Video: Ron Paul thinks he’s “The One”

posted at 11:25 am on August 16, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Ron Paul has been forgotten. Just a few days after his strong second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll, he’s again been excluded as eager commentators agree Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann comprise the top tier of 2012 Republican presidential candidates. No matter: Paul is used to running as an unlikely choice for the Republican presidential nomination. Still, he wants the media and the electorate to remember that this could actually be his time (after all, he’s never finished second in the straw poll before!).

His campaign today released a movie-style trailer entitled “The One,” which claims Paul is the candidate to compete against and defeat BHO and to unite the GOP (you know, around his highly unifying foreign policy views).

The ad casts Paul as the consistent conservative in a setting of “smooth-talking politicians” like President Barack Obama (the teleprompter president — anything but smooth, but still), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi … and Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

Certainly, Paul has been consistent. As the ad makes clear, he does have undeniable credibility on the budget issues that have come to dominate this cycle. In his time in Congress, he has voted against every tax increase and every unbalanced budget. But his trademark crankiness and reckless isolationist foreign policy views — though potentially appealing on some idealistic level — will, truly as a matter of course, doom his candidacy. It was vintage Paul in the debate last Wednesday and no amount of skillful videography can gloss over his shocking statements to the effect that Iran doesn’t even seek nuclear power, let alone pose a threat should the country obtain it. (I honestly can’t get over that!) Still, I’m glad he’s in the race for the same reason I was in 2008: Plenty of my peers wouldn’t tune into the debates and the race otherwise. If a crazy uncle brings his kids into contact with the rich, successful uncle, the wise grandfather, the impassioned aunt, etc., etc., etc., — well then, good for the crazy uncle.

Update: Krauthammer says it bluntly, “Ron Paul is not going to be president of the United States.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sorry your hero is a nut and she called him out on it.

Kelligan on August 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Sorry your hero is a terrible writers, and I called her out on it.

lolumad?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Nope. The economy wasn’t an issue until late in 2008. Go rewatch the 2007 and early 2008 debates. Nobody was talking about returning to our fiscal conservative roots.( Well, almost nobody. )
angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM

That no politician was talking about economics in debates was probable why the base sat out.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Let me give you a clue, Clueless:

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM

You don’t have a clue to give, Clueless, so let me give you one:

Unless you want to start WW3 or stop one of the two current occupations and redirect the effort…

We. do. not. have. the men or money for your pet crusade on Iran.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Let me give you a clue, Clueless: The military exists to kill people and break things. That force is properly applied in the service of defending ourselves and our interests from those who would do likewise.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Yes, it does exist to do that. You support a full invasion of Iran, lengthy occupation, a new semi-democratic form of government, and our continued ability to make sure they aren’t enriching uranium.

How goddamned likely do you think that is, not matter who is President, you retard?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

That no politician was talking about economics in debates was probable why the base sat out.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM

The base sat out because the base is conservative and the party abandoned conservatism.

/OcamsRazor

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Sorry your hero is a terrible writers, and I called her out on it.

lolumad?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Oh, the hilarity.

JohnTant on August 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Don’t Tina and her defenders have some gays they could make sure don’t get married?

Leave the big stuff to the adults, like Paul.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM

How goddamned likely do you think that is, not matter who is President, you retard?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

We’re supposedly all adults here.
The use of ‘retard’ is NEVER necessary.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Yes, it does exist to do that. You support a full invasion of Iran, lengthy occupation, a new semi-democratic form of government, and our continued ability to make sure they aren’t enriching uranium.

How goddamned likely do you think that is, not matter who is President, you retard?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

How likely that is doesn’t matter to me. America, including her foreign policy, may already be broken beyond repair. But you asked a question and I answered it, albeit obtusely.

But to be more succinct in answering your latest question? I don’t think it’s more likely to happen under a Ron Paul presidency than anyone else. So I’d rather deal with an administration that at least pays lip service to self defense.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM

That’s how close it was this time with Bachmann, and Korbe just wants to snipe about the only conservative in the race.

Spathi on August 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Spathi, Tina is wrong (on a number of levels, it turns out).

But RP is hardly the only conservative. He lost to a conservative. I have little problem losing to Bachmann.

Not no problem… just little problem.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:57 PM

You support a full invasion of Iran, lengthy occupation, a new semi-democratic form of government, and our continued ability to make sure they aren’t enriching uranium.

And what does “…lengthy occupation, a new semi-democratic form of government, and our continued ability to make sure they aren’t enriching uranium.” have to do with my stated belief that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things?

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:57 PM

If I were a frontrunner for POTUS nomination, I’d troll the crowd (or would I be trolling?) by announcing Ron Paul as my choice of Chairman of the Fed.
Hannibal Smith on August 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

I’ve wondered what would happen if Paul was so appointed.
There is a certain matter-antimatter aspect to the idea.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Do we have to stop them forever?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Maybe. But that does not mean perpetual war or even any open war. There is plenty we can do covertly and in alliance with Israel. But ignoring the problem or pretending there is no problem will only lead to disaster. Iran is not a rational player. The 12th Imam is waiting for Iran to be irrational. And if Amahminnyman ever has a nuclear device that can sit atop one of their missiles Israel is in very deep trouble.

And do not forget that if Iran gets the bomb then every other player in that region will pursue it as well. All out nuclear war under those circumstances is a very real possibility in that region.

Ron Paul’s idea of pursuing a policy akin to MAD is insane under those circumstances.

NotCoach on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

We’re supposedly all adults here.
The use of ‘retard’ is NEVER necessary.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Bunk. This is a political debate forum, not a knitting party, and that word (and worse) gets used plenty often.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

If I were a frontrunner for POTUS nomination, I’d troll the crowd (or would I be trolling?) by announcing Ron Paul as my choice of Chairman of the Fed.

Hannibal Smith on August 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Sound political strategy (at least for the nomination), not trolling at all.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

But seriously, do you really think that is going to prevail in either chamber of Congress, or with the American people?

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Not while we have a vacillating hand-wringing pantywaist as our foreign policy director, of course not. We could elect Ron Paul, but then the situation would be no different.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

YouTube – Talking With A Ron Paul Supporter

whatcat on August 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Brilliant! Sums up pretty much every Herr Doktor thread since 2007.

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So I’d rather deal with an administration that at least pays lip service to self defense.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Exactly. You prefer the big men tell you pretty lies. I prefer someone who, based on his past words and actions, I know what he’s going to do.

Romney, Bachmann, Cain, et. al. will let Iran go nuclear. Paul will tell you he will let Iran go nuclear, and then let them go nuclear.

Meanwhile, Paul will do his best to cut the federal government, all over the place.

The others? Well, they wouldn’t want people to think they hated children, or the poor, or the needy. You’re asking for GWBII, I want someone who beleives in liberty.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Sound political strategy (at least for the nomination), not trolling at all.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I’d be more than happy to settle for RP in that position instead of POTUS.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Well, I’d just add that I do not believe that Israel can do everything we think is needed to be done in that region by themselves. If we completely abdicate our support to them with this wishful thinking that Israel in invulnerable, it becomes folly in my opinion. For what my opinion is worth.

hawkdriver on August 16, 2011 at 12:45 PM

That’s fair enough. And back to my first post, I stress that I didn’t think that we should abandon Israel – she is an ally.

But Israel took on Egypt, Jordan , Syria, who had help from troops from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria in the Six Day war, and they kicked butt.

They’ve never lost a conflict as far as I know, with the exception of their attempt to take over the Suez Canal, and we forced them back on that.

I don’t see why we should take such an aggressive lead on Iran, when it is first and foremost an Israeli problem – one that they seem to be handling ok.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Exactly. You prefer the big men tell you pretty lies. I prefer someone who, based on his past words and actions, I know what he’s going to do.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Well I’m glad you’re so certain that Ron Paul is a fundamentally honest man. I disagree on that salient point. You also seem to believe that all other candidates, declared and prospective, are fundamentally dishonest. You go right ahead and keep living in imaginationland, pal.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Ron Paul is totally The One. The Delusional One.

Aronne on August 16, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Not while we have a vacillating hand-wringing pantywaist as our foreign policy director, of course not. We could elect Ron Paul, but then the situation would be no different.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

With all due repect to the Commander-in-Chief (or at least the office he holds), f&ck the foreign policy director.

Congress decides when there is a state of war, and POTUS wages that war. Let West introduce the bill, and see what support he has.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Nope. The economy wasn’t an issue until late in 2008. Go rewatch the 2007 and early 2008 debates. Nobody was talking about returning to our fiscal conservative roots.( Well, almost nobody. )
angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I wasn’t. talking about the economy. I simply stated the Republicans lost in 2006 – primarily – because they had turned into spend-thrift democrats.

Another commenter put it as abandoning conservatism, which also works.

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Another commenter put it as abandoning conservatism, which also works.

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM

You’re welcome.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Sound political strategy (at least for the nomination), not trolling at all.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Sound financial strategy, for sure. Politcal? Maybe, maybe not. A savvy politician has to keep in mind at every step what his opponents will do with his actions in media. And since for anyone nominally on the Right, the media *are* his opponents, this is crucial.

Such an announcement could easily be spun as “OMG Extreme!1!” by the big government dopes in the media. I’d deliver it with a wink and a nod toward Mr. Paul during a debate. Keep ‘em guessing :)

Hannibal Smith on August 16, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Breakfast time… Dont close thread before I get back.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 1:06 PM

You’re welcome.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:06 PM

*tips hat*

:)

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I don’t see why we should take such an aggressive lead on Iran, when it is first and foremost an Israeli problem – one that they seem to be handling ok.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

November 1979 – January 1981. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

hat no politician was talking about economics in debates was probable why the base sat out.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM

But if the base wanted to talk about economics, there would have been a groundswell of support for the candidate that was talking about economics. That didn’t happen.

Go back and look at the polls, and tell me what voters ranked as their number one issue. I’ll wait.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

If you think your candidate will invade Iran, you are insane.

If your candidate would invade Iran, they are insane.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM

November 1979 – January 1981. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

But we don’t learn the truth from history when we pick a favorable middle point to start an objective examination of a situation.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM

If you think your candidate will invade Iran, you are insane.

If your candidate would invade Iran, they are insane.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If you think you’re going to succesfully bait me with your straw man arguments, you are insane. My problem with Ron Paul is his collective corpus of stated policy positions. You are free to waste your vote for him in any election at any level you choose to. But until someone actually runs on a platform of invading Iran, your criticisms of ABP (anyone but Paul) will continue to ring hollow to me.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Go back and look at the polls, and tell me what voters ranked as their number one issue. I’ll wait.
angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM

What “voters” ranked as important is irrelevant. We are talking about the base turnout that determined the election.

Count to 10 on August 16, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I wasn’t. talking about the economy. I simply stated the Republicans lost in 2006 – primarily – because they had turned into spend-thrift democrats. Another commenter put it as abandoning conservatism, which also works.

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Where are the polls or talking points that support that assertion?

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

But we don’t learn the truth from history when we pick a favorable middle point to start an objective examination of a situation.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Well, we definitely don’t learn from it by burying our head in the sand, while shouting leave us alone…leave us alone!

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Where are the polls or talking points that support that assertion?

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Exit polls reflected the trend somewhat, but they don’t poll people that stay home.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:15 PM

What “voters” ranked as important is irrelevant. We are talking about the base turnout that determined the election.

If you think that what voters rank as important isn’t relevant, then I’m speechless.

And I’m pretty sure that the base always turns out. That’s why they call them “the base.” It was center swing voters that abandoned the GOP.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Well, we definitely don’t learn from it by burying our head in the sand, while shouting leave us alone…leave us alone!

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I think we’re done here.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:17 PM

And I’m pretty sure that the base always turns out. That’s why they call them “the base.” It was center swing voters that abandoned the GOP.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The exit polls suggest otherwise.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I think we’re done here.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Not yet. Tell me, why has Dr. Paul been regulated to also-ran status in every other national election, if he’s so dadblamed brilliant? Why does he usually have trouble garnering 5 % of the national vote, much less 10%?

Inquiring minds want to know.

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Thanks for the response. It is what I imagine most true Ron Paul supporters calculate the situation to be. We’re really just going to differ on a few points. But they’re big ones.

First, using Iraq as a metric to gauge all other foriegn intervention by asserting it was a debacle is a straw man (as much as I hate to reduce anyone’s points to invectives) And I apologize, but there is a lot of truth in that point. Iraq after the initial invasion was a much different place and environment that what the media described. In my opinion, much of the war after was fueled by the manner of media coverage and direct involvment by Iran themselves. It has been demonstrated in any number of analyses of the escalation after their initial defeat. There is also this repeated meme that there was nothing gained by invading Iraq. Again, you’d have to ignore the fact that they were a theater threat to allies, continuing to thumb their noses at Sountern and Northern Watch by shooting at our pilots and did indeed kill more Kurds than we will probably ever know. The Kurdish people have been severly ignored by the world media in their attempts to publically acknowledge the efforts of our coalistion to free them. So, I’ll just say that there was a time not long after the invasion that you could travel almost anywhere in Baghdad safely. And in the Kurdish region throughout the war, you could almost walk any street of any city unarmed after Hussein was overthrown. And the people there would never fail to thank you. So, I see Iraq a bit differently and gauge as much more successful than the media allots.

I do agree with you that using the world body in whatever agency is just ridiculous in thinking any real effect would occur in regards to Irans nuclear programs. For all the reasons you stated.

I guess I could boil down what I fear by one last simple question. If, it got to the point where they did develope/possess a nuclear weapon. And if they demonstrated they clearly threatened Israel or any other ally with it; does Ron Paul and his supporter at least acknowledge the need to contest them? With whatever means. I think you would have to say yes. And again, where we differ is probably just in believing the steps we should take (or maybe not believing we have the responsibility or right) to try to prevent them from getting to that point.

hawkdriver on August 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Well, we definitely don’t learn from it by burying our head in the sand, while shouting leave us alone…leave us alone!

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

….although Reagan’s Middle East policy could probably be summed up that way, and that “kept us safe” until Clinton started bombing them again.

OK, now I’m really done. Houseguests coming and all…

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Inquiring minds want to know.

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Maybe most of America doesn’t agree with him!

/GASP

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Attention, Paulbots proclaiming the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran: invasion & occupation is not the only option. We can use airstrikes, raids, punitive expeditions, assassinations, even preemptive strikes with tactical nukes.

OhioCoastie on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Gee…ya think?

Darned house guests. They always get in the way when you’re backed into a corner.

kingsjester on August 16, 2011 at 1:24 PM

But we don’t learn the truth from history when we pick a favorable middle point to start an objective examination of a situation.

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Ahhh…yep, it was all our fault by the CIA backing whoever it was in Iran in the 50′s…

The ‘Blame America’ crowd wins again!

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Wat’s dat shinin daun Rons foahhed, Fiddler?

Dats not da son, dat’s not the son shinin daun on his foahhed. Dats the lite fom abuv shinin daun on da One.

Meh, so now his media group is cribbing scene setting from Obami’s.

AH_C on August 16, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Attention, Paulbots proclaiming the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran: invasion & occupation is not the only option. We can use airstrikes, raids, punitive expeditions, assassinations, even preemptive strikes with tactical nukes.

OhioCoastie on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Sorry. Only Iranians, Palestinians and other Arabs are allowed to act in such a manner.

Anyone else is simply being a warmongering imperialist.

catmman on August 16, 2011 at 1:33 PM

We can use airstrikes, raids, punitive expeditions, assassinations, even preemptive strikes with tactical nukes.

OhioCoastie on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Well, there you go, hawks. There is your ultiamte campaign argument… I will engage in preemptive nuclear war on your behalf. Clearly a winner if ever I saw one.

MadCon, you down with preemptive nuclear war againt Iran?

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 1:46 PM

MadCon, you down with preemptive nuclear war againt Iran?

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Against their nuclear facilities? Sure.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I guess I could boil down what I fear by one last simple question. If, it got to the point where they did develope/possess a nuclear weapon. And if they demonstrated they clearly threatened Israel or any other ally with it; does Ron Paul and his supporter at least acknowledge the need to contest them? With whatever means. I think you would have to say yes. And again, where we differ is probably just in believing the steps we should take (or maybe not believing we have the responsibility or right) to try to prevent them from getting to that point.

hawkdriver on August 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

As I’ve said before any number of times, I, unlike Dr Paul, am a realist. MAD was the ultimate realist doctrine, and I think it applies, even in the case of Iran (although the Mutual in it really only goes one way). Imadinnerjacket is possibly crazy enough to try some sort of nuclear terrorism, but I suspect the mullahs (who, at the end of the day, are in charge), are not. If they truly view Islam as a religious and political system, I don’t think they would risk all Allah has done for them by turning their land isto glass, and their adherents into ash. Which is one, among a number of reasons, a lot of analysts think Maymoud’s days are numbered.

And while Paul routinely rails against entangling alliances, I’ve never heard him bad-talk American nuclear assurances of safety (the umbrella). Granted, his pespective, for most of his life, was vis-a-vis the Soviets and Europe.

My best answer is I don’t know about Israel, but if he tried it in the US, RP would probably go to Congress, and they would authorize him to blow Iran off the face off the map with the fury of God’s own thunder.

And RP, believing that POTUS wages the war that Congress declares, would see it as his duty to do so.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Gotta love JohnGalt23′s (and presumably every other Ronulans position, since it rings true):

Defending America and its allies from nuclear threats is a bad idea. If we ignore them, they will never hurt us. Because, you know, America is the reason they are a nuclear threat.

/Ronulan off. Now that we are in the land of reality, unless we adopt the position that we would rather be El Salvador-nice land, no enemies, no influence, really just a non entity (that happens to be the worlds third largest country and somehow we can just be ignored)–then Ron Paul and his followers are certifiably insane.

Tell me, O Ron Paul followers–who, exactly, is going to protect the El Salvadors of the world, if not us? And if WE go that route, (the “we will never defend or fight anything because we must be at fault) then who are you counting on to protect us, let alone anyone else? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Germans? Go sell THAT one to someone– “hey, let’s rearm Germany to the extent that they become the worlds leading military power, because they will protect us all!”

What part of the Ron Paul Ostrich doctrine makes any sort of sense for America? It works for El Salvador, because who cares? But the United Freaking States of America? The Shining Beacon of the world? The only superpower left (at least temporarily)? Ron Paul wants to scrap our Navy, last I heard–so that there wouldn’t be a choice to go to war at all! We simply couldn’t do it. Goodbye most of the world, because after us, it’s the Russkies or the Chinese. And we can rely on their self restraint, what with Putin and the commies in charge.

What’s Ron Paul’s plan to deal with an agressive China? If, that is, any force response is ruled out preemptively? Not even Obama ever said America wouldn’t defend itself! Ron Paul says, “Hey, if someone attacks or threatens us, it must be our fault!”

Last note: For you Ron Paulians, good luck convincing the country that the United States and the JOOOOOOS are the source of the worlds problems and that if only both were eliminated as important players on the world stage we would all be singing hosannas.

Vanceone on August 16, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Against their nuclear facilities? Sure.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM

So, for the sake of this nation that can’t manage it’s own affairs, much less manage the overthrow of this nation, you are willing to unilaterally throw out what has been one of the cornerstone doctrines that has kept the nuclear peace for most of a century… nations avowing not to use nuclear first-strikes.

Words fail…

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Oh yeah? And what is your candidate going to do to stop something like that from happening?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM

When Reagan was being sworn in, there was a split screen with the hostages being released. We need a leader like that, and you’ll here a whole lot of silence from dinnerjacket. Paul, no.

katy the mean old lady on August 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Hey Ron Paulians: Could you guarantee that Ron Paul wouldn’t strike Israel first? I could see him making an exception to his “No military adventure is ever a good idea” rule, if it involved killing millions of Jews. Iran wouldn’t have to hit Israel at all, just wait for Ron Paul to do it.

Or at least that is the vibe Herr Docktor gives off.

Vanceone on August 16, 2011 at 2:17 PM

When Reagan was being sworn in, there was a split screen with the hostages being released. We need a leader like that

katy the mean old lady on August 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM

And then he proceeded to sell them a boatload of weapons.

Something I feel safe in saying RP would never authorize.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM

For all the carping, this is what threads ought to be. I’m a smarter man again to read some of your opinions.

hawkdriver on August 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Against their nuclear facilities? Sure.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Yeah, and RP is the crazy old uncle. MC is ready to launch nukes into Iran, and RP is crazy. Because, our nuking Iran would surely prevent them from ever getting a nuke ever in the future, and wouldn’t create any additional unnecessary animosity towards the USA. Because we were so kind and helpful to everyone in the region after we nuked their a$$es. Yeah, RP is crazy. I’m crazy. But the folks who want to launch nuclear weapons are the sane ones. Sure. I see now. It’s all very clear.

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Ron Paul is not only not a consistent conservative, he is not a conservative at all. He is a radical libertarian. The man can not even manage to find a good word to say about the founder of the Republican party, Abraham Lincoln. He does not want to lead the party, he wants to wreck it and turn it into something it is not and was never meant to be.

He is an anti semite with ties to neo nazis and truthers.

He is a protectionist, xenophobic, isolationist who not only does not want to confront Iran, he considers Iran to the be the victim of the American aggression. He is a disgrace.

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

….although Reagan’s Middle East policy could probably be summed up that way, and that “kept us safe” until Clinton started bombing them again.

OK, now I’m really done. Houseguests coming and all…

angelat0763 on August 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Reagan BOMBED Lybia and gave weapons and support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets.

jp on August 16, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Just the faintest whif of fear…

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Most of the Middle East considers Iran a nuisance. Some of the Arabian nations even consider them more of a pain than they consider us. Low-yield tactical nuclear devices precisely targeted at nuclear enrichment and research facilities would get a lot of noisemaking from Saudi Arabia and the rest, but the actual likelihood of any serious retaliation is remarkably small, especially if there is little to no collateral damage. From a strategic standpoint, a reasonable risk to usurp a horrifying foreign policy directed at ours and Israel’s extermination. But hey, if you want to solve the problem by covertly taking out Dinner Jacket and a few loyalists, go for it. I hear the Ayatollah may thank you for the favor.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I have to take issue with calling him an anti-semite. It’s an axiom of mine that if you talk or listen to an anti-semite long enough, they’ll reveal their hatred. Ron Paul certainly seems to have animosity towards Israel…but I’ve kept a close eye on him and cannot find any real evidence to show that he has a persistent hatred for all things Jewish.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

He is a protectionist, xenophobic, isolationist who not only does not want to confront Iran, he considers Iran to the be the victim of the American aggression. He is a disgrace.

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

You sound like a true believer. You’ll be good for the new Nationalist American Party.

You seem to think that past actions do not ever have any negative consequences. Now, I have no guilt about what past Americans did to other people, and I won’t lay down out of guilt, but I do recognize that when you invade people’s land, kill them, or put them under your thumb, they have a tendency to get pretty pi$$ed about it, and remember the oppression for a long time.

Just ask the Pilgrims, or the Scots, or the Native Americans, or the Slaves, or the South, or the Jews, or the interred Japanese, or any one else who has been oppressed or interfered with. Your short-sightedness and inability to look a history and consider the consequences of the collective actions of the USA since the early 18th century is, well, it’s very short-sighted.

If the USA is to have a future, we must get out of everyone’s business, draw a line in the sand, make clear whose side we’re on, stand firm and be prepared to destroy the enemy. That’s the western way of war, complete destruction of the enemy.

But most people really don’t want to do what it takes to actually win a war and defeat the enemy, because it’s not pretty. Victory isn’t pretty. Victory is the destruction of the enemy, of their men, their women, their children, their way of life so much so that no one is left to remember the battle. War is hell, and most people don’t have a stomach to kill.

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Low-yield tactical nuclear devices precisely targeted at nuclear enrichment and research facilities would get a lot of noisemaking from Saudi Arabia and the rest, but the actual likelihood of any serious retaliation is remarkably small, especially if there is little to no collateral damage.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

So, you want to start proxy wars where big armies are tossing tactical nukes around in other people’s backyards?

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 3:00 PM

So, you want to start proxy wars where big armies are tossing tactical nukes around in other people’s backyards?

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 3:00 PM

…not sure how what I described is a proxy war, nor involving a “big army”(since I was talking about a missile strike), nor involving “tossing around tactical nukes”, when I clearly stated strikes on specified military infrastructure.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The poor saps at Osirak would disagree with you.

Bishop on August 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Iran has, by all accounts, learned the lessons of Osirak. They have duplicative systems, scattered throughout the country, deep underground in hardened bunkers. Anything short of massive nuclear strikes or general war and occupation isn’t likely to get it done.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Iran has, by all accounts, learned the lessons of Osirak. They have duplicative systems, scattered throughout the country, deep underground in hardened bunkers. Anything short of massive nuclear strikes or general war and occupation isn’t likely to get it done.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Um…one of the most developed technologies since 1980 has been bunker-busting weaponry, especially to include the option of using low-yield nuclear payloads. Unfortunately, Bush scrapped development a few years ago when it was decided not to use them in Afghanistan.

Just think of such things like the Death Star. We’ll find an exhaust port, dammit.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Where to begin?

Most of the Middle East considers Iran a nuisance

Well, good… let most of the Middle East deal with them then. I notice that the rest of the ME, the nations with the most to risk if Iran got nukes, aren’t exactly uniting under one banner to stop it. Guess they just don’t feel that threatened. But woe is us if we don’t feel that threatened.

Low-yield tactical nuclear devices precisely targeted at nuclear enrichment and research facilities would get a lot of noisemaking from Saudi Arabia and the rest, but the actual likelihood of any serious retaliation is remarkably small

You’re talking about setting off mushroom clouds… let’s repeat that, just so we are perfectly freaking clear… MUSHROOM CLOUDS over the Middle East, and you think the Arab/Muslim world is going to sit still for that?

Please. They will rise up, demand that their governments do everything in their power to stop the people responsible for the MUSHROOM CLOUDS that they are seeing repeated every ten seconds on Al Jazzera and Al Arabiya, and if those governments do not do so, they will find an appropriate government that will.

especially if there is little to no collateral damage

Okay. This is getting just a little too close to the parodies the Left portrays of us.

It’s a nuclear weapon. It, or rather they, since there will be many, many targets we would need to take out, will be aimed at areas where, by necessity, people need to be. Will it be downtown Teheran? Maybe not. But these MUSHROOM CLOUDS will be killing tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands.

From a strategic standpoint, a reasonable risk to usurp a horrifying foreign policy directed at ours and Israel’s extermination.

The idea that Iran, even with nuclear weapons, could exterminate us… and by exterminate, I assume you mean the end of the United States as a geo-political entity, is ridiculous.

And then there is the unspoken: What if we don’t get them all? Or what if they already have a nuclear weapon, and we just committed a nuclear first strike? And they decide that fair is fair, and proceed to set it off in Times Square. Or across the bridge in San Francisco. Or, God forbid, even in Madison, Wisconsin. And in world opinion, Iran would argue the age-old argument that we all learned on the schoolground: Who threw the first punch? And they would say we did.

And they would be right.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:31 PM

I’m heartened to see that Paul and his supporters are as loony as ever, because it assures me he will never be elected to anything again.

You Paultards do not look very smart when you claim that everyone who opposes Ron Paul’s suicidal foreign policy is a warmonger.

JannyMae on August 16, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Iranian suspected nuclear sites

Just so those advocating preemptive nuclear strikes can see, I’m seeing a score of sites, some of which are in or near Teheran.

So please, let’s stop talk of minimizing colateral damage when dealing with nuclear strikes.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

…mushroom clouds…MUSHROOM CLOUDS…MUSHROOM CLOUDS…MUSHROOM CLOUDS…

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:31 PM

I guess I could assume you don’t know anything about targeting underground facilities for missile strikes, but I honestly don’t care either way, since you seem to be quite happy with your hyperbole, which just happens to be the emblem of those we’re discussing. Nice talking to you.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Russia Today giving Paul big coverage:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-is-russian-tv-backing-ron-paul/

jp on August 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Apparently, the truth of my argument, hurts.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Apparently, the truth of my argument, hurts.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Apparently, you understand very little truth about the use of bunker busting weaponry, and the differences when using nuclear warheads to attack underground facilities, as opposed to airbursting them in open areas. But hey, nukes are always scary…unless they’re potentially used against us by some insignificant third world country.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Apparently, you understand very little truth about the use of bunker busting weaponry, and the differences when using nuclear warheads to attack underground facilities, as opposed to airbursting them in open areas. But hey, nukes are always scary…unless they’re potentially used against us by some insignificant third world country.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM

So, how does this covert, bunker-busting nuke strike happen, anyway? Do we fly over Iran and drop them silently from stealth bombers, and Iranians wake up the next day and say “Hey, what happened to all of our nuclear facilities? That’s weird.”

You claim JohnGalt23 is using hyperbole while you sit there and talk about “minimal collateral damage” from tactical nuclear strikes. Yeah, minimal my a$$.

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Do we fly over Iran and drop them silently from stealth bombers, and Iranians wake up the next day and say “Hey, what happened to all of our nuclear facilities? That’s weird.”

You claim JohnGalt23 is using hyperbole…

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Sorry to leave you out. Don’t worry, you’re included.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Great on the Fed, but comes across as a Kooky old Grandpa on stage.

PappyD61 on August 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Sorry to leave you out. Don’t worry, you’re included.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Take it easy MadCon. Take it easy HA.

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM

How do you know when Ron Paul has his pajamas on backwards…?

… The skid marks are on the front.

Seven Percent Solution on August 16, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Indecision 2012 – Corn Polled Edition – Ron Paul & the Top Tier

Ron Paul has been forgotten. Just a few days after his strong second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll, he’s again been excluded as eager commentators agree

Mitt Romney leads the MFM gopper candydate list. Whoopie.

Rick Perry’s the new kid in the class.

Overnight, Michele Bachmann’s numbers fell.

Meanwhile, on record, Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul’s diligent support for national defense.

Today’s messaging great divide marks just how far revisionism has permeated the Republican establishment and our authoritarian government without changing the stalwart constitutional conservative.

The idiots who actually believe the government’s official propaganda, budget figures, mutating reports and the virtue of perpetual warfare against a tactic (terror) are the ones wearing the tinfoil hats of willing suspense of disbelief, as if to madly purchase on credit a monopoly in whole cloth.

maverick muse on August 16, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Who cares what is foreign policy views are. The only thing that matters is the debt, the value of US currency, and the economy. Foreign policy is not the big thing some people think it is. Liberals get all hot about it, and so do neocons. They are both deluded. It’s a sideshow. And it is a sideshow that Americans are coming to resent at this point.

Sure, Ron Paul won’t win. We will get Perry, another George Bush neocon. It will be business as usual.

keep the change on August 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM

The funny thing is, Ron Paul will not even be invited to speak at the GOP convention, let alone earn any primary delegates.

Western_Civ on August 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM

The funny thing is, Ron Paul will not even be invited to speak at the GOP convention, let alone earn any primary delegates.

Western_Civ on August 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM

You do know he had delegates to the 2008 convention, right?

Is it really your contentionhe will do worse this time around? Are you serious?

Of course you’re not serious. But then we all knew that.

JohnGalt23 on August 16, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Terrye on August 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yous too funneh! Where can I subscribe to your newsletters?

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2011 at 8:54 PM

>We will get Perry, another George Bush neocon. It will be business as usual.

That’s what FOX wants. The FOX news web site has had over 15,000 mentions of Perry in the past 30 days. They mentioned Ron Paul 189 times during that time. The question is, will you and your friends vote the way you’ve been programmed, or will you vote against the neocons?

popularpeoplesfront on August 17, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3