« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul Could Win the Nomination…yes…really

I would like to start by saying this is not a joke.

I have been looking at the data and Ron Paul may actually be the next GOP Nominee.  My money would be on Romney, but Ron Paul has alot going for him.  First, his poll numbers are actually better this year than last.  Second, his competition is much weaker.  Third, he appears to have a real campaign organization.  Finally, he will be financially compeditive.  Last time around, Paul raised about $35 million, including $5 million in Q3.  This year, he has raised just over $12 million, including over $8 million in Q3.  This suggests that he is raising money at a greater pace than last year, and is 3rd (behind Romney and Perry) in money raised.  Here is how he could win:

1. Paul placed a close second in the Iowa Straw Poll, and is polling at around 20% in Iowa; about the same as Romney and Gingrich.  Ahead of Perry and Cain.  Paul has a viable chance to win Iowa, and a win in Iowa would be huge for Paul.  It would represent making him a viable candidate in the eyes of NH primary voters; and would raise him significant money.

2.  Paul is currently 2nd in NH; where he is well behind Romney.  If Paul wins in Iowa, he will go into NH with momentum and with money.  NH is a strong state for Romney and one where Romney won 32% of the vote for last time around.  It is possible, but unlikely that Paul could follow-up an Iowa win with a win in NH. 

3.  If Paul manages to win Iowa and NH, there would be a 2-fold momentum factor.  First in support of Paul, and second as a huge loss for Romney.  Romney’s entire campaign is based on a win in NH.  If Romney were to lose NH the effect would be the same as 4 years ago.  His campaign would fizzle.  Even though he looks better possitioned in every state following NH than Paul; were he to lose NH, Romney would be toast.  Huntsman, Cain, Bauchman, and Santorum would also be toast.  This would make it either Paul’s race at this point, or he may face a Gingrich or Perry in SC.  However, he would face them without having to face their money as they would be out.  If Paul finds a way to win SC he wins the nomination.  Even if he does not, he has himself in a 2-person race where he starts with a money advantage in a very compressed timeframe.

Paul may be a long-shot, but unlike 4 years ago, he does have a shot.  His keys to victory will be:

1- setting up the best possible organization and message in Iowa.  He needs to win Iowa.

2.  Setting up the best possible organization and message for NH.  He needs to win NH.

3.  Praying.  He needs a divided GOP Field.  He has a real shot at getting 20% of the vote in Iowa; and maybe a shot at 25%.  To win with that small a part of the vote, he needs alot of other candidates to divide up the remaining 75 – 80% of the vote for Iowa.  In the case of NH, he needs candidates to be fighting Romney there and dividing that vote up some also.  A 2-person race against Romney is not his ideal situation to be in; a 5 or 6 person race is better for him.  Especially one where everyone is attacking Romney.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • iidvbii

    Standing there, looking at the screen. Your choices? Ron Paul or Mitt Romney…… Chilling…..

    • acat

      we can get enough conservatives in the Senate to replace McConnell with DeMint.

      Mew

      • iidvbii

        Lol…. Hope there isn’t a law against drinking and voting cause believe me I don’t think I can face that sober….

        • acat

          Otherwise we really don’t have a hope there.

          Mew

    • patriot4freedom

      . . . I have EVER pictured in my mind ! ! !

      Yikes !

      Someone help me replace THAT mental image !

  • constitutional

    And ponies will one day roam the earth, selling cotton candy for free to homeless children who only eat cotton candy. And then, we will all live as one, as the world collapses from ridiculous things happening over and over again.

    Stop trying to predict who is going to win.

  • iidvbii

    Begs the question…
    Who let the tards out? Who? Who?

    • wennejunk

      I think the writer was looking at the possibilities vs. his hopes and dreams.

      I sensed a certain dread in his writing along the lines of “I hope this doesn’t happen – but it could”

      However, I could simply be projecting.

      • iidvbii

        Stupidity posted in some of the comments more than the diary itself.

  • Menlo

    Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever of coming out on top, but he could probably pick up a significant percentage of GOP primary votes and probably do as well as any other nominee against Obama (which is unfortunately not very well).

    One aspect that I would find most troubling that people always miss is that Ron Paul would be nearly 80 years old. I’d be concerned about his potential selections for VP. I often wonder if his supporters have thought about that or the fact that he would not be able to find people for judicial vacancies and certain administrative positions who shared his philosophy.

    • acat

      would utterly doom the coattail effect, and likely allow the Dems to keep the Senate and gain the House, not to mention the effects on States electing governors and statehouses.

      Mew

      • devereaux

        Recent polls show only Mitt Romney runs better than Ron Paul against Obama.

        • acat

          Until we figure out who not-Romney is, it doesn’t matter.

          Mew

      • Scope

        would doom a lot more than the down ticket elections. It would doom the country. In his case, I’m glad he doesn’t want walls on the border, keeping the citizens in.

        • iidvbii

          one bit until we address the failings of our voter registration process. Some much needed reforms:

          Age lifted to minimum 21 (25 would be better) it seems ridiculous we can’t trust these people to handle alcohol, but sure pick the leader of the free world what could go wrong?
          IQ and faculty testing, with increasing frequency as a voter ages. If you can’t demonstrate at least a minimally acceptable capacity to conceive the issues and perceive the outcomes of your votes at least in the abstract your out. We wouldn’t let you purchase a firearm you shouldn’t be trusted to choose the most powerful man in the world.
          Means testing, if you are not employed and making your living collecting tax dollars as a “salary” it is a conflict of interest to be voting for those determining the amount your paid. Sorry comeback and re-apply when you have a haircut and a real job.

          I am open to your suggestions of course in this regard…. So what did I miss???

          • acat

            Make voting rather like a multiple-choice test.

            If you cannot name the current occupant of a given office, your vote for the new occupant is discarded.

            I’ve also proposed having the IRS send out “vote tickets” – that is, a slip of paper with a pretty logo that says “Entitled to vote in Federal elections”, that must be surrendered upon entry to the polling place.

            If you can’t be bothered to fill out a 1040EZ, you don’t get to vote.

            Mew

          • iidvbii

            I like yours much better than mine. Effective, efficient and easily implemented…..

      • Menlo

        As devereaux pointed out, it does not matter. It does not look good for the GOP under any scenario, though I doubt to the extreme of giving Democrats the house. It is my prediction that the difference is not going to be significant no matter who the nominee is.

    • Scope

      to be his Sec. of State.

      • jonnymadison

        Didn’t Cain just do that?

      • Menlo

        Back in September, he was apparently “joking” about putting Dennis Kucinich in a cabinet position.

        He was boasting of his supposedly superior ability to form coalitions. I guess that’s why he has been the lone dissent in the House on so many votes.

  • capitalistpig

    Looks like im drinking on election day again .Just like 2008 when I had to hold my nose and circle McCain on my ballot.=\

  • donald_24

    The only way I could see Ron Paul winning the nomination is if enough Democrats register as Republicans and vote in the GOP primaries. There is no Democratic primary in 2012 so it would not be hard for them to do if they were well organized.

  • sticktotheconstitution

    Another thread with the first reply title being “not a chance”

    The anti-Paul spendaholic crowd is in full effect on this site.

    #1 Ron Paul has received more in donations than all Republican candidates combined. That speaks volumes,

    #2 Ron Paul has the most excited supporters. I often hear other “conservatives” lamenting over the lack of candidates to be excited about. This is has been the candidate to be excited about, and even I will admit that I didn’t know it until about 2 weeks ago when I began studying the man and his history

    Ron Paul has the consistency of an incorruptible leader. There are youtube videos of him from before the recession and before 9/11 predicting the outcomes of our policies

    • gekster

      Ron Paul rails against pork spending…..

      All the while taking as much as he can.

      Can you say hypocrite.

    • nathanalbright

      …look, if I were voting over a head of an isolationist libertarian wackadoodle leper colony, Ron Paul would be my guy, but thankfully I’m not in that kind of country.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Try reading it sometime.

    • patriot4freedom

      Forgive me if I have the facts wrong, but I have always understood that Romney has the biggest war chest, followed by Rick Perry at $16 mil.
      Where do you get the idea that “Ron Paul has received more in donations than all Republican candidates combined?”
      Mr. Paul’s supporters are to be commended for their loyalty, but that does not impute frontrunner status to their candidate. Those who don’t support Paul are not automatically “spendaholics”, either. They just don’t support Paul, and never will, because of serious differences in policy positions and political ideology.

      • jonnymadison

        He certianly doesn’t have the most donations total! but I heard a paul supporter saying that he has recieved more donations than all others from active duty military. not sure how, but they say its true.

        • streiff

          a lot of active duty troops are concerned about making political donations in their own names because of potential career impacts (real or imagined) and a tradition of the military standing above partisan politics. So their wife/girlfriend/adult child/mom/dad makes the contribution. That’s what I did when I was on active duty.

          What Paul supporters can accurately say is that a majority of military members who make contributions in their own names have made them to Paul. That is not the same as claiming most donations from military members.

          • jonnymadison

            It also makes sense if you believe the storyline that ron pauls support is firm, and they aren’t likely to change their minds. They certianly aren’t afraid to say it.

          • jonnymadison

            Are you assuming that there is a disproportionally lower amount of ron paul supporters that funnel their campaign contributions to relatives than other candidates? Maybe, but any insight on that?

    • sticktotheconstitution

      “#1 Ron Paul has received more in donations than all Republican candidates combined. That speaks volumes”

      my bad I meant “from active duty military”

      that’s why it speaks volumes

  • nfloridapatriot

    I can’t say I’m happy with any of our choices, and we all better work really really hard in gaining a more conservative house and retaking the senate – I don’t see any of our Republican candidates having an easy time against Obama, and we better make sure he can’t do much if the worst case scenario of him winning reelection happens. That said, while I don’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy, it’s the only one we’re going to be able to afford if we don’t get our spending under control. Ron Paul wins my primary vote right now on default, but my hard work will go to a house and senate race.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    I have been saying repeatedly — to great derision — that Paul will have an impact on this year’s nomination process. No, I don’t think he can get the nomination, but he does now have a pathway to victory. What he will do is knock out three or four of the possible anti-Romney candidates. He and Romney are now poised to be two of the three candidates that will survive Iowa and New Hampshire. And if he wins Iowa and comes in second in New Hampshire to Romney, the third survivor will be mortally wounded. South Carolina has a strong libertarian element, so he will do exceptionally well in a three person race. The question becomes “Where do the Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and/or Gingrich voters go once their preferred candidate is no longer competing?” My guess is a heckuva lot of them will go to Paul instead of Romney. Paul could end up with enough delegates to make for a deadlocked convention. Then what happens?

    • kinghenry

      He’s a Neo-Liberal Nut, with a toxic past. He can easily be destroyed Politically if the public is ever educated on who he really is. You can start off by reading excerpts from Liberty Defined, his video’s on Youtube and the Ron Paul Newsletters.

      Right now he still flies under radar, and many don’t have a clue who he is out side his rhetoric, much of it contradictory to what he truly believes.

    • devereaux

      Might nominate a conservative for the first time since Reagan.

      We might even see campaign commercials like this agan. Now that would really be fun!!

      http://tinyurl.com/6udtpts

      There would no doubt be a huge split in the GOP. Some Bush Republicans are already on the record saying they would vote for Obama

      “Even Obama is Preferable to Ron Paul”

      http://tinyurl.com/7puqx8w

  • answerman1949

    Perry and Cain are folding and Gingrich does not stand up to close scrutiny; so, this will already be a two to three man race by Iowa. However, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman will still get enough votes to hurt Romney and Gingrich, handing Iowa to Paul. After the CBS debate fiasco, Ron Paul will receive more questions and more time to answer to answer them Romney and Gingrich will divide the GOP establishment vote, while Paul will receive a large influx of “Blue Republicans” and independents, either winning New Hampshire outright or coming in a close second Romney will take the brunt of the backlash from the House GOP sellout on the budget and, coupled with his religion and character baggage, will lose South Carolina badly, probably coming in behind Paul and Gingrich. While Gingrich is the better debater, Ron Paul will have more opportunity to explain his positions and Gingrich’s personal and political baggage will keep keep him from uniting the “anyone but Paul” forces in the GOP establishment. If Ron Paul wins California, and it is beginning to appear likely since Paul has won all the California straw polls in landslides, it will be all over or the GOP establishment.

  • devereaux

    Ron Paul: Obama health care more fascism than socialism

    It’s doubtful whether anyone opposes President Obama’s health care law more than Ron Paul, but the Texas congressman said Wednesday that the sweeping legislation is not socialized medicine ? contrary to claims made by his fellow presidential contenders Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

    Instead, Mr. Paul called the Affordable Care Act ?corporate medicine leading toward fascism,? insisting that his definition was much worse

    http://tinyurl.com/85mhu68

    It would really be fun to watch Ron Paul debate Obama.

    • sticktotheconstitution

      Paul would mop up the floor with him in a debate. I think Obama’s failed policies would be extremely exposed to the sheep in America watching a Paul-Obama debate.

  • kinghenry

    First of all there is only one poll in Iowa with RP at 20%, a more recent poll has him at 10% like the rest in Iowa. Also he has the highest Negs of any GOP candidate, by far.

    IF, Paul ever did rise to true Front Runner status he would quickly be destroyed(for good) by media and candidates when all attention is focuses his way. Just read some of his books, writings, videos and political history. He is not a Conservative, he is a crazy Neo-Liberal nut.

    The only way potentially he could come close is IF he flied under radar until Christmas and all the Not-Romney candidates implode and out of desperation and ignorance Iowa Cons flock to RP as last resort and before the political process could expose who he really is. Then yeah, could quickly ride that to a strong finish in NH.

    But then, after being exposed by the process he would get destroyed in SC and FL and be done. Hopefully ran out of the GOP all together.

    If in theory he did win Nomination, he would lose a 50 state landslide. The MSM and Obama would come out and start off reading the Ron Paul Newsletters to the country to get things started.

    Conservatives and Republicans by in large would bolt and go for a sane 3rd party option. This would all result in an EPIC landslide for Obama and true Socialism takes root in America.

  • changeforrickperry

    that Ron Paul does NOT have the evangelical base. Nor does he seem eager to court them. Paul’s eagerness to legalize prostitution and drug use are the two things I can’t stand about him–also his bizarre foreign policy–and though on economics I think he’s on the right track, I highly doubt he’ll get the Christian vote.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • devereaux

    Ron Paul is hardly a NeoLib. That’s absurd. He’s by far the most conservative person in the race.

    His foreign policy come straight out of the Old Right. Robert Taft(Mr Conservative) and Howard (Warren’s Father) Buffett.

    “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught be the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics”—–Howard Buffett

    Buffett was regarded as the most conservative member of congress.

    He left congress so he could manage Robert Taft’s White House campaign in 1952.

    A more recent example is William F Buckley and George Will discussing Bush Cheney foreign policy

    GEORGE WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It?s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?

    BILL BUCKLEY: It?s not at all conservative. It?s anything but conservative. It?s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn?t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is ??

  • georges

    The epic landslide was against McCain, the Mass Media’s pick in 2008. Circumstance will place Dr. Paul in front. You will come to accept him as your next President because he is the only qualified candidate to take on the next phase of the general breakdown crisis engulfing the world.

    You and others will get over your name-calling and demonizing, and accept his plan to restore America.

    Ron Paul is the soldiers’ choice for Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, two-to-one against ALL other candidates combined!

  • mcclarinj

    Back-to-back Iowa polls place him at 19% and 20.4% , second to Cain in both polls. Cain’s severe case of foot-in-mouth disease should soon erode his support, leaving Paul to duke it out with Romney. Paul’s got the ground game advantage however.

    Will Newt spoil it for Paul? Unlikely. His dubious record is too juicy not to disseminate and in fact it is reaching its target.

    I call Paul first in Iowa, second in NH. Then comes Nevada. so far Paul has invested more effort in Nevada than anyone else. He beat McCain there in 2008 and is expected to give Romney a run for his money this time around. If Paul edges out Romney in Nevada he will have serious momentum going into South Carolina and Florida. A boost from DeMint in SC could propel him to victory. DeMint will certainly not endorse Romney.

    Florida is a huge state. I admit that at this point Paul shows little promise there but with several wins beforehand it could turn on a dime. Paul has been very busy building campaign teams in other states, way out ahead of the pack. I’ll bet a Godfathers’ pizza he’ll exceed your expectations.

  • kinghenry

    if that in GOP primary, IF he were ever exposed and became the candidate all attention focused on.

  • Bill S

  • seth90212

    If it weren’t for Ron Paul’s wacky foreign policy ideas I could support him..

  • kinghenry

    please paultards.

    Paul is no Robert Taft….who supported the creation of the United Nations, supported the Marshall Plan, supported the Truman Plan, promised “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” advocated “occasional extensions … into Europe, Asia, and Africa,” and favored keeping six divisions in Europe, at least until the Europeans could defend themselves.

    Ron Paul slanders Robert Taft among others, including the Founding Fathers.

    The Founders Foreign Policy was the polar opposite of Ron Paul’s

    and if you are a Neo-Confederate, Jefferson Davis Foreign Policy was even more of a Polar Opposite. He wanted to setup a Slave Empire from Cuba to Nicaragua and the Western Territories.

  • kinghenry

    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re

    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/santorums-moment-the-reagan-li

    “Why is an alliance between conservatives and libertarians inconceivable? Why, indeed, would such articles of confederation undo whatever gains conservatives have made in this United States? Because genuine libertarians are mad — metaphysically mad. Lunacy repels, and political lunacy especially. I do not mean that they are dangerous; they are repellent merely, like certain unfortunate inmates of ‘mental homes.’?. At the Last Judgment, libertarianism may find itself reduced to a minority of one, and its name will be not Legion, but Roth bard.” — Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind on the ideas of Ron Paul’s “very important intellectual influence” Murray Rothbard

  • kinghenry

    Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike

    If we hate racism, we must also hate war since it is war that has bred malignant types of racism. In our time, we observe the same happening to those of the Islamic faith. Members of both parties demonize people and encourage an anti-Islamic feeling. Christians are being told, as in George Orwell?s 1984, that ?we?ve always been at war with Islam,? that Islam is an inherently warlike religion, that ?they? are taking over America with their mosques, clothing, & law. This whole campaign has the earmarks of a new Cold War, and perhaps hot war, in which Islam replaces atheistic communism as the enemy.

    What is striking about this form of racism is how little it has to do with reality. The 9/11 hijackers were not devout Muslims, but we are often led to believe that they were. The government of Saddam Hussein was secular.

    What none of this mentions is that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism lived in peace, sometimes in the same regions of Europe, for some 700 years between the 8th and 15th centuries.

    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.239-240 Apr 19, 2011

  • streiff

    might be an interesting figure but his day had passed by the time he left the Senate.

    Anyone who refused to think Stalin was a threat has no business being offered up today as a conservative.

  • devereaux

    Unlike you, I was alive when Robert Taft was running for President in 1952. I’m 69 years old.

    Robert Taft opposed United States involvement in NATO fearing it would drag us into another European War.

    I suggest you read his book

    “A Foreign Policy for Americans”

    http://mises.org/books/taft.pdf

  • kinghenry

    It is commonplace for the would-be tyrants to create fear on purpose so that people will actually rush to the government saviors, demanding safety with a willingness to sacrifice liberty. Fear is constantly being manufactured by our leaders, Republicans Democrats, by invoking a current ?Hitler? about to attack us: Saddam, Ahmadinejad, the Taliban, the communists, al Qaeda, or whomever. This fear is required to get the people?s support for fighting unnecessary wars and supporting the military industrial complex. The fear is concocted. The war is very clearly not necessary. The results are devastating to our security and our prosperity. The real fear ought to be directed toward our own leaders and instigators of our policies. Pres. Bush constantly preached war while couching all his speeches in freedom-loving language. It was always because we were free and prosperous that Muslim radicals wanted to kill us. The real reason was never hinted at: that it was a reflection of our failed foreign policy.

    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.131 Apr 19, 2011

  • kinghenry

    World ignores Israel?s 200 nukes yet pressures Iran?s 1 nuke

    Today, the Israeli political lobby is a powerful political force. Two to three hundred nuclear weapons, under Israel?s control, make Israel more powerful than all the Arab and Muslim countries put together. But that?s not where the real power lies. The UN can labor tirelessly in ?controlling? one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn?t exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, the world community rarely even admits that Israel?s nukes exist?and at the same time Iran has never been ruled in noncompliance with the NPT. The fact that Muslim nations become annoyed with this policy is written off by most in the West by charging anti-Semitism.

    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.317 Apr 19, 2011

  • kinghenry

    show a Social-Con leaning RP fan this one and ask them to take it to its logical conclusion:

    “In a free society,…. all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. ….But look at where we are today, constantly fighting over the definition and legality of marriage……..I’d like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

    - Ron Paul, Marriage – “Liberty Defined”

    Gay, Polygomy, Incest…anything goes….in a ‘free society’

  • kinghenry

    and thought they Interferred. Mises is a anti-war Propaganda outlet, i.e. liars.

    Note how they don’t mention he supported the UN, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, our bases in Europe and Military extensions around the globe at the time…..while Minority leader.

    He was no Ron Paul, by any stretch. It takes lies and propaganda by the paul zealots to make that case.

  • devereaux

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Principles Without Program:
    Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy

    http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/moser.html

    The Republican Road Not Taken: The Foreign-Policy Vision of Robert A. Taft

    http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=37

    Instead of calling me names I suggest you do some reading.

  • iidvbii

    like this I will join your concern. Until that day, consider this question asked and answered.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html

  • patriot4freedom

    Because he is such an anti-Semitic kook that he cannot realize that Israel poses no danger to anyone, despite having an inventory of 200 nuclear weapons !
    Does anyone reading this fear that Israel will capriciously detonate one of their nukes ? Or hand one over to a terrorist group to be used against America ? Or use one to hold another country hostage ? Or even more unimaginable, that they would detonate all of them over the non-Muslim world to bring about the so-called “coming of the resurrected fifth imam” from down in some well ?

  • kinghenry

    http://www.newspaperarchive.com/SiteMap/FreePdfPreview.aspx?img=100020452
    Taft supported the UN’s Charter….he also supported the Leage of Nations at the time, though he wanted it changed in a different manner ideally.

    more…
    http://conservapedia.com/Robert_Taft

    “He strongly endorsed the idea of a powerful World Court that would enforce international law, but no such idealized court ever existed.”

    “After Pearl Harbor (Dec. 1941), he strongly supported an all-out war against Germany and Japan. The war itself, Taft always argued, was being fought to “make clear that national aggression cannot succeed in this world”[4], and not as liberals said to advance the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, or publisher Henry Luce’s “American Century.”

    He supported the Truman Doctrine, reluctantly approved the Marshall Plan but tried to cut its budget

  • devereaux

    Last week, former Mossad directors Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy sharply warned Israeli Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister against attacking Iran.

    It would be a disaster for the world. The Iranians could close the Straights of Hormuz. The worlds oil supply travels through the Straights. Oil at 200-300, maybe more. We be in a world wide depression and Israel would get the blame.

  • economics102

    like the “Israel must be wiped off the map” comment your linked article references, I will join your concern.

    It’s been fairly well-debunked that Ahmadinejad was improperly translated and did not call for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” See here for a brief summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy

    That’s not to say Ahmadinejad is a good guy. And that’s not to say he hasn’t essentially called for regime change in Israel/Jerusalem. But expressing desire for a country you dislike to be dismantled or have a regime change is not unique to Ahmadinejad. Lots of political leaders do this regularly, including our political leaders, who have pretty much expressed varying degrees of desire to see regime change in every country in the middle east save Israel.

    War is war and border disputes are border disputes. Israel can claim its land and defend it however she wishes, and it is only our bias toward the Jewish people and against the Islamic people that causes us to presume Israel is the good guy and the Palestinians and their allies are the bad guys.

    If the remaining Native Americans declared a holy war against the American invaders who occupied their land centuries ago, I feel comfortable saying they’d be fully justified in doing so. That doesn’t mean I support them doing that. And it doesn’t mean I think America today is evil because hundreds of years ago we stole their land and slaughtered their people. It is what it is, the taking of land by force was en vogue at the time. Who can make heads or tails of it? The Native Americans are certainly not evil.

    By the way, for context, I’m jewish. I have family that fought in WWII. I have family who are Holocaust survivors. I’m not some random non-jew American who just doesn’t like the jews and doesn’t care what happens to Israel. In fact I’ve visited Israel, and it’s an amazing place and I’d hate to see anything happen to it, and I do like the idea of a jewish state. But I don’t think American foreign policy should be pursued through the lens of treating Israel differently than every other country.

    Imagine for a moment that Israel were not its own country, but in fact an American territory.

    Would we risk WWIII defending a territory in a poorly-chosen location surrounded by hostile enemies? I know a lot of our foreign wars have been about oil, feeding the military industry, etc, etc, but if you take our leaders at face value, really, the majority of what we’ve done in the middle east over the last half-century has been justified by the need to support and defend Israel and make the region safe for them. Again I don’t buy that claim, but if you do, and even if you don’t, if Israel were an American territory, we would have given it up a long time ago, spent a comparatively small amount of money providing safe passage to its residents to America or wherever they want to go, etc.

    As a further point, even if you want to be gung-ho about defending Israel at all costs and making the world safe for everyone, etc, the bottom line is that Iran is just simply not the threat it has been made out as being. Israel is well-prepared to defend itself (in part due to our past support). Iran is not going to start WWIII or nuke Israel. They are not going to hand a nuke off to Hezbollah because even if they could accomplish that, the result would be the same as if they nuked Israel themselves.

    People here like to argue that there’s a huge danger in Iran using a nuclear weapon via surrogates and hiding behind plausible deniability. But this is a very silly claim given the foreign policy of the United States, especially over the past decade. We’ve already demonstrated that *mere suspicion* of WMD is grounds to have your country turned upside-down. Mere *desire* to have WMD is grounds too. We’re already sanctioning Iran and beating the drums of war even though there’s no evidence Iran is actively working on WMD.

    In fact, to illustrate the lose-lose predicament Iran is in right now, think about this: what would they have to do to convince the United States that they’re NOT pursuing WMD? How do you prove a negative? They’re now wishing they already had a WMD because it’s the only way to ensure the United States will leave them alone.

  • devereaux

    Your link backs up everything I’ve said.

  • iidvbii

    Did you mean to respond to my post? I point out a genocide preaching religious fueled wide eyed nut job determined to obtain the very weapon that would make his jihad driven dream of killing every “Jewish” man, woman and child in Israel come true.

    You reply with a third party watered down “intelligence” report detailing the inconvenience the “world” would temporarily endure should the “target” of the afore mentioned genocide decide to take action before their entire nation is engulfed in a brilliant flash of light leaving only a nuclear mushroom cloud as epitaph to their nation and its people.

    Yeah, sure. I can see the moral relivence you were trying for their.

  • devereaux

    I pointed out that two former Moassad chiefs warned Netanyahu and Barak not to attack Iran.

    The only way to stop Iran from getting a nuke is to invade and occupy the country. Israel is not capable of doing that. And since we are 15 trillion in debt and our military worn out after 10 years of war we aren’t either.

    “But the report?arguably the most anticipated document of its kind since the NPT was first advanced in 1968?does not in any way demonstrate that Iran is ?developing a nuclear weapon?. Rather, it once again affirms, as the IAEA has for decades, Iran?s ?non-diversion? of nuclear material. In other words, even if the Islamic Republic wanted to build nuclear weapons (and Tehran continues to deny, at the highest levels of authority, that it wishes to do so) it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.

    http://tinyurl.com/7sazvr7

    The price of oil has climbed above 100 again because Israel keeps spooking world markets.

  • wennejunk

    …but would he support them being tax deductions as well?

  • acat

    Seriously.

    Ron Paul goes the wrong way here – keeping government involved in what’s supposed to be a sacred ceremony of the church.

    Mew

  • iidvbii

    It just upsets my rather good mood and obviously you aren’t capable of comprehension.

    One passing request, Google IAEA Iran weapons program. And READ…. Right now the UN are contemplating action in the security council in response to the FACT that Iran is developing components that are only used in weapons programs. I mean seriously, get freaking clue here.

  • devereaux

    What Flynt Leverette said about the IAEA report that everyone is Hyperventilating

    Flynt Leverett is a professor at Pennsylvania State University?s School of International Affairs and directs the Iran Project at the New America Foundation, where he is a Senior Research Fellow. He is also a Visiting Scholar at Peking University?s School of International Studies.

    Dr. Leverett is a leading authority on the Middle East and Persian Gulf, U.S. foreign policy, and global energy affairs. From 1992 to 2003, he had a distinguished career in the U.S. government, serving as Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council, on the Secretary of State?s Policy Planning Staff, and as a CIA Senior Analyst. He left the George W. Bush Administration and government service in 2003 because of disagreements about Middle East policy and the conduct of the war on terror.

  • acat

    Answer a simple question. Do you see a problem for the U.S. if Iran builds or otherwise obtains a nuclear weapon?

    Mew

  • superpatriot

    Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee.
    Decent guy, though.

  • devereaux

    I don’t want Iran to have a nuke.

    But Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    Flynt Leverette former Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council and CIA Senior Analyst said the recently released report by IAEA shows the non-diversion of nuclear material by Iran. So even if Iran wanted to build a nuke it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.

    This story was hyped by Obama to take all the bad news about the economy,the Solyndra Scandal which is getting worse by the day, and his Attorney General Eric Holder being in the middle of the gun running scandal off the front pages. The crowd that hyped the Saddam was weeks away from getting nukes back in 2002-03 were glad to help Obama out on this. They’ve been wanting to start a war with Iran for years.

  • Michael Dugas

    You have to be kidding right? Like Irans signing of that treaty means a damn thing because Iran is SOOOO honest and forthright. I bet you believed North Korea too didn’t you. That statement is one of the most moronic things I’ve seen written in my six years here. Let’s just trust this lying murdering armageddon seeking theocracy to keep their word and not make a weapon that can kill millions. That’s rich……and ridiculously stupid and shortsighted.

  • constitutional

    I’m not so sure we can absolutely put faith in the ‘bombshells’ that come out. They are plausible, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

    Although, that’s all irrelevant to me, considering the whole individual mandate and tarp problem for him.

  • devereaux

    If Ron Paul is anti-semitic why would Seth Lipsky founder of the New York Sun Newspaper and a Jew write very favorable OP-EDs in the Wall Street Journal about him. In fact why would the Wall Street Journal the largest paper in the country ask Ron Paul to write an OP-ED about the Federal Reserve and interest rates?? Paul Gigot the Editorial Page Editor of the Wall Street Journal has no problem with anti-semites???

  • nathanalbright

    …but rather about economics. Why not take advantage of a man’s strengths if they have common ground, rather than his obvious and glaring weaknesses.

  • georges

    Dr. Paul is thoroughly pro-life. The Christian Right will embrace him for his record.

  • economics102

    >>>Paul?s eagerness to legalize prostitution

    I’ll bet you can’t find a single speech, interview, or writing where Ron Paul brings up the topic of prostitution. The only time it comes up is when an interviewer brings it up.

    Yes, Ron Paul thinks prostitution should be legalized. Saying he’s “eager” to do it and making it sound like it’s one of his big priorities is ridiculous though.

    As for legalizing drugs — yes, it’s fair to say Paul is eager to legalize drugs, as he brings that topic up on his own accord quite often.

  • devereaux

    Is hardly Ron Paul’s weakness. It is traditional conservatism. Over the past decade when it comes to foreign policy Republicans have become the party of Woodrow Wilson. Big government progressives. National building. Making the world safe for Democracy.

  • changeforrickperry

    includes “anti-death penalty” which is not consistent with Judeo-Christian values. From On The Issues’ web pages on Paul:

    Eliminate ultimate penalty & incarcerate for life
    Opposes death penalty at state and federal level

    On The Issues also shows a mixed record for Paul on abortion anyway:

    Day-after pill allows individual moral choice. (Apr 2011)
    Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    Rated 56% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

    His pro-marriage record is no better in evangelical eyes:
    Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

    And this one will really irritate some evangelicals:
    Evolution doesn’t support atheism nor diminish God. (Apr 2011)

    (http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm)

  • streiff

    did you enjoy your sockpuppeting career?

    Sad that it is over?

  • americansoldier

    so I would say he has more then a “chance”

  • gekster

    Why are you voting for RP.
    What are your reasons.
    Not a gotcha, just asking.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    I know you weren’t asking me, but here are my reasons:
    1. I want a true conservative to be elected President.
    2. I want to send a message to everyone in Washington and the national media.
    3. I can’t vote for Romney in the primary for reasons too numerous to list.
    4. I can’t vote for Gingrich in the primary because of his baggage and his arrogance. Sorry, but I can’t forgive the three marriages.
    5. My preferred candidates may get knocked out before the South Carolina primary rolls around.
    6. If Ron Paul were to be elected President, there would be serious changes made in the federal government, unlike with Romney or Gingrich.
    7. He’s the only one proposing to cut $1 trillion the first year.
    8. He’s proposing to eliminate 5 Cabinet departments.
    9. He’s proposing to balance the budget by the end of his 1st term.
    10. Because Chris Matthews will have a heart attack.

  • nathanalbright

    ….which, it should be noted, has never at any time been practiced by the United States, as has been noted numerous times elsewhere, does not mean that you support massive expenditures in nation building. Personally, I’m not interested in nation building at all, unless nations come to us looking for advice or (like Israel) are firmly committed allies with whom we share basic worldviews and civilization and provide mutual benefit for doing so.

    That said, Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are a weakness because he does not believe in defending America’s safety through strength. It is my belief that most nations and peoples in the world are the kind that only respect strength. I do not desire for us to oppress anyone or exploit anyone, but I want everyone to know that though I wish for America to pursue its interests in trade and spreading godly culture peacefully, if attacked the attacking nation should end up in ruins. That’s just how it is. Ron Paul could never get my vote because he’s not committed to strength, and I can’t respect that.

  • devereaux

    Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He’s a very conservative internationalist. He doesn’t want to cut the United States off from the rest of the world. Ron Paul would lift the trade and travel ban on Cuba. We’d be talking to Iran. As he suggested we should start by sending our Soccer Team over to Iran to play several matches. Iran has a very young population and they love our music, clothes and movies.

  • nathanalbright

    ….with his comment about relying on China’s internet generation. Until Iran’s soccer loving and internationalist young adults actually show they run Iran’s regime, we have to treat the regime as the enemy (while realizing, of course, that we have friends among the people).

  • sticktotheconstitution

    ..and after reading through the posts on this thread, it’s hard to imagine some of you being conservative at all. Enough of the childish comments, using words like tard, neo-lib, anti-semitic. Your silly arguments and name-calling aren’t changing any minds.

  • nathanalbright

    He agrees with you, so you call him logical, despite the fact that any prognostication this far out is likely to be less reliable than palm reading or weather forecasts.

  • economics102

    I forgot to connect the dot in my paragraph about Iran using a surrogate to nuke Israel. Where I was going with that is, given how low the bar has been for United States justifying the invasion of middle eastern countries, I think it’s safe to say that if there were a nuclear explosion in Israel, even if we had absolutely no evidence of who was responsible, retaliation against Iran would follow immediately.

    In fact that’s the only good thing I can say about American foreign policy over the past half-century: the world has learned it can’t count on us being rational and level-headed and non-reactionary, and so we are much-feared not for being the strongest country but for being a really strong country that is eager to shoot first and ask questions later. Admittedly, this is a somewhat useful deterrant in situations like a “plausible deniability” scheme by the Iranians, because they know we can’t be counted on to be sure we’ve got the guilty party before dropping the bombs.

    Having said that, what I just described is highly immoral and I can’t condone it even though I acknowledge a potential advantage to it. And I think in the end it will backfire and more than erase any advantages it once provided. A whole lot of people in the middle east hate our guts because of what we do over there. If there is such a thing as karma, I fear for this country.