Quotes of the day

posted at 10:42 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

“In an interview with RealClearPolitics on Thursday, Mitt Romney dismissed any possibility that Ron Paul might win the Republican nomination.

“‘Ron Paul’s not going to be our nominee,’ Romney said aboard his campaign bus, en route to a rally in Ames.”

***

“[Romney's] decision to double down in Iowa has heightened the pressure to produce a strong showing just as polls are suggesting a surge by Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose libertarian message appears to be resonating with many voters. A victory by Mr. Paul on Tuesday would test the ability of Mr. Romney’s advisers to spin a second-place result into a win for him.

“Even Mr. Romney seemed to recognize the futility of that public relations effort, should it come to that. Asked on Wednesday afternoon whether a second-place finish behind Mr. Paul would qualify as a victory, Mr. Romney was quick to answer.

“‘Uh, no,’ he said.”

***

“A Santorum surge, Erickson wrote, means Romney is likely to win the nomination.

“That prospect doesn’t bother King, who pointed to Romney’s ‘exemplary family life’ with his wife of 42 years and five sons. ‘He has more children and fewer vices than I have, so how can I criticize him?’ King said, in what could be viewed as an appeal to social conservatives to come to terms with Romney’s likely success. ‘I could do business with Mitt Romney. I could do business with any of these candidates.’

“Actually, there is one candidate whose foreign policy position troubles King far more than Romney’s waffling on abortion. Ron Paul advocates pulling all American troops out of foreign countries as part of a massive military disengagement. ‘That would be a calamity,’ King said. He also worries that a Paul victory in the Iowa caucuses would diminish the state’s status because the quirky libertarian is so unlikely to win the nomination.”

***

“The Paul candidacy is of course doomed. But the Paul vote won’t die. This vote has been building in the depths of the American political ocean since the spending spree of the second Bush term. These people see the upward spending trend in annual outlays and accumulated commitments not as a ‘problem,’ as the Beltway prefers, but as a threat to their well-being…

“[I]f the former Massachusetts governor doesn’t reach out pretty soon to the Paul-Perry-Bachmann Republican protest voters, he may never get them. The longer he waits, the more pressure will build for a third-party challenge that will cost him the election. That it would be led by a Ron Paul or Donald Trump is irrelevant to why these people would vote third party—or stay home.

“Mr. Romney is going to have to take a risk with some piece of his locked-down strategy—the RomneyCare denial, the ‘middle-class’ ceiling on his tax cut, naming a running mate who could have beaten him in the primaries.”

***

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a reassuring ‘unity photo’ from the Tampa convention showing Ron Paul joining the other also-rans lifting arms at the podium together with the victor who has beaten them. The more support angry voters provide to Paul protest candidacy the more inconceivable that image becomes, and the more likely the reelection of Obama and Biden.

“By far the best outcome for those who yearn above all to replace the Democrat in the White House would be to witness the rapid, well-deserved fizzle of the Paulian insurgency. This sort of quick collapse remains a distinct possibility—with a disappointing showing in Iowa followed by even more limited support that polls presently predict in the other early primary states. If Paul winds up with less than 10 percent of the national Republican vote, he would merit only an obscure position at the convention, reassuring the broader public that if you refuse to disavow support from open Nazis and unrepentant Ku Kluxers—as Dr. Paul explicitly refuses to do, in interviews recently with The New York Times and four years ago on my radio show—you will find no comfortable home in today’s Republican Party.

“Voters who might feel tempted to express discontent with the status quo by casting a ballot for Ron Paul during primary season still understand that backing him in any third party bid would bring disaster to the conservative cause; in the general election, it’s obvious that a vote for Ron Paul would amount to a vote for Barack Obama.”

***

“Here’s the point that I believe Henninger misses. ‘These people’ who are fuelling the Paul boomlet, and before that the Bachman/Perry/Cain/Gingrich boomlets, are not just the Republican protest vote. Since Obama has no Democrat rivals, there’s no real opportunity for a Democrat protest vote. The only way for Republicans and the unaffiliated middle-of-the-roader who voted for Obama in 2008 to show their opposition to Washington policies is the Republican primary. And who are they? They are the broad middle class who are unemployed or have family members, neighbors and friends who are losing their homes, their jobs and their hope for a better future while Washington lives it up on their dime…

“They are that virtual mob with pitchforks that are desperate to anoint someone as their leader who will help them storm the castle and evict the ogre holed up there. Mitt Romney doesn’t look like the kind of guy who is comfortable handling a pitchfork, but if he’s the last man standing after all the others fail, he’ll be appointed to that role.

“In 2008 the people went to the polls before the full impact of the financial melt-down had sunk in. They voted for Mr. HopeN’Change because they thought Obama didn’t really mean it when he promised to fundamentally change America. They though that they were electing a President who would fix the problems and set the country back on its accustomed course. The Three Years of Obama taught them just how wrong they were. HopeN’Change is now replaced by Change it Back. Obama is now viewed with fear and loathing. Those who did not like him now despise him and those who were on the fence are joining the opposition. Many see Obama as the ogre in the castle who has taken America hostage. The middle class is in danger of losing its grip on their part of the American Dream, and this time the mob with pitchforks is for real. That is the real meaning of the Paul vote.”

***

“Rep. Ron Paul’s surge in Iowa has triggered a theoretical question for his rivals this week: given his foreign policy views, would they be willing to support him over President Obama if he were the nominee? Newt Gingrich said ‘no,’ Mitt Romney said ‘yes.’ But it is also a kind of an intriguing gut check question for conservatives on how they balance foreign and domestic policy. Having thought about it over the last few days and debated it on Twitter for a bit last night, I’ve determined that I’d very begrudgingly back Obama in such a matchup.”

***

Via Breitbart TV.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

“In an interview with RealClearPolitics on Thursday, Mitt Romney dismissed any possibility that Ron Paul might win the Republican nomination.

Crossing fingers…

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Oh…
First…

…Oh wait..

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Doomed. Obama gets four more years.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Doomed. Obama gets four more years.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Then we make it his worst….
Do nothing President…

…Oh wait..

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

It’s Romney versus Paul people. It’s going to be a tough choice for some. Maybe a brokered convention could happen, but I doubt it.

ModerateMan on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Why are we even comparing Romney with Paul? They are not on the same planet!

OldEnglish on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM

RON PAUL!

El_Terrible on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Let’s pretend for a moment that non-interventionism isn’t a conservative position, and let’s pretend that our troubles in the world are not a result of our meddling foreign policy…

If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, how many here would be conservatives?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

hello Electrongod, my friend.
We must take the Senate and hold the house, then impeach the basstard.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Oh goody, another Herr Doktor thread for the white supremacists to spam.

catmman on December 29, 2011 at 10:48 PM

the whole Jeb 2016 will be fun in two years.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM

2 man race – Romney vs. Paul.

Let’s get Romney the nomination and unite towards beating Obama already.

1punchWill on December 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Oh…
First…

…Oh wait..

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Funny man :)

CF is here too.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

With his fingers in all things messy..
Yep.

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

If Obama wins a second term he will position himself as the first best president evah!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

‘That would be a calamity,’ King said.

Better than losing our Constitutional rights. I won’t sacrifice my freedom for security.

FloatingRock on December 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

To put some substance into your imaginings, when, in your mind, did intervention begin to cause the hatred of the West?

OldEnglish on December 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, how many here would be conservatives?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

The word is “isolationist” and sticking ones head in the sand doesn’t work now any better than it has in the past.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM

That it would be led by a Ron Paul or Donald Trump is irrelevant to why these people would vote third party—or stay home.

Nah, it will be led by George Soros.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM

If Obama wins a second term he will position himself as the first best president evah!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Well he’s already at #4, so he only needs to move up a few spots to take the #1 slot. I think if the computers take his strength of schedule into serious account, he may have the #1 slot within a year.

El_Terrible on December 29, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Hey Schadenfreude, great to see you.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

If Obama wins a second term he will position himself as the first best president evah!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

I personally will go up to him and shackle shack his hand as the first president that won re-election with all these people un-employed for years and many holding cardboard signs.
WTF…I guess that’s what it’s called

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

The word is “isolationist” and sticking ones head in the sand doesn’t work now any better than it has in the past.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM

No, the word is non-interventionism. Would you be a conservative if non-interventionism were a conservative principle?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM

No, the word is non-interventionism. Would you be a conservative if non-interventionism were a conservative principle?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM

You don’t get to coin new words to obfuscate what your agenda is.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 10:56 PM

…and let’s pretend that our troubles in the world are not a result of our meddling foreign policy…

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

*rolls eyes*

Ok, we get it – everything bad in the world is the fault of the US. We’ve heard the Paul line of thinking, really – seriously, we get *exactly* where you’re coming from.

It’s just that the rest of us are *sane* and are quite uncomfortable with the notion of putting ‘wombat-crazy’ in the WH, so thanks, but no thanks.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Doomed. Obama gets four more years.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Optimist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWLBljvEG-M

Bruno Strozek on December 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I don’t know why people are surprised it’s come down to the two candidates with the most money and organization. That’s how it always seems to work out.

Perry seemed to initially pull in some decent money, but his organization and momentum are non-existent.

Practically speaking only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have the capability to go the distance.

ModerateMan on December 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Having thought about it over the last few days and debated it on Twitter for a bit last night, I’ve determined that I’d very begrudgingly back Obama (over Ron Paul) in such a matchup.”

I’m really annoyed by the question of Ron Paul or Obama. I don’t understand why anyone finds it necessary to pick one over the other. They’re both losers. No one will ever be required to make that choice, because Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee.

SlaveDog on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Perry seemed to initially pull in some decent money, but his organization and momentum are non-existent.

No he has all but the latter. I hear in Iowa there are a good amount of perry signs. Same for sc.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

..on a side note: Hew Hughnitwit is such a tool! You want interesting and informative political commentary? Listen to Hughnitwit’s producer Dwayne when he hooks up with Ed Morrissey on Fridays.

Otherwise, there’s the Pablumesqe bleatings of Hew the Stool.

(I mean, how could you like a guy who gets into a slap fight with the venerable Pat Caddell?)

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Hey Schadenfreude, great to see you.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Thank you and the same here, always. It’s more and more depressing to be here.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, how many here would be conservatives?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Not Thomas Jefferson who intervened in Algeria (1801).

Nor James Madison who also intervened with Algiers (1815).

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

To put some substance into your imaginings, when, in your mind, did intervention begin to cause the hatred of the West?

OldEnglish on December 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Must’ve been about 1300 years ago or so – you know, back when Custer led the 14th Lunar Regiment in a raid, raping the villages and pillaging the women on his way across the Middle East, leaving it a place filled almost entirely by murdering bastages, hell-bent on eventual revenge on the Great Satan in a very delayed gratification kind of several centuries kind of way.

C’mon, you read that in one of Paul’s newsletters too, right? Oh – maybe he didn’t write that part?

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

It did not use to be, for me…but the more I am exposed to Ron Paul…the further away I get.

KOOLAID2 on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

I hear in Iowa there are a good amount of perry signs. Same for sc.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

..*shun off*

Yeah, because the lawn yard sign count meme worked out so-o-o-o-o well for McVain back in ’08. Right!

..*shun back on*

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

If the US wasn’t involved in anything outside it’s borders the world would be a much safer place guyz, sheesh. Just look at how safe it was before the US came to power.

1punchWill on December 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Thank you and the same here, always. It’s more and more depressing to be here.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

..persevere, folks.

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM

The reason why Ron Paul is showing such strength in Iowa is that only Bachmann and Santorum have taken Paul seriously enough to go after him, and then only on purely foreign policy terms. They didn’t touch his connections to Alex Jones, Willis Carto, Lew Rockwell, and Don Black, or go after him on his outlandish conspiratorial comments made over the years. With Ron Paul, his foreign policy views are the least of his problems as a presidential candidates.

Robert Downey, Sr., film director and father of the actor Robert Downey, Jr. (obviously), made a movie called Putney Swope. The protagonist, Swope, was the ‘token’ black executive hired by a major New York advertising firm. Putney Swope is shown to be smart, capable, and creative, but knows he’s only there to assuage the liberal conscience of the firm’s owner (and to comply with multi-cultural hiring practices, which were then coming into vogue). After the head of the firm dies, his successor is decided by a ballot held by the executive board–with the caveat none of the executives can vote for themselves. Everyone on the board votes for Swope, thinking no one else would. Swope wins.

Imagine crazy, Jew-hating rat Ron Paul as a kind of Bizarro world Putney Swope. All of these people, many of whom consider themselves mainstream conservatives, vote for Paul as a protest vote because they think Paul will never get enough votes to win. He wins. During the general election, the Democrats use Paul’s victory in Iowa and possibly other states to paint the GOP as the party of racists and conspiratorial extremists. The strategy works and they win. Obama is reelected and the credibility of the GOP is shattered for years to come, and is reduced to disarray, finger-pointing and blame-gaming, too ineffectual to even serve as a loyal opposition.

Take Ron Paul seriously, please.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

(I mean, how could you like a guy who gets into a slap fight with the venerable Pat Caddell?)

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Pat Caddell is one of the extremely few honest Ds left. He is a good guy who’s party left him. Heck, John Kennedy would not recognize his party, by far.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

would bring disaster to the conservative cause

Which “conservative cause” would that be, the one presumably voting for Romney?

The disaster that is destroying the conservative cause is the liberal Washington establishment and it is about to drive it’s final stake.

FloatingRock on December 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

I’m fine with non-interventionism. But paul is an isolationist. Different breed.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Precisely! BTW, I’m still waiting for a definitive answer from Dante.

OldEnglish on December 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Yeah, because the lawn yard sign count meme worked out so-o-o-o-o well for McVain back in ’08. Right!


Didnt he win the nod. And in the general, I saw more Obama paraphernalia.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM

It did not use to be, for me…but the more I am exposed to Ron Paul…the further away I get.

KOOLAID2 on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Strange…me too.
But my feet are planted firmly in place.
It is Paul that keep talking and walks backwards.

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM

*rolls eyes*

Ok, we get it – everything bad in the world is the fault of the US. .

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I didn’t say that nor has anyone else. I said our troubles in the world.

Not Thomas Jefferson who intervened in Algeria (1801).

Nor James Madison who also intervened with Algiers (1815).

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Jefferson and Madison didn’t intervene. We were attacked and they responded in defense.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Pat Caddell is one of the extremely few honest Ds left. He is a good guy who’s party left him. Heck, John Kennedy would not recognize his party, by far.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

..Agree whole-heartedly. I *adore* and respect Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen. What Hew The Stool did that night on Hannity was chickensh!t and unforgivable.

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

The strategy works and they win. Obama is reelected and the credibility of the GOP is shattered for years to come, and is reduced to disarray, finger-pointing and blame-gaming, too ineffectual to even serve as a loyal opposition.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Striking how the removal of only two letters there quite aptly describes the last three years as well. They even managed to win massively in the mid-terms – and yet here they still are; disarray, finger-pointing, blame-gaming, and ineffectual.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

oops, accidentally striked my comment somehow. Ignore the strike.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:07 PM

“‘Ron Paul’s not going to be our nominee”

Yes, I’m 100% positive about that. And if I am wrong, the end of everything that matters is nigh.

minnesoter on December 29, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Jefferson and Madison didn’t intervene. We were attacked and they responded in defense.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

If Iran blockades the canal, which causes great economic harm to our country and others – does that not constitute an attack?

1punchWill on December 29, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Mitt Romney doesn’t look like the kind of guy who is comfortable handling a pitchfork, but if he’s the last man standing after all the others fail, he’ll be appointed to that role.

Romney looks like the guy who if elected will hang on to each and every one Obama’s czars so as not to offend Obama.

burrata on December 29, 2011 at 11:07 PM

’m fine with non-interventionism. But paul is an isolationist. Different breed.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I agree. Less involvement in angry lands would be good.
We just need to replace what we will loose….
Obama has postponed one answer until after he is re-elected….
Obama….he is awesome…!
*Cough*

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

I’m fine with non-interventionism. But paul is an isolationist. Different breed.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

No, he is a non-interventionist.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Let’s pretend for a moment that non-interventionism isn’t a conservative position, and let’s pretend that our troubles in the world are not a result of our meddling foreign policy…

If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, how many here would be conservatives?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Dante:Lets focus,on who the real “Isolationist” is!!
__________________________________________________________________

Obama Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal Speech: FULL TEXT, VIDEO

First Posted: 06/22/11 09:09 PM ET Updated: 08/22/11 06:12 AM ET
****************************************************************

Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep and no horizon is beyond our reach.

**************(And heres the money shot)***********************
***************************************************************

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.
==============================================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/obama-afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-speech_n_882461.html

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, how many here would be conservatives?
Dante on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Not Thomas Jefferson who intervened in Algeria (1801).
Nor James Madison who also intervened with Algiers (1815).
sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM

You forgot France…

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Jefferson and Madison didn’t intervene. We were attacked and they responded in defense.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

When Ron Paul starts advocating the utilization of American natural resources as much as his “non-interventionism” I may consider to take him serious. But the thing is America needs energy to exist and the sh!tholes that we are forced into control that market. Grow up and pay attention to how the world really works.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Well he’s already at #4, so he only needs to move up a few spots to take the #1 slot. I think if the computers take his strength of schedule into serious account, he may have the #1 slot within a year.

El_Terrible on December 29, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Yeah, the No. 1 BCS President, as in Bling and Cow Shit.

TXUS on December 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Jefferson and Madison didn’t intervene. We were attacked and they responded in defense.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

So 911 was our fault?

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM

If Iran blockades the canal, which causes great economic harm to our country and others – does that not constitute an attack?

1punchWill on December 29, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Of course not. How would that constitute an attack?

If they blocked the gulf, it would not cause great economic harm to America at all. It wouldn’t cause any harm to us. If it causes economic harm to others, that’s not our problem, it’s their problem to solve.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Fully agree!

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

I’m fine with non-interventionism. But paul is an isolationist. Different breed.
Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Yes, Paul wants to start a trade war. Are you for real?!

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

If Obama wins a second term he will position himself as the first best president evah!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

I personally will go up to him and shackle shack his hand as the first president that won re-election with all these people un-employed for years and many holding cardboard signs.
WTF…I guess that’s what it’s called

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM

LSM- economists – for the 96th consecutive month -”Unemployment had higher than expected numbers this quarter”.

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

No, he is a non-interventionist.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

and kingsjester is a 23 year old blonde Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader and I’m Batman!

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

I’m on the Not-Romney bandwagon, but I do think he has a reasonable path to victory if he picks the right vice president, mainly not Bachmann or the opposite, some super establishment candidate.

This the path to victory for Mitt/Ryan ticket

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=eGd

Of course, you can replace Wisconsin and Michigan with Florida, or Ohio and Florida.

I know that it seems unplausible that Wisconsin and Michigan go to the GOP, but it really isn’t. Mitt is very popular in Michigan. I grew up there and I know a lot of Republicans that love him because of his dad. If you put Ryan on the ticket it’s not inconceivable that Wisconsin goes Red. They have a Republican Senate and House, a Republicans governor, just voted for a Republican US Senator, beating a longtime popular Democrat, they will most likely be adding another Republican senator this time with the retirement of Kohl. It’s not that hard to imagine that Ryan could swing Wisconsin to the Republicans, he’s popular there, especially in his district, which has a lot of swing voters.

Colorado has voted Democratic twice since 1976.

cpaulus on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

If they blocked the gulf, it would not cause great economic harm to America at all. It wouldn’t cause any harm to us. If it causes economic harm to others, that’s not our problem, it’s their problem to solve.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Do you walk to work? Do you light your home with candles? Do you heat with wood? Grow the hell up and pay attention and you may learn something.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

We must take the Senate and hold the house, then impeach the basstard.

carbon_footprint on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Then Biden would be sworn in as POTUS; no thanks! Let’s take out the entire administration in one fell election.

Oracleforhire on December 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

scrubjay on December 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Interesting. So does Paul think that *any* sanctions *anywhere* constitute ‘acts of war’? Does he think we’re ‘at war’ with Cuba?

When the UN agrees on sanctions at various locations around the world, is that an ‘act of war’?

When there were sanctions against South Africa because of apartheid, did Paul think that was an ‘act of war’?

Sanctions against the folks responsible for the genocide in Darfur – ‘act of war’?

And is it just an ‘act of war’ if the US does it?

What say you, Paul supporters? Seriously, I’m curious.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Jefferson and Madison didn’t intervene. We were attacked and they responded in defense.
Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM
So 911 was our fault?
sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Was it Iraq’s

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

and kingsjester is a 23 year old blonde Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader..

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

You got my attention…

and I’m Batman!

That did it…
/

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

If they blocked the gulf, it would not cause great economic harm to America at all. It wouldn’t cause any harm to us. If it causes economic harm to others, that’s not our problem, it’s their problem to solve.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if you were rational or utterly batsh1t crazy. Now we know the answer.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

When Ron Paul starts advocating the utilization of American natural resources as much as his “non-interventionism” I may consider to take him serious. But the thing is America needs energy to exist and the sh!tholes that we are forced into control that market. Grow up and pay attention to how the world really works.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

He does. Over half of our oil comes from North America. We get very little oil from the Persian Gulf nations. And no, they don’t control the oil market.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

I would never vote for PBHO, begrudgingly or otherwise, why do these characters pretend that you HAVE to pick one or the other if you really dislike them?

I can’t say I’d vote for RP but I will never ever ever never ever include myself in the ranks of the douchebags who would willingly seek four more years of the most destructive presidency ever to curse this great nation.

Bishop on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 10:59 PM
..persevere, folks.

The War Planner on December 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM

The War Planner:Percisely,Hot Air Crew,Buck Up,just wait till
were in Full-Blown Election Mode,with the MSM
and Hopey!!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Was it Iraq’s

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

It was Al Qaeda.
Did you support going after them in Afghanistan?

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

trust me on this…Iran is NOT going to block the strait. If they did itchy finger barry would blow their navy out of the water. Favorable rating would go up by 10 points.

The market was UP today. Now think…are they worried? No.

r keller on December 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Was it Iraq’s

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Did Iraq have two no-fly zones over it’s territory?
And why?

Who was coming in and out of the border of the no-fly zones?
And why?

Last question…
Why were these no-fly zones put in place?

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

You are the Batman!?

Mr. Bat I have read all your books!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Was it Iraq’s

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

?

Gohawgs on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

And no, they don’t control the oil market.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Then why is it that every time Dinnerjacket opens his mouth oil prices start to climb?

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Has anyone ever explained why Paul’s foreign policy would be a “calamity” and could they describe this calamity?

Thanks.

By the way, with the name calling I’ve seen towards Paul I will NOT vote GOP for anyone else. The disrespect shown him from so-called “Christians” is beyond pathetic. Calling him a loon and all that disrespectful nonsense.

I WON’T vote for Obama but I won’t vote for the eventual GOP nominee, either. And you only have your actions to blame.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Was it Iraq’s
aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM
It was Al Qaeda.
Did you support going after them in Afghanistan?
sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

I would support going after them everywhere. I am not convinced the Afghanistan mission was a success.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

If you keep posting first then you are going to have to build a bunker..Bishop said so..:)

Dire Straits on December 29, 2011 at 11:22 PM

So 911 was our fault?

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM

No, but it was a response to our foreign policy of interventionism. If we hadn’t inserted ourselves into the affairs of those nations, if we hadn’t armed nations (only to go to war with two of them later), if we didn’t have bases in their countries, then 9/11 likely wouldn’t have happened. But hey, don’t take bin Laden’s or the CIA’s word for it.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:22 PM

“The Paul candidacy is of course doomed. But the Paul vote won’t die. This vote has been building in the depths of the American political ocean since the spending spree of the second Bush term…”

The last election proved that at least 52% of the electorate is two IQ from single celled organisms. I say at least because there are many that just stayed home on our side.
If Ron Paul or Obama get elected. It’s over.
The country is finished.

AllahsNippleHair on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I’m sorry, but if you think cessation of oil from Iran wouldn’t have a significant impact on *world oil prices*, *INCLUDING THE US*, you are, simply, delusional.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Was it Iraq’s
aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Did Iraq have two no-fly zones over it’s territory?
And why?
Who was coming in and out of the border of the no-fly zones?
And why?
Last question…
Why were these no-fly zones put in place?
Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

What about Iran? Pakistan? Was Iraq special?

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Bishop on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM

We’d feel guilty and filthy for the remainder of our lives.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Will no one answer honestly? If non-interventionism were a conservative principle, would you be a conservative?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Ron Paul gives wackadoodles a bad name.

Laura in Maryland on December 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Was it Iraq’s
aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM
?
Gohawgs on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Thanks

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

American blood and treasure was spent for this.

We have the dumbest and most destructive administration, evah.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

By the way, with the name calling I’ve seen towards Paul I will NOT vote GOP for anyone else. The disrespect shown him from so-called “Christians” is beyond pathetic. Calling him a loon and all that disrespectful nonsense.

I WON’T vote for Obama but I won’t vote for the eventual GOP nominee, either. And you only have your actions to blame.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Puh-leeze. Like you were ever going to vote for anybody but Ron Paul in the first place. This is why the rest of the GOP does not take the Ron Paul movement seriously. Y’all don’t have a plan beyond trying to get Ron Paul the nomination.

Sekhmet on December 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

You are the Batman!?

Mr. Bat I have read all your books!

RAGIN CAJUN on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Thanks

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Has anyone ever explained why Paul’s foreign policy would be a “calamity” and could they describe this calamity?

Thanks.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Iranian nukes and Chinese assistance as they install bases in the Persian Gulf that can choke off the oil supply. Chinese bases along the coast of Sudan and increasing cooperation by Saudi Arabia due to the growing presence of China in the middle east. Growing Chinese influence in South Africa as they expand their presence in Angola and the granting of basing rights at Simonstown. That allows China to control the south atlantic sea lanes.

What would Ron Paul do to stop this?

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Oh goody, another Herr Doktor thread for the white supremacists to spam.

catmman on December 29, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Last time i checked my skin color was brown. Since i’m a Ron Paul supporter i MUST be a part of stormfront!

cjv209 on December 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM

O/T
======

Judge blocks California’s low-carbon fuels rule – APStory metadata:
Submitted 2 hours ago from http://www.sacbee.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Has anyone ever explained why Paul’s foreign policy would be a “calamity” and could they describe this calamity?

Thanks.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Iran would attack us but we’d all be doped.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Did Iraq have two no-fly zones over it’s territory?
And why?

Who was coming in and out of the border of the no-fly zones?
And why?

Last question…
Why were these no-fly zones put in place?

Electrongod on December 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Because Bush senior got confused and thought Kuwait was part of the United States?

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Ron Paul gives wackadoodles a bad name.

Laura in Maryland on December 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Laura in Maryland:U-Betcha,Crazier than BatSh*t drinking KOOL_AID,
in da Belfry!!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5