« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ron Paul’s Base of Support: Not Republican

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  December 27th, 2011 at 09:59 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via Ben Domenech’s Transom comes perhaps the least surprising news of the month. That news is that almost exactly half of all Ron Paul supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire self-identity as non-Republican. Without the support of these Democrats and Independents, Paul pulls roughly the same trivial level of support he got in 2008. This has some important implications for the state of the race.

First, as Neil Stevens has been patiently noting here on the front page, this makes Paul’s level of support in Iowa potentially much softer than it appears. While these voters can at least theoretically register as Republicans the day before the caucuses and spend all day caucusing with other Republicans even though this is something they have never done before, that is a lot to expect effort-wise from all but the most dedicated chaos causers. New Hampshire and SC are marginally easier for party jumpers to game and these folks won’t have a Democrat Presidential primary to distract them. However, by taking the R primary ballot, they give up a chance to vote in any D contested races downticket. It is impossible to quantify how many, if any, would be Democrat Paul voters will be deterred by this.

Third, this is conclusive validation of what I have been saying since 2007 when I saw Paul’s hippie supporters en masse on the campaign trail. Although some of his support comes from the last vestiges of the Buchananites, the vast majority would otherwise identify as liberal Democrats (or be too high to self-identify) as anything. As more and more of Paul’s crazy and extremist past comes to light, it is clear that Dems have seen an opportunity to tar Republican primary voters by associating them with Paul’s odious views. So far, the media seems happy to oblige pushing this narrative.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikeymike143

    1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ?let?s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone? is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November?s elections were the ones who espoused ?american exceptionalism?, not the ones who espoused ?anti-american apologism?. Now I will admit Ron Paul?s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ?if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now?.

    2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ?polls showed he could win? and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let?s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ?moneybomb? when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

    3. There are plenty of people who are ?one issue voters? in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ?opposition to islam? is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ?I don?t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy?. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul?s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.

    4. Let?s look at Ron Paul?s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn?t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don?t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ?caused by the tea party candidate?. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn?t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ?religious right? will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That?s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ?left wing hippie? vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.

    5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ?a neocon?. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul?s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama?s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980?s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That?s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

    But rather than look at a 30 year old video let?s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ?dramatic failure?. OK, let?s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

    6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ?welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here?. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ?constitutional?. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ?F? grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.

    7. Paul?s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ?Porkulus Paul? has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let?s go back to last November?s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.

    ?We?ll do what we always do,? said Meckler. ?Our members will put immense pressure on every senator to vote against earmarks. This is a fundamental issue ? it?s both substantive and symbolic. Will they vote against the politics of the past or are they still stuck in it? This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP. Tea Partiers have long memories. Politicians have always taken advantage of the fact that voters have short memories, but we?ll know, we?ll remember, and in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they?ll know why.?

    Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.

    U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

    Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.

    SAY NO TO THE FAR LEFT TURN, STAY RIGHT. NO PAUL IN 2012

    http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/06/21/why-ron-paul-has-zero-chance-to-win-the-republican-presidential-primary/

    • jasonv

      to spite your face….

      Keep cutting Mikey, I think there’s some left…

      • mikeymike143

        In a lengthy telephone interview with the Spokane Conservative Examiner Monday evening, Eric Dondero, former staffer to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, said the GOP candidate is not telling the whole truth about his role in the newsletters that contain a number of controversial statements.

        According to Dondero, Ron Paul “absolutely read every single article” in the newsletters that bear his name.

        In fact, Dondero went so far as to say Paul was “obsessed with the newsletter.”

        “Of all the things he?s fibbing about,” Dondero said, “this is the worst.”

        “He’s completely telling falsehoods about the newsletters ? they were his babies,” Dondero said.

        http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/fmr-staffer-says-ron-paul-lying-about-role-controversial-newsletter

  • tngal

    to begin with? Sure he’s got a couple of things which may fall into the R category but that doesn’t make him an R. Given his extremist/isolationist views I don’t see how he could have gained this kind of support in any other presidential year.

    • renl57

      In 1992, Pat Buchanan got enough support to damage GHW Bush’s re-election campaign–and ultimately Bush lost.

      Buchanan’s views on foreign policy are similar to Paul’s. Buchanan wrote an entire book to “prove” that World War II was the fault of Britain and France. Later, he went on to claim that Hitler never intended to murder the Jews, only resettle them–but the war made that impossible so he had no choice but to euthanize them instead.

      Somehow, all of that didn’t stop a whole lot of Republicans for voting for Buchanan. (Buchanan, unlike Paul, didn’t have a lot of young lefty peaceniks supporting him.)

  • tailfins1959

    I really admire people that do the work and see a situation for themselves. Any idiot (almost) can regurgitate what they have read. I laugh at Paul as opposed to some of the anger seen here. Once you are exposed to Lyndon LaRouche’s supporters and read his narrative, it’s hard to be enraged at Ron Paul. I appreciate Ron Paul’s role as the court jester.

  • sunshinek67

    Seems to me that he has done nothing but serve as a distraction, sucking up precious air time that should have gone to the other candidates.

    • acat

      Who *profits* from the debates? Specifically, whose pockets do the advertisers’ dollars fall into?

      Not the party, they may end up with a percentage (assuming anyone over there has a head for business and brand licensing) but they don’t make much for the commercials.

      Certainly not – this cycle, at least – the candidates, who have to give up possible fundraising/retail politicking time to prep for and attend the dog shows.

      The network news divisions make and keep the money.

      They want Ron Paul on that platform because he produces great sound bites, and draws at least some percentage of the tin-foil-hat brigade to watch.

      This is, in a nutshell, what’s wrong with our system of “debates”.

      Mew

      • sunshinek67

        follow the root of every problem and it always leads to the money.

    • renl57

      …that Ron Paul’s desire to throw Israel under the bus–which used to be what white supremacists wanted–is now also what the left wants.

      So while Ron Paul is attracting support from Stormfront, he is also attracting support from the peacenik lefties for much the same reason.

      It’s rare to find a candidate who appeals to both neo-Nazis and Code Pink.

  • mikeymike143

    The American Free Press, which markets books like ?The Invention of the Jewish People? and ?March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,? is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul?s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will ?Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!?

    Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul?s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled ?Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?? has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. ?I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,? read one.

    http://lisagraas.com/blog/2011/12/27/dear-paul-supporters-i-am-israel/

  • jakeofalltrades

    Also – I noticed your sig changed. I think the old one was less racy, though not, perhaps, superficially so :) .

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      `

    • Leon H. Wolf

      isn’t really so much “racy” at all. And those who haven’t seen the movie aren’t in on the joke and so it all works out.

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    Conservatives need to be reminded of their roots: limited government, state rights, preservation of liberty for human persons, a strong military that puts US interests first.

    I have been in the conservative trenches for 26 years. I don’t need to be called names like “anti-war left-wing” activist because I support a liberty candidate. Do you want to know why I support Ron Paul? See above. Who else is a liberty candidate?

    Redstate has definitely achieved one thing today: I am motivated to re-double my effort in supporting Ron Paul. This site has convinced me. I’m heading to Iowa to lend a hand.

    • jakeofalltrades

      but I doubt you’ll remain here at Redstate.

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

      Hitler was the “liberty candidate” in post WWI Germany.

      And, I’m shocked it took the management of RS this long to get back to basics and disavowing Ron Paul. Hopefully, they’ll reinstate the policy banning fools and idiots like you on sight.

      • jakeofalltrades

        So the moderators will probably clean this one up any time now.

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

          In 08 it was shoot on sight.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            Same enforcement. We just don’t announce all the bannings. For instance, Mr. Basics has been a ghost since about 5 minutes after he posted that comment.

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

            a late Christmas present or an early New Years gift. Or, given that we’re talking Paultards, it could be a Festivus gift.

          • westcoastpatriette

            to have one of the moderators post a monthly diary listing all the posters who got blammed that month. They could be categorized such as :

            1. Paulbot

            2. Dissed RedState and/or moderators

            3. Blatant leftists who came here to spew their hatred toward us, etc.

            Then we would remember some of them that we didn’t realize had gotten the axe. It’s one of the things I love about RedState. Makes me feel loved when you guys protect us from the worst abusers.

          • Bill S

            has shot to the top of the charts in recent days. Category 2 has declined drastically over the last months to a year, as those who violate 2 usually fall into Category 3 also, and those who don’t generally just get ignored unless they get really, really out of hand.

    • edmundburkeconservative

      I know you think you are a little mr. smarty pants now don’t you there, boy?

      Well let me tell you something, mister. ADOLF HITLER was the exact same way after WWI and we know how that worked out.

      Its time for us to get behind Romney and send the Paultards packin back to Woodstock, once and forever!

      • acat

        Take it to the contacts page.

        Also, Godwin’s Law.

        Mew

        • tailfins1959

          I have doubts that what gets sent to the “contacts” page gets taken seriously.

          A modern example of Godwin’s Law was how quickly the pre-1965 silver quarters disappeared from circulation for those wondering what it is. Robert Sutton is a good alternative to Godwin’s Law. You are counting courtesy as a form of currency, correct?

          Godwin’s Law in terms of courtesy may be the downfall of our nation. The ultimate destination of Godwin’s Law in this manner is a Socialist society where ultra-selfish people take as much from their neighbor as possible and contribute as little as possible.

          Sutton asserts that a**holes attract more a**holes. That includes knowing when to reform temporary a**holes and when to expel incorrigible a**holes. Being uncivilized is a contagion that must be chased out like Polio.

          • acat

            Regarding moderation and the contacts page, my point was very simple – if edmundburkeconservative wanted me banned, he should ask the owners.

            Regarding Godwin’s Law, the common interpretation (where I learned it, anyway) is that after the first reference to Nazism, except in cases where WWII is the topic or directly parallels it, the thread is likely unrecoverable and should just be put out of its’ misery.

            Mew

    • Bill S

      .

  • edmundburkeconservative

    Now where, I say, where oh where in the constitution does it say you got a right to be anti-semite?

    It doesn’t, and although they aren’t Christians and have laws against conversion, they are chosen by God to have Israel and run the Fed.

    I am surprised that the ADL hasn’t had anything to say about the Jew-hating Ron Paul, its only us real conservatives at RedState who even care about the Chosen children of the LORD.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Thirty-one minutes of active posting, and you only got that long because my youngest was busy showing me everything that he ate yesterday. Free hint, kid: your kind can’t safely talk about the Jews without the hate showing, so don’t even try.

      Go somewhere else.

      • acat

        Good riddance.

        Mew

  • edmundburkeconservative

    get your paultarted self out of here!

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

    And a belated Happy Festivus.

  • haroldhervey

    Based on extensive review and comprehensive examination of the issues and candidates, I?m pleased to announce that the Conservative Party USA endorses Rick Santorum to be the GOP nominee for President.

    While many of the current GOP candidates are solid contenders and worthy of consideration, CP-USA recognizes that Mr. Santorum best articulates the constitutional, economic and fiscal policies that America needs today. Like CP-USA, Senator Santorum proudly affirms the concept of American Exceptionalism, supports traditional family values and understands that ?Buy American? is the key to reviving the U.S. economy.

    CP-USA understands that Mr. Santorum has an uphill struggle to cross the finish line ahead of Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. We believe that Ms. Bachman is a solid, proven conservative who is running a stalwart campaign. She performed well in the debates and stood toe-to-toe with the big boys. No fear, no excuses. Bachmann would be CP-USA?s first choice where it not for Santorum?s close alignment with our Platform.

    CP-USA also believes Bachman would also be a splendid addition to the next Administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services where she could use her considerable skills and experience to help dismantle ObamaCare.

    Governor Romney appears to have the clearest path to the GOP nomination at this stage because his solid business experience will play well in the general election. While most of the GOP establishment deems Romney as ?.more electable?., Romney?s brand of conservatism is a bit more ?ambiguous? than other candidates like Santorum and Bachmann. That precludes him from capturing CP-USA?s nod at this time.

    Each of them have the right values, temperament and skills needed to defeat Obama and be a good President. And removing Obama is Job #1 for conservatives in 2012. The debates also prove that Santorum can hold his own on any stage with Obama.

    Ron Paul is running strong as he does traditionally at this stage of the race; it?s his third and final try. While his national support is a mile wide, it?s only a yard deep. That renders his long-term staying power questionable at best. CP-USA supports some of Paul?s domestic monetary and fiscal policies like auditing the Federal Reserve and making serious budget cuts. But we reject his libertarian drug policy as unrealistic and his foreign policy on Iran as dangerous.

    Rick Perry flew out of the gate hot as a six-shooter with unbounded fanfare, handsome with lots of promise and good hair. But?then?he?started?talking. Yikes. Conservatives need someone who can walk, chew gum, talk and shoot critters?.in chorus.

    Jon Huntsman is a competent and accomplished diplomat but has never caught the imagination of most conservatives or Republicans primary voters.
    Of course that leaves Newt Gingrich. The imperious Mr. Gingrich is certainly a strong, articulate and well-informed candidate. However, his considerably flawed personal and political history would make HIM the focus in the general election rather than Obama?s economic failures and global anti-American apology tours.

    Newt?s desire to explore for precious metals on the moon may be a vain attempt at making all his political baggage weightless.

    In addition, CP-USA believes it takes more to win the general election than out-snarling Obama in debates.

    www.conservativepartyusa.com

    • Bill S

      1) You’ve threadjacked a diary that has nothing to do with your comment. Don’t do that again.
      2) This site is to support conservatism AND the Republican Party. Third party promotion is strictly forbidden, and that includes the so-called “Conservative Party”. Don’t do that again.

      Understood?

      • haroldhervey

        Hi Bill S:

        I’m responding to your threatening language out of courtesy for a fellow conservative, not because I’m in fear.

        I was not aware that RS has an official policy that only allows postings of support for Republicans. As a law and regulation abiding conservative, it would helpful if you could point me to where that policy is written. I will be happy to comply.

        I was under the impression that true conservative Republicans had enough confidence in their message and history to handle any third-party promos. It seems that thoughtful debate and examination of the issues would be right down your alley. You should not fear CP-USA. Liberals fear debate and other opinons that don’t match their world view. Perhaps we can engage instead.

        Thanks and I look forward to your response.

        • Bill S

          here: http://www.redstate.com/posting-rules

          It is linked from the Help page, which has a link at the top of each and every page on this site.

          We are not engaging on third-party discussions. Period. Promotion of third parties is explicitly forbidden (rule #6).

          And while comment spamming is not mentioned in the Posting Rules, it is off limits also.

          I don’t have to elicit fear. I enforce the rules. I’m not really concerned about what emotion it evokes.

          • haroldhervey

            Hi Again Bill:

            Since we endorsed and supported a Republican (Santorum) rather than promoted a third-party, I’m not in violation of Rule 6. My comments about Gingrich are just against him and do not promote any third party.

            But it would be great if you could explain why exactly there is such a rule in the first place. Is RS afraid of of competing ideas? Is the GOP that insecure that it can’t compete in the arena of ideas against a small organization like CP-USA? What is RS afraid of?

            Seems un-American. Dictators in Russia, China and Cuba run their political discourse the same way.

          • Bill S

            This is a site for promotion of those ideals. It’s not a debate society. If you want to debate, join a debate team.

            And it’s private property. We make the rules. If you don’t like them, don’t post. Any objections to site policy can be sent to the Contact link at the top. The policies are not up for discussion here.

            Now here’s the jist of it: if you post another item promoting the Conservative Party, you will be banned. Period. End of discussion.

  • uselogic

    you’ll find that it’s very common for Dems on many other websites to encourage fellow liberals to register as Republican for the primary and vote for RP. Dems see him as a trojan horse, a ploy to be exploited.