South Carolina Report 3: The Ron Paul Perplex
As anyone who has read even two words of my writing knows, I am no fan of Ron Paul. His foreign policy seems conceived by a covert agent of the Muslim Brotherhood channeling Neville Chamberlain.
And yet… here in South Carolina… it couldn’t be more clear that the only candidate generating any genuine enthusiasm is Paul. And that includes not only the Republicans but Barack Obama or any Democrat currently in the public eye.
And it wasn’t just the dude in the Ron Paul Corvette above (click photos to enlarge), it was every… single… person… Bryan Preston and I talked with while doing random interviews on Charleston’s King Street (video to come). Some of them evinced praise for Gingrich speaking truth to big media power on Thursday night, but the only person they really cared about was Paul.
This was especially true of younger people. One duo of teenage girls told us their allegiance was to Stephen Colbert (they had just returned from a Colbert event) and to Ron Paul — but it was only Paul they took seriously. He was their guy, the only one prepared to make radical change.
Another thing we heard repeatedly from these people was that he was the only candidate who was “authentic,” who really believed what he said.
They have a point — no matter what you think of Paul. He believes his ideas and that evidently impresses people used to generations of phony pols. Unfortunately, it’s not hard to see why.
I think you will find Bryan and my coming video amusing — in a depressing sort of way.
Well I agree with you about Ron Paul being the only candidate that generates enthusiasm. He is the only one driving independents and even democrats to vote for him in the primary thereby expanding the base for republicans. One small nit however which will pour water over the republicans come election times is a Ron Paul voter who loves his stop foreign adventure speeches will never vote for any of the remaining Republican chicken-hawks. And that is a big group of why the young like Paul.
Better to be a chicken hawk then just plain ole yellow…sez I. Ron Paul gives cowards and anti-semites ideological cover.
“independents and even democrats to vote for him in the primary thereby expanding the base for republicans.”
Hardly a base when it’s centered around one person.
Nor would it be for Republicans but for Paul in particular and why?
Because Liberals agree with him…which kinda nixes out many conservatives.
So which is it? Does he get liberals and lose the social and national concervatives or become less nuts and try to woo the actual base of voters?
“remaining Republican chicken-hawks”
Liberal? You consider yourself open minded, and tolerant to those with different ideas?
Where does this hate come from? I am trying to understand as somebody who was raised to hate Americans, and especially conservatives, all my my life.
Why are we taught such hatred? Nobody ever told me to hate the left.
You consider those comments hate speech? Wow! Have you read some of the posts about Obama and liberals in the comments section at PJ Media? The word Chicken Hawk in case you didn’t know was used by Ron Paul himself regarding some of the candidates being bloodthirsty and so willing to bomb Iran.
Nominating a moderate to run against a liberal democrat almost guarantees a sure loss. He can’t out liberal a liberal and he isn’t conservative enough to inspire conservatives; besides he actually doesn’t believe in either political philosophy. He may have no political philosophy, so his only tool is equivocation. The result is mediocrity.
A conservative nominee like Gingrich or Santorum would inspire conservatives and bring Reagan democrat support. A vice presidential candidate like Ron Paul would draw Libertarians from the right, left and the independent “center”; There would be little to volt democratic.
No to Paul, yes to Bob Barr. Let’s see if we can ditch bat shit crazy anti-semites, at a minimum.
Paul as next-in-line scares me. Make him Tres Sec. Keep him out of foreign policy.
Did you know that Ron Paul’s proposed military budget is FOUR TIMES that of China’s and larger than GW’s in 2005?
Or that Netenyahu told Congress in May of last year that Israel doesn’t need our troops, that Israel defends itself?
Or that our troops (in both 2008 and 2012) donate more to Ron Paul’s campaign than to ALL others – including the Commander in Chief – COMBINED? Want to support the troops? Give them the Commander in Chief they WANT.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Ladin unit, endorsed Ron Paul days before the Iowa caucus. Judge Napolitano interviewed him about this on Fox – find it on youtube.
you are absolutely correct with all those facts.
Here is the ABSOLUTE truth…. the media and the military contractors (some are one in the same…. ie GE) want us to believe that Ron Paul will cause WW3 because of his foreign policy. That is totally opposite of the truth and facts. If you keep hearing the same thing over and over again, even if it’s a total lie, eventually you will believe it. Governments (including ours) have done this since government exsisted. Just like a government said the earth was flat and everyone believed it, however it was proven untrue by a truth seeker.
Roger, it isn’t just young people. I am a 59 year old Conservative who has always voted Republican except for a few local Democrats. More people in America now realize our government is out of control. No one takes responsibility for the out of control spending. They want to go to war at the drop of a hat. They are so out of touch with real Americans who don’t live in NY or DC.
It is time to cinch up our belts, get out of other people’s countries, begin to use our God given natural resources a make America again a heaven on Earth. Were done and you don’t seem to know it.
Will alot of us vote for the other guy if Paul doesn’t win? Sure, but well hold our nose.
You say his foreign policy ideas are dangerous etc. But he served in the military, delivered 30,000 babies. Have u served in a war, I haven’t and there is no way in he’ll I would tell my two boys to go fight a war in Libya for someone else’s oil. When the enemy invades California, well be there to fight like he’ll but more wars in Afghanistan for drugs, Libya for oil?
no thanks.
“wars for oil”
When?
Where?
What oil have we gained from any war?
Please, do tell.
This phrase, this ignorant line of BS is so infuriating.
Where has the oil come from and where is it now?
There has been no drop in prices at the pump nor by the barrel – explain this war for oil philosophy/myth.
Thanks.
“wars for oil”
When?
Where?
Libya in 2011 was all about securing Western Europe’s oil supplies.
We backed Al Queda affiliates against a neutered old kook. How F-ing insane was that?
50s here and will vote for no one but Ron Paul. Got my parents in their 70s voting for him too.
Seniors should LOVE Ron Paul because, unlike the other Republicans who are all ready to cut Social Security and Medicare, Ron Paul wants to honor our contract with American seniors who have paid into the system all their lives. He plans to keep SS & MC solvent for those depending on it with cuts in wasteful spending elsewhere.
Ron Paul is the only one getting any buzz because Ron Paul is the only one consistently talking about radical change. On his good days, or good debates, Newt is a firebrand Conservative; on his bad days he’s a Global Warmist, Cap-and-Trader with visions of government run health care. And Mitt is a staunchly conservative Northeastern Liberal.
I’ll admit that I’ve always thought Ron Paul’s foreign policy was, to put it kindly, kooky. But, consider this, how much foreign adventure can a bankrupt country engage in anyway? Do we believe that China would give Newt the money to oppose China’s interests? Or that they’d give Mitt the funds to start a trade war? I’m coming around to the idea that our debt and deficit spending are the largest national security issues that we face. It doesn’t matter who wants to kill you if you don’t have the money to buy ammo or fuel for the war machines.
If you want some good margin tweaking then Newt or Mitt are your interchangeable candidates. But if you want the prospect of real change then you’re left with Ron Paul… and those are words that I never thought I’d type.
If Ron Paul’s foreign / defense policy wasn’t so wacko he would be in the runaway lead right now.
You are on to something here. He’d have 60% of the vote if he didn’t have crazy immigration and foriegn policies while surrounded by a whiff of racism.
While I could vote for Paul it’ll take him winning the nomination and opposing Obama. I give it less than a 20% chance of that happening. Only the young and and those who do not understand foreign politics are naive enough to support Paul. America has vital interests in far-flung places across the globe. To simply withdraw to our own shores and ignore the power vacuum it would create is folly. Do you really want Russia taking up the guarding of the Straights of Hormuz from which a large percentage of the worlds oil flows? How about China doing that? N. Korea – who will become the bulwark keeping the Norts from attacking the South? China? China has interests in the Western Pacific – do we simply withdraw and let them spread their influence (and politics) there? And what of Japan? Who will protect them against China and Russia – neither of whom do not like the Japanese much? Japan would likely develop serious nuclear ambitions if we withdraw to our borders.
While I find it appalling that Europe Japan and Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia Kuwait and others) offer little or nothing when it comes to their own defense of belligerent powers it beats the alternatives. If we are going to withdraw from the world we should at least embark on a campaign to extract every ounce of oil from our own shores – and sooner than later. Put all the cards on the table – green energy when it can pay its own way – and conservation too.
No – Paul is not the answer to the question. He makes Obama look like a conservative by comparison when it comes to Foreign policy.
I agree. Nature and foreign policy abhors a vacuum. We leave and someone else will come in and capture and influence those countries. However, we can reduce the number of bases substantially.
I totally agree with his economic/fiscal views! Yes, cut the budget, close a lot of agencies (unelected tyrants) etc.
I dont agree with his views on foreign policy/international relations, but I can follow his logic and it seems integrated in his total set of beliefs, I mean, I think it’s nuts but is not self-conflicting and contradictory. They could work in an ideal world, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
Roger, Have you read anything from Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, et al? I have been very surprised and disconcerted by the supposed “limited government” propents treatment of Paul. You and others either don’t really believe in a limited central state (which is my conclusion) or you don’t understand the source of federal power and it’s ability to infringe on each individuals sovereignty. Misinterpreting Paul’s foreign policy as a way to dismiss is cowardly…..but what else can the leaders of the faux small government be expected to do…..as actually having to confront the ideas Paul represent would clearly be revealing.
I am in SC. I don’t trust Santorum or Gingrich at all. Romney seems to at least be trustworthy, though does not give the appearance of a change agent. Although he did name his oldest son Taggart. Ie Dagney Taggart.
Thanks
Actually, numerous people have pointed out Ron Paul’s anti-Jewish magazine that he published for years. But, like Obama who never heard a word that Rev. Wright said, Paul never read a word of his own magazine and claims he doesn’t know who wrote all of the hate articles. He sold these to neo-Confederate types for years. Wow, what an icon of capitalism.
Ron Paul’s views are closer to the Articles of Confederation than they are to the Constitution.
And the compliant MSM will hammer Paul with this stuff – but only if and when he becomes the front-runner. They don’t want to kill off all the Republican candidates at the same time so they’ll save these tidbits until needed.
Romney will hammer Paul with this info should he rise in the polls to threaten or overtake him. Romney is as dirty as any Democrat when it comes to politicking. Seems like the more left a politician is the more propensity to run a dirty campaign. Romney disavows having any doings with PACs working in his name and has ‘no control’ over them but we know better don’t we?
Agreed. It’s just that right now, as all along, Paul is running very negative ads about the other candidates and no one is saying anthing about it. The Paulbots that are salvageable need to know that Paul is running the dirtiest campaign of all.
According to Newt Gingrich, everything bad that happens to him is Mitt Romney’s fault. He knows better, of course, but Gingrich is nobody’s fool. He needs a foil for his banter, and he is smart enough to make that person be whomever is obstructing his political advancement. Gingrich really has the bogeyman thing going with Romney and so long as it suits his purposes, he will continue with it. I am not defending Romney here because creating bogeymen is what all politicians do to win elections. Ron Paul is no exception. It is up to voters to ignore these rantings and cast intelligent votes. As this blog article shows above all else, very few people really care about politics except for maybe the last six weeks before an election. I think the situation is better described as very few people ever give a damn about much of anything and that is how we got these communists running our executive branch. And that is how we have already lost most of our freedom.
I don’t recall anything I have read by von Mises or Hayek to the affect that liberty and several property are best protected by an isolationist government.
Well if Ron Paul did have a bad foreign policy I still might support him cause we might not have a country left with the current moral/economical state we’re in. I don’t think he is soft at all. He will defend us, I guess he just wants to follow the Constitution and go through Congress to do it.
We have our choice between Big Government guy (Santorum), Goldman Sach lackey (Romney), someone who has more baggage than SW Air (Newt) or Paul who has consistently championed liberty and small government.
Check this out from his book Liberty Defined: “Granting food stamps benefits to 2 percent of the population in need seems like a reasonable thing to do. But what is not realized is that though only 2 percent get undeserved benefits from the 98 percent, 100 percent of the principle of individual liberty has been sacrificed … it was only to be expected that the dependency of 2 percent would grow and spread.… Here is a good example of how a compromise can lead to chaos. The personal income tax began at 1 percent and applied only to the rich. Just look at the size of the tax code today.”
You wouldn’t be ignoring Paul’s own baggage would you?
See post #9.
Paul is 76 years old – he’ll be 77 in August. While I’m sure he’s in reasonably good health if he managed to get elected this cycle he’d be 81 and running for office again while carrying out the duties of POTUS – that would be quite strenuous.
As to your mention of Newt’s baggage – how damaging do you think Obama’s baggage would be if the MSM took on the task of exposing that to the American people vs Newt’s baggage? Bill Ayers – Rev. Wright – the 2003 video of Obama at an event for a known terrorist supporter. The MSM covers for this Idiot in Chief. Perhaps they’ll turn on him like they’ve continually done on the GOP but I’m not holding my breath.
The gravest danger to our country isn’t Iran or any other outside power, it’s our own political class. Ron Paul is the single candidate who can be counted on, without questions or doubts, to reduce federal spending, power, and debt. I have many doubts about Ron Paul, especially with regard to his foreign policy. But our political class *will* destroy us. Federal government debt is larger than the size of the American economy, federal spending has doubled in ten years, and federal power increasingly seems to have no limits at all. So we should vote for the governor who signed the individual mandate law in Massachusetts, or the politician who sat next to Nancy Pelosi and said global warming is a crisis that we have to address with public policy?
Ron Paul sticks, despite the newsletters and the naive foreign policy, because MANY AMERICANS perceive the threat from our own internal enemy, an oligarchy that cannot apparently be restrained without radical action. Rep. Paul’s commitment to freedom and constitutional limits is unmistakable, and cannot be spun. The end.
How is Paul going to do all the things you say he will do? Doesn’t he still have to administer the laws enacted by Congress? What if his vetoes are overruled? He has been remarkably unable to gain support for his legislation while in Congress. Why should that change if he is elected?
Finally, how much does he really understand about the terrorists’ thinking? He seems to take his positions from AQ propaganda sheets. Has he ever been asked how he arrives at his positions on foreign policy? Has he ever spoken to any foreign leaders? Does he read the foreign press or books such as the Looming Tower?
And that there is why I never trusted RP’s fanbase.
NEVER TRUST A PROFESSIONAL LIAR.
A politician is a politician first and a politician is a liar always.
Anyone who advocates trusting any politician needs to lay down the hard liquor.
The Whirling dirvishes were an enthusiastic cult as well.
Ron Paul and his buzzwords of Constitution, freedom and liberty are no different than Obama’s hope, change and social equality.
What exactly has Ron Paul done in the last 20 odd years beside bring home the pork to hid district? Pork he fills bills with then votes against because he know they will pass anyway.
Precisely! That is what I have been saying. He uses those buzz words the way o used his buzz words.
When Paul was asked about his earmarks he just gave a sly grin and babbled “Constitution” and then he flew off to Pluto.
Jul 27, 2011 Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1
Do you think the men and women who serve know more about war than most bench warmers?
God forbid Ron Paul gets the nomination. I’d actually have to vote for Obama. Ron Paul’s foreign policy statements are an automatic disqualification. He should move to Tehran.
Obama sure got in with no background OR experience. He never was in the military never run a business.No qualifications for the highest position in our country. What did he know about foreign policy???Americans are not very smart to vote for him again.Isn’t it all about the best qualified to do what is for the good of the people??
i live in a red state and work in IT, and have the privilege of speaking to hundreds of people a month. It seems that Libertarian idea’s have taken hold of 15-20% of voters. These votes despise Gingrich and will vote third party or not vote. If Romney wins the numbers are not nearly as bad, but still seem to be over 8% of voters that will not vote.
As I install software and hardware we have a good amount of time to speak about politics. Some quote Beck and others just talk of government overreach. PIPA and SOPA have caused major blow back in the land of Mark Rubio. The only way we win this race is to unit the party, and that will be tough. Unless we draft Rand Paul as VP.
The disgust means we lose the race, and would be willing to bet on it.
I am curious to learn what about RP gets so many people’s panty hose twisted so tight? Exactly what is it? Is it the idea that we should let Israel off the leash and allow her to determine for herself what she must do to assure her national security? Is it the idea that we should stop giving Israel $3 billion a year and her enemies $12 billion a year? Is it the idea that the delegated powers per the Constitution, specifically the 9th & 10th amendments which restrain the federal government from encroaching upon the states and the people, are antiquated concepts? Is it the idea that the federal government has no legal authority to control primary & secondary education? Is it the idea that DC has no authority to game the health care system? Is it the belief that the law of the land allows congress and congress alone to declare war? Is it the idea that we should stop the nation building nonsense in muslim hell holes? Is it the idea that we can no longer afford to maintain over 100 overseas military installations when nearly 50% of every penny DC spends is borrowed money? Is it the idea that the Federal Reserve is totally out of control? Is it the idea that it is hazardous to the future of the country to continue assuring big banks that they are too big too fail and that they will be bailed out not matter what shady risks they take?
I could go on and on but I think only zombies fail to get the point.
Well done. That’s not my style of presenting ideas, but well done.
The anti-Paul vitriol is more a phenomenon of establishment backlash than Paul’s kookiness. Not to say there is none of the latter, just that the dissonance between Paul’s positions and the accusations can only be explained by the former. LISTEN UP ROGER SIMON, and PJMedia, your mandate, the reason I’ve been subscribed to your emails for years, is to present information the MSM intentionally doesn’t. You dint have to agree with Paul or endorse him. Nevertheless I get the feeling you are out to PREVENT him from being considered seriously. Media activism is differed than editorialism, so shame on you. You of all organizations should know the difference.
That said, I don’t want to raise a storm and cases a flamewar. I only offer the suggestion that you get on this case more diligently. The WSJ talks about Paul being a nasty spoiler in a whiny manner. How about you say: hey, Paul is influential this cycle, let’s discuss his perspective. Instead of denouncing his ‘sound-bite’ policies, how about some journalism. Interview serious Paul supporters like Doug Wead or Tom Davis. Then give your opinion.
Or is Paul just too dangerous. Are these discussions merely academic, and tr possibility of Paul gaining traction too ‘dangerous’ to justify having them right now. THAT is media activism, not journalism.
A Paul presidency would be the best thing we could hope for. His record is consistent, he’s a man of faith and integrity, so when he says he’ll follow the constitution, you can believe it.
According to the constitution the president executes laws. This makes him a manager, yes, but more importantly he is entrusted with executing those laws according to the spirit of the constitution which authorizes their enactment. This allows him to act as a check – in the sense of the very scope and framework of government – against the actions of the other branches. Presided Paul’s foreign policy would have to get approved by congress – both his Secdef appointments and any troop realignment. It is doubtful he would act like the Imperial presidents he chides (Nixon, Obama, etc.), and accomplish these policies via executive order and fiat. In this sense, his foreign policy isn’t too dangerous. This is why we have separation of powers, because no one ideology should rule all of government, and it is a principle Paul believes in. If anything, on the issue of Iran, President Paul would act as a check against a rush into war. If Congress wants him to do it, he will, just like he signed up when he was drafted. He has stated that when you do fight wars you must do so decisively and he is definitely a patriot.
There are three things of inestimable and incomparable benefit that a Paul Presidency would accomplish:
1) Act as a check against the status quo. If we’re going to have a Federal Reserve bank, or war, Paul’s influence will mean that those things will have to be debated, justified, and not just taken for granted. Heavens do we need that now.
2) Enable immediate game-changers such as a Fed audit, and a desperately needed budget discussion. Basically, in actual fct and I dare to say: a tea party advocate in the White House.
3) Force the media and the public to engage in totally new discussions about the size and scope of government, the founders’ intent, and the importance and even relevance of liberty inthe 21st century.
What happened to the tea party? With 1/3 of 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, it couldn’t do enough and was ridiculed. Only Gingrich comes close to being ‘for the tea party’, but he is certainly not of it, and with his record and even with some of his current statements he is big gov through and through. Additionally, the tea party’s big weakness was existing primarily as a populist, but not ideological movement. Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell were loved because they were ‘our’ candidates, and wouldfight for ‘our’ issues. But what were those?
In light of the most significant issue of our day: the global financial crisis, the Austrian school of politics (mind you not just economics in this case) offers the best and deepest scholarly tradition for the tea party and constitutionalist conservatives. Paul is not only the often lone American politician of that tradition (there were many others before his time, and some others now, but he carried the torch through the dark 70′s), but is actually a conservative and religious man.
Going back to the foreign policy, given our current economic situation, it is easy to conclude that a Paul presidency would be of much greater benefit and necessity, than it would be dangerous. Nevertheless, Paul raises good points about a new direction for our foreign policy. I supported the Iraq war, the surge, and was endlessly frustrated with a left that I interpreted as opposing global capitalism and it’s spread via democracy that war (they don’t complain as much when democrats fight wars to sustain transnational socialist globalism). But, I think I have been wrong. There is no more Soviet Union, and jihadism isn’t enough of a sustained threat to justify continual global security empire. This is worth thinking about. But at worst Paul will only make us think about it.
There will likely be a fully Republican legislature next year. Wouldn’t you rather have President Paul annoying them, given the tea party that leg up, on budget issues, than Gingrich or Romney passing more phony Boehner gimmicks. This is how they and the media have ticked us: gimmicks, but no progress. President Paul WOULD be that old crank that doesn’t shut up if we’re being hoodwinked. And his budget plan, if you actually go to his website, is very reasonable.
He could beat Obama, because of this foreign policy opinion, seriously beat him. And then we’d have an unprecedented mandate for liberty and tea party values.
But while ABC and Gingrich collaborate for phony fights, Paul is marginalized and blacked out by the media. And it goes all the way to my pajamas heroes on the blogs, sadly. The vitriol against Paul is astounding. I’ll totally get why someone would never get over their reservations, but the vitriol astounds me (who cares what some college-aged fanatic said in a chat forum).
Really really think about this guy, guys. It might be the last chance we have. It might not even be enough. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are this odd antithesis to the Tea Party, and they won’t save us from what’s coming. Still I will vote for them over Obama, out of sheer desperation and pleading hope.
“it couldn’t be more clear that the only candidate generating any genuine enthusiasm is Paul. And that includes not only the Republicans but Barack Obama or any Democrat currently in the public eye.”
- That’s because, outside of the people who vote down party lines no matter who their candidate is (nothing is more important to them than the little ‘D’ or ‘R’ after their name) voters know he is the only different one.
All the rest amount to Obama vs. Caffeine Free Diet Obama. How is that a choice?
It’s hard to get people worked up for three other empty suits that parrot GOP talking points.
Regardless of what you think of Ron Paul’s foreign policy the fact remains we simply cannot afford to be the worlds cop. Iraq and Afghanistan are needless wars and any attack on Iran will sink the world economy and likely draw China and Russia into the conflict. It’s time to let Israel deal with it’s own problems in the region. They will never solve any problems with their neighbors as long as we are guaranteeing anything they do.
A significant proportion of the American public are starting to figure out what has been obvious to many on this forum for a while now. That “business as usual” in the form of endless “gorge the beast” spendulus by Congress is a clear and present danger to the future viablility of the United States.
Look at Greece today or Mexico in the mid 1980′s for an example of what happens when the spending can finally slams up against the wall and stays there.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate prepared to cut spending, all the rest, esp Romney the White Obama will continue business as usual until we turn into Argentina on the potomac.
But hey, it’s CHANGE!.
As for those who regard his foreign policy as “nutty”, what will happen to our overseas military commitments if the country goes bankrupt?
You CANNOT run a first world military on a third world economy, look at the military capacity of the Soviet Union vs Russia today.
At this point I am terrified of young people getting interested in politics. The last time that happened they gave us Barack Obama. The time before that was years ago, when they, and I as a young naif, tried to give us George McGovern. Now they think we should have Ron Paul. Voting should be the responsibility of mature people. This is a serious problem!
Young people didn’t give us Obama. The Rubes did. The rubes just liked to feel cool by talking about the young people. Oh, and thanks a lot old people for: 2 Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, LBJ… At least Ford got beat!
Not to sound like a liberal, but I want to see how Ron Paul fares in more populous states where the population isn’t mostly white (or even “rural”). In the last primary Mike Huckabee won Iowa and looked like a frontrunner.
Does anyone see bit of Christine O’Donnell in Ron Paul? He is winning a near plurality of a center right coalition, which happens to include “independents” who came to eschew party label. His supporters insist on ideological purity to the point of overlooking their hero’s flaws, not to mention forsaking an imperfect but winnable candidate. But that same base may not be enough in the general election.
If he is the nominee, the MSM will have a field day over his newsletters and questionable decisions. Flings by Newt and Cain will be nothing by comparison. Just imagine if a writer or editor associated with that newspaper insisted that “Ron Paul knew exactly what we wrote”. Then it’s game over, my friends.
You can neutralize Bain, tax returns and sexual misconduct by pointing out to Obama’s vacations, Solyndra, and the wall street contribution to the democrats or Obama. Nothing wrong with fighting demagoguery in kind. What Ron Paul is being accused is a bit complicated. Come ON, you can’t accept donations from a racist on any circumstances.
Oh Roger, you scamp. It’s not nice to con your audience.
So, while polling seems to indicate that Newt Gingrich is poised to win in South Carolina, you’re leading your readers to believe that Ron Paul is on the rise based on what? Did you talk to 20 people or was it closer to 30?
In 2008 there was some wiseguy who wrote articles here about the unseen rise of John McCain based on people he had spoken to. He called McCain to win New Mexico (Obama won it), Colorado (Obama again), New York (how on Earth did he call McCain to win New York with a straight face?) and Missouri (proving you can’t lose them all). Although the polls were telling this guy (I wish I could remember who it was, I’m sure the articles are achived here somewhere) that Obama was going to beat McCain, he was confident that the handful of people he had spoken to, who all tended to agree with him, were a better indicator of what was going to happen.
So, there’s Roger, Standing near a college campus no doubt, talking to the handful of young people who wouldn’t run away from a weirdo asking questions about politics coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul can finish better than third place with 10-15% of the vote. I wish I could make a bet with Mr. Simon. In fact I will. If Ron Paul gets more than 20% of the vote I will call Roger Simon “Oh great and wise prognosticator” and not disagree with his silly articles until after November.
The best part is that judging from the comments I’ve read Roger has managed to fool his readers into thinking that Paul has a shot at this.
Is this comment meant to be ironic? Mr. Simon is only noting that Paul generates enthusiasm, while the other candidates really do not. That is absolutely true. It is this unique phenomenon that everyone’s talking about.
In no way is he saying that Paul’s chances of winning are rising. If anything, Paul’s actual showing in the last two states, and polls from a week or so ago have indicated his rising popularity. Plus the endorsement of SC’s most conservative state senators – which PJMedia, I don’t think, has even mentioned. Shame.
The tone and assumptions inherent in your comment are so hateful. I’m tempted to say something silly like: do you hate freedom or something?
Ah, but that is silly.
Paul does have a shot at this. We’re on Gingrich’s second surge, fueled by disgust for actually having to settle for NDAA supporting Romney post-Perry. Gingrich WILL lose to Obama, his personal appeal is awful, and his is not a tea party conservative in the slightest.
Quite bizarrely, Paul could end up as the last man standing. Once people get over his foreign policy ‘written by the Muslim Brotherhood’. That is, once people understand what he is proposing, rather than taken the vitriol at face value, they might accept it.
Yes, the chances are small, but they are there.
Ron Paul has a great story to tell (except foreign policy) but is not effective. With more than 20 years in Congress, there is no signature legislation he has enacted into law. The only way Ron Paul could implement any of his great ideas is if he were appointed King for life.
No, we don’t want to invest that kind of power in the Presidency.
just a thought:
why is it blindly assumed ron paul is coherent in the method/philosphy of economic libertarianism ala von mises/hayek/friedman etc?
sure he blurts out popular buzzwords like “constitution,” “federal reserve,” “gold standard,” (very much similar to the left’s shouts of “bush,” “halliburton,” and “racist”) but he gets so easily sidetracked that he is unable to make the clear case for free market capitalism versus the dreadful alternatives
Ron Paul is consistently ignored by the media. If all you had were debate soundbytes with no analysis, then your comment would be accurate. Listen to any of Paul’s actual speeches, or read his actual policy proposals, and you’ll find out he’s the best defender of fiscal responsibility and the free market.
He makes a case for liberty, and has compellingly explained how in politics we disagree on so much, but with liberty we can all be free to disagree – that liberty if properly explained has universal appeal. He gives examples. It’s the antidote to the more and more government crowd.
His policy proposals are very modest – going back to the 2006 budget. His hope is to cut overseas military spending – not the forces themselves – and extraneous programs like DoEdu and DoC etc. – while leaving entitlements for those who depend on them intact. It’s the only plan that both sides of the aisle could buy into, that actually cuts the budget. The only other way to achieve consensus is to agree that we’re just going to keep borrowing money ad infinitum.
Ron Paul is a doctor, but he supports legalization of heroin use. What kind of physician values an irrational, over-the-top libertarian principle over safety and health? People who support Paul, like my brother who starts screaming if you question anything about Paul, are part of a half-baked cult. They think they know everything, and they think drowning you out makes them the winner. Listening to them rationalizing about Paul’s proposed, naive policies reminds me of ultra liberals rationalizing over Obama’s great, grand schemes for this country back in 2008. Look where that got us.
1) Props to you for reporting honestly something you don’t agree with. So refreshing in this age when media is all propoganda and spin.
2) ROn Paul only SEEMS to be pacifist because he is NOT an extreme hawk. This country has been ever more hawkish, ever more eager to use force since WW2 that anything less than beating one’s chest and declaring war on anyone who dares disagree with American imperialism appears “cowardly”. How absurd!
a) America was supposed to lead by example, not by force
b) Ron Paul makes the distinction between MILITARY spending and DEFENSE spending. Defense spending is for our actual defense, and he is strong on that. MIlitary spending just props up our international footprint (900 foreign bases?) and enriches the military vendors.
Ron Paul makes the clearest destinction between Jews and everyone else. He is a Jew hating neo-Confederate. Paul has run the dirtiest campaign against the other candidates and no one has called him on it. That is because no one takes him seriously. His baggage makes Newt look like a Sunday school teacher.
Jew-hating neo-confederate. Racist, racist, racist. Hate, hate, hate. Bigot, bigot, bigot. Epistemic closure loop. Psychological dysfunction.
Hey! Sounds like my MAN Barry Goldwater.
Paul’s campaign is not dirty, it is aggressive. These candidates deserve it frankly. They ARE big government politicians, and this is THE election to pay attention to that.
Newt has lots of baggage, frankly. Paul is conservative, married for 54 years, is from an honorable profession, has a history of personal charity and racial tolerance, served his country in the military. Oh, but in the 80′s some of his political fans said some ‘stereotypes’ in the era’s equivalent of an online message board.
These anti-Paul critiques are all Alinsky. Carry on team.
It’s OVER: Chuck Norris endorses Gingrich 8)
Ron Paul – Predictions in Due Time (Original) They were spot on! This is Ron Paul’s famous Predictions speech from April 24, 2002. This is the original video compiling recent images and video to give his speech a chilling effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=player_embedded
Paul is an anchor around the GOP and when he goes third party,say bye bye Mitt.
” His foreign policy seems conceived by a covert agent of the Muslim Brotherhood channeling Neville Chamberlain.”
Really? Can you prove this statement? Cite for us Roger chapter and verse.
And to anyone who uses the word “isolationist” when describing Cong. Paul’s FP please, also, cite any proof. As has been said, Cong. Paul does not agree with using our military for nation building or putting out internal problems or policing the world. He has never even intimated that he would not have fought Hitler or fascism. That is people putting words and thoughts out in the public square and attaching his name to ti.
What he has said is that our military should be about defense which ironically is why they are called our Dept. of Defense. Duh! We have spent over $1trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq and got what in return: over 30,000 soldiers injured some permanently and 4,500 dead.
Please cite anything anti-semetic he has said. Nuff said.
How kooky is it for him to want to return the government to the restraints imposed by the Constitution? Do you REALLY want Dear Leader to have a second term to finish shredding that document and taking us fiscally, morally and nationally into third world status.
Regarding the use of drugs, which I do not agree with his libertarian views on this, he does want to stop the failed war on drugs which has cost us nearly $1 trillion over the past 35 years. There must be a better way to deal with this menace to our nation. But if that is what your vote hinges on then we really are doomed.
He IS the ONLY candidate who has a sound economic policy.
If his Texas’ voters like him and if he still pulls in double digit in the polls then maybe, just maybe you may be wrong about him and his platform.