbing down the definition of humanity is a precursor to genocide.
Is that okay with your view of limited government?
applause!
Rep. Paul shouldn’t have said Rep. Bachmann hates Muslims. That was uncalled for and I think he should retract the statement. But he’s also the only candidate who seems to genuinely want to cut the size of Government in any meaningful way.
All I want is Washington out of my life, and Paul is the best candidate to accomplish that.
It is forbidden to vote for Romney the Mormon.
Anyone who votes for Romney the Mormon is committing a sin against God.
Whoever votes for Romney the Mormon is going straight to hell.
Whoever votes for Romney the Mormon will have to answer to God for it.
We will expose the Mormon cult for what it is.
Mormons are not Christians.
If, God forbid, Romney the Mormon is elected President of the United States of America, God will judge America, and give us what we deserve — hell on earth, the destruction of the United States of America, and the end of our way of life.
If you aren’t actually serious, that was pretty funny. If you are serious, you’re nuttier than Ed Wallis.
if this is meant as satire, it is bad satire. if it isn’t meant as satire, it is way past medication time.
I’ve seen surveys that show as high as 37% of professing Christians will not vote for Romney because of his religion. (Which is, by any honestly objective standard, NOT Christian.)
I have trouble believing that. Being an evangelical Christian, the group most likely to have that opinion, I don’t know anyone who who feels that way.
But even so, if it’s REALLY true, it’s only 37%.
The rest of us won’t vote for him simply because he’s a flaming liberal pretending to be a Republican.
His track record in public office is to the left of Barack Obama.
That’s simply a fact.
All the business acumen in the world can’t change that.
Frankly, his track record is so bad, I can only think of 2 reasons anyone who calls himself a Republican would consider voting for him:
1. He’s Mormon. For many Mormons, this is all that counts.
2. The person is ignorant. Ignorant of what it takes to be President, and ignorant of Romney’s actual DEEDS while in office. (As opposed to his campaign rhetoric.)
Citing the PPP for anything other than a bunch of imbeciles with an agenda can put up a fake poll…is a waste of time.
Anyone who seriously is considering Ron Paul is so delusional or out of touch with reality, having a discussion with them is like trying to converse with intestinal flora.
The man’s policies on the military, Israel, blacks, Jews, the Fed, Iran, 9/11, are so seriously deranged…his candidacy is a complete waste of time for everyone with a working brain.
If your brain is sitting in a jar of formaldehyde on shelf in some lab…and you are not already a leftist Democrat…then Ron Paul may be your man.
The fact that he’s even in the conversation at all is a disgrace.
As for Gingrich, I understand the folks who would like to see Obama exposed on a national stage and taken to the woodshed. The combined 3 hours would be instructional and perhaps cathartic. And, then sadly…Obama would be reelected, I’m afraid. What is happening to Newt now…would happen in tidal waves in the general.
Bachman and Santorum have limited reach capabilities. Like it or don’t.
America already passed on a tongue-tied, kinda goofy, retail politician from Texas who would get absolutely crushed in the debates, made to look like a fool and court jester by the media…and would lose in the general.
Huntsman has no base and why he is wasting time in this race is a puzzle.
That leaves Romney. And no matter who falls completely out of the clown car that has been this primary, there’s still not an inch worth of room made for poor Mitt. People are looking for something very different from what Mitt is bringing to the table. They don’t want him…and I don’t know how many other ways they can say it…but, it’s been pretty much EVERYBODY else…before the collapsed in a heap on the circus floor.
The answer could not be clearer. “None of the above” is leading in this race.
And…the insanity of Ron Paul getting even minor consideration, the Herman Cain debacle, the Rick Perry debate tragicomic performances, the petty squabbling, the nasty assaults…is giving Obama a bump upward and destroying the Republican brand.
Between Ron Paul’s crazy notions and Newt’s bizarre “mine the moon and subpoena the judges” inanity…who can disagree when the leftists say “Look how bizarre those guys are over there”.
Erase this slate and start over.
Or buy another Che poster and hang it on the wall.
Stellar post, among your best, CFB. You must be pretty well rested.
The flavor-of-the-month syndrome among our field of candidates has become exhausting. I now find myself literally starved for someone else of substance to enter the race. The pressure should be on among the powers-that-be to prompt a Daniels, a Ryan or even a Jeb Bush to throw their hat in the ring. The stakes are simply too high.
Obama must be ousted; it’s just gotta happen for the sake of the country.
Why is it the goal to oust Obama? Obama is just another fascist in a long series of fascist-tending politicians. The goal should be to stop the fascism. Sticking in a Republican fascist in place of a Democrat fascist makes very little sense. Slowing the rate of fascism/collectivism/socialism is quite the Pyrrhic victory.
Romney cannot be acceptable.
Gingrich says a lot o the right things, but then let’s out his occasional comments that profess that he remains with some statist/narcissist tendencies.
Perry is Bush. He speaks a good game usually, but has no core value of freedom.
Bachmann, Santorum are too ready to bomb Iraq and repeat Iran.
Ron Paul is consistently Jeffersonian. He is not consistently Republican, because Republicans have been so terribly inconsistent. Being Republican in the last 20 years has commonly meant being unable to abide by your own stated values. Ron Paul does abide.
Ron Paul will now be attacked, for all kinds of real and unreal charges. It is a shame that lovers of freedom will be among those attacking him, instead of spending their energy at least building on his liberty message.
Ousting Obama is no goal. Ending the fascist streak of statism is the goal. Republicans only very marginally have the high-road compared to the democrats in that regard. Very marginally.
We are in deep deep trouble. The economy is based on counterfeit currency. There is no fixing the nation when the economy is fraud-based. Without economic strength, not much else can be done. Only Ron Paul has a confident grasp of ALL the core problems in the US. The Fed, counterfeit currency, intrusive government, horrible fiscal policy.
Only Ron Paul is not distacted from these real issues by fear of Iran, which no doubt will soon attack us with their ICBMs, stealth bombers, and voluminous numbers of highly transportable troops and wonderful supply lines. (Sarcasm about Iran’s capabilities is intended).
Please elaborate on the “What is happening to Newt now…would happen in tidal waves in the general.” All I see is the usual re-hashing of sins of old, almost all of which the populace seems to be shrugging off. I could understand such a critique of Romney (e.g. Romneycare, as OCare affects all Americans), but not of Gingrich.
Newt has plummeted in the polls. He has thrown out bizarre dorm room BS theories about how to “solve” problems…with the “mining of the moon” and giant mirrors in space and calling federal judges in before Congress.
We have settled on Mitt Romney vs Gingrich?
The Book of Murmurs vs the Republican Moonbeam?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Newt is a mad professor in a laboratory, mixing ingredients and blowing things up. He’s reckless and out of control. He’s always one experiment away from his next great invention. We don’t need reckless. We have reckless now.
We also don’t need timid. Somewhere between reckless and feckless…lies the bold, grounded,strong, measured, broad shoulders and determined leadership we so desperately need.
We need someone who can reverse the slide into small c communist hell and not by moonbeamery or flights of fancy. A budget genius with the capability of directing an adult conversation.
Not a Don Juan, suave and smooth and slick and plastic. And not Don Quixote, tilting at windmill farms and fencing with federal judges.
A nose to the grindstone, fiscal wonk, who understands that runaway small c communism has destroyed Russia, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Venezuela, Cuba, Ireland, …with France, China and …unfortunately us…right on their heels.
That the present course is unsustainable, but charting a course to mine the moon is utterly ridiculous.
Newt is in free fall. Anybody but Mitt has run its course. There’s nothing left but reruns…or settling for insanity.
Erase the slate. Start over. Unpack the clown car. We have Daniels, Christie, Ryan, Cantor, Thune, Noem, Haley, Jindal, Rubio, …immense strength, courage, brilliance and stability.
Why are we trotting out the second string and throwing away an election and the country? Mindless…inane, disastrous.
I want a do over. Before it’s too late.
Hear! Hear! Hear!
The reasons behind these first-string choices’ refusal to run this year need close examination. Why are they waiting? They don’t think they’re ready? They prefer not to run against an incumbent? They don’t want to run against a black man? IMWTK!!
Excellent questions, bobbcat. I think your final question essentially answers itself. Look at how the “press” went after Herman Cain. (Personally, I think Mr. Cain would have imploded without their help.) Axelrod et al are aware that the race card won’t have the value for them that it had in ’08, but they have no intention of having it further devalued or, horror of horrors, neutralized by a black Republican pres or vp candidate.
If indeed they (the “first string” candidates) on our side, are “afraid” to run against a black man, seems to me they are missing the “bold, grounded, strong, measured, broad shoulders and determined leadership”, laid out in cf’s excellent post above.
It is not “one reason” for each, bobbcat.
Noem, Haley and Rubio are not ready for the top of the ticket.
Jindal stumbled when given the limelight and has been rebuilding his brand…and doing it well, I might add.
Daniels will not put his wife through the meat grinder.
Cantor never seriously considered running.
Christie, Paul, Thune and Mike Pence did consider running.
So, let’s limit our inquiry into your very astute question to those four.
1)Running against a “black” candidate.
Obama is black when he wants to be. Clearly, being a black leftist gives him an unwavering base of support, no matter how poorly he does the job…or avoids doing the job entrusted to him.
African-American support for Obama is not dependent upon traditional factors that would be much more relevant for any other candidate. For instance, if Hillary had become President and the economy had bypassed black neighborhoods, damaging it to the extent these small c communist policies have done…her support would have eroded. It would not have gone to Republicans, most likely, but the enthusiasm would have drained from it.
Everyone on the left side of the spectrum beyond the “soft left”…(moderates who lean left, but can be swayed…blue collar Democrats, and Reagan Democrats…)are not likely to be moved off of their “hard left” positions. They would not vote for a Republican if the Democrats ran a Satan/Hitler ticket.
So, would a Christie, Thune, Paul or Pence be “afraid” to play for the “remainder”, simply because the opposing candidate is black?
I don’t see any evidence of that whatsoever.
Christie would ride high on his pugnacious willingness to bloody the noses of the union/SEIU/ACORN crowd. But his brand would get damaged inside the base because he pulls no punches against anyone..and he hold some notions that would irritate …much like Mitt.
Thune has a name recognition issue. Much like Tim Pawlenty, it would be an uphill climb for him…no matter what he did. I happen to think he would have played out better than Pawlenty did…but, it was a crowded field and would have been tough starting from square one.
Mike Pence seriously considered running…but had no campaign cash and was not likely to assemble enough with Bachman and Santorum in the race. Running from a seat in Congress is a tough road…without a huge war chest and some big accomplishments. Raising cash is very tough in that position. Pence didn’t think he could pull it off.
Ryan. He really likes the wonk stuff and does not have the narcissist in him to fuel the desire. He is a guy who would have to be drafted, he has small children,is in his early 40′s and is not into self-aggrandizement. Running for ego is not his thing. He wants to serve, he wants to fix the fiscal mess, he does not want his budget work to get dragged through the circus mud.
The way to get him to run…is to show him the picture of what happens if he does not.
He is our last best hope. Ryan/Rubio is a can’t lose ticket.
Everything else…is settling for a roll of the dice on all that we have.
I think a good bit of the answer to your question is they (Pence and Daniels as examples) did not want to face the Chicago Machine that is full of seasoned pros who excel at nasty politics. Pence opted for the safe route,the Governors race which is a shame, I think he could have pulled it off, both win the nomination, defeat Obama and even perhaps unite the country. Rubio is a possibility who could step in but he says he doesn’t want to and he is lacking experience but he has the knowledge and communication skills. Whoever wins 2012 will face a more divided country and I am skeptical anyone can unite us for now the focus must be on winning the WH, the Senate and keeping the House. Those willing to run must understand the Saul Alinsky tactics to come, OWS is part of that game plan. I have no confidence the RNC is ready for this, they simply do not get it, Boehner and McConnell are trying to play by gentlemenly rules in a bloodsport. It will be up to conservatives across the country.
Sorry, cfb, you’re losing it on this one. THERE ARE NO “DO OVERS.”
*Sure*, we both may have wished others ghad run, BUT THEY DIDN’T.
DEAL WITH IT.
Grow up and pick one.
“Grow up”?
Ed, you need to stand down there, pal.
I AM grown up. All 58 years worth of me is grown up.
Brokered convention is not out of the question. And no…if all I’m left with is Ron Paul and Barack Obama…I will not “pick one”. They suck. And I consider the choice between two horrific, unqualified, damaging, destructive imbeciles to be no choice at all.
If you disagree, feel free. And we can let the others here determine which of our positions are more convincing and with whom they are more inclined to agree.
cfb, I have never read such “eeyore”-ish remarks like this from you before. That’s why I wrote whast I wrote.
I certainly would never suggest cRaZy RoNpAul…don’t know where you got that idea. See my other posts: I’m going with Gingrich in the primary and will likely vote for the GOP candidate to get Obama out of office. I cannot fathom that so many Americans would fall for this rotting b*tsh!tcrazy pseudo-libertarian fool.
So vote for a brokered convention then, voting for Paul, Gingrich or Romney as needed to try to force a stalemate.
On Ron Paul vs. Obama, you say “if all I’m left with is Ron Paul and Barack Obama…I will not “pick one”. They suck. And I consider the choice between two horrific, unqualified, damaging, destructive imbeciles to be no choice at all.”
This seems a bit silly to me. Ron Paul would cut taxes and drastically cut spending. You may not agree with his stance that Israel is a sovereign nation who can responsibly defend themselves without having to bow to America’s beck and call – but do you honestly think Obama would protect Israel or prevent Iran from getting the nuke?
Let’s say that the two men’s foreign policy both entails, at best, “leading from behind.” You don’t like that. OK, groovy, I can identify with where you’re coming from. But shouldn’t you still support the man who will cut spending and taxes, rather than the man who will continue to channel tax dollars into the coffers of his cronies? I don’t see why this is a hard choice, because even if we consider Rep. Paul’s and President Obama’s foreign policies equally horrific, Paul obviously is a better choice because of his spending policies.
Aaron…if I was to simplify my differences with Ron Paul to “Israel’s sovereignty” then I might agree.
Instead, I agree with Rich Lowry and every other thinking person on the planet.
Ron Paul’s divergences with mine extend beyond the borders of Israel. He is anti-American in my view. He is pro-jihadist. He’s an apologist for Hamas. He’s a nutjob on 9/11. He says we wanted blood for oil in Iraq. He doesn’t want to protect the borders. He’s an extreme radical and sounds more like Noam Chomsky than is comfortable for me.
His foreign policies would put us at grave risk. Between Paul and Obama, I think Paul would gut the military faster, make the Arab world more dangerous and faster and would collapse Europe with his insane fiscal gibberish.
No serious person can support him, in my opinion. A race between Obama and Paul (not going to happen, by the way) is mutually assured destruction. The former is a Fabian trying to overthrow capitalism through stealth small c communism. The latter is trying to overthrow America’s military might through fascist isolationism and aggressive surrender.
No…it’s not silly to completely, wholly and utterly reject BOTH propositions. They suck equally.
In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.
This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.
Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”
On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).
Paul’s promiscuousness with his ideological bedfellows — he hails members of the John Birch Society for their fine educations and respect for the Constitution — accounts for the disgrace he brought on himself with his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. As journalist James Kirchick exposed, they were full of race-baiting and rancid Israel-bashing.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/blame_america_first_republican_5mqj6XU1tO0WLPPvWiHedM#ixzz1h7iYpBfM
Here’s something by Thomas Sowell in hopes you’ll reconsider your remarks about Gingrich:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/12/20/the_past_and_the_present
Was going to post the Sowell link myself. Glad you beat me to it. I agree with Sowell 100 per cent.
cfbleachers:
“And I consider the choice between two horrific, unqualified, damaging, destructive imbeciles to be no choice at all.”
I think such babbling calls into question your motives Book of Murmurs?. Are you a paid political hit-man or religious bigot? Why else would a person use such extreme, bvile and untrue words to attack a good and decent man such as Mitt Romney? Can’t you simply choose a horse and place your bet without trying to kill all the other horses?
If your intent is to help preserve the nation, you are way off course. Better take a few days off and rest and regroup. Zanny goes in all directions.l
The two people in question are Ron Paul and Barack Obama.
Vote for them if you want to…slander your own country if you want to.
They do.
My country is AMERICA. My country is NOT the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Supporting the National government when it is entirely anti-American is the ANTI-AMERICAN route. Calling the national government to the mat, when it is egregiously socialist/fascist, is the AMERICAN thing to do.
Supporting the national government when it is anti-American is NOT patriotic.
Patriotism comes from supporting the Constitution, even when so doing gets you branded as a “nut-job” or a loon, or causes people to say your supporters are thoughtless.
Am I thoughtless to support Ron Paul? I don’t think so. I have read dozens of books about the Constitution and the Founding fathers. I have read the Constitution dozens of times. I have sworn on oath as a military officer to support and defend the Constitution. I have examined the Republicans and the Democrats and how they squabble over such minimal things as a 2% payroll tax reduction as if that is going to solve any problem at all, and I LAUGH at the inanity of the two parties. I have watched Republican leaders preach freedom and then pass such atrocious things as Medicare Part D and RomneyCare. I say that the Republicans are unable to abide by their stated ideals (which are good stated ideals), while the Democrats sadly abide much better to their horrific ideals.
If you think small change for better or worse is going to pull America out of the death spiral that is so evident, than vote for Gingrich or whomever. If you recognize that there is almost no chance for America now, with 100 years of counterfeit currency about to be exposed throughout the world, and that we are following in precisely the footsteps of the decline of the Roman Republic politically, and the decline of the Roman Empire economically, then perhaps you will see that a radical change from business as usual is what is needed.
Your “good and decent man” pushed the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts every chance he got.
Your “good and decent man” is still pushing it.
Your “good and decent man” socialized medicine in Massachusetts.
Your “good and decent man” is pro-abortion.
Your “good and decent man” campaigned and governed in Massachusetts somewhere to the left of Barack Obama.
Please tell us WHAT about this vile creature is “good and decent” .
I have to disagree on two points.
1. Intestinal flora are beneficial, unlike RP devotees. Also, a conversation one one’s own intestinal flora would be less stressful, as one does not expect rational conversation from them.
2. He’s right on the Fed. Do your homework.
Yesterday, I watched a video that a Ron Paul supporter posted on another link at this website. Paul was saying that he was never aware of the anti-Jewish, neo-Nazi hate that was being spewed by the contributors to his own magazine with his name on it. As I commented there, it sounded like Obama saying he never heard Rev. Wright’s sermons.
Yes, Rance. We’ve already been there, done that, are still doing it with Obama. Paul on the ballot as president is inconceivable – disastrous for the country and the GOPhers, and a sure win for Obama.
Ron Paul is a major voice of liberty. Why are you attacking him? Because he is a threat to a Gingrich presidency? Because he MAY make it harder to oust Obama?
If he can’t get elected in your mind, then he won’t win the nomination. So you have no worry, and you can get your opportunity to have a nice mainstream Republican candidate continue to do what mainstream Republicans do, which is to compromise with the Democrats and expand the government only slightly less rapidly than the Democrats do.
So you can safely lay off Ron Paul, who has been the most consistent voice for Jeffersonian ideals and Liberty. Let him continue to be such a voice, without suffering attempts at castration from people who also believe that Freedom is the goal. Let the man be. Let the message of freedom resonate, and let the candidates of the future learn that freedom and consistency are right.
Ron Paul is the only shot we have at fixing the nations fiscal problems. All the other candidates will do is slow the process, since the GOP can not win a super majority. In all honesty even if RP wins, we will likely blow up fiscally.
We need to reduce all spending, we cannot tax our way out. Further we can not grow our way out fast enough to cut food stamps and middle class welfare. The math is not on our side. Worse yet the Fed has America on a ZIRP iv drip, keeping rates artificially low.
If the GOP wants too stay viable, we need to embrace Liberty. SWAT teams assaulting our civil liberty’s for selling Raw Milk. Organized crime making tons of money selling Marlboro. People hoarding light bulbs before they get banned. Americans can be detained without due process.
But I digress , this can drive a person crazy. I am lying out to see family for Christmas. I wonder if TSA will get to seconds base with my 14 year old daughter. She has been so excited about this trip.
Results/polls could be hacked for the sake of confusion and propaganda.
See this story about hacking results:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32
Some conservatives – and most Libertarians – think there is no harm in voting for an extreme candidate during the primaries even though they know well that it has no chance of getting the nomination.
That is wrong headed and foolish.
In the case of Ron Paul, what they are doing is encouraging a man whose psychological makeup would propel him to run as an independent third party in order to have the national stage where to expand on its views, and by doing so, assure the election of Obama.
If these extreme – and foolish – conservative voters think that Ron Paul is not the type of man to do that damage to the conservative cause and to the country, they better think again.
The Conservative cause? Like getting tied up in a war with Iran? Like fighting over tiny little issues in Congress that won’t make a hill of beans of difference? Like ignoring the Fed’s complicity in expanding the power of government, because of lack of understanding? Which conservative causes?
Ron Paul is the Jeffersonian candidate. The term Conservative has lost credibility, the same way that “Liberal” used to mean freedom and now means progressive (in the US at least).
IF Ron Paul were to run as a third party, he would have a substantial impact, and if not able to win, he would almost assuredly help Obama get another term. Then Obama can be President when the world economy collapses. Ron Paul can help end the insanity of the two party system, (that is the 2 party system in which we get to throw the previous bums out every few years to replace them with other bums, thus making us think we are doing something HUGE..)
Obama, McCain, Bush, Romney… It is just a matter of the speed by which the fascism happens. We need to change the direction… If that means another 4 years of Obama-horror in the process of eliminating the 2 party disaster, then that is sad.
Or we can all work for freedom now, supporting Ron Paul, or another candidate who is an educated committed believer in Freedom.
No More “lesser of two evils”. the lesser is still evil.
No more compromising with evil. Only evil wins when you compromise with it.
Ron Paul taking the #1 spot? Well, the way the venom is being spewed at Gingrich (National Review, Ann Coulter, etc…), is it really any surprise? Ron Paul has enough of a machine to at least place a strong third in Iowa and NH, and now, thanks to the conservative circular firing squad, that is strangely ignoring Dr. Paul, he’s now looking at grabbing the #1 spot….
Maybe we need to lobby National Review to write some more bold-faced headline articles telling us what an awful person Newt Gingrich is….yeah, that would fix it.
It seems National Review, Ann Coulter, etc., haven’t come to the realization that Romney is unelectable….it’s the argument they use against everyone else, except the one person who truly deserves the title. He’s always been my last choice, even behind crazy Ron Paul. If nothing else, at least Dr. Paul has been CONSISTENTLY crazy…same ideas year in, year out, which is a lot more than I can say for Romney. With Paul, you know exactly what you’re getting, with Romney, it’s like playing Russian roulette.
There are a large number of conservatives, perhaps as many as 70% of us, who will just NEVER vote for Romney, no matter what. The reasons why have been written about so many times, I’m not going to waste time recounting them here, except to say he’s certainly the least conservative of the bunch.
So the race is now between Crazy Ron and the Michigan Mormon….I’d rather vote Ron Paul, even if I had to hold my nose doing so….at least he’s a fiscal conservative….
What a mess.
“There are a large number of conservatives, perhaps as many as 70% of us, who will just NEVER vote for Romney, no matter what.”
Yes you will.
When it becomes clear to you (probably by September or October 2012) that Obama’s re-election will mean a liberal Supreme Court as bad as the Earl Warren court from the 1960s, you’ll vote for any Republican nominee. You’ll gripe and bluster–and then you’ll vote for the GOP candidate anyway.
I’m calling your bluff.
I will not vote for any Progressive Republican…ever again. If that means an Obama reelection, I will hope for secession.
I agree and I am with you. I will NOT vote for a progressive of either party, ever ever. I will not accept as an argument that a write-in for Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater is effectively a vote for Obama. No way. Voting for a progressive of either party is a vote for Obama’s ideals. Just as supporting the Patriot Act or the TSA is providing support for the Terrorist’s cause by helping them so rapidly succeed at their goals to destroy our freedom (we do it to ourselves).
I will not support fascist progressives from either party. I will not vote for Romney any more than i would vote for Obama. In fact I would rather have a declared socialist fascist than an undeclared one pretending to be a good guy.
No I won’t.
I’ll write in Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum or Mickey Mouse, and so will a TON of other people.
Yes, I know what that means.
No, I won’t vote for Romney.
Now that Ron Paul is flavor of the month he will not be ignored by the Republican establishment or the MSM. The double-team trashing will probably put him back to his traditional 10% or so by January 3rd.
A funny thing is about to happen. Considering we haven’t had a single primary or caucus so far, everyone has been focussed on poll numbers. It’s been extra fun because the polls keep finding a new anti-Romney.
But we are about to hit Christmas and New Year’s. Few polling companies would conduct surveys during the holidays and the ones that are conducted will be shakey at best.
So, on Jan. 3rd the people of Iowa will have their caucuses and there will be no recent enough polling data to tell us all who the anti-Romney will be when Iowa votes.
There are three candidates who have not had the sudden surge of being flavor of the month. Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson. Any of these guys could end up doing surprisingly well in Iowa (O.K., not Huntsman).
But if Iowans are smart, they’ll look over the former flavors of the month and pick the brilliant lovely and uncompromisingly conservatve Michele Bachmann. If she can finish at least a strong third she will still be in the race. This would be the most intelligent thing Iowans could do. It’s the best choice for the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann has the will and the strength to bring the fight to Obama. She doesn’t flip/flop nor she doesn’t have any skeletons in her closet. There really is no better choice in this election’s Iowa Caucus than Michele Bachmann.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann.
She is also the best candidate on the illegal immigration issue. NumbersUSA gives her a B-. Santorum gets an F and Gingrich gets a D-. Of course, Crazy Ron gets an F also.
I admit to not paying much attention to RP in the past but what I am finding now is alarming, here’s an old article from American Thinker with lots of links
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
All candidates need to be vetted, the Chicago machine is in full force and waiting for the right time to bring the past newsletters into view. If he didn’t write the newsletters, he was the editor, correct? I didn’t know until recently, RP was a frequent guest on Alex Jones radio show, did you? I’d vote for Gary Johnson well before even considering RP.
PJM readers, how much of a factor will open primaries be? Remember Rush and his Operation Chaos? I think the left is playing the same game, how many D’s switch parties to vote in primaries?
We must educate voters now, a proper vetting will not be done by the media, it is up to the internet with bloggers taking the lead and readers sharing information. Thank you PJM for doing the work the MSM refuses to do.
Good points from one of the best point makers around…
Sowell: Gingrich’s Past, Our Future
“If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.”
~Winston Churchill, excessive drinker and (reported) misogynist
Merry Christmas to PJM
(mouse moves you around, icons move you in and out)
Even if Ron Paul wins Iowa, the “news media” will continue to forego investigating his record. They want him alive and well. Soon they will be circulating “word on the street” stories about increasing numbers of “angry” conservatives calling for Paul to run third party. It is their best shot at keeping Obama in office. See Minnesota. The strategy worked like a charm there — uh, with a little old-fashioned vote fraud mixed in of course.
That said, it won’t work. Not this time. The Obama Myth has shattered. Rather than trying to split the conservative GOP vote, the Lefties (and their RINO stalking horses) would do well to force Obama to bow out and put some phony moderate candidate in his place.
These are trying times… both for conservatives and mainstream Americans.
But absolutely nothing! compared to what will happen if Obama gets another four.
However – even if we manage to elect a reformer/president, retain the House and gain a good-sized majority in the Senate, America’s march towards its financial abyss will most likely only be slowed. Increasingly, it appears that righting the ship of our Republic will take two or more election cycles. Tragically, the main reson being that we need to get a little closer to the abyss to wake up enough Americans to force enough politicians to pass enough meaningful reforms.
But who knows – in our weakened state, it may still be touch and go… especially if, for example, Europe happens to falter.
Friends, the GOP may be somewhat “brand-damaged” and our current crop of candidates may leave “a little something” to be desired, but these are the people who have chosen to run and this is the hand we have been dealt. So now is the time for 80% of America (yea, that would be the roughly 40% conservatives added to the roughly 40% mainstreamers) to turn their attention to the only thing that really matters… defeating Obama and his 20% leftist minority.
Keep passing the word… November, 2012.
And Ron Paul figures into your assessment how?
SecTreas… well, maybe.
A Hail Mary Pass. There’s time for one last desperation shot, but it has to reach the endzone. Safe loses. Even if the odds are against it actually working, we have to try it because it’s our only chance.
Try what?
Ron paul is the equivalent of a political sewer rat thinking about only himself, his ideology and willing to leave a once proud to the vulchers, feeding on a dead in the end on a dead nation.
Paul’s followers are famous for Hitler’s brown shirts favorite past times, ballot stuffing.
Of course, there’s a chance enough miscreants in Iowa vote for Paul, which makes Iowa a state that should the endangered list because it’s taken American values and turned them into totalitarian pamphlets.
Folks, this is not a drill. Your nation is being attacked from without and within.
Obama/Paul are one in the same person. Their hate for the red, white and blue runs deep and the deep blue sea.
Rachel, having thought about your post, you are correct….Ron Paul has to go on my “DO NOT VOTE FOR NO MATTER WHAT” list along with Romney. One thing that is become abundantly clear about Paul is his pro-Islam, anti-Israel stance, that is even well beyond what Obama is capable of, and that’s hard to believe. When his chief criticism about Michelle Bachman is that she “hates Muslims” –that tells me a heck of a lot more about Paul than it does Bachmann.
Paul isn’t really a loon, he’s just very pro-Islam, and an antisemite, to the point of it being terribly embarrassing. At least that’s not something we have to worry about from Romney, for all his other significant negatives.
Sadly, but truthfully, the brown shirt analogies are probably closer to the truth than many of us would care to admit.
I agree with you about Paul. If he were nominated — which isn’t feasible, but if he were — I would write in Sarah Palin on my ballot. But I just don’t get your condemnation of Mitt. I am a conservative, and I would prefer that Mitt not win the nomination, but if he does, I will surely vote for him. Obama has exceeded the direful expectations I had of him. He must be defeated. And there is also the matter of retaking the Senate and widening our lead in the House. I do hope that fellow conservatives who refuse to vote for the GOP nominee will at least get enthused about rebuilding Congress. But anyway, Cheers!
Dr. Frank –My main beef with Romney is that I really don’t see ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING in regards to his accomplishments that serve to promote his conservative credentials, apart from being a Mormon, who are some of the most conservative people I know. But neither Romney nor his father could be classified as conservatives given what executive experience we have to go on. They would rightly be called liberal Republicans–liberal social views, and moderate to liberal ideas about economics. Many, many people have written about Mit’s Mt. Everest of negatives, a quick search of the ‘net gives one plenty of anti-Romney ammunition, I’m not going to rehash it all here.
Even if it comes to Obama being re-elected, as we have seen the past two years, he really isn’t capable of much without a House and Senate marching with him in lock-step. I will certainly do what I can to continue to support and encourage conservatives running for Congress, even if we don’t have one for a nominee.
And even though I’m no big fan, right now the one candidate that has really impressed me the most during this campaign is Newt Gingrich. I’m no Newt fan, but anyone who threatens to make John Bolton the Secretary of State is my kind of guy!
I find it comical that people like Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter are trying so hard to paint Newt with the liberal, progressive paintbrush, a person who’s conservative credentials, despite his various mistakes, have never been in doubt. But then Mitt Romney and his father George have been the true progressives, and both have worn that badge proudly in the very recent past.
Thanks. I see where you stand. To me both Mitt & Newt have troubling track records in many regards; but they also have their plusses. To be honest, I like them both, but at this point I would have to flip a coin to choose between them. Unfortunately the big conservative guns chose to stay out in 2012. What idiots. Or should I say: what pansies. My bottom line remains: Anyone but the Marxist (or Mr. Tinfoil).
Dr. Lippenheimer, tell me, what did Mitt Romney ever do in elected office that was NOT thoroughly leftist?
Anything?
Please don’t tell me about his rhetoric – that changes with the wind.
Tell me about his actions.
Dr. Lippenheimer, consider the kind of education, scholarship, and judicial temperament that Gingrich (the history scholar) would likely be looking for in judicial appointments.
Frankly, this is the ONLY big plus I see to him. I share your concerns. He’s NOT “my guy” in any way!
But on this point, I have hope.
Now look at who Romney appointed while in office.
I submit, sir, that there is your coin toss.
EXACTLY. What these paulbots don’t get is that we don’t care nearly as much about these issues that they seem to prize so highly.
Low taxes, balanced budgets, the Constitution, the economy, etc. all rank far below the issue of what one thinks on Israel, the Islamic problem, and anti-semitism. It’s time they get it through their THICK heads. If a candidate is wrong on Israel, he’s wrong for America, NO MATTER WHAT!
Ron Paul is an antisemite… don’t replace one antisemite with another.
Amen.
We RP supporters know the odds of restoring the republic are not in our favor. Nothing delusional is in our outlook. Democrats are driving the nation off the cliff at 200 mph. Republicans want to only go 100mph. Ron Paul wants to turn the damn thing around, or at the very least STOP the car.
Ron Paul wants an investigation into the “inside job” on 9/11.
Says that we went into Iraq…blood for oil.
Says that Hamas is a legitimate government and we should respect them.
Says that building a border fence is to “keep us in”.
Those items are pure insanity. The man is a loon.
http://www.therightscoop.com/flashback-ron-paul-defends-hamas-says-israeli-blockade-act-of-war/
And Paul goes on Jay Leno to smear his opponents with comments like “Michelle Bachmann doesn’t like Muslims” and “Rick Santorum doesn’t like gays AND Muslims.”
And he blindly insists that Iran’s not building a bomb. In 1939, he would have insisted that Hitler wasn’t planning to attack anyone.
I think our best shot is a brokered convention that results in nominating Mike Huckabee, but for that to happen, Paul has to secure enough delegates to deadlock the nomination. Still, electing Paul wouldn’t be so bad. We might stop supporting Israel directly, but we’d also stop restraining them, and leave them to deal with the jihadists as they see fit, and they’ll do just fine if we stay out of the way.
The dream of a brokered convention.
Via Hot Air
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/republicans-dissatisfied-with-their-presidential-field-dream-of-deadlock.html
B. Hussein. progressive in 2009.
Marxist Methodology.
class warfare. income distribution. obamacare. record debt and deficits. unprecedented spending. (the list doesn’t stop here but you get the drift)
2012 Presidential election.
Almost 45% of the nation votes for Obama, who steals enough votes in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois and New Jersey to win the election, Ron Paul having run as a third party candidate and receives almost 5% of the vote.
By 2014, all hell breaks out. Inflation skyrockets. Israel is a memory. Debt nears 21 trillion. You fill in the blanks.
In 1942, the last bastion next to the U.S was Australia. By 2015, history repeats itself. A dramatic rise in population of Australia. Anybody with a memory breaks out the “Waltzing Matilda” song sheets.
Maybe a coke bottle keeps sending an incoherent message. A Chinese subs goes to investigate. Finds nothing. Back home in China it’s called a wasted trip.
B. Hussein, after fixing the Constitution, runs for a third third term and wins handily. His tag line:
Communism works.
how much you care, rachel, but Israel will not be a memory, no matter what.
Paul sounds like a communist
That’s one of the more ignorant comments I’ve ever heard about Ron Paul. I can’t think of a single position of his that even comes CLOSE to being Marxist.
On domestic issues, there’s nobody in the race more closely aligned with the views of the Founding Fathers.
NOBODY.
On foreign affairs, he’s a complete lunatic, of course, and then there’s his (growing more) obvious racism.
But none of that is even remotely Communist.
What many do not get (esp. Republican Establishment and even Rush) is that it is a protest vote. I, and some acquaintances (who said this totally unsolicited from me), report they are considering voting for RP in the primaries, too (I was shocked). Antedotal, I know, but I think significant per Iowa. We don’t want to but this is the one thing a conservative/libertarian leaning person can do after swearing not to be subjected to a McCain vote again. We’ll have to vote for whomever wins the primary (nobody is staying home- ABO), but feel this will perhaps be a message- seems to be getting noticed now. Actually I will probably not be able to make myself vote for him, but in a poll I would say I am. I am considering writing in Palin (primaries-same thing, a message) as I feel any of the candidates running would be only OK (back to previous status quo and/or not true reformers with a record of getting things done- or undone preferably) and all only better than Obama. I predict if Newt Romney gets the nomination there will be a big push for a true 3rd party in 2016-started early- called the Constitutional Party or something. It may take awhile but in many minds the Rep. party will be finished.BTW I do not think many righty bloggers are considering seriously enough the ramifications of ANY Rep. candidate who has ever supported AGW, etc. I am totally familiar personally with this (laceyact/cites torturing my company on the level of the IRS) and knew it was a fraud from the beginning- why couldn’t ‘the experts’? A lot of this stuff hasn’t impacted everyone’s life enough yet- but it will. It is the same control mechanism for animal/plants(minerals covered elsewhere) that socialized medicine is for humans…thus covering just about everything, doesn’t it. Oops- wrote a book again.
Palin is terrible on illegal immigration. NumbersUSA gave her a D or D- before she “dropped out.” Of course, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum get F’s. The only conservative is Bachman. She of course gets the highest rating of any of the candidates. Libertarian talk radio host, Larry Elder, said that Bachman won the last debate because she cleaned Newt Gingrich’s and Ron Paul’s respective clocks.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
I may never understand why anyone wants to support a possible Palin candidacy for POTUS. She quit her job as governor of Alaska; this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt to my mind that she is not fit for public office. Leave her be to do what she does well: cheerleading for other Pub candidates for public office.
Oh, please. Are you a Soros-bot?
Palin quit the governorship for good and honorable reasons. She did the RIGHT thing.
She’s certainly got a lot of negatives, and I hope she stays out of the race, but this particular issue is on her PLUS side, and if you don’t understand that, you don’t understand responsibility and honor.
Oh please. Don’t be insulting. Just agree to disagree. While you’re at that, explain to me just why it was necessary for her to drop out as Alaska’s governor.
In reference to your response to my queries in thread #6, I appreciate your insights, CFB (you’re my age, BTW, FWIW).
It is a shame to see PJ Media cozying up to the ideas of the establishment. I am a long-time reader and personal friend of some of the folks on here and this article as well as the rest of the campaign against Dr. Paul is saddening. I’d like to know, apart from Dr. Paul, who would the writers of PJM like as the candidate to go against Barack Obama. For all the support of the Tea Party that I see on here, which I know is genuine, I am baffled by the attacks on Dr. Paul. What candidate has been more consistent and honest than Ron Paul? Whoelse predicted and warned against the housing bubble and the collapse of the financial industry due to the Federal Reserve’s blank check to spend money. Romney is certainly no conservative, and Gingrich is scum any way you look at it-from taking money from failed financial institutions, to cozying up to Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton. Come on. There will always be nutty supporters out there like the ones who wrote the incendiary emails, but those who work in and report on politics should know (and I believe they do) that there are plenty of times that there are loony staffers/supporters who are not properly vetted. Remember how much flack Rick Perry got for “promoting secession.” I was there when the now infamous clip was filmed, and there was some nut out there who yelled “Secede!” while Governor Perry was doing an interview. That’s all it took. Was the remark in the newsletter an error in judgment? Yes. Are a few emails from twenty years ago akin to Obama sitting in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church for years while he babbles hate speech? Absolutely not. But the real question will be, do the American people truly believe Ron Paul to be a racist? Anyone who has met Dr. Paul would tell you unequivocally, no. I cannot think of a candidate who truly represents the Tea Party more than Ron Paul. Romney may be able to take Obama in the general election, but Dr. Paul is equally as electable if not more due to his appeal to independents and moderates. I’m ashamed to see PJ Media engaged in this campaign, and would appreciate some comments on who Mr. Radosh, Mr. Simon and others here at PJM would rather have as our next president. Still, the fact that PJM and others in the media are resorting to cries of “racism” to try and derail Dr. Paul’s campaign is not only amusing, but pathetic, and even more of an indication that those who have held the reins of power for so long are now feeling them slip through their grasp. I am surprised and saddened in this revelation that PJM is choosing to side with the establishment, the statists and the politicians from both parties who have kept the status quo in place and allowed our country to be dragged into costly endless wars abroad while waging a not so different kind of war on our civil liberties here at home. (Where is the reporting on the NDAA?) I had thought y’all were a voice of reason, but I may have been wrong, I hope I am not. A response would be appreciated. You have my email address.
Hello there, simply was aware of your blog thru Google, and located that it’s really informative. I?m gonna be careful for brussels. I will appreciate should you proceed this in future. Many other folks can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Useful info. Lucky me I found your website by accident, and I am stunned why this twist of fate didn’t came about earlier! I bookmarked it.
Spam alert above.
I recall posting the above elsewhere but not here. Please disregard.
Not spamming. Just looking for some answers. Honest, I like PJM and want to hear why all of a sudden the father of the Tea Party has become their biggest target, using “racism” as their main weapon. Weak.