« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What would we be saying today if Ron Paul had managed to bring two more busloads (153 voters) to Ames?

By: gawken (Diary)  |  August 14th, 2011 at 12:02 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m thrilled that Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll yesterday. Not because I’m already committed to her candidacy ( I’m not); rather, it’s because Ron Paul didn’t win.

Think about it. Had Paul’s loyalists managed to drag 153 MORE supporters to Ames, it would be Ron Paul today  doing the “Ginsburg tour” of all the Sunday talk shows, and we’d be seeing ad nauseum his clip reassuring us that a nuclear armed Iran poses no danger, and his then being asked if he really meant it? (He did)

Paul is dangerous. To the GOP. To our chances to beat Obama in 2012. Heck..he  manages to give libertarianism a bad name.  National defense is one of the areas clearly defined in the Constitution as a vital, if not THE most important, function of the federal government.  Making government smaller, a worthwhile goal to be sure, can’t be construed as ignoring  an obvious, dangerous military threat.

How soon before his son, Sen.  Rand Paul, is asked if he agrees with his father’s views on Iran. He’s been campaigning with his dad, so does he now repudiate his father?  If ( heaven help us) Rand endorses his dad’s views, that will cause turmoil in the Tea party, the movement that is now successfully redefining the Republican party, and pointing to a 2012 victory.

The straw poll has changed the GOP field. Pawlenty is out, and we now have a top tier of three: Bachmann, Romney, and Perry. And possibly Palin. The others will shuffle and reshuffle themselves over the next 4-5 months. Several will drop out, due to lack of poll support, and difficulties raising funds.

But not Paul. He has a core base of support..at least 5%, and substantial fundraising. And as we get deep into the debate season, and the primaries, he will be there until the bitter end. Indeed he’s announced that he’s NOT running for Congress, in order to devote all his time to the WH bid. This is his LAST HURRAH. He will be the 2012 version of Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 Dem debates, except far more dangerous.

Mark my words. If Paul is not dealt with, and soon, we will regret it. His views and comments on Iran are just as crazy as Cynthia McKinney’s, and she’s now just about ignored by everyone on the left. Yet we’re going to continue to give Paul a national forum, and equal stature with our ultimate candidate.

The GOP message to the independent/undecided electorate in the country ( which is what’s left when you subtract out the ABO’s..anyone but Obama.. and the hard core Dem/lib base) MUST be about the economy, and correcting the multitude of mistakes commited by Obama.  On national security issues, our message should be united, and consistent:  Obama has made the world a far more dangerous place. Instead, Paul will force the other GOP candidates to make national security a key issue, in effect the GOP will have to debate our role in Afghanistan in advance of the election.  This only resounds to Obama’s benefit.

A long time ago, Bill Buckley finally had it with the Birchers, and led the effort to drive them out of the mainstream GOP.  It may be time to consider a similar fate for Ron Paul.

Unrelated note: As I am writing this, I’m listening to Bachmann’s interview with David Gregory on MTP. It was the expected hatchet job, to be sure, but he cleaned her clock. She came across poorly..vague, somewhat stammering..weak answers. Surely she had to expect questions along these lines.  Bad, bad performance, moreso coming about 12 hours after her big win.  Not quite ready for prime time..

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Toby Calvert-Lee

    Would have liked Paul to win. Not because I like Paul, because I don’t, however, if he had run, it would have been the final nail in Ames’ coffin. This would have given Rick Perry even more momentum and he really would have come out as the Conservative candidate taking Bachmann’s place. Then we could have seen Perry go after Romney without being distracted by Bachmann.

    • SoFiMil

      And T-Paw might still be a POTUS candidate as the straw poll would be seem as inconsequential.

  • acat

    He’s already said he’s not seeking re-election to the House.

    After his eventual withdrawal from the POTUS race, which the second place Ames finish encourages, the only time he’ll spend in D.C. is visiting Rand.

    I do agree, though, that the father is making the son’s life difficult.

    Mew

    • SoFiMil

      Pawlenty bowed out gracefully. For all I don’t like about Romney, Mitt did the same in 2008 and whole-heartedly backed the nominee – unlike Uncle Ron.

      I had hoped a moderator would ask Ron Paul, “If you don’t get the nomination, will you back the Republican nominee?” I’m 95% certain he’ll either say “Not necessarily” or not answer the question.

      • Xasteius

        Basically put him in charge of whatever agency / department you want dissolve and let him hack away. Let’s start with the Department of Education.

        • acat

          After all, he has successfully voted against bills containing his own earmarks…

          Mew

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Make RonPaul the US Ambassador to Iceland. Or Outer Mongolia. Get him the h*ll out of the country, so far away he can’t do any damage.

    • rightwingmom52

      Raising money to eventually use for a Rand run for POTUS. Can he do that?

      • acat

        and any funds left in Luap Nor’s war chest could go to Rand… or any other candidate.

        There are strings and rules, of course, and I’m not a lawyer nor am I suicidal enough to play one here or on tv or otherwise, but .. yeah. It’s possible.

        Mew

        • Scope

          he took the millions left in his campaign coffers, and started his organization Campaign for Liberty. According to the main website quite awhile ago, they are in every state, with several chapters and spin off groups. As we know, that is the breeding and recruiting ground for all those little bots that run around and annoy everyone at every event. One of their agendas is to go to every college they can, to recruit the mushy headed college students to support Paul. One statistic I read somewhere is that the overwhelming majority of Paul supporters are under 25, and that’s obvious when you see the videos of his events on TV.

          Because Paul will be out of Washington permanently at the end of this term, the organization will not fold. They will surely turn their support for Rand. I was leary of Rand for the Senate because of all the campaigning he did for Ron in the 08 election. Many say he is very different from his dad, but I’m not convinced of that. He is on the stump for his dad in the current election also. I must wonder how he feels about it being OK for Iran to have nukes. I also wonder if he would also agree that Heroine and Prostitution should be legalized. I think he gave himself away somewhat when on TV, he said that he thought business owners should be allowed to not serve who they don’t want to. Rand is on TV often enough, and I’m sure someone will ask him those questions.

          In short, daddy Paul’s money isn’t as important to Rand as his passing the organization on will be.

          • kinghenry

            endorsing Rand, if Palin in particular had not endorsed Rand he wouldn’t have won. It wasn’t worth it for the main point of thumbing their nose against McConnell.

            Those questions and more need to be asked of Rand, and should’ve been long ago. I think that is definitely where he’s going the question is if the Cult like mentaliity of Paultards carry’s over and last long enough for Rand. He will run as an Isolationist if he runs for POTUS and like his father lie about basic American history and GOP political history(Tate) as being ‘true conservative” foreign policy.

            Its a new age in politics because of the internet and email.

          • kinghenry

            The only difference is it values Anarcho-Capitalism as messiah instead of Big Government. They are of like minds on America and her Foreign Policy and standing in the world, to the far far left repeating any and all lies.

            Longterm, Campaign for “Liberty” can do similar things that Moveon.org

          • youngconstitutionalist

            I just came out of supporting Ron Paul recently because I realized how nuts his views are. I’m a constitutional conservative with libertarian leanings on some issues. I also tend to believe we are way too involved in foreign conflicts, but I’m not an isolationist (I would have said to have intervened in WWII before Pearl, for instance). Ron Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian, and I think he might be an anarchist (he sure does hang out with a lot of them and has their enthusiastic support).

            As far as Rand goes, he causes a lot of controversy in the Ron Paul movement. Most of the conservatives like me loved him from the start. However, the doctrinaire types were always skeptical. He constantly does things that anger them. He came out and supported Gitmo, and that made them angry early on. He also talks about strong national defense and that sort of thing, which gets on their nerves even though they can tolerate it.

            The thing that makes me believe he is a conservative rather than doctrinaire libertarian is that he left the Paul house before Ron Paul got heavily involved with the anarchist types due to dissatisfaction with Reagan. One thing about him, though, is that he is his father’s son, so he will occasionally be swayed by a bogus argument from his dad.

          • kinghenry

            and the Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy. Its true in the early 80′s they claim Lew and Ron were sane(r) than what they’ve evolved into, however I don’t expect Rand to ever become a real Conservative. His influences are too far in outfield and he will be pressured heavily starting next yr after his fathers career is over to takeover the Paul cult mantle.

            Ron Paul was pretty insane by 1988 however, by evidence of his positions on the LP ticket.

          • gracie

            favorites so I appreciate you insight into Rand. From the beginning he has been outspoken but so calm and mature it was not off putting. I have often said that he has been the Senator I thought Rubio was going to be. (OK, until just lately.)

            Now I look forward to every piece of commentary that comes out of his mouth but I ask myself, is he for real? Can we to trust him not to turn out like Dad?

            The only stand he has taken that I disagree with is not giving Israel aide. I think they have suffered so much under o, being called terrorists after all! that Israel should be the exception.

            I am for a strong national defense but no more nation building or getting into every little fight. I think every R candidate is going to have a tough row to hoe on foreign defense. What stand is Perry going to take for instance that will be both strong and yet not keep us involved for years to come.?

            I so dread seeing Rand out campaigning for his dad. I think “it” will rub off on him or at least people will think it is. As for you, welcome to the land of sanity! Now I wish you could go and pull one of my young relatives back from the brink!

  • devereaux

    The one sure fire way to lose in 2012 is if the Republican nominee says, “If elected I’m going to bomb Iran”. Because the same crowd that told the American people that Iraq was months away from from getting a nuke are drumming this up.

    The American people are sick of these wars. They’re worried about their jobs and what kind of future their children are going to have.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/09/cheney-lied.html

    • acat

      and am a Jacksonian at heart, I do not see how letting the regime in Iran, who seem bent on bringing about Ragnarok* do so, is in our national interest.

      In short, there is plenty of room between the Ron Paul position, so clearly elucidated at the Ames debate, and the “bomb ‘em back to the stone age” straw man you’ve constructed.

      Or .. did I miss where any candidate said “I’m going to bomb Iran” ?

      Mew

      • acat

        forgot the *

        * Ragnarok – or whatever their religious equivalent may be.

      • devereaux

        Talking to them. In 2001 the moderates in Iran sent word through back channels they’d like to normalize relations with the United States but hardliners in the Bush administration shot it down.

        http://tinyurl.com/4xyn2mp

        http://tinyurl.com/4yaodk5

        • acat

          And the moderates have no power in Iran, so talking is about all they can do.

          Whether salving their impotence is worth the appearance of dealing with the cult of the 12th (or was it 11th?) imam who actually run Iran is a choice .. and one I feel we got right.

          Talk doesn’t always cost nothing, this was one such case.

          Mew

          • devereaux

            Khatami is a moderate and he was President for 8 years.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami

            Had the backing of some of the most powerful ruling Mullahs.

            Bush adm dropped the ball

            http://tinyurl.com/yt2e8y

            Iran has a very young population that is boiling under the surface. We should be talking . Play a soccer game with them.

          • Tbone

            Take a self addressed hat box with you.

          • mikeymike143

            talk with them. i hear those so called ”moderates” are very big on freedom of religion. LOL

          • devereaux

            Sure does think he

          • acat

            is a waste of time.

            His politics matter less than his power, that is, his ability to bring about change, which was nil then and less so now.

            You do not understand how Iran works. I am thankful that Bush does.

            Mew

          • Tbone

            works seeing as how he talks out of it.

          • devereaux

            Yours is overwhelming.

          • Tbone

            My dog thinks I’m a genius because I can open a door so I can understand why you feel that way.

  • mikeymike143

    Ron Paul probably shouldn

  • mikeymike143

    that is why he only got 5% of the vote in the 2008 republican presidential primary.

    ron paul ran for president in 1988. he won ZERO states out of 50.

    ron paul ran in the republican presidential primary in 2008. he won ZERO states out of 50.

    ron paul is running in the republican primary for president in 2012. he will win ZERO states out of 50.

    that will mean every single state in the union will have rejected this wacko three times.

    • kinghenry

      About half of Paul’s supporters would vote for Obama over any Republican, other than Paul of course. This shows his base are not conservatives, they are insane anti-war Zealots using Paul as utopian cult-leader.

      • kinghenry

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_caucus_bachmann_romney_and_paul_on_top

        Just 49% of Paul

        • Jim

          “Just 49% of Paul

          • kinghenry

            either those that would directly vote Obama, or those that would Indirectly vote Obama by either not-voting for the GOP nominee or voting 3rd party loser candidate.

            This is who Ron Paul is, intellectually from his ideological hero and Anarchist:

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html

            Ronald Reagan, Warmonger

            —

            This is who he is, and his closest associates(Lew Rockwell). They hated Reagan’s guts and wanted him impeached, allied like today with the Extreme Left, telling every Left wing lie out there like Paul does today. Keep in mind Paul left Reagan’s GOP in the 80′s for the LP and ran for POTUS on CIA and Bush family Drug dealing conspiracy theories.

            They wouldn’t vote for Reagan, they will not vote for any “R” that doesn’t have the last name of cult leader Paul.

      • Jim

        So…to take what you say for granted (which I don’t)…a bunch of “insane anti-war zealots” types say they will vote for someone who is pro-life, wants to slash the size of government, abolish the income tax, and is ideologically committed to the free market. And this is bad how?

        Could it be…possibly…that a growing number of Americans, including many in the conservative base, does not like much of our bipartisan foreign policy these days? Rasmussen had another poll recently…

        Rasmussen Reports War on Terror Update – Aug 12, 2011

        “Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters agree that

        • kinghenry

          his base of support are not Conservatives, in fact their founder total rejects classical liberalism for “Anarchism”, Murray Rothbard(who hated Ronald Reagan and wanted him tried for War Crimes and impeached). One only has to spend a few hours at Lew Rockwell’s website to see how insane and not at all Conservative Ron Paul is.

          Half of his voters would vote for the farthest Left-wing candidate in US History, Barack Obama over any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul. They, like Paul, are anti-War, Anti-American Zealots….which is who the Paultards at LewRockwell.com and their intellectual hero always have been.

          http://www.redcounty.com/content/lover-constitution-how-well-do-you-know-ron-pauls-muse

          • devereaux

            Ron Paul is hardly an anarchist. He’s against open borders and believes in nation states.

          • Scope

            He is now for wide open borders. Paul is an anarchist from way back.

          • devereaux

            No he’s not. Just in the last debate he said would should stop defending borders six thousand miles from home and defend our own.

          • kinghenry

            and in his latest leftist inspired book, “Liberty Defined” he endorses open borders. NRO wrote an article about it.

            Murray Rothbard is his idol, Paul and Lew Rockwell are Rothbardian birchers following an Anarchist philosophy, see their website. The “Anti-State” thing says it all, Paul is just placing a political face on it.

          • devereaux

            Do you have a problem with name calling??

            http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

          • JSobieski

            Anarcho-capitalists want private police force and private courts. We are literally talking about no government. Not no social security . . . no government federal or state or local/

            Nobody on the US political scene that is ever shown on TV is an anarcho-capitalist or anything close.

            Ron Paul is nut, but words do have meanings. He is not an anarcho-capitalist.

          • kinghenry

            notice how I said he’s putting a political face on it, Murray Rothbard is an Anarchist and what Lew Rockwell and Paul evangelize for is Anarcho-Capitalism and “Anti-State”. Seriously, read up Lew Rockwell’s website…he and Paul are tied together as one and the same. Paul, for political expediency will get somewhat political depending on his audience.

            For example, what he writes about in his books vs. his political positions in his pointless campaigns trying to lure conservatives in to evangelize his religion, are often not the same: see Immigration for first example, there are many others.

            There are videos on Youtube, telling Anarchist groups his true goal is to get past the US Constitution(which is “Statist” in their view) to his utopian “Voluntereerism” ideas. If you search Mises.org you will find Anarchist blogging with links to these videos on this very subject.

            Paul uses the “Constitution” and select conservative issues like Immigration as a rhetorical device to lure people in. Its actually probably the smartest thing he does, dispcable as it is.

            Beleive me, Paul, Rockwell and company hate the actual US Constitution as they think it is “Statist”, as Rockwell has wrote about many times.

          • Jim

            …showing Ron Paul making these radical, wild endorsements of full-blown, pedal-to-the-metal anarcho-capitalism?

            You’ll get no argument from me that Murray Rothbard was an anarchist, which he openly admitted and wrote extensively about. But Rothbard was an economist first and foremost, and it was/is his ideas and writings on economics that are cited and referenced by Ron Paul.

            This is just blatant guilt by association.

          • devereaux

            He won’t provide any. Reagan’s favorite economist Hans Sennholz is considered an anarcho-capitalist.

            http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07176/796921-122.stm

            Also Reagan’s favorite magazine “The Freeman” is an anarcho-capitalist publication.

            http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-lasting-legacy-of-the-reagan-revolution/

          • JSobieski

            The term is misused far more often than it is used correctly.

            Paul is a nut, but he talks about courts far more than anarcho-capitalist would.

          • devereaux

            You know I vividly rember people calling Reagan a nut, crazy, a kook etc etc. in the 60s and 70s. He would speak over and over about how the FED is destroying the dollar. The gold standard and making the dollar as good as gold again. The 10th amendment and centralized governmentetc etc.

            Ron Paul is hardly a nut. He represents the way conservatives used to think in the 40s, 50s and 60s. When Republicans were the antiwar party. Eisenhower in 1952 promiising if elected to end the Korean war. In 1960 JFK all but calling Nixon a wimp for being soft on communism and allowing the Russians to achieve an advantage in missles. The missle gap. Nonsense of course. Nixon won in 68 promising to end the war in Vietnam. Once elected Reagan’s foreign policy was traditional conservatism. Under pressure by the HAWKS he put troops in Lebanon. When 241 Marines died Reagan had enough sense to get out and he stayed out of the Middle East. In 1986-87 the HAWKS were demanding he invade Nicaragua. He refused. In today’s Republican Party Reagan would be considered an isolationist.

            Ronald Reagan Isolationist

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwnOxU-a1M&feature=player_embedded

            Right now I’m leaning towards voting for Romney over Perry. Everything I’ve been reading is that Perry has surrounded himself with Bush foreign policy people. Not a good sign.

          • kinghenry

            for his Foreign Policy and his Economic Record, Paul called him a traitor and left his GOP in the 1980′s.

            This is Ron Paul’s intellectual Idol on Reagan, calling for his impeachment.
            Reagan bombed and tried to kill Gaddafi in Lybia, Reagan invaded and “nation built” in Central America, Reagan armed not the Taliban as Paul will lie about but the pro-American Northern Alliance and defacto faught the Soviets through them in Afghanistan and Ronald Reagan Spent big money on the Military building it up very large to take down the Soviets with…..all things RuPaul despises.

            Quit lying for an insane Anarcho-Capitalist and actually read Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.

          • devereaux

            He doesn’t hate Reagan. Said Reagan was a failure at reducing the size of government and Reagan agreed. Called it the biggest failure of his Presidency. But after he got shot in the spring of 1981 Reagan lost a step and never recoverd. It is a shame he didn’t get the nomination in 1976.

          • kinghenry

            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/

            You will never, ever, ever ever ever, hear Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell praise Reagan’s Foreign Policy, Paul may lie and try to use Reagan’s brand and re-invent it but he Hates Ronald Reagan and considers him an Evil Warmonger.

            Just see his intellectual idol he is following to this day, Murray Rothbard on the subject.

            Bombing Lybia to protect American Interest, Increasing the size of the Military, Star Wars, “Nation building” in Central America, Arming the Northern Alliance against the Soviets, Trade Embargos in America’s National Security Interest, etc. etc….will bring nothing but Hate and cries of “Warmonger” and “Imperialist” from Paul and his ilk at LewRockwell.com

          • devereaux

            is about as far left as an outfit as you’ll find out there. They are extreme left.

          • kinghenry

            This is who Ron Paul is, intellectually from his ideological hero and Anarchist:

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html

            Ronald Reagan, Warmonger

          • devereaux

            Paul’s favorite economist was Hans Sennholz

            http://tinyurl.com/3e9y23d

          • aesthete

            Grenada = the Caribbean =/= central America.

          • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

            Linkman,

            Do you have links for these foreign policy people Perry’s “surrounding himself” with?

            Got names? I can look them up myself.

        • Tbone

          of anyone who was 75 years old about anything? I know several 75 year old guys. They are all out of touch at best, senile at worst.

          You want to put a guy in the White House that you probably wouldn’t want to loan your car to.

          • Jim

            …is something “Paultards” get accused of regularly around here.

            Wasn’t Ronald Reagan a little long in the tooth when was elected (and re-elected) president?

          • Tbone

            and tell us.

          • aesthete

            Are you really that stupid, TBone? Are we really digging “don’t trust anyone over 35″ out of the 60s to defeat Ron Paul, of all people?

          • Tbone

            So, how old was Reagan when he ran in 1980?

            _____

            And that would make him how old in November 1984?

            _____

          • aesthete

            So I guess that, when he turned 75 during his second term, you just thought he was a dumb fart who couldn’t find his car keys. I hope you don’t wonder why no one cares what you have to say on this board.

          • Tbone

            And, you guess wrong as usual. You have a very unfortunate habit of trying to project your inferior intellect onto others when you respond to their posts. Understandably, it is obvious to all but you.

            Now, how old will Ron Paul be in November 2012?

            ____.

            You see, the older one gets the more rapidly deterioration occurs.

            The difference with Reagan is that he had a well established stable of competent advisers even before he ran in 1980.

            Who do you think Paul could get to serve with him?

          • aesthete

            You also said nothing about a stable of trusted advisors, etc — just a smartass remark about how apparently being 75 renders you incapable of thought. I understand that comprehending what other people write and responding to it articulately is beyond you, but at least try to understand what the paragraphs that you type actually say. You made a stupid unqualified statement, and you got called on it. Be a man, and admit it.

          • Tbone

            While Ronald Reagan was a great man, he was not at 75 the man he was at 65 or 55. To argue so would be foolish.

            We have way to many old, senile fools in Washington. That’s not to say we don’t have plenty of young ones as well, but no, I would not vote for a 75 year old if there was an acceptable alternative.

          • aesthete

            nt

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    and he and Michele Bachman continued to languish as also-rans. But since Bachmann showed him up, one Minnesota Twin had to go.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    FWIW. You can make of that what you wish.

  • devereaux

    Sure does think he’s a moderate

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/294703.stm

    http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9172&size=A