PPP: Paul leads Iowa, Gingrich drops to 3rd

posted at 8:45 am on December 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Democratic pollster PPP says that the race in Iowa has flipped yet again.  Just a couple of weeks ago, Newt Gingrich rode high in the polls as the alternative to Mitt Romney, but PPP now says that role has fallen to … Ron Paul:

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa.  He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row.  His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%.  And there’s been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich’s image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has ‘strong principles,’ while 43% think he does not.

Paul’s ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa.  22% of voters think he’s run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it’s ‘very important’ that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa.  Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

PPP says that they are polling likely Republican caucus-goers, but there’s a reason for a little skepticism on their sample.  At 597 respondents, the size is respectable enough, but its composition and definition of “likely” is quite shaky.  Only a little over half (55%) bothered to caucus with Republicans in 2008, an election primary with as much publicity and import as this one. Thirteen percent caucused with the Democrats, which is reasonable because (a) Democrats aren’t conducting a primary this cycle, and (b) some who caucused with Democrats might be inclined to support Republicans this year.

However, almost a third (32%) didn’t caucus with either party in 2008.  How can they be considered “likely” caucus-goers in this cycle?  It can’t be because Ron Paul is running this time, because he was running in 2008 as well.

There are other reasons for skepticism.  RealClearPolitics notes two other polls taken in almost the same timeframe as PPP’s survey, and Paul was below 20% in both (Rasmussen and Insider Advantage).  They all show fairly close margins, but the PPP looks like a bit of an outlier — at least for now.

Paul supporter Tim Carney warns that the GOP will hammer Paul if he takes Iowa:

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

Well, how is that different than what has already happened to Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Herman Cain, et al?  Does it only get ugly when it happens to people who write the forward to your own books?  Carney, whose writing I otherwise admire and enjoy, tosses this in as an aside in the penultimate paragraph:

Paul’s indiscretions — such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name — will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state’s rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

“Allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name” means publishing racist material, if not writing it himself.  James Kirchick returns at the Weekly Standard to emphasize the length and breadth of that racist material, and the profit that Paul made over the years from publishing it, and notes that most of it was written in the first person under Paul’s name on the banner:

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Put aside the question of authorship for a moment.  In what universe would any Republican imagine having a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning a national election with the publisher of this offensive claptrap at the top of the ticket?

While Republicans rightly excoriate Newt Gingrich for his one love-seat appearance with Nancy Pelosi for a climate-change dialogue, Kirchick reminds us of Paul’s close and longtime association with conspiracy-theory crank Alex Jones:

In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”

In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.

If Iowa picks Ron Paul as its caucus winner, two things will result.  First, Mitt Romney will probably run the table as Republicans everywhere else but Iowa recoil in horror.  Second, Iowa will likely end up losing whatever cachet it has managed to build over the last three decades as a first-in-the-nation proving ground for presidential candidates, and the drumbeat to unseat both Iowa and New Hampshire from the front end of the primary system will prove irresistible.

Update: Neil Stevens also expresses considerable skepticism with PPP’s sample:

The problem with the poll is that it’s just not likely to be true, though. We have a benchmark for evaluating this poll: 2008 Iowa caucus entrance polls. The partisan alignment is all wrong: In 2008 the caucuses, being closed of course, included 86% self-identified Republicans, 13% self-identified Independents who presumably registered Republican to caucus, 1% Democrats, 1% “Other.” PPP’s poll drops the Republican proportion to 75%, raises Independents to 19%, and raises Democrats to 5%. Guess who’s helped by both of those shifts, which are far outside the Margin of Error and so predict genuine, large shifts in the partisan makeup of the closed Iowa caucuses. That’s right: Ron Paul, who wins 40% of Democrats, 34% of Independents, but only 19% of Republicans according to the poll.

There are three broad possibilities: The 2008 entrance polls are wrong. The 2012 Republican caucuses will find huge new turnout from independent voters showing up and registering Republican. The PPP poll has systemic issues and is not meaningful.

Other suspicious bits: Do we really believe that 36% of “Very liberal” Iowa caucusers went for Mike Huckabee and not Rudy Giuliani or John McCain? Do we believe the Republican Party’s makeup has shifted so that John McCain would have tied for second in Iowa in 2008? That’s what PPP says: Huckabee 26%, Romney and McCain 19%. Remember that the actual result was Huckabee 34, Romney 25, Fred Thompson 13, McCain 13.

There is no doubt that Paul was picking up some momentum in this race, but the PPP poll seems way too problematic for any conclusions about its current state.

Update II: Karl takes on the Paul-apologist punditry, at Patterico.


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 6 7 8

Why wouldnt he? Ron Paul has said repeatedly that his earmarks are about accountability and transparency. Therefore a bill loaded with them should be the pinnacle of accountability and transparency. Right?

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Well, if he did, all hell would break loose.

Pitchforker on December 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Tell me how Ron Paul can call himself a fiscal conservative with his record on earmarks.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

troyriser_gopftw, you are insane. Spider goats? Really

Everyone knows they believe in crab goat hybrids. Jeez. Get with it will ya?

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Look, I don’t want to get mixed up in the crab/goat vs. spider/goat controversy. I only know what I saw in the riveting Alex Jones documentary, Endgame. Alex Jones says the Bildersburger Group is sponsoring the creation of spider-goat DNA hybrids in their secret laboratories. Besides, crab-goat hybrids can only scuttle around. Spider-goat hybrids, on the other hand, can scuttle around and spin webs. Beat that.

troyriser_gopftw on December 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Tell me how Ron Paul can call himself a fiscal conservative with his record on earmarks.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Because Shut Up! that’s why!

But at least Pitch acknowledges earmarks are a problem for Herr Doktor. Give the guy some credit.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Besides, crab-goat hybrids can only scuttle around. Spider-goat hybrids, on the other hand, can scuttle around and spin webs. Beat that.

troyriser_gopftw on December 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM

And their milk is so silky!

profitsbeard on December 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

And just exactly who are these scoundrels, Pitchforker? Use of the terms ‘neoconservative’ or ‘neo-con’ or other such sweeping and vague pejoratives are not allowed. Name names, if possible, to include both individuals and institutions. Be specific.

troyriser_gopftw on December 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Council on Foreign Relations. Senator Barry Goldwater,a man privy to far more insider dealings than you or I, talked about their incredible influence in his memoirs:

“The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. I believe that the Council on Foreign relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy – it’s all the same to them.

“When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.”

Many of the Fortune 500 companies are members of the CFR since it has been the fulcrum of power in North America for decades. If you want access to a new market abroad, you play ball with council so to speak. There is no conspiracy.

It is an exclusive club that guides certain individuals and organizations towards particular directions, thanks to the incredible influence and power they wield across many governments and central banks.

Pitchforker on December 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

I love how so-called conservatives bury great men like Kirk just because his findings don’t run parallel with the GOP’s Ministry of Truth. The man was an intellectual giant and would run circles around George Will, Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer if he was alive today.

And I would agree with you that he was right about certain aspects of libertarianism.

Pitchforker on December 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Kirk “laid out a post-World War II program for conservatives by warning them, ‘A handful of individuals, some of them quite unused to moral responsibilities on such a scale, made it their business to extirpate the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; we must make it our business to curtail the possibility of such snap decisions.’”[2]

I thought Blame America was a liberal and libertarian specialty. In Kirk’s “conservative” mind it would have been better to send 100,000 American troops to their deaths than use the nuclear bomb to end the war against the country which bombed us to start the war.

This is not my idea of a conservative hero.

Basilsbest on December 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Tell me how Ron Paul can call himself a fiscal conservative with his record on earmarks.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Because he didn’t vote for a single one of those earmarks?

thphilli on December 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Because he didn’t vote for a single one of those earmarks?

thphilli on December 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Then why did he put them in all those bills he voted against?

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Ron Paul never attacks earmarks, so it’s not hypocritical. He’s also never voted for one earmark.

So, yeah.

And if he had his way, there’d be no earmarking because the budget would be balanced.

lol @ these lame attacks. I’m curious why the new advantage poll has not been added to this thread which appears to vindicate the PPP poll?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/200341-poll-paul-leads-in-iowa-gingrich-slips-to-fourth

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76081195/InsiderAdvantage-IA-1218

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Cause he knows that the rest of the republicans in congress are a bunch of big stater liberal douches? So if they are gonna spend the peoples money at least his people should get their money back. But there is no way in hell he would compromise his principles to vote for the earmarks like the rest of the big stater republicans.

thphilli on December 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

If he had his way there’d be no earmarks? So what better way to be principled than to pack spending bills with them.

Brilliant.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Then why did he put them in all those bills he voted against?

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Because his constituents want their MONEY back.

But in the end he votes no and does not attack earmarks.

So, good luck calling that hypocritical.

We can do this all day and you’ll lose every time.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Cause he knows that the rest of the republicans in congress are a bunch of big stater liberal douches? So if they are gonna spend the peoples money at least his people should get their money back. But there is no way in hell he would compromise his principles to vote for the earmarks like the rest of the big stater republicans.

thphilli on December 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

He’s so principled that he uses the “Everyone else is doing it” defense.

Pack bill with Earmarks

?

Profit!

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:07 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

You’re right, we can do this all day.

But to anyone other than a Paultard, the last few comments illustrate the problem rather well.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Because his constituents want their MONEY back.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

He wants his people to get their money back but votes to keep them from getting their money back but packs spending bills with earmarks so they can get their money back.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Militarism is bankrupting America?
That has to be one of the most stupid comments in this thread. Of course a ronulan believes that BS. They also believe that Iran having nukes is no big deal so, no surprises…

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM

We take in $2.4 trillion in tax revenues, we spend $1 trillion on the military. If we cut all non discretionary spending and only left military and SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, we would still need to print and borrow to pay the interest we owe. So how if spending $1 trillion dollars on the military not bankrupting us. Even if you make massive cuts to the social programs we are still in a massive hole without military spending at that is with government spending at 24% of GDP, let alone reducing that to historical levels.

Are you saying if the rest of the world combined spends as much as we do in total, we can’t cut that even a little and survive when our primary enemy hides in tents and fights us with weapons that we gave them to fight the Russians in the 80′s.

Take the red pill. Unplug from the matrix.

ReformedDeceptiCon on December 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM

He wants his people to get their money back but votes to keep them from getting their money back but packs spending bills with earmarks so they can get their money back.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Yes, this is why he’s against an income tax. That’s why he wants to reduce the size of government to such a degree that it’s actually possible to do so.

None of this crap is working, dude. Paul wants to shrink government drastically so we can one day get rid of even an income tax. But first we gotta get used to a limited government.

He needs the people to see that the sun will in fact rise without government intervention. And that Iran is not suicidal and will not attack the U.S. with a nuke they don’t have and can’t reach us. lol

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Look, I don’t want to get mixed up in the crab/goat vs. spider/goat controversy. I only know what I saw in the riveting Alex Jones documentary, Endgame. Alex Jones says the Bildersburger Group is sponsoring the creation of spider-goat DNA hybrids in their secret laboratories. Besides, crab-goat hybrids can only scuttle around. Spider-goat hybrids, on the other hand, can scuttle around and spin webs. Beat that.

troyriser_gopftw

Spidergoats taste awful and whenever they get alarmed they shoot silk everywhere. Good luck cleaning it up. Crab goats can be milked and/or eaten with steak. Their shell can even be used for bullet proofing your car or home. I’ll take a crab goat anytime.
You must have seen the Monday Endgame version. On Tuesday it was the crab-goat conspiracy. The rest of the week was devoted to the mantis-goat conspiracy, but only complete loons would fall for that.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Pardon me while I plagiarize myself from earlier. Yeah, about those earmarks. Uncle Ron likes to play this fun little game. He slips an earmark into a bill that he knows will easily pass. He then votes against said bill (or doesnt vote at all) knowing it will pass and he will get his earmark. Then he goes “See! See! See! I never voted for an earmark! I’m a fiscal conservative!” And his followers lap it up.

Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:

* $8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
* $2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
* $2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
* $2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
* $38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
* $18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
* $4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
* $11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
* $2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
* $5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
* $1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
* $4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul’s own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they’re still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have “never voted for an earmark”, even the earmark requests he himself made.

Paul has said repeatedly that his earmarks are about accountability and transparency. If Paul thinks earmarks are the way to go why doesn’t he vote in favor of his own? Furthermore, how are the above earmarks examples of a fiscally restrained small government?

And how in the heck is an earmark “transparency” and “accountability”? One can slip an earmark into any bill without anyone reading about it beforehand or objecting or discussing it with anyone else. Take a look at the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill. It had $7.7 billion in earmarks. By Ron Paul’s definition that is not government waste, it “provides a level of transparency and accountability.”

So by Ron Paul logic:
Earmarks are good, but he votes against them.
We don’t have the money, but he spends it anyway.
Big government spending is bad, except for Ron Paul’s big government spending.
Hypocrisy? Look over there! Something shiny!

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM

The two things are not separate. He would have continued to supply our thirst for oil as long as we continued to fail to resist his thirst for conquest.

fadetogray on December 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM

He continued to supply oil after the first Persian Gulf War. He may have hated us, but he wasn’t about to cut off his nose to spite his face.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 4:30 PM

And yet he might win…

If his ideas were that self-refuting, surely the people would not support him.

There’s no doubt Paul is very, very different than any candidate past or present.

That’s why I support him.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Can you actually imagine this clown Paul in the WH? It’s not just about getting lucky and winning an election. The guy that wins actually has to govern; he actually has to be president.

We’ve already got an unqualified fringe imbecile in the WH.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Can you actually imagine this clown Paul in the WH? It’s not just about getting lucky and winning an election. The guy that wins actually has to govern; he actually has to be president.

We’ve already got an unqualified fringe imbecile in the WH.

ghostwriter

Let him collapse the economy. I have lots of GOLD!!!!!!11!!!!
/

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 4:35 PM

So by Ron Paul logic:
Earmarks are good, but he votes against them.
We don’t have the money, but he spends it anyway.
Big government spending is bad, except for Ron Paul’s big government spending.
Hypocrisy? Look over there! Something shiny!

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM

That money’s going to be spent anyway, so he let’s his constituents try to get their money back by putting it in there yet he votes against it because he’s against the federal government spending what it does.

It’s not that complex and you guys have got nothing here. Keep bringing it up and we’ll keep shooting it down.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Herr Doktor didn’t and chose (and still choses) to blame America.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM

This is a lie, and a couple of pages back I posted his bill of marque and reprisal that states who was to blame.

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

fatlibertarianinokc, the only thing you’ve shot down is your credibility.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

the mantis-goat conspiracy, but only complete loons would fall for that.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I think the mantis-goats voted in Iowa’s PPP poll.

They opposed bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too.

And hate the Fed.

profitsbeard on December 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

And yet he might win the Iowa Caucasus.. If his ideas were that self-refuting, surely the people would not support him.

And they surely WON’T support him once those self-refuting ideas become well-known.

There’s no doubt Paul is very, very different than any candidate past or present.

That’s why I support him.

fatlibertarianinokc

And that’s why you’re an idiot.

Then how do you explain me. I am a successful technology executive who believes that 9/11 was the work of Islamic extremists. I stood on the streets of Manhattan and that day and witnessed the horror first hand . . . and I am a Ron Paul supporter

And I am not alone. Among the Ron Paul supporters I know are investment analysts, engineers, teachers, sales executives, CEO’s, and even house wives.

ReformedDeceptiCon

The explanation is simple: He said MOST, not ALL. All Paulbots, however, are nutjobs, no matter what their station in life may be.

xblade on December 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Can you actually imagine this clown Paul in the WH? It’s not just about getting lucky and winning an election. The guy that wins actually has to govern; he actually has to be president.

We’ve already got an unqualified fringe imbecile in the WH.

ghostwriter

Actually, you’re wrong.

Paul would act more as a goalie than a tyrant.

He would STOP bad legislation from getting through and he’d stop this perpetual warfare. He told you this in the last debate. In many ways it’s not what he WOULD DO, it’s what he WON’T DO.

It’s largely up to the congress to legislate. But he’ll VETO any spending increases.. haha. It would be awesome.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:41 PM

And that Iran is not suicidal and will not attack the U.S. with a nuke they don’t have and can’t reach us. lol

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Iran is not suicidal? That’s your argument? You’re betting the lives of millions of Americans on the mental stability of the mad mullahs of Tehran?

Can’t reach us? Stop thinking old-school, Cold War-era delivery systems. ICBMs are so passe nowadays. Imagine instead a freighter flying a neutral flag entering New York Harbor. Imagine a semi-trailer crossing the US/Mexican border on its way to Washington or Chicago. Even a small, rudimentary device by today’s standards could demolish a city. And then, of course, there are dirty bombs, which don’t require perfection of nuclear bomb-making technology.

Identifying the attacker in such a scenario would be nearly impossible, especially since those actuating the bomb(s) would–in all probability–be perfectly willing to go up with it.

You Paulians are committing a kind of mass mind projection fallacy, which makes your arguments brittle and easily refuted. No counter-argument–no matter how valid–can move you from your so easily disproven assumptions.

troyriser_gopftw on December 19, 2011 at 4:43 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Working to what?

You think I’m trying to change your mind? Please…lol

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

So by Ron Paul logic:
Earmarks are good, but he votes against them.
We don’t have the money, but he spends it anyway.
Big government spending is bad, except for Ron Paul’s big government spending.
Hypocrisy? Look over there! Something shiny!

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM

That money’s going to be spent anyway, so he let’s his constituents try to get their money back by putting it in there yet he votes against it because he’s against the federal government spending what it does.

It’s not that complex and you guys have got nothing here. Keep bringing it up and we’ll keep shooting it down.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Let me make an amendment then.

So by Ron Paul logic:

- Earmarks are good, but he votes against them.
- He writes earmarks to get his constituents money back, but then votes against them (why does he hate his constituents?)
- We don’t have the money, but he spends it anyway.
- Big government spending is bad, except for Ron Paul’s big government spending.
- Hypocrisy? Look over there! Something shiny!

Shot down? You can’t shoot anything down if you’re shooting blanks and holding the gun backwards.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

The explanation is simple: He said MOST, not ALL. All Paulbots, however, are nutjobs, no matter what their station in life may be.

xblade on December 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I THINK THIS IS “NUTS”;

-Starting aggressive wars which are immoral.

-Having a 15 trillion deficit.

-Printing money in order to fund your warfare state.

-Creating enemies abroad with military intervention.

-Helping to motivate Iran to get a nuke.

-Claiming Romney or Gingrich is conservative is..

-Supporting the expensive, family-destroying drug war.

-Hating 9/11 truthers more than those who lied to get us into a war with Iraq.

-Giving up liberty for security.

I could come up with more but I got to go eat. I’m getting malnourished.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Herr Doktor/Paultard ‘Principle’:

Be against something but do it anyway.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Can you actually imagine this clown Paul in the WH? It’s not just about getting lucky and winning an election. The guy that wins actually has to govern; he actually has to be president.

We’ve already got an unqualified fringe imbecile in the WH.

ghostwriter

Actually, you’re wrong.

Paul would act more as a goalie than a tyrant.

He would STOP bad legislation from getting through and he’d stop this perpetual warfare. He told you this in the last debate. In many ways it’s not what he WOULD DO, it’s what he WON’T DO.

It’s largely up to the congress to legislate. But he’ll VETO any spending increases.. haha. It would be awesome.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:41 PM

I never said that Paul would be a tyrant; I said that he would be in way over his head as president. It’s easy to be a bombthrower on the fringes when none of your votes are actually decisive. However, things gets a lot tougher when you actually trying to govern, and what you you say and do actually has an impact.

I mean really–Has Paul ever accomplished anything in his many years in Washington? Has he ever played a key leadership role in anything on the Hill> Does he have any legislative achievements? I’m not even sure that this guy should be re-eleced to Congress, let alone elected POTUS.

At any rate, it’s not going to happen.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Ron Paul the Ross Perot of 2012, even the initials are the same.

Jpalm on December 19, 2011 at 4:55 PM

This is a lie, and a couple of pages back I posted his bill of marque and reprisal that states who was to blame.

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Listen, Dante.

I also know what Herr Doktor himself has said.

If anything, this is yet another example of Herr Doktor trying to have it both ways.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM

upinak on December 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Thanks for the kind warning- I guess it’s pretty obvious I’m a newb!

AZgranny on December 19, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Listen, Dante.

I also know what Herr Doktor himself has said.

If anything, this is yet another example of Herr Doktor trying to have it both ways.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM

On the contrary, it is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Who would the good Doctor pick for his VP?

I am very curious.

rightConcept on December 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Ron Paul is so pro-Israel he goes on Iranian TV to bash Israel. Can’t you fools see he loves Israel?
/

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Enough with the polls already. We really need a moratorium on those things.

As a good friend of mine liked to say “It’s all rumors until it’s history”. People’s opinions mean squat until they actually cast a vote because opinions are swayed so easily.

TfromV on December 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM

You can’t be serious.. or this cluesless.

He needs the people to see that the sun will in fact rise without government intervention. And that Iran is not suicidal and will not attack the U.S. with a nuke they don’t have and can’t reach us. lol

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

You think the only way to deliver a nuke is on a missile? Have you ever heard of that great invention they call a truck? Our southern border is all but nonexistent, al quada is already trying to send their people through that way, Iran supplies Hezzbollah and Hamas with lots of explosives to attack civilians… and your Einsteinian response is ..

“LOL”?

My God, you Paulians can’t help but be linear thinkers, he drops the cheese in front of you crumb by crumb, and you loyally follow the trail he wants you too, without a trace of original thinking on your part. My job in SAC was nuclear weapons security, and we gamed every possible senario, including the one I mentioned. I was lowly enlisted, and we damn well knew these things, I did alot of aggressor duty, trying to find holes in the Squadrons security, so we could plug them, thinking outside the box was a job description.

You really think, because you didn’t think of it, al quada hasn’t?

You think being snarky about risking millions of lives is funny? What are you, 6?

-

I cannot understand why, oh why, you Paulians are so thick, so pigheaded you’d rather risk a nuclear war than even insist on sanctions. So dense, you believe enemy propaganda over your own people, every time. So busy hating your fellow citizens, you give people who kill our troops and civilians a pass,… cause it was all our own fault anyway.

Obama’s foreign policy may be Pretty Please,… Paul’s seems to be,.. “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

mark81150 on December 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM

On Ron Paul’s own website, he used to have Israel listed as one of the issues. No Iran, no North Korea, no Syria, just Israel.

He’s a StormFront guy.

He’s not going to survive once the other candidates flush out his baggage.

Since Ron Paul bots spam every online poll, I wouldn’t doubt if any poll that comes out as been skewed by Ron Paul fans. They seem to be experts at this.

Dr. Tesla on December 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Ron Paul sucks, but it’s good to see the walking embarrassment Newt Gingrich no longer at the top.

Ron will go down after New Hampshire. Romney can beat Obama.

Ruiner on December 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

There’s evidence that Ron Paul hates Israel and Jews. There’s no evidence that Bachman and Santorum hate non-terrorist Muslims, yet he made that absurd charge on Leno’s show.

Dr. Tesla on December 19, 2011 at 5:09 PM

mark81150, Ronulans cannot face or handle reality. It is also no surprise that so many Truthers are also Ron Paul lovers.
If it wasn’t “an inside job”, then there really are Islamic fascists who want to kill us simply because we aren’t Muslims. As you can see much of RP’s foreign policy ideas involve appeasment by doing what the terrorists want. We know it will not stop them, but the Ronulans are desperate to belive it will because the alternative is too much for them to handle.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM

I think Romney may be our weakest candidate outside of Ron Paul.

Few people are really for him.

The smarmy logic he and his supporters but forth is that the base will turn out for anybody the GOP puts up b/c they hate Obama so bad, and somehow Romney, the Mormon out of touch rich guy, appeals to moderates more than any of our other candidates. That’s nonsense.

Dr. Tesla on December 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Dr. Tesla, the Romney supporters want to pretend he’s a Conservative. Then when you point out his less than Conservative record/actions, they claim the liberals made him do it.
Really, the way some people are clinging to their candidates despite glaring shortcomings is disturbing.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Screw it. I’m voting for the crab-goat.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM

On Ron Paul’s own website, he used to have Israel listed as one of the issues. No Iran, no North Korea, no Syria, just Israel.

He’s a StormFront guy.

He’s not going to survive once the other candidates flush out his baggage.

Since Ron Paul bots spam every online poll, I wouldn’t doubt if any poll that comes out as been skewed by Ron Paul fans. They seem to be experts at this.

Dr. Tesla on December 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

These are not online polls where anyone can vote 1000 times. You can’t spam an out bound random digit dial poll. You have to be called.

ReformedDeceptiCon on December 19, 2011 at 5:28 PM

I’m sure the new Insider Advantage poll has been posted somewhere in this mammoth thread, but I’m so excited by it!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf

Paul 24%, Romney 18%, Perry 16%, Newt 13%, Bachmann 10%.

WOOOHOOOOO! Perry’s in third and just two points off second!

Paul’s number will fall once the attack ads start. Just like with Newt, the people of IA don’t know half the truth about Paul and when they do, they will reject him like they did Newt. The Christians of IA will not vote for an anti-Semite and the patriots of IA will not vote for a Truther. When the voters find that out, Paul will go down to his core of support.

I predicted this in the headline thread this morning.

Heh, and the Politico this morning had a depressing little article out about Perry saying “there was no buzz” about him in IA… a BIG LOLOLOL to them ;)

GOOOOOOOO PERRY!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

.

Aslans Girl on December 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Ron “Tinfoil Hat” Paul leads in Iowa? I think you Hawkeyes have smoked one too many crop circles. I know it’s cold up there, but do you really have to burn conspiracies to keep warm?

Iowa should go to the end of the line for Republican primaries. This is what happens when you tell an ugly girl she’s pretty so many times that she begins to believe it.

Immolate on December 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Crusty old nutjob.

EnochCain on December 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Ya, she’s a real value to this community…

rndmusrnm on December 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Check out some of the stuff JohnGalt23 posts, or really anyone in your community. No better.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Dr. Tesla, the Romney supporters want to pretend he’s a Conservative. Then when you point out his less than Conservative record/actions, they claim the liberals made him do it.
Really, the way some people are clinging to their candidates despite glaring shortcomings is disturbing.

I’m a Romney supporter. He is a MODERATE. buth he is still a good choice

gerry-modderate republican-mittbot

gerrym51 on December 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I watched the “liberal” media all day and they kept talking about Romney and Gingrich and never mentioned that Paul was now the clear “front runner” in Iowa.

If the liberals are afraid of Romney and Gingrich then why are they trying so hard to make either of them the nominee?

popularpeoplesfront on December 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Man, we have a lot of people in here afraid of a country with no Air Force.

Notorious GOP on December 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Finally you get it. We fear if Ron Paul is elected, the US will no longer have an Air Force.

(BTW, how many Ron Paul supporters we got out there that have made cracks against their own military for not being able to “beat a middle aged culture with only small arms?)

hawkdriver on December 19, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Listen, Dante.

I also know what Herr Doktor himself has said.

If anything, this is yet another example of Herr Doktor trying to have it both ways.

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM

On the contrary, it is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Dante, what did I tell you about making the dishonesty claim?

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Oh yeah..I forgot he is a crusty old nutjob and a truther.

EnochCain on December 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I don’t care what Ron Paul believes …

In order to drive a nail into the establishment of the GOP I’m willing to vote for Ron Paul, or Obama, or Bette Midler …

Will not vote for Romney. Can’t save this nation until we get one party in shape to take the bold and decisive actions necessary to save it. Establishment GOP ain’t it. We have to kick these Effers out of Dodge.

Yeah – I’ll vote Ron Paul – damn skippy.

I said during the elections in 2010 that the GOP wasn’t ready to take back the Congress and by damn – i’ve been proven right by the conduct of Boehner and McConnell. I’m saying now that Mittens as POTUS will be a disaster for, not only the nation – but the whole Conservative movement.

RON PAUL – OR NEWT GINGRICH – OR RICK PERRY – OR ANY TRAINED MONKEY IN 2012!

ANYONE BUT ROMNEY!

HondaV65 on December 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I won’t vote for RP…I have this thing about not voting for guys who hates our allies.

EnochCain on December 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Who would the good Doctor pick for his VP?

I am very curious.

rightConcept on December 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM

We discussed this earlier. Its a tossup between Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura. Ventura has the government experience from his time as MN Gov as well as military experience from his time as a SEAL, but Jones has more crackpot experience in the arena of conspiracy theories. So really it could go either way.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Should RonPaul win in Iowa it will serve to prove that most people living there are really stupid, uninformed hicks, and since I don’t believe that I do not see him pulling it off even with the assistance of the Communist styled, ChiTcago influenced Democrat Party. :oP

DannoJyd on December 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Logboy, Jesse Ventura was never a SEAL. He was a SEABEE. Not the same thing. Just because the military later allowed him to call him a SEAL doesn’t make it so.

Hard Right on December 19, 2011 at 6:31 PM

That money’s going to be spent anyway, so he let’s his constituents try to get their money back by putting it in there yet he votes against it because he’s against the federal government spending what it does.

It’s not that complex and you guys have got nothing here. Keep bringing it up and we’ll keep shooting it down.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:37 PM

There’s plenty of folks who “got” plenty that have posted in this thread. However, that’s not going to make any sense to you if you keep covering your ears and yelling “NO…NO…NO”. LOL

ManWithNoParty on December 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM

I won’t vote for RP…I have this thing about not voting for guys who hates our allies.

EnochCain on December 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I actually think RP is worse than Obama. RP would never allow our military to take out someone like OBL. RP would be great if all he did was domestic spending issues.

But terrorist(s) get a free pass to take their best shot on the United States. Obama only needs 16 hours to sleep on it. At least he made the right decision.

RP doesn’t think we have the authority to take out OBL, or any other terrorist like him.

It pains me to say this, but I will probably vote Obama over RP. RP scares the living sh** out of me. Lets hope RP is not the GOP nominee.

Conservative4Ever on December 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM

He continued to supply oil after the first Persian Gulf War. He may have hated us, but he wasn’t about to cut off his nose to spite his face.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Of course he did. He could not use disrupting the oil supply as a threat because we had planted our bootheel firmly on his neck in 1991. He needed the money far more than we needed the oil.

fadetogray on December 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM

RP would be great if all he did was domestic spending issues.

People say that, but I am highly skeptical. Someone who is so completely disconnected from reality with regard to foreign affairs is likely to do tremendous damage on the domestic side, too. Crazy is as crazy does.

fadetogray on December 19, 2011 at 7:09 PM

A new Insider Advantage Poll puts Paul up by six-points over Mitt Romney, 24%-18%, with Rick Perry in third place with 16%.

nancysabet on December 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I actually think RP is worse than Obama. RP would never allow our military to take out someone like OBL. RP would be great if all he did was domestic spending issues.

But terrorist(s) get a free pass to take their best shot on the United States. Obama only needs 16 hours to sleep on it. At least he made the right decision.

RP doesn’t think we have the authority to take out OBL, or any other terrorist like him.

It pains me to say this, but I will probably vote Obama over RP. RP scares the living sh** out of me. Lets hope RP is not the GOP nominee.

Conservative4Ever on December 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM

H.R.3076 — September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in House – IH)

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 10, 2001

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL
To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001′.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Then why did he put them in all those bills he voted against?

catmman on December 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Because his constituents want their MONEY back.

But in the end he votes no and does not attack earmarks.

So, good luck calling that hypocritical.

We can do this all day and you’ll lose every time.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

This is surreal that you just can’t see, nor understand how wrong you are.

Conservative4Ever on December 19, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Ron Paul – who wants to put us back on the gold standard so the feds can’t just print more money whenever they feel like it? Ron Paul – who has plenty of racist comments in his past, nevermind that leftists call basically anything we say ‘racist’? Surely Iowa can do better than this. And if not, then it will lose any reamining relevance in primary elections.

independentvoice on December 19, 2011 at 11:03 AM

FTFY.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM

?????? – are you trying to make a point or just tyoing nonsense? Looks like the latter to me.

independentvoice on December 19, 2011 at 7:50 PM

This is surreal that you just can’t see, nor understand how wrong you are.

Conservative4Ever on December 19, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Irony

Dante on December 19, 2011 at 8:34 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/17/ron-paul-on-bachmann-she-hates-muslims-she-hates-them-she-wants-to-go-get-them/

ninjapirate on December 19, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Oh my goodness – Ron Paul answers questions like a young child in this clip…

The Nerve on December 19, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I wnder who Paul would hurt more if he ran as an independent.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I wnder who Paul would hurt more if he ran as an independent.

ghostwriter on December 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Probably not the Goofy Old Party. Unless he gets way more support than I expect, he might wing them with a 6-shooter, but they’ll be busy shooting themselves in the foot with a machine gun.

MelonCollie on December 20, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Oh my goodness – Ron Paul answers questions like a young child in this clip…

The Nerve on December 19, 2011 at 9:11 PM

He’s probably thinking of his opposition and trying to speak at their level. Nice idea, Ron, but it won’t help anything.

MelonCollie on December 20, 2011 at 12:42 AM

As a Texan I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul. The man is a veteran who proudly wore the uniform of our country while performing the duties of a line surgeon saving the lives of our servicemen. He has been a competent representative to his district and has been rewarded by his constituents with re-election since the 1700′s (just kidding). I even like some of his ideas regarding policy both economic and domestic. However for every sentance I can agree with he utters a paragraph that is completely out of left field. His ideas regarding foreign policy and Americas role in the world are completely outdated and extremely dangerous. It is for these reasons that though I respect the man, his accomplishments and truly wish him well. I cannot and will work to keep others from supporting his campaign.

iidvbii on December 20, 2011 at 1:12 AM

It’s clear you aren’t someone who thinks for himself; just someone who takes orders, follows them, and defends them. You are incapable of examining how and why conflict exists.

Dante on December 20, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Alright.

That’s enough!

Logboy lost his arm and part of his other hand protecting you and this country!

You’re comment is purely inflammatory not to mention repulsive.

This thread has had it all. Thinly veiled anti-semitism, outright Trutherism, abject conspiracist revisionism, now we have an disabled combat vet being personally insulted and denigrated.

Hot Air admin, hello?

catmman on December 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM

I posted this in the other Herr Doktor thread and I’ll post it in every Herr doktor thread until something is done about it.

I’m all for free and open debate, but things have gone too far.

Add to the above (just from one comment thread) the thinly veiled white supremacism from a few days ago and you’ve got the Herr Doctor supporter manifesto down pretty well.

catmman on December 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Who would the good Doctor pick for his VP?

I am very curious.

rightConcept on December 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM

We discussed this earlier. Its a tossup between Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura. Ventura has the government experience from his time as MN Gov as well as military experience from his time as a SEAL, but Jones has more crackpot experience in the arena of conspiracy theories. So really it could go either way.

Logboy on December 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Ventura wasn’t a SEAL, he was a Frogman in UDT-12. UDT-12 (based in the Philippines) was asked for volunteers to replace SEALs who were getting killed in Vietnam, but Ventura stayed in the UDT. No shame in that, but it pisses a lot of Sailors off to hear him claim to have been a SEAL who fought in Vietnam when he wasn’t.
That and the whole bat$#it crazy thing might present some electability issues.

V7_Sport on December 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Ventura wasn’t a SEAL, he was a Frogman in UDT-12. UDT-12 (based in the Philippines) was asked for volunteers to replace SEALs who were getting killed in Vietnam, but Ventura stayed in the UDT. No shame in that, but it pisses a lot of Sailors off to hear him claim to have been a SEAL who fought in Vietnam when he wasn’t.
That and the whole bat$#it crazy thing might present some electability issues.

V7_Sport on December 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

That is true. Ventura is a strange bird.

Pitchforker on December 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM

As a Texan I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul. The man is a veteran who proudly wore the uniform of our country while performing the duties of a line surgeon saving the lives of our servicemen. He has been a competent representative to his district and has been rewarded by his constituents with re-election since the 1700′s (just kidding). I even like some of his ideas regarding policy both economic and domestic. However for every sentance I can agree with he utters a paragraph that is completely out of left field. His ideas regarding foreign policy and Americas role in the world are completely outdated and extremely dangerous. It is for these reasons that though I respect the man, his accomplishments and truly wish him well. I cannot and will work to keep others from supporting his campaign.

iidvbii on December 20, 2011 at 1:12 AM

That’s the type of post I can respect. No ad hominems. To the point.

Pitchforker on December 20, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Ventura wasn’t a SEAL, he was a Frogman in UDT-12. UDT-12 (based in the Philippines) was asked for volunteers to replace SEALs who were getting killed in Vietnam, but Ventura stayed in the UDT. No shame in that, but it pisses a lot of Sailors off to hear him claim to have been a SEAL who fought in Vietnam when he wasn’t.
That and the whole bat$#it crazy thing might present some electability issues.

V7_Sport on December 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Sorry, I was a grunt. All those seamen look the same to me.

Logboy on December 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8