text:
The Bright Side of Ron Paul's Third-Place Finish
Seven reasons why those cheering on the Texas Republican should still feel optimistic
For Ron Paul's most ardent supporters, last night's third-place finish in the Iowa caucus was an undeniable disappointment. The dream of boomeranging from an Iowa victory to a New Hampshire resurgence to an anything-is-possible Super Tuesday has now gone to re-write.
Being exposed as a state front-runner for three tantalizing weeks proved about two weeks too long, as the media and Paul's competitors hammered away at his foreign policy views, his support among and alignment with non-Republicans, and his foul old newsletters. Exit polling showed clearly that late-breaking voters broke hard away from Ron Paul.
But Paul fans and supporters of limited government more broadly have many reasons to be cheered by last night's results. Here are seven:
1) Paul more than doubled his vote over 2008, while Mitt Romney's stayed exactly the same. Seriously, Romney got 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2008, then 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2012. Paul vaulted from 10 percent to 21, from 12,000 votes to 26,000. His message of freedom, limited government, attacking the Federal Reserve, and ending wars foreign and domestic is undeniably on the grow.
2) Paul's delegate- and caucus-focused strategy means that he will likely punch above his electoral weight. The campaign focused not just on doing well at the caucus, but making sure Paul-friendly humans get nominated as county delegates, so that when the 25-delegate pie is eventually divvied up Dr. No will get more than projected.
Paul has a nationwide focus on caucus states, which are more susceptible to concerted applications of supporter enthusiasm. As The Wall Street Journal observes, "If he is able to win a plurality of just five delegations from any of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., or the five territories, Mr. Paul can vie for the nomination at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. That would allow him a seat at the table when the party decides its platform, giving him leverage to push his antiwar and antitax message."
3) Barring an unexpected and popular new Republican entrant, Paul is virtually guaranteed of making the Final Four once more. Last time around, Paul finished fifth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, on the way to an overall fourth-place showing in the delegate count. This time Paul finished third in Iowa, and is polling at second in New Hampshire. With Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann inching toward the exits, and barring some Jon Huntsman Hail Mary, that leaves just three main competitors left: Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
4) Newt Gingrich is on the ropes. The Final Four could become Los Tres Amigos in a hurry. Iowa exit polls show no clear rationale for Gingrich's candidacy—there was no measurable subsection of voters who preferred him over other candidates. Not Tea Party supporters, not Tea Party haters, not the uneducated poor, not the overeducated rich. Even those who believe that "working in government" is a better presidential qualification than "working in business" had Gingrich in third place, behind Santorum and Paul.
Nate Silver's respected FiveThirtyEight blog has Gingrich projected for a distant fourth-place finish in New Hampshire, behind Huntsman, and that was before the Newt's disappointing finish in Iowa. All evidence points to Gingrich spending his final days going full metal nasty on Romney, subjecting the former Massachusetts governor to treatment he miraculously avoided in Iowa. Paul stands to benefit.
5) Rick Santorum has a target on his back, history against him, and no real national campaign. The former Pennsylvania senator bet the farm on Iowa and peaked at the right time. And those aren't the only things he has in common with Mike Huckabee.
Get ready for a solid week of media spelunking through a Santorum archive rich with quotes like "[I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," and "If Darwin is right, I have organized my life around an illusion. We have no moral demands if we are evolved." A full 13 percent of Iowans identified abortion as their number-one public policy issue; among those Santorum got a colossal 58 percent of the vote. It's hard to imagine that formula working nationwide, particularly since Santorum doesn't particularly have a nationwide campaign.
Iowa gave 34 percent to Mike Huckabee in 2008, 31 percent to Steve Forbes in 2000, 23 percent to Pat Buchanan in 1996, and 25 percent to Pat Robertson in 1988. Alan Keyes once pulled 14 percent there, for heaven's sake. These are interesting results, ones that had the benefit of winnowing the competition, but they did not scale. Santorum is the social-con candidate, and with his uber-hawkish foreign policy he may end up with a fair amount of neo-con support, but the country is moving away from, not towards, those directions.
6) Mitt Romney has a John McCain problem. No, it's not that the GOP's 2008 nominee is now endorsing his former rival, but rather that both men have an icy relationship at best with the Republican grassroots and Tea Party movement. As conservative commentator Dana Loesch Tweeted in the wee hours, "To rephrase, the guy who cosponsored a bill to restrict ur speech will endorse a guy behind the original idea to restrict your healthcare."
There has been plenty of (understandable) talk about Ron Paul's "ceiling" of potential support, but it is entirely possible that Romney faces a ceiling of his own (one that we will be hearing a lot about in the coming month) among Tea Party enthusiasts, ObamaCare opponents, libertarians, Evangelicals, and others. The exit polls here are telling: Romney's single-highest percentage share (48 percent) of the vote came from two overlapping camps: Those who have a "somewhat negative" view of the Tea Party, and those for whom electability is the most important issue. Romney also had the highest score (29 percent) among those who confessed to having "reservations" about their candidate.
Where did Romney do the worst? Among people whose primary motivation was backing a "true conservative" (1 percent, compared to Ron Paul's field-leading 37 percent). Among born-again or Evangelical Christians, Romney tied for a distant third, at 14 percent. People who "strongly support" the Tea Party movement had him tied for fourth (also at 14 percent). There are some positive signs there for Romney—particularly that he won among voters (33 percent to Paul's 20) for whom the economy is the most important issue. But the moment he stops looking electable is the moment his candidacy could face collapse.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
[I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.
I'm having trouble disagreeing.
yeah, but most republicans would rather not make that leap or retreat back to the days of regulating the bedroom. Its best to make people that say such things "go away".
When it's your daughter, you'll side with the conservatives, unless you're gay or some sanitorumshit.
Depending on the POV of the reader, I have trouble disagreeing too. I think the burden of proof is on those who would restrict liberty, so yeah I think people shouldn't be coerced to _not_ do those things, but I don't approve of half that list regardless.
Adultery anyway is a violation of contract.
Pieces of paper. It's a fetish of city-STATISTS.
Pieces of paper! It's a fetish of pancake loving White-IDIOTS.
And most of those contracts have no defined penalty for such a breach.
What's your point? People are free to write stupid contracts if they choose. It seems the way out of this is pretty easy.
Gingrich agrees with the last one, anyway.
Also with polygamy.
Plains and woods, ya know.
Keep it in the family!
Consensual is the key word here. Why does the goverment get to override your decision as an adult.
Because city-Statists don't appreciate polygambolism, that is, gamboling about forest and plain.
The supreme court ruled that bigamy and polygamy are unconstitutional, a ruling that I don't fully agree with, but that hinges on the likelyhood of those types of relationships being unequal and demeaning to women. Incest is also illegal, especially when someone unable to consent is involved. Adultery is leal, it's simply a breach of contract, remedies abundantly available in civil court. Having the right to privacy is very important, and implying that it leads to all sorts of illegal social taboos is just fear mongering.
Adultery is leal
I don't mock the typo, but that one is actually pretty good since leal means "loyal".
Santorum was the best other ABR to take second last night. He isn't going to win a spending election on a family values platform. Paul should be back in second after New Hampshire.
America is corn-pone bullshit. Expect to live Heinlein's novel Revolt in 2100 with Nehemiah Scudder as your dear leader.
Santorum has much the same attitudes.
He opposes abortion, contraception, and definitely wants the "government" in your bedroom!
He's doing fine--slow and steady and not the flavor of the week like Santorum.
You poor people are deluding yourself about Ron Paul's chances.
Here is what will happen. Ron Pual will lose the Repub nomination. In a fit of pique he will run as an independant, splitting the Republican/independant vote, thus assuring Obama will be re-elected. That disaster will be on the heads of you people.
Ron Paul as president would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
I really don't see cats and dogs living together.
My friends' cat exists happily with their dog.
Tis truly the end of days.
What kind of biblical proportions are we talking abotu here? Great Flood? Plagues? The Holy Spirit committing genocide on behalf of the chosen people?
Is he referring the the Christian bible? Maybe he means the Linux Programming Bible?
The idea that Paul would be worse than the other candidates--all of whom, with Obama, fully intend to keep driving us off the cliff--is nuts. Our economy and our out-of-control government are the only issues that matter right now.
But if Paul pulls back the curtain, certain people will see the devestation. This MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS.
Santorum is going to take off his sweater vest?
He's not going to run 3rd party. Rand has a promising future and so does the movement as a whole inside the GOP. He won't jeopardize that.
Exactly. Its why he is going to run until the end and push in the convention regardless of his vote total.
There will be a Paul campaign in 2016 or 2020.
A Rand Paul campaign, maybe.
That's what he meant
If he lives that long.
I think he meant Rand Paul 2016!
He won't run as an Independant. He'll lose to Romney by Super Tuesday, than he'll either "suspend" his campaign without endorsing Romney, or endorse Johnson. Either way, he doesn't get within 100 yards of the podium at the Republican Convention.
I think they have to give Paul a speech. They don't have to listen, but he'll get his speech.
I hope he gets the speech and I hope he goes full anti-war, legalize drugs on those motherfuckers. Fracture this bitch. Obama's gonna beat anyone but Paul anyway. Keep the assault on big government going until the day you die, I say.
Ron Paul as president would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
That should net us the end-of-dayers vote.
Ron Paul as president would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
Not to be confused with the disaster of biblical proportions of an Obama second term or a Romney presidency.
What do you MEAN, "You people"????
Notice that dipshit did not stick around to answer any questions or respond to anything. I don't think Rush gave him any talking points beyond the "Disaster of biblical proportions" deal, which he thought sounded original and scary enough to dissuade him from thinking about anything Paul actually says or does.
I don't see any difference between Mitt or Obama so there is no net loss/gain from either of them.
I agree completely!
Ron Paul as president would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
Yeah...because the last 10 presidents have been so awesome for the country we can't let a wackjob like Paul screw things up.
More penetrating analysis from [TEAM RED].
Your deluding yourself about Ron Paul. He had stated multiple times that he will not run for a third party. He was offered to come to the Libertarian convention and he refused. Why would he rescind his position now given his age? Moreover, like Matt wrote he is in it for the long haul. It would be best, for the cause of freedon, if he won the presidency. But baring that his dialouge, and the most assurd civil rights and economic disaster a Romney, Sanatorum, or Obama presidency would be, will further the American peoples perception towards libertarianism positively. We also have another Paul in the mix. A senator, which have better track records being elected president, an arguably better public speaker, and who, as so far, has very similiar views to his old man. We will get a president who is actually a friend to freedom, it is only a matter of time thanks to individuals like Mr. Paul and Mr. Johnson.
Do you not understand that our views on liberty are more than just an attack on Obama? Most of these candidates, in the eyes of a libertarian, are no better than Obama. So we don't really care if it's "on the heads" of us people.
Sorry to use the we, I don't presume to speak for the rest of you.
Exactly. I consider myself a conservative, but the conservatives have been run out of the Republican party by warmongers and theocrats. All of the other presidential contenders want to restrict my liberty and spend my money just as much as Obama and I could never vote for any of them. By rejecting Ron Paul and other true conservatives, the Republican party is rejecting my vote, and many more like me. They can whine about it all they like, but it's their own damn fault.
I used to consider myself a conservative. Now I understand why Hayek and Rothbard rejected that label.
Libertarians and other advocates of individual liberty and limited government have been conned by conservatives and the Republican Party in particular. Republican rhetoric used to make an appeal to libertarians to make common cause, but their behavior over the past decade was reprehensible to libertarians and well nigh antithetical to basic principles of individual liberty. Now the conservative branch of the ruling elite doesn't even bother with the rhetoric. Quite a few openly ridicule libertarianism and individualism.
Friedman used to say he was a small "l" libertarian and a capital "R" Republican. If he were alive today and still hitting on all eight cylinders, I suspect he would have to reconsider that.
Here's my quick take on what I think happened in the USA since 1930 to produce the effect laid out above:
Conservatives and Republicans slowly bowed to the inevitability of big gov't. They had to accede to some large form and measure of socialism just to remain relevant. So first they fell back on traditionalism as the only "-ism" they could push. Then as the "left" became associated with the anti-war cause, they took up the only space they could to be the opposition: becoming pro-war, as crazy as that seems.
I look at it another way John. That disaster will be on the heads of YOU people.
Roughly 15% of Americans Identify as libertarian. WE are exactly the votes you need to beat Obama. YOU need to be kissing OUR ass. If the Republicans are too fucking stupid to see that, and continue to push a religious zealot and a big government conservative, then they deserve everything they fucking get with a second Obama term.
Mainstream Republican or mainstream Democrat is lose-lose for me either way. Your party better step up and appease ME if you want MY vote.
+100 delegates!
We have a winner!
Mainstream Republicans and neo-conservatives hate libertarians and genuine advocates of individual liberty.
This is a testable hypothesis. Care to wager whether Ron Paul will be invited to speak at the Republican Convention? If he isn't, we'll probably see him endorse Gary Johnson, which would suit me just fine.
Yeah, what could be more horrifying than peace, liberty and prosperity. I know exactly where you are coming from. I just wish the haters would be honest about their contempt for the principles on which this country was founded. At least folks like Mussolini were honest about their contempt for liberty and peace and love for fascism. This is more than I can say for those devoted to the status quo. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. and so on.
Ignorance is bliss.
What has Obama done that significantly varies from Bush? Just ask the liberals and progressives, nothing. Do you really think major policy will change if Romney, Santorum or Gingrich gets elected president? What do you think they'll do differently from Obama? Something around the edges granted. But the main thrust of US policies will remain the same. This is the reality that you Team Red players refuse to see. Dump Obama. Dump Obama. Why? Do you just prefer to be screwed by Republicans?
Ron Paul 2012!
You will be assimulated. STOP RESISTING.
Great. Looking forward to hearing about the newsletters in 2020 when Rand Paul runs.
Why? Rand had nothing to do with the newsletters and Americans are really not big into "sins of the father" arguments.
Aqua Buddha and CRA of 1964 probably. Oh yeah, "extremist."
Rand's discussion of the CRA is much more nuanced and he'll have 6 years of legislation to compare against in 2016. Assuming he's much more politically astute than his father (hell, he got elected in Kentucky), such things won't phase him. And he says much more pleasing things about national defense than his father, which will soothe alot of neocons.
Heck, they're a bit more soothing to this Paul supporter, inasmuch as Rand seems to practice a certain virtue more: prudence (yeah I believe stuff, but I don't need to spout it out now necessarily). I think that's one advantage Rand has over Ron, which will probably make Rand a better debater.
Prudence helps, I suppose. But one thing Rand doesn't do (correct me if I am wrong) is come out strongly against the drug war. I realize that we are in the minority when it comes to drugs in general (and not just pot), but any support for the WOD means to me that you are either evil, stupid, not paying attention (for which I can forgive most people, but not politicians) or a pandering liar.
Hell, even if rand doesn't come out strongly against the drug war, if he quietly stops the feds from raiding California, that'll be an improvement.
Saw him yesterday on Fox and Rand Paul is against the WOD but he frames it as a state's rights issue. If Cali wants medical pot, the feds have no right to stop them. If Georgia wants to outlaw drugs, they can. Not great IMO, but better than the status quo.
Its pretty much Ron's stance, but sugar coated for drug warriors to swallow a bit easier.
"Not great IMO, but better than the status quo."
I agree, but it may be the best tactic to slowly break down the rabid opposition to legalization. State by state.
I realize that we are in the minority when it comes to drugs in general (and not just pot)
If the polls are correct, we are now in the majority when it comes to pot. Unfortunately, that's among all Americans, not the ones who vote.
Rand does a lot of things I wish his father would do. Much of what makes people uncomfortable isn't necessarily what Ron Paul says but how he says it. If he reworded his pulling bringing the troops back home to this:
'I will bring the troops back home from Iraq and Afgahnistan, moreover, I will close military bases that serve no real purpose advancing our interests and simply drain our coffers. This, along with cuts on superflous programs, will lower the military budget, the remaining I will use to focus on advanced technologies in the air force, navy, and space based technology that will ensure the safety of Americans.'
This is what I think Ron Paul will do given his strong defense but no offense platform. The US military is already focusing on these technologies and Paul has shown no inclination that he would cease this sort of development, preciesly because he wants a strong defense. When I've told people this they become a little lease wary about his foreign policy ideas, I just wish Paul would say this.
A lot of people think Ron Paul is going to skuttle the navy and the air force. Which he simply isn't going to do. He is not going to close all our overseas bases, but he is going to close alot of them. He just needs to find a way to articulate these views that wont scare the bejeezus out of the average red leaning american.
And though I'm a Southron Baptist tea-totaller, I am in favor of decriminalizing drugs, becaues I realize that the "War on Drugs" affects me in negative ways, even though I have never so much as taken a puff on a doobie. It's part of the push for a police state, where "everyone" is a suspect.
Phase him? You mean shift his phase modulation somehow? Are you positing some sort of move to an alternative state or universe?
Are you positing some sort of move to an alternative state or universe?
no, just a change in his opacity to certain wavelengths.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.
Phase, as in bother, annoy, distract?
maybe faze? maybe its just some anachronistical term my parents made up, but that's what I mean.
Oh, it won't faze him. That means something else altogether. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I was wondering whether you might have a phaser.
Shhot him with a phaser, and not just on stun.
Nuance, booyance.
Nullifying property rights was a necessary condition for ending Jim Crow.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=leanard pitts ron paul&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQqQIwAA&url=http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/03/4160695/leonard-pitts-jr-foolish-consistency.html&ei=dnQET-GgMoPY0QHQrvzVBA&usg=AFQjCNF3xdw6w9K3jGNhoQpq7gTFphP5gw&cad=rja
Why? Because I said so.
Damn google!
Pet peeve alert!
such things won't
phasefaze him.
Pedantic alert!
Alert alert!
Yeah, but all this "bright side" talk needs to be served with a portion of utter fucking despair.
He will have a choice to make in 2016. Run to replace Obama or stay in the Senate. I think 2016 might be his year.
I'm wondering if four more years of Obama would be worthwhile, if just to make America that much more eager for a Rand or Ron. I can imagine the media doing to Romney what they did to Bush, and we wind up with Gore in 2016 or something.
Ron brought his mom!
If Darwin is right, I have organized my life around an illusion.
If I have not organized my life around an illusion, then Darwin is wrong.
I have not organized my life around an illusion.
Therefore, Darwin is wrong.
That's LOGIC, biotches!
What makes this even weirder is that the Catholic Church does not condemn evolution. So the first part of that syllogism, the easiest part to get right, is wrong.
Modern catholicism does not reject the idea of evolution; the church just says that God created the Big Bang basically.
Maybe it's just being raised in a catholic household, but the catholic church seems more reasonable than the "Earth's only been here 6000 years!!!111" crowd.
Then again, I cannot see any evidence that there is a God.
Yeah, just about ever Catholic I know believes that the Book of Genesis was figurative, not literal. Santorum must be an extremist conservative Catholic to question evolution. Or, more likely, he's pandering to an evangelical base to win votes.
I just read Lawrence Krauss' new book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.
What a ripoff. Turns out it's quantum bubbles, all the way down.
As a raised Catholic I can say the church, given its once very active political roots, is much more likely to shift and adjust according to the times, provided it doesn't mean backing down on a core belief. Hence, evolution acceptance, was easy. It doesn't conflict with the core facets of the religion. Abortion is another story though.
Sanatorum is definetly pandering to win the evangelicals.
Well, the difference is that (modern) Catholics are less likely to deny highly convincing science that contradicts biblical statements than evangelical Protestants.
So on abortion, science agrees that a conceived zygote that develops normally will grow into a human child. "Life begins at conception" is a scientifically true statement (the primary abortion debate is about at what stage rights are conferred and which rights take precedence, not debating this scientific premise.)
Evidence for evolution and for the earth being much older than a few thousand years are overwhelming however, sending the church down the "illumination and allegory" path on the Book of Genesis that Brett L mentions below. Denying science would greatly reduce the Church's appeal - evangelical creationists appear willfully ignorant, like the Catholic Church was for many centuries before they wisened up (somewhat).
When the bubbles get really small, it's quantum santorum.
I don't even think the Catholic Church did this as part of Vatican II (the great liberalization of the 1960s). The Bible has been "a divine source of illumination and allegory" rather than the literal Truth of history for a couple centuries in Catholic dogma.
Yeah, as far as modern religions go, it's probably one of the least harmful.
Except to all those Altar Boys.
Tell that to altar boys.
Yay! A chance to use a false dichotomy!
I'd rather be fondled by a priest than lose my hand because I stole a candy bar.
Don't steal and you wont suffer either way.
If a priest touches an altar boy's pepee, aged 14, one time, is the altar boy "scarred" for life?
If a priest grabs the rear end of a 16 year old youth counsellor while the lad is hoisting himself unto the raft on the lake during the parrish's annual youth summer outing, is the boy "ruined" for life?
If that's my kid, it's the priest that's getting "ruined" for life.
Libertymike, that's a slippery slope you don't want to go down and can be applied to just about every initiation of force no matter how impactful it is subjectively.
i read:
"id rather get touched without consent at an age where im easily susceptible, than be punished for a crime that has been engraved in our brains for our whole lives to not do"
I actually was a Catholic altar boy. My parish had 3 different priests over the course of my years there. Never got touched, and at least doing things in Mass was less boring than just sitting in the pew the whole time.
That was always my motivation as well. Ringing the bells, lighting the candles, preparing the wine. We even got paid to work weddings and funerals. Sometimes we stole a big glob of the wafers and ate them like potato chips.
I had long felt the Church unmotivating and frankly not true, but my parent forced me to go anyway so why not...
We drank the wine. Didn't get molested and it was not as boring as sitting still the whole time. Still don't like the churches very much...vatican illuminati and all.
Biotch, like biology. Nice.
If Darwin is right, I have organized my life around an illusion.
Premise: D IMPLIES I
Premise: NOT(I)
Conclusion: NOT(D)
Looks valid to me.
As I recall Santorum was nowhere up through the last debate preceding the Iowa caucus. Then Saudi owned Fox News (Newscorp, Fox News parent is materially owned by a Saudi) started to hype Santorum knowing that there would be no more debates before the Iowa caucus.
I find it ironic that Fox News people kept saying that if Ron Paul won Iowa it wouldn't matter yet their man Santorum who they hyped to the top in Iowa is the one who doesn't matter.
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and he's Australian, not Saudi. The Sauds may have a large financial stake in Fox, but don't doubt that Murdoch makes the calls.
The Murdochs control around 39% of the votes at the company, even though they own just 12% of the company, because of the company's two-tier share structure. They also have the backing of Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who controls another 7% of voting shares.
Don't think that Alwaleed bin Talal as News Corp's second largest shareholder does not have significant influence over the the Murdochs. That influence is now stronger after the Murdochs ran a foul of the law in Great Britain.
People forget or don't know that the Saudi's have an agenda in the Middle East which is backed by the U.S. Government and State Department through U.S. foreign and political pressure.
A President Paul would seriously negatively impact the Saudi agenda.
Well I'm confused then. The left has been telling me that Fox is a bunch of Likudniks. How can this be then?
Rush and other "conservative" talkers went all-in for Santorum. He has that special blend of Bible-thumping nanny-state big spending Republicanism they so love.
They pushed Santorum because he's "not Mitt Romney". We need still more Mitt-hate from the right until they'll go for ANYONE who is "not Mitt Romney".
Fuck Rush and Hannity with a devil stick. They're hoping to put some hard-ass neocon in as VP while appealing to the SoCons with another bible thumping dimwit.
You left out "Muslim-killing".
Yeah. I bet Limbaugh really wanted to support a Rick Perry. Whatever, whoever gets the R nod will get their unyielding support. I have a relative that listens to the blow hard and he hated McCain up until the moment he got the nomination.
Thats the thing I've been trying to hammer into my more conservative relatives. If you get a Paul on ticket you steal keep the neo-con and soc-cons who absolutely do not want another Obama term, plus libertarians, moderates and disillusioned democrats. You will win for sure with a Paul ticket. If you get a Romney you still might win becaue a bunch of democrats won't show, but you'll lose the libertarian vote. If you get Sanatorum you will absolutely not win.
Good analysis.
Murdoch hyped Santorum on Twitter also.
1) Paul more than doubled his vote over 2008, while Mitt Romney's stayed exactly the same.
And if Ron Paul wasn't a thousand years old, in 2016 he might be able to make something out of that trend.
Ron Paul isn't the only one who can capitalize on the sentiments surrounding Ron Paul. Once Paul chooses a successor, Paulites will move to the annointed.
Yeah the paulites will move to the annoited like the good little sheeple that they are. Losers.
Go Team!
Yeah, right. That's why Chuck Baldwin did so well in 2008.
See #7.
I agree that we're making progress and that the ideas are the thing, but...how does Santorum, with no money, struggling to gather 100 folks at any event, come away with a tie?
Doesn't pass the smell test.
The power of church organizations
Lots of social conservatives saw him do well in the polls and switched their vote. Pundits repeated over the last week they needed to converge on one candidate and they did. No big surprise it was Santorum as he was untouched so far. The Iowa GOP made sure to do their best to convince some Perry and Bachmann supporters to change their minds and they did. It's not a mystery at all.?
Oh, that and Opus Dei.
Opus Dei! Of course, it makes so much sense!
One word:
How is abortion even an issue? The president can't really change the law around abortion, and even right-wing courts have upheld it.
We're counting angels on a pin while Rome burns.
It isn't, really. But the old school GOP just can't help telling women that they're sinners for not having a baby they can't afford to have.
60% of Santorum voters in Iowa said their #1 issue was abortion.
I can't wrap my mind about how fucking dumb you have to be to make abortion your #1 issue with unemployment at "8.6%" according to the federal govt.
Now explain how Santorum's position on abortion is "better" than Paul's?
Santorum's position on abortion is pretty identical to Paul's. However because the fetus fancying crowd also tends to be socon in other areas Paul's failure to hate on the homos is a big negative for them. Santorum has all the socon bona fides.
Santorum is not a federalist. He called gay marriage in some states the 10th amendment run amok. Santorum seems to believe he can stop states from allowing what he doesn't like even without a Constitutional amendment.
its pretty simple - if you are convinced that abortion = murder, then thats kinda an important issue.
It's not like abortion is going to become more or less legal because of who is in the White House. Even taking into account the power to appoint to the federal bench.
I'm totally and absolutely flabbergasted at people who take issues like this--issues that cannot and will not be resolved by their votes--and let them guide their decisions. It's like the interventionists who oppose Paul for his more neutral foreign policy stance. Sure, worry about something that even a President Paul can't really stop, all while ignoring the fact that he's the only major party candidate who will even try to save the economy and shrink the government.
Especially since Im pretty sure any Paul nominees to the supremes will overturn Roe v Wade, so exactly how much better of a candidate on abortion could he be?
The real problem is that people make decisions about who will have power over them on the very barest of information.
robc, Santorum is "better" on abortion because he supports a Federal law against it, while Paul wants to return the issue to the states. Meaning some godless, heathen states won't outlaw abortion.
Anyone who voted for Santorum has zero interest in liberty as normal humans define it.
I'm very comfortable that Santorum will vanish quickly, so Paul being in this thing is good. I think Paul could do well in the South (some states excepted), if it's mostly between him and Romney.
I don't think the moral reasoning is that hard. If you believe abortion is murder, how could the unemployment rate trump that?
If that makes someone dumb, or you cannot understand it, I think you should really try to see it from there point of view.
To appreciate how horrendous the Paul-bashing has become at FrontPageMag.com, here's the beginning from today's piece by Alan Dershowitz, Mr. Conservative himself:
For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes—"the Jews" control the world and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, including the financial crisis; The Jews killed Christian children in order to use the blood to bake Matzo; the Holocaust never happened—are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion. To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are now moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Professor Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul.
PJ Media has gone all-in on the Paul-Bashing too.
The guy who told us there were legitimate reasons to doubt whether O.J. Simpson was guilty of murdering two people (one of them Jewish) is now saying that Ron Paul is clearly guilty of abetting racism.
OJ's DNA all over the crime scene wasn't enough to prove him guilty of killing his wife and a Jewish waiter, yet there is apparently no room for doubt that a supporter of Murray Rothbard is some kind of Jew-baiter.
Impeccable logic.
Dershowitz has no credibility whatsoever. He'll say anything to support whatever cause he thinks is important. In this case, he's probably most concerned that Paul will stop the direct support of Israel. Or end other things that Dershowitz likes, such as torture.
Such behavior from a lawyer?! I'm shocked. Fazed, even.
[Sets fazer to bemuse.]
Is it fazer or phaser? I'm not a Trekkie so I don't know these details.
Holy shit. Dimwitz is actually saying that Paul would promote Holocaust II? How does he live with blood pressure that high?
The most amazing thing happened last night. After two weeks of bashing Dr. Paul for everything under the sun, the media (bank owned) were unable to bring Dr. Paul down like they did the others like Cain.
The next most important piece of news is this; Romney received less votes than last time, Dr. Paul gained more than 100% more than last time. That puts Dr. Paul on the upswing.
Santorum, if his votes were real, was just like the others getting a sudden boost. But those are weak votes that blow with the wind to whoever the media wishes.
Only Dr. Paul has the money to fight Romney, and it's all about the anti-romney vote.
I actually was happy with 3rd place considering Romney's frozen numbers. Santorum will repeat the rise and fall like the rest of them. If Iowa was 2 weeks from now, he would've been back down to single digits. The anti-Romney vote is bouncing off each consecutive candidate and Santorum lucked out.
Agreed. Eventually the anti-Romney vote is going to settle on Paul. The question is whether it will be enough.
"the media (bank owned) were unable to bring Dr. Paul down like they did the others like Cain."
One would think that Mr. Cain was more than capable of bringing himself down.
That's right, and then it'll be about the anti-Obama vote.
I actually thought that this was Paul's caucus to lose. Santorum will get the biggest push because we expected Romney to lose and everyone knows how heavily Paul campaigned in Iowa.
I don't see him getting as strong of a finish in another other state except Kentucky.
The Republican Party could not tolerate a Ron Paul win in Iowa because they don't consider him a REAL Republican. Guns were aimed at Paul, once they started to realize that Paul could win Iowa.
Not even in states like Washington, Colorado, Oregon, or California? Granted their primaries or caucases are farther off. But the fact is I expect Paul to do well with the Republican crowd in the western states. Social conservatives are not quite as hard core as they are in the south and midwest. Morover the republicans in those states tend to have dispositions that favor what Ron Paul is selling. And thats the thing. Ron will run this campaign until the very end. I think as long as he places relatively well in the early primaries he has a decent shot to move ahead when the western states get to put in their two cents.
I mean think about it. Ron Paul would be the best shot to seriously contend in California, Oregon, and Washington since Ronald Regan. Those states have pretty much voted solid democrat since then. HW was able to pull California but not the other two. And contending for over 70 electoral votes that have been solidly democrat for the last 20 years would be a major boon for the repubs.
You pathetic worms! The Doctor cannot stop us!
We're just getting wormed up!
I like Sea Biscuit in the fourth.
This proves that Conservatism is a bankrupt political philosophy. Ayn Rand stiff-armed these assholes every chance she got. Religion and tradition are no way to solve problems and prosper in a competitive world.
Santorum is the embodiment of the leftover contemporary conservative remnants.
Religion and tradition are no way to solve problems and prosper in a competitive world.
on the contrary, that is precisely how the US prospered. feelings engendered by religion and connected to it about hard work, work being a good thing in itself, fidelity to work even if you are not making a lot of money, whatever I do I should try my best, all these things are just one example of how traditional values lead to prosperity.
most of us don't expect to live behind barbed fences for safety. that is because of tradition and religion which prevents most of us from breaking into our neighbors' homes. law itself is not enough. the law itself depends on other values.
I saw Richard Dawkins being nasty to a Muslim in an interview. Dawkins people since they have no religion have no reason to continue as a group or even to reproduce. there is a good chance that in 500 years his group will be extinct. but the Muslims will still be here, living by their tradition and religion.
Rand liked the US but she never asked why it was the way it was. She seemed to assume that everyone was rational and that that could lead to the work ethic or private property. It takes a lot more than that to organize any society.
The rational thing for me to do right now might be to steal, but I won't do it.
Dawkins people since they have no religion have no reason to continue as a group or even to reproduce.
A strand of bubblegum, connecting the premise and the conclusion. Provide one, please.
The rational thing for me to do right now might be to steal
Not if you value not-stealing, it wouldn't be.
Not if you value not-stealing, it wouldn't be.
Why shouldn't I steal, rob, kill, rape, etc., if I could get away with it. If there is not downside for me and harm only to others (who I care nothing for), why should I not engage in the most despicable (subjectively) acts imaginable?
I find it really sad that so many people can't think of reasons to be moral besides fear of a sky daddy.
I find it really sad that so many people confuse love/gratitude with fear.
No, I've actually hear people say that they would go out and commit crimes if they weren't afraid of going to hell. It really does happen. I understand that there are all sorts of religious people and that is not everyone's motivation for being moral, but it does seem to be the case for many people.
Re: Zeb,
I find it really sad that so many people can't think of reasons to be moral besides fear of a sky daddy.
What difference would it make? As long as people act under the guide of the Golden Rule, their beliefs are irrelevant.
But the people who do moral things out of fear alone become pretty dangerous once they lose their fear.
It doesn't make much difference for the most part. But if you are the sort of person who does good things because some god wants them to, then they will also be the sort of person who can be convinced to do bad things because some god wants them to.
As long as people act under the guide of the Golden Rule, their beliefs are irrelevant.
Says you. I suspect you're an outlier.
It's the concept of consequences at work--even in the ancient world, which the academic class lauds for being much more worldly and wise than the UGH XTIAN BIGOTS which displaced them, felt that the eyes of the gods and their ancestors were always on them, ready to smite them for any perceived transgressions. The concept of "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong" always had its roots in religion--it's what allowed lawgivers, for centuries, to enact social norms of behavior, based on the goal of establishing a stable society with a common bond. You can ask an atheist, "Why is it wrong to harm somebody?" and you might get a hundred different answers, some logical, some not. Ask a religious believer the same question, and you'll likely get a variation of the same theme--"Because God has deemed it to be wrong, and there will be consequences in both this life and the next if we harm someone."
That concept of consequences has been so been diluted by relativism during the last 100 years, that many look at how dysfunctional modern society is and turn to religion as the balm for what they perceive to be the slings and arrows of an unjust, instable world. Their religion provides a set of rules of behavior that has broad social and cultural applications, in addition to the personal--rules that could fill in the holes of what they perceive to be foundational dysfunctions. Telling them, "Don't harm someone because it's wrong" simply wouldn't be sufficient as an explanation if their society tolerates and enables harmful behavior.
That's a shit-ton of stupid, right there. Modern society is NOT dysfunctional. Over the centuries, for the most part, violence is on a downward trend. Tolerance is more the accepted norm. Your argument is nothing but a call for social totalitarianism, wrapped in haze of nostalgia. go back a couple hundred years in America or Europe as anything other than a wealthy white male and you'll found out how just good the good 'ol days were NOT.
I think it's simply a problem of terminology. The umbrella word Conservative is simply too broad. In what way are the concepts of Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism related? Yet they both get wedged into the umbrella of Conservatism, leading to vote splits like Iowa. Iowa saw three distinct brands of Conservatism, Social (Santorum), Fiscal (Paul) and Traditional (i.e. Status Quo / Romney). Romney attempts to also poach from both Social and Fiscal foundations, and the image that results from this (fictitious) merger of three strains of Conservatism is what makes him appear electable.
Romney is going to win the nomination. But the voice that Paul gives to both Fiscal and Non-interventionist Conservatism is a joy to behold.
Fiscal restraint (what most call conservatism) is great - problem is that Republicans like Santorum and the Bush GOP have no interest in it.
It would be nice, however, if Ron Paul were to get a speechwriter and rehearse before speaking. He's a great "voice for both fiscal and non-interventionist conservatism", but he's not a a naturally eloquent speaker.
Re: shrike,
This proves that Conservatism is a bankrupt political philosophy.
As far as socialist theories go, yes - conservatism IS bankrupt.
Religion and tradition are no way to solve problems and prosper in a competitive world.
You would have to show how religion is anathema to competitiveness and innovation. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive unless the doctrine teaches that the world cannot be rationally understood. Even if you don't want to see it, the advantage of Christianity lies in the foundational belief in a rational - i.e GOOD - God. If you compare Christianity with, let's say, Islam, you will see nuanced but important differences, as Islam holds that God is not only all powerfull, but also can be both good AND bad. Such a view does not lend itself well with the idea of a universe that's rational and mathematically perfect. Science would be a futile endeavor, even heretical - no one can question God.
Santorum is the embodiment of the leftover contemporary conservative remnants.
Santorum is certainly a socialist of the conservative kind; that is, a fascist, in the proper and correct sense of the word. But to conclude from this that religion has no place in public discourse is stretching the silly-putty just a little bit too much.
I was pleasantly surprised last night when I turned on NPR to hear them talking about Ron Paul for a solid 10 minutes at least. It almost sounded as if he had won the thing and there was no mention of newsletters or how he is not a real candidate. It actually took me a few minutes to realize that Paul had not won.
To judge by the signs I see while driving, Paul is doing well in NH. But if I had to bet on it, I would bet he comes in second in NH.
Probably. Romney has been polling real well there. But as long as Paul is competitive in the eastern states thats fine. It is in the western states where Pauls real strength lies.
Shit Flopney has been living in NH for 6 or 7 years. And Analfroth only left Iowa a few times since showing up there. I would have been really surprised in Ron Paul came in 1st in Iowa, but it is dissappointing he wasn't 2nd.
Hopefully Ron can walk away with the Colorado caucus on Feb 7. But that will depend on Shittens not sweeping SC and FL.
I can't wait for the story about the Santorums taking their dead baby on a road trip takes off again. That is just way Toofa King weird.
Do you have to put a dead baby in a car seat, or is a jar ok?
I'd say it won't appear. No way a candidate risks looking like a heartless prick to even allow their supporters to mention it.
Maybe Gingrich, but he has it in for Romney so it won't happen.
Just about all the remaining candidates besides maybe Huntsman seem more likely to jump in with Santorum than Romney. If the non-Romney/non-Paul vote consolidates behind Santorum, Paul has something of a shot at a plurality as neither Santorum or Romney are particularly inspiring. We knew the consolidation would likely happen post-IA, and honestly, Santorum is amongst the least dangerous candidates for it to happen with. I hope.
You are disgusting. Typical comment from a mentally challanged idiot that supports a racist isolationist.
Excellent troll, bro!
You can troll better than that scumbag.
You dropped the "isolationist" bomb too early.
Santorum wants abortion illegal. Which means that every miscarriage would have to be investigated for foul play or negligence. He took a miscarriage home for the night.
Under his stated preference of law, he's guilty of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice.
I have some difficulty following this line of reasoning. Paul also wants abortion to be a crime (under state law). Would he, too, desire a criminal investigation of any miscarriage?
Come to think of it, Paul practiced obstetrics in Texas when abortion was a crime in that state. He of all people would know whether the cops investigated every miscarriage or stillbirth. Yet somehow Paul still wants abortion to be a crime in Texas and other states - maybe he's covering up for police abuse, eh?
If abortion is a crime, how else would you investigate self/at-home abortion except by investigating miscarriages? If a fetus has full personhood, and we investigate the deaths (at least superficially) of all persons, then all miscarriages would have to be investigated for foul play or negligence.
If you had a 12-year-old dead in your house could you call your doctor, say "My kid is dead." and nothing else happen? Is it your position that the doctor and police just take the mother's word for it and go about their business?
If you want to say that abortion is the same a murder, then I think that it follow logically that the fetus must have the same legal status as a person who has been born. Therefore, there would have to be an investigation of any untimely death to rule out foul play or criminal negligence.
If you want abortion illegal, but don't consider it the same as murder, then it might be different.
Do you guys support Ron Paul? If so, you're supporting someone who (in your view) wants a criminal investigation of every miscarriage - a remarkable position for an OB/GYN to hold.
Do you seriously contend that the cops automatically open criminal investigations into all deaths, or even all "untimely death[s]?" That they will automatically question the relatives of a car-wreck victim ("untimely!") to ask them if the brakes had been tampered with? Or the relatives of a cancer victim ("untimely!") to see if the doctors poisoned him?
Do you seriously contend
If you want murders to go univestigated, just say so.
If you missed the point, just say so.
Have you actually looked into the way the law is actually enforced in places where abortion is illegal? Texas was such a place during the early years of Ron Paul's career. Or are you relying on speculation?
Do you think the cops check for braker-tampering whenever someone dies in a wreck? Or checks for poisoning whenever someone dies in a hospital?
You're saying that unborn persons can't be treated like born people because investigations into the deaths of real persons are automatic and intrusive. Your position seems to require the assumption that there's an automatic criminal investigation of the deaths of born people - if that weren't the case, then your "equal treatment" argument isn't as scary as you want to make it.
Your position seems to require the assumption that there's an automatic criminal investigation of the deaths of born people - if that weren't the case, then your "equal treatment" argument isn't as scary as you want to make it.
The path to liberty is not hoping the police are too incompetent to enforce tyrannical laws. It's not having tyrannical laws.
I'm not sure I've ever take "Abortion = Murder" to the logical enforcement conclusion that Nutrasweet makes, but I think it's valid. Given that, I'd wonder if the "unintended consequence" would be a under-reporting of pregnancies until second or third trimester. Which would of course lead to laws where reporting of pregnancy (or missed menstrual cycles) would be mandatory.
The "Abortion is Murder" thought train does lead to some fun exercises in statism.
Rather than use fun exercises, why not investigate those jurisdictions where abortion is actually a crime? Apart from Communist Romania (whose distinguishing feature is "communist," not "prolife"), can you find actual places where these horror scenarios have been enacted?
can you find actual places where these horror scenarios have been enacted?
Abortion is illegal in Ireland, so women get on a ferry to England. Ireland gets to keep its anti-abortion fantasies and women still "murder" their fetuses.
And countries where that is impractical, there is/was a thriving abortion underground. Even in Romania.
I think abortion is a pressure valve. And even the "abortion is MURDER" crowd knows it. While they want abortion illegal, they know if the state truly treated fetuses as persons, people would howl and support for their position would collapse.
In other words: If you truly consider abortion murder, why would you not support investigating every miscarriage?
No, not necessarily a criminal investigation. But there is some sort of investigation of any death. That's why there are coroners. And if abortion is legally considered murder, you don't think that there will be some asshole prosecutors who will go after suspicious looking miscarriages (whatever he may consider that to be)?
Georgia anti-abortion bill would require investigations of miscarriages
At least they are consistent in their principles.
I checked this bill, and it requires doctors (or the heads of medical institutions) to report miscarriages. If it's some kind of home birth and the doctors arrives promptly after the miscarriage, the doctor reports it.
If there's no doctor around at the time of the birth or immediately afterward, the report is prepared by "the proper investigating official," who has to turn in a report within 30 days.
That's hardly the same as arresting Rick Santorum because he took his dead baby from the hospital.
And it's not tyrannical, unless requiring medical personnel to fill out death certificates for people who die after birth, is tyrannical.
A mandatory medical report is not an investigation, as claimed by the headline and the linked article. Most births - including home births where the child is dead - involve a doctor at the scene or shortly thereafter.
They have an investigation only if there was no doctor at the time of the birth or immediately thereafter - a stillborn baby without doctors around is what we might call a suspicious circumstance. I can already head the New York Times ("women and minorities hardest hit!") going on about investigating poor pregnant miscarrying women of color living in migrant camps without doctors, etc., but that's still not the same as investigating *all* miscarriages so to call that headline misleading is an understatement.
And if a child dies without medical attendance, I would *hope* there would be an investigation, whether the child died in the womb or out of it - and that there would be a report filed within 30 days about what killed the child.
As to prosecutors filing false accusations - prosecutors have falsely accused people of rape and murder, yet I don't think that means legalizing rape and murder is the thing to do.
I see this sentence in the article:
"Authorities would be required to investigate the cause of fetal death in cases where a miscarriage occurs without attendance at a medical facility."
No, the investigation is required if there wasn't medical attendance at the birth or immediately afterward. If there's a doctor on the scene then or right afterward, then even if it's a home birth there's no automatic investigation.
So the only mandatory investigation is if a child (born or unborn) dies *without a doctor around.* Leaving that part out skews the reporting.
No I think thats wild fancy.
If a dead baby goes sledding in Pennsylvania, does it have to wear a helmet?
Santorum's problem is that he's a neocon, which means he isn't prolife *enough.* Some of the comments suggest that his problem is being *too* prolife, which is silly.
Unlike certain Senators I could mention, if you find Santorum with a dead person in a car, you know the person was dead *before* they got in the car.
Be fair. Teddy Kennedy wasn't with the woman by the time she died.
Why is it so hard for people distinguish between people's personal views on contentious issue and what they advocate in terms of public policy? It's just like people who say Ron Paul is pro-drugs because he thinks the state has no business telling us what we may or may not ingest.
Someone should ask Santorum why he's taking policy prescriptions from Ceauşescu's Romania.
I think Rand has a better chance of capitalizing on the long term movement Ron has helped to create than Johnson. Johnson left the party and most Republicans just aren't congruent with his views yet (gays, pot, Iraq. Even though Paul left the party and came back, Paul is more conservative than Johnson).
Rand is in the party and seems to have a better grasp of what and what not to say when the time calls.
Johnson has no future in National GOP politics because he is pro-choice (and is a really lousy candidate ).
Woops, forgot that big one.
Good, so when he wins 10% of the vote after Ron Paul endorses him, we won't hear you complain about him being a spoiler. That's one of the reasons I'm excited about his campaign - he actually has much better crossover appeal than Paul and can pull from the bases of both parties, as well as socially liberal, fiscally conservative independents.
I agree. Rand has more likeability than Johnson. That, and name recognition.
I listened to Johnson's LP announcement speech. After about a minute, I despaired that Johnson made Ron Paul sound eloquent. Rand Paul is better, but why don't these guys get a speechwriter, a professional speaking coach, and rehearse before focus groups? They don't have to depart from the libertarian idea, but they need to learn how to express it to the public in an appealing and persuasive manner.
The three most important qualities for a candidate running for POTUS:
1) Be attractive
2) Be presidential
3) Don't be unattractive
That kind of sums up Mitt to most folks, so I don't know. Most people hate to talk about politics because they cannot articulate their views. So they go with tie-breakers like:
1) His wardrobe: was it presidential?
2) Would he represent America as the hansomest man in the room at State dinners?
3) How does his wife measure up to Jackie O?
Also, wear a flag pin.
which flag? Israel?
The crossed American and Israeli flags are best unless you're campaigning in the inner cities of Michigan.
yes. Those crossed flags could be our neo-swastika.
Good idea. Frank Luntz should focus test that for Willard.
You forgot #4:
Support SS/Medicare.
You forgot number 4)
When I look at him I just feel like I am looking at a president.
Fox Radio is reporting that the Gingrich campaign was "sullen" last night after the results came in. Sullen!
Newt needs to lash out like a mortally wounded obese polar bear that just escaped from a zoo.
I would prefer suicidal with a touch of seppuku.
That's some task. Did you even see his jacket buttoned on the campaign trail?
He could always go for the female version of seppuku, cutting his own throat
Sullen, but more likely bored. They have nothing to do until South Carolina. I'll be interested to see where those polls go in the next several days.
2) Be presidential
I remember in 2008 some dowager interviewed on the local news. she said she was voting for Romney because he "looked presidential".
Jesus wept.
Note: Kill...wealthy...dowager.
Um, what happened to the comments on the yummy tears thread?
Preserved for all time:
Refresh. Always refresh.
Santorum is everywhere!
that is a classic. I love the adderall induced blank stare from the son and the elder daughter wondering about her next meal
I did some of my best work there! VM was living there! How could they do this?
That's where I got my new handle!
I even lost a song! "Children of Santorum."
I am saddened.
You need to petition google for an archived copy of the page
Save the yummy tears!
Lovely. I used that image in my tribute post at Urkobold.
And the post even has the nerve to include the phrase For the benefit of commenters.
Paultards yesterday morning: The MSM is going to say that Iowa doesn't matter if Paul wins because they are scared!
Paultards this morning: Iowa doesn't matter.
Keep on spinning. Paul is finished. Romney will win in NH and South Carolina before the primaries head to a state where Paul might have a chance, but by then all the momentum will be behind Romney. Better luck in 2016.
Of course Romney will win. Goldmann Sachs put all their money behind Romney and Obama. You hseep just follow. Its simply astonishing how brainwashed people can be. Why would you vote for Romney when he is funded by the same people as Obama? Seriously WHY?
"Paultards this morning: Iowa doesn't matter."
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend a sentence longer than 3 words?
Paul is apparently more electable than Perry and Bachmann.
And Huntsman. Of course, Huntsman's problem is he's not enough of a fringe candidate.
Is Huntsman dropping out? I figured with his numbers in NH and not trying in Iowa, he would be around for at least 1 more week.
Not yet, AFAIK. I just wanted to make the point that pablum / "electability" doesn't always sell to voters.
love that Huntsman's hair. he's distinguished.
So I should give up what I believe for you? LOl good luck with that buddy! Why dont YOU change? Are you for Goldmann Scahs funded Romney or the big spender Santorum? Medicare Part D ring a bell? Turn off your TV!
Ron Paul 2012!!
I've never wanted to bang Michele Bachmann more.
you sick bastard
you think she's good in the sack? I mean, is there a possibility she is just a nasty, dirty freak behind closed doors?
If you like being choked out while someone yells in your face "YOU'RE NOT DONE YET", then yes, she's probably good.
oh god, please let that be true.
She's been married to a closeted gay guy for years. She's probably gagging for cock at this point.
that's beautiful. I love it.
I've never wanted to bang Michele Bachmann
Rush 2112!
At least link to it.
With Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann inching toward the exits...
Bachman and Perry voters will break for Santorum.
Newt Gingrich is on the ropes.
Gingrich's supporters will go to Romney.
Mitt Romney [has] an icy relationship at best with the Republican grassroots and Tea Party movement.
Romney can fix that by picking someone to run as vice-president like Nikki Haley, who's apparently Tea Party legit.
Romney can fix that by picking someone to run as vice-president like Nikki Haley, who's apparently Tea Party legit.
It should be painfully clear to all the Tea Party people, by the way, that other than Paul, neither Santorum nor Romney are in any way Tea Party that I can tell.
Santorum is a Bush Administration era neocon, and there ain't nothin' Tea Party about Romney either.
Paul supporters may have some things to cheer about, but the Tea Party people should be crying in their beer.
Perry voters will split between Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. Bachmann voters will wander away and wonder if it was just a dream. Gingrich voters may finally finish shitting and get off the toilet.
Bachman's support was from the religious right--just like Santorum's. The Santorum Amendment was about requiring the teaching of intelligent design, and it was an amendment to No Child Left Behind Act.
If those evangelicals who supported Bachman weren't breaking for Gingrich or Romney before, now that Santorum has emerged as THE religious right candidate, why would they break for Gingrich or Romney now?
Gingrich voters really are the elderly. They were voting for who seemed like the Republican establishment candidate to them in their own little world. Once it becomes clear to them that Romney is the Republican establishment candidate now, that's who they'll support.
Better Romney than Santorum. Better Romney than Obama. Things are looking up for Obama, though. Obama would rather run against Santorum, but Romney's no threat to swallow up a bunch of libertarianish/Tea Party type swing voters. Ain't nobody in the swing vote that's all fired up about putting Romney in the White House...
And Obama's still got an ace up his sleeve. If Obama still has more than two brain cells to rub together, he'll get rid of Mumbly Joe, and use Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
Now that's a spicy meat-a-ball!
She is campaigning for him right now, so I think you're on to something.
He endorsed her back when she was running for governor.
He needs someone from the South. And he's a little too vanilla. If I were his campaign, and he picks her to run as his running mate? I wouldn't shoot a commercial that showed him without her in the shot.
yes about the commercial. and towards the end, start playing porn music.
It works for cars!
I have never seen a car in my life that didn't look better with a chick standing next to it.
They sell razor blades and beer that way, too.
Santorum is another flavor of the week. One who just happened to peak at the right time. At this point I see Romney as the most likely winner, though maybe Gingrich will make a comeback.
Sadly, I think that means Obama will be reelected. Romney can't bring out the conservative base. Johnson or Paul might succeed in generating a significant protest vote, taking the libertarians with him. In fact, I would not be surprised if Obama won a 60 percent landslide, as in Ronald Reagan's second term.
I will say this for Paul. He has, to an extent legitimized libertarianism as a mainstream political philosophy. He forced the news media to admit he existed. He forced them to admit that libertarianism has significant popular appeal within the Republican party and without. He forced Republicans to take him seriously enough to run attack ads against him.
How does a 3rd party run get Obama up to 60%?
With a Obama/Romney/Johnson race*, Obama would be extremely lucky to break 45%.
*assuming Johnson is Perot-lite and not standard LP 0.5%.
Not a wise assumption.
Well yeah, but with the 0.5% assumption, Obama will finish between 48 and 52 percent.
Either way, 60% isnt possible.
I agree. O'Bummer has lost much of his base and isn't picking up any new voters. Much of the swooning youths who supported him in the last election are going to the Paul camp, and might not even show up if they're given a choice between O'Bummer and Romney.
60% ain't gonna happen for either side.
I don't know how many of his young voters are going to Paul, but I am willing to bet a ton of them just don't bother voting at all this year.
She's saying that a Romney nod will depressed the GOP vote that low.
I disagree with her. As much as they will flap and squawk about hating Romney, Republicans believe in the "Not voting for X means a vote for Y" paradigm too strongly.
But he's a Mormon!
That's a cult!
What will the fundies do?
Close their eyes, hold their breath and touch it... the voting booth button, I mean.
Exactly. The majority of the party will vote for the party. Doesn't matter who has the holds the nomination. Thats why Ron Paul is so interestng as he has a lot of support from individuals who don't normally vote republican. I honestly think they might offer Paul the VP nom because of it, in hopes to siphon some of those votes to their ranks. He'd never accept though.
I'm not saying it's *likely* he will get 60%, just that I wouldn't be *surprised*. The economy might improve. He did end the Iraq war and allow gays in the military and give Democrats a health care reform. So he hasn't totally blown all his promises.
And Romney will not get out the Republican base. Combining various factors and a bit of luck, I could see him getting up to 60%.
I'm not necessarily on board with Hazel here, but it's all about the swing voters, and the swing voters were all in Paul's camp.
The religious right/War on Islam vote all went to Santorum, and the establishment Republican vote all went to Romney.
That's basically two sides of the Republican base--but you need the swing vote to win.
How is Romney going to get the swing vote? Why vote for Obama-lite, when you can vote for the real thing?
Santorum with his religious right and Bush Administration era War on Terror enthusiasms--directed at Syria and Iran lately? That won't garner any swing voters for him either.
I doubt Johnson will make a significant dent--he's no Ross Perot. He'll poll like a libertarian. It was easy for them to ignore him when he was running as a Republican, and it'll be even easier now that he's a Libertarian.
I doubt Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian--because his son needs to move up in the Republican Party, and in order to do that, Rand Paul needs to show he can deliver his base in Kentucky to the Republican candidate--not stab them in the back by campaigning for his father.
The swing voters that might break for the Republicans stay home for either a Santorum ticket or for a Romney ticket. ...unless one of them pulls a magic Sarah Palin like personality out a hat to run with. Then all bets are off.
Rand Paul needs to show he can deliver his base in Kentucky to the Republican candidate
Obama got 41% of the vote in KY in 2008. It was the first time in 50 years KY hadnt gone to the winner. And it wasnt even close.
"Delivering" the vote for the GOP nominee is guaranteed.
Not if he's campaigning for his father in Kentucky, it isn't.
There are other Republicans who would love to move onto his turf--accuse him of not caring about the Republican Party in Kentucky, only about himself ans his father.
Ron Paul is too astute, I think, to put his son in that situation, to open his son up to that very real threat to his continued viability as a Senator from Kentucky. That's why I think it's highly unlikely that Ron Paul will run as Libertarian.
I think that may be why Gary Johnson felt comfortable going for the Libertarian nomination himself.
I agree with you on Ron not running 3rd party.
Im just saying that, for example, **I** can deliver the GOP to KY in 2012. Obama cannot win KY. Period.
KY to the GOP, I mean.
Santorum definitely gets KY.
KY to the GOP, I mean.
No reason to get vulgar.
; )
Like I said I think the Republicans might offer the VP spot for Paul. He would never accept, but you can't stop politicos from being politicos. They know they need the swing vote, either in their camp, or not showing up at all.
It was the first time in 50 years KY hadnt gone to the winner. And it wasnt even close.
Kentucky has gone Republican since I think 1968 (definitely since 1976). Last I checked, the Republicans didn't win in 1976, 1992, or 1996.
60% will happen because the GOP base will not come out to vote.
Obama will not win. This fucking economy and the government's collective inaction will doom him completely.
I hope you're right about that.
That's why I'm not betting against whoever wins the Republican nomination.
For an easy contest, the Republicans sure ran some crappy candidates up the flagpole though.
I'd rather vote for Sarah Palin than Romney or Santorum.
I've never heard anyone say that before. I think some one somewhere just shat a brick.
Then I'll say that too.
Top three reasons not to vote for Santorum.
1) He's a lawyer.
2) He's a lawyer.
3) He's a lawyer.
But we love lawyers. We keep letting them rule us.
Tomorrow's leaders come from our Universities. University students have been for years brainwashed by the Communist and Socialist academia.
ISTM that Ron Paul's greatest legacy if he doesn't become POTUS will be his work in re-educating our young on University campuses about America and liberty.
This will set the way for Rand, if he chooses to run in 2016 to become POTUS because if Ron doesn't win this year America will really be in the sheeter by 2016 and will be ready for Rand to become POTUS in 2016.
cnn is projecting the delegate count in Iowa as:
Romney 7, Santorum 7, Paul 7, Gingrich 2, Perry 2.
I think based on the other stories, Paul will actually win the delegate count, but that is a fair estimate based on the vote. So, "3rd" is even questionable, as it looks like a 3-way tie to me on the "scoreboard".
As The Wall Street Journal observes, "If he is able to win a plurality of just five delegations from any of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., or the five territories, Mr. Paul can vie for the nomination at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. That would allow him a seat at the table when the party decides its platform, giving him leverage to push his antiwar and antitax message."
I think his message is more anti-spending than anti-tax these days.
Agreed--I'm sure he'd have no problem going back to Clinton-era tax rates if government went back to Clinton-era spending levels.
The presidential preference poll (aka straw poll) at the Iowa caucuses means nothing; the poll has no bearing on the delegates awarded in June at the state convention.
There were 39 voters in my tiny, rural precinct yesterday. Two-thirds of them went for Santorum, Perry, or Backmann. Ron Paul got 5 total votes in the precinct.
But, the real business of the caucus is to elect delegates to the county convention which elects delegates to the district convention which elects delegates to the state convention which elects the real delegates to the national convention. In 2008 McCain came in fourth in the straw poll but got all the delegates to the national convention. This is because the system is rigged to support the "establishment" candidate at the national level.
The secret is that conventions cost money, and at the state level the delegates pay their own way. So while the precicnt is supposed to elect delegates, what happens is that the caucus chairman pleads with the caucus to get volunteers to pay the $35 a piece to attend the county convention. The precinct generally doesn't fill it quota.
Not only that, but the county hasn't sent its full quota to the state convention in several election cycles. So this year, the party actually starting begging for delegates to pay the $50 to attend the district and state conventions (one ticket gets you into both conventions).
So after writing a check for $170, both my wife and I are delegates for Ron Paul committed all the way to the state convention.
The net result is that 5 out of 39 votes in the straw poll turned into 2 out of 7 delegates to the county and 2 out of for 4 delegates to the state.
The Paul campaign was focussed on two things in the caucus training. First, get a good number in the straw poll. Second, and most important, lock up the delegates.
The Paul campaign has already started opening offices and preparing in the other caucus states. It's a really cheap way to rack up delegates.
Well that's an awesome story. I knew they had been putting together teams in all the caucus states, but I was a little hazy on how it was going to pay off re: delegates beyond just the advantage of getting people willing to put up with the hassle of caucusing in the first place.
Didn't Obama do the same thing with the caucus process in Iowa in 2008 (I'm aware the Democratic caucus was a little worse)?
This is what Obama did. his staff new the rules and how to rack up the votes that matter -- the actual delegates
*knew the rules.
I hate thats how nominations are secured. But hats off for Ron Paul pulling off a Tyrion Lanister move, if the reports I am reading are true. I would have a never ending smile on my face if Ron Paul consistently got 2nd or 3rd in straw polls but ended up with the nomination because he out played the establishment at their own game.
How would you arrange nominations? Someone has to pay the expenses of holding a convention, so it might as well be the delegates. Presumably the party doesn't do enough general fund raising to take it all out of there.
Matt, on what issues don't you agree with Ron Paul? Thanks.
Abortion and immigration would be the first two I can think of.
Paul is not beholden to the Kochtopus.
And pretty much that's it.
Or, if you prefer a non-crazy answer, immigration and abortion.
Redefining marriage.
you mean, away from "soul-crushing man-made prison?"
I thought it was a soul-crushing, woman-made prison.
Pandering to neanderthals.
Maybe the racist wingnut shit actually helped Ron Paul in Iowa.
Re: maxipad,
Maybe the racist wingnut shit actually helped Ron Paul in Iowa.
Especially with the college kids and the Independents and Democrats that caucused for him. Yeah, those guys are particularly drawn by racist views.
I don't get you libertarians, you claim you aren't just rabid Republicans but rather than align with the only force than can turn back their insane proto-fascist agenda you keep trying to find some way to "align" with them to the point you support racist thugs like Ron Paul.
There's a sane brilliant intellectual who knows what needs to be done for this nation and how that change should come about and he will be on the 2012 ballot. It's time to stop your absurd opposition to what's best for this country and work with the rest of us.
The best choice won't have an R next to his name unless they get over their desire to destroy this country and any black man they see and join the rest of the country in supporting the President for re-election until he finishes the job.
Nice straw man. I especially like the overalls.
The best choice won't have an R next to his name
I agree, which is why I will be voting for Johnson in November.
Also, fuck off troll.
If Paul doesn't win, I'm voting for Johnson. However, Johnson's chances, barring some really crazy turn of events, are somewhere south of one in a thousand. Given Obama's obvious failings and failures, not to mention the economy, the winner of the GOP race is extremely likely to be the next president. It's relevant.
Also, even though I'll vote LP and normally would be all for divided government, I suppose I'll be a little happier with a bad GOP president, and at least the courts won't get more Obama appointees.
Obama was going to be my second choice after Ron Paul, like he was in 2008. But now with Gary Johnson running third party, I will be voting for him. In 2008, I thought the McCain/Palin ticket was dangerous. Romney probably isn't unstable, although sometimes I wonder. SO, I won't feel compelled to vote for Obama.
Wow, searing analysis. Not much gets by you!
Anybody who thinks Obama is
a) sane
b) intellectual
is either seriously deluded or an astro-turfing shill, and not worth taking seriously.
their insane proto-fascist agenda
You are a hysterical moron.
to the point you support racist thugs like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is our compromise. He doesn't seem to be a racist. I have no idea in what way you think he's a thug. He's libertarian enough to get our support. It's not because we want to align ourselves with the Republicans.
There's a sane brilliant intellectual who knows what needs to be done for this nation
That would be an example of something we disagree with you on: you're assuming what you need to prove. This is the guy who just signed the bill legalising indefinite detention of American citizens you're talking about, right?
It's time to stop your absurd opposition to what's best for this country and work with the rest of us.
We don't call it our "absurd opposition to what's best" - again, assuming what you need to prove.
The best choice won't have an R next to his name unless they get over their desire to destroy this country and any black man
More hysteria, another accusation of racism, still no evidence to support either.
join the rest of the country in supporting the President for re-election until he finishes the job.
And if we think he's wrong about everything?
This troll just wants to get us drunk, by using pretty much every "drink" trigger there is in our in-group drinking game. Well, it won't work, Troll, at least until I get home.
Re: finally,
you support racist thugs like Ron Paul.
Next thing you will say is that Paul is really a front man for blobby green aliens from outer space.
There's a sane brilliant intellectual who knows what needs to be done for this nation
You mean the brilliant intellectual who wrote those two ghostwritten books himself?
I think he at least wrote Dreams himself, man.
Re: The Ingenious Hidalgo,
I think he at least wrote Dreams himself, man.
No, that one was written by Ayers - style, composition, form, everything points to Ayers. And Audacity was written by one of his speech writers.
I don't get you libertarians
Fine with us. You can lurk quietly and learn something, or you can leave.
Trolling, particularly the accusations of crypto-racism are unacceptable.
What do you MEAN, "you libertarians"???
There's a sane brilliant intellectual who knows what needs to be done for this nation and how that change should come about and he will be on the 2012 ballot.
Gary Johnson?
I don't think Paul is racist, but honestly, I preferred Gary Johnson, and think the Ron Paul people are kind of crazy fanatics. They also shot Johnson in the foot by backing Paul so exclusively.
Yah, wanting to curtail runaway government spending and stop foreign interventionism.
Totally. Crazy.
Also ...
You mean the same sane brilliant intellecual who is explanding upon the previous Republican's proto-fascist agenda? You mean that guy right? Are we talking about the same person?
I might give BO a thought if he had kept a few of his promises, or even started "his job", but he hasn't. As far as I can tell, you like him because he's pretty.
Lyn Marcus?
Fantastic article! Excellent summation of events last night. My hopes are buoyed from the initial disappointment.
There's a sane brilliant intellectual who knows what needs to be done for this nation and how that change should come about and he will be on the 2012 ballot. It's time to stop your absurd opposition to what's best for this country and work with the rest of us.
Stop it, you're killin' me!
I honestly had to read it three times and think HARD about who he could be talking about (At first I thought maybe GJ). The "It's time to stop your absurd opposition to what's best for this country and work with the rest of us." helped me figure out he meant our Dear Leader.
Yeah, that was awesome--in what universe is someone who wrote two self-serving autobiographies and didn't even publish as editor of the Harvard Law Review a "brilliant intellectual"? By that standard, Chelsea Handler is John Adams.
Also, we should stop supporting the proto-facist Republicans ...
... so we can vote for the sane intellectual who knows that what's best for our country includes indefinite detentions, drone warfare, and even more executive power.
The best thing that could happen to the country would be a Paul win. But that likely will not happen. Not to feel disappointed though. If Paul is strongly in the front, then he takes to the convention much of what the Rep. platform will be.
I guess it's encouraging that the racist bag of shit came in third.
Re: Maxipad,
I guess it's encouraging that the racist bag of shit came in third.
No, he actually came in second. Paul is the one that came in third.
Thanks Reason, after all the other crap published in Reason about Dr. Paul - I appreciate this article...this Libertarian is with the Paul rEVOLution. I love my freedom and none of the other candidates (Gary is good but)...do. Hemp Hemp Hooray HR1831 - Dr. Paul all the way.
What "crap"? Reason has criticized Paul's failure to explain the newsletter out of concern that would hurt his chances at election, has criticized his immigration stance and has suggested Johnson might be a better messenger than Paul (due to Johnson's executive experience and Paul's newsletters/ties to conspiracy theories). Beyond that the articles here have been 95% supportive. Doherty's a huge Paul fanboy. I don't get why Paulbots have this notion that Reason is out to get Paul or how it's surprising every time they post something positive about him. Says more about you that you're not paying attention, or maybe you too easily bought the Justin Raimondo/Lew Rockwell hyperbole...
Re: Proprietist,
Reason has criticized Paul's failure to explain the newsletter out of concern that would hurt his chances at election
Yeah, that's it. They were concerned for him. Sure.
I don;t know if you think the rest of us are idiots or if you're just incredibly naive. I lean towards the later.
Ok, let's ignore the 95% positive coverage and say Reason was out to get Ron Paul at the behest of their cosmotarian overlords, the Koch Brothers. Let's say their motivation was concern for the future of cosmotarianism, the whole Beltway libertarian movement being tainted in the eyes of our hipster brethren in the Green Party and over at the Nation by the uncool racism of Ron Paul's ghostwriter.
So what? That's still evidence we just want libertarianism to succeed. Quibbles over whether Ron Paul is the perfect messenger or in which direction do we need to grow our appeal doesn't change the genuineness of our dedication to liberty, nor would it nullify our joy and hope over the possibility of Ron Paul succeeding. And if you continue to doubt that, then f--- you.
We've defended Paul strongly from truly unfair attacks, both here and elsewhere (and taken a lot of crap because of his errors). But because we are not willing to blindly follow him anywhere he goes and accept his every word or explanation as biblical truth somehow we are apostates.
Kochs contributed to the Greyson campaign against Rand Paul. Kochs support warmongers, Kochs support the Fed and the ability for the fed to do their corrupt stuff without a audit.
Yes the Kochs created a fake libertarian magazine, they did so under the theory that libertarian ideas would exist with or without the Koch...and the Kochs would rather have some influence over the movement than none.
This is the same reason most of the biggest energy companies support carbon taxes(like the Kochs and ron Bailey....sorry "cap and trade" is a tax...if they are coming they want to control how it is implemented.
Same reason the biggest corps support warmongering...if the feds are going to waste trillions they want to at least get some good easy/rich contracts.
Yeah, sorry I don't really think the Koch Brothers' opinions have much of anything to do with those of the separate Reason writers. The only major candidates they've ever really praised lately were the Pauls and Johnson. Weren't the Kochs funding Bachmann or Perry? Neither of those candidates have gotten much love here.
Also, not all of the Reason writers and regulars have the same opinion on everything. Intellectual debate can lead some down paths that aren't purist or even preferable. Confronting alternative interpretations of various problems and reconciling them with our political philosphy is vital to our advancement.
So in that sense, I don't mind that Reason writers aren't "pure." At the same time I don't think they're corrupted Kochheads looking to destroy the Pauls and start cosmotarian wars on Yemen or something either.
The reason writers ar not Kochheads, I agree, they are too principled for that....but when the moment is big, when the Fed is in danger or when a causus belli is questioned or Ron Paul pulls ahead in some poll somewhere...You can be sure that Reason will be there to accuse someone of being a anti-semite, a conspiracy theorists or a biggot.
and cap and trade...seriously Ron bailey promoted cap and trade..
Remember when Steve Chapman promoted a new law that required a breathalyzer in cars so that tax-slaves would have to breathe in them to start their own cars?
As I said, Bailey, Chapman, etc. go down paths I don't like or agree with sometimes. And we criticize them for it, but I'm glad Reason's not just an echo chamber and they raise points we should confront about global warming and drunk driving. Libertarianism doesn't have perfect answers to every problem, especially those where rights are conflicting.
Also, I have no problem with Reason fairly criticizing people for bigotry or carelessness with borderline rhetoric. Fairly being the operative word. Businesses tend to avoid controversial language and preferential treatment to avoid upsetting customers. Likewise, politicians and pundits trying to influence politics and build coalitions should avoid them. It's perfectly logical and responsible to call out both opponents (for political gain) and proponents (to avoid political loss) for bigotry.
"Also, I have no problem with Reason fairly criticizing people for bigotry or carelessness with borderline rhetoric."
it is the TIMING that raises suspicion...
New Hampshire 2008...McCain is fresh off of on a gook laden rant about wanting to bomb the hell out of more people....Ron Paul is doing well in NH polls and then Reason goes on a blitz calling Ron Paul racists for things that he never even wrote, much less spoke. Free pass McCain goes on to win the nomination. Good job Reason.
The timing is because the newsletters are in the news again due to Paul's increased popularity/chances of success. And Paul hasn't answered the question (who wrote them, and why?) that would make these stories largely go away in the first place or deserve anything more than a minor mention. When you avoid a straight answer or the answer conflicts with past answers and you've already got a media target on your back due to your views, can you not expect the media would exploit this to the maximum? Also, Reason has the right to insulate themselves from Paul's purported bigotry/carelessness branding the entire libertarian movement.
Kevin Drum doesn't like The Doctor very much.
Bottom line: Ron Paul is not merely a "flawed messenger" for these views. He's an absolutely toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger for these views. This is, granted, not Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time levels of toxic, but still: if you truly support civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad, you should run, not walk, as fast as you can to keep your distance from Ron Paul. He's not the first or only person opposed to pre-emptive wars, after all, and his occasional denouncements of interventionism are hardly making this a hot topic of conversation among the masses. In fact, to the extent that his foreign policy views aren't simply being ignored, I'd guess that the only thing he's accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is. Crackpots don't make good messengers.
Now, if you literally think that Ron Paul's views on drugs and national security are so important that they outweigh all of this — multiple decades of unmitigated crackpottery, cynical fear-mongering, and attitudes toward social welfare so retrograde they make Rick Perry look progressive — and if you've somehow convinced yourself that non-interventionism has no other significant voices except Ron Paul — well, if that's the case, then maybe you should be happy to count Paul as an ally. But the truth is that you don't need to. Ron Paul is not a major candidate for president. He's never even been a significant presence as a congressman. In a couple of months he'll disappear back into the obscurity he so richly deserves. So why get in bed with him? All you'll do is wake up in March with a mountain of fleas. Find other allies. Make your arguments without bothering to mention him. And remember: Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good. There's a good reason for that.
Seriously, Obama's Our Guy; he only beats us and locks us in the basement because he loves us!
Kevin Drum:Crackpot::Smurfs:Smurf
whats even more hilarious about this for me is that I was listening to The John Gibson Radio show yesterday, basically a 3-hour neocon rant, and he went into this long diatribe about how Ron Paul is such a "LEFT-wing crackpot."
Almost as bad as Salon.com's Michael Lind.
Mr. Drum starts his rant with "we lefties"
Ruined everything else after that.
Sounds like the Team Blue establishment is just as nervous as Team Red.
I didn't think anybody liked The Doctor.
Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good.
Yep, he's not shifting the discourse at all.
Even though I won't be voting for Ron Paul, the tearful rage of the establishment at the man is so entertaining. "That bitch! Freedom is a bunch of convenient talking points for crying out loud, not a set of policies to be followed!" they cry.
Obama got over 100,000 votes at the Iowa Caucus in 2008. LOL. Where's the GOP enthusiasm? Ron Paul Revolution? Obama got 25,000 votes last night, if anything Obama was the real winner.
Uh.. where did you get the 100,000 number from? Because based off of this
and wikipedia
Your about 99060 short....So I'd love too see where the 100,000 number comes from.
Libertarians are crazy and deluded, ch. 6,352:
A libertarian is someone who knows that his or her decisions are the best, and any regulation is a personal affront to their liberty.
So, using a scenario, let's explore one aspect of liberty. The right to use fireworks.
In a libertarian world, every person has the right to own and use fireworks in any way they see is appropriate. If anyone gets injured using fireworks they will be able to fund their own recovery because they have saved money or have personal healthcare.
In the real world, this has some major issues.
Firstly, people find new and novel ways, generally with the assistance of alcohol or drugs, to injure themselves or others with fireworks, which are in reality controlled explosives.
Secondly, people are often unable to fund their recovery due to the fact they chose not (or are unable) to pay for health insurance.
And more importantly, many of the injured are children. Children are more susceptible to make stupid decisions like staring into a lit firecracker (or to use them as projectile weapons and so on). Even libertarians will have to agree that children are unable to make sensible or sane decisions like not staring down a lit firework.
So fault one with liberty, is people make stupid decisions.
Many regulations are created because people cannot make sane or sensible decisions.
People are feckless morons, and stop trying to pretend they're not!
Many regulations are created because people cannot make sane or sensible decisions.
So true, but not in the way he seems to think.
Clicked too soon:
So fault one with liberty, is people make stupid decisions.
Aren't those the same people who will be making stupid decisions when they are writing regulations?
Right on.
Yeah I'm always fascinated at how being a politician magically cures the stupid.
Didn't Australia used to be somewhat bad-ass? When did they become a bunch of pussies? Fireworks? Really? Even drugs is a better example than that.
If anyone gets injured using fireworks they will be able to fund their own recovery because they have saved money or have personal healthcare.
Wrong. If anyone is injured by fireworks, the person who used them has full liability to cover the damages. Another commenter who doesn't understand libertarianism well enough to make an intelligent argument against it.
Matt says: "Being exposed as a state front-runner for three tantalizing weeks proved about two weeks too long, as the media and Paul's competitors hammered away at his foreign policy views, his support among and alignment with non-Republicans, and his foul old newsletters. Exit polling showed clearly that late-breaking voters broke hard away from Ron Paul."
What is Ron Paul supposed to do about this? Most of the GOP base still hates his foreign policy views and liberals and many in the media think he's a racist.
I don't want Ron Paul's message to get totally destroyed by the GOP establishment, the AIPAC crowd, and liberals in the media. They almost have more ammunition with Dr. Paul than they did with Pat Buchanan!
Speaking of AIPAC, did you see the article in the Jerusalem Post yesterday about Ron Paul with Rand explaining his dad's views on Israel? Maybe he's trying to build bridges.
Remember, many Israelis don't support Likud Party foreign policy.
Santorum was surprisingly good in his speech. Romney was almost shockingly bad. It's clear why he never connects--he's as plastic as he can be, a used car salesman stereotype, and he doesn't seem able to pretend otherwise.
John, I apologize for ever suggesting that you'd fall in line behind Romney. I respect you too much to accuse you of such a thing. What a creep. I suspect Romney is just as unelectable as the rest of the GOP crowd.
The ROMNIAC is still running pandroid OS v2.1. When it is upgraded to the new pandroid OS v4.0 (shit-sandwich), its performance in public speaking will be much smoother and more comforting to the semi-somnabulant.
Aren't those the same people who will be making stupid decisions when they are writing regulations?
Stop being such a crackpot, R C.
Everybody knows winning an election is the surest and fastest way to Enlightenment.
He would've done even better with a real foreign policy, so that also should give hope.
He has a real foreign policy.
I am bemused that you think he isn't serious merely because he is a grownup and doesn't pander to your cult's superstitious fears.
Thank you for the fair assessment. Of course I agree with nearly everything Ron Paul says, but I appreciate it when someone who does not is still willing to give him a fair shake.
The purpose of the "War on Drugs" is not to reduce or eliminate drug use, but to have the legal and logistical infrastructure in place to impose a police state.
One is not safe from government prosecution and persecution simply because one "isn't doing anything wrong", when one is in a police state. The government makes sure that at least one of your normal, everyday routines is illegal.
It's not power for it's own sake, it's power for the sake of the corporate status quo, which they feel would be largely undermined if easily grown and safer alternative intoxicants were legalized.
You guys will forever be ineffectual because you forget that government isn't the only possible source of tyranny. Indeed, being against the concept of government as a solution to tyranny just invites all the non-government forms of tyranny to take over.
Re: Tony,
You guys will forever be ineffectual because you forget that government isn't the only possible source of tyranny.
History shows that government IS the sole source of tyranny - 120 million people dead in the XX Century alone can't be wrong on that one.
If you're going to be that simplistic about it then you have to compare it to all the billions of people living under governments who haven't been killed.
You can moan about government all you want but as long as you continue to support the unlimited ability of industry to influence policy then the drug war won't go away. A weak government is simply one that is more easily turned into a tool of private tyrants.
If you're going to be that simplistic about it then you have to compare it to all the billions of people living under governments who haven't been killed.
Wrong. You'd have to compare it to the number of people murdered by corporations, which is many orders of magnitude less than the number killed by governments.
You guys will forever be ineffectual because you forget that government isn't the only possible source of tyranny.
You're wrong again, Tony. Most libertarians agree that government is needed to protect individual rights (from other individuals and evil corporations). In fact, that's pretty much the only thing government should be doing. Any expansion beyond this limited scope is, in fact, tyranny.
Wrong. You'd have to compare it to the number of people murdered by corporations, which is many orders of magnitude less than the number killed by governments.
Of course, you have to make a call on which pile the bodies from the Congo Free State belong in.
Re: Tony,
If you're going to be that simplistic about it then you have to compare it to all the billions of people living under governments who haven't been killed.
I can say the same even better about the billions that haven't been killed by corporations. But if you want to compare pyramids of skulls, nothing can beat government.
Don't make such idiotic comments. It's getting tiresome.
Do deaths from lax pollution standards count?
If you're going to be that simplistic about it then you have to compare it to all the billions of people living under governments who haven't been killed.
And what about all the smokers who didn't get lung cancer? Huh? Did you think of that?
As of right now the biggest,most dangerous and morally despicable corporations are heavily involved in promoting the growth of government(monopoly use of force) so that the dangerous corporations can abuse Tony more...and yet Tony comes here and tells us the answer is to grow government.
Tony I feel bad for you, because when Halliburton uses a government PR asswipe to announce that you are to report to your nearest FEMA camp for your own safety, I think you are going to fall for it.
Good luck Tony.
I don't wish Tony luck.
don't worry...when I wish luck it doesn't really have any affect.
"You guys will forever be ineffectual because you forget that government isn't the only possible source of tyranny."
Well, that's one way to look at it, I suppose. I think that we will forever be ineffectual because most people are a bunch of goddamn pussies and moral midgets who aren't willing to take responsibility for themselves or accept that other people might value different things than they do.
1) Paul more than doubled his vote over 2008, while Mitt Romney's stayed exactly the same. Seriously, Romney got 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2008, then 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2012. Paul vaulted from 10 percent to 21, from 12,000 votes to 26,000. His message of freedom, limited government, attacking the Federal Reserve, and ending wars foreign and domestic is undeniably on the grow.
The numbers are quite telling: Paul increased his presence whereas Romney is still pulling from his older base. Paul did not come to the end a distant third - it was a 1-2-3 almost photo finish.
In terms of delegates, it looks like a three-way tie: 7 delegates each for Paul, Romney, and Santorum.
Which is good for Paul if we split the delegate count according to popular vote. The question is where will Sanatorums delegates go once he flairs out? Will they go for the personal who is like them personally but differs on foreign policy views? Or will they go for what they view as the closet liberal but a stronger foreign policy?
Don't forget that many of the Santorites are evangelicals. They might be incapable of getting behind a Mormon, no matter how militant he is.
Veterans for Ron Paul 2012!!! Santorum is flash in pan. its coming down to Romney - Paul and i CAN"T WAIT for that Debate!!
Ron Paul is the only candidate even ADDRESSING the NDAA, let alone critiquing its suspension of Constitutional protections. Also, as Iran is concerned, any escalation of sanctions or conflict will undoubtedly tank the economy, as fuel prices worldwide will skyrocket and the dollar will plummet. The best way to contain Iran is to give them a solemn promise that if they use nuclear weapons Congress will declare war and we will vaporize every city over 10k population. That's something they might respect.
Otherwise we promise to leave them alone and let their government implode in its own time.
4) Newt Gingrich is on the ropes. The Final Four could become Los Tres Amigos in a hurry. Iowa exit polls show no clear rationale for Gingrich's candidacy—there was no measurable subsection of voters who preferred him over other candidates. Not Tea Party supporters, not Tea Party haters, not the uneducated poor, not the overeducated rich. Even those who believe that "working in government" is a better presidential qualification than "working in business" had Gingrich in third place, behind Santorum and Paul.
Looking at the exit polls from yesterday, even among evangelicals, Tea partiers and Conservatives, Paul came in second or third, but not Newt. Paul also had 1/2 of the Independents and many of the Democrats that caucused yesterday. Sanctorum polled well among Conservatives but such coalition would not be enough for a win against Obama. Newt has no such apeal among these blocks of voters. He's done.
Mitt still has cross-over appeal but mostly from moderate Repubs. Again, whether that gives him enough to challenge Obama or not remains to be seen. Instead, Paul can at least pull from the different blocks to create a coalition of enthusiastic voters. I can imagine an Obama-Paul debate where the Obummer brings in front the allegations of racism, the newsletters and most of the stuff that, by tehn, will be old news; whereas Paul can point out to the NDAA, Gitmo, Libya, the bailouts, the cronyism, the war on drugs and the drone attacks.
Paul should be able destroy Romney or Obama in a debate, from an substance standpoint. Unfortunately both those guys are very refined speakers (Obama being one of the best in living memory). They might only have to out-rhetoric Paul in order to beat him.
Don't forget about me. God damn America!
Obama's racist preacher negates RP's newsletters nicely.
No, it doesn't. A disavowal of the writers, even one the size of the first paragraph of Obama's first speech denouncing Wright would negate it. And it would be so fucking easy. I wan't going to vote for Obama anyway, so his apology is irrelevant to me.
I can understand why it's not important to Non-Jews, but apparently you can't understand why this is a sticking point with those of us who are the actual targets of anti-semitism. I will not vote for anyone who doesn't see the imprtance of taking a stand against Anti-Semitism. In my opinion, for a potential leader, that is actually worse than being anti-semitic personally.
The best news I see here is Paul winning not just a plurality but a majority of 18-29 year olds. That bodes well for the future, even if the present is frothy and in trouble.
There is something other-worldly about Ryonen. It's got a lot to do with her flawless milk-white complexion.
Mostly it is her eyes that captivate us. They are like pools hinting at mysterious depths. Let's not forget the rest of her though. This petite 21 year old girl is rich in sensuous curves and perfectly formed in every way. Swimming and yoga keep her gorgeous body in peak condition.
Ryonen's talents have many facets. She is a student at university in her home town of Portland, Oregon. She is devoted to fashion and all aspects of art nouveau, as well as off-beat photography. Her interest art is wide ranging and original. "I love strange and interesting poses" she tells us "and I love to create images of beauty and terror, joy and sadness." Studies of the nude form have always fascinated her.
Now it's time for the practical.
There is something other-worldly about Romney-en. It's got a lot to do with his irrelevant bloviation in lieu of concrete policy proposals.
Mostly it is his vague platitudes that annoy us. They are like rhetorical turds dropped in limpid pools of crap. Let's not forget the rest of him though. This petite 60 year old statesman is rich in every way - his personal fortune plus donations from the financial sector are simply enormous. Flipping and flopping keep his gorgeous body in peak condition.
Romney-en's talents have many facets. As a student, he majored in Advanced Obfuscation. He is devoted to fascism and all aspects of prevarication, as well as beating off to the sound of his own voice. His interests are anything but original. "I love taking strange and interesting positions," he tells us, "and I love to create images of beauty and terror, joy and sadness. I basically just make this stuff up as I go." Studies of bare-faced lying have always fascinated him.
Now it's time for the practical. Just kidding, it's time for Romney-en!
Where can I contact him, Hegre art wants to recruit him.
When it's Illinois' turn to vote I will, for the second time, take a Republican ballot and vote for Ron Paul. I voted for him when he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket, and I'd really like a chance to vote for him again. Besides, all those other Republican candidates scare the s--t out of me with all their talk about attacking Iran. Enough with the wars already!
The consequences of a Ron Paul victory in Iowa would mean overwhelming scrutiny and criticism in a 5-6 candidate field. We all know he has the $$$ to outlast all other anti-Romney candidates, so we should not fret about initial momentum.
A third place finish in Iowa means RP can continue to fly-below the radar until there are only 2-3 candidates left. I would much rather Romney and (especially) Santorum being under constant attack during the next couple weeks when Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich supporters have to find someone else to support. I would rather voters think they are choosing between 'racial-profiling' Santorum vs. 'strict conservative' Ron Paul, than if they think they are choosing between 'underdog' Santorum vs. 'isolationist' Ron Paul.
When it is Ron Paul versus the field (which is what it would have been over the next couple of weeks if he won Iowa), he doesn't have much hope realistically. Romney benefits from a large field because there are a plurality of differences on the issues, therefore his weak record isn't compared directly to any other single candidate. As long as the field is big, he can continue to gain momentum based solely on 'electability' versus the field.
Had it been any other candidate (Gingrich, Perry, even Bachmann) more capable of a national campaign in second place last night, the large anti-Romney field would have been prolonged way beyond Super Tuesday. The only hope for Ron Paul supporters is that it becomes a two man race ASAP, so that candidate comparisons can be made on the issues.
Luckily, Santorum has the most toxic platform and track record of any anti-Romney candidate. If all goes well, Gingrich will go after Santorum with a lot of big words and hyperbole, eventually taking them both down with the ship in South Carolina and Florida.
It's time for libertarians to get over the 'herding cats' meme and unite behind the first candidate in living memory who can actually change the tide of rolling statism. RoOn Paul is no-one's 'dream' libertarian candidate. But by the nature of libertarianism there CAN be no 'dream candidate'. What is needed is a sober, pragmatic approach where libertarian pundits, programs and policy wonks swallow their egos cap their poison ink and quit trying to eat our own. Maybe the Ron Paul supporters aren't the 'purist' libertarians that the CATO Institute leaders talk about at DC Cocktail parties, and maybe they aren't the 'sophisticates' that toss out bon mots at REASON's Manhattan and LA offices, but they represent the only future that the expansion of libertarian ideas and ideals have in America. Libertarianism must grow beyond a niche or fringe movement by incorporating mainstream Americans. Not by compromising on libertarian principles, but by pragmatically adapting those principles to a real-world approach that will inculcate more Americans with a true sense of REAL Liberty, and incorporate those ideas (once again) into the American political and social psyche.
Maybe the Ron Paul supporters aren't the 'purist' libertarians that the CATO Institute leaders talk about at DC Cocktail parties, and maybe they aren't the 'sophisticates' that toss out bon mots at REASON's Manhattan and LA offices,
It's time for us to unite...by throwing out incendiary stereotypes!
Way to go, fuckstick.
If Reason is going to continue such a "reasonable" approach to the Paul candidacy, I might just trade in my loose affiliation with the GOP for a more firm affiliation with the Libertarian Party, and that means subscribing to Reason and contributing to the party.
Unfortunately up to now, I have been singularly disappointed at Reason's lukewarm coverage of Ron Paul, with Gillespie being one of the culprit, but certainly not the only one. In fact, by the end of 2007, Reason had hardly bothered to mention Ron Paul's name and I cancelled my subscription. When Gillespie told NPR the other day, that Paul needs to address the newsletter issue I almost flipped. Tonight CNN had another scumbag on to denigrate Ron Paul and shill for Romney.
With such concerted media antagonism, I would have thought that Reason would stand up for Dr. Paul or at least expose these liars for hire for the manner in which they conspire to marginalize Paul. The Ron Paul people are going to find a home in the LP if the GOP Politburo succeeds in shutting the door on him. It makes sense to humor his supporters, or at least cover his campaign objectively and that includes exposing the hypocrisy of mainstream media.
Sorry, Paul still needs to address the newsletter issue if he wants any chance at the nomination. It may be too late. The newsletter flap cost him independents and crossover Democrats, which Paul will need to win. "I don't know anything about that" won't cut it.
That doesn't change the fact that he's a million miles better than the other Republicans currently running. Still, bigotry is an automatic candidate killer for many voters, regardless of his ideas. We want Paul to win, but he has shot himself in the foot by refusing to name names and clarify the situation.
personal theory/opinion.
Thank you
Thank you
for those of you think paul's problem lies in his articulation of the principles of liberty--in a word, no. his problem with establishment gop lies with his foreign policy, which quite frankly no matter how good you are oratorically, unless you "moderate" up to the establishment, there is no covering it with flowery language.
his economics alone is good enough to cover most of the social policy disagreements the establishment has. only a very small core of voters in central and southern states are strictly social. his biggest problem is foreign policy, and that part hasn't got anything to do with articulation.
show me an example of a non-interventionist speaker managed to sway an establishment person in the public sphere whole heartedly with oratorical skills alone, not just win a debate and embarrass him and make him hate you. just show me one example.