« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul, Seriously?!

No, But It Makes People Read The Blog Post

When recently asked if he (Rep. Paul) might mount an independent candidacy, he said: “I’m not thinking about it because, look, I’m not doing badly right now. … So we concentrate only on one thing: Keep moving up in the polls, and see how things come out in a month or two.”

(HT: George Will)

There is a growing fear of Ron Paul as he advances in pre-Caucus polls before the first GOP Primary event in Iowa. Such “Paulanoia” may not be entirely unjustified. He deliberately stokes a fringe of deracinated individuals of dubious civic virtue and questionable allegiance to the GOP. He’s endorsed that cracker-jack Cornell University Professor of Architecture, Cynthia McKinney. (At least it wasn’t his fellow Klingon, oops I mean Texan, Sheila Jackson-Lee). Oh, and he’d like to appease Iran, audit the Fed, and probably keel-haul every member of the dreaded CFR. And the GOP Establishment just can’t have such lapses of proper decorum.

It began to reach fever-pitch last week, when Ron Paul began leading a series of polls taken of GOP voters in Iowa. This caused many members of the GOP establishment to ponder the unthinkable. What if Ron Paul wins a Primary? Would this prove the Mayans perspicacious with regards to Anno Domine 2012?

No. It probably wouldn’t. According to Margaret Carlson, it could mark the moment that the Iowa Caucus came to be regarded with the contempt that it deserves. Iowa did figure prominently in the 1976 Democratic Primary. Jimmy Carter launched himself into national prominence by springing an upset. But Carlson then goes on to lay out logical reasons why the Iowa Caucus is primarily a Geek-Circus that will not meaningfully inform us how a GOP candidate would fare before a broader American electorate.

But let’s not kid ourselves. There’s nothing representative about Iowa. Whites make up 91.3 percent of the state’s 3 million citizens, compared with 64 percent of the country at large. Hispanics are 5 percent of Iowans, blacks 2.9 percent. Demographics aren’t the only anomaly. Unemployment in Iowa is less than 6 percent, the seventh-lowest rate in the nation. A record 115,000 Republicans turned out to vote in the 2008 caucuses — that’s right, less than 4 percent of Iowans makes a record. And since 1976, Iowans have picked the Republican nominee only three times.

So a Ron Paul victory in Iowa will not fundamentally reform the GOP. It will just make Republicans in the other 49 states call up Canada and offer them Iowa in return for some Alberta tar sands and a conditional draft pick. To George Will, the bigger danger emerges if Ron Paul goes 3rd Party.

Will describes what could happen if this took place.

it is plausible to conclude that a Paul candidacy would have these consequences:
• It would enable Mr. Obama to carry two states he lost in 2008: Missouri (10 electoral votes), which he lost by 0.13 points, and Arizona (11), which he lost by 8.52 points to native son John McCain.
• It would enable Mr. Obama to again win four states he captured in 2008 and that the Republican nominee probably must win in 2012: Florida (29), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13).
• It would secure Mr. Obama’s hold on the following states he won in 2008 but that Republicans hope to take back next year: New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and New Hampshire (4).

This may be idle speculation. The people who will turn up on a cold and rainy morning to vote out the status-quo and audit the Fed already have a movement. George Soros and The Tides Foundation bought them #OWS to play with and thereby secured their allegiance to the Democratic Party section of the national bland-wagon to Gomorrah.

Could Ron Paul really turn out a disaffected rump on the right as Will opines above? All six of the Ron Paul supports here at Redstate (who probably have at least 5 user names apiece) would gladly join such a coalition. However, my suspicion is that they will be too busy voting for Obama in 2012 as they intended to all along.

On the so-called Alternate-Right, some see Ron Paul as the least of three evils. The topsider crowd at National Romney Online will grandly ignore his existence except as a target of ridicule. Jay Nordlinger offers a prime example below.

It cracks me up when Ron Paul says, “I, as president, will not do that.” And I, as gold medalist in the decathlon next year, will donate half my Wheaties contract to the Salvation Army.

On balance, I think the Topsider Crowd gets this one right. Will simply must relax and breathe slowly into the brown paper bag. Ron Paul *could* go run as a Libertarian. He *might* even secure their nomination. He has to survive the Bill Self and Gary Johnson cavalry charge. Then he can fly the flag of somewhat respectable anarchy into his retirement from public life. I hope he finds relaxation and respite from having to pander to crowds of the great unwashed demanding that we audit the Fed.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Paul_Zummo

    Anyone who would follow Ron Paul to a third party was never voting Republican in the first place. Could he really peel off enough votes in close swing states? It’s possible, but unlikely.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      It goes along the lines of “You WILL agree with me and support Phil McCracken. Or I’ll take my ball, go home, and vote for such and such a Real Conservative in a 3rd Party.”

    • rwheatly

      First off, I hope Ron Paul does NOT run third party — it will basically destroy the Republican Party.

      However, I don’t agree with the statement that Ron Paul followers who’d vote for him if he did run thrid party would never vote Republican anyway. This opinion does not reflect why, I believe, most people support Ron Paul.

      I’ve read RedState for over a year, and enjoy the commentary and opinion. But I am amazed at the response to Ron Paul. I understand that his foreign policy is “out there” in some respects, but other that — he’s closer to what most people actually believe — smaller, less intrusive government.

      Ron Paul is the only credible candidate that actually wants to cut (really cut) the size/scope of the federal government. Does anyone actually belive that Newt would do this? Romney? No, they’d only try to redirect the power of the federal government into what they think is a better use. The problem is not how the power of govt is used — the problem is that the govt has taken power that it does not deserve. Ron Paul is the only candidate who articulates this position.

      Faced with this decision, if there was a three-way race between Obama, Ron Paul and Newt/Romney, it wouldn’t surprise me if many Republicans who are actually paying attention to the arithematic certainty that our budget’s will cause this country to fail, would cast a vote for Ron Paul — foreign policy flaws or not… The ironic thing is that Ron Paul would also pick up Democratic votes for other reasons (pot legalization, anti-war) that would pull from Obama’s 2008 voters…

      Regardless, it would be an interesting position. I’m trying to imagine what the Perot/Bush/Clinton election would have been like if the internet and social media had been around and available… Things might have turned out differently?

      • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

        Overlooking Ron Paul’s rabid, unhinged anti-Americanism, support for Trutherism, support for socialists in the past, and general egomaniacal mental illness in order to stare at his claim to support cutting government back – yeah, starting with disarming us and leaving us begging for mercy from a dangerous world – is madness.

        Newt Gingrich actually produced balanced budgets and forced welfare reform down Bubba’s fat throat (note: I’m not a Newt supporter); what has Paul done? He apparently loads up the pork for his district and then votes against the budgets in order to bring home the bacon while maintaining the pretense he’s against all this spending. McCain didn’t take earmarks, but he’s the big-spending RINO compared to the pure Ron Paul?

        Supporting Ron Paul is announcing you’re ignorant and stupid and crazy, one condition of which is curable, another treatable, but the third being terminal.

        • rwheatly

          I’ll leave your flames aside…

          The point I was making was to the earlier post that claimed anyone who’d consider voting for Paul as a 3rd part candidate wasn’t ever going to vote Republican anyway. I’m not sure if you’re trying to refute my response to this point or not…

          I’m only speaking from my own personal experience. I thought Ron Paul was a nut 4 yrs ago when he ran. (And I, too, reluctantly voted for McCain.) Through a round-about way I started learning more about the banking systems failures (after financial crash and TARP), and this lead me to some of Ron Paul’s writings on monetary policy and the Austrian School of Econ.

          It’s from his writings and some long-form interviews with him that I’ve come to understand his positions on some thorny issues. And in many policy areas, I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nut! However, he is a TERRIBLE candidate for the 30-sec sound bite response to “gotcha” questions posed by the press looking to make headlines. Because of this, I don’t think he’ll win the nomination — most people won’t take the time to learn what he believes around individual liberty, and therefore will follow the media’s “he’s a nut” narrative. I’m actually shocked he’s doing as well as he is in Iowa.

          One last thing that bugs me. As a conservative, I’ve always been annoyed how so many on the left revert to name-calling to shut down any serious discussion. Calling some a “racist” is the most common way of ending a discussion (or diverting it) around racial preferences. I see this happening in the Republican party with regards to Ron Paul. There’s no discussion of what he’s actually saying — whether his economic policy, foreign policy, etc. Instead, conservatives (many on this site) revert to name calling. It’s very discouraging to those who are taking the time to understand the issues. Let’s disagree — but disagree on policy specifics, not b/c someone can’t defend their position.

          • Dave_A

            That the American public does not live a lifestyle compatible with an Austrian-school run economy.

            Nor dc they want to.

            You can’t have ‘hard money’ and an economy that runs on the ready availability of consumer and business credit… They are absolutely incompatible.

            It would bankrupt 99% of ‘Main Street’ long before it had any impact on the government’s ability to borrow-and-spend…

            In fact, ESSENTIALLY NONE of the Developed World has a population that lives an Austrian-friendly economic lifestyle….

            And if the people, by their free-market economic choice, reject it, then who is Ron Paul & his movement to force them to accept it by govt policy?

      • turningtables

        I’m sure there are a lot of people like me who are tired of having DC insiders pick their candidates for them. They may just be frustrated enough to hand the moderate rats of the GOP one of the crap sandwiches they have been feeding us for far too long.

        My presidential voting record:

        2008: McCain
        2004: Bush
        2000: Bush
        1996: Dole
        1992: Bush

        Every time, I’ve seen the republic weakened. I’ve seen squishy DC insiders enact “progressive” crap.

        I believe we are to the point where if we don’t fix things financially (at a breakneck pace) the republic is doomed. I don’t trust Romney, Gingrich, or Perry to do that. I don’t think the GOP’s long-term reputation will be enhanced if we send another squish to preside over our eventual demise.

        I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything. I was (and remain) a fan of Mitch Daniels’ “truce”. When you find yourselves beating eachother up about which candidate will squash gay marriage first, which one will make abortions illegal, which ones can kill the most arabs, realize in 4 years, you’ll probably be out of work… and these issues will still be unsolved.

        “FIX THE D@MN ECONOMY” should be the only campaign issue. Reducing the size of government should be the plan.

        Ban me if you want. Make all the Ronulan comments you want.

        This time around, I’ve come close to deciding to go ahead and drink the Ron Paul Kool-aid.

        After all, I have to do something to wash away the taste of these crap sandwiches the GOP DC establishment has been handing me for decades.

        • retired_sfguy

          I’ve feel exactly the same way. Unlike many of the “chicken hawks” that like to promote our current foreign policy, I have fought and served.

          Dick Morris has just said any Military person that supports Ron Paul is unpatriotic…..

          George Will says by supporting Ron Paul I’m handing Obama the election……

          Charles Krauthammer says Ron Paul cannot win, but gives a shout out to Jon Huntsman

          Bill O’Rielly says Ron Paul is not qualified to be President due to his views on Foreign Policy……

          I could go on and on, Sean, Rush, Levin, etc etc etc

          Does anyone see a common thread???
          Not a single one of them have served a d@mn day in the military nor spent a significant time living overseas with the very people they pro port to know so much about.

          None of them live with the killing of other human beings. None live with the sorrow of handing the flag to the grieving widow and her 3 small children who know you as uncle mike.

          None of them have had to deal with starving civilians that don’t care not one wit if we were blue jeans and worship Jesus. They just want their lives to be better, and our Government gives our real enemies all the propaganda they need by our involvement in the affairs of other nations.

          Hey but they all get paid a handsome salary to sit in cushy chairs and have people fawn over their every word about what it means to be American.

          I don’t like Obama anymore than next guy. But I dislike all this crap that passes for intellectual political commentary. Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he is principled, consistent, and has the balls to vote the way of the constitution. These smears and name calling of Dr Paul make it clear what I’ve felt for many years now. there is no difference in the D or R. They all want to tell us and the rest of the world how we should live.

          All these national defense/foreign policy experts should shut their d@mn mouths or pick up a gun and live with personal results of their own policies.

          Is there a doubt in anyone’s mind that the US Military is the most capable and destructive force ever assemble in human history? If there is you haven’t been paying attention. We need to put things in perspective.

          I’ll support Ron Paul even if he goes third party. If that gets Obama elected again, we get what we deserve.

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

            for longevity.

            Let me be the first to bye and you won’t be missed.

          • jakeofalltrades

            wouldn’t wanna be ya

          • Bill S

            That would be what YOU are doing here. So, by virtue of the fact that you’re a chickenhawking Ron Paul freak…you’re gone.

          • Dave_A

            Posted from eastern Afghanistan….

  • znjs

    As you point out Iowa isn’t a good indication of what most of the country is looking for. While Iowa doesn’t actually give much of a boost to a candidate anymore they do kill them. It be good for the GOP to drop Iowa being the first state to get to vote. If a RP victory would do that I can’t say I’d be terribly upset at him winning, especially since, as you point out, that wouldn’t mean he has any chance at the real nomination.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      nt.

      • satchman3

        nt-0

        • znjs

          nt

        • papabear

          nt

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …Paul would have to petition his way onto the state-ballots, right?

  • satchman3

    I hope he doesn’t. I’m one of the five redstate persona non grata who like Ron Paul and give him money. I will vote republican in the general but I like parts of RP’s message and dislike other parts. I support him because he brings fiscal issues to the table.

    I will be very disappointed if he runs 3rd party but I don’t think he will. I think he realizes that he can more influential as an also-ran in the republican primary than as a 3rd party candidate in the general.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      He could do even more if he selected the two or three most Libertarian GOP gubinatorial candidates and supported them tot he hilt. Governors have a lot of power in their states and the GOP has put several Libertarian-Leaning Govs in cahrge out West.

    • znjs

      And he’s already questioned whether he has the stamina to go through a full presidential campaign. I think there’s little to no chance he runs as a 3rd party candidate. He’ll probably endorse Johnson.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/286383/paul-files-paperwork-arizona-primary-brian-bolduc

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      [so, it is hoped, the longer he has any tether to the GOP, the less likely he will take his marbles elsewhere after he loses]

  • mikeymike143

    he is NOT a conservattive. his supporters are either students that lack real life common sense, anti semites, or the anti war left. and those are all solid democrat voting blocks.

    and pundits like george will and karl rove are ”ivy league, establishment republicans” who have no idea what is going on in the real world. i say a ron paul third party run absolutaly dooms obama!!!. and i will give tangible proof. just go to a ron paul fan page or ron paul website and read about 30 or 40 of the posts the paulbots make and decide for yourself. just about every post sounds like something george mcgovern or dennis kucinich would say.

    • znjs

      Romney performs 18 percentage points worse among conservatives when Paul is included as a third party candidate, and Gingrich sinks 13 points among the key Republican group. Obama?s support among liberals drops 11 points with Paul in a three-way race against Romney, with Paul winning more than a quarter of liberal voters.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-paul-as-third-party-candidate-could-doom-gop-in-2012/2011/12/13/gIQAvviF6O_blog.html?wprss=behind-the-numbers

    • renl57

      “read about 30 or 40 of the posts the paulbots make and decide for yourself. just about every post sounds like something george mcgovern or dennis kucinich would say.”

      That’s because those particular paulbots ARE leftists. They’re attracted to Ron Paul’s isolationism only.

      But after they get through cheering his isolationism, they’ll turn right around and vote for Obama anyway–because on domestic issues they want leftism, not libertarianism.

      In fact, in states that allow crossover voting in primaries, Ron Paul is liable to pick up a lot of left-wing votes. Why should a leftist waste his vote in a Dem caucus or primary when the nominee (Obama) is already known? He can make a difference in the GOP primary by voting for Ron Paul and helping to split the GOP.

      That’s what many of them will do.

  • jaykali

    Looking at a couple recent polls in detail its funny to me that he’s getting like 50% democrat + independent votes and 20-ish% republican. Doens’t fare well for him cashing in these polls to votes.

    Proves to me again that half his base are Obama voters. I don’t see any way he wins Iowa, I think he has the phoniest polls (remember that he’s won like every straw poll in history btw) of any candidate.

    Personally I think the non-Romney vote is going to get so spread out that he will end up winning Iowa. I understand a lot of candidates are campaigning very hard but Bachmann, Perry & Santorum appeal to the same crowd so they’ll split votes. Gingrich doesn’t have the ground game and is getting hurt by negative ads.

    Paul like I said has in his base a lot of people who won’t vote. So I could see him getting 2nd or 3rd but the winner might not have more than like 20% and Romney has shown that he can hold on to around 20% consistently in some states.

    • mikeymike143

      he is not a conservative and his followers are anti war leftist dirtbags. i just hope he runs as a third party candidate because a paul third party candidacy dooms obama. and you can go to any of the ron paul websites and see why. there is WAY more bush bashing than obama bashing and the posts that bash obama are attacking him for being too pro military and too pro war. LOL.

      • hobarticus

        to see the level of bile directed at libertarians on this site lately. As one, I had always envisioned myself as part of the conservative coalition, even if my priorities on certain things are different. But wow, the anger. And it seems to go a lot deeper than Ron Paul’s personal baggage and conspiratorial flights of fancy.

        Any libertarian who would ever vote for a Democrat does not understand what libertarian means.

        We are your most stalwart allies on issues of fiscal restraint and the size and scope of government.

        Express your disagreement, by all means, but just remember we’re actually on the same team.

        • Aaron Gardner

          Paul is a nut who has used the libertarians as useful idiots.

          • acat

            to hear you, in particular, enunciate this.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            But at least I can trust most of you to not be racist cranks that want to appease a bunch of terrorist who conspire to kill me, my wife, and my two children.

          • acat

            but, like you, I trust we can agree on most issues, especially that D.C. is broken and needs to be traded in, not tinkered with.

            Mew

          • acat

            is exactly as you describe, an anti-semitic bigot who does embolden and encourage those who would harm both our families.

            Mew

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

            .

        • renl57

          I haven’t seen any bile directed at Gary Johnson. Or at the Libertarian Party.

          Just at Ron Paul.

          He’s not a credit to libertarians.
          His views border on the unpatriotic.

          Ron Paul has the same idea as the far left: If they disagree with a particular war, they are comfortable seeing us lose that war. (I remember how libertarians were quite satisfied to see Saigon fall in 1975.)

          I had real problems with President Clinton’s bombing of Serbia and President Obama’s military intervention in Libya. But once those Presidents made the decision to use force, I wanted us to be successful.

          Unlike Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, I maintain that the U.S. never deserves to lose.

          • hobarticus

            Although it should be said the current tea party strategy of mounting primary challenges to defeat reps who don’t pass muster on fiscal issues is a fairly recent development. Only a decade ago, your options were probably vote RINO or vote 3rd party. The tea party has been such a great development in that way, and really brought me back to the Republican party fold. I just hope we can keep the momentum going.

          • acat

            At various points in that history, you’ll find that the Dems were actually quite good on fiscal issues – look at JFK’s tax plans – or defense (JFK and the Cuban missile crisis) or social issues….

            The Reagan Democrats, the Contract With America folks, and the Tea Parties all spring from a basic failure in American politics – the subjugation of the Dems by the extreme left.

            Mew

          • hobarticus

            and certainly wasn’t trying to imply that all R’s were RINOs until recently, just that our options for combatting those who are, are much improved. I remember the “spirit of ’94″ well, although I’ll have to take your word for it on JFK (I’ll have to ask my Dad, even if it means dodging flying objects after complimenting a Kennedy :) .

          • acat

            Gamecock – your services are needed.

            Mew

        • jakeofalltrades

          If libertarianism weren’t infected with a naive hippie notion that non-interventionism is a suitable defense strategy.

          (It’s not – you have to prevent enemies from consolidating against you or else end up fighting alone against the entire world, like Britain in 1941).

          • acat

            Not all libertarians are opposed to a strong-horse foreign policy.

            I’m more of a Jacksonian-libertarian, I want to see strong borders and few troops stationed abroad, but .. I recognize that the projection of force – displaying the mailed fist openly – has it’s place.

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            Is that the most effective forces we can project, are the ones that need to be pre-positioned close to the places they will be used…

            If we’re going to reduce troop numbers anywhere, it should be stateside, not overseas….

          • jaykali

            Since TP-ism (new word?) believes very strongly in fiscal discipline, smaller govt and strong emphasis on the constitution. It’s too bad that the media and democrats are spending all of their energy trying to make the TP into a ‘right wing militia group’ filled with racist crazies that can’t govern.

        • jaykali

          Young people like bold ideas and he certainly has that. I mean the young in general aren’t the type to cling to ‘same old same old’. I do think that eventually we will have a libertarian candidate rise to prominence one day when they figure out how to have a foreign policy thats palatable to a mainstream audience.

    • origami

      How can Ron Paul supporters also be Obama supporters?! That accusation makes no sense. Obama is a big government liberal. Ron Paul wants to cut every program and half the departments. There are absolutely no two ideas Obama and Paul agree on so why would a voter go Obama.

      I think Pauls voters are idiots angry at the Republican party who don’t understand foreign policy or economics. But secret Obama supporters?! That sounds to much like the kind of conspiracy theories Paul secretly believes in.

      • turningtables

        Origami wrote: “I think Pauls voters are idiots angry at the Republican party who don?t understand foreign policy or economics.”

        Idiots… nice analysis.

        I don’t necessarily agree with Ron Paul on Foreign Policy. However, I’ve seen enough crap from DC insider GOP squishes to know they don’t have what it takes to fix the economy. They’ll tinker with progressive “lite” to see what they can new bureaucracy they can implement to repair the damage of the last “fix”.

        We should be shooting for a gutting of government.

        Angry, you bet I am. My kids future is too important.
        Idiot… nope.
        Crazy? I was for awhile… but I consider myself cured.

        • ghostship

          The USA is broke. The USA is suffering under massive debt and out of control spending by Washington.

          Sure Ron Paul is downright kooky with some of his foriegn policy idea’s but many people aren’t worried about what’s happening overseas as much as they’re worried about how bad things are here at home. People are more worried about domestic policies than foreign ones.

          Besides the US is going to have to accept a smaller role in the world until we get our financial house in order. If we want to be a big player on the world stage then we need a big bankroll and right now our nation is flat broke. I don’t like what that means for the future but that’s the reality.

          Now if we could just get some decent candidates instead of these sad excuses for a Republican candidate then Ron Paul would be a non-issue back in the single digits.

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

            There is no way Paul could ever hope to even get a domestic agenda addressed, let alone implemented.

            And, when he stands in front of a national audience you better believe people are going to care. The guy is a flat out anti-Semitic bigot, a total hypocrite and a complete failure as a congress critter.

            His followers are deluded fools.

      • R. Clayton Strang

        between Ron Paul’s and Obama’s supporters, I think. While the difference in economic policy is like night and day, their base voters find common ground on social issues. Obama is a pro-abortion guy, while Ron Paul claims to be, but then says that abortion is just fine as long as states allow it. Obama has supported, at tleast in policy, gay marriage while Ron Paul claims to suppport family values, unless a state thinks that family values shouldn’t be supported. Many of Obama’s supporters think that drugs ought to be legalized, while Ron Paul openly makes that same arguement. Obama and Paul both see America as a sprawling, abusive Empire, and so do most of their supporters.

        It seems as though they have more in common that one might think. The only differences between them are their reasons for the views listed above and economic policy.

        • rwheatly

          I actually took the time to listen to what Ron Paul was saying, and read some of his writings… Let’s take your points of comparison in order:

          1) I totally agree that Ron Paul and Obama are night & day different on economic issues — I doubt anyone disagrees with this point.

          2) Obama is pro-abortion / Paul is pro-life (I think that’s what you meant). But understand that Paul thinks the whole issue of abortion is none of the Federal govt’s business — it’s simply not in the constitution. Painting him as anything except Pro-life is not honest.

          3) Similarly on gay marriage, Obama has publically stated he’s against it, but doesn’t follow through with this (ie didn’t defend DOMA). Paul, again, thinks marriage is none of the Fed Govt’s business. There’s nothing in the Constitution about it. Yes, a constitutional amendment would change that, but Paul’s position is that he doesn’t want the Fed Govt involved. (I assume this means a change to the tax code for deductions — not sure here…) Same on the “family values” quipp.

          4) The drug policy is interesting. I agree that many pro-legalization types voted for Obama, but they’re almost entirely disgusted with his handling of the issue. Paul, again, thinks that the Fed Govt shouldn’t be involved in deciding what an individual does to their own body — ie you want to smoke dope, and you’re not hurting anyone, the Fed Govt shouldn’t be able to stop you. It’s not in the constitution. I suspect many of the pro-legalization folks would support Paul over Obama here.

          5) The last point — the view of America has a sprawling , abusive Empire is interesting, and I hadn’t thought of this point before. I agree to a point – the difference is in how they’d govern vs. what they said. Obama says all the anti-America things (ie blame America first), but then continues on with the same policies of the Bush administration; there’s little real difference (Afganistan, Iraq, Guantanimo, etc.) Paul, fundamentally thinks that America should disentagle ourselves from so many foreign wars where we have no interests. (And policing the world is not our responsibility…)

          Paul vs. Obama could not be more different! Paul is pro-individual liberty. Obama is pro-statist, elitest rulers to decide for you. Paul is about allowing individuals choice in their own lives (social security, types of money, drug legalization); Obama is King-of-the-Nanny-State where a the Fed agencies will decide what’s best for you.

          • Tbone

            float on opposite sides of the cesspool of stupidity. Enjoy your swim.

        • rwheatly

          Should have clarified Ron Paul’s position on drugs — he’s pro-drug-legalization from a constitutional point of view. But make no mistake, Ron Paul is Anti-Doing-Drugs! This point is lost on a lot people.

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            …is taking his anti-psychotic drugs prescribed to no avail :B.

          • rwheatly

            diminishes any point you’re trying to make. It’s no different than someone on the left screaming “racist” to diminish a discussion on racial preferences.

            Plus, the screed coming from the anti-Paul Republicans is probably contributing to the chance of a Ron Paul 3rd-party run. If you want to defeat Paul, defeat his ideas!

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            ….but his ideas have been refuted ad nauseum–his anti-Semitism, his love of socialists as long as they aren’t Republicans, his total hypocrisy when it comes to taking earmarks, his uselessness in Congress despite a lengthy tenure and on and on and on. The fact that his half-baked doobie-smoking supporters can’t concede the facts means the conversation has to focus on the fact that calling Ron Paul a moon cadet is an insult to moon-dwellers. Calling him nutty is an insult to squirrels. I don’t want Ron Paul making a third party run, but it doesn’t seem as if his supporters would be genuine Republicans the way they post here.

          • rwheatly

            diminishes any point you’re trying to make. It’s no different than someone on the left screaming “racist” to diminish a discussion on racial preferences.

            Plus, the screed coming from the anti-Paul Republicans is probably contributing to the chance of a Ron Paul 3rd-party run. If you want to defeat Paul, defeat his ideas!

          • Bill S

            In case you missed it, promoting Ron Paul here is a membership-limiting experience. We ban Paul boosters on sight. Take that into account in future postings…

    • Common_Cents

      the PotBots are Pauls core support. They are largely one issue voters, but as their brain rots, they become spineless passive free the world types. right on man!

      If Paul doesn’t get the nom, the PotBots will go back to firing one up and doing up/down twinkles.

  • expanding_man

    As I have said in the past, Paul will win Iowa if the youngsters come out to vote.

    a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll likely Republican caucus-goers.

    Texas Rep. Ron Paul has moved into first place ? the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. The data collected between Dec. 8 and 18 suggest that unlike the previous frontrunners, Paul?s support is more solid.

    Paul is the first choice of 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucus-goers among the 740 registered Republicans and 200 registered independents contacted by ISU. That?s up from 20.4 percent in an ISU/Gazette/KCRG poll in November. He?s followed closely by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose support increased from 4.8 percent to 25.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at 17.5 percent, up from 16.3.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry is the only other candidate to poll in double digits at 11.2 percent ? an increase from 7.9 percent a month earlier.

  • septembergurl

    between Paul and Romney, who have their best numbers yet. Also Gingrich continues falling, Perry and santorum rising.

    Romney = 25

    Paul – 20

    Gingrich – 17

    Perry – 10

    Santorum – 10

    Bachmann – 6

    Huntsmann – 4

    This suggests it may be Bachmann who comes in 6th and the contest for 3rd & 4th will be between Newt, Perry & Santorum..

    This could all change. Romney leads big among Republicans, while Paul (no surprise) leads among non-republicans. This suggests that Perry or Santorum might make it to second.

    My problem is I would prefer a Paul win in Iowa to a Mitt win, since that couple w/NH win would bring things to a close fairly quickly.

    ,

    • texashistorian

      “My problem is I would prefer a Paul win in Iowa to a Mitt win, since that couple w/NH win would bring things to a close fairly quickly.”

      That discounts SC and FL in the early states, and then Super Tuesday- remember that the GOP this season has decided that only after April1 can states go to the winner take all format. What taking IA and NH *would* give Romney is some valuable momentum, but it appears that in this cycle the race is going to be much longer whatever happens in the early states.

    • elayman

      He may hate subsidies but 4-5% is nothing to sneeze at for a candidate that was only in your state for two Iowa debates. Get those write-ins working ! Go Jon !

      • septembergurl

        His very strong pro-life views and his criticism of nation building in Afghanistan would have played well there. Still might, as you suggest.

  • hahaiwin

    The biggest thing holding back Ron Paul from going 3rd Party? His GOP Senator son from Kentucky. It needs to be made known his career will end if his father goes 3rd Party and hands Obama a 2nd term.

    It’s not fair, but such is politics,

    • izoneguy

      And keep the drool bib on Father Paul at all times.

      RAND: Dad, here is your rocking chair, now sit down and STFU.

      RON: Why when I was your age I was just as crazy as I am now….

    • ricks

      I live in Kentucky and Rand Paul is extremely popular. I think if I was wanting to get rid of a republican senator in Kentucky I would concentrate on the progressive one “McConnell” rather than the conservative one “Rand Paul”.

      • ghostship

        I’d take a Rand Paul over a McConell any day.

  • droc24
    Why do active duty service members contribute more to RP than any other candidate?

    If supporting RP makes one a pacifist and a liberal, and the military donates more to his campaign than to any other Republican, does that make servicemen pacifists and liberals?

    I would like a serious response and not the typical Ron Paul derangement syndrome comments.

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

      .

  • Common_Cents

    While everyone had their panties in a wad piling on Gingrich(who was taking down Romney BTW, opening field for conservatives) Ron Paul starting getting a boost.

    Better watch out what you wish for, you just might get it.

  • origami

    The caucuses test how much a candidate can energize his supporters to not just casually support them,, but to really join them. If the top tier of the Republican field hadn’t been absolutely terrible Paul would get his 10% of loonies and then fade into irrelevance. But without a strong candidate at the top we’re left with the only guy with supporters with any loyalty… who also happen to be insane.

    • Common_Cents

      And last time was a record turnout. 114k out of 3million population. So a number of people of a decent size city will determine the IA caucus. And look at all the attention this gets.

      Heck, even our primary process has turned into a reality TV circus. Hey IA, you’re fired!

      Where is the GOP leadership on this?

    • ghostship

      This is really the reason Paul is doing so well in Iowa. Just look at who the voters have to choose from. Romney, Gingrich, and Perry are supposed to be the top so called Conservative choices? Gah!

      Normally, I seriously doubt that Paul would ever be able to break out of single digits but with such a field of mediocre candidates and a base that increasingly tired of having to hold their noses and vote for GOP Democrat-lite candidates it’s no wonder that Paul might just win Iowa.

      Truthfully, if this is the best that the GOP can come up with then it should be no surprise that some in the Party would just throw up their hands in despair and vote for Paul.

      You need to give people a reason to vote for the Party. Just saying they won’t suck as much as Obama isn’t good enough. Even Ron Paul can meet that standard.

      The problem isn’t Paul. It’s the fact that the GOP lineup is so bad that is the problem.

      • http://www.redstateeclectic.com enrique

        When you give no one to get excited about you get this.

        In the GOP where the establishment and talking heads only care about controlling the purse strings and special favors we get exactly what we deserve as long as we keep voting for these lame excuses for candidates.

        Can anyone tell me if all I want is a government that is the same size or smaller in four years who would deliver?

        • wadewade

          First off, the Ron Paul name calling makes redstate sound like a bunch of liberal name callers. Geeze, I expect more from Conservatives.

          Second, it’s not as much that people support Ron Paul, as it is that the Republican Party can’t put up a contender that gives them any hope for this country. And, there’s this prevalent belief that there’s no difference between a dem and a repub anymore, can’t say that I disagree. Spend, spend, spend…. only question is which way.

          Quit name calling, and quit blaming others for the Republican Parties never ending inbreed problems. This is the party that gave us the limp noodle McCain. This is the party that gave us Bush Jr, you know the guy that started stimulus checks (I’d actually have liked him if he hadn’t started that precedence). This is the party that wouldn’t let people see Dole for who he was, till it was too late. The same party that created Ross Perot, from it’s own closets. You start to see why people are willing to roll the dice on crazy uncle Paul.

          A lot of us are convinced the country is going to go down hard, 15 trillion? 1.6 trillion a year in new bonds? 100% debt to GDP? Euro controlled flight into terrain, and the early signs of trouble in China? Oh, and the laundry list of bubbles the economy has lived off of. And, there’s little chance to stop the spiraling death of our country. Look at the news, Congress with it’s two parties, or two gangs of idiots. People are sick of this.

          Cut government, cut spending (mathematically, you can’t fix this problem with tax increases). quit cutting pay roll taxes (or do away with the benefits), quit blaming “rich people”, and read the freaking constitution as it was written. And, while your at it, stay out of people’s lives. Oh and quit putting words in Ron Paul’s mouth, he’s pretty good at putting his own foot in his mouth, he doesn’t need any help. And, what difference does it make if Ron Paul is president, the repubs and dems will lock arms, and oppose everything he does anyway (which might be good for the country).

          Now, how about we concentrate on getting the commie and his friends out of the White House and Congress?

  • tomatin

    The fix is in folks. Romney is your candidate, but not mine.

  • endthefed214

    So the person who wrote this article does like the CFR and the PRIVATE FED? lol what a loon.

  • endthefed214

    Honestly this guy like the FED? LOL how can anyone like the FED and make fun of people who want to audit it or end it. LOL if we nationalized it and made congrees control the issuance of currency we WOULD BE FINE. if you neocons like the FED God help us cause we are screwed cause of them. Ever heard of glass stegel? if that was still in play we WOULD BE FINE. lol crazy

    • gekster

      No, really, you should.

      • endthefed214

        Ive never once smoked dope. Shows how smart you are. Do you have anything intelligent to say? or just wanna be rude? huh?

      • endthefed214

        anyone who does not agree with me is a druggie and I am so smart. I dont even have to present my point to what he talked abuut. Im gonna go ahead and assume. LOL ass outta you and you lol that what happens when you assume

        • gekster

          put down the bong before you post.
          Your ramblings might be a little more coherent if you do.
          Not much more, but at least a little.

        • septembergurl

          and frankly all of us here that you are impaired via drugs is actually the charitable construction on your rambling, illiterate posts.

          Your erratic punctuation and spelling mark you as a graduate of government schools. lol or LOL (you use both variants indiscriminately) is not, as you seem to think, a punctuation mark.

          “LOL ass outta you and you lol that what happens when you assume” is not a sentence or recognizable as English. What language is it? And what does it mean?

          You misspelled “Steagall” and “Congress”.

          You seem to think that FED is an acronym like CFR (judging by your parallel use), hence you use ALL CAPS. It is not. It is actually an abbreviation or a nickname, so most people (educated people) would write Fed, short for Federal Reserve.

          Your indiscriminate use of caps and risky (in your case) abandonment of apostrophes complete the sad picture of an uneducated ignoramus pretending to super secret “knowledge” via your membership in the Tin Hat Club and allegiance to Ron paul.

          You are not, in short, a good spokesman for your Cause.

          • gekster

            but my implying him being buzzed,
            as opposed to being stupid,
            was me trying to be nice.

            And if he is not buzzed, well then.

            But thanks for the articulated response. ;)

          • endthefed214

            and frankly all of us here that you are impaired via drugs is actually the charitable construction on your rambling, illiterate posts

            and thats better grammer?

            haha ok

          • gekster

            At least now it makes a little sense.

            So I have a question.
            How do you feel about RPs view that it is ok for Iran to have nukes.
            You know, that country who has said its goal is to destroy Isreal and the US.

            And once Iran gets the nukes, what should the position of the US be to a country that has stated over and over that it wants to destroy the ‘Great Satan” meaning the US.

          • endthefed214

            I beleive that we should let the world and independent countries take care of themselves. I do not worship Iseral. I stand with the people of Iseral. But not the goverment. They have 300 + nukes. They have special forces that can stop Iran, like we (Iseral and US) did with the computer. I have no allusions that Iran is dangerous. But WE put those bad actors in power. Iran use to be our allie. I know we have been trained to think everytime we walk outside a hijacked plane with muslims is gonna come crashing down but its just not true. Maybe futher sanctions would be the right move. I do not think we should go to war over the possiblety of a country getting nukes. If that were the case why didnt we stop north korea, pakistain? Ive been working all day spelling and grammer take a back seat. were online who cares.

          • endthefed214

            sorry im a stupid druggie

          • gekster

            How do you feel about RPs view that it is ok for Iran to have nukes.
            You know, that country who has said its goal is to destroy Isreal and the US.

            And once Iran gets the nukes, what should the position of the US be to a country that has stated over and over that it wants to destroy the ?Great Satan? meaning the US.

            And it doesn’t matter how we got to where we are today, we are here.
            Saying ifa woulda coulda doesn’t take away from the fact that Iran wants us desrtoyed.
            What does RP do when they get the nukes, and a clearly stated goal is the destruction of the US.

          • acat

            perhaps one of our “clients”, the term “ally” doesn’t really fit.

            Regardless, the people of Iran had themselves a very complete regime change, making the point moot. The current government are not our friends, nor do they seek to be.

            They are simply practicing the age-old deception of using the threat of an external enemy to enable much more internal control in the name of common-cause nationalism.

            Iran wouldn’t hesitate to hit Israel or the House of Saud – Persians don’t have a lot more love for Arabs than they do for Jews – and won’t think twice about hitting us either .. if we’re seen as weak.

            Either Ron Paul is a fool for failing to see what is going on, or Ron Paul is a liar, for he’s spreading dangerous falsehoods.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Point taken, but in reply to the late endthefed, how we got to where we are is for historians.

            How we handle what we are to today is another matter, one in which RP would take a ‘wait and see’ approach, which does not bode us well.

          • endthefed214

            If Iseral wants to stop them then they should. I dont think we should be in other countries affairs. as I said in the the first couple lines of my post.

          • Bill S

            At least they were literate.

            Vaya con dios.

          • gekster

            “And once Iran gets the nukes, what should the position of the US be to a country that has stated over and over that it wants to destroy the ?Great Satan? meaning the US”.

            Is your blind obedience to Paul such that you, like him will dismiss a clear and present danger.

            So how many American cities will have to be destroyed by Iran until Paul gets the message that these people don’t want us around.

          • septembergurl

            My post reads as follows:

            The assumption by gekster and frankly all of us here at Redstate that you are impaired via drugs is actually the charitable construction on your rambling, illiterate posts.

            That is a complete sentence, admittedly with some subordinate clauses. I can well understand that you have trouble following it.

            And yes, it is better grammar. Also better punctuation.

            I can diagram this sentence for you:

            assumption – subject

            is — verb

            construction – predicate

            See? Grammar. Try it sometime.

          • endthefed214

            did I offend you? Im just posting what I think. If my spelling and grammer is such a bother to you maybe you should start a campaign to clean up the interent. Laugh out loud (better)?

            “and frankly all of us here that you are impaired via drugs is actually the charitable construction on your rambling, illiterate posts”

            Thats not any better buddy.

          • septembergurl

            nt

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    if Romney chooses a pro-choice VP nominee.

    • endthefed214

      Paul just relased another pro life ad today!

    • acat

      Third party, check!
      Ron Paul, check!

      Flush needed!

      Mew

      • heraklios

        Perry, Bachmann, Santorum or even Huntsman could have energized conservatives while keeping the libertarians and Paulites in the fold. This would have given us a good chance at victory, yet…the Wall Street/Northeastern/Rockefeller/RINO Establishment pushes Willard Mittens on us with all its might. McConnell and Boehner proceed to do the equivilent of running the football back into our own endzone on the payroll tax bill. How messed up is the Republican Party right now?

        • acat

          The party is a mess, but it could be helped with a candidate who’s good on all three legs. Santorum? Just no, he couldn’t carry Pennsylvania at this point. Bachmann? Not after her anti-science weirdness. Romney? Ron Paul gets to look like Ross Perot against him… which says nothing good about Willard!

          What would get rid of Ron Paul and his ilk – those who would seek to fracture the broad conservative alliance for their own gain – would be some sign of respect from our candidates. Right now, the two guys who seem to have a clue on that front are Gingrich and Perry.

          I’m not counting either out until Iowans have their say… and if Iowa says Ron Paul, I’d count that as an indictment of the party (and a statement about the idiocy of our primary system)

          Mew

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      Our job is to make sure as best as we are able that doesn’t happen, not to vote for possible third party nutjobs.

  • Adjoran

    was Ed Clark’s whopping 1% in 1980. None has scored as high as 0.5% before or since, and the Party has never won a single Electoral Vote, congressional district, or even precinct AFAIK, including Paul’s own ballyhooed 1988 run.

    It takes a lot of money to run nationally. LP and the Greens are two of the few which does have ballot access in most states through an existing structure, but rarely make any noise in races where party matters.

    Paul’s followers do seem extraordinarily devoted to him, but that’s because so many of them are young and online. They don’t know about his hypocrisy on spending and earmarks. They don’t know about his connections with Stormfront and white supremacist sites. They don’t know his anti-gay rants in his newsletter. They don’t know he talks up gold because nearly all his money is in gold mining stocks, and when it goes up he makes money. They don’t know he was all for open borders until a decade or so ago when his constituents soured on illegal immigration. They don’t know he told Cato’s Ed Crane his biggest source of contributions as a congressman has been the mailing list from the Holocaust-denying newsletter The Spotlight.

    If you find a Paul supporter who isn’t high, inform him of these things.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      I haven’t had much luck among the (thankfully few) Paultards in my acquaintance. I commented on why Paul’s anti-Semitism was only one of the reasons not to support him and the whole thread of conversation, including a link to one of the Ron Paul threads, got taken down.

      • mikeymike143

        that has documented all the racist quotes in paul?s newsletters and shows that paul clearly knew about, and in fact profited from those quotes.

        there are many articles on this subject and some of them go back long before the current controversy. the ?Ron Paul Exposed? site is far and away the most informative site i have ever seen as far as information on paul?s racist newsletters. check it out for yourself.

        http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/

  • neodynium

    Ron Paul is finally getting a taste of what its like to be a frontrunner. Suddenly he got what he wished for. After months of hearing his complaining of how the media ignores him (like everyone else who isn’t a front runner), they’re finally paying attention to him..

    Well, the media’s alleging that Ron Paul wrote a series of racist articles in the 1990′s. He vehemently denies being tied to it, but apparently some people remember otherwise in 1996.

    As for the articles, no idea whether its true or false or to what degree as of now. The media has tried to screw over every single GOP frontrunner so far, but of their scandals, I believe that some (like Cain and some of Gingrich’s) seem legitimate, while others (like Perry’s dad having a rock with an offensive word on it) are just B.S.. My instinct is that Ron Paul definitely, if not having written it, at least knowingly published it. Nor do I believe the quotes are out of context, they seem hard to justify not being racist (and I would like to distinguish political correctness and baseless liberal racist smears with real racism).

    Nevertheless, no matter the truth to the allegations, Ron Paul needs to accept that he’s no different then any other front runner. Telling his supporters that he’s more intelligent and pure (whatever that means) than everyone else, doesn’t give him a free pass with the media. Also we should look to this to see how he handles it, because if, heaven forbid, he gets the nomination the liberals will definitely run this attack (though i’m not sure how preferable Paul would be even to Obama). I reserve my judgement on how he handles this, but I can say right now that walking out on a CNN interview when they brought it up isn’t helping anything.