Will Ron Paul Be the Next GOP Frontrunner?
Ron Paul, the 76-year-old Texas congressman, appears to have a real chance of winning the Iowa caucus on January 3. In the two most recent surveys taken this week, he has moved into second place, leading Mitt Romney by 5 points in each poll and pulling within one point of Newt Gingrich in one of the surveys.
Gingrich may have peaked too soon, providing his competitors enough time to damage him with their ad campaigns. Even worse, Gingrich’s attack on Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital this week, which could have been delivered by the group chanters of Occupy Wall Street, was a good example of his ability to self-destruct .
New York Times polling guru Nate Silver argues that the Iowa race is very fluid, and that Paul is the latest candidate to demonstrate some momentum. Silver, who weights the most recent poll results much more heavily than earlier ones, believes Paul is headed for a second place showing of 20% or more, and if his momentum continues, and Gingrich’s recent slippage accelerates, maybe in the low 30% range, which would almost certainly mean victory. Silver rates Paul’s chances of winning outright in Iowa at 28%.
After Iowa comes the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire and Paul is hanging in strong, polling in the high teens in 3rd place .
If Paul were to win Iowa, it is certainly possible he could pass Gingrich for second in New Hampshire. But winning New Hampshire is not out of the question, either. If Mitt Romney’s numbers continue to trend down in Iowa, and he finishes a very weak 4th or 5th , which would be a real blow to maintaining his position as one of the national frontrunners, a Paul victory in Iowa might give him enough of a pop in New Hampshire to win there too.
Could Ron Paul be the new GOP front runner after New Hampshire? Why not? Just a month back, Herman Cain, who has never won an election of any kind, was the hot candidate in the GOP field, hitting 30% support levels nationally and higher than that in several states. The GOP pre-primary action has been a non-stop roller coaster with the Republican faithful falling head over heels first for one candidate (Bachmann) and then another (Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Paul), so long as the candidate is not named Mitt Romney. The volatility has been enormous. Both Perry and Cain had large rapid surges in support before almost all of their support disappeared just as quickly.
Ron Paul, I think, is a different type of candidate than the others who have flirted with the conservative base of the party this cycle. His support has been fairly steady, much like Romney’s, but has grown of late as the number of undamaged alternatives to Romney shrinks. If Gingrich becomes the latest one to play Humpty Dumpty, Paul is likely to be one of the prime beneficiaries.
A survey of how supporters of Gingrich, Romney, and Rick Perry respond to positive and negative ads for their candidate as well as for other candidates demonstrates Gingrich’s vulnerability. The survey by Evolving Strategies indicates that nearly half of Gingrich’s supporters might abandon him after seeing a tough negative ad. The study suggests Romney would benefit from a Gingrich decline, but did not test how much Ron Paul would benefit.
And so our Reagan candidate, the only candidate with the record to beat Obama-finally emerges. Yes, I love Dr. Paul’s message. If you open your hearts to that old beaten down optimism that has lain dormant within you for so long- and consider if supporting a 76-year-old peace loving conservative and monetary radical might not be one heck of a way to spend your 2012.
And for those of you who fear his foreign policy, I ask you – would not a man who has never given an inch on our constitution also defend this nation and it’s people with just as much zeal? Having a different foreign policy than those at the project for a new American century does not mean you have no foreign policy. It is time for conservatives to change the world through peace and mercy – for my future children’s sake I implore you:
Vote Dr. Ron Paul for President in 2012
“…would not a man who has never given an inch on our constitution also defend this nation and it’s people with just as much zeal?”
NO, he wouldn’t. Paul is NUTS, and suicidally so.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Well, I don’t know about suicidal but I can support the contention that he’s insane. First of all he’s a 9/11 truther, which means he’s either out of his mind or he lacks basic critical thinking skills. He’s got some good ideas on the economy but his foreign policy prescriptions would be catastrophic. And even if all that wasn’t true the fact remains that of all the candidates he’s the one that it’s most easy to make look like a lunatic. He’d never be able to win over the independents.
@James Felix
@First of all he’s a 9/11 truther
No he’s not.
@He’s got some good ideas on the economy
He’s got some great ideas for the economy.
@but his foreign policy prescriptions would be catastrophic.
Can’t get any worse than what we’re doing now. (And it’s way better than what Obama and the current crop of GOP warmongers want to do)
@he’s the one that it’s most easy to make look like a lunatic.
Fair enough, you’re a good example of this.
I personally don’t see how voting for the guy that can supposedly win is going to help this country, but that’s just me.
@He’d never be able to win over the independents”
Obama’s a dismal failure and at this point anybody/anything could win over enough people to win. Even chicken hawk Newt ‘Realpolitik Wilsonian’ Gengrich.
And even if Ron Paul couldn’t win, I would rather lose with someone that’s right on most things than someone who’s going to be an Obama clone and who’s going to give democrats the false narrative that they are about ‘hope’ and ‘change’ in the future. I guarantee four more dismal years of Obama would be a teachable moment this country wouldn’t want to see ever again. Conservatives and Libertarians could write their own tickets from that point on.
“9/11 truther” is a vague phrase. I think 9/11 is comparable to the Kennedy Assassination in one respect: the ubiquity of crackpot theories doesn’t mean the official story is the whole truth.
Paul has made clear he thinks there’s more to Al Queda’s motivation than what we usually hear–they hate us because of our faith and freedom, etc. He seems to think there’s more going on than meets the eye, which strikes me a sensible. There are a lot of different “truther” theories out there, and many of them are obviously insane. But to infer that all doubting of the official narrative is therefore insane calls into question your own critical thinking skills.
@James Felix
You will be surprised if you do two things:
-Look up “Ron Paul’s predictions” on youtube. A crazy person can’t accurately make the kind of predictions that he has made. The reason he has great ideas on the economy is that he understands that it works which is how he was able to anticipate the subprime crisis and housing collapse.
-Look up the polls and see which Republican candidate does best among independent voters. It is consistently Ron Paul – which is also one reason why he is the most likely to defeat Barack Obama.
Read Paul’s newletters. The one where he said the LA riots stopped when the welfare checks came out. Paul has been anti Jewish and his foreign policy is plain stupid. This man is a danger to America on a par with Obama. If his candidacy results in Obama winning reelection, Pauls head belongs on a pike somewhere where the public can view it.
Hi.
can you give references as to how Paul is ani Jewish?
thanks
Hi Zelsdorf,
Paul answered these charges very effectively in an interview with Wolf Blitzer back in 2008. It’s on Youtube, with the title “Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN.”
Yeah. ‘Cause Reagan would have pulled the troops home and let the Soviet Union totter on unvexed.
Paul’s just like Reagan.
In a pig’s eye.
I agree thankfully Ron Paul actually believes and does what he say’s
The only difference between Paul’s followers and the Occupy people is that the Paulites are not rapists. Otherwise they are both idiotic extremists. A Paul nomination would be a suicide run for the Republican Party of historic proportions.
Second thing: I was surprised to see someone as smart as Mr. Baehr adopting the MSM meme about Gingrich sounding like an Occupyer on the Bain Capital thing. Someone injudiciously snapping back at a Romney attack at that end of the day? Sure. Occupyer? Oh, please.
Ron Paul is the best candidate to run against Obama. We need a candidate that we can trust to actually cut back government. Romney and Gingrich’s records have nothing on Obama. I think Americans want to get government out of their lives, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that will do that.
You could be right, but it all depends on the independents. Paul would bring in quite a few independents and anti-war Democrats, while losing a lot of other independents who feel safer with a more traditional candidate. I honestly don’t know which sort of independent there are more of in America, though I know which I hope there are more of.
How can you call him a Reagan candidate when Paul himself said he didn’t like Reagan? He also claims that isolationism is what the founders wanted, but that too is wrong. Plus in the age of nuclear weapons, isolationism is just self destruction waiting to happen.
Ron Paul is a non interventionist there is a big difference
Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan and endorsed him but at the end of his presidency Dr Paul protested the large increase in the Federal budget which undermined his conservative principles.
Regarding the view of the Founders, look up George Washington’s farewell address. Also Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” This is strictly called non-interventionism. To call Ron Paul’s position isolationism assumes that violence is the only way to interact with other nations.
Nuclear weapons shouldn’t change this policy. The Soviets had many nuclear weapons. There was even the Cuban missile crisis. But those issues were negotiated successfully without preemption.
The only difference between Paul and Obama is their ethnicity.
They both have horrendous foreign policy ideals that leave the U.S. in a critical national security position.
A debate between these masters of confusion, would have them agreeing on many platforms because of their fear of rattling a sword.
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…but only long enough to vote there and promptly leave. In my eyes this is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENT from ACORN’s filthy shenanigans. Paul and his slavish drones thereby attempt to MANUFACTURE POPULARITY…and simultaneously damage the reputation of the ideology they claim to revere.
Many of us may have wishes that other candidates had run…but they didn’t. THIS is the group of folks from whom we have to select our opponent to Obama. Grow up; PICK ONE…preferably one who has a chance of winning (personally, anyone who thinks Paul has a chance of winning needs mental help). Libertarian thought works in reality pretty much only to the degree of control over which you exercise in any given situation.
That’s what primaries are for – to express your preference. Just remember the underlying preference: get Obama out of office, not onanistically massaging your ideological ego.
Would you care to elucidate to us simple peons the point of nominating a candidate who has only until very recently supported virtually all of the positions and political assumptions (such as the federal government having the ability to force the individual mandate) that make Obama so outrageous to “conservatives?”
Would you care to elucidate to us simple peons the point of nominating a candidate who has developed a reputation based almost exclusively on consistently rejecting reality in the name of ideology?
Enjoy your CrAzY RoNpAuL moment.
But don’t think for a second that you are doing anything less than aiding and abetting the re-election of Obama.
Romney
PJ fails to point out Iowa is a closed primary as only registered Republicans can vote. With this group Newt is far ahead of both Romney and paul. PJ amoung other conservative organizations, are engaging in Republican elitist propaganda.
In my area of Iowa (southeast quarter) Ron Paul yard signs out number Mitt and Newt signs combined by a wide margin. What that will mean throughout the whole state come caucus night I can’t predict; but I think RP has a good shot at coming out number 2.
Get obama out of the office and replace him with who? Mitt “Romneycare” Romney? Newt “gun owner thumbprint database” Gingrich?
Obama needs to be replaced. Period.
With friends like Newt and Mitt…
Agreed but you have to admit that in the case of both Mittens & Gingrich, there is a love for this country that simply does not exist in the mindset of Obama. There is simply no reason to do anything which would serve to help Obama win a second term.
“Love for the country?” In a politician? Pull the other one, it got bells on. Anyways, how do you quantify that?
Indeed, there is a difference in that one respect. However, his love of country is meaningless for the actual future of the country if the politician who loves his country supports things which are objectively destructive for his country. That is what guys like Ed Wallis here don’t get. If the guys you replace Obama with continue his policies, all of their patriotism and a $1.5 won’t buy your grandkids a cup of coffee at Starbucks when those policies bankrupt America.
I also don’t understand how anyone can think two establishment Republicans would be “better” for Israel than Ron Paul or good enough compared to Obama. Establishment Republicans may support sending money to help the IDF (the IDF actually doesn’t need the funds), but they always make it contingent upon Israel refusing to use the IDF until their people are utterly miserable from a level of terrorism and insecurity we’d never tolerate for even a week.
Ed “just get Obama out of office” makes you the nut. Apparently YOU don’t don’t mind the sodomy. YOU just want a kiss on the back of your neck. Our McCain led the way on the abolition of the bill of rights and the jewels of republican party said yeah! I think you need to cut back on the Levin time and read some more comic books.
“Libertarian thought works in reality pretty much only to the degree of control over which you exercise in any given situation.”
Yes, glad to see someone in America can still quote Thomas Jefferson!
That’s where you got this, right?
“but the Paul campaign has also attracted a healthy collection of flakes, anti-Semites, and unusually rude supporters who behave like Lyndon La Rouche backers at times”
This is why 2008 is the last time I’m showing him any support. The kooks started coming out of the woodworks even then, making my support of his Austrian economics no longer a good enough reason to support his campaign. He’s also seemed to embrace those kooks for what appears to be an attempt at being the man who appeals to the “loveable misfits”. But his brand of anti-semitic, truther, fanatic misfits are anything but loveable.
However, I will support him if he’s the nominee. His foreign policy can’t be much worse than Obama’s blame Israel policies and his economic policies would be the best since Coolidge.
Paul’s foreign policy will move us from bowing to Islamic leaders to surrendering to them. His domestic policies on the other hand are merely impractical. If he becomes the new not Romney he will be savaged and undone by his own anti-Semitic newsletters. A Paul nomination would guarantee an Obama landslide.
No he won’t blame Israel.
He’ll abandon it.
Come on. We have already abandoned Israel. What we need to do is stop supporting Israel’s enemies and arm-twisting Israel into not responding.
A non-interventionist foreign policy would be a bog improvement for Israel.
Sorry, but if Paul’s the nominee next year, I’ll be at the polls early to vote for Obama. O’s foreign policy is cretinous, but he’s undisciplined and feckless enough to accidentally avoid hurting our interests as badly as he might otherwise. Paul would be careful to let our allies burn on principle.
I guess I don’t get your point. Surely you could find some terrible people who are voting for Gingrich or Romney, too. What matters should be the views and character of the candidate, not those of their worst supporters.
However, I’d still support him if he was the nominee. His foreign policy can’t be worse than Obama’s blame Israel policy and his economic policies could be the best since Coolidge.
Yes, he could be. The GOP seems strangely suicidal this election season (well, more suicidal than usual, let’s say). The fact that a tinfoil-hat-wearing anti-Semite could be polling as well as he is already is evidence of that.
If Crazy Ron can be a front runner, why is it assumed that Santorum can’t win?
Had a man like Ron Paul been in office during World War Two, there never would have been a D-Day, and Hitler would have had the run of Europe, as well as the bomb.
Had a man like Ron Paul been in office instead of Nixon in 1973, Israel would not have been resupplied in the Yom Kippur War and might have been destroyed.
Had a man like Ron Paul been in office instead of Reagan, the Soviet Union would still be a superpower and a major threat to the USA.
If elected President, Ron Paul will inherit a world that relies on various forms of American involvement. My impression is that he will retreat from the world and the result will be total chaos.
Even more alarming than Ron Paul are the fanatics among his supporters. They and the Occupy crowd ensure that 2012 will be a wild ride, full of anger and hate. It’s going to get ugly.
“Had a man like Ron Paul been in office during World War Two, there never would have been a D-Day, and Hitler would have had the run of Europe, as well as the bomb.”
I’ve watched television interviews in which the interviewer starts heading in that direction and Paul always changes the subject. Any half-decent analysis of his foreign/defense policy reveals it as inconsistent and incoherent.
hmmmmm. Perhaps it is Paul that Obama really wants to run against?
Paul versus Obama would be quite a study in contrasts. For one thing, Paul will turn 78 during his first year in office. Physical health might not be as much of an issue as the fact that signs of senility often appear at that age. Paul’s running mate would loom large in importance.
Ron Paul mentally and physically could runs rings around you. Being a consummate reader, plus running every day keeps Dr. Paul in great physical and mental shape. I will be 73 in February can leg press 1,000 pounds, have the body and mind that are both very young and very healthy, runs a multimillion dollar technology company and can tell you that only a fool underestimates Ron Paul capabilities. There is nothing senile about Ron Paul, now or 8 years from now. T. Boone Pickens is 84, so why don’t you attack him? Can’t can you? If you think Ron Paul’s Gingrich negatives ads are good wait till the ones against Obama begin. The Pretender in Chief, that Muslim in our White House will not be able to handle the truth. Don’t tread on me.
Over the last two weeks, there has been a significant push by the Establishment media to set an idea in the minds of voters that it would be a good idea for Ron Paul to run as an Independent or as 3rd Party.
This is a blatant attempt by the powers that be to pull enough votes away from the Republican nominee (assuming Ron Paul is not nominated) to make the general election an automatic win for Obama. It’s so blatantly obvious that it is laughable. Ron Paul has clearly stated many times that it’s not going to happen. When will this die?
However, it is also a subtle game of intellectual dishonesty in which the Establishment wants to put into your mind the false thought that Ron Paul isn’t electable enough to be the GOP nominee or the President. Simply, it is perception which is being molded by the media who are, in reality, controlled by the Establishment. You will rarely see any news on the TV, radio, or on the internet that gives a true representation of Ron Paul’s ideas, only the all-too-common blanket statement that he “isn’t electable”. Well, you know what? If you say it, or hear it, or read it enough times and you are uninformed or falsely informed, you begin to take it as the truth.
Let’s address one of the more common misconceptions about Ron Paul. Probably the most concerning part of Ron Paul’s policies is foreign policy. There is a common misconception that Ron Paul is weak on national defense. It simply is not the case and defies logic. What President in history has sat back and taken a beating from another country? NONE. It simply does not happen and it would not happen if Ron Paul was president. Where does the misconception come from then? Well, Ron Paul is typically forced to keep his message fairly short in media interviews, and even shorter in the debates. It is difficult to explain such a complex position in short sound bites. The media and those who consume that news then take the sound bites and perpetuate misrepresentations of his ideas. It’s spin.
Ron Paul frequently states that he would bring home the troops as soon as possible because nation-building is the same as military adventurism and is not a position that promotes national defense. This is usually where the media outlets stop their analysis and many times will lead citizens to believe that he is weak on foreign policy. It simply is not true. What doesn’t get through the media filter is that Ron Paul also wants the troops home to strengthen our defenses on our borders, not on the borders of some far-off lands. He realizes that we do not have to be involved in multiple foreign wars to protect the nation. I believe that Ron Paul would take a position of increased border security on both land and the coasts of America. I believe that he would allow the appropriation of money to pay for new military technology as long as it was intended to be used strictly for defense, never for offense.
Ron Paul points out that there is a big difference between national defense and military adventurism. Our current foreign policy is heavily engaged in nation-building operations which do little to serve national defense and in many cases lead to the eventual development of hatred towards the United States. I don’t think that anyone would argue that having an occupying force in your nation would eventually lead to animosity towards the occupiers. The way that we have spread our troops out also weakens our ability to defend the borders of the United States from the covert actions of other countries that would seek to do us harm.
Less frequently, Paul has said that if a country tried to pose an imminent threat to us, that he would use the proper Constitutional channels to have war declared. This is the best position to take as a leader. It inspires confidence in the citizens to know that their President is willing to follow the law. Contrast that with the mess that Obama got us involved in with Libya. If you have a feel for Ron Paul’s philosophy you would understand that he would make sure a declared war would be prosecuted as efficiently and quickly as possible, according to the Constitution. I don’t think he really likes to talk about war simply because he doesn’t like war. I don’t think anyone really “likes” war, but some days I have to question that belief. Many people don’t know, but shortly after 9/11, Ron Paul proposed that we use the Constitutional device of a “Letter of Marque and Reprisal” to specifically target those responsible for 9/11. Nobody else in congress wanted to use this mechanism. At a minimum that should be disturbing to any citizen. Despite this, Ron Paul went ahead and voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan to go after those responsible. He believed in bringing justice to those responsible for 9/11. However, as we all know, Afghanistan later turned into a nation-building exercise that spilled over into Pakistan and the situation and goals are now much less certain.
Regarding the situation with Iran, Ron Paul wants to take the approach of diplomacy. It worked to contain the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and we should always try diplomacy before we resort to a defensive posture. Many in the rest of the world now see the United States as an aggressor, no better than the Soviet Union of old that wanted to bring communism to the world. Paul wants to improve our relations with the world. He views this as a great opportunity to start the healing process.
If you take a look at the big picture and you link together the economy and our current foreign policy you quickly come to the conclusion that we cannot maintain a continuous military presence in so many countries. We are being defeated via a war on our economy. Taking a position of true defense rather than continuing a policy of military adventurism is the conservative position and will help lead us out of our economic issues at home.
I think you’re wrong about that. If you recall some basic history, the US was doing its best to stay out of the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Are you suggesting that Paul would have kept us out of WWII even after that? That’s clearly wrong. He would have been forced into action, however unwilling. After we won the war, Ron Paul wouldn’t have adopted Israel as the US’s little brother. We never would have been involved in the Middle East from the beginning, and we wouldn’t have the same problems we have now.
I purposely mentioned D-Day and Hitler, not Japan. Paul would have responded to the Japanese attack, but would have shown no enthusiasm to intervene in Europe. Churchill’s desperate plea for American help would have fallen on deaf ears until Hitler actually attacked American soil. It’s also likely that Hitler would have developed the bomb before America, and by then Paul’s America would have faced a terrifying reality. (Also, WW2 got America out of the Depression. Perhaps it would have continued under Paul.) Details aside, the point is that the war would have been waged by an extremely reluctant commander in chief, and might very well have turned out differently.
The larger point, as suggested by the other examples you didn’t challenge, is that Paul’s isolationism has the potential to be dangerously imprudent rather than sensible, and certainly without nobility. I don’t get the sense from Paul that he has any concept of the importance of “the free world” or the value of alliances. It’s as if he thinks every country outside America’s borders is the same. Just trade with all of them, mind our own business, let the storms gather and to hell with our allies.
And what happens the day America herself needs the help of an ally?
“I purposely mentioned D-Day and Hitler, not Japan. Paul would have responded to the Japanese attack, but would have shown no enthusiasm to intervene in Europe.”
Pardon me while I clear my throat….. Okay, perhaps now is the time to remember FDR requested a declaration of war against Japan on 12/8/41. He also asked for the same against Germany on 12/11/41 after Germany (and Italy) declared war on the USA earlier on the same day. I have no doubts that FDR would have asked for a declaration against Germany and Italy as members of the Axis with or without Germany first declaring war on us. However, that has nothing to do with your rearview mirror crystal ball on what ‘CraZy Ron Paul’ would have done in 1941 had he been the president.
For what it’s worth, I agree with your entire comment, but I’m voting for Paul anyway. Our whole economic system is teetering, and Paul is the only one remotely serious about spending cuts or preventing the Fed from secretly buying European debt. Ron Paul is far from my perfect candidate, but he is honest and will actually do what he says about our domestic problems.
Also, while you’re right that we should value our allies, I do think executive power needs to be reined in. Congress should declare war before we invade other countries, and the President should not able to imprison citizens without trial. We elect presidents, not emperors.
You’re right, we wouldn’t have the same problems that we have in the Middle East now. They’d be worse.
The oil that we need would still be there, but without a strategic ally in the region, we’d go from having little leverage to having none.
To think that we wouldn’t be “involved” in the Middle East is silly.
National Defense: Dr. Paul’s approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism — in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.
If we don’t get back to our Constitution (remember that?) America as we knew it is lost. Ron Paul has a 100% record of defending it over a 40 yr career. The only candidate on either side that cam make that claim.
From foreign enemies no.
From foreign enemies, yes. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, and against condemning Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
He voted against the Iraq War, because there was no convincing evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. He turned out to be right, which is why defenders of the Iraq War these days like to say that it was “right based on the intelligence we had,” which is just a slippery way of saying “wrong.” (I supported the Iraq war in 2003, because I was so outraged by the left’s appeal to UN authority. Just goes to show you: when one party is wrong, the other party can be wrong too.)
He also opposed the Patriot Act and the recent National Defense Appropriations Authorization (S. 1867), because they strip American citizens of our 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights. That’s called protecting the Constitution from enemies domestic. Of course, we have to find some way of dealing with terrorist threats at home. But suspension of Constitutional rights, if necessary, ought to be done in public and with full debate, not by trying to sneak enormous changes through in an appropriations bill.
Personally, I couldn’t support someone for the presidency who supported this NDAA. Once again: it takes away Constitutional rights, without even the courtesy of a separate bill (because it would fail). Anyone who supported this could not possibly take their Oath of Office seriously. Paul is the only one who makes the grade.
So what. Let’s all remember that Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and that Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. And if the country is crazy enough to really nominate a borderline insane person like Ron Paul, then we deserve another four years of Obama. A vote for Paul would be like voting for Ross Perot all over again, and he didn’t do too well, either. It’s just a protest vote with no hope of winning a general election. Paul is basically an isolationist who’s foreign policy probably dates back to the late 1930s, just before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And I’m sure for all you Glenn Beck fans out there who know that Beck is a firm supporter of Israel, Paul’s desire to let Israel twist in the wind would not be a popular one with any of you. Paul knows a lot about Federal spending, and even more about the Federal Reserve. But that alone does not make a president, let alone a leader. So let the people in Iowa or even New Hampshire vote for Paul. That still won’t get him the nomination, let alone the White House.
And before any of you Ron Paul nuts out there jump all over me, save your breath. I don’t talk to crazy people.
Libertyship46
I hesitate to contradict you, but it seems to me you’ve done an excellent job of talking to the crazy people who support Ron Paul. You just don’t listen to them.
You’re just uncritically spouting conventional wisdom. Any evidence?
Touchstone – The United States spends 45% MORE than it earns and shot past the 100% debt to GDP.
Insolvent countries don’t get to play world policeman, often they cannot even maintain their military post collapse.
Look at Russia and Argentina, they will be your future and soon…
We currently borrow money to do unconstitutional things, and are (are not playing at, are) the world’s policeman. It is a good thing to be the world’s policeman. It is not even unconstitutional to be the world’s policeman.
It is far better than the alternative, which is to sometimes be the criminal in the eye of whomever is the world’s policeman, or for there to be no policeman.
If Ron Paul is elected, I am perfectly confident there will be a genuinely multi-polar great power’s war within ten years, and likely just five–his stated policy goals are that disastrously blinkered. It is likely the troops we bring home will have to fight here. That’s not better.
We don’t need Ron Paul to get our economic house in order, and his all at once; take a leaf blower to the house of cards approach guarantees more pain than is required. His is not creative destruction, it’s just destruction.
You’ve made several serious mistakes there, Tom.
1. We drove the late 18th to 19th century “world policeman” out of our borders at gun point with a far more severe set of disadvantages than we have today.
2. There is no country in the world with the resources to occupy the US. China doesn’t even have a blue water navy yet capable of launching a task force that could do sustained operations against the West Coast, let alone move enough troops to build a sustainable beach head. The bare minimum for them would be to move 100,000 troops to the upper West Coast and pray that the federal government cannot activate the reserves and National Guard well before the first round of ships even make it back to China to gather more men.
3. Most of the benefits of “Pax Americana” have been felt by those under our umbrella, not our citizens.
Tom P I agree we don’t need RP to get our house in order. The problem is nobody else has come closer to correctly identify the cause of our problems. They all want to manage the symptoms rather than tackle the root cause.
I wish Dick Armey was running but he is not. I wish Walter William, Tom Sowell or Jim DeMint were running but they are not. As such, I’m left to choose between big govt loving anti-Reaganite “conservatives” and this old doctor from TX. Choice between “how should the govt do this” versus “WHY should the govt do this”. Easy choice as far as I’m concerned. Ultimately I will vote for “not Obama” but for now I want to push for a pro-Liberty guy. If that wierds some people out then tough shit.
“Insolvent countries don’t get to play world policeman”
I realize that America is over-extended and needs to scale back. My concern is that a Paul admin would mean a total retreat, with resultant chaos nobody could predict.
In the examples I used, America wasn’t playing the role of global supercop. In WW2, America was helping rid the world of a terrible menace, which was in America’s interest as well (imagine if Hitler had developed the bomb before the USA). In 1973, America resupplied Israel with much-needed arms; it wasn’t playing policeman at all. As for Reagan, he didn’t attack the Soviets militarily, but his branding of the USSR as an “evil empire” and his call to Gorbachev to “tear down that wall” were part of an effort to neutralize the biggest threat to the USA at the time. In all these instances, America wasn’t “meddling” unnecessarily. Ron Paul’s doctrine of “let’s mind our own business” sounds sensible at first but might actually be more dangerous and self-defeating (and certainly less noble) than intervening, in some way, when necessary.
Nobody celebrates the leaders who just “minded their own business”. Nobody celebrates reckless interventionists either. But men like Churchill (many of whose colleagues didn’t want war with Hitler) and Reagan are rightly put on pedestals today for standing up to great evils. Nixon too, despite his shortcomings, had the decency not to turn his back on a country many consider an ally, one that grew out of the ashes of a genocide, and allow yet another genocide to take place.
Ron Paul has been a professional nay-sayer in Congress, and that’s not a bad thing – saying ‘no’ is the appropriate response to 99% of what Congress proposes. He has the libertarian fundamentals down pat, and again that’s not a bad thing. However, he seems to assume that libertarianism supplies all the answers to everything and so applies it to foreign policy, and thereby comes across like the crazy Uncle one tries to avoid at family get togethers. I doubt he is an actual anti-semite, but if he doesn’t recognise that Israel is our key ally in the Middle East then he has no business anywhere near the White House – same as the current pretender.
True, Ron Paul might be unfairly branded an antisemite by people worried about his policies. But it’s clear from innumerable internet messages that many of his supporters defame Jews and Israel. Ron Paul will act as an agent of hate without necessarily being a hater himself. The more successful he becomes, the more this ugly hatred will be unleashed.
I should add that I’m not condemning ALL of his supporters, just the fanatical element, which seems considerable.
Touchstone – I support the guy and I have nothing at all against Jewish people or Israel. Why would I? it doesn’t make any sense. I see all of this anti-semitism crap as just another easy way to diss the guy without coming out and saying why you really don’t like him, while positioning yourself as somehow morally superior.
Touchstone,
I agree with you. Sometimes Paul sounds reasonable and refreshing, but at some point, usually relating to foreign policy he goes off the rails. But mostly I oppose him because whenever I listen to his followers when they call talk shows, at some point in the call I sense that I am listening to a fanatical mindset. His support seems more religion-like than rational political judgement.
I’m curious: why exactly do we need an ally in the Middle East? Why do we have to dominate every region of the world?
I wouldn’t go as far as Paul, because push come to shove I’d fight a war for Israel’s right to exist, mostly on religious grounds (unpopular as that might be). But I don’t see what America’s interest in the ME is unless it’s just to keep people from trying to kill us at home, which might be better accomplished by leaving them alone in their own countries. I don’t like how it’s now become conventional wisdom that America has to choose sides, and invest blood, in every major conflict in the ME, a place replete with ancient and irrational hatreds.
There is probably no faster way to get conservatives to rally around Romney than to have the only other alternative be Paul.
Very Very true. My hope is we coalesce around Newt. Romney sucks rocks, but he is not the neoconfederate Ron Paul. If the race becomes Ron Paul or not Ron Paul then Romney could be it.
I retract the above. I will vote Ron Paul before Romney. I want heads to roll in Washington more than anything.
This goes to Tom Perkins, Libertyship46 and other “conservatives” who think there is another choice.
The only two other front runners are indistinguishable from one another. They share Obama’s fundamental view on the role and authority of the government on the individual mandate and most other aspects of Obamacare. Gingrich supported Cap and Trade before it became a liability. Both have a few plans on how to trim taxes while absolutely no credible plan on how to even cut the federal deficit by 50% to a level that goes from “Greek intoxicated on Ouzo and PCP level insane” deficit spending to simply “crack whore with a stolen credit card” level of irresponsibility. They support continued aggression overseas while having no credible plans on how to fix immigration which is the only–only–major vector by which terrorists can infiltrate our borders.
Some of you don’t seem to grasp the concept of a non-interventionist. It is as simple as Ron Paul has tried to explain to you. It means we stay out of other countries’ problems. It doesn’t mean we won’t sell or lease weapons to allies or retaliate with manly forcefulness when attacked by a nation or its proxies. It means we walk softly, carrying a big stick and don’t act like the annoying scold/do-gooder.
Then there is the entire matter of the fact that neither Gingrich nor Romney have the stones or belief it is even necessary to bring the Federal Reserve to heel before Bernanke can loan another $7.7T behind Congress’ back to every bankster with sad puppy eyes and a hand out.
This election, you have to put up or shut up. If you think Gingrich or Romney are materially different from Obama in any substantial way, you are either stunningly ignorant of their actual positions or a blithering idiot. It is that simple. You cannot claim to be a person who is informed, sufficiently intelligent to juxtapose their stated positions and actually believe the deviation between them is more than them quibbling about which hairs need splitting.
Ron Paul is “crazy.” That is why we need him. We need a man who is crazy enough to actually say “damn the consequences” and order the Secretary of the Treasury to bring the full wrath of that department down on Bernanke and company. We need a man who is not only now calling for criminal charges, not charges of impeachment, against Holder, but who is more likely to ask him which Mexican prison he wants to do life in than which Mexican beach he wants to vacation at in retirement. We need a President whose slashing and burning of many career bureaucracies to reduce the federal budget is so extreme that he’s regarded as morally analogous to a serial killer by public employee unions.
Ron Paul, after Michelle Bachmann, is the only candidate crazy enough to give you the real “conservative” agenda. You want limited, financially sound government? He’s the only one with actual marching orders ready to hand out to make it happen. You want a military that is modestly large, not stationed at 700 some bases overseas, fatigued and too wary to go toe-to-toe with China if they use their military to crush our trade relations with our allies in Asia? Ron Paul is your man.
As for the issue of Israel, consider an inconvenient little fact about our foreign aid. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would stop sending foreign aid to their enemies, especially the Palestinians. Unlike Gingrich, Romney and others, Paul isn’t going to continue arming their enemies. Israel has one of the very top economies in the world and engineering capabilities that rival our own on defense matters. Israel doesn’t need our money; they need us to keep all of our foreign aid. Then there is the fact that if you look at what we’ve really done with them, and what most of their “friends” in the establishment end up doing (no matter how much they claim to be a Christian, hard on terrorism or supporter of Israel) is telling the Israelis that American support is contingent upon them castrating themselves in the face of their enemies, laying down and dying in the face of their enemies’ demands. Why do you want a non-interventionist in office? Because he would leave Israel alone to choose the defense posture its people want.
This Gingrich and Romney are *so* much like Obama chant is the last straw.
DO YOU REALIZE HOW UTTERLY *STUPID* THAT SOUNDS to most Americans?!?
It is with brainless drivel such as this that discredits RoNpAuL, his followers, and ideologically constipated entertainers like Glenn Beck.
I’ll respond to both of your “responses” here…
I’ve pointed out several key areas which “conservatives” legitimately loathe Obama for which Gingrich and Romney either enthusiastically supported or in Romney’s case, actually implemented. That might lead someone with an IQ above room temperature to conclude that they are the functionally the same.
The most you can say is “NUH UH THEY ARE NOT THE SAME” as you claim that just about anyone would be better than Obama. I bet you’d vote for Barney Frank if he won the GOP nomination.
Lighten up Francis, er Ed. Mike made some great points that I agree with. I’ll reiterate that if we are bankrupt as a nation, there is little we will be able to do to help anyone.
“Some of you don’t seem to grasp the concept of a non-interventionist. It is as simple as Ron Paul has tried to explain to you. It means we stay out of other countries’ problems.”
I have listened to Ron Paul at every opportunity. His non-interventionist policy means abrogating treaties. Given Paul’s definitions, we would not have ‘intervened’ in Europe in WWII. His statements about why we were attacked on 9/11 bely the facts (just read Bin Laden’s own manifesto)
I have given Paul every opportunity to clarify and elaborate on his foreign/defense policy views but all I hear is the same sound bites over and over. Each time an interviewer tries to delve deeper Paul changes the subject.
Funny how the MSM and their masters in the Democratic Party have not gone after Ron Paul as they have gone after every other GOP front-runner. Does the left want Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination?
The answer to this question is clear. His long history of conspiracy-mongering and anti-Semitism, as well as his associations with white supremacist groups like Stormfront, will make Paul a ridiculously easy target for Obama to destroy en route to a second term, where Obama can complete his greater mission of destroying the country.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann.
I suspected something about Ron Paul. I have friends that cross the political spectrum. From conservatives to admitted socialists. I conduced an unscientific poll of my friends about Ron Paul and all of them have the same opinion of him.
- About a third of what Paul says makes them say “Right on, God bless you Ron Paul.”
- About a third of what Ron Paul says makes them say “Hey, that’s pretty crazy stuff.”
- About a third of what Ron Paul says makes them say “If he tried THAT it would lead to the end of civilization as we know it.”
The only difference is which issues produce which responses.
Paul can run well, but considering that he repells as well as he attracts, I don’t see him as a serious contender. True, he’ll run all the way to the convention, but in the end he still only attracts about 10% of Republicans. I have no worries about Ron Paul being the GOP nominee.
As a person displeased with all the choices, I find interesting the venom against Paul and anyone who supports him, especially since many of these same folks demand that we all support “whomever” the nominee is … unless it isn’t one of their approved choices, in which case it is war. Because anyone who supports Paul is “crazy” and just “10%” and so can all go spit. And then you wonder why they consider a third party.
Well, Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to withdraw from the world, the only candidate who has no problem with Iran getting nukes, the only one who has published a racist newsletter, the only candidate who regularly votes against the entire congress, not just against the other party, the only candidate who has run for office for another political party, and the only candidate who is now threatening to run as president as an independent.
So given that we have a two-party system and that it is widely recognized that a 3rd party run would give Obama a free pass to anothr term, Ron Paul SHOULD be vigorously opposed.
And in addition, many of his supporters are as nutty as the Obamabots.
Right on TL! I’m right there with you.
Whatever may be his substantive good and bad points, Ron Paul was born on August 20, 1935 and would be a bit older than seventy-six upon taking office. Ronald Reagan was “just” shy of seventy when he began his first term and, overall, was a very good president. Nevertheless, at just over seventy myself, I question whether Ron Paul isn’t just a tad too old for the job.
Has he had a comprehensive medical exam lately, how good is his health and what are his prospects for completing a first term in office?
Despite the fact that Ron Paul appears younger & is apparently in very good shape, I agree with the notion that he is too old for the job as POTUS. I seriously doubt his health would hold up at all well beyond a single term. All this speculation is kinda superfluous as his chances of winning in a general election are virtually nil.
I’m not worried about his chances of winning the general election and agree that they are virtually nil. However, I am concerned that his impact on the Republican nominating process may produce a candidate whose chances of winning the general election are little better.
I would not vote for Ron Paul. I won’t support his candidacy and I will run as a third party myself if nobody else would…because a choice between Ron Paul and Obama is simply picking a different path to our destruction.
Paul has ZERO chance of winning. None.
I can’t believe this lunatic even has convinced a segment of the population to consider him. That is disturbing on numerous levels. Diversity of opinion is one thing, and I support it. It’s healthy.
Divesting oneself from reality, sanity and reason…is wholly another altogether.
Actually, I would love to buy an island…and put Ron Paul’s ardent supporters and all the leftist revolutionary Fabians and small c communists on it as well. They deserve each other. That would rid the country in a peaceful manner of all of its lunatic fringe, indoctrinators, voting fraud and trickster minions, Jew-haters, Christian bashers, indoctrinators, fools, jesters and wackos.
I want a divorce from the lunatic fringe. The left is more dangerous…but, Ron Paul is running in the REPUBLICAN primary…and getting votes! Adding together the morons and idiots that support Paul and Obama…is not a recipe for curing insomnia. Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
My sentiments as well.
CF you are doing it wrong – if you want to build a bigger team you need to work to bridge differences among allies, not treat disagreements as a reason to declare war. People who live in glass houses and all that, ya know?
I’m reposting this since for some reason it did not get posted earlier:
For those who are still not sure whether Ron Paul is an antisemite, the below article and video should end all doubt, as they have for me:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-not-anti-foreign-aid-anti-israel/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYNLXYLM44c
So he’s on record as a Hamas-sympathizer, as someone who thinks Israel is criminal for defending itself, as someone who has practically called Islamic terrorism a Jewish conspiracy.
The question is, now that his poll numbers are up, will the media allow these evidences to remain hidden?
Ron Paul has surrounded himself with neo-Nazis. Newt Gingrich, who says that FDR was our greatest President of modern times, falls into the Fascist camp. Why can’t Republicans pick between the three conservatives in the field? Bachman, Perry, and Santorum. (Hint: Bachman is far better than Santorum or Perry on illegal immigration. NumbersUSA grades them as Bachman B-, Perry D, and Santorum F.) On some issues Santorum is almost as conservative as Bachman, with Perry trailing them slightly.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
Had to google this & watch some video. Disturbing to say the very least. He apparently likes the New Deal (I think it should be called the “Raw Deal”).
Well, it’s still way early in the primary season & already Gingrich’s numbers are starting to slide a little (probably thanks to negative ads & his stab at Romney in reference to Bain). Bear in mind though that no authentically small-gov’t presidential candidate is going to appeal to a large enough majority of the American people to win a general election. The entitlement mentality is simply too entrenched among too large a segment of the US population.
Ron Paul is the most viable candidate against Obama because of crossover appeal. Gingrich or Romney would just be pretty, “conservative” losers.
Crossover appeal to whom? The numbers simply don’t bear that out. Paul has ideas that are too fringe for too many people. He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone the general election.
Paul holds zero crossover appeal. Iowa is non-predictive. The whole discussion is moot.
I live in Iowa and I agree the Iowa caucus result is usually not predictive. Iowa is where the cards get shuffled and half of them get discarded. The winnowing process begins here, but the future nominee rarely wins here; although Iowa is what made Obama-messiah in 2008.
I am a working class guy , age 50, and don’t regularly post on here. I’d be interested in what facts lie underneath the claims that Dr. Ron Paul is connected to anti-semites. I’d bet none. I’d like to see him kick some tail on the debate stage tonight and in the media. Trouble is many keep saying he’s “crazy” and “he’ll never get elected”, etc. Maybe we should get a firm grasp on how bad it’s really going to get and then get serious about who is the right GOP candidate who can get it done.
Enough of the spin, white noise and talk already, I’m almost as sick of the finger pointers and media as I am with our community organizer in chief. Hats off to our military by the way. Let’s bring em home and let them kick anyone’s *** who comes near our border, especially from the south if you know what I mean.
Ron Paul and a few million words over the decades that he has uttered.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/15/can-ron-paul-win/
Anyone who subscribes to the rather insane utterings…the “truther” ramblings, the very thinly veiled Jew-hating, the serial assault on blacks….AND believes that this guy would last 15 minutes in a general election…isn’t serious enough to hold an adult conversation on national issues.
Ron Paul is someone who should NOT be considered by anyone of my friends here. Period.
Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s, in which the Congressman repeatedly made the racist and anti-semitic comments HotAir is citing, are available for public view at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison, Wisconsin, among other places.
Keep in mind that the liberal “New Republic” magazine reported on Paul’s racism, anti-semitism, and links to the white supremacist group Stormfront some time ago, yet no one in the liberal media has made anything of this story. This is because the Democrats want to run against Ron Paul, and once Paul became the GOP nominee all his racist conspiracy-mongering would be used, justifiably, to destroy his campaign.
In other words, support for Ron Paul in 2011 is support for Barack Obama in 2012.
Such nonsense. Why bother discussing when this is the starting point?
Repugnicons – I will vote for Ron Paul in a general election. I won’t vote for Newt Romney in a general election. Alternately, I would vote for a fiscal conservative libertarian not named Paul, but I don’t see one other than Paul in the Repugnicon race.
I don’t give a rat’s patoot whether you think I’m a Paulbot or not – FWIW, I’m not. I am however a zealot for liberty and small government. Give me a candidate (and platform) for liberty and fiscal sanity or you might as well not bother, as I WILL NOT VOTE for your candidate.
Spare us your little rant & just vote for Obama.
Not likely. In the absence of Paul on the national ballot, I’ll probably support a candidate of some other party, depending on who the CP or Libertarians run – but not the GOP. I suppose you’re one of those idiots who believes I should hold my nose and vote for whatever the GOP dishes up, reasoning that to vote otherwise is a vote for Obama. Consider then that your vote for Newt Romney would likely result in a vote for Obama in the mostest important election EVER!
Gads. I dislike most Repugnicons only somewhat less than I do Dumbocraps.
Anyone who votes for someone other than the Pub nominee is de facto voting for Obama. I have to explain this to you. Who is the idiot here? LOL.
A vote for whoever I (or you) vote for is a vote for that candidate. Yes, and now we all know who the idiot is.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?
It would be nice for the Republicans to gain all the votes of Ron Paul fans, but it’s not worth it. My name isn’t Zogby, but I suspect that the GOP would lose dozens of votes for every tinfoil chapeau it gained. For my own part, if Paul were the only alternative, I could live with four more years of Obama (and vote accordingly). Still others would stay home on Election Day, and few could blame them.
In other words: if Romney or Gingrich turns out to be the nominee, go ahead and decline to vote, or go third party. Hate to hear it. But don’t imagine that conservatives’ fortunes depend on pleasing your ilk.
Between Romney and Paul?
I detest Romney but Paul’s a nutbar.
Interesting discussion. I’d like a simple train of replies as to who this crowd would vote for in a general election between Paul and Obama.
Nutters and truthers.
So, does this mean that we can count on all sorts of stump speeches by crazed leprechaun Paul, standing on the little caboose platform of the Crazy Train.
I can’t wait for his “Festung America” speech, his “Israel (and I’m guessin’ Jews too) and the rest of the planet can go to hell” speech, and on his “lets mind our own business and everything will be okey-doke” speech.
Ron Paul ‘They’re Setting The Stage For Violence In This Country’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…!
For a glimpse of the type of hater Ron Paul attracts, check out this article and the comments section:
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/14/the-inevitable-war-with-iran/
The article is by the rabble-rousing Phil Giraldi, who defends Ron Paul and declares his support for him, all in the context of a very anti-Israel theme. Some of the comments he receives are openly antisemitic. In fact, one of the posters (“davidgrayling”) proudly proclaims his antisemitism, and he’s rewarded by 20 or so “thumbs up” from his fellow posters. Another post by someone named “ML3″ is particularly hateful.
Antiwar.com is a fountain of support for Ron Paul, and a useful site to understand what motivates many of his devotees.
Don’t forget Code Pink’s embrace of Ron Paul.
What a depressing thread. So much intellectual dishonesty from the anti-Paul commenters.
If you don’t like a non-interventionist foreign policy, fine. But to make claims that Dr. Paul’s policies would be doom is just over the top speculation and fear-mongering.
And it’s utterly senseless to try and project back in history what you think a President Paul might have done based on your dislike of his current positions. It was a different world then with different antagonists, military players and capabilities. A President Paul may well have made all the same decisions as FDR did. To say you know what Paul would have done is intellectually dishonest because, in fact, there is no way of knowing.
Some of you sound like you are aching for WW3. And you call Dr. Paul crazy?
The only countries that pose any real threat to the USA are those that possess ICBM’s, and it’s been that way for a long time now. This was true before Desert Storm in the early 1990′s. And there’s not a country in the world that poses any real threat to the USA as far as conventional warfare goes. Given these circumstances, I sincerely doubt that implementing Dr. Paul’s foreign policy proscriptions pose any meaningful threat to the USA or its allies.
And maybe Dr. Paul’s policies might actually de-fuse tensions, and isn’t that a good thing?
“The only countries that pose any real threat to the USA are those that possess ICBM’s”
Not true. Missiles can be launched from cargo ships near the coastline, perhaps in the context of a devastating EMP attack. There’s the issue of cyber warfare as well as terrorist cells and whatever WMD they may have access to, like simultaneous biological or chemical attacks. Something like a 9/11 multiplied many times over would be devastating too, and not require the use of ICBMs.
You’re partly right in that it’s not entirely fair to speculate what Paul would do in hypothetical situations, but it’s inevitable that people would do so, based on the radically different nature of his approach to the foreign policy challenges faced by the USA and her allies today.
You see, that’s the sort of thing I wonder about. Sure he’s an isolationist, that doesn’t bother me at all, but would he pull the trigger if we were attacked? Frankly I think he’d be quicker on the draw than some of the others on the platform.
We need to grow up a little and understand that conventional deterrence simply has not, does not, and will not work. Putting our people in harms way ostensibly to protect our “national interests” is crushingly expensive, glacially slow, and usually, as we’re seeing right now, can’t be maintained long enough to be effective due to the erosion of public support.
In fact, having our people so close to the world’s hot spots now only insures we’re going to get some of them killed, it also effectively removes the one and only deterrent that will actually work. We won’t nuke an adversary if our people are too close. And that, boys and girls, is the ONLY deterrent that will work against an adversary raised from birth to be suicidally committed to a belief system. The Japanese were bad asses long before the muzzies and they’ve been pretty damned quiet for the last half century or so. So quiet that their culture has matured into one of the most peaceful on the planet.
Nobody wants to hear it, nobody wants to admit it, but in the end it will be them or us, and building them shiny new schools when they allow attacks to be launched on us from their soil isn’t cutting it as a deterrent.
Good take Randy and yeah, defusing tension would be a good thing. Especially when we know we can open the can of whoopass if need be.
Obviously, like Ron Paul you also believe 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost because like Paul you believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack caused by American interventionism on the behalf of the Jews in Israel. However, I hate to rain on you and Paul’s unhinged kook parades, but 9/11 was not a terrorist attack at all, but instead a violent jihad attack, as terrorism and jihad are mutually exclusive and two entirely different manifestations altogether.
As a matter of fact, terrorism in stark contrast to jihad can be for any number of political causes, whereas jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme in the cause of Allah. Terrorism as its name implies is always only violent, while in stark contrast jihad can be both violent and non-violent. Additionally, terrorism is a Western manifestation only and jihad is an Islamic manifestation only. Furthermore, terrorism is always perpetrated by political extremists. Meanwhile, both violent and non-violent jihad are always waged by MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS. Moreover, terrorism indiscriminately targets civilian non-combatants, while jihad in stark contrast specifically targets non-Muslim unbelievers, either civilian non-combatants as in the Fort Hood Massacre, or military combatants as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore, because you and Paul are so totally obsessed and consumed by hating Jews, you kooks are totally oblivious to the reality of jihad, exactly like all other unhinged Paul supporters
Hence, why should we sane people not treat you Paul supporters like the kooks you really are, especially when it couldn’t be more obvious?
How does anyone think Ron Paul is going to avoid the issue of the racists comments that were published in his news letter? Heck hanging out with the “truthers” will look good compared to the Ron Paul Newsletters.
I have the feeling that Mr. Paul’s newsletters are about to become some of the most well read publications in Iowa and across the US. Mr. Paul has been viewed as the crazy uncle in the attic. Now he will be the crazy racist in the attic. Shut the door please.
How does anyone think Ron Paul is going to avoid the issue of the racists comments that were published in his news letter?
Don’t worry Ron Paul can’t win. There aren’t enough Jew haters.
Paul sure isn’t my first choice, but Romney and Gingrich are my last two choices. Does anyone honestly think either of them would shrink the federal government? Would either reign in the police state?
Romney? Seriously? Does RomneyCare ring a bell?
Gingrich? They guy who supported the expansion of Medicare? Worked for Fannie Mae and did Global Warming ads with Pelosi? He’s your big change? Seriously?
I haven’t decided who I’m voting for in the primary – but I know it isn’t Romney or Gingrich.
Romney? Seriously? Does RomneyCare ring a bell?
Come on….Massachusetts’ health care system was intentionally renamed RomneyCare by slick propagandists to scare people like you. Do you even know what Massachusetts’ health care system actually is, why it was passed, and what Romney’s actual position on healthcare really is? Apparently not.
I haven’t decided who I’m voting for in the primary – but I know it isn’t Romney or Gingrich.
I hate to rain on your parade, but they are the only two candidates that in effect have a chance to win. Don’t worry, I know you don’t care.
I used to live in MA and have lots of family members who still do. I learned all I needed about Romney last time I tried to buy ammunition there.
If for no other reason than my personal two favorite issues: abortion and homeschooling, for me Dr. Paul represents my views on those without question. John Quincy Adams, no slouch of a president, was homeschooled. Remember his dad took him with to France. You can talk smack but homeschoolers are leaving the government school kids in the dust, and they’re numbers are increasing nationwide daily. Because smart parents know what’s best for their kids, they don’t need to be told by some Obamabot. Let there liberty!
Amen Bodman, amen.
Hate to do it, but i gotta!
Hitler loved dogs. i.e. even if a candidate might espouse views that are in line with yours one one or two or three issues, you have to take into account and evaluate him on all of his proposed policies.
So, maybe Paul is great on homeschooling, the debt, and on abortion, but he is totally “crackers” on the critically important, life or death issues of foreign policy, national defense, and Israel and the Jooos, therefor, not the guy who you really want leading our country.
Exactly. Could not have better expressed what scares the crap out of me about Paul.
That’s interesting, because with the exception of a few, the friends I have who were homeschooled are ill equipped for the world in both literacy and math, not to mention their social skills are virtually non existent.
In regard to abortion, Paul and I do not agree for the simple reason that he contradicts himself in his view. He is clearly pro-life, believes that life begins at conception (sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act), and believes that abortion seriously undermines liberty, but would leave it up to the states to decide. The reason I don’t agree is that if Ron Paul believes that liberty is being undermined for what he honestly believes is a living person, it’s clearly a Constitutional violation of individiual liberty. States rights in regard to abortion do not trump individual rights in the eyes of the Constitution. No compromise. It’s not hard to see the contradiction and I don’t know why more people don’t see it for exactly what it is: a cop out on a talking point.
I share his views on abortion. I don’t like it, but it isn’t in the Constitution so with the Ninth and Tenth Amendment still supposedly the law of the land – it does belong to the states.
It IS in the Constitution if you actually look. You have to go PAST amendment 10, though
Amendment 14, Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The relevant phrase is (emphasis mine), “nor shall any State deprive any PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law;”
If Ron Paul concedes that life begins at conception, abortion violates the 14th Amendment. It’s very clear to not say “nor shall any State deprive any CITIZEN”, but person. Since that life has not committed a crime, a state incapable of depriving it of its life and liberty. Again, this is using Ron Paul’s logic on abortion, and again, he contradicted himself.
It’s addressed by amendment in the Constitution as a federal right to individual liberty, the 10th amendment has no bearing.
The alternative to throwing it to the states is passing a Constitutional Amendment, which the President has no jurisdiction over.
Again, even according to Ron Paul’s definition of when life begins, it would be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to deprive that life having committed no crime.
Ron Paul should be let nowhere near US Foreign Policy. He is a dangerous radical ideologue….with a history of Anti Semitic behavior.
You people who are saying he is nuts ,insane ,are just plain wrong you have been dumbed down by the left winger media so much you are really starting to believe these idiot liars !!! like Pelosi and the other crooks BARNEY FRANK, rangel,reid
I cant believe you people are that dumb but it looks like i was wrong you are !!!
The answer is no. Next question.
Uhm…like a loon Ron Paul believes that 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost because he sees 9/11 as being a terrorist attack caused by American interventionism on behalf of the Jews in Israel. However, I hate to rain on his unhinged kook parade, as 9/11 was not a terrorist attack at all, but instead a violent jihad attack, as terrorism and jihad are mutually exclusive and two entirely different manifestations altogether.
Indeed, terrorism, in stark contrast to jihad, can be for any number of political causes, whereas jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme in the cause of Allah. Terrorism, as its name implies, is always only violent, while,in stark contrast jihad can be both violent and non-violent. In addition, terrorism is a Western manifestation only. Meanwhile, jihad is an Islamic manifestation only. Further, terrorism is always perpetrated by political extremists, and jihad, on the other hand, is always waged by MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS. Moreover, terrorism indiscriminately targets civilian non-combatants, while jihad, in stark contrast, specifically targets non-Muslim unbelievers, either civilian non-combatants as in the Fort Hood Massacre, or military combatants as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore, because Ron Paul is so totally obsessed and consumed with hating Jews, he is totally oblivious with respect to jihad, exactly like all of his unhinged anti-Semitic Jew hating bigoted supporters.
Anyway, I challenge any and all unhinged self-hating Ron Paul Jew bashing anarcho-kooks to prove me wrong. Good luck!
Okay; Gotcha.
So the reason there is no outrage against civilians, women and children being maimed and mutilated in _____ attacks on muslims is that it is the will of Allah and jihad, not terrorism. And where the ______ attacks on kafirs where civilians, women and children are maimed and mutilated is only terrorism with no religious motivation, and not jihad. Allah has nothing to do with it.
Whew! I was so confused.
That gives me a whole new respect for Allah.
I think Ron Paul would salute this idea.
Ron Paul is just a crazy old fart.
After the campaigning disaster we now have infesting the White House, it will take someone with solidly conservative ideals to repair most of the damage from the last 4 years. Paul doesn’t have the basic ideals to accomplish anything near that.
His economic ideas are too radical, and his foreign policy ideas are too timid. The U.S. would look more confused to the rest of the world with Paul in office than Obama.
Paul would be just as controversial and ineffective as Obama is now.
If the next President is anything like Paul or Obama, the next war will be started within the boundaries of the continental U.S. And I don’t want to be one of the multitude of poor citizens that have no chance of retaliation against our enemy.
Ron Paul Campaign Receives Most Military Donations BY RAVEN CLABOUGH MONDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2011
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations
Anyone else notice that Gingrich is such a conservative that he supports a national fingerprint database for all gun owners?
The funny thing about all you Ron Paul haters is that not a single one of you have any clue what his real policies are, and all of you are insainly ignorant to the extreme corruption in our govement. Obama, newt, mitt, ect…none of these establishment scum bags care about you or america! Its all a power and money GAME to them. I say go to RonPaul2012.com and really learn the facts. Why do you think his supporters are so motivated?????? Because they undetstand the good he will do for america, not himself. And his foreign policy when looked at closely, is not crazy or dangerious in any way. He will defend america!! he just wont use the mlitary to gain world power and influence other countries to keep selling us oil under military threat. You haters really need to open your eyes……
Ron Paul 2012
To Ryan: aka clueless
There’s a thing called doubletalking. If you want an example, listen again to Ron Paul speak in last night’s Fox debate. Any chance he had of winning in Iowa was lost somewhere in the Strait of Hormuz.
I’ve watched it several times. We’ve heard it before.
“Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”
So either you beleive the same song-and-dance on Iran or you don’t. Thus the reason for Paul’s 20% polls number. People don’t believe it. I, for one, do not like being lied to. Fool me once…
“I got to see how the agenda is set, and it had nothing to do with the security of the United States. The great infrastructure of the department of defense and the great infrastructure and budget of our intelligence departments were not used to find out what was really happened, they were not used to further American defenses. It was used as a field to pick tiny bits of information here and there, that could be fed up into the political chain and could be used by politicians and by the appointed leaders of the pentagon to justify a decision, really that they had already made. And that decision in 2002, was the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
The intelligence infrastructure and all of the hard work of all of those good people that wear the uniform and the civilians – their work was used to further a very different agenda than what they thought they were working for.
The average person figures that the president tells the truth, the vice president tells the truth, the secretary of state tell the truth; and they don’t. They don’t. The founders understood that people would be flawed, that political leaders would not be the best of men … so they set forth the constitution. We don’t follow the constitution in this country; had we done so in 2001 and 2002, the world would be a different place.” – Former Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (karenkforcongress.com)
“Could the GOP voters have such a death wish that they would nominate Ron Paul?” says Rich Baehr. Where does this writer think he is entitled to tell us this as if he is entitled to do so? If We the People select Ron Paul as the nominee, we do so because he is the only candidate who can rip Obama to shreds in a debate. Obama, even with an earphone being to how to answer a Ron Paul question will not be able to handle the truth. And Ron Paul will unleash the hounds on the “establishment” of the Republican because Americans will it.