Yeah, I know it’s only New Hampshire. We all knew Romney was going to take that state. But good grief, imagine if the choice was between these two?
Wow! What a nightmare.
But hey, at least we have Santorum way back there, and don’t forget about Perry!
Sigh…
Mitt Romney cruised to a solid victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, picking up steam from his first-place finish in the lead-off Iowa caucuses and firmly establishing himself as the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination.
“Tonight we made history,” Romney told cheering supporters before pivoting to a stinging denunciation of President Barack Obama. “The middle class has been crushed … our debt is too high and our opportunities too few,” he declared – ignoring the rivals who had been assailing him for weeks and making clear he intends to be viewed as the party’s nominee in waiting after only two contests.
His Republican rivals said otherwise, looking ahead to South Carolina on Jan. 21 as the place to stop the former Massachusetts governor. Already, several contenders and committees supporting them had put down heavy money to reserve time for television advertising there.
Even so, the order of finish – Ron Paul second, followed by Jon Huntsman, with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum trailing – scrambled the field and prolonged the increasingly desperate competition to emerge as the true conservative rival to Romney.
To cap off this “terrific” night we have the crazy uncle telling everyone to get the hell off of his property:
Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.
“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement.
And in the end, with this field of candidates, it sure looks like Romney will be nominated, and I couldn’t agree more with Rush, Sarah and Donna Brazile on this….he will have a tough time against Obama:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkbLm8A2f_c[/youtube]
It’s 2008 all over again and we may very well be looking at four more years of the worst President this country has ever seen.
See author page
It will be historic if Romney doesn’t get the nomination at this point. No candidate ever lost the nomination who won both Iowa and NH.
Patricia, there’s never been a primary like this. I believe the caveat to the nomination and IA/NH wins was at least 40% of the votes cast. Romney’s fallen short of late, last I looked.
If bodies don’t drop by the wayside soon, it may end up a brokered convention (altho I doubt it will come to that…), and the superdelegates will all put the crown on Romney.
Current polling, at least, shows Romney and Paul running the strongest against Obama. Of course you (and Rush Limbaugh and whoever) are welcome to second-guess that and assume that the inimitable Gingrich would somehow close the ten point gap he has while the smaller gap for Romney and/or Paul would only widen; but our best evidence so far is the campaigning we’ve just seen.
Being a deficit hawk, I’m starting to get a little excited about Ron Paul’s momentum. 1 trillion out of the budget year one? Balance budget in 3? Yes, please.
I’m not moving to Canada yet but I’m looking at real estate there. If Paul gets the nod I pray that he selects someone of this earth for VP.
What gets me is Ron Paul asking everyone else but Romney to drop out because the Conservative vote is split if they don’t.
So Congressman Paul is asking folks to put the good of the party in front of their personal interests.
I wonder, if he does not get the nomination, will he be equally as magnanimous when it comes to the general election and stay out of a third party run so that it doesn’t split the Conservative vote?
If I were a betting man, I know what I would wager on.
actually, no one has ever won both and won
this just shows even more how insignificant both Iowa and New Hampshire are
all the delegates are assigned proportionally, so none of these races mean diddly squat
there arent even enough delegates available in the races prior to march 1st to get anyone even close to the victory
just have to educate people in the later states not to follow the herd mentality
When it comes to the Convention, GOP should refuse to seat voting members of the NH delegation. Along with all other states that have an ‘open’ primary. This is the voting of democrats and liberals from MA and NH. Why should we let those who despise us set our policy?
The title, “… four more years of obama ahead” almost made me throw up
@Patricia:
Good point Mata. While it is true that that the Iowa and NH winner has never lost the nomination, it’s also true that the “winner’ won by so little.
If Huntsman can’t do top three in SC (and he won’t), he’s done. He blew his wad in NH and he won’t have any money.
Same for Santorum, I don’t think he has the money to stay if he doesn’t do well in SC.
Perry will have the money after SC no matter what, but I think he’ll drop if he doesn’t place at least 3rd.
Gingrich is staying until he can bounce, go broke, or destroy Romney. At this point, I don’t think he cares which.
I see people on this board and others talk about how they like Ron Paul’s fiscal policies but not his foreign policies; yet not one candidate, save Perry, has adopted anything even resembling Dr. Paul’s economic policies.
Like him or not, Ron Paul is about to have a major impact on the republican platform. He will be involved in the convention, which is why I don’t believe he wants a third party run. He wants time at the convention to shape the platform and that is exactly what he will get if he keeps doing well.
@Aqua: I don’t know what game Huntsman is playing. He’s not even trying to get on the ballot in some of the later states at this point. He didn’t get on the ballot in AZ and unlike say Illinois that one is really pretty trivial, there are 24 people on that ballot (but not him). When I saw that I assumed he would be giving up after NH, but no, it looks like he wants to get 3% of the vote in SC before dropping, or something.
@Brian: I think you can assume that independents who vote in the Republican primary don’t ‘despise’ Republicans. I realize there are a few Operation Chaos style voters out there who deliberately cross party lines to make trouble, but the vast majority of independents (and crossover Dems in states where they allow that) actually like the guy they’re voting for.
You could of course take this case to the various state parties and lobby to have them close the primaries. But think about it: what happens when one party has open primaries and lets independents vote, and the other has closed primaries and only lets their party members vote? The closed party ends up with candidates that are further from the center (less likely to win) and furthermore misses a chance to have independent voters identify with one of their candidates.
As for not seating the delegates, it’s a little late to change the rules at this point.
I have another take…if only wishful thinking.
Bain Capital…Romney’s Achilles heal. Newt and Romney take each other out in a Mexican Cock Fight. (The 27 min movie is being released tomorrow). Romney gets exposed for his weaknesses (his Swift Boat moment) and Gingrich takes one for the team (the establishment will take out Gingrich in retaliation). Ron Paul is just a crack pot and everyone really deep down knows it.
Perry (the true conservative with the record to back it up) rides in on his white horse and saves the day.
Now I love fairy tales but sometimes they come true.
I liked Perry until he started campaigning and making obvious boners. I liked Gingrich until his rant against Romney and closing companies (is Gingrich really a Republican?).
I was hesitant on Romney until he put down the protester regarding corporations (and he did not need a teleprompter). Romney does know how to run a company, and how long has it been since we had someone who knows how business works?
These guys forget that the enemy is the illegal POTUS in the WH. Lets go after him and not each other!
Now on to SC where I get to vote (and it’s an open primary too)! But SC is a solidly conservative state, so I think our vote will mean a lot.
Bruce I so agree with you no one is perfect but after watching all the debates I think Gingrich is a sore looser and did he really think that he would win!!!!!!!!!Anyone is better than the one that is in there now and if everyone is truly thinking that they would not be knocking their opponents…
@Bruce:
Perry had back surgery in late July and jumped into this race in August. Standing for 2 hours during the two early debates and perhaps pain medication did hurt Perry’s early performances. While no one gets a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression, it behooves Americans to choose the most qualified man for the job. Perry’s performances in the debates since he has recovered from his surgery have markedly improved. We are not hiring a debater-in-chief. I doubt seriously that Obama is all that the MSM has cracked him up to be. Ever seen any of his performances without his teleprompter? 57 states? Seeing dead veterans in the audience at Memorial Day events, Austrians speaking “Austrian”, repeating 3 times in one speech Navy Corpsman as Navy Corpse Men. I think gaffe for gaffe, Obama has plenty to point to.
Perry’s record compared to Obama’s is a no brainer winner! Texas created 1 million new jobs while Obama destroyed 2 million. Perry has 11 years of executive experience of the world’s 13th largest economy and created jobs and businesses are flocking to Texas. (Texas has gained 4 congressional districts during Perry’s term). Multi national corporations are moving more and more of their operations out of the US because of Obama’s EPA, SEC, NLRB and his corporate tax policies.
Perry has signed 6 balanced budgets in Texas and had to force the legislature to stay in session and gut millions of dollars from the budget and kept them from raising taxes. Much gnashing of teeth but Perry did not back down.
Make an informed decision and don’t let the left and the media into bullying you into a mediocre choice because you are afraid being called “dumb”. Stupid is as stupid does.
Rick Perry is the best qualified and most experienced man in this race. He is the right man at the right time to shrink this government and return us to the principles that were the original intent of our founding fathers that made this the greatest country in history
Mitt Romney is not a consistent conservative and Bain Capital will be his Achilles heal in the general election. You can defend creative destruction on principle all day but you will never be able to sell it to the general voter especially in this environment. Obama is licking his chops to get Romney as our nominee. That is what OWS is all about.
@Tercel:
From your post to God’s inbox. I can only pray that this is the case.
So, why are so many people so afraid of Paul? On the one hand, I’ve read (not in this article specifically) his critics belittling his supporters for thinking one man alone could implement enough of his platform to make a difference, and a paragraph later bemoan the fact that his platform will bring ruin and damnation on us all.
As I’ve said before, his foreign policy ramblings are off base, but no more so than some of his detractors. What is the real difference in his saying Iran can have nukes (then they get them), and another candidate saying Iran can’t have nukes (then they get them anyway)?
I’m not a military man, but if history has taught anything it’s that when the stakes are nuclear, the game has to be for keeps. To all those who think one of the other candidates will stop Iran from getting nukes, I submit that the only way to be certain of that is to either nuke them first or occupy them. Please feel free to let me know how else you can be 100% sure (and you’d damned sure better be 100% sure).
Pakistan started working on nukes when Nixon was in office, yet Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, and Clinton failed to keep them from testing them in ’98.
Sure, Paul’s rhetoric about foreign policy is BS, but no more so than what we’ve practiced (and failed at) for decades.
@Tercel:
Did he have back surgery right before he got straight C’s at A&M?
He didn’t get straight Cs at A&M; his report card was a mixed bag but it does look like his heart wasn’t in veterinary science. Of course it’s very interesting in its own right that I can easily find scans of his grades online, while Obama’s transcript from his years at Columbia is apparently in a vault at the NSA or something.
And now, Senator DeMint joins in (saying what I have been saying as well as Governor Palin):
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul-
I wish the Republican primaries could really be REPUBLICAN primaries.
The idea that dems and non-aligned registered voters can just come in and request a Republican ballot allows them to muck up our process.
People don’t like to admit that was how we ended up with McCain, but it was.
Now people don’t like to admit that is how we will end up with another candidate we didn’t choose ourselves, but that’s what is happening.
2/3rds of all of Huntsman’s votes came from voters who are content with the job Obama is doing!
Ron Paul would be a non-entity if he couldn’t get dem and non-aligned voters in the booth.
Romney, himself, would have scored lower totals were it not for these groups voting in the Rep. primaries.
If we don’t clean the nest, this is the way it will continue to go.
@JustAl, please don’t confuse an abundance of ridicule with “fear” when it comes to Ron Paul. I don’t fear Paul any more than I fear Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee or Dennis Kuchinich. There’s a reason they are considered fringe… because they are so out there that their voices are drowned out by the rest of Congress. Doesn’t mean that their presence in Congress is a detriment, but it’s laughable to consider any of these aforementioned as leaders of the free world.
Ron Paul been in Congress for decades, at least being consistent with his views. He couldn’t lead a thirsty donkey to a trough filled with water. This is demonstrated by his Congressional record, and the single enacted bill (granting a sale of a historic building in Texas) as his record. Other than that, it’s just his votes… no leadership. He could not inspire or effect his peers. He will be even less effective as a POTUS.
But what he can do without a willing Congress is gut the military to a degree that makes Obama *almost* look like a hawk by comparison. I say almost because Obama also wants to cut America’s military down to size, but more slowly than Ron Paul would do. Under either, the economic decline that would follow from either of their military policies is inevitable… just a different time frame for the damage to be complete.
If by some bizarre twist of fate, Ron Paul got the nomination, I would not fear him… I would fear that the nation is irretrievably lost. When I see a nation with opposing political parties that opt for choices between Ron Paul and Barack Obama, I know we are doomed, forever damaged by poor education and focused anti-American indoctrination.
Anyone who believes that our nation as a military superpower has had nothing to do with our economic success over the years is obviously deficient in American history. Anyone who is fool enough to disassociate negative economic effects with terror attacks does not deserve to be CiC.
Even were Ron Paul’s economic policies miraculously enacted – which would never happen with the Congressional body we have, or are likely to have – his military policy would still crash the nation’s economy. We would be ill equipped to adequately respond to any aggression here, or overseas, by the global Islamic jihad movements who use the US economy as one of their primary weapons.
@Bruce, are we going to spend 2012 defending corporate raiding as synonymous with healthy capitalism? If so, you might as well just tell Obama he can keep the keys to the WH now.
I’ve been reading up on Bain Capital for the time Romney was there. Haven’t finished yet, but looks like the record is mixed. They started out as private equity investment with good results for a 2-3 years, then turned to some practices that could be viewed as corporate raiding in the early 90s.
If Romney can’t pass Republican vetting now, he’ll never live thru a general with Obama. This will give him practice on effective defense, should he be the nominee.
However I’m not one to distort what I’d view as healthy capitalism with corporate raiding. And if that’s what we’ll be needing to do this election year, the game is over. Therefore I have to disagree with Rush and many others on this charge that Newt is not a “conservative”, or that all private transactions are good capitalism, just because they happen in the private sector.
James O’Keefe along with Spencer Meads went to the NH primary.
They asked for ballots in the names of dead people.
They got them.
Anybody could.
No ID required.
They don’t even ask for your address.
They give you the address and ask if that is it.
How easy is that?
Video:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/
@MataHarley:
So, since “enacting legislation” is what’s important to you, you must actually want to see the government grow almost daily. The problem is that waaay to much “legislation” has been enacted and we need to get boat loads of it repealed.
Obviously, when every other industrial nation is the world is a pile of smoking ruble as they were at the end of WWII it pays to be the a super power without a scratch on your industrial infrastructure, that’s a given.
But I heartily disagree with you that strutting around the globe as an unpaid “rent-a – cop”/ “meals -on-wheels” combo as the military has mostly been used for in recent decades has done anything but drain the treasury.
Are Paul’s foreign policy beliefs naive? Sure, to a point, but so to are the beliefs of the “nation-building” neo-cons. Again, if he can’t even implement these policies you don’t like, what’s the beef? Not enough government empowering pieces of legislation?
Until another candidate stands up and says we, at an absolute minimum, must get out of the UN, then any choice but Paul is simply slowing down instead of changing course.
Gotta run. See you guys Friday.
It takes “enacting legislation” to repeal laws, JustAl. It will take legislation to repeal Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare. It will take legislation to cut spending and reduce taxes. It will take legislation to roll back regulations, prohibiting them from being implemented. What’s your point?
No where did I suggest we strut around the globle as an unpaid rent-a-cop. Do not put words in my mouth. I support foreign bases. Not the same thing. They are to our advantage for easy mobilization and processing intel. Not even close to your narrowed misinterpretation.
I will agree that the other candidates are not up to snuff on fiscal reform. But I will also say again that Paul will not accomplish his idea of fiscal reform with this and any likely Congress. He has aptly proven he can’t lead a thirsty burro to a water filled trough for decades.
No, they are criminally insane and have no basis in reality.
Al, Iraq had a democracy before Saddam took over. So at least there I can see trying to rebuild after we tear it up.
It doesn’t matter if we gather intel if our country is owned by China. It is awesome you are so eager to give up on the ideas of fiscal reform that you admit are best.
Then we have Nan G telling people who believe in the constitution to get out of republican primaries… awesome.
floppingaces.net, everyone.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, playwithfire05. If any one doesn’t support Ron Paul, recognizing that our military is intrinsically linked to our fiscal health, we are now (according to you), “eager to give up on the ideas of fiscal reform”?
Awesome…. /sarc
It does when you readily admit the other candidates are not up to snuff on fiscal reform.
Sure, the military is linked to our economy. So is the $16T deficit we are running. I guess I just think the later has a more direct impact. It’s going to be hard to maintain a military when it is owned by a different country.
@Nan G:
Ron Paul got 47% of the 18-29 yo vote. Are you going to tell me that every single one of those people age 18-29 are dems? That is not only laughable, but comes off as smug though you may not have meant it to be.
And your take on what a Republican is, is insulting. I’ve been a registered Repub for 35 years and I support Ron Paul. So do members of my family who have been registered Republicans for longer than me.
What good are all those bases if we become Greece? They’ll go away anyway and we’ll still be Greece. Best to get rid of what we can and at least make an attempt to save our Republican than let the whole thing fall into the abyss.
Just like I don’t want the GOP telling me who I have to vote for, I don’t like being told what a Republican has to be. Or does being Repub now mean fall in line and help the other side destroy our Constistution by supporting the unPatriot Act, TSA and NDAA? I don’t agree with the new version of Republicanism that now includes eternal war and international welfarism; and you won’t convince me that ‘nation building’ isn’t intl welfare. Dang, at least the dems want to keep welfare in America.
What is really crazy is how starting WW3 by bombing Iran who will then be backed by China and who knows who else would join in to back Iran, is made out to be more important than actually dealing with the $16trillion debt which seems to be an incidental issue.
As for Paul’s record of ‘never having any of his bills passed’ all that shows me is how corrupt the rest of the Repubs are and how they, too, are walking the same road as the dems – the ‘Destroy Our Constitution Highway’. As if Newt’s voting record is so saintly. So happy that people here love the Dept of Ed, CRA, NAFTA, GATT and WTO.
It disgusts me that the Repubs started out as the ‘free the slaves’ party yet are now responsible for making us all slaves by stripping us of our 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights and for giving us the TSA and DHS. Our unalienable, God-given rights don’t matter as long as it’s the Republicans who deny them to us, right?
To me, those are the real issues that need to be addressed – our loss of liberty, the fact that we are broke and must find a way out, and removing legislation that infringes upon our unalienable rights and free market practices. To say that Paul will not be able to get rid of O’care or Frank/Dodd or any of the other horrible legislation means no other candidate will be able to do it, either. Do you really belive that a Repub Congress will stymie a Repub prez if that prez happens to be Paul?
If that is true, then the Repub party is dead anyway.
@just me 95:
Let’s look at the facts, just me 95.
NBC has some exit polling from New Hampshire.
Ron Paul ended up with a total of 23% of the vote.
So, if you are good at math, you realize that 16% of all the vote totals were INDEPENDENTS who voted for Ron Paul.
So, only 7% of his 23% were actual Republicans.
IF he had been limited to only Republicans votes he would have lost, behind both Gingrich and Santorum who each got 10% of Republican vote totals.
He would have also been behind Romney who got 14.5% indy votes but also 14% Republican votes.
Huntsman got 17% of the total, 11.5% of that indy. So he would have lost behind Ron Paul.
You rightly pointed out that Ron Paul ”won” the youth vote.
Ron Paul got 47% of those voting who were between 18-29.
Only 12% of those who came out to vote were in that age category, however.
So, indy or Republican, Ron Paul’s total vote from the youth accounted for only a bit under 6% of his 23% win.
This statement requires an assumption that I rubber stamp Dr. Paul’s fiscal suggestions in it’s entirety in contrast to the other candidates. I don’t. I’ve got plenty of complaints with his pipe dream suggestions… even were they able to come to pass… as well.
Nan G provided one link to NH exit poll data. Let me provide a more detailed version of the exit poll data
Paul’s by far largest group of supporters are ages 18 to 24 (46% to Romney’s 28%). His second largest group is 24-39 (35% to Romney’s 34%). As you get to those aged 39 and older, Paul’s numbers start going down. No, let me correct that description. They plummet. For every decade in aging, Ron Paul loses 10+ points.
In education, college grads go for Romney 42% to 19% for Paul.
I’ll be the first to admit that NH is not a political demographic of the nation. But there are a few consistent trends about Ron Paul supporters. They are generally young, and either haven’t finished a college education or don’t intend to pursue one. That doesn’t necessarily bother me.
But considering that the young.. most of whom I feel are seriously deficient in American history knowledge, go for Paul overwhelmingly, I really have to ask a couple of serious questions…
1: Do they support Paul because they like the idea they’d not likely ever be in the military, and believe there would never be any wars under a POTUS Paul? and
2: Do they support Paul because they love his legalize drugs libertarian stance.
I suggest that any of the minority in the older age group who present Ron Paul’s success as primarily his fiscal policies, while discounting the obvious appeal of no war, no service and legalized drugs, may be playing a scam game of reality. Because I don’t buy it. Traditionally, the young are generally for the more liberal welfare mentality, and the stats ask me to believe that the young have all of the sudden had a conservative epiphany.
It’s too bad that someone doesn’t do a more specific poll of questions revolving around just why Ron Paul captures their devotion. I suspect, were they honest, the answers would not be what most who claim it’s his fiscal policies want to hear.
Oh yes… all Paul supporter talking points of China owning the military or the nation, or that eliminating the military and foreign bases will prevent the US from “becoming Greece” are red herrings, and a total disconnect to fiscal realities.
Even if I believed the absurd suggestion that our debt to China results in a “foreclosure seizing of the nation”…. sigh… what is tanking the US is not our foreign bases, our military, or even our foreign aid. It’s called entitlements. Entitlements are not a Constitutional duty for the central government. Military and national security are.
Defense spending is one of the two single largest components of the federal budget, the second being entitlements.
Unlike the the major entitlement programs, defense has no built-in mechanisms to raise revenue to support itself.
Cute, Greg… alright, we’ll play your way.
Defense… 23-27% of the spending. 66%+ is SS/Medicare… aka entitlements. Now do you really want to look so foolish as to equate the Constitutionally mandated protection of the nation – at best a third of the spending – with the nonConstitutionally mandated 2/3rds spending on entitlements?
Gee… “defense spending is one of the two single largest components…” Duh. Figures and math matter, Greg. And it ain’t a 50-50 split there.
‘So, only 7% of his 23% were actual Republicans.
IF he had been limited to only Republicans votes he would have lost, behind both Gingrich and Santorum who each got 10% of Republican vote totals.’
Your analysis is faulty. It is true that only (roughly) 7% of Paul’s 23% were Republicans (indies are only 45%, not exactly half, which makes things slightly off). However, this is not equivalent to saying that he got 7% of the Republican vote. The denominator in the first case is ‘all votes’, the denominator in the latter case is ‘all Republican votes’. And according to exit polling he got 15% of the Republican vote (which actually fits your analysis, once we note that that equals about 7% of the entire vote). Ahead of Santorum with 13% and Gingrich with 12%, and still in second behind Romney (who, BTW, had 49% of the Republican vote).
oyeeevay, bbartlog. Go to my link above a have a gander.
The exit poll stats of the 2,760 responders were comprised of Dems (4%)/Reps(49%)/Indys(47%)…
Of that, what was Paul’s percentage splits of that total?
25% of the Dems
15% of the Reps
31% of the Indys
Dang… lots of libs, along with the young, love Ron Paul. Wonder why? /sarc
@MataHarley, #39:
As I said, the fiscal difference is that defense has no built-in mechanism to collect the revenue needed to pay it’s own way. If we’re talking in strictly budgetary terms, with an eye toward balancing the budget, the defense spending demand for general revenue funds is comparable to that of entitlement spending. At the very least. Defense spending is a powerful debt-generating force in the national economy.
If nothing else, Ron Paul is forcing thoughtful republicans to consider that reality.
‘1: Do they support Paul because they like the idea they’d not likely ever be in the military, and believe there would never be any wars under a POTUS Paul? and
2: Do they support Paul because they love his legalize drugs libertarian stance.’
From my exposure to other supporters, I don’t have that impression. As regards 1) of course we have a volunteer military, so… people don’t worry that they’d somehow have to serve if they didn’t want to. Though it’s true that supporters generally believe that ‘Paul = no war with Iran, [anyone else] = near certain war with Iran’.
As regards 2) I think about 5% of the supporters I’ve met are libertarians whose top priority is ending the drug war (quite possibly for personal reasons, but I can’t say for sure). Not negligible but not the main driver either.
@MataHarley: And yet that still puts him in second among the Republicans, contra Nan G, who was implying that if only Republicans had voted he would have been behind Santorum and Gingrich. I am not denying his massive indie support, just pointing out that eliminating them from the totals apparently wouldn’t have changed the rank ordering (for Paul).
What it also points out is who would do better in the general election.
As much as I can’t stand the MSNBC, by their own admission, it was the youth vote that propelled Obama to the 2008 win.
That same youth has now turned on Obama and looking at Ron Paul.
Indy’s and the youth are not graviting to Romney – the guy the GOP & a lot of Repubs are pushing to win the nomination.
If Romney doesn’t get that important voter block, Obama will.
What happened to ABO (Anyone But Obama)?/sarc
@Greg: Unlike entitlements, defense spending is precisely called for in the Constitution.
@bbartlog: This is just my two cents and my opinion, not a scientific statement but rather my own musing on Ron Paul’s popularity among the young.
My first vote for POTUS was cast for Ross Perot. I remember that he represented to me, a breath of fresh air and offered what seemed to be something other than business as usual in Washington DC.
I think that Ron Paul has that sort of appeal to many young folks, many of whom have probably not been interested in politics, or at very least haven’t voted before.
@anticsrocks:
“Ross for Boss” isn’t exactly as catchy as ‘Hope and Change” but the message of “Liberty” beats them all.
Greg, if the ponzi scheme system of the entitlements were a genuine mechanism instead of an illusion, neither of them would be in jeopardy. Good joke tho.
Conservative citizens didn’t need Ron Paul to know that the spending is out of control and overwhelms any possible revenue collection… even if the government took 100% of all our paychecks. Those that need to be reminded are in Congress… both parties. Yet after decades in Congress, Ron Paul couldn’t lead a one of them to anything.
bbartlog, have you got anything to back up @your opinions in #42, other than anecdotal experiences with your circle of Ron Paul friends?
Yes, he still came in 2nd, but there’s a hair’s breadth between the percentages, bbart. Among Republicans (using the “do you think of yourself as Dem/Rep/Indy” category):
49% Romney (homefield advantage)
15% Ron Paul
13% Santorum
12% Gingrich
10% Huntsman
And there is no “massive” Indy support for Ron Paul… unless, of course, you want to consider 31% “massive”. And if you do, then you will also have to cop to the “massive” support Romney had with 30% of the Indys. Huntsman came in with 22%.
That should also take care of just me’s statement that the Indy’s are not gravitating toward Romney. With a 1% difference in the Indy take between Romney and Paul in NH… the only source data we have in front of us… that is simply pie in the sky talking points.
@ anticsrocks & mata, if you look at the Constitution and the founders, they were against such a large standing army. Because of the history of war mongering and mischief that they had seen in (by crown heads) in Europe and through history. So the Constitution outlines the powers of President and Congress in making war, and in Commander and Chief, as well as the raising of Armies and providing for a Navy. Throughout our history up until WWII our military was demobilized following conflicts. Certainly careful consideration could determine the appropriate levels we should be at for modern times (including what makes sense financially), however the size we have now is not sustainable nor preferable given the burden it places on our economy. And I do appreciate the comparison to Greece in that as far as we are able to sustain this house of cars we are safe, but once it collapses we will have little to no protection.
I have raised the issue about the deficit and UNFUNDED wars (which ballooned the defense budget), as well as other themes long ago and was shouted down as having Bush Derangement Syndrome. Republicans in name only really should also apply to many who want the neocon version of Republicanism. The American Century? That did not even last 7 years into the century. Obama did not torpedo the ship of state, that was done by Republicans who looked the other way during the (misguided) wars without considering the financial implications, or downplaying them (Obama has other problems which came later). Eyes off the ball drove us into the ditch. A trillion here a trillon here, sooner or later it adds up to equaling the gross domestic product. At the time the so called good economy was used as the reason for not being concerned. Too bad it was totally fueled by funny money as our manufacturing sector was killed by lack of backbone to stand up to the Chinese and their trickery with their money valuation. This was of course a political decision to use their largess in buying our treasuries and funding our war.
@blast: Let’s see, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over ten years, compared to three years under Obama…
Obama wins, hands down for spending.
It is easy to see that what Obie has done to our economy in three years makes any damage done by what you perceive as misguided wars pale by comparison.
But you go ahead and blame it all on the military budget and the wars. You won’t be right, but it will make you feel better.
@anticsrocks, I did indicate there is more on Obama to talk about, but this thread is talking about the military budget and how it has added to the damage of the debt, if you apportioned the 15 trillion of national debt, what % do you think went to military spending? Give that some thought. My mentioning of the wars is the vicious cycle that launched us into massive trillion dollar a year debts sprung from Bush and how the economy melted down. My sense is if we did not jump off the deep end with those wars, and instead shepherded our resources properly (including national focus) the economic collapse, (and our need for Chinese money to cover debt and turning our head over trade with them). One thing is related to the other.
I doubt Obama would be President if the Republican Party had worked to keep the budget balanced, paying off the national debt and not getting into the unproductive wars.
@ antirocksocks, do you dispute that our founders did not intend to have massive standing military, regardless if mechanisms are mentioned in the Constitution.
@blast: Okay, sorry to be so snarky. It’s late and Ima tad cranky.
Too tired to debate anymore tonight, got to get my beauty sleep (lol, the elusive dream!).
@ MataHarley:
I’m not a lib and the last time I was called young was by a man in his 90’s. I’m not a complete fan of Dr. Paul’s military or foreign policy, but one thing I completely agree with is that Congress should declare war. Even if it is what Congress did with Iraq and Afghanistan. No one man should be allowed to declare war, a la Obama on Libya. What Obama did in Libya is no different than what Truman did in Korea.
My biggest gripe is getting a republican President and everything staying the same. Which is definitely what will happen with Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. I even think Huntsman’s fiscal policies are better than those three. Perry and Paul have the best outlook on fiscal issues. If the rest of republican’s want to call Paul’s fiscal policies “fringe,” then I think they should just admit to being in the same fiscal boat as the libs. It is absolutely no different than a lib saying communism hasn’t work because we haven’t tried it. If republicans want to say the EPA will work under my administration, how is that different? The TSA is a mess, but it will be better under my administration. Medicare doesn’t work, but I’ll fix it with an unfunded drug prescription plan. (wait, that one has been done).
We do not need a scalpel taken to the budget, nor a chainsaw, we need a wrecking ball.
I don’t disagree with that… and in fact have been outspoken on the folly of Libya as well. Nor have I ever said anything to the contrary, Aqua.
But I also don’t think that RP holds a monopoly on that view in the GOP line up.
In fact, if we want to talk about “consistency”, and devotion to Constitutional values, RP prefers to ignore that Congress did indeed pass both the Iraq and Afghanistan AUMFs, and still calls them unConstitutional and illegal wars. Ron Paul, of course, wants it to be a 1/3 pg formal declaration of war – ala WWII, and the last time it’s been done – to fit his approval guidelines… rather difficult when the enemy is not a state but a hodgepodge of stateless Islamic jihad movements, stashed around the world. Just who do you name? And if you did, what if they make up a new group/affiliate/associate? Is the “war” only against AQ, but not the affiliates and associates also waging a stateless war against the US and the west?
Given the nature of the enemy, and RP’s rigid definition of what constitutes Congressional approval of military actions, I can only assume the man has been eating too many sour grapes. The majority of Congress voted in favor of the AUMFs, and that is about as Constitutional as you can get.
Under our “republican” Congress:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/11/good-going-gop-house-thanks-for-increasing-the-debt-by-1-trillion-in-10-months/
But…maybe there is some hope. It seems the States are tired of congress’ crap and the fact that neither party understands the situation.
The National Debt Relief Amendment (NDRA)
An Article 5 Convention
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/with-congress-on-perpetual-spending-spree-movement-to-empower-state-lawmakers-gathers-steam/2/