« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

I Hope Ron Paul Does Win Iowa

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 8th, 2011 at 10:06 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Over at National Review, Robert Costa writes that there is a very real chance Ron Paul could win Iowa.

Of all the candidates running for President, I have never been accused of supporting Ron Paul. But in this I do. I hope he does win Iowa.

I hope he wins Iowa for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because Ron Paul has run a stellar grassroots campaign in Iowa. He’s run a campaign there better than anyone and that hard work deserves to be rewarded regardless of what you think of the candidate and his positions.

Most candidates drop by, send some mail, and run lots of television and radio ads. Ron Paul’s team has been organizing door to door in the state. That level of grassroots activity just might pay off and it would be refreshing to see old fashion grassroots pay off.

Beyond that, there are other reasons I hope Ron Paul wins that his supporters might not like.

I think a Ron Paul win in Iowa will drag out the Republican nomination process. Paul cannot, I do not believe, actually build enough of a coalition to be the nominee. But he can be a spoiler for other candidates, dragging out the contest so there’s not a quick grab of delegates and the show’s over.

Those candidates who do not have a lot of money will be forced to drop out and the rest of the candidates can finally get an airing in one of the million more debates that involves more substantive questions with more time to answer.

Lastly, I think outside of the grassroots game, Iowa voters are less and less representative of the Republican electorate as a whole, force candidates to do weird things like embrace ethanol and run commercials about attacks on Christmas, and a Ron Paul win in Iowa will hopefully once and for all compel the Republicans to consider ending Iowa’s first in the nation status.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    T-bone’s response….

  • seanl

    is to coalesce around a candidate, because with dragging it out you run the risk of beating up your own nominee.

  • znjs

    No reason they should have as much power over the nomination as they do. There should be some sort of rotational system.

    As far as the rest of your post, if nothing else it would be amusing watching people’s heads explode and the other candidates trying to explain it.

  • znjs

    nt

  • dpmapper

    I’d support any of them over Obama, but we need to make sure the nominee is electable and reliable. Imagine if Cain had peaked during IA/NH and wrapped things up due to Republicans coalescing…

  • expanding_man

    Not sure what this will mean for the election. I think is says a lot about how absolutely terrible the other 2 remaining viable candidates for the nomination are. From a 10,000 foot view looking down at Romney and Newt, their views are pretty indistinguishable. The difference is primarily one of style. I believe that very few here at Redstate truly like Romney or Newt. They are simply what’s left.

  • jaykali

    He’s not going to win. Gingrich will win Iowa.

  • wonkish1

    So asking for a very prolonged campaign probably isn’t wise if you don’t want late blue winner take all states to cast the deciding votes.

  • mikeymike143

    i can go back to the end of 2007 pull up articles where people talked about nutjob paul winning the primary for the same reasons they are saying today. paul ALWAYS UNDERPERFORMS when it comes to the actual primary.

  • keysconservative

    I agree with you and have been thinking about a rotational system for a few years now. I think it should be based on voter turnout percentages. The States at the front of the line would be the States with the best organization and committed voters. It would foster healthy competition between States and their progress over time would be easily measured and rewarded.

  • wonkish1

    Seems like the best option.

  • Common_Cents

    Seriously. Being immersed in all the media can wear anyone down. The lefty alinsky media bias wears everyone down. They intentionally are trying to demoralize us. Make us feel bad about our candidates. Make us second guess ourselves. Operation Alinsky Chaos has been working on all of us for decades.

    Please take a vacation so you can see the big picture and be refreshed. Everyone needs a break.

    Talk about other lighter subjects on your show. Put down all the political headline BS.

    Have a Merry Christmas!

  • theprodigy

    if any of the other candidates demonstrated some knowledge of economics other than Ron Paul. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but it really scares me how none of the other candidates seem to understand the difference between Keynesian and Austrian thinking with maybe the slight exception of Bachmann, To me, this is the biggest and most important issue of the election, and neither Romney nor Gingrinch has shown they have even a rudimentary understanding of the monetary policy the Fed performs.

  • Common_Cents

    I’d be shocked if he gets much turnout in Iowa.

    When RP fades, most of his followers will go back to legalizing pot.

    I actually like RP’s stressing getting back to stricter adherence to the constitution which almost sounds radical libertarian these days since we’ve strayed so far. BUT, RP is not an executive and could not govern.

  • reggie182

    Romney will likely win NH……though he could get a serious challenge from Newt.

    Newt will win SC

    Newt will win FL

    Barring the unforseen, Newt will win the nomination. Romney’s “I’ve always been married to the same woman” commercial was a not so subtle cheap shot and a act of desperation. It’s not the sort of commercial a candidate who was confident about his chances would run. Romney is smart enough to know that this thing has just about slipped away from him, and he’s starting to shoot from the hip.

  • Common_Cents

    I also thought about rotational but introducing competition in % of voter turnout among states is brilliant!

  • tngal

    All this electability garbage really grates. So and so can’t win because they can’t pull enough of the independant voters is garbage. Indies are as tired of O as anybody else and with the right marketing even the hardest righty could win. With a couple of early state wins like Iowa and maybe south carolina under his belt perhaps Paul Ryan might actually reconsider. With what is left, all we have is cronies and status quoters.

  • clowngirl

    I agree that Iowa has too much power over the process and a rotational system makes sense – but, at the same time, starting with Iowa and then going to New Hampshire makes a certain amount of sense. They’re both relatively small states and have very different Republican demographics – with Iowa heavy in social conservatives, while New Hampshire is likely to choice someone able to compete in purple states.

    I suppose you could rotate to Utah – which is bigger than Iowa but actually has a smaller population (though that would give a huge advantage to Mormon candidates if we have any more in future) or Idaho but it has only about half the population of Iowa — and it’d be even a smaller number of people wielding first caucuses power.

    I’d love for it to be Colorado – but it’s larger and quite a bit more populous…

  • Tbone

    Party. I mean really, the whole caucus concept is stupid for the very reason Ron Paul might win. It proves that if you can collect up a sufficient assortment of Nazi’s, cowards, pot heads, fools, idiots and jerks who will show at a bunch of coffee klatches and stink all the regular people out of the room, you can be the leading nominee going into the great and vital state of New Hampshire.

    The other thing wrong with the Party are these stupid “debates” that end up looking like the “Political Action Panel” at the local Chamber of Commerce.

  • edintexas

    Are you writing off the South and Southwest, or have I been asleep for a very long time and the South is again solid Democrat? Or even longer still and we actually won the war and are no longer among the United States?

  • edintexas

    Did it meet your expectations, exceed them, or fall short (don’t see how that could be true, but I don’t know what your expectations might have been)?

  • Common_Cents

    Cold Warrior gets some guff for consistently promoting people getting involved at the local level, rebuilding the party from the ground up. Nothing is going to change much until the silent majority hits bottom enough to start taking action en masse.

    We get the government we deserve.

  • benko

    …

  • sunshinek67

    :D

  • wonkish1

    The only Blue states prior to April are:
    -Maine(non binding)
    -Minnesota(non binding)
    -Washington
    -Mass
    -Vermont
    -Hawaii
    -Illinois

    After April there are:
    -Maryland
    -DC
    -Connecticut
    -Deleware
    -New York
    -Rhode Island
    -Oregon
    -California
    -New Jersey
    -Plus Michigan and Pennsylvania are becoming more purple these days, but the GOP has more in common with a New York than a Texas

    Also lets not forget that the number of states is a little decieving because the bigger states(New York and California) throw a ton of blue state delegates up for post April.

    So yeah if you want a conservative candidate prolonging the process doesn’t help that goal.

  • tailfins1959

    Most corporate types don’t know what “420″ means. I expect even fewer retirees know. 420 is wacky tobaccy.

  • icesweeper

    First, I live in Iowa, and as much as I enjoy the oppurtunity to personally meet candidates and attend town halls, it just bugs me as a fairness issue. Shouldn’t other people have the same chance?

    My model is to have 10 rounds of primaries, 5 states each round, set about 3 weeks apart, starting in early Jan, like now, and thus finishing just before the convention. The 5 states would be randomly selected and weighted to have app. the same number of electorate each time. Any sophmore computer student can write that algorithm. Maybe you add in some geographical weighting, although I’m not sure that’s needed and keep it simple.

    The voter turnout idea is intriguing, although the first while it would have to be done carefully. It wouldn’t be very fair IMPO to start out that way, since voters in late primaries now don’t have much to get excited about. And that could happen in any system.

    The one thing to be very careful about is the law of unintended consequnces.

  • wonkish1

    New Mexico at the bottom as well.

  • wonkish1

    As mentioned in the another diary is probably the single worst state in the country to have leading the primaries today. The two sides of the GOP in Colorado hate each others guts and the reason why they have problems in the state elections is that they can’t stop beating the living $*** out of each other.

    Rotational would probably be dividing up all of the states into matching groupings from different parts of the country and then rotating those groupings.

    It doesn’t really matter anyway. This current process isn’t really going anywhere anytime soon.

  • Common_Cents

    What’s that noise I hear? Is that the rumble of the 420 keyboard warriors stampeding this way? hehe

  • tomatin

    I thought that was the candidate you supported.

    Obviously now you are just supporting chaos.

    This is a pretty disingenuous piece.

  • wonkish1

    To what I had thought up.

  • edintexas

    I don’t intend to pick on you, but this use of perfectly fine nouns and adjectives (choice can be either) as a verb simply irritates me no end. Instead of saying something was “given”, there is a segment of the population which says it was “gifted”. Here we have NH “…likely to choice…” instead of likely to “choose”.

    I know it is a losing battle, and down here in Texas (Tejas) my Grandsons and Great-Grandchildren are likely to need to speak Spanish to get along in 50 years, but dang it, let’s try and speak, read and write English as long as we can.

    OK, my diatribe is at an end. Or have I ended my diatribe?

  • sunshinek67

    struggling financial mismanagement of campaign, inconsistencies present and past predictive of future, ?, baggage in current rotation of msm. Maybe he can get sronger with the process this time around, overcome :)

  • theprodigy

    But all the other descriptions I don’t will vote for Paul. TBH, I doubt he would even get the pothead vote because most potheads prob aren’t motivated to get into politics. We do need to have at least one, just one debate on economic policy before they start rolling out the super primaries, just so people know where these candidates stand before voting one way or the other. We need a honest discussion regarding monetary policy, Keynesian and Austrian thinking, the role if any of a central bank such as the Fed, the idea of competing currency, and the notion of sound money. Haven’t heard much if any of these topics in any of the debates so far. Sort of an important subject considering it’s the basis of any economy or civilization, including ours.

  • tailfins1959

    Our process of selecting candidates has served us well for two centuries. It will all work out. Whomever gets the nomination will have earned it. The only contender I can’t stand is Bachmann because she tends to cause poor morale with her staff. Someone who will generate a dysfunctional team will not govern well.

  • WY_Cowboy

    He will have less time to train his guns on the nominee, and the nominee will have survived a very tough primary and will be in top fighting condition. Also, when the GOP nomination is settled, there will be a sense of relief among the faithful and the great battle with Obama will have begun in earnest. Make no mistake, it will be a grand battle of ideas and philosophy with the added advantage of examining Obama’s record and administration. If there is anything that will unite GOP voters, it’s the prospect of beating Obama. The nominee will benefit from that and experience a honeymoon effect going into the convention.

    Tough primaries are good for us in this cycle.

  • medicineman

    All that will do is light the fire for a independent run in ’12…..= Obama Win…

    Second is ok

  • clowngirl

    Sometimes it’s worse – and I wind up typing a word that has nothing to do with the word I meant – for reasons unknown.

  • cwilson

    States that come early in the primary process MUST have *CLOSED* primaries. There is no reason for S.C. Democrats to get a say in our nominee. Or, for that matter, N.H. “independents” who are really just Massachusetts liberal transplants who want to avoid the MA confiscatory taxation (which they voted for when they still lived there).

    I brought this issue up at my county GOP executive committee meeting, and our delegate to the state GOP mentioned it at the state meeting, and…it’s now on the agenda for the 2012 Convention.

    So…listen to ColdWarrior and become a P.C. — you really can make a difference.

  • andystone

    Any sort of Ron Paul success in the primary may well force the eventual nominee to shoot his homeland security / foreign policy in the foot to placate the isolationists at the convention.

  • WY_Cowboy

    Romney is not the kind of guy who would run an ad without doing research (polling) on it first. I would bet it’s a message that works in polling, and it’s just the opening salvo. He won’t close with this ad, but it must work in helping set the stage for his close.

    We’ll see.

  • omegamale

    If I were Rick Perry, and I still had the desire to be President, I would have my supporters pull the lever for Ron Paul. It essentially pushes the reset button and allows the GOP a second look if Paul wins Iowa.

    However, if Gingrich wins Iowa, it becomes a two man race, everyone else will be knocked out of contention. Romney will go on to win New Hampshire, and it’s game on between Newt and Mitt.

    Gingrich will have the momentum, but never underestimate the ability of Gingrich to self-immolate before our eyes. Also, Gingrich doesn’t have the resources or infrastructure right now for a drawn out campaign, he’s even having trouble getting enough signatures to appear on the ballot in some places. And there’s still a LOT of dirt that can come out on Newt, especially if you have Romney’s resources to expose it. Romney’s not dropping out until the bitter end, and he can comfortably write himself a check if he has to keep going.

    I also agree that a Ron Paul win would make Iowa once again the laughingstock of the nation and would likely guarantee the end of its “first in the nation” status, at least on the GOP side.

  • WY_Cowboy

    and Romney will be the nominee. The race will turn into “stop Ron Paul” and Gingrich voters, thinking it’s over for Newt, will turn to Romney so that Paul is not the nominee.

  • cwilson

    That will be a bit difficult this year. The new GOP rules say that any state — including IA, NH, SC, and NV — which holds their contest before March 6(?) cannot assign delegates “winner-take-all” — but must assign them proportionately.

    Then, there’s FL — not only do we have to assign proportionately like the other early states, but because we “broke the rules” we only get half the delegates.

    I think, between the front-runners, the actual committed delegate count is going to remain close all the way up to Super Tuesday.

  • lizzie

    to keep the swarms of intimidators from messing up the caucus system.

    Ron Paul 2012 is using Obama’s 2008 playbook for how to swarm the Iowa caucus sites.

    I would not be surprised if part of Ron Paul’s ground troops in Iowa are disillusioned anti-war left Obamabots from 2008.

    Am surprised Erick does not realize how some of Ron Paul’s 2012 factions are not so good for the GOP.

    Kind of puzzling why RP mailed a seven-page pro-life manifesto to woo the Evangelicals who already ruled him out.

    Perry sure scares everyone right to left. I am sure that explains why the DesMoinesRegister has two Perry photos on every caucus page,lower right hand corner.

  • WY_Cowboy

    The prevailing desire of the GOP and conservatives is to beat Obama. There is no way conservatives drop out of the general election given the future of our country is at stake. Say what you will about conservatives, they are patriots and couldn’t stomach four more years of Obama just because Mitt beat Newt or Newt beat Mitt.

  • acat

    Because that’s one heck of a plum, second only to California in number of delegates, and voting relatively early…. part of Super Tuesday IIRC.

    I don’t expect Perry to go anywhere before Texas votes.

    Mew

  • acat

    If Ron Paul wins, I’ll assume the old joke about what Iowa stands for must be true.

    Idiots. Out. Wandering. Around.

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    It will be up to Gingrich to fund raise like heck if he can pull off a couple early wins. The good thing is money usually starts rolling in for the leader, especially after a primary/caucus win.

    Then the ground game staff support rolls in from the lesser candidates who drop out. Those staffers need jobs somewhere.

  • lizzie

    which is entirely possible.

    unless Romney is paying Iowans to attend their caucus. and sending snowshoes for Christmas.

  • WY_Cowboy

    There is no more deeply red state in the country, and all factions are represented. It would be inexpensive enough for lesser known impressive candidates to gain national attention, and retail politicis is more important than slick direct mail, TV, and radio ads. Colorado would be good too, but lesser knowns would have little chance of breaking into the national spot light because of how expensive it is to run there.

    The Rocky Mountain region is probably the most representative of the Republican Party nation-wide, so I think we should go first. :)

  • sedentaryactivist

    …this time around.

    By that I mean things like, “If I am for Perry, I want my supporters to vote for Paul.” There are so many moving parts here that trying to figure out how my vote will count the most strategically is disheartening.

    I feel I have no single choice which makes me confident of both 1) a win over BHO and 2) a reliable and consistent conservative. I am going to wake up on election day and pull the handle for the one that most closely matches my positions, regardless of all these intangibles, like whether or not they will win the primary. At this point, that means Bachman, Santorum, and Perry, in that order.

    It might all change next week, of course…

  • acat

    Thank you for bringing this to the party’s attention as well.

    Mew

  • WY_Cowboy

    Need to pay more attention.

  • acat

    and aren’t exactly friendly to any of our preferred candidates.

    Well, except Willard Romney.

    It’s looking increasingly like the options are “wrap it up early” or “brokered convention” ..

    Mew

  • cwilson

    …could be just those states that occur before Super Tuesday: the four with the “carve-out”, line-jumper FL, plus ME, CO, MN, AZ, MI, and WA. (FYI: Super Tuesday is March 6, which is why I mentioned that date above). Note that MO’s primary is before Super Tuesday, but *it doesn’t count for delegates — it’s basically a big straw poll*. Instead, MO *also* has a caucus on 3/17 to select delegates. Now, that’s after Super Tuesday, but before April 1 — so are they required to be proportional?

    Because: this article claims the cutoff date for proportional delegation is April 1 — and Texas is a Super Tuesday state. So…I don’t know. Call your favorite campaign headquarters; I’m sure THEY know!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I kid, I kid. Being from Fort Collins we make fun of you up there all the time.

    A friend of mine that grew up in Casper once told me that he was 16 years old before he realized that trees were supposed to grow vertical.

  • wonkish1

    To expect the convention to not award the nomination to the person who is in the lead in delegates at that time is just ludicrous.

    There is no way the party is going to allow itself this day in age to ignore the will of the people.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    But I’ve said it many times before; As goes Colorado, so goes the Nation. You can get a pretty good gauge of what’s going on nationally by looking at what’s happening here.

  • tomatin

    I’m being facetious but how strong Perry finishes in Iowa is the most important thing for him now. The only way Rick Perry has a chance is if he cracks the top three.

    A fourth place showing in Iowa won’t cut it considering he’ll probably end up further down in NH.

  • ralphdaily

    Excellent. The present primary system is goofy.

  • ericksontales

    I can’t believe I’m about to agree with Mr. Erickson since I am an avid Romney supporter and since he holds a strong bias against Romney.

    An Iowa Ron Paul win will help Romney seal the deal. How? Ron Paul’s best chance of any state really is Iowa. If he can be a spoiler there then Newt comes in second. Romney wins New Hampshire. By that time the Newt mania will have worn off and we will get back to nominating serious candidates like Romney or Perry.

    Furthermore, how does Erick justify wanting a long drawn out primary? I guess he really does want to see Obama win if this is what he is rooting for. I think more than anything this shows that if poor Erick can’t get his way then nobody should be able to.

  • curtmilr

    and will vote Perry as a Favorite Son if nothing else.
    I expect this race to go to the Convention where deals will be cut to seal the nomination.
    Rick is a plow horse, not a show horse or race horse. Slow but steady, he’s now building market share. He could still blow it, of course, but his history has always been coming from behind. He trailed Hutchison by 30 points last year, and won a real 3-way race without a runoff.
    My first thought has always been Perry/Gingrich, but if Newt wins, it should be Gingrich/Palin.

  • tomatin

    It must be sad to be a man without a candidate.

  • Common_Cents

    How the heck havent they been closed? Is it just to court the indies? I say court the indies in the general if they are non commtital enough to join a party.

  • icesweeper

    Neglected to mention the Democrats will have to have an extra couple rounds to fit their extra 7 states in…. :)

  • wonkish1

    Its still mostly Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

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

    Paul isn’t going to be a big second choice thing, and a lot of Paul people won’t have a second choice.

    Further I don’t know how many Paul people are actually Republicans, and it’s a closed caucus.

    So I think the polling for Paul is bunk.

  • izoneguy

    h/t Ace

  • drothgery

    that both have a low population (and so are inexpensive to campaign in and good targets for retail politics) that are also fairly competitive in the general. Iowa and NH are on that list. Which is why I don’t object too much to their insistence on being first; there’s really no one who’s significantly better there.

    We don’t want early primaries in deep red states any more than deep blue states; primary voters there are somewhat less likely to be in tune with the issues the general election will swing on, and the person we nominate does need to be able to win in November.

  • mikeevergreen

    Just curious – especially if the Senate remains Democrat. Answer: it won’t be any different.

    And, even if the Senate turns Republican, is the Republican Party really willing to gut entitlements (which must be done) on their own and risk never winning another election?

  • Scope

    that moved their primary dates up are to lose half their delegates, Iowa, NH, SC and Fla. I’m not sure of NV as they didn’t move their date into Jan. Preibus said that it is not something he will have any control over, or be able to change, as it is in the rule book. It appeared to me that Fla. was willing to take the penalty in order to get the RNC to change the way the primaries are conducted. Every 4 years the Republicans scream and yell because of the unfairness of having Iowa, then NH, then SC and then NV always being first. Those states rake in the money in many ways, especially Iowa, and the later states don’t have that opportunity. If the RNC does not take this years turmoil seriously, because of the move by Fla. which affected the other early states, by the next presidential election I suspect many of the states will take the penalties and it will be an even bigger circus until a more fair system, such as rotating states, is devised. I would love dearly to know what hold Iowa and NH have on the RNC.

  • acat

    They’ve always been first, so therefore they must always been first.

    Mew

  • cwilson

    Originally, the four “carve-out” states (IA, NH, SC, NV) were allowed to go “early” without penalty — so long as they didn’t go before Feb 1. All the other states were required to go no earlier than March 6 (Super Tuesday). Otherwise, penalties applied: loss of half of their delegates.

    Since the four carve-out states all jumped ahead of Feb 1, I assume they got the 50% penalty. Then, there are a number of other states that jumped ahead of the “everybody except the privileged four” deadline — including FL who really made a point of it. So, all of them lost 50% of their delegates, too.

    Finally, there’s the OTHER rule concerning proportional delegation — which according to the article cited above applies to all primaries/caucusi prior to April 1, including Super Tuesday states.

    More information here

  • mikeymike143

    Ron Paul supporters are angry at his exclusion from the Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum, despite Dr. Paul himself not publicly even caring. Supporters of the Klan do not get angry when they are excluded from NAACP banquets. Go on Ron Paul message boards, read the anti-Semitism, and then understand why nobody wants these miscreants anywhere near respectable events.

    The Republican Jewish Coalition recently held their 2012 Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington, DC. Ron Paul did not attend, which of course resulted in his supporters going ballistic. Because Ron Paul supporters have a habit of shouting down speakers and disrupting events, anything that minimizes their attendance improves Republican events.

    These events are for people to listen to the candidates and make an informed choice. Supporters of Dr. Paul already have their mind made up. There is no reason for them to attend a single event. They know who they are voting for.

    Yet the problem with Ron Paul supporters goes deeper than just bad behavior. There is a cancer in the Ron Paul movement. It is called anti-Semitism, and it is pervasive among his followers.

    Dr. Paul himself may not be one, but his outreach to the Jewish community has been non-existent. His supporters are angry that he was excluded from a Jewish event, but he never asked to be included. He has not said a single word about his exclusion. His supporters care. He doesn’t. In all of his years in office, he has never truly reached out to the Jewish community. Therefore, when a Jewish forum takes place, it is reasonable to understand why neither side would want to interact.

    Dr. Paul has never at any time condemned anti-Semitism, even in the most perfunctory of ways. He has never weeded out the anti-Semitism among his supporters. Those supporters will make the same argument they always make, that a few rotten apples should not spoil the whole bunch. This argument would be valid if the anti-Semitism was not so widespread. The bad apples are not the exception. They are much of the bucket.

    It took only several minutes of searching on Ron Paul forums to find pure Jew-hatred, with desperate attempts to insist that anti-Semitism was not so because they said so.

    The first comment was the stereotypical linking of Jews and money, which is every bit as awful as making remarks about black people involving chicken and watermelons. After the “Jews and money” link, the commenters got much worse.

    Some tried to claim that they liked Jews but hated Zionists, as if that is not the most pathetic and tired excuse of anti-Semites.

    One commenter compared Ron Paul to Jesus. Another accused Jews of using the Holocaust for political gain.

    (I am sure my Holocaust survivor dad and grandparents, while they were fleeing for their lives, had other considerations besides how being nearly shot to death could benefit them politically several decades later.)

    These comments were not “cherry-picked” to skew the data. They are the data.

    These are Ron Paul supporters. They judge everyone else. Now it is time for them to be judged.

    “Yes, but it will generate the most donations.

    Submitted by YumYum on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:25.
    $$$$$$$$$!!!!”

    “Real Jews love Dr.

    Submitted by Charlie’s Angel on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:20.
    Real Jews love Dr. Paul…..these are just ZIONIST sOB’s!”

    “what’s wrong?

    Submitted by jblackpost on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:44.
    what’s wrong with criticizing Zionism? Considering they were a bunch of warmongering left-wing atheists and communists who only cared about establishing the state of Israel and nothing else (not even Jewish life), I think separating this horrible movement (which I hate) from the Jewish people (whom I like) is a pretty good idea.”

    “Most Jews are pretty cool aka not Zionista -look at my hero

    Submitted by sharkcity on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:45.
    Milton Friedman
    Isreal[sp] wouldn’t be much more than just another country if it were not for the apocalyptic Christian lobby aka the neocons..
    Not much difference in the right wing be it neocon, taliban, or zionist -Their all bizzacko in my book”

    “At least in this post

    Submitted by ANCAP_REASON on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:22.
    you differentiated between atheists and communists…
    The biggest warmongers are monotheists, specifically those of the Abraham tradition, by the way.”

    “Makes sense to me

    Submitted by Smudge Pot on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:59.
    in as much as “the Jewish lobby” represents the modern state of Israel. Ron never pretended to represent the 51st state in the union.”

    “Well….

    Submitted by JFEJ004 on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:08.
    It wouldn’t be the first savior they’ve killed.”

    “Samaria? You mean the

    Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:39.
    Samaria? You mean the Occupied remnant of historic Palestine. There is no such thing as Samaria any more.”

    “This is absurd and the height

    Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:34.
    This is absurd and the height of irony. It is the Zionist who is extreme, and that includes Christian as well as Jewish Zionists. They have bullied and use the Holocaust to scare everyone into speaking out against Israel’s policies.
    So sick of this. I don’t want us to give another penny to either Israel or its enemies.
    Why can’t be let go of the religious thing?”

    “Be Careful

    Submitted by Gary Patridge on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 21:53.
    any criticism will be construed as “Anti-Semitic”.
    When will the World figure out that Zionists are not Isrealites? Pretty sure that Zionists are not God’s chosen people…”

    “One can dislike Israel, but

    Submitted by AtlantaIconoclast on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 23:38.
    One can dislike Israel, but not have a problem with Judaism. Why would anyone, but a Jewish supremacist, or Christian Zionist LIKE the apartheid state of Israel? This is not about anti Jewish sentiment. I have no problem saying it, for I truly do not care about someone’s religion.”

    “I’m shocked!

    Submitted by BigT on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 20:54.
    You mean that rabid socialist zionist Jewish Neocons are working against freedom again??Who’da thunk it???!!
    News flash folks.?That’s all they do is work against freedom.?They are the enemy within.”

    The real challenge was finding one Ron Paul supporter willing to stand up for what is decent and right. Among a bunch of ranting, raving, Jew-hating bigots disguised as reasonable people, one person named Toledana tried to reason with the mob.

    “It doesn’t help us

    Submitted by toledana on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 18:39.
    when RP supporters make negative statements about Israel, Zionism, or the Jewish people. I have heard some Jews say they have been turned off to Dr. Paul because of what his supporters have said.
    It’s not surprising that Ron Paul has been banned from a Jewish debate when people like you are making negative statements about them as a people. We need to open our arms to everyone, and instead of talking badly about them as a group help to educate them about Ron Paul’s platform.
    To much of the world, America is seen in a very bad light. Do you appreciate it when people make blanket statements about American citizens saying all of us are evil and bloodthirsty?”

    Toledana’s next comment was even more insightful, especially the last line.

    “It is name calling

    Submitted by toledana on Thu, 12/01/2011 – 19:20.
    not constructive criticism. Rarely do people who use this terminology give any kind of explanation, and it comes off as angry and hateful.
    Terming people “Zionist” is collectivist thinking and polarizes our movement from Jewish people who see Israel as their homeland. Whether or not you agree with that belief is up to you…. but throwing hate their way is not helping us get any votes. Instead we are turning even moderate Jewish supporters away in disgust.
    I’ve never heard Dr. Paul use the term “Zionist” or speak the way many of the people in this thread are doing.
    Raging against the “religious right,” “Left wing extremists” and “neocons” doesn’t do us any favors either. If we want to expand the movement we need to work on being inclusive… promoting education, not name calling. We need more votes, not more enemies.
    Otherwise we are going to end up on a little life raft mumbling to ourselves.”

    Toledana is the aberration. As for the rest, this is what is infecting the Ron Paul movement. There are tons of things Dr. Paul could say or do. He has said nothing. He has done nothing.

    Silence is acquiescence, and Dr. Paul will not stand up and condemn pure evil in written and spoken form. While his followers are spouting noxious garbage, he stays silent. Therefore, when it came time to hold a Republican Jewish forum, it was perfectly appropriate for Dr. Paul to remain silent far away from the event. His supporters will speak up for him, but not for anybody else.

    This is why when his supporters complain, Jews everywhere should tune them out. They have spoken enough, and the words were pure ugliness.

    When an anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish presidential forum is held, the Paul supporters can all get together and rail about Neocons, moneylenders, bankers, merchants, Paul Wolfowitz, Wall Street, and other blood libel conspiracies.

    Actually, these forums are being held on a daily basis. They are called Internet message boards.

    Dr. Paul may wish to drop the willful blindness and see what his supporters really believe. Then he may wish to reach out to Republican Jews with any kind of outreach.

    Most likely, he will not.

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/dec/8/republican-jewish-coalition-2012-presidential-cand/

  • WY_Cowboy

    Did you make fun of us when we won the Bronze Boot again and got a bid to the New Mexico Bowl? Just wondering . . . ;) You know what the most beautiful view of Colorado is? In the rear view mirror.

    Okay, okay. It’s just neighborly good fun. But really, the Rocky Mountain states are more representative of the GOP across the country than Iowa and New Hampshire, and we should have a much more influential say in the nomination. Not just because of our demographics, but our economies as well. Energy supply is at the heart of any economic recovery in the US. Without a reliable, economical domestic supply of energy, the American economy will remail volitile, dependent on international events, and slow to recover. Just sayin’.

  • pj2012

    Always broke last but came around to win each time!

    Secretariat a racing legend that won the Triple Crown. Winner of the Belmont Stakes by 31 lengths. America’s hero and racing legend.

    In the Kentucky Derby, Secretariat broke last, but gradually moved up on the field in the backstretch, then overtook Sham at the top of the stretch, pulling away to win the Derby by 21?2 lengths.

    In the Preakness Stakes, Secretariat broke last, but then made a huge, last-to-first move on the first turn. After reaching the lead with 51?2 furlongs to go, he was never challenged, and won by 2? lengths.

    In the Belmont Stakes, including Sham, which had finished second in both the Derby and Preakness, along with three other horses thought to have little chance by the bettors: Before a crowd of 67,605, Secretariat and Sham set a fast early pace, opening ten lengths on the rest of the field. After the six-furlong mark, Sham began to tire, ultimately finishing last. Secretariat astonished spectators by continuing the fast pace and opening up a larger and larger margin on the field. Viewers heard the wonder in CBS Television announcer Chic Anderson’s voice as he described the horse’s pace: “Secretariat is widening now! He is moving like a tremendous machine!”

  • Common_Cents

    “Gov. Rick Perry is statistically tied with businessman Herman Cain among Republican presidential primary voters in his home state of Texas, with the rest of the GOP candidates well behind the leaders, according to the new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.

    Cain got 27 percent to Perry’s 26 percent among Texas registered voters who identify themselves as Republicans. ”

    That is shocking.

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/cain-edges-perry-new-uttt-poll/

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    We’re gonna win this, folks–just watch Secretariat Perry.

    Perry: “Campaign is hitting the restart button”
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/198165-perry-weve-hit-the-restart-button-on-campaign?utm_campaign=hillballotbox&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.TuEJhQ4_Tjc.twitter

  • westcoastpatriette

    reminds me of that horse–Secretariat–and I continue to believe he is being underestimated. Some creatures need a challenge to bring out their best and that is what we are going to see in Perry before this race is over. And it will be a delight to witness.

  • center77

    And they explained how its probably going to help him. The left and Obama have had a war on faith for a long time. We need a leader willing to stand up for faith. Its one of the things that led me to support Perry to the level I do. I’m afraid if Ron Paul wins Iowa then some will see it as a sign to also support him. Paul is dangerous in many ways. First being his foriegn policy would weaken us globally on two fronts. Military and economics. Being a global economic power means we have certain obligations and Paul does not understand that. So I think I think he should not win Iowa.

  • omegamale

    Perry could still win the nomination, but he has zero chance of winning Iowa. Right now he’s in around 6th place, depending on the poll you’re looking at.

    If Gingrich wins Iowa, it instantly becomes a 2 man race with Perry sliding further into irrelevancy.

  • pj2012

    funny… come on… that’s an old poll and you know Herman Cain’s numbers are near zero now… even before he suspended his campaign his numbers were tanking.

  • pj2012

    looks like it’s turning into a 2 man debate. Glad he turned it down… who needs a debate where Trump’s the moderator, and possibly still running? I think it’s unseemly.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70107.html

  • romansdaughter

    nt

  • truthsquad

    You can register Republican in the Iowa Caucus the day of the Caucus.

  • truthsquad

    Erick from his own website for supporting He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned?

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

    For a self-proclaimed truth squad you’re pretty dense.

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

    But I set it up so he and I are unbannable.

  • Common_Cents

    I was shocked that Cain or anyone else could tie Perry at any time.

    sheesh.

    You didn’t get the point?

  • clowngirl

    Not to mention that

    1. there’s less likelihood of enthusiasm for a nominee that the general public didn’t get to vote on

    2. there is no perfect candidate – currently running or otherwise. Rick Perry looked like the perfect candidate on paper – but proved to have a more than a 2 month learning curve.

    any now- not running candidate would suffer a similar fate to Sarah Palin in that they’d be very easy to smear or at least undermine in that voters won’t have time to get to know the candidate.

    I can understand that a lot of folks who wanted a candidate other than Newt will have a bit of a grieving process if it starts becoming clear he’s going to be the nominee but actually hoping for a brokered convention?

    Short of Ron Paul of Gary Johnson as the nominee, there’s no better way to guarantee 4 more years of Obama.

  • clowngirl

    You seem pretty bummed right now.

  • Scope

    when the Trump debate takes place. So we know for sure that Paul, Romney, Huntsman are definite no’s. Last I heard was that Bachmann hadn’t committed, which is surprising since she’s been having many meetings with him. That leaves Newt, Santorum and that’s it. I suspect it will be cancelled.

  • thisisme7

    Those “polls” were conducted by the University of Texas (liberal) and the Texas Tribune (liberal). The “poll” was of 300 people, with a margin of error at 5.5%, and also of which 60% where undecided. A poll that has only 300 people with a margin of error above 2 or ever 3% is NOT a real poll. Any conservative, or anyone for that matter, taking a poll like that seriously is a dunce, and I make no apology in calling them that…

    Also, I’m a Texan. Perry is very popular here. You don’t get re-elected three times as governor (an office that us Texans just don’t re-elect people to that easily) does not do so by being unpopular. So nice try!

  • 1bunny

    the Tribune and the Univ of Texas – need I remind you Perry is an Aggie ; )

  • Common_Cents

    so I wanted to ask.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Ron Paul can’t win.
    Mitt Romney can only win if the “anti-Romney” vote is split. At this point, Newt Gingrich is the ‘not-Romney’ standard bearer, picking it up after Cain, Perry and Bachmann had previously held it.

    So if Ron Paul does win in Iowa, the media builds him up, it eats into more of the ‘not-Romney’ vote, and Newt’s opening shrinks. Mitt survives and uses his cash to win a war of primary attrition against Newt.

    That’s how I see it. It is quickly becoming a Newt vs Romney battle. No more months for the voters to pick a new ‘conservative flavor of the month’.

  • turkeyotooley

    Respectfully, of course.

    I wouldn’t miss this upcoming election for the world, but there are many conservatives that would.

    There are many patriots that feel that the Republican party is tone deaf to their concerns. This is the danger of a Romney nomination. Eric Erickson seems to understand why Romney is such a disastrous candidate and is fearlessly criticizing the Romney campaign. It’s also good that Redstate advocates for the Republican party; we need to reform it from within. But think of how hard our job will be if a RINO like Romney gets the nod.

    For many people, Obama is just one problem among many. Gone are the days, I think, that the Republican party can take its voters for granted.

  • pj2012

    My sentiments are the same as, thisisme7 and 1bunny the poll is bias… Tribune and the Univ of Texas. The Liberal Tribune is no friend to Perry… and that’s stating it mildly.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    some do not. Oklahoma, when I was registered there, forced voters to state party preference when registering; Tennessee, where I live now, does not. Since the Democrats will not be staging a primary in 2012, it’s an open invite for “open” state’s democrats to have a say in our choice of candidate.

    If we are to have a rotating order of primary, this would have to stop. It is one of the reasons we wound up with McMilquetoast as our 2008 nominee.

    BTW, I’m with Erick: I hope Ron Paul wins Iowa, too.

  • truthsquad

    Paul could hit Super Tuesday with 5 or 6 caucus wins under his belt, thanks to the completely reworked calendar this time. Only half of the elections are primaries before that day, and Paul apparently does better in caucus states (I think ALL of his ’08 delegates came via caucuses, and he’s got a much stronger ground game this go-round). I’m wondering if Erick will be saying “I hope Ron Paul does win Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington state” before Super Tuesday… which also has 4 caucuses out of 12 elections that day.

    I mean, I guess if he’s hoping for a brokered convention, Paul winning, placing, or showing in 10 states by the time Super Tuesday is over might do it. Or, it might result in Paul winning the nomination. I’m guessing that Erick isn’t quite prepared to say, “I hope Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination.” That would kinda ruin his “Ron Paul will not be the nominee”… and cause a lot of people on here to barf.

  • truthsquad

    Looks like Gingrich’s great “Lincoln-Douglas Debate” will occur early, but it will be between him and Santorum.

  • gekster

    It will be for state residents only.
    The only ones he wins are the ones he brings in supporters from out of state.

  • aesthete

    He just opened his campaign office in Iowa last week. I think Paul stands a decent chance of winning Iowa.

  • goodasgold

    Get a life, collectivist.

  • aesthete

    You can still white out his diary entry and leave a cute video on the bottom though, right?

  • goldwaterlives

    Either get onboard or get run over. There is a reason why he’s slowly erasing the left’s dominance on college campuses. So you guys can either do it the easy way or hard way. And this is coming from a paleo-conservative who absolutely adores Russell Kirk. It’s time that the progressive scum that created the Federal Reserve, expanded the tax system and created a welfare system predicated on victim-hood gets pushed back into the dark abyss where they belong.

  • truthsquad

    But we’re not talking about straw polls this time. His poll numbers of actual in-state voters are showing he can win, place or show in all of the first caucuses, and I just read that he’s opened state HQ’s in all of them to try to make sure that happens.

    I don’t think wishful thinking is going to help here. And I don’t think y’all are taking his campaign seriously enough. There is a real possibility that Paul could be a “kingmaker” at a brokered convention… or the King.