Oh my: Ron Paul within one point of Gingrich in Iowa?

posted at 3:56 pm on December 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

Hey now. I was writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts before writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts was cool.

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters…

Simple question: What’s Paul’s ceiling in Iowa? A friend on Twitter was arguing earlier that it’s 20 percent, which is borne out by the polls — so far. If he’s right then Paul can’t win. But … what if Paul’s ceiling is actually 30 percent? Note that his favorables are trending upwards while Newt’s are sinking under the weight of renewed scrutiny of his various conservative heresies. If you’re an Iowan who’s unhappy with the “electable” candidates — Romney for being too opportunistic, Gingrich for flirting too often with activist government, Perry for seeming too darned hapless — then Paul’s an obvious choice for your “none of the above” protest vote. So obvious, in fact, that both Glenn Beck and Joe Scarborough are threatening to back him as a third-party candidate if Gingrich is the nominee. (An interesting footnote in the PPP data: Voters split equally on whether their view of the GOP establishment is favorable or unfavorable, and among the latter group Paul leads by double digits at 34 percent.) If he can pull 10 percent from voters like that on top of the 20 percent who make up his base, then his chances at an upset improve dramatically. And don’t forget, not only is Paul’s base famously enthusiastic and guaranteed to turn out, he’s one of the best organized candidates in Iowa this time. He might be able to get leaners to come out and caucus come rain or shine. Can Gingrich do the same?

I’ll bet Romney’s kicking himself now for not having abandoned Iowa early on. If he had done that, he could have sent his supporters out to caucus for Paul, thereby detonating Newt’s chances; if he tried that now, having competed in earnest in the state, the headlines would be all about Romney’s shockingly poor finish in Iowa, which would actually help Gingrich in New Hampshire even if he finished second to Paul in the caucuses. (On the other hand, per Rasmussen, Paul’s just four points back of Gingrich for second place in New Hampshire too.) Two exit questions for you, then. One: As chances of a Paul upset grow, will Iowa’s Republican leaders swing behind Newt or Mitt? They want the caucuses to remain relevant to choosing the eventual nominee, and if Paul wins, that’ll be two elections in a row where the Iowa winner realistically had no chance. Two: Could a Paul victory achieve a real “none of the above” outcome for the nomination? A brokered convention is unlikely – but, as Sean Trende explains, not impossible if Paul fares well.

Caucus states are also concentrated in the Mountain West, where his brand of Republicanism holds greater appeal. They’re also front-loaded, meaning that (a) his supporters will be less likely to have been swayed by the “can’t win” argument and (b) the more “establishment” Republican candidates are likely to split the non-Paul votes.

Overall, 486 delegates will be awarded in caucus states. If Paul picks off a sizable number of these delegates, say a quarter of them, and two other GOP candidates battle to a draw, there might not be a nominee by the end of June. This type of fight could carry over to the convention, since Paul is pretty feisty and is probably the least likely candidate out there to be “bought off” with a Cabinet position or speaking slot.

If, say, Perry and Gingrich are knotted up with about 1,050 delegates each, and Paul holds the remaining 200 and refuses to budge, you could end up with a deadlocked convention that eventually turns to a dark-horse candidate.

Ron Paul winning Iowa just might mean the GOP nominating Ryan, Christie, or Daniels. Second look at Ron Paul winning Iowa?

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 3 4 5 6 7 8

Romney is so hated that Ron Paul, the nut job that will make us vulnerable to be victimized by the weakest of countries, seems to be preferable to Iowans.

csdeven on December 13, 2011 at 6:58 PM

You do know that Ron Paul isn’t calling for us to eliminate our armed forces, right? Ron Paul has written that providing for the national defense is the first duty of the Federal government. Under Ron Paul’s proposed budget, the US will spend more on defense than the rest of the top 10 nations by military spending combined. How will that make us “vulnerable”?

Inkblots on December 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM

The alternative is that Ron Paul is just lying to us and to his supporters, and he would not withdraw from the world, in which case he should not be elected. We don’t need another liar.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:09 PM

As I said a couple days ago, the nomination of Ron Paul is the only nomination, out of the currnt group, that would force me to consider voting for 0bama.

I consider his foreign policy views so incredibly dangerous to American survival that I would have to consider whether it might be better to let 0bama complete his internal destruction, and bring on a domestic upheaval that’s been a long time coming, rather than let China and Russia eat the world under Paul.

We can get as purely conservative as we want here at home, but if we let the outside world collapse because Ron Paul wants to stop the world and get off, we won’t survive long.

Were Ron Paul to actually win the nomination as a Republican, this would demonstrate that the Republican party is done.

If it really came down to choosing, out of 300 million people, Ron Paul or Barry Soetero-0bama, this would be the death rattle of our whole electoral system.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM

I guess you would want more blatant outright Marxists on the supreme court rather than a less militaristic foreign policy. What makes you think that Paul will just let Russia and China steamroll over us without any resistance? We currently have an invasion of millions of foreigners into the country through our unprotected border but that doesn’t bother the foreign policy hawks at all. Does it?

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:10 PM

The alternative is that Ron Paul is just lying to us and to his supporters, and he would not withdraw from the world, in which case he should not be elected. We don’t need another liar.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:09 PM

The other alternative is that you are spewing inanities and living in a strawman-populated fantasy world.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Ron Paul believes in Fortress America. We saw how well that worked out in 1941. It would be no different. Resource pressure, spheres of influence, China on the move, Taiwan gone, tinder, kindling, match.

Ron Paul’s views, if he followed up on them, would likely bring on a world war.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Great taxpayer teated pay..benefits..and retirement packages.
The very thing that Ron Paul preaches against.

Mimzey on December 13, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Ron Paul, the guy who refuses to participate in his Congressional pension, because the obscene rates of return it pays Members are funded by the US taxpayer.

Profiteering should be made of sterner stuff.

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM

The other alternative is that you are spewing inanities and living in a strawman-populated fantasy world.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM

I know my history. America tried the Fortress America thing in 1939. It didn’t work.

Unless you can show me different, Ron Paul’s views are Fortress America redux.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Ron Paul believes in Fortress America. We saw how well that worked out in 1941.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Yeah.

We won.

Hurrah!

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:13 PM

We currently have an invasion of millions of foreigners into the country through our unprotected border but that doesn’t bother the foreign policy hawks at all. Does it?

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Hell yeah, it bothers me. You obviously have never read my posts before. Has nothing to do with Paul’s plans to recreate Fortress America.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Ron Paul is a nut. But he’s better than Newt.

Snake307 on December 13, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Yeah.

We won.

Hurrah!

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:13 PM

I know you’re just cracking wise, but for the rest of the Paul supporters who refuse to honestly address the consequences of his stated foreign policy, I think that 6,000,000 Jews would beg to differ.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Ron Paul would abandon Israel.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Under Ron Paul’s proposed budget, the US will spend more on defense than the rest of the top 10 nations by military spending combined. How will that make us “vulnerable”?

Inkblots on December 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM

The rest of the world isn’t into isolationist foreign policy. If it were up to Paul, we would wait for a nuke to hit Israel before deciding it matters to us. Then no other ally will trust us to watch their back. That is how all dictators start genocidal wars against the weakest ethnic group.

THAT is how it makes us vulnerable.

csdeven on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM

America did not try the “Fortress America” thing in 1939 or 1941. The Japanese didn’t just wake up one day and decide to attack the United States. Paul isn’t anti-military and he isn’t against using the military to defend ourselves, even if that means attacking before we’re attacked. He does, however, recognize that only Congress can declare war and that the president doesn’t have authority to launch offensive campaigns without such a declaration.

And how would non-interventionism “likely” bring on a world war?

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

What’s funny is that you think a guy who’s been part of the establishment for over two decades isn’t a part of the establishment

I said Cain was an outsider, that’s why I liked him. I know Paul has been in Congress for a very long time, but he has managed to maintain his belief system, which is more than you can say for most . And I am not a huge Paul fan, although I have friends who are. Funny, they were Hillary Dems and now have gone completely to the other side of the spectrum. The only person they trust is Ron Paul and that is because, for better or worse, he is consistent for individual liberty.

Puma for Life on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

I live in eastern Iowa and I’ve talked to a bunch of people that say they like Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I’d say that about 60% of them would never bother to go to a caucus, and another 15% of them couldn’t find a caucus precinct location even if it were in their own living room. What I find odd this year is the total lack of energy or excitement about anyone. Nothing resembling the Huck or, Hillary or even Fred bumper stickers from 4 years ago. Shoot, I see more old Palin 2012 stickers on cars than I do any of the current crop!

banjohack on December 13, 2011 at 5:28 PM

I’m from Eastern Iowa also and agree with your assessment 100%. This cycle seems like a shell of other cycles. I live in the 3rd largest city in the state and most candidates in the past had at least a makeshift headquarters here by this time. This year I have yet to hear of any and nobody seems to know what’s going on. I never really see any yard signs or stickers either outside of Ron Paul. The whole thing is just bizarre.

Roymunson on December 13, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Ron Paul is a nut. But he’s better than Newt.

Snake307 on December 13, 2011 at 7:15 PM

No, he’s not. His foreign policy views make him infinitely more dangerous than Newt.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Ron Paul would abandon Israel.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I didn’t realize Israel was a United States territory or possession. In what way are the taxpayers of our country required to surrender their wealth to our federal government in order for it to be given to Israel or any other nation?

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Why do you keep feeding this clown troll?

EddieC on December 13, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Its fun.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 7:19 PM

I think that 6,000,000 Jews would beg to differ.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM

And 20,000,000 Russians. Not to mention the 8 million Germans. The Brits, etc, etc, etc.

Good gravy! These Paulnuts really are crazy aren’t they!

csdeven on December 13, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Have we ever figured out why we went to Iraq or even why we’re still there?

Notorious GOP on December 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

This is why: Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush, a casus belli by any international standard; Saddam Hussein’s flagrant violations of innumerable UN resolutions; Saddam Hussein’s repeated attempts to shoot down American and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; Saddam Hussein’s bankrolling of international terrorism; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to acquire yellowcake and other ingredients necessary to the construction of an atomic bomb; Saddam Hussein’s possession of nerve gas, mustard gas, and various biological agents in violation of Hague convention and other international accords; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to suborn UN Security Council votes by means of the ‘Oil for Food’ program and outright bribery of UN member states.

President Bush was assured by CIA Director Tenant, based on all known intelligence gathered by both ourselves and other intelligence services, such as the British, that Hussein was in active pursuit of WMD capabilities, specifically nuclear weaponry. The term Tenant used to summarize the evidence was ‘slam dunk’. Thus, President Bush made a command decision based upon all known facts (see above) and all intelligence resources at his disposal.

That is why we are/were in Iraq.

troyriser_gopftw on December 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM

A loon on the other hand is just a loud annoying bird with red eyes. You can’t even eat it because it is a protected bird. A 1%er in the bird word. An elitist bird with red eyes. Thats Ron Paul.

Mimzey on December 13, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Loons are protected?
Oh dear. Nobody can check someone’s freezer, right?

Right?

katy the mean old lady on December 13, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I know you’re just cracking wise, but for the rest of the Paul supporters who refuse to honestly address the consequences of his stated foreign policy, I think that 6,000,000 Jews would beg to differ.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM

And had Germany simply decided to execute its one million Jews, instead of taking its show on the road, no nation would have lifted a finger to stop them.

As far as pre-war isolationism, do you really think we would have been in a position to fight a war if we had tried to keep troops positioned in Europe from the end of WWI through the Great Depression? Of course we couldn’t have. We’d have been driven to ruin trying to do it, and likely would have seen a communist revolution here to stop it.

As I said, we won. What are you complaining about?

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

America did not try the “Fortress America” thing in 1939 or 1941. The Japanese didn’t just wake up one day and decide to attack the United States. Paul isn’t anti-military and he isn’t against using the military to defend ourselves, even if that means attacking before we’re attacked. He does, however, recognize that only Congress can declare war and that the president doesn’t have authority to launch offensive campaigns without such a declaration.

And how would non-interventionism “likely” bring on a world war?

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

You and others keep conflating Paul’s defense of the U.S. homeland with his defense of the world against tyranny. Those are two different things.

And, America DID try the Fortress America thing. Wendell Willkie ran on it. American spent the entire 1930s ignoring the gathering storm. The Army was still training with wooden guns. Our airplanes were so outmoded that every single one of Torpedo Eight’s Devastator torpedo planes crashed in flames at Midway without scoring a hit. For the first 18 months of the war, our submarines fired torpedoes that bounced off Japanese ships and didn’t explode. Sub captains who complained were demoted. The majority of Americans supported staying out of the war. Roosevelt did Lend-Lease, etc., against substantial domestic criticism. His preparation for war is one of the few things he did right.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

And I am not a huge Paul fan, although I have friends who are. Funny, they were Hillary Dems and now have gone completely to the other side of the spectrum. The only person they trust is Ron Paul and that is because, for better or worse, he is consistent for individual liberty.

Puma for Life on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Odd you mention that..my lawn man goes on and on to me about Paul now but in 08 he was a big Hillary supporter. I find this bizarre.

bazil9 on December 13, 2011 at 7:26 PM

The rest of the world isn’t into isolationist foreign policy. If it were up to Paul, we would wait for a nuke to hit Israel before deciding it matters to us. Then no other ally will trust us to watch their back. That is how all dictators start genocidal wars against the weakest ethnic group.

THAT is how it makes us vulnerable.

csdeven on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

How hard is it to learn the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism?

And no, Paul would not wait for a nuke to hit Israel before deciding it matters to us. Paul was one of a few Congressmen who did NOT criticize Israel for striking Iraq’s nuclear site in 1981. Paul consistently says that it is up to Israel, a nuclear power with a strong arsenal, to defend herself, and that she has every capability and right to do so without asking America if it’s ok to piss in a pot.

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM

What points? So far all I’ve seen in your comments is how you dig your whiteness and want others to as well.

As with all the other races who proclaim their pride in their race, I would say – who cares?

I don’t give a hoot what color your skin is.

Apparently, to you, its a big deal.

Like I said, keep it up.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Such a PC complacent attitude is exactly the type of attitude that will lead to the death of the West. Have a nice day.

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 6:23 PM

So you, who love to extoll your European Whiteness is the kind of attitude that will what, exactly?

Funny that my not caring for the color of anyone’s skin is a complacent attitude which will destroy the West while you seem fixated on the (inherent) superiority of your Whiteness being the savior of it.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM

The rest of the world isn’t into isolationist foreign policy.

csdeven on December 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Damn right they’re not.

They’re into being kept princesses by their cuckold sugar daddy the US, while they go out and party with Iran and Venezuela.

A foreign policy we can all be proud of.

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM

The new WSJ poll is out: ‘Gingrich Surges Past Romney in GOP Race’.

Donald Douglas on December 13, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Ron Paul would abandon Israel.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The way people been talking, it sounds like Obama already “abandoned” it.

V-rod on December 13, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Hell yeah, it bothers me. You obviously have never read my posts before. Has nothing to do with Paul’s plans to recreate Fortress America.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM

He is a bit softer on illegal immigration than I would like but he has stated that he would bring troops home and station them on the border. That is military action that actually makes sense and directly protects Americans.

The GOP establishment that loves constant war with third world nations also loves cheap labor, guest worker programs, and amnesty. I know that I can trust Paul, with regards to immigration, much more than I can trust Newt or Romney.

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM

He is a bit softer on illegal immigration than I would like but he has stated that he would bring troops home and station them on the border. That is military action that actually makes sense and directly protects Americans.

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Which troops? 0bama is already bringing home most of the ones at war. So then he means depopulate all our bases? If we abandon our bases, China will move in. Do we really want to leave an opening like that?

We don’t need troops on the border. All we need to do is enforce our existing laws, instead of catch-and-release, and you’d be surprised how quickly the border gets under control. Troops aren’t the problem. It’s Washington telling states they have no right to detain people.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Ron Paul 2012!!!

The rest are big government puppets!

JihadKiller1s1k on December 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Inkblots on December 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Nice deflection.

But I never called your ‘movement’ racist. I called racists a major constituency of Herr Doktors. The Newsletters? Stormfront? He gets their support to this day.

Many Herr Doktor supporters are racists. Many are also Truthers and conspiracy nuts. Many are anti-semites.

Simply denying it doesn’t make it go away.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I know you’re just cracking wise, but for the rest of the Paul supporters who refuse to honestly address the consequences of his stated foreign policy, I think that 6,000,000 Jews would beg to differ.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Nazi Germany didn’t start exterminating the jews until 1942. After the US was already at war with them. Nazi treatment of jews had NOTHING to do with why the US went to war with the Nazis. Oh and the estimated number of victims in the holocaust is 12,000,000. Half of whom were jews. But I can see you don’t care about the OTHER 6,000,000.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Loons are protected?
Oh dear. Nobody can check someone’s freezer, right?

Right?

katy the mean old lady on December 13, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Yes ..at least they are here.

If someone tips off da fuzz…you got a bunch of freezer cops picking thru yer pork and the next thing ya know its you’s in da cooler.

Mimzey on December 13, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Ron Paul believes in [insert whatever a RP bot wants you to believe, whether it’s true or not].

No different than last time. People that have no idea what RP really believes, really supports, or not, out spamming up every corner of the web with not a care in the world about what’s true or not.

Guess it’s about time for TNR to dust off those old newsletters.

BruthaMan on December 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Half of whom were jews. But I can see you don’t care about the OTHER 6,000,000.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Oh, go scroo yourself, troll.

Your contributions here are not helpful, or wanted. I’ve watched you interactions with others here.

I hope you get banned soon.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Santorum money bomb starts tomorrow!
http://www.ricksantorum.com/nosurrender/

themamabear on December 13, 2011 at 7:45 PM

So you, who love to extoll your European Whiteness is the kind of attitude that will what, exactly?

Funny that my not caring for the color of anyone’s skin is a complacent attitude which will destroy the West while you seem fixated on the (inherent) superiority of your Whiteness being the savior of it.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM

It’s the attitude that you care not that most of Europe, the United States, and Canada are not at birth rate replacement levels so they are forced to bring in millions of third world foreigners, who do not share the same values and principles of the natives born Americans, in order to sustain the population to pay for retirees and bring in a large supply of cheap labor because it is ‘good for business’.

It’s the attitude that it’s OK for radical ethnic minority interest groups like La Raza to espouse hateful racist rhetoric towards whites and blame whites for all of their problems and these groups get corporate sponsorship and support from the government.

It’s the attitude that it is OK to award all minorities and women with preferential treatment over white males with affirmative action policies imposed on corporations, government, and schools in order to make it a ‘fair playing field’ even though AA was originally intended to benefit descendants of slaves, not anyone who is non-white and non-male.

It’s the attitude that it’s fine for schools to indoctrinate our children with the empty platitude that ‘Diversity equals strength’ and yet have zero evidence to back up this claim when we can all see with our own eyes that diversity equals a weakness and division in our nation-state. Go visit Los Angeles where I group up and you’ll know what I mean. It’s a giant enclave of self segregated racial and ethnic groups that want nothing to do with one another.

Obviously, people can assimilate. (I’m married into a Mexican family that has been here for 4 generations) But not at these massive levels and not with pop culture and the government pushing the nonsense of ‘multiculturalism’.

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Racial Supremacy.
9/11 Truth.
Isolationism.
Holocaust Revisionism.
Pumas.
Crazies.
Loons.

Welcome to a Ron Paul thread. Fasten your seatbelts, because there are going to be many, many more of them in the very near future.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 7:52 PM

This is why: Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush, a casus belli by any international standard; Saddam Hussein’s flagrant violations of innumerable UN resolutions; Saddam Hussein’s repeated attempts to shoot down American and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; Saddam Hussein’s bankrolling of international terrorism; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to acquire yellowcake and other ingredients necessary to the construction of an atomic bomb; Saddam Hussein’s possession of nerve gas, mustard gas, and various biological agents in violation of Hague convention and other international accords; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to suborn UN Security Council votes by means of the ‘Oil for Food’ program and outright bribery of UN member states.

troyriser_gopftw on December 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM

ALL, I repeat, ALL of the stuff happened in the 1990s. So why did Bush run on a platform of NOT invading Iraq, or any other country, in 2000? Why was it only after the WTC attacks, and immediately so, that the neoconservatives in various positions of power began gleefully agitating for a war against Iraq? And their primary arguments were a) Saddam was helping terrorists and b) Saddam is trying to make nukes, which he will probably give to terrorists. That is what sold the war. Not the complaints about skirting sanctions or playing loose with the no-fly-zone agreements.

And those 2 claims, about supporting terrorism and trying to make nukes, were patently false. There is not a credible figure on either side of the aisle today, who will say “Saddam had links to al qaeda” or “Iraq had a nuclear weapons program”. They DIDN’T. These claims were hand picked after the WTC attacks and played to absurdness in order to justify a certain ideological wing’s long-running desire to invade Iraq. All playing on the public’s sudden #1 fear: islamic terrorism.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Yes ..at least they are here.

If someone tips off da fuzz…you got a bunch of freezer cops picking thru yer pork and the next thing ya know its you’s in da cooler.

Mimzey on December 13, 2011 at 7:43 PMWell, they are fish eaters and would taste awful. I just don’t want them finding those plump Canaga geese.

katy the mean old lady on December 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Reap the whirlwind GOP! Keep screwing us and you will not exist! Vote Ron Paul!!

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 7:54 PM

I find quoting with this chat system rather tedious, borderline impossible. I’d highly recommend HotAir try to use Disquss or InstantDebate comment system for WordPress!

I can’t rebut people because I can’t find their comments!

http://intensedebate.com/

fatlibertarianinokc on December 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Ron Paul, the guy who refuses to participate in his Congressional pension, because the obscene rates of return it pays Members are funded by the US taxpayer.

Profiteering should be made of sterner stuff.

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM

And I suppose you also believe that his district voters keep re-electing him because they admire his “principles” in “voting against all those earmarks bills”, and not because they get their piece of the pork pie he brings home?

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM

So does that mean you don’t believe me? Or that you’re mad I pointed out that you don’t even care to include the other 6 million holocaust casualties? Or that you just “forgot” and are taking it out on me?

In any case, you look bad. You ARE bad. Forgetting/neglecting/not even knowing about 6,000,000-odd people who were murdered at the hands of one of the most brutal governments that ever was, is BAD.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Great to see you..:)

Dire Straits on December 13, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Hi! I’ve had some health issues of late, but I’m baaaack!!

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Well, they are fish eaters and would taste awful. I just don’t want them finding those plump Canaga geese.

katy the mean old lady on December 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Just stick some of those red eyes on yer gooses. You can get them at the taxidermy store.
Fools them every time.

Mimzey on December 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I consider his foreign policy views so incredibly dangerous to American survival that I would have to consider whether it might be better to let 0bama complete his internal destruction, and bring on a domestic upheaval that’s been a long time coming, rather than let China and Russia eat the world under Paul.

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Sigh. What’s wrong with following the constitution. Go to war only with the consent of the people. Go to congress, ask them a proper declaration of war. We define the enemy ,the mission and the end game. And if they vote yes, then he’ll go to war with all the might of the US military and all our arsenal and get it over with.
How can you have a path to victory if you don’t even know who the enemy is? We end up with endless wars with 10/20 years nation building missions and no exit strategy.

Gall on December 13, 2011 at 8:03 PM

In any case, you look bad. You ARE bad. Forgetting/neglecting/not even knowing about 6,000,000-odd people who were murdered at the hands of one of the most brutal governments that ever was, is BAD.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Go ahead and cherry-pick my comments all you want, to deflect from my argument against Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

I’m off to dinner with an unusually pretty lady.

Hold the fort, chief – knock yourself out :-)

cane_loader on December 13, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM

What does any of your garbage that you are spewing have to do with the obvious truth that Ron Paul is just shy of a troofer and his “BlameAmericaFirst™” foreign policy is national suicide?

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:05 PM

This is why: Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush, a casus belli by any international standard; Saddam Hussein’s flagrant violations of innumerable UN resolutions; Saddam Hussein’s repeated attempts to shoot down American and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; Saddam Hussein’s bankrolling of international terrorism; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to acquire yellowcake and other ingredients necessary to the construction of an atomic bomb; Saddam Hussein’s possession of nerve gas, mustard gas, and various biological agents in violation of Hague convention and other international accords; Saddam Hussein’s attempts to suborn UN Security Council votes by means of the ‘Oil for Food’ program and outright bribery of UN member states.

President Bush was assured by CIA Director Tenant, based on all known intelligence gathered by both ourselves and other intelligence services, such as the British, that Hussein was in active pursuit of WMD capabilities, specifically nuclear weaponry. The term Tenant used to summarize the evidence was ‘slam dunk’. Thus, President Bush made a command decision based upon all known facts (see above) and all intelligence resources at his disposal.

That is why we are/were in Iraq.

troyriser_gopftw on December 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM

History goes back beyond 1999, you know.

The fact is, we are in Iraq for oil. Just as we are in Libya for oil (France’s). All of that American treasure and American lives spent supporting Saddam, only to invade his country, oust him, and occupy it.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” – George Washington

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Ron Paul, the only candidate (besides perhaps Gary Johnson) who rightly believes that the beautiful concept of limited government doesn’t end at America’s shores.

Take heart Inkblots, John Galt, and other RP supporters on here. I’ve been reading the posts and you are among the few who provide reasoned, principled, insightful arguments. The number of limited govt supporters nationwide is growing rapidly – esp among the youth. The New “Conservatives” can demagogue all they like, but their time is quickly coming to an end. As our economic situation deteriorates, we will no longer be able to maintain our overseas hegeomony which has done so much to weaken our security.

RP may not prevail this time, but this movement goes well beyond any one man. Eventually, true limited government will prevail. And that will be a beautiful day.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Jerry Bear on December 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM

So what you’re saying is that you’re not a racist because hey, look – I married into a Mexican family?

You’re the one who continues to bring up race and skin color and making the case that whites are screwing themselves, not me.

I’m the one that said I don’t care what a person’s skin color is, and to you, that makes me the wrong-headed one?

You’re saying things that most people would agree with. The problem is you’re also the one who keeps pairing it with bringing up whiteness.

OK, maybe you’re not a outright racist and simply a racial bigot.

catmman on December 13, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Sigh. What’s wrong with following the constitution. Go to war only with the consent of the people. Go to congress, ask them a proper declaration of war. We define the enemy ,the mission and the end game. And if they vote yes, then he’ll go to war with all the might of the US military and all our arsenal and get it over with.

We did that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He even voted in favor of the first one. Kinda knocks your stupid argument out of the ballpark, doesn’t it?

How can you have a path to victory if you don’t even know who the enemy is? We end up with endless wars with 10/20 years nation building missions and no exit strategy.

Gall on December 13, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Kind of difficult to define an enemy that doesn’t have an alliance to a particular country, as do the terrorists who attack even their own people in Muslim countries, isn’t it? The “war on terror” isn’t well defined, because terrorists can’t be pin-pointed easily. The problem isn’t that we don’t know WHO the enemy is, the problem is that we don’t know WHERE the enemy is. Your suggestion that we can fight an undefined enemy in an undefined place, the same way that we have fought “conventional” wars in the past, makes you look like an idiot.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Oh my! Now you’re on the “war for oil” meme? We need a better of newbies to register tomorrow.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Oh my! Now you’re on the “war for oil” meme? We need a better of newbies to register tomorrow.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Yes, because clearly we would have the presence in the ME which we do now were there no oil in the region. Clearly, US naval vessels patrolling the straits of hormuz have nothing to do with the fact that we are worried about Iran closing off the gulf and thus 1/3 of the seaborne oil shipments. Sheesh.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Oh my! Now you’re on the “war for oil” meme? We need a better of newbies to register tomorrow.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Based on the citizenship of the 911 hijackers, we should have left Riyadh a smoldering ruin. But no, the radicals in Saudi Arabia are somehow off limits. Hmmmm. Face it. Most wars are fought for control of resources or a particular region. You should Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard to understand what I’m saying.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 8:17 PM

You do know that Ron Paul isn’t calling for us to eliminate our armed forces, right? Ron Paul has written that providing for the national defense is the first duty of the Federal government. Under Ron Paul’s proposed budget, the US will spend more on defense than the rest of the top 10 nations by military spending combined. How will that make us “vulnerable”?

Inkblots on December 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM

There is no use trying to explain the reality of Ron Paul’s positions to people on here. They are never gonna listen. They want a candidate who says all the right things and then gets into office and then spends like a democrat, increases foreign entanglements and throws a bone to social conservatives once in a while. Basically the opposite of what conservatives used to be.

thphilli on December 13, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Iowa prides itself on breaking the mold, deciding late which direction to vote. This year, more than any other, Iowa is going as conservative as possible. Newt is trying to run out the clock, but he’s peaked too soon and Iowa makes up it’s mind the last 7-10 days prior to the Caucus…they are late deciders. This weekend will be key with Bob Vander Plaats’ endorsement by Monday. Santorum has had the best month of December in Iowa so far…taking top draft choices Matt Schutz and Chuck Laudner’s endorsements. If he can get Bob Vander Plaats’ nod he’ll race to Top 3 in Iowa without question. If he runs the table and gets Congressman King’s endorsement…Santorum will take first or second in Iowa. Stay tuned…

Deep Timber on December 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

What does any of your garbage that you are spewing have to do with the obvious truth that Ron Paul is just shy of a troofer and his “BlameAmericaFirst™” foreign policy is national suicide?

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Why is it that any candidate that explains that America might have made mistakes in the past and present is automatically labeled “Blame America First”? Why is it that “conservatives” want candidates that lie to their faces as long as it makes America seem infallible?

thphilli on December 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Why is it that any candidate that explains that America might have made mistakes in the past and present is automatically labeled “Blame America First”? Why is it that “conservatives” want candidates that lie to their faces as long as it makes America seem infallible?

thphilli on December 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I’ve often wondered this myself. I think it might fit into a sort of pride thing. Too proud to admit that your country may have made mistakes and seeing everything that your country has done through rose-tinted glasses. It’s not a very reasonable way to examine your past and learn from it though. Of course, I think there might be a famous quote out there about pride and taking a nasty tumble.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Ron Paul, the only candidate (besides perhaps Gary Johnson) who rightly believes that the beautiful concept of limited government doesn’t end at America’s shores.

Take heart Inkblots, John Galt, and other RP supporters on here. I’ve been reading the posts and you are among the few who provide reasoned, principled, insightful arguments. The number of limited govt supporters nationwide is growing rapidly – esp among the youth. The New “Conservatives” can demagogue all they like, but their time is quickly coming to an end. As our economic situation deteriorates, we will no longer be able to maintain our overseas hegeomony which has done so much to weaken our security.

RP may not prevail this time, but this movement goes well beyond any one man. Eventually, true limited government will prevail. And that will be a beautiful day.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Ron Paul’s message is the future which is eerily similar to when the “extremist” Barry Goldwater was chastised by the Northeastern Rockefeller establishment in the early 1960s. They can’t fight the future which is what is so encouraging. Ron Paul has energized so many young people across the country that the RINOs’ collective fate has been sealed.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Have we ever figured out why we went to Iraq or even why we’re still there?

Notorious GOP

It’s not like it was ever a secret, so if you don’t know the answer, it’s either because you don’t want to know, or you really do know, but you’re lying to make a lame argument.

xblade on December 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Santorum has had the best month of December in Iowa so far…taking top draft choices Matt Schutz and Chuck Laudner’s endorsements. If he can get Bob Vander Plaats’ nod he’ll race to Top 3 in Iowa without question. If he runs the table and gets Congressman King’s endorsement…Santorum will take first or second in Iowa. Stay tuned…

Deep Timber on December 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Forgot to mention Santorum landed another big endorsement…Pastor Terry Amann’s.

Deep Timber on December 13, 2011 at 8:41 PM

China invades Taiwan with large forces and the fighting is fierce all over the island. China issues a declaration that this is “an internal matter” and foreign interference will be considered an act of war. All the PRC air and naval forces are concentrated around Taiwan.

President Paul will (choose up to 3 responses)

A. Refer the matter to the Congress
B. Refer the matter to the United Nations
C. Issue a strong statement deploring the use of violence
D. Order Defcon raised but no movement into the Western Pacific
E. Strongly reinforce the Western Pacific
F. Intervene with the 7th Fleet, initiating hostilities
G. Do nothing, U.S. interests not threatened
H. …Who knows?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 8:42 PM

China invades Taiwan with large forces and the fighting is fierce all over the island. China issues a declaration that this is “an internal matter” and foreign interference will be considered an act of war. All the PRC air and naval forces are concentrated around Taiwan.

President Paul will (choose up to 3 responses)

A. Refer the matter to the Congress
B. Refer the matter to the United Nations
C. Issue a strong statement deploring the use of violence
D. Order Defcon raised but no movement into the Western Pacific
E. Strongly reinforce the Western Pacific
F. Intervene with the 7th Fleet, initiating hostilities
G. Do nothing, U.S. interests not threatened
H. …Who knows?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Taiwan for all intents and purpose is gone, especially when you consider the amount of treasury bonds the Chinese own. Debt destroyed our ability to defend Taiwan. Sad but typical.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Ron Paul winning Iowa just might mean the GOP nominating Ryan, Christie, or Daniels.

What are the odds of a brokered convention? .1 .25 .5?

AshleyTKing on December 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM

So G., Pitchforker?

Come on, Paulians, let’s get down to cases. He will get these kind of questions in a good debate.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 8:51 PM

And oh, by the way, there is a correct answer to this hypothetical.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM

When I hear the guy speak I find myself looking for a tinfoil cap. After the debate where he proclaimed the border fence was bad because it could be used to keep Americans in I truly realized what a nut he is. Not to mention his “9/11 was our fault” rhetoric. “Iran is not a threat.” Really? I know of a few dead Soldiers who would disagree (if they were alive). Isolationism is a terrible policy. Attempts in the last hundred years to stay out of the worlds troubles have not always ended very well as our enemies took the fight to us. Id rather fight a war in our enemy’s backyard, not mine. Thats not to say we havent had our share of interventionist failures over the last hundred years that never should have been started. But overall we have an arguably good record of being on the side of liberty over oppression. I also disagree with Paul’s anti-Israel stance. If we abandon our military and diplomatic support they will become a glow on the horizon in no time. Who will they go after when they are finished there? The evil Juden Amerika? His foreign policy ideas sound good in sound bites but do not work when paired with the facts of history. When he says stuff like “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today” I cringe. Thats not to say his ideas on cutting foreign aid are not all bad if taken at face value. But a lot of “foreign aid” is simply extortion payments to keep countries in line. Furthermore, when Paul’s view is applied to 9/11 and Bin Laden, it falls flat on its face. He wasnt some poor orphan whose parents were killed in an imperialist US bombing raid, he came from a billionaire family. Bin Laden was driven by Muslim ideology and a quest for oppressive Sharia Law over democracy (many times that is what he viewed as “Western Oppression”). He hated Israel and anyone who supported them (as do many of the “Religion of Peace”). The hijackers were all wealthy educated Saudis. How did we wrong them? By making their country filthy rich? Paul said repeatedly instead of tracking down and killing Bin Laden, “America should have worked with the Pakistani Authorities who in the past had arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who were then tried in court.” Right. Where was he hiding again? And how exactly do we fight our enemies from home when he wants to curtail the CIA? Its like 1+1 = 4. The guy even voted against stopping genocide in Darfur. If he’s not willing to take a stand on genocide what is he willing to take a stand on? Sugar coat it all you want. The guy is out there.

Logboy on December 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM

So G., Pitchforker?

Come on, Paulians, let’s get down to cases. He will get these kind of questions in a good debate.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 8:51 PM

I’m more partial to Pat Buchanan so I would threaten China with severe tariffs on their goods if they initiated an attack on Taiwan. I suppose Paul would consult Congress and then act accordingly with force if necessary.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 8:56 PM

So…Await guidance, authorization, or declaration of war from the Congress before committing military force, right? And his recommendation to Congress would be–What, exactly?

We’re talking about Ron Paul, not Pat Buchanan or Pitchforker.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:00 PM

And those 2 claims, about supporting terrorism and trying to make nukes, were patently false. There is not a credible figure on either side of the aisle today, who will say “Saddam had links to al qaeda” or “Iraq had a nuclear weapons program”. They DIDN’T. These claims were hand picked after the WTC attacks and played to absurdness in order to justify a certain ideological wing’s long-running desire to invade Iraq. All playing on the public’s sudden #1 fear: islamic terrorism.

Daikokuco on December 13, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Were they hand picked from these individuals?

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members…. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

“Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century.”
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies…”
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

If you are looking for people who miss saddam hussein, you are in the wrong place. You’ll want to take a “left” at AlHuffPo.

BruthaMan on December 13, 2011 at 9:03 PM

The tariff threat would be laughed at by the victorious People’s Liberation Army basking in the glow of their triumph. They know it wouldn’t last. Taiwan is their “coming out” as a true superpower, militarily and politically.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Hey BruthaMan, you got a link on those quotes? I’d like to bookmark it. Bing was useless.

Logboy on December 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

We did that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He even voted in favor of the first one. Kinda knocks your stupid argument out of the ballpark, doesn’t it?

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Um, no we didn’t. There was no declaration of war at all. No declaration of war against Afghanistan or Iraq.

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Oh my! Now you’re on the “war for oil” meme? We need a better of newbies to register tomorrow.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

You haven’t heard of the First Gulf War???? Why do you think we’re in Iraq today?

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 9:15 PM

The tariff threat would be laughed at by the victorious People’s Liberation Army basking in the glow of their triumph. They know it wouldn’t last. Taiwan is their “coming out” as a true superpower, militarily and politically.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

They’re hopelessly export dependent and their population has seen wage increases. Like a shark that needs to swim forward and push water through it’s gills, the Chinese cannot decouple from the American consumer at this particular juncture in time. Tariffs in the right sectors would hurt them greater than any armament.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Odd you mention that..my lawn man goes on and on to me about Paul now but in 08 he was a big Hillary supporter. I find this bizarre.

I was a Hillary supporter, also. The reason some have gone the way they have gone is because if you were a Hillary supporter you saw the complete corruption of the political system openly executed in the Democratic Party primaries. Thus, many became completely alienated from the political system and started researching on their own, focusing on “follow the money”, leading to the power elite, and eventually a more libertarian perspective on things. They see Ron Paul as a defender of liberty and freedom, someone not controlled by the power elite, willing to stand on principle. His anti-federal reserve position is particularly attractive as they see their money, and their lives, being controlled by powerful forces.

Puma for Life on December 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

The tariff threat would be laughed at by the victorious People’s Liberation Army basking in the glow of their triumph. They know it wouldn’t last. Taiwan is their “coming out” as a true superpower, militarily and politically.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Haha … yes, and I have every confidence that Newt, Mitt, or Obama would stop China dead in their tracks.

The relationship is too symbiotic at the moment for your scenario to take place. Your “conservative” candidates will tell you what you want to hear about confronting China and get the Alpha Male’s testosterone flowing til he’s barking at the TV screen, but due to the leverage China’s got on us ultimately those “conservatives” would look the other way.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

And their retaliation would hurt us. They would cease to buy our T-bills, and Asian countries would be coerced to do the same. The threat of complete default/economic collapse would be enough to make us accept the inevitable. Another defeat for the U.S., now a second-rate power.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Haha … yes, and I have every confidence that Newt, Mitt, or Obama would stop China dead in their tracks.

The relationship is too symbiotic at the moment for your scenario to take place. Your “conservative” candidates will tell you what you want to hear about confronting China and get the Alpha Male’s testosterone flowing til he’s barking at the TV screen, but due to the leverage China’s got on us ultimately those “conservatives” would look the other way.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Yup. Imagine the numerous calls from the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies that would be put in quite a pickle if a conflict ensued? All those candidates would back down.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 9:26 PM

And their retaliation would hurt us. They would cease to buy our T-bills, and Asian countries would be coerced to do the same. The threat of complete default/economic collapse would be enough to make us accept the inevitable. Another defeat for the U.S., now a second-rate power.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Yes, M.A.D. without the use of nuclear warheads.

Pitchforker on December 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM

After the debate where he proclaimed the border fence was bad because it could be used to keep Americans in I truly realized what a nut he is.

Actually, that’s old leftist rhetoric, I know because I used to be one.

I agree, when he said that, I thought he was going off the deep end.

I saved myself before I fell off the ledge.

Puma for Life on December 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Haha … yes, and I have every confidence that Newt, Mitt, or Obama would stop China dead in their tracks.

The relationship is too symbiotic at the moment for your scenario to take place. Your “conservative” candidates will tell you what you want to hear about confronting China and get the Alpha Male’s testosterone flowing til he’s barking at the TV screen, but due to the leverage China’s got on us ultimately those “conservatives” would look the other way.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

The hypothetical is for Ron Paul. Do you have a likely answer he would give? I hear crickets except for Pitchforker.

Again, there is a correct answer set that screams out at you if you know anything about international politics. Can Paul give it?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

And their retaliation would hurt us. They would cease to buy our T-bills, and Asian countries would be coerced to do the same. The threat of complete default/economic collapse would be enough to make us accept the inevitable. Another defeat for the U.S., now a second-rate power.

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Blame the Dems and your Neo-Cons who placed us in this conundrum by putting us in so much debt and thus making us so beholden to the Chinese.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Yes, because clearly we would have the presence in the ME which we do now were there no oil in the region. Clearly, US naval vessels patrolling the straits of hormuz have nothing to do with the fact that we are worried about Iran closing off the gulf and thus 1/3 of the seaborne oil shipments. Sheesh.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Where’s the oil in South Korea, genius? Germany? Japan? or so many of the other countries that Ron Paul ridiculously claims that we are occupying

The point made was that we attacked Iraq “for the oil.” Did terrorists attack us on 9/11, or not? Did Saddam Hussein violate the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war? Did nearly everyone in the world, including Saddam Hussein himself believe that Iraq had WMD?

Your argument is an epic fail.

Tell us again how Bush was gleeful over the 9/11 attacks. Please do!

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 9:33 PM

So…Await guidance, authorization, or declaration of war from the Congress before committing military force, right?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Gasp! You mean follow the Constitution???

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 9:35 PM

ron paul foreign policy is super!! its like f”$%# the world,care about america.
why should america have troops on the other side of the world?

nathor on December 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM

And I suppose you also believe that his district voters keep re-electing him because they admire his “principles” in “voting against all those earmarks bills”, and not because they get their piece of the pork pie he brings home?

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Try thinking this one through:

Which one do you think they care more about: The millions of dollars in pork they petition him to forward on to the appropriate committee, of the billions of dollars of in rice subsidies and price supports they receive that he votes against? That he votes against year after year, and tells them up front he is going to vote against year after year.

Pork is chump change compared to the spending that you seem to think is just fine and dandy, but Ron Paul wants to cut.

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 9:38 PM

If RP gets the nomination it will mean a massive sea change in US politics the likes of which have never been seen before.

Throw in a Republican Congress and RP asking to get rid of the Fed, EPA and a number of other agencies, while putting SSA on a slow die off path might just be the ticket domestically.

Internationally I expect WW IV… we won WW III, the Cold War.

Of course I’m pretty much expecting another WW no matter WHO IS ELECTED. NOV 2012 is way too far away at this point to stop what is going on in Europe, Russia, China and Africa.

Is grandad off his meds? Yup.

So is the rest of the planet, in case anyone hasn’t bothered to look around the last couple of years.

That doesn’t mean I support the guy, it just means that we are heading towards Iron Times and we had best get our house in order ASAP.

ajacksonian on December 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Um, no we didn’t. There was no declaration of war at all. No declaration of war against Afghanistan or Iraq.

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Um. Yes we did. Were the AUMF resolutions, one of which Ron Paul voted in favor of, invitations to have tea?

I’m arguing with morons. I have better things to do.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Tell us again how Bush was gleeful over the 9/11 attacks. Please do!

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Apparently you have trouble telling the difference between “Bush” and “The Bush Administration”.

About what I’d expect from a public school civics education, or a Tulane grad student.

JohnGalt23 on December 13, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Gasp! You mean follow the Constitution???

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Yes. Is that what Paul would do, refer to Congress? Just kick the issue to the Hill, have them take full leadership?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:40 PM

The hypothetical is for Ron Paul. Do you have a likely answer he would give? I hear crickets except for Pitchforker.

Again, there is a correct answer set that screams out at you if you know anything about international politics. Can Paul give it?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

First of all, there is a correct answer to YOU. Don’t go assuming that everyone else shares your presuppositions about foreign policy. International relations is not a hard science – therefore there are no absolutes. When you study international policy and it’s not dealing with history you are studying opinion.

I’m telling you that none of the current crop would confront China at least directly (although they might tell you otherwise). Nobody can tell you concretely ahead of time what they’d do in those circumstances b/c it’s a complicated situation and there are a lot of variables. And any politician who tells you otherwise is lying. As to your UN option, I think you know his stance on the US going to war at the behest of the UN so I’m not sure why you bothered to include that.

But, perhaps instead of worrying about highly unlikely wars in Taiwan, we should be a little more concerned about the much more relevant crippling debt we’re currently saddled with.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Yes. Is that what Paul would do, refer to Congress? Just kick the issue to the Hill, have them take full leadership?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Gasp … you mean refer it to the body which is supposed to represent the people of this country. That’s outrageous.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Because Taiwan and the disputed islands in the South China Sea would be in Chinese hands before the Congress could even hold preliminary hearings on the matter. Effectively, that would mean doing nothing, right?

spiritof61 on December 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM

The point made was that we attacked Iraq “for the oil.”

Your argument is an epic fail.

JannyMae on December 13, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

British Paper Reports: Big Oil Companies Encouraged Invasion of Iraq

Carve-up of oil riches begins

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8