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 3 4 5

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Nope, you’re right. crr6 was a little smarter than this one.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:27 AM

I’m familiar with Doyle. Great quote. Much better than Twain.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Having read the entire Holmes canon as written by ACD, I doubt even Sherlock could deduce the identity of every sock puppet merely from a few posts. I suspect he’d despise the internet, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Another old report. Come on Girl.

With 30 percent reduction due to ForceCAPs I don’t feel silly at all. You should feel silly for citing all the other garbage first and making a joke of your claims.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:11 AM

You really need to learn to take responsibility and admit it when you have make a clear error, and then more on.

http://tinyurl.com/435fu5t

Anyone here can look at the graph [hit Ctrl and + if it's not big enough] and see that Obama more than doubled the number of troops from what he inherited from Bush. It actually looks like a pretty fair amount more than doubled.

Are honest people suppose to believe you over their own eyes?
You sound like Groucho, only he was making a sarcastic point.

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:29 AM

You have to wonder about the folks that need multiple identities on line to offer their opinion(s). I can see Carthoris at it’s desk feverishly refreshing to see what everyone thinks of his wit as if it justifies his whole existence.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

See, and there’s the kind of nonsense I was trying to avoid.

I don’t call Santorum supporters bigots or homophobic. I don’t call Bachmann supporters crazy. I don’t call Perry supporters stupid. I don’t call Gingrich supporters dirty snakes. I guess an honest, intelligent debate is too difficult…

I looked at the newsletters, compared it to his other writings, votes, speeches. They don’t line up. And considering there’s far more material saying Paul isn’t a racist than is a racist, I’m going with he isn’t. Even with the newsletter trash, he’s still better than the rest on civil liberties.

gyrmnix on December 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Wow that’s rich!

So just conveniently brush it off to the side! Newsflash: it doesn’t matter if RuPaul didn’t write them. His name is ON IT and that means it represents him. How hard is it to understand that? And the fact that he made millions off of them!

You just can’t criticize him for anything can you?

It really is a cult with you Paulbots.

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 2:34 AM

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

:-)

G-nite.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Are honest people suppose to believe you over their own eyes?

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Um, yes. Especially when the media intentionally distort and exaggerate to support their agenda. Here’s the funny thing about blogs like Hot Air. Regulars tend to trust other regulars who have never steered them wrong. Like the way people trust personal references from people they know.

John the Libertarian on December 30, 2011 at 2:37 AM

CRS uses the Iraq War interchangeably with OIF and the Afghan War interchangeably with OEF to include not only troops in-country, but also those providing theater-wide support primarily in the region. (All but the 2,000 troops in the Philippines are part of OEF or the Afghan War.)

For example, in addition to the 38,000 troops in Afghanistan in December 2008, OEF includes:

• 2,300 troops in Kyrgyzstan supporting Afghan operations;
• 2,100 troops in Djibouti where there are groups connected to Osama Bin Laden;
• 2,200 in the Philippines conducting other counter-terror operations; and
• a scattering of other military personnel in the region

FY2011 Afghanistan; 63,500 Iraq; 42,800 Total: 106,200
FY2012 Afghanistan; 63,500 Iraq; 4,100 Total: 67,500

So boots on the ground report 38,000 in Dec, 2008 and 63,500 in 2011 presently in Afghanistan.

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 2:38 AM

You’re relatively obnoxious and belligerent, so that narrows it down to about, eh, 1,000 posters/ex-posters.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Relatively? And you see me as only being in the top 1,000 of the obnoxious? Clearly I must try to do better.

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM

Um, yes. Especially when the media intentionally distort and exaggerate to support their agenda. Here’s the funny thing about blogs like Hot Air. Regulars tend to trust other regulars who have never steered them wrong. Like the way people trust personal references from people they know.

John the Libertarian on December 30, 2011 at 2:37 AM

That was CNN. I hardly think they would lower the number of troops Bush had or raise the number Obama had. Their motivation would be in the opposite direction so as to make Bush the “war monger”, not Obama.

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:42 AM

I can see Carthoris at it’s desk feverishly refreshing to see what everyone thinks of his wit as if it justifies his whole existence.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Odd as I see you as wearing a Superman cape. Or some kind of cape anyway. One that blows over your eyes and blinds you as you swing ad hominem aimlessly about.

Carthoris on December 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM

LevinFan on December 30, 2011 at 2:34 AM

I disagree with Paul on plenty.

It might not be clear up to this point but, I’m a minarchist, borderline anarcho-capitalist. Paul’s proposals are relatively statist compared to my libertopia.

But, as far as political philosophy within the bounds of the constitution, I disagree with his views on the incorporation clause. I flip flop on his views on abortion. There’s a wealth of things I disagree with.

But, he gets the important things right. Adherence to the NAP, Austrian economics, free trade and non-interventionism.

gyrmnix on December 30, 2011 at 2:49 AM

You have to wonder about the folks that need multiple identities on line to offer their opinion(s).

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

This is elementary. The more in the way of opinions someone has, the more identities they must have. It’s a proportional relationship, although not fully linear. Something like: A = the sq root of B, where A = number of identities and B = number of opinions.

Sigmund on December 30, 2011 at 2:54 AM

Again…

… Why not wait for the votes for all this tomfoolery?

Just sayin’…

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Romney or paul wont be president. anything happen?

Flapjackmaka on December 30, 2011 at 3:48 AM

Chamberlain thought the same thing which is why he gave Adolf Hitler Czechoslovakia. Eventually he learned and stood with Poland when Germany moved against them. He learned from experience but Ron Paul doesn’t seem to.

To compare the current situation with Iran is dangerous and could be calamitous. I know this may come as a shock to war mongers, but not every conflict is analogous to Hitler. As best I remember, Germany had invaded another nations. When’s the last time Iran invaded another nation? Also, Iran is on the other side of the world and nowhere near the immediate threat that Hitler presented to Britain. The comparison does not work, it’s just fear mongering. Furthermore the nations surrounding Iran could easily obliterate them if Iran ever actually invaded another country.

I am sure thats true. If they can gain control of the Persian Gulf without a fight they would leap at the chance. That is what Hitler did with the Saar, Austria, the Sudetenland and finally Czechoslovakia. Problem is that it never ends.

What evidence is there to suggest they’d try to gain control of the Gulf? Iran, contrary to Iraq under Saddam or Germany under Hitler, does not seem to care about conquest. What they really want is to be left alone in their “mullahcracy”. I say, let them have it. What we Paulistas call for is a very DIFFERENT foreign policy but that doesn’t mean it’ll be more dangerous. I think it would be much less dangerous and lest costly as we’d avoid so many wars and entangling alliances. And just remember that if we’re doing all of this for oil how much oil skyrocketed after we went into Iraq and outside of the 2008 market slump, it’s going back up again. So if we’re intervening in the middle east to secure cheap oil, that’s not working.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 3:58 AM

Iran, contrary to Iraq under Saddam or Germany under Hitler, does not seem to care about conquest. What they really want is to be left alone in their “mullahcracy”.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 3:58 AM

Funny. I though Iran was supplying weapons and training to Hamas in Gaza and to Hezbollah in Lebanon?

The Iranian Fars news agency, which is associated with the Revolutionary Guards, said some 30,000 Syrians and Palestinians have been training to infiltrate Israel via the Syrian border to carry out suicide missions, Ynetnews reported Friday.

“They have asked the Syrian government for authorization to infiltrate occupied Palestinian land and carry out suicide missions against Israeli soldiers,” the Fars report said.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in December 2000 called Israel a “cancerous tumor” that should be removed from the region.

Ahmadinejad said…”the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

Ahmadinejad also called for “the elimination of the Zionist regime”

Ahmadinejad also stated…”They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)”.

Peace loving fellows clearly.

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 4:28 AM

I want to thank the commenters here at HotAir for making me more sure than ever of my decision to vote for Mitt Romney. With all due respect to everyone here, virtually every one of these anti-Romney comments seems irrational, ludicrous, laughable or just plain dumb. Are these people even real? I sometimes wonder if they were put here by the smart Romney campaign to make Romney’s critics look like a bunch of bozos. Or do they all listen to the same radio talk shows? A lot of them seem to be posting the same silly garbage over and over about “the elite” or about how no candidate is “pure” enough for their liking. It’s embarrassing to hear some of these HotAir posters talk about “the establishment,” which is supposedly pulling the strings and selecting the nominee, when in reality it’s voters who have taken a look at the field and appear to be increasingly coming to the obvious and correct conclusion: Mitt Romney is far and away the best choice. None of these few dozen anti-Romney people who like to blather on and on seem to be able to offer very compelling arguments in favor of anyone else.

So, in a funny way, these anti-Romney people are actually making Romney look good.

bluegill on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Peace loving fellows clearly.

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 4:28 AM

You may be right.. but it’s all largely blowback. The start of all of this goes back to 1953 when we (through the CIA) overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader. From that time, it’s been a constant struggle/war of the U.S. keeping their thumb on Iran and Iran doing the little things it can to survive. They don’t trust us, we don’t trust them and the game goes on and on. But it’s important to understand that we hold the POWER to change that relationship.

I honestly don’t want a back and forth argument where all we do is get more entrenched in our positions. All I can ask is that you watch the video below from start to finish and consider the point trying to be made in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIaw11Jlo

I used to think like you and voted for Bush twice. I was completely unaware of the 1953 coup – which is a big problem because it’s the root problem!

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Good Morning HA, last day of the work week in 2011….yeah!!!

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 AM

Oh Boy,Bolton,Aka,”Stach”,Politically Nuked Ron Paul!!!
(Sarc on the Nuke thingy)
————————-

Bolton slams Obama / Ron Pauls antiAmerican Foreign Policies
************************************************************

We cannot live in fantasy land with Ron Paul’s foreign policy,
**************************************************************
*************************************************************8

which is worse than Obama’s foreign policy.
Added: 8 hours ago
(Video-4:43)
===================

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2da_1325210542

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:08 AM

The AP’s Steve Peoples reports via Twitter that Jon Huntsman has narrowed down his path forward, to a likely withdrawal from the race if he’s not in the top 3 in New Hampshire, the state where he’s focusing all his energy

via politico….

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/huntsman-sets-his-limit-top-three-in-nh-109094.html

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:09 AM

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:08 AM

ouch

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:10 AM

Just Rolling in,
—————-

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul neck-and-neck in Iowa, according to new NBC News-Marist poll; Newt Gingrich drops to 5thStory metadata:
Submitted 5 mins ago from firstread.msnbc.msn.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

NBC poll: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul neck-and-neck in Iowa; Newt Gingrich in 5th
***************

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/30/9822616-nbc-poll-mitt-romney-ron-paul-neck-and-neck-in-iowa-newt-gingrich-in-5th

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:08 AM
ouch

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:10 AM

cmsinaz:You ain’t kidding,and John Bolton is right!:)

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:15 AM

O/T,Well this is interesting!!
——————————-

Pakistan’s Supreme Court announces probe into scandal surrounding memo seeking Washington’s help to rein in military
**************************************************
**************************************************

– ReutersStory metadata:
Submitted 1 min ago by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:18 AM

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM

just heard that on morning joe as well….it’s mitt’s to lose apparently

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:19 AM

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:15 AM

yup

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:20 AM

Romney is a loser for the Republican Party (and for America).

Pragmatic on December 30, 2011 at 7:48 AM

New NBC/Marist IA poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Romney 23%, Paul 21%, Santorum 15%, Perry 14%, Gingrich 13%, Bachmann 6%, Huntsman 2%.

Perry at 14%, 1% ahead of Gingrich and 1% behind Santorum. Three-way tie for third. Now where’s the threads about Perry’s “surge”? He’s ONE POINT behind the guy with the supposed momentum!

I wonder if Ed and AP will give us “Perry surge” threads today… naaaaah, I doubt it.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Yeah he could pull a major upset and finish 3rd. And he has 48 primaries left to keep trying for another after Iowa.

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM

All I’m saying is: Perry’s had a surge, too. He was in single digits just a few weeks ago in IA, now he’s had nothing but double digits and some teens, yet it’s Santorum getting all the “surge” threads, lol. Santorum has “surged” into third place, not first!

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 8:04 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2da_1325210542

canopfor on December 30, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Ahhhh..Bolton…if only..

tinkerthinker on December 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM

You’re basically saying Paul has no problem with us responding to aggression or hostility from foreign nations, if we are attacked. But not attacking nations which have not attacked us.

Um, yes. You do know what defense and non-interventionism are, right? It’s a Constitutional position as well.

The reasoning of the Bush Administration in regards to Iraq in 2003 and from conservatives today in regards to Iran is that there’s strong reason to believe these nations will attack us and/or our allies, and we can’t let that happen, so why wait til Chicago or Tel Aviv are incinerated to act? In other words, pre-emptive war. Now a typical Paul fan will then ask “Wouldn’t that be an excuse we could use to hypothetically attack ANYONE anywhere at any time?” The answer is a very qualified yes. If there is strong reason to believe country x or terror group x is planning to attack us, the answer is yes. If there is no evidence that nation or terror group is planning on attacking us or our interests, the answer is no.

Um, yes. Here is the difference between interventionism and non-interventionism. Except if we have knowledge of an attack, force is justified. Preemptive war is not.

But back to the Barbary War, since its a fascinating subject and directly relevant to Ron Paul’s inconsistency. Paul and his follows (i.e. You) can say all you want that we were justified in responding to attacks on our merchant ships in the Barbary War, but the bottom line is we were over there, and according to RuPaul’s logic in regards to the Middle East today, Al-Qaeda, Iran, and the Taliban want to kill us specifically BECAUSE we are ‘over there’. So why would the Muslim Barbary pirates killing our soldiers and attacking our merchant ships way back when be any less understandable, if not even reasonable, than the terrorism we have faced for the past few decades in the U.S.?

There isn’t any inconsistency. We weren’t meddling in the affairs of other nations; we were engaging in free trade when attacked. That is not the case in regards to Iran or Al Qaeda: they’ve attacked us because we were meddling in the affairs of ME nations, arming one against the other, staging coups, etc. There is no comparison between the two.

We cut off oil to Japan in July 1941. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor in December of the same year. Paul never condemns our response, our full-scale involvement in WWII. Sure, it was a declared war, but the bottom line was that we enacted a massive, painful oil embargo on a nation which desperately needed our oil. That is akin to a devastating sanction, which Ron Paul calls an ‘act of war’. So we screwed Japan over and got what we had coming to us. If Ron Paul actually followed his logic out, that would be the reasonable conclusion of his reasoning in regards to interventionism, sanctions, embargoes, etc. Right?

I don’t know Paul’s thoughts on the embargo, but you are correct that it is an argument non-interventionists make and one conservatives did make then. But none of them said or say we had no right to defend ourselves and respond to the attacks on PH. And you say a “nation which desperately needed our oil,” as if they had a right to our resources.

You can point out plenty of real differences between WWII and Iraq, or the Barbary War and the War on Terror, but the bottom line is we were ‘over there’ or ‘meddling’ in other nations’ affairs in both WWII and the Barbary War, before, during, and after the conflicts. And on that fact (among many others), Ron Paul is as dishonest and inconsistent as a liberal talking about Affirmative Action or education spending.

No, not in the instance that led to the Barbary War we weren’t. Engaging in trade and diplomatic relations is not meddling. Iraq was, as have been ALL of our conflicts since WWII.

We were also ‘meddling’ in Spanish, French, British, and Native American internal affairs for centuries before WWII and the Barbary War…heck, for many decades before we were even a nation! And Paul doesn’t have any problem with that. But somehow after WWII every single war has been ‘illegal’, ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘immoral’. Interesting mind he has.

LevinFan90 on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM

No, that is a false statement, but what happened before we were a sovereign nation is irrelevant. The reason the conflicts after WWII are illegal and unconstitutional is that the Constitution states that only Congress has the authority to declare war. That has not happened since WWII. And yes, seizing money from Americans via taxation and wasting American lives and treasure to engage in conflicts that have nothing to do with us is immoral.

Dante on December 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Ron Paul’s most recent remarks on Iran are clearly a last ditch effort to ensure that he does not win the Iowa caucus. Good for him, he has done this nation a great service by announcing in such clear terms that he is not to be taken seriously by ANYONE. I applaud this patriotic act of yours Mr. Paul.

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM

All I’m saying is: Perry’s had a surge, too. He was in single digits just a few weeks ago in IA, now he’s had nothing but double digits and some teens, yet it’s Santorum getting all the “surge” threads, lol. Santorum has “surged” into third place, not first!

Aslans Girl on December 30, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Yeah, right. Perry’s gone from 40% to 4% to 14%. Boo-yah.

ddrintn on December 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Ron Paul’s most recent remarks on Iran are clearly a last ditch effort to ensure that he does not win the Iowa caucus. Good for him, he has done this nation a great service by announcing in such clear terms that he is not to be taken seriously by ANYONE. I applaud this patriotic act of yours Mr. Paul.

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM

He’s right though. The western powers are leaving them with no choice. They’ll shut down the strait and oh boy, will things get interesting.

Pitchforker on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

You may be right.. but it’s all largely blowback. The start of all of this goes back to 1953 when we (through the CIA) overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader. From that time, it’s been a constant struggle/war of the U.S. keeping their thumb on Iran and Iran doing the little things it can to survive. They don’t trust us, we don’t trust them and the game goes on and on. But it’s important to understand that we hold the POWER to change that relationship.

I honestly don’t want a back and forth argument where all we do is get more entrenched in our positions. All I can ask is that you watch the video below from start to finish and consider the point trying to be made in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIaw11Jlo

I used to think like you and voted for Bush twice. I was completely unaware of the 1953 coup – which is a big problem because it’s the root problem!

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 4:52 AM

There is no changing the relationship. The die has been cast. One side is going to prevail unfortunately.

Pitchforker on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM

“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?’

And yet not ONE of the SIX Romney “men” served their country. In uniform that is, you know like real men do. Is at least one out of SIX too much to ask? What if all American families were similarly not represented? We would have NO military.
Mittens knows nothing about the military, he has no idea of the fraternity, training, maturation, and the subculture.
I would be horribly embarrassed to part of that family.
The Ken Doll raised clones.
Oh, and Ron Paul will only temporarily gum up the works.
Perry / Bolton 2012

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM

He’s right though. The western powers are leaving them with no choice. They’ll shut down the strait and oh boy, will things get interesting.

Pitchforker on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

I’m truly beginning to understand that old Chinese curse about living in “interesting times”.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM

And yet not ONE of the SIX Romney “men” served their country. In uniform that is, you know like real men do.

Karl Magnus on December 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Ah yes, because to be a ‘real man’ you have to serve in the military. Whatever you say, oh Arbiter of All Things Conservative.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I wish not to vote for Romney for an entire raft of reasons. That said, I would vote for Romney sooner than Ron Paul for a much longer list of reasons. And topping that list is The suicidal madness which is his foreign policy. I believe that there are few folks in the world with more awareness, more sense, and more correct analyses regarding U.S. foreign policy than John Bolton. His clear portrayal of Representative Paul’s erroneous stance on so many external issues is comprehensive and decisive.

It is understandable that there are two significant but disingenuous constituencies which are backing Paul along with the libertarians and fellow kooks: Liberals in states with open primaries, whose aim is to induce as much chaos as possible into the GOP selection by artificially raising Paul’s apparent support; Non-liberals who are also non-conservatives (I refuse to call them independents, when what they are is never-decideds) who voted for Obama and are now suffering buyer’s remorse, and think that Paul is the appropriate alternative to either end of the spectrum.

Those groups combined with the genuine Paul supporters will never exceed 15%, but they are rabid enough in their activities to appear more substantial. Do not be fooled.

Freelancer on December 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Just in case it wasn’t clear by the above, regardless of my disdain for Ron Paul, I’m about as far from a Romney fan as is possible. To borrow a line from the great Thomas Sowell, the one person who can cause me to vote for Mitt Romney isn’t Mitt Romney, it’s Barack Obama.

Freelancer on December 30, 2011 at 1:56 PM

They don’t trust us, we don’t trust them and the game goes on and on. But it’s important to understand that we hold the POWER to change that relationship.
fatlibertarianinokc

You are a cluless moron. You have the power to change that tho.\

Hard Right on December 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

You are a cluless moron. You have the power to change that tho.\

Hard Right on December 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

There’s that good christian nature again.

A word from the wise; You are only going to further isolate your beliefs (and yourself) if you can’t articulate a defense for what you believe in. Every time you guys come back with these rude responses you only hurt your own message.

If you think I’m wrong on something, you’d be better off pointing out why and where I’m wrong in order to educate me. Your inability to do that suggests that, in fact, you must be the ignorant one who lacks the knowledge to explain that I’m wrong so you just ridicule.

Good luck.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 2:32 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 30, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Well, if we’re so unenlightened and uneducated as you purport, you’ll excuse me and the Lord will forgive me when I call you a clueless d-bag.

catmman on December 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM

fatlibertarianinokc, ummm yeah. You’ve proven that no matter what he is shown to do or say, you’ll suppport him due to your mental illness. So no I won’t waste my time tossing pearls before swine.

Hard Right on December 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5