Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:
…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.
…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.
Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.
So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!
Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.
While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.
That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.
With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)[audio:https://www.floppingaces.net/Audio/gibsonpaul.mp3]
And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?
The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.
PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.
The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.
It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.
‘Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.’
Considering that you’ve said you wouldn’t vote for Romney if he’s nominated, it’s funny that you’d assume that ‘not supporting the nominee’ means that someone is going to go out and vote for Obama. In the highly likely event that Romney gets the nod, I doubt we’ll find you pulling the (D) lever. Anyway, the poll data answers the question of what the other 60% think they’ll be doing.
In the end, this comes back to your policy disagreements with Paul. Suppose there were some Republican candidate that you actually agreed with, and it turned out that there was a huge bloc of independent voters who would support him as the (R) nominee, but would otherwise vote (D) or stay home or what have you. That could just as easily be viewed in a positive light (see: ‘Reagan Democrats’) *if* the guy were otherwise acceptable. Pulling Democrats away from Obama isn’t by itself a bad thing; it’s the *way* that Paul does it that is a problem.
(edit): One other thing: even with Paul gone, you would need either Newt or Santorum (preferably Santorum) to drop in order to beat Romney. Mitt versus Newt versus Santorum still lets Mitt win it on caucus organization and endurance. Newt (or Santorum) would need to sweep the South against Romney in order to make up for all the western states and the northeast that Romney will presumably win.
Ron Paul IS NOT a Conservative. The majority of his serious supporters are a type of liberal. The way they compare America to it’s enemies sure makes me think they are not patriots either.
I have seen where many of his supporters have said they will not vote at all if he isn’t the candidate.
Anticsrocks I’d say Paul’s got balls. He’s shaking the estab. and loving it. Congressional approval at 14% Not even T.P. can find traction.Hope you’re feeling well.
Aqua One of the few who finds good in both R.P.’S I enjoy your political analysis.
The more Gingrich talks the lower he goes.
The crazy little goblin is not a conservative. He should not be allowed to call himself a Republican. Out with him.
Apparently, the term “RINO” is incorrect as, evidently, the true Republican is one who wants big, un-Consitituional government. Since everyone is so concerned with labels maybe we should start calling the rest of the field what they are: “CINOs” Constitutional In Name Only.
Words seem to be usurped at an alarming pace. The foreign policy promoted by the so called “Neo-Cons” looks for all the world like Woodrow Wilson, often regarded as the first “progressive” president, and an armed crusade to force democracy on the world. The “So-Cons” who love having a big intrusive government to monitor the personal and marital practices of others, but just don’t want to pay the taxes to cover it. The “Libertarian” party that conspicuously has an open borders plank. I guess I’m getting old and bigoted, but it looks to me like all of the labels represent different factions of “nuts”, and that’s without even going into the prime-facia nuttiness of the left.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. He’s also an anti-abortion obstetrician. Paul believes that abortionists are criminals, but that they should be regulated/punished by the states and not at the federal level.
So whether or not a liberal would vote for Ron Paul would depend which issue is most important to said liberal. If the two most important issues were military non-intervention and drug decriminalization, then said liberal might overlook Paul’s anti-abortion, anti-environmental legislation, anti-social safety net positions. Likewise, a conservative who’s most important position was small government would overlook Paul’s views on shrinking the military budget and footprint and relaxing drug laws. And so on.
But if you are a strong proponent of a big military budget and you feel that the USA should be the watchdog and cop of the world, then you’ll hate Paul. If you are an environmentalist and strong supporter of social welfare programs, you’ll hate Paul.
It’s stupid to make the point that Paul is in some way aligned with liberals. He’s nothing of the kind.
Paul is an honest man. What you see is exactly what you get. No nuance. No posturing. No spinning, No flip flopping.
If Paul were running in the Dem primary, against an open field, the Daily Kos would be running a blogpost entitled: Ron Paul… Liberal Killer.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I don’t care if he says some things that make sense when he says a bunch of other stuff that amounts to a dealbreaker. Any number of despicable figures in history have done and said good things. Al Capone ran soup kitchens — he still belonged on death row, even though he never got there.
Ron Paul is a dishonest man. He puts earmarks into bills and then votes against them, knowing that the bill will pass without his vote. He published a bunch of crazy stuff in newsletter in the 90s and now claims he didn’t know what was in his own newsletter.
Ron Paul is a naive crank on foreign policy. The power vacuum he wishes to create will not last – it will be filled instantly by somebody else.
Ron Paul has associated with jew-haters and other delusional cranks of his own free will.
Supporting this man requires willful blindness. Much of his support is in fact coming from disaffected Democrats — what does that tell you?
Ron Paul is a isolationist. The idea that if you want to be able to project a strong military presence in the world is being the worlds “cop” there is no hope. Let me explain.
We already face proposed cuts in the military that will leaves us barely able to conduct operations “war” on one front. There is a reason sane people who may or may not have military training see this as dangerous. Though the protection of our own boarders becomes and issue, its not really the main concern. The main concern is any crack pot dictator (North Korea) and fanatical regime (Iran) will now see it as an opportunity to rattle their saber and know that the United States military cannot answer the threat if they are already committed in another theater .
Not only does this leave our allies in vulnerable position, it also leaves all the resources and materials we import to keep our economy rolling vulnerable as well. You think the price of gas is high now wait until it becomes even less secured.
Another reason is if you use crazy uncle Ron Pauls logic the United States will wait until its directly attacked before it takes action. No matter if one can see the threat is gearing up, shutting down our commodity and material supply lines, and generally raising hell all over the globe. Were gonna sit tight until one of our cities lays in flaming ruin before we get involved.
Yeah, that makes sense. Whiskery Tango Foxtrot!
Paul has a ton of ideas that make sense but this sure and the hell aint one of them.
Conservative…Liberal…..how about we quit worrying about that and start following the Constitution? Look at where our Nation is headed guys. Between the conservatives and the liberals we have succeeded in creating a permanent underclass as dependent on government as any antibellum slave was on their master. Our educational system once the envy of the world now churns out illiterate savages. Look around at what is currently going on, we now have “Constitution Free” zones, the President now has the power to “indefinitely detain” American citizens. Our debt is currently being monetized which will lead to a financial meltdown. We engage in unconstitutional, undeclared, never ending war and we advocate TORTURE!
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is actually addressing these issues. Neither Romney, Perry, Gingrich or Santorum will do what needs to be done to save our country and return us to the rule of law, Obama seems to be actively destroying it. Ron Paul may be a “Conservative Killer”, I don’t care, the rest of them are “Constitution Killers” and that is a much greater crime.
@ Hard Right:
You can’t just lump everyone into this bucket. I have been on other blogs and seen some of the crazy RP supporters and their posts. Just today there was a post by someone on FA in another thread that said if we didn’t stop talking about Romney in a bad light they were going to stop reading the blog. And I have seen the same on other blogs. Rabid Romney supporters, Gingrich supporters, Santorum supporters, Perry supporters, and so on. Hell, Ace at Ace of Spades HQ is cutting chickens in half and lighting cigars to Jobu to get Perry back in the thick of things. Full disclosure, I’m doing the same. Just because there are some outspoken supporters of one candidate, doesn’t make the whole support base or even the majority a bunch of crazies. I cannot imagine a Santorum nominee, but there are people in the conservative party that put social issues above everything else. Does that make them crazy? No, but it isn’t where I stand. I don’t even know what to say about Romney supporters. I’ll vote for him over Obama, but I’m with Mata on this, we’re gonna lose by winning and be praying for 2016.
Ron Paul is not a bad guy, he’s a libertarian. And there was another libertarian that dismantled the standing army and navy the country had built…Thomas Jefferson. He wasn’t successful in totally sending them all home, but he came close. Do I agree with this policy? Not entirely, but Jefferson is held in pretty high regard. He refused to get involved in the wars in Europe. Was he an isolationist?
I think that if I wanted a “true conservative” to get the nomination, I’d be rooting for Ron Paul to stay in the race to the end and get as many votes as possible.
If Romney is kept at less than half the delegates, it would be up to the convention to choose a winner. They could draft Rubio or Christie or Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin, for that matter.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@ Michael Henkins:
So, we complain when the liberals use a cut from projected CBO baselines as a decrease in spending, but when it comes to defense, it actually is a cut. Good lawd, we really are a one party country.
From Freedom Works. Hardly a left wing rag (in case you were wondering).
Pretty much covered everything else I was going to say. Perry may well be the only guy who will save the Republican Party from going completely Donner Party. I am not a fan of his, I am a Gingrich guy who was a Cain guy, who was a Palin guy, who was never a Romney guy.
This the where Paul is based on his own answers to issues.
Ron Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian.
Compare that to Romney:
Mitt Romney is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.
Compare Paul to Gingrich:
Newt Gingrich is a Hard-Core Conservative.
What about Santorum?
Rick Santorum is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Rick Perry is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Methinks people who claim Ron Paul is conservative are confused as to what that term really means!
Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal.
Joe Biden is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
No, and the world was completely different then. The young country was self sustaining, did not need much in the way of outside resources to fuel its economy. Look back to the mid 1920’s to the late 1930’s to get a more accurate look at what happens when you decide to just not get involved. You wind up getting involved anyway with inferior equipment, half trained soldiers, and a massive rush on resources needed to fight the war but cannot get due to lack of protection for your imported materials.
Its a utopian ideal and completely out of touch with the realities of todays world.
@ Michael Henkins:
It wasn’t quite that different and Jefferson opposed a standing army and navy on principle. However, I agree with you as it relates to the 20’s and 30’s. The country ignored the signs, thought we could just live and let live and it just does not work out. Which is why I support a standing army and navy and air force, and even those annoying jar heads. 🙂
What I’m saying is the ideas are not without conservative foundation and a legitimate argument can be had within the republican party. Just because someone’s foreign policy does not align with our own does not mean they should be dismissed. Neither Romney, Gingrich, nor Santorum’s economic policies align with mine. I don’t totally dismiss their candidacy.
INRE Paul and isolationist… depends upon what tangent you are discussing. He is a military and defense isolationist. He’s an isolationist for engaging in any int’l bodies (something I can sympathize with, but a complete reversal is even more damaging). He is not an isolationist when it comes to trade.
And is he no “pure conservative”. Fringe left and fringe right tend to find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with little difference. There is no single label for Dr. Paul, any more than there is for any individual or politician. We are all varying mixtures. However if you feel the need to label Dr. Paul, fringe is the best all around description. There are portions (not all) of his fiscal policies that are good, and others that are simply absurd. But all are “fringe”.
RP makes the TP look downright moderate.
@Aqua, I think the argument INRE the military cuts… at least from my perspective.. is that yes, there is waste that could be cleaned up. However while the ga’zillion agencies that have become bloated and inefficient were not a founding vision, the military – including a standing army – was for protection of the nation.
Which brings me to one more thing… since it will be inevitable that blast, or another liberal, will wander and and attempt to diss a standing army as not the intent of the founding fathers. That has caveats.
First, the Constitution itself. As the Preamble states, one of the prime purposes of the central government was to provide for the common defence. Article II, Section 2 says that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…
Nothing in the Constitution states the size or limitations of the standing army – only that a sufficent permanent standing army was required to provide for common defence. What was required of a standing army in the times of the Founders and Framers is a different story than what is required today, now that we are not protected by two oceans, weapons are not confined to simple musket balls and black powder rifles or cannons, and the world is intrinsically linked.
The selective quoting of intent from the Founders tends to get on my nerves, as well as those who attempt to cast that standing army, relative to the threats of the nation, as an example of the Constitution being a “living document”. Nope… The Constitution provides for a fluctuating size and power of a mandated standing army, as it is relative to the “common defence”.
As I’ve said, and @Michael Henkins repeats above, the military is not only a Constitutionally mandated duty of the central government, it is also linked to our economy. Indeed, as Sept 11th proved, one of the most effective weapons by the enemy is not a dirty bomb or suicide bomber. It is an economic bomb, such as shutting down the NYC financial district for a week. That’s also why a nuke exploded in the airspace over major US urban concentrations, shutting down the electrical grid, is extremely effective without having a massive death toll. Long periods of power loss in any of the nation’s four major grids can bring the US to it’s knees.
Weapons and times are different. The Constitution hasn’t changed. The CiC and central government are charged with protecting this nation, and the size, choice of base locations and focus of a military will morph, tailoring to the technological threats in a modern world. And while there needs to be audits for wasted funds, the cuts of manpower and equipment that are implemented by Obama, and the radical fringe proposals by Ron Paul… merely to make room in an overly stretched budget for non Constitutional spending… is as anti-Constitutional as you can get.
Hi Mata, Thanks for quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. You find clear meaning in “provide for the common defence.” Do you find similar clarity in “promote the general welfare,” or is this statement subject to more in the way of parsing?
– Larry W/HB
I’ve been expecting you, Larry. LOL I wrote that section, and started the stop watch as to how fast you’d try to take to that “general welfare”.
Common defence is clear cut and unmistaken language. The nation is to be protected against all threats of the time. Your problem is you think “general welfare” is the same, and apply your own wide parameters as an interpretation. There’s been plenty of analysis on the “general welfare” parameters, but none that were ever approved that would step out of the bounds of Constitutional authority of a central government.. which was always meant to be limited while more local specifics were left to the states. Of course, we’ve been mutilating that central government power since the 30’s and 40s, and FDR days.
But nice try… and you came in under the time frame I guessed.
So (trying very hard not to misinterpet your position); your position is that you don’t have to parse and qualify “provide for the common defence.” But you do have to parse and qualify “promote the general welfare.”
These phrases follow each other consecutively. They are clearly of equal value. The purpose of government is to both provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.
How one goes about doing both is appropriately subject to continuous debate. The Constitution lays out the rules under which this debate will be conducted and how the debate will be resolved.
But — and I’m going to quote Mitt Romney here, who has also, perhaps in a Freudian fashion, adopted the signature catch phrase — make no mistake, the purpose of American government under the Constitution explicitly includes the promotion of the general welfare of its people. On an equal footing to providing for the common defense.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
So Larry… instead of playing games of cute, why don’t you tell us the meaning… to you… of “common defence” and “general welfare”. That might give a starting point instead of the vagaries you offer.
Please don’t quote Mittens to me. Still have a queasy belly from last week’s bug.
Looks like Gingrich/Perry/others have failed in their final attempt to get on the Virginia ballot. Court ruled against them, said they should have complained sooner if they didn’t like the rules (basically). Which puts another hole in the whole ‘We would have nominated a conservative, too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids’ argument. It’s always been Romney (and his supporters in the national Republican establishment) that have been the stumbling block.
Yes, and I agreed with Michael on this. But to call Paul fringe on the issue, you have to also do the same with Jefferson. Jefferson abhorred the notion of a standing army and navy. It’s has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not.
Agreed. However, in his post Michael called these cuts. I pointed out that they are not a decrease in defense spending, but a cut from the OMB projected needs. How can we (conservatives) howl when the libs call cuts to projections decreased spending when we’re going to use the same language when it comes to defense.
Larry, it’s funny that you would take two phrases and leave out the most important part, which leaves absolutely no doubt to its interpretation:
Article 1, Section 8 states:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
And by the way, both clauses were in support of the many States. Not the individuals of the many States. Article 1, Section 8 is solely intended to recount what the federal government for the States.
Well, Aqua… truth be told I have a love/hate relationship with Jefferson. Sorta the “love the one you’re with” entity of his generation. LOL But I’m skipping Jefferson’s personal feelings and going right to the absolute reading of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2. It’s not a temporary army only raised in times of war. The language specifically notes that the military is a constant. Thus whatever Jefferson’s personal feelings, that’s not what was agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention. There is a permanent standing army, according to that document. And no size and limitations are given. Just what is needed to provide for the union’s common defence.
Hi Aqua, Mata and I were discussing the Preamble, which describes the general purpose and goals of the Constitution. You are referring to a specific subsection, describing a very specific issue.
Here’s the wording of the Preamble:
I agree that Article 1 Section 8 could be interpreted as applying to the states and not to the people of the states (while not posing a limitation as to the latter, see discussion below). But the Preamble is clearly all about the people. As in “We the people” and “to ourselves and our posterity.” It’s not credible to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would use the “promote the general welfare” phrase of the brilliantly concise Preamble to call attention to a specific Article/Section of a complex document which dealt with a more narrow and specific issue. Similar language; different context and meaning.
Here’s a very nice discussion. Conservatives love to quote James Madison (probably the most notorious of the slave owning Presidents), but they persistently fail to acknowledge that Alexander Hamilton had equal stature and opposing views. Thus, the issue of the purpose and scope of government was as unsettled and controversial at the founding of the country as it remains today.
As I wrote, the role and scope of government will always be debated and what the Constitution does best is to provide a clear structure of government to carry out this debate and to adjudicate this debate.
Here’s a nice summary:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Well you won’t get an argument from me. I completely agree that politics has changed little since the time of the founders. I have to tell you, I love the fact that you picked Alexander Hamilton. This is a man that wanted an American King instead of president, but ended up supporting and advocating the Constitution. But, he wanted an elite class, that being the president and senators. He was a big proponent of centralized government. That’s why Burr capped him in the noodle. 🙂
Alexander Hamilton had some not-so-nice words for any idiot stupid enough to imagine we would need an official Congressional Declaration of War before fighting an opponent who has begun hostile action against us.
Hi Aqua, You are providing a very unfair portrayal of a Revolutionary War hero and a great American, who far from wanting an “elite class,” rose from more humble beginnings than any of the other of the nation’s great founders.
[Edit re: “Elite class” — I looked this up and read what you were referring to. I do stand corrected on this one issue.]
Here’s a very nicely written short biography. Aaron Burr hated Hamilton because Hamilton sided with Jefferson against him. The lesser man won the duel.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I was kidding about the reason for the Duel. Burr actually challenged Hamilton after Burr lost the New York Gubernatorial election, thanks to some not so nice things Hamilton said. Hamilton is a founding father and does deserve respect. John Adams was a centralized government guy too.
And I neglected to address you preamble vs. Article 1, Section 8. Since both are mentioned together in the preamble and mention exactly the same way in Article 1, Section 8, it is not only reasonable, but entirely logical to believe that Article 1, Section 8 qualifies their interpretation as seen in the preamble.
Ah, clever guy, my friend Aqua. You immediately got much of what I was prodding Larry to admit about himself… that when he views “general welfare”, he sees the central government interfering on individuals needs and not the States. The entire language of the Constitution must be viewed in the context that all references are to the health of the “union” of States as a whole, and not intended to step on each States own localized governing as to the wishes of their denizens. Hence… a “republic”.
Larry, it will perhaps bother you to know that Jefferson and Madison were of the same mind when it came to “general welfare” and “common defence”, in opposition to Hamilton’s more overly broad view. But you tend to use double speak when you say you understand the Constitution was constructed as a guiding document for the union, then conveniently decide to use the “we the people” to encompass the masses for your own modern interpretation. Nope… doesn’t work that way.
Perhaps you’d like to skip the “legal dictionary” version of Constitutional law, and instead read a more in depth and cogent view of history and interpretation from professor of Constitutional law, James C. Eastman. This happens to be reposted on Heritage Foundation… something I’m sure you’ll shrink from in horror. But try to get over it… :0)
What might be interesting is to find that you meet up with Prof. Eastman, since he lives in your backyard and teaches at Chapman in Orange County. Maybe you can try to pass off your “we the people” theory of expansion of Constitutional authorities to the federal government, governing individuals and not the union as a whole, and get a first hand education to more details and narrowed founding concepts.
But I notice you avoided my direct question… what is your personal definition of “common defence” and “general welfare”. Obviously, you have something in mind. In which case, since I provide the link to Prof. Eastman’s article above, detailing some history, you might figure out that what you may envision as benefiting the “general welfare” (i.e. entitlements, O’healthcare, etc) may actually run contrary to the “general welfare”.
Without even getting into the specifics of whether the central government has the right to dictate to individuals what products to purchase under the banner of “general welfare”, I think you might agree that runaway spending and high national debt in no way benefits either the union or the individuals of the nation. Somewhat of a dichotomy in your beliefs, don’t you think?
True, but many of the founders did not want a standing army during times of peace. Most wanted a navy to protect the borders and shorelines. Jefferson was opposed to even this, but was ultimately convinced. I agree the Constitution does not give a size, neither does it say there does not have to be an army during peace time. We can argue semantics, we ultimately agree so I don’t see the point.
Politics in the US has been full of characters and Paul is just one of them. I don’t think conservatives should wholly discount his message, and I don’t think Paul’s supporters should feel he shouldn’t be vetted like any other candidate. No one likes to see their candidate run through the mud, but if we don’t do it, the DNC has a giant mud pit set aside for just that.
In the end, we will end up with a candidate and a platform. If everything keeps going the way it is right now, Paul will have a voice on the platform. I would love to see the GOP come away from the convention will the best ideas from all the candidates, including Paul.
@Richard Wheeler: T.P.? Are you still trying to say that I at one time supported Pawlenty???
PUH-LEEZE show me where I said that I wanted Pawlenty as Pres.
Anticsrocks T.P. Tea Party. Pawlenty now backing Romney along with other Conservs. like Bolton. Might as well get on board.lol
Biggest surprise is Paul polling at 20%. Nan can’t claim Dem crossover in S.C.
@Richard Wheeler: Okay, my mistake. I apologize, thought you were intimating that I had backed Pawlenty again, as you did here.
As for Ron Paul, I don’t see how anyone can take him seriously as a Presidential candidate. His populism, and platitudinal politics just do not make for a sensible platform. He makes some good points fiscally, however when he goes off the deep end and says things like it is ‘understandable’ that Iran should want to obtain a nuke, then he loses his credibility in my book.
I especially liked what Santorum said about Ron Paul’s isolationist views in one of the debates:
Hi Mata, Out of courtesy, I read your last comment (#31). Of course I’m aware that Madison and Jefferson were on one side of the strong federal government issue and Hamilton was on the other. When the concept was first tested (the National Bank) both sides presented their case to President George Washington, who adjudicated in favor of Hamilton, who, as noted, ultimately prevailed, as codified as a result of Supreme Court decisions. In short, Hamilton won.
I don’t really have anything else to say. I acknowledge that it was contentious in the beginning and it remains contentious today and the greatest gift of the founders was providing a framework in which we can continue to work out our differing views in a system of laws.
I don’t recoil in horror from the Heritage Foundation. I’m not one of those people who dismisses something out of hand, simply because of where it appears. There’s good wikipedia and bad wikipedia. Good and bad Heritage. Good and bad Media Matters.
I’m too tired to go reading Eastman, right now. As brilliant as I’m sure the piece is, it’s not going to resolve a two century ongoing controversy. I’ll try to read it, somewhere down the road. Eastman has written op-eds for the Orange County Register, which regularly publishes op-eds from various Claremont College faculty. The latter is a very decent Orange County university which appears to have a very strong cohort of conservative political and law faculty. Most of their op-eds are quite thoughtful.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Richard Wheeler: ‘Biggest surprise is Paul polling at 20%. Nan can’t claim Dem crossover in S.C.’
Actually, I believe SC is one of those states where people don’t register with any particular party (VA too IIRC). So if there’s no crossover vote it’s just because there’s no official affiliation to start with. It is in short effectively an open primary.
While I don’t agree that it would be a good idea to have closed primaries in general, I think open primaries do cause problems when there is no Democrat primary being run at the same time. When both parties are having a primary, the independent or Democrat voters who show up at the Republican primary are either Republican-leaning to start with or really impressed with one of the Republican candidates. Not such a big problem. When there is no opposite-party primary, though, and especially if there’s a split field, then an open primary invites hijacking.
My compliments to the owner and staff of FloppingAces. I recently posted a reply here pointing out the fear that seems to be so prevalent amongst certain republicans of Ron Paul. Several took exception, which is fine and to be expected.
I just discovered that an almost verbatim post I tried to place at “American Thinker” was not only not published, but I am now barred from further comment at that sight. It seems speaking of Paul Derangement Syndrome strikes way to close to home for some in the blogsphere.
I’ve gotten my share of “Dislike” on comments here, but I’ve never for a moment thought a blog sight to the right of center would resort to out and out censorship. Apparently, thinking outside of lockstep is not tolerable at “American Thinker”.
That’s nice to hear, JustAl. Curt’s got a pretty high threshold for both banning, or even being placed in moderation. Only he makes the decisions on who that is these days, and the rest of us step back and defer to his judgment as rightful owner of the blog. So your kudos rightfully belong only to the FA Founding Father.. heh… Curt.
But you might also want to consider that you, as a Ron Paul supporter, were not banned at AT because of your support, but because too many of your peers have a tendency to relentlessly spam sites. I’ve actually heard some talk radio hosts that will only open up the phone lines to Ron Paul supporters at specific times for the same reason… they clog and spam the phone lines. They do the same to online polls.
Thus you may be the unintended victim of what many consider abuse of Paul’s grassroots organization, simply wearing out their welcome.
Oh what a difference a day makes… today’s PPP/SC poll has Mittens at 29, Gingrich 24, Paul 15, Santorum 14. Rasmussen’s SC poll has Romney at 28, Gingrich 21, and Paul/Santorum tied at 16 each.
In generic national polls, Gallup has Romney at 35, Santorum at 15, and Gingrich/Paul tied with 14 each. The CNN/Opinion poll has Romney with 34, Gingrich 18, and Paul/Santorum tied with 15 each.
Both Perry and Huntsman are in the single digits in all.
The really funny thing is that I don’t consider myself a Ron Paul supporter, he’s way down the list of those I’d like to see in the job, the trouble is no one else on my list is currently in the race. I’ve posted (probably too much) on political blogs for four or five years now, and have always tried my best to present my case without ad-homoniem, or vile. Yet in the thread in question Paul supporters had been called about everything under the sun that would have passed TV censorship in the ’60s.
After going to the TEA party rallies, a few meetings, etc. I’m very disheartened that the GOP is apparently going to run not just a “has been” but a “never was” when it comes to limited, Constitutional government.
The only other experience that’s similar is the “Guardian” where I used to routinely go kick the ant hill. Till one day it occurred to me that every time I went toe to toe with a particular Gorebull Warmists, my computer picked up a nasty bug and had to be reformatted. The little crud even offered to “send me a bit of code” he’d written to support AGW once. At least A.T. didn’t stoop to that.
Thanks Mata Polls are all over the place.
Remember Paul jumped big in last 2 days in N.H as undecideds went his way big time. He is way ahead of his 08 finish in all 3. He’ll also improve in Fla. Getting Tea Party support?
Nasty Newt is picking up the pace of his attack adds.
Dems are lovin it.
Perry should have quit yesterday.
Monday’s debate should be a barn burner. Great Sport to go with weekend NFL. Enjoy
@JustAl, I don’t think you are alone in feeling like you don’t have a real dog in the race. It’s too bad we can’t wrap up the positives in each and consolidate them into one candidate… but I think that type of creation went out with Frankenstein. LOL
I agree with Aqua that some of the best of Paul’s fiscal policies should be in the platform (and I don’t agree with all his fiscal policies either). But it remains true that Paul’s unlikely prospect of being the nominee does make him an effective spoiler when it comes to picking a Romney alternative. Altho from what I’m seeing on the young supporting Paul for his anti-war/anti-strong military position, and what seems to be the belief that his fiscal policies act as a wealth gap equalizer, they will likely have a good percentage swarm to Obama if Paul is not the nominee (and doesn’t run 3rd party).
@Richard Wheeler, ’tis a hard race to see clearly in any crystal ball, but I still feel like Paul’s out of the gate successes continue to diminish as time goes by. The more one sees of RP outside of his standard Constitution/liberty rhetoric, the more he reveals his less than appealing temperament. One might be the example where he refused to field questions he didn’t like about the newsletters, and simply removed his microphone (fumbling along the way). Apparently, he is instructing his press aides to do the same.
Another is the 9 year old boy who asked the candidates which superhero they’d like to be. Everyone but Ron Paul answered, and some engaged the boy more than others. Ron Paul felt it was beneath his dignity to answer, said “I don’t know” and walked away.
RP’s 2008’s showing is more in line with the usual Libertarian support nationally. I suspect there is a little Libertarian in all of us. But the entire platform as a party isn’t the cup of tea for the masses. But with this year’s focus of national disgust being on debt and spending, Paul’s tough talk on spending resonates better this time ’round. Add to that, the youth who picked badly in Obama, now seeking yet another tangent that sounds good in theory, but presents yet another less than idyllic Libertarian utopia.
What Ron Paul has is a version of Obama’s “hope/change” – i.e. “liberty/Constitution” – pretty words that appeal. Unfortunately, like Obama, his utopia isn’t much better than Obama’s.
The last I saw, a mid December Tea Party Patriot straw poll – after interviewing the candidates – picked Newt with 31% of support. Bachmann was second with 28%, Romney third at 20%. Ron Paul was at 3% with the Tea Party Patriots. So I’m not sure where you are forming your opinion of the Tea Party being so all fired hot on RP.
As far as “Nasty Newt”, he looks like a cherub compared to Obama/Axelrod’s Chicago thug campaign tactics. Nor do I consider vetting Romney’s past as job creator vs corporate raider “nasty”. Obama will do far worse, and best to get this stuff out in the open early amidst “family”, so to speak. The Dems are just PO’ed that Newt usurped their tactic early on in the game, effectively letting the air out of their balloon. If he’s the nominee, Romney will either learn how to field the coming heavier – and nastier – assaults coming to the satisfaction of conservatives and independents…. or he’ll bit the dust in the general and it will be another McCain/Obama outcome.
At this point in time, I’m more interested in gaining majority conservative representation in Congress. Would love a veto proof majority… but that doesn’t happen often in our history. Even at that, considering the unimpressive continuing resolution and spending done with Boehner’s House this year, the citizens will have to keep prodding a conservative Congress to implement genuine (not baseline) budget cuts in spending.
There’s four debates coming up before the end of the month… suggest you stock up on your popcorn.
@MataHarley: It was only the ARG (American Research Group) poll that had Paul at 20%. They’re not considered a very reliable polling organization, which is why their numbers are excluded from the RCP moving average. On that, Paul is right around 15%. It looks like it will be a fight between him and Santorum for third.
If Gingrich can’t beat Romney in SC it will leave people wondering whether he can beat him anywhere. It’s a testament to his strength as a candidate and his name recognition that he’s still in it after back-to-back fourth place finishes.
@MataHarley: ‘The last I saw, a mid December Tea Party Patriot straw poll – after interviewing the candidates – picked Newt with 31% of support. Bachmann was second with 28%, Romney third at 20%. Ron Paul was at 3% with the Tea Party Patriots.’
I remember seeing this and concluding that they had simply not invited Paul (or his supporters) to participate. You’d want to know how they got their 23,000 conference call participants; did they talk to the campaigns and ask them to contact their supporters? Call people from some phone list of Tea Party folks and ask them to participate? It isn’t clear.
@bbartlog, the original CNN Politicalticker blog states the 23,000 participated in a conference call for the straw poll vote. Ron Paul was invited, like the other candidates, but he declined the invitation.
Since the TP is just a grassroots movement, comprised of varied members of the political parties, about the only thing you can conclude is that (being a conference call) it was 23,000 individual participants who likely identified with TP principles.
The Atlantic Wire pondered the poll results as well, since many like to consider RP the “godfather” of the TP. Apparently, that ain’t the case, and there is more to the TP than just fiscal issues where RP may not be so appealing.
If that’s the case, the Dr. Paul will have a hard time getting his foreign policy past many in that movement.
In the first two primaries, no one has beaten Romney, so it’s sort of moot wondering if Newt, or anyone else, can beat him anywhere. Santorum came close in IA (and some rumors say he actually won…), but then a fell a few notches in NH, and is above blip level in SC. Hard to say whether he”ll come back. Certainly possible.
Gingrich has so far weathered some pretty harsh attacks, but still showing life, and some rejuvenation once you get outside NH and IA.
Perry? Who knows. It’s early, and he could return. Doesn’t show any sign of it yet.
Huntsman? Not a prayer in my opinion.
But as far as any of them beating Romney, it would depend on where the support goes if it came down to just two top consistent candidates. Once the ship has sailed for any of the other candidates, they’ll have to board the only two ships left at the dock. I think if the choice were between Romney and Paul, Romney would gather the majority easily. The others? Hard to say.
But if Romney’s only at 25-35%, there’s 65-75% of “others” up for grabs. So beating Romney is entirely possible.
I still hold that one of the eventual republican candidate’s biggest problems in November will be the severe damages recently inflicted by other republican contenders during the primaries. Consider this PAC ad on behalf of Newt Gingrich–part of a multi-million dollar effort in South Carolina to sink Mitt Romney:
King of Bain–When Mitt Romney Came to Town
The torpedoes were fired in January; the ship will go down in November.
Don’t be naive here, Greg. The Dems had the same torpedoes, and were just frothing at the bit to hit the “fire” button at a Romney candidacy. Not to mention it would be oh so convenient to portray him as the evil, heartless and callous capitalist pig – a theme central to their campaign (since they can’t run on a positive record….)
There’s no damage except to the Dem playbook. The torpedoes got fired earlier, and their missiles will likely be less effective because, by then, it will be old news.
But nice try…
Greg #49 Concur
Dr. J Calls Newt “A Walking Pariah” Concur
That’s a first.
@MataHarley: Thanks for clearing that up. Wonder why Paul declined. He also declined the invite to Huckabee’s latest forum (I think it’s today), which seems frankly idiotic to me (supposedly a scheduling conflict but really, nothing should trump free air time at this point in a campaign). It’s even a nice, fair format – equal time for all, lots of time to answer questions, and (at least last time) the questions are pretty decent, unlike some of the stuff we’ve seen from other debate moderators. And while putting Donald Trump’s nose out of joint by declining his debate invite seemed like a good political move, I see no advantage to disrespecting Huckabee.
bbartlog, I have my own theory, based on Paul’s displays of temperament to questions he considers unfair, beneath him, or challenging…. he simply doesn’t want the heat. He generally sticks to friendly and receptive audiences. The candidates were given the questions in advance for their conference. Perhaps he saw too many in there about the military, and knew that his TP audience prefers a strong military. No clue about why declining Huckabee. Perhaps he feels he just doesn’t need the exposure, and depends upon his grassroots for continued momentum.
@Nan G: Just took @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, since you pulled out the dictionary card, I just have to throw in my two cents, or definitions as it were…
Provide (as in “provide for the common defence”)
Promote (as in “promote the general welfare”
When we are arguing language, sometimes, we need to look at that pesky modifying verbs that everyone forgets about. Kind of like they sometimes forget about that next part of the preamble, “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”
I agree, Ron Paul isn’t a Conservative. (Because Conservatives are for Big Government(here and in other countries), Big Debt, Big Entitlements(here and in other countries), Endless Wars and Nation-building, No Personal Responsibility(See drug war), No US Constitution, No Liberty, etc…The word Conservative has been hijacked by Progressives(just like the word Liberal))
What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?
The Republican Party should be honest with America and just run Obama…And “Conservatives” should be honest with themselves and vote for him.