Quotes of the day

posted at 10:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“‘Oh, I’d probably have trouble,’ Paul said to a question of supporting Gingrich’s candidacy, adding that he wouldn’t be able to support the nominee in general if the ‘policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party.’…

“‘I’m gonna come in, I think, first or second,’ Paul said today in an interview airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s ‘Political Capital with Al Hunt.’ ‘If I did come in fifth or sixth, that would be a real shocker.’…

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said in the interview, yet he wouldn’t commit to supporting him as the 2012 Republican candidate and refused to rule out a third-party run.

“‘I think he probably understands how the market works as a businessman a little bit better than a guy like Gingrich,’ Paul said of Romney.”

***

“Based on discussion with a dozen supporters at candidate events across the state — including a Paul rally of about 500 here Wednesday night – the Paul Posse contains a considerable ‘Ron or I’m Gone’ population.

“Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or a third-party candidate (the latter of which Mr. Paul has not ruled out). Ideally, they said, he would be the Republican nominee…

“‘I would not vote for anyone else,’ said Eric Grote, who travelled to Iowa from Turkey, where he lives half the year, to attend Mr. Paul’s rally in Des Moines. He wore a big Tea Party button. ‘All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are reading from the same sheet of music,’ he said.”

***

“The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government. In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit. That last part strikes some as a tacit acceptance of liberal positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage—and on some level it is. While Paul himself would support state bans for such things, his stay-out-of-people’s-business philosophy is absolute at the federal level. ‘I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,’ said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. ‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’

“Couple that with Paul’s support for the Occupy movement–its spirit, not its preferred tax policy–and you have a liberal-friendly message. ‘Wealth is being accumulated into smaller and smaller hands,’ he said on Thursday. ‘Right now, big business makes more money paying high-paid lobbyists going to Washington to get a good deal than trying to satisfy you, the customer. And that needs to be reversed.’ Paul’s message focuses on the weak economy, a grievance pretty much everyone can get behind. There is always the possibility that liberal voters will realize how conservative he is on issues like taxation, entitlements or abortion, but Paul’s libertarianism acts as a buffer. And that could make all the difference when voters caucus Tuesday night across Iowa.”

***

“Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He’d be the first to admit he’s not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

“Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians…

“Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul’s philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.”

***

“Rep. Ron Paul is most associated with his economic and foreign policy views, but one of the secrets to his success is the appeal he’s making to Iowa’s socially conservative electorate, something that may come as a surprise to those who know him as a gadfly libertarian.

“On table outside a Paul town hall meeting in a public library here, attendees were offered fliers promoting Ron Paul as a ‘pro-life champion’ and somebody who would ‘defend traditional marriage.’ None of the materials mentioned anything about foreign policy, unless you count the linguine recipe in the ‘Ron Paul Family Cook Book.’…

“And one of the advantages of having been dismissed as a crank who couldn’t win the caucuses is that it has allowed Paul to skate under the radar and make it easier to thread the needle between his appeal to libertarians and to social conservatives. Had he been taken seriously as a front-runner earlier in the process, he’d probably be subject to negative ads informing conservatives that Paul does support the right of individual states to allow gay marriage. Instead, the lower profile has allowed him to quietly make his case to social conservatives, and expand his base beyond libertarians.”

***

“But looking at the primary season merely through the lens of winners and losers misses an essential point about Ron Paul, I think. Winning the GOP nomination (and maybe even the presidency!) may be this year’s goal, but the ultimate, oft-stated purpose to Paul’s 35+ years in public life has been to spread the message of freedom, of constitutionally limited government. Even a losing primary season—say, like Jerry Brown’s underdog role against Bill Clinton in 1992—becomes a prime opportunity for salesmanship. Paul, unlike the rest of the non-Romney field, has the money and stamina for such a fight.

“Another objective, as Silver points out, is that Paul ‘could certainly control a substantial enough minority to become a power broker at the Republican National Convention, something that is an explicit goal of his campaign.’ In my sporadic conversations with Paul insiders, the convention/delegates strategy has come up every time. If they can’t prevail in a brokered convention, the Paulities at least hope to get a prime-time speaking slot, a hand in the platform-writing, and more besides…

“So Ron Paul’s in it for the long haul. Republicans gearing up for a post-Iowa purge festival should be asking themselves one question: Do they really want to alienate the enthusiastic supporters of the only GOP candidate who either talks convincingly about cutting government or appeals noticeably to the non-Republican swing voters who tip most modern elections? The answer to that question may determine the future of the Republican Party.”

***

“But there’s a paradox buried inside Paul’s rise in the Republican field, a time bomb ticking away. Call it the curse of the ‘Paulbots.’

“The more Paul rises, the more he needs to temper his rhetoric and fine-tune his message (especially given the kind of baggage he carries). And the more he needs a fine-tuned message, the more he has to control his fractious fans. But people who organize themselves online today are notoriously hard to control…

“But things are about to get a bit crazy. Paul’s late surge and possible win next week in Iowa are going to generate a huge burst of national media attention and plenty of hard-edged questions about his past and views. And the Paulbot base doesn’t handle criticism very well…

“If the Internet hyper-empowers small groups of people, enabling them to punch above their weight, it also hyper-exposes them. In the coming days, as Paul’s star rises, his online base is going to be tested as much as he is.”

***

“In response to these remarks, Wead pointed to the Constitution. ‘A lot of what Ron Paul says and believes is misrepresented. He believes strongly in the Constitution,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing dangerous about the U.S. Constitution. If we decided we needed to react, as a president he would take it to the U.S. Congress. We’d decide; we’d declare war; we’d win it, and then we’d get out.’”


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 6

Schweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Woohoo!

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Going for three!

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

How come no one ever talks about Paul being against capital punishment?

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

And now, time for a joke.

President Obama was interviewing for new accountants to handle the books for his Obamacare scheme. Barack asked the first applicant, “What does one plus one equal?” The accountant was escorted out of the White House after answering, “Two.” Barack then asked the next applicant, “What does one plus one equal?” That one answered, “What do you want it to equal?” Obama promptly replied, “You’ve got the job.”

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Q. Why can’t the National Weather Service name a hurricane after Obama?

A. The Centers for Disease Control gets to use his name first.

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 10:11 PM

How long until Iowa is over?

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM

This should be good…

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM

BTW, Doug Wead, Paul’s adviser–the guy in the video–ran for Congress in a conservative district here. He lost to the Democrat for being a carpetbagger & political opportunist.

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’…

Yes he does in the Classical Liberal sense of the word before it was taken over by Marxists.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said

OK. Paul likes Mitt?!? :()

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Maybe when Paul retires this year he’ll have time to look back over his newsletters and see what it was he edited for 20 yrs….

Gohawgs on December 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Oh, Paul will throw support behind Mitt. Paulbots self-destruct in 3..2..

andy85719 on December 30, 2011 at 10:17 PM

*PALIN SIGN-HOLDING EVENT AT IOWA CAUCUS*

click here for info!

i wish i could go but i’m too far away. it sounds like a lot of fun, meeting up with other palin supporters!! i want to go =(

if you can’t go… spread the word to others!!!

Sachiko on December 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Loose the hounds!

SlaveDog on December 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM

I am really getting tired of looking at this turkey-necked … what is the word …

Okay, I’ll read the piece.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire surly heads will explode. Rinotastic!

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Ya know … people talk about Obama being the anti-Christ …

Okay, I’ll read the piece.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM

How long until Iowa is over?

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I know, right?

Rinotastic!

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

If there were ever a candidate in this primary that fit the bill as RINO, it’s Paul.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:24 PM

the support that this guy draws….

unfathomable

ted c on December 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

“The more Paul rises, the more he needs to temper his rhetoric and fine-tune his message (especially given the kind of baggage he carries)

That’s odd. Newt’s baggage disqualifies him. Paul’s baggage is designer label or something?

Skandia Recluse on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Good football game on…

… talk to ‘yall later.

In the mean time…

“WwwweeeeEEEEE are the prObLem…!” – Ron Paul

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Which circle of Dante’s Inferno will we be in tonight?

SlaveDog on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 PM

“It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century.”

Much as I’m sympathetic to those that espouse individual liberty, I seriously doubt libertarianism will go far anytime soon. I think it will prove to be as befuddled as conservatism in offering a cohesive philosophy that triumphs liberalism. The ideas of liberty must be worked out so that those ideas appeal and captivate a mass of people to become a movement. That’s not going to come from a libertarian politician or party. Ron Paul, will unfortunately, fail as president.

rickv404 on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 PM

‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’…

Yes he does in the Classical Liberal sense of the word before it was taken over by Marxists.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Did the Marxists tell Paul to be against the death penalty?

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Go Ron.

His libertarian message is striking a chord. I hope it spreads.

rickyricardo on December 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

LUAP NOR 2012!!!!
Only he can save America!!!!;!)3?;@;!4);&;

Jimmy In Jersey on December 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Ron Paul, will unfortunately, fail as to become president.

rickv404 on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 PM

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:30 PM

‘I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,’ said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. ‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’…

It’s not looking good for the future of the country when twenty-four year olds think less government involvement in private life is a liberal idea.

BadgerHawk on December 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Skandia Recluse on December 30, 2011 at 10:26 PM

lol … “designer baggage”

I have no use for it, but by my right hand, I’ll find one :)

Axe on December 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Doesn’t have a chance in hell

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

BadgerHawk on December 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Are you the SIP yet?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Doesn’t have a chance in hell

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

That may be the only place he does have a chance.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Does the Federal Government have the right or obligation to:

Regulate how much water you can use to flush your toilet, and ban production of those that violate those limits?

Mandate the parts used on gasoline cans and what they can look like and be made of?

Ban salt on a restaurant table?

Tell you that you must wear a seat belt?

Tell your Granny that she needs to strip to board a plane?

Where does it end people?

PappyD61 on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Doesn’t have a chance in hell
Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Given his views, I’d say he has a pretty good chance for hell.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Dear “Ron or gone population”: Burn in hell, b-bye.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

that may be the only place he does have a chance.
Rio Linda Refugee on December 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Drat, beat me to it.

whatcat on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Ron Paul’s is no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.
Both are loons that will eventually either self destruct, or cause the destruction of the world.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Dear “Ron or gone population”: Burn in hell, b-bye.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

We’ll see you at the end of the primary, b-bye.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Dear “Ron or gone population”: Burn in hell, b-bye.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM

We’ll see you at the end of the primary, b-bye.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM

… and AP thought he got lots of thread hits when he had a Palin thread.

AZfederalist on December 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM

‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’…

He wants the country to spend less money than it takes in. And he doesn’t want to bomb every country in the world. And he doesn’t believe that the Fed should be printing trillions of dollars to bail out banks with.

What a freakishly freaky liberal madman.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM

What’s hilarious is the most rabid Ron Paul haters get their panties in a bunch when anyone makes the slightest derogatory comment about Mitt Romney.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Really, the only reason Paul’s got so many supporter’s is because he’ll try to legalize drugs, something Obama didn’t do.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM

And 9/11 was an inside job and Israel was behind the first WTC bombing and chemtrails and Iran isn’t a threat.
Yeah LUAP NOR is a mainstream republican.

Jimmy In Jersey on December 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM

If there were ever a candidate in this primary that fit the bill as RINO, it’s Paul.
hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:24 PM

You are absolutely wrong. Please don’t get sucker into thinking that Romneycare is apart of the conservative platform or that Newt really worked as an historian. I dare you to watch any Ron pauls Q & A. There is no other candidate that has a message of draining the swamp. If you were to watch it you could turn into a PaulBot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8UOSck8tP0

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

He wants the country to spend less money than it takes in. And he doesn’t want to bomb every country in the world. And he doesn’t believe that the Fed should be printing trillions of dollars to bail out banks with.

What a freakishly freaky liberal madman.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Check, Fail, Check!

Well, he ain’t no conservative.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

uhhhhh, no…

Gohawgs on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Did the Marxists tell Paul to be against the death penalty?

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Being against the death penalty is not left or right. Plenty of people on the right oppose it, plenty of people on the left support it. Not everything fits neatly into the Liberal/Conservative box. I know it’s crazy to even fathom, but some people think for themselves. They evaluate every issue independently and not by looking it up in the “What Should I believe if I Am a Conservative” pamphlet.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Ron Paul’s is no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.
Both are loons that will eventually either self destruct, or cause the destruction of the world.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

OH NOES! Ron Paul= Hitler!!!111. on a serious note, this is quite a hyperbole, don’t you think?

cjv209 on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Well, he ain’t no conservative.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

But Mitt Romney is? Oh Kay.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Does Ron Paul even REALIZE what happened on 9-11-2001? Does he even REMEMBER it? If so – then WHY does he say things like THIS – and why is the Media so Hell-Bent on getting him nominated enough to split the Conservative vote with the MoveOn.org Moonbats so that Obama can get re-elected that they let statements like THIS go UNCHALLENGED?

Does anybody remember the Terrorist attack by Islamic extremists on America on 9/11, 2001? Apparently, according to this quote from the last two days, at least one of the candidates for President, Ron Paul, does not:

“Paul took no questions from the audience or reporters, and he again avoided directly engaging with the opponents who have intensified their attacks on him. In broad contours, he attacked his opponents for advocating militarism. He also warned about the military-industrial complex.

“Nobody will ever dare attack us,” Paul said. “They’re not about to invade this country any time soon.”

Simply STULTIFYING that someone in this position would not remember that.

williamg on December 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Other than cutting spending, what mainstream Republican policies does Paul support?

Jimmy In Jersey on December 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM

But Mitt Romney is? Oh Kay.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Maybe neither one of them are conservative?

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire surly heads will explode. Rinotastic!

Capitalist75 on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Yawn!

KOOLAID2 on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

With Ron Paul, one word comes to mind: Slime.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Face it people, had Romney said everything Paul said you’d be slobbering over him. But instead of the 6’4″ guy with nice hair, good tan, Harvard degree and a “proper” family background, the message is by from a short, dorky guy with a whiny voice and annoying accent.

The medium is the message. And in this case the medium sucks.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM

LUAP NOR

When did Paul get a clue? Only after he dropped his drawers!

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM

What a freakishly freaky liberal madman.

angryed

He’s right about the Fed. He might be right about these wars we are in. We don’t know what the world would be like if we hadn’t gone into Iraq so maybe he’s right. I don’t know.
But
Do you think the billion Muslims hate us because of what we have done to them? Do you think we have persecuted the poor Arabs?

Wasn’t that what he was saying at the last debate?

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

But Mitt Romney is? Oh Kay.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Romney is Obama. Same suit, different person.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Travelled ALL the way from Turkey, eh?

Yeah. I’m sure “Ron Paul” is a beloved name over there.

I’ll keep reading …

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Other than cutting spending, what mainstream Republican policies does Paul support?

Jimmy In Jersey on December 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM

1. Isn’t that the most important policy? To me it’s the only policy that matters right now.

2. He’s pro-life which at least once upon a time was a pretty important thing for a Republican to be.

3. He said he’d repeal Obamacare. Again, once upon a time, like 6 months ago that seemed to be important to Republicans.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Face it people, had Romney said everything 80% of the things Paul said you’d be slobbering over him. But instead of the 6’4″ guy with nice hair, good tan, Harvard degree and a “proper” family background, the message is by from a short, dorky guy with a whiny voice and annoying accent.

The medium is the message. And in this case the medium sucks.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM

I’ll give you that.

Fallon on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Face it people, had Romney said everything Paul said…

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM

He’d lose too…

Gohawgs on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

He’s right about the Fed. He might be right about these wars we are in. We don’t know what the world would be like if we hadn’t gone into Iraq so maybe he’s right. I don’t know.
But
Do you think the billion Muslims hate us because of what we have done to them? Do you think we have persecuted the poor Arabs?

Wasn’t that what he was saying at the last debate?

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

So you don’t think the Arab/Muslim hatred of America has anything to do with America’s foreign policy? You think Arabs/Muslims just one day woke up and collectively decided to change DEATH TO AMERICA for kicks?

I didn’t watch the last debate so I don’t know exactly what he said.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

OH NOES! Ron Paul= Hitler!!!111. on a serious note, this is quite a hyperbole, don’t you think?

cjv209 on December 30, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Oh yeah! Over the top high-jinx!
Nothing like these two getting together to share recipes on how to cook Jewish food.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Bull.

His position on the lengths that he is going to go to cut the military and his views on foreign policy are incompatible with a true Conservative. And before you even start with the NEOCON Horsesh1t, what entitlements has he said he’s going to cut?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

I can agree with Paul about there not being much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, especially Obama and Romney, but I can’t agree that Ron Paul is the answer.

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Paul may be getting ahead of himself:

New Poll confirms Santorum rising, Paul dropping
http://www.therightscoop.com/new-poll-confirms-santorum-rising-paul-dropping/

john.frank on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

So you don’t think the Arab/Muslim hatred of America has anything to do with America’s foreign policy?
angryed

1million + died in the Iran Iraq war waged by Saddam and the Ayatollahof Iran.

After 50 years of our imperial subjugation of the Arab lands /// we still haven’t come close to that #.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Gohawgs on December 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I’ve been reading your comments. You’re very direct. You’re also fair and even-handle with your comments. Don’t always agree, but your comments are always worth taking the time to read.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

I don’t even know who I’m leaning towards yet Cindy. I’m starting to not like our chances.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Which circle of Dante’s Inferno will we be in tonight?

SlaveDog on December 30, 2011 at 10:28 PM

I found this to be very funny. But he hasn’t shown up.

Dextrous on December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I’d love to see an interview that contentious on Fox News about any of the other candidates. How ridiculous. . .

thphilli on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM

So you don’t think the Arab/Muslim hatred of America has anything to do with America’s foreign policy? You think Arabs/Muslims just one day woke up and collectively decided to change DEATH TO AMERICA for kicks?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Thousands of Palestinians have demonstrated in Gaza for the last two days, chanting “War on Denmark, Death to Denmark,” according to Reuters and AP reports.

Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has handed out pamphlets in Gaza demanding Danes and Swedes leave. The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade faxed a warning to the Swedish Consulate in Jerusalem on Monday demanding that all Danes and Swedes depart Gaza and the West Bank “within 48 hours, or else.”

It appears that Swedes have been threatened with violence as a result of being Scandinavian, even though no Swedish publication has run the cartoon. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry has advised Norwegians not to travel to Gaza.

Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish taxpayers have donated tens of millions of dollars to the Palestinians in recent years.

Libya closed its embassy in Denmark and the Egyptian parliament demanded that its Government follow suit. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian governments called for explanations from their Danish ambassadors. President Lahoud of Lebanon condemned the cartoons, saying his country “cannot accept any insult to any religion”.

Denmark is not an ally of Israel and supplies it with no weapons.

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Bull.

His position on the lengths that he is going to go to cut the military and his views on foreign policy are incompatible with a true Conservative. And before you even start with the NEOCON Horsesh1t, what entitlements has he said he’s going to cut?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Chill dude. I’m not starting with anything neocon. My point is in politics as in all aspects of life, superficial perceptions matter. When someone that looks like Romney speaks, people give him the benefit of the doubt and listen. When someone that looks like Paul speaks people people ignore him. This has nothig to do with neocons or palecons or libertarians.

This has been well documented in psychology studies for decades. Beautiful people whether men or women command more respect than ugly people. Name the last president that was shorter than 5’11 feet tall….you’ll have to back about 100 years for that.

That’s not a coincidence.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Do you think the billion Muslims hate us because of what we have done to them? Do you think we have persecuted the poor Arabs?

Wasn’t that what he was saying at the last debate?

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

It’s his standard line. It might be the axis to use when trying to figure out Paul’s for/against crowds too; the degree of acceptance of the idea that military bases in the Middle East are causing the Jihad.

I don’t know. Just a thought.

Axe on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM

You think Arabs/Muslims just one day woke up and collectively decided to change DEATH TO AMERICA for kicks?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I think they bomb anyone who doesn’t submit to them. They’ve bombed their own cities and countries, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, UK, Spain, and a bunch of African countries.

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM

1million + died in the Iran Iraq war waged by Saddam and the Ayatollahof Iran.

After 50 years of our imperial subjugation of the Arab lands /// we still haven’t come close to that #.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Meaning what? If they kill each other it’s OK for us to kill them too?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

“‘Oh, I’d probably have trouble,’ Paul said to a question of supporting Gingrich’s candidacy, adding that he wouldn’t be able to support the nominee in general if the ‘policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party.’…

Why doesn’t the guy just come out and say that he isn’t a Republican. It would make everything so much simpler.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Doesn’t have a chance in hell

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

That may be the only place he does have a chance.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

That’s to liberal big-gov Democrats and Republicans that don’t respect the Constitution, hell is what this country is becoming.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM

That’s to = Thanks to…

FloatingRock on December 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM

I think the reason Paul is managing to maintain this level of support is due in part to the reactions people have whenever anyone expresses some degree of sympathy for his foreign policy views.

Personally, I don’t go as far as he does in his condemnation of our post-WWII foreign policy, but I do understand his objections to it. As both a Christian and a conservative, I am severely disappointed with many of the actions we have taken overseas. Of course, we have also done some wonderful things as well, especially in the humanitarian front. We are very good at helping out other nations that have been struck with natural disasters. Thing is, if you dare criticize or question our foreign policy of the last 50 or so years, you get labeled anti-American by foreign policy hawks. I imagine that at least some folks who have had this happen to them are turning to Paul because they feel they have nowhere else to go. I don’t think they really believe he will be the party’s nominee.

humili mente on December 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM

In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that _We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit._ Uh huh. Absolutely. Let the crazy old uncle say and believe what he wants to. But when we have that crazy old uncle turns out to be running for president of the most powerful nation on Earth, we do well to pay close attention to his every harebrained statement. This is especially important given the four years of damage we have perforce endured under the libtard godsend: Barack Hussein Obama.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Meaning what? If they kill each other it’s OK for us to kill them too?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I think it means the bases are not the cause of the Jihad.

Axe on December 30, 2011 at 11:09 PM

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I’m voting for Newt in the primary and anyone but Obama in the general and I hate our chances. Romney will get the nomination and he won’t say boo about Obama. What’s he going to attack him on? His healthcare mandate?

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I found this to be very funny. But he hasn’t shown up.

Dextrous on December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

He was in the Christie/Romney thread. Tried to sell me on Paul, and then tried to enlighten me on the true meaning and history of conservatism. Haven’t seen him since.

predator on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I think they bomb anyone who doesn’t submit to them. They’ve bombed their own cities and countries, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, UK, Spain, and a bunch of African countries.

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM

So following your logic wouldn’t they slowly work their way out attacking countries and not fly halfway around the world to attack us using our own planes?

thphilli on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I think they bomb anyone who doesn’t submit to them. They’ve bombed their own cities and countries, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, UK, Spain, and a bunch of African countries.

El_Terrible on December 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM

The African bombings were American embassies.
UK and Spain joined the US in the Iraq war.
India has been fighting Pakistan since 1947
Indonesia is a Muslim country.
Russia invaded Afghanistan

Why doesn’t Canada ever get bombed? Or Bolivia? or Argentina or Brazil or Mexico or New Zealand? Simple. None of those countries go and f**k with the Middle East.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or a third-party candidate

Of course! That’s because most of them are not conservative. If Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination, and doesn’t run third party, they’ll vote for Obama.

jaime on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens

If he makes one of the clauses ex-post-facto the Indians will be quite happy.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 11:11 PM

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:04 PM

That is not the direction I thought you were going with your comment. Excuse the curt “Bull” then. My apologizes.

To me your comment sounded like you were saying there was nothing wrong with Paul’s policies and that other candidate’s supporters would be ok with those positions if their candidates espoused them.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:11 PM

He wants the country to spend less money than it takes in. And he doesn’t want to bomb every country in the world. And he doesn’t believe that the Fed should be printing trillions of dollars to bail out banks with.

What a freakishly freaky liberal madman.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM

I agree with all that, except if one is unwilling, as he is, to call Iran out in the supporting of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and the killing of Americans everywhere, he is not a serious person. I understand as well his insistance that we get a Congressional declaration of war before committing troops and his opposition to the War Powers Act, but his reluctance to place blame where it needs to be placed and his statements that we invited the AQ attacks on 9-11 by our presence in the Middle East, is a bridge too far for me. He is beyond naive when he dismisses the obvious, that the jihadists want to kill us and all other “infidels”, and that comes not from our presence over there but from their beloved Qu’ran.

President Thomas Jefferson understood the problem, sending troops to Tripoli without a specific declaration of war to handle Muslim terrorists then. Paul loses me big time on his foreign policy idiocy.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Meaning what? If they kill each other it’s OK for us to kill them too?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Meaning that a Muslim in INdonesia should hate an Iranian more then an American by your logic.

But military adventures are not why they hate us.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Why doesn’t Canada ever get bombed? Or Bolivia? or Argentina or Brazil or Mexico or New Zealand? Simple. None of those countries go and f**k with the Middle East.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Canada has troops in Afghanistan, and Argentina did get bombed.

1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires
1994 AMIA bombing

How do you explain mighty Denmark being a target?

sharrukin on December 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Do you think the billion Muslims hate us because of what we have done to them? Do you think we have persecuted the poor Arabs?

Wasn’t that what he was saying at the last debate?

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

So you don’t think the Arab/Muslim hatred of America has anything to do with America’s foreign policy? You think Arabs/Muslims just one day woke up and collectively decided to change DEATH TO AMERICA for kicks?

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

So you don’t think Arab/Muslim hatred of the West period might not just stem from their ideology? A book that tells them to defeat, convert, kill, or enslave the infidels? Was the muslim conquest of the middle east centuries ago America’s fault because of our involvement and support for Jews? Did the creation of Andalusia and the Caliphate stem from the intervention of Americans in their foreign policy and attempting to keep the muslims poor? Is the current population invasion in Europe and Great Britain with their push now for sharia law courts America’s fault?

No, I don’t think the arabs/muslims just woke up one day and decided to chant “Death to America” for kicks; I think they’ve been working on “Death to non-muslims” since about the 9′th century. Europe and Great Britain managed to suppress their ability to wage their jihad for a while. However, in the late 20′th century with the decline of empire and reapportionment of the Middle East to the muslim imams and warlords, we once again face a re-vitalized and motivated population once again intent on spreading their faith by taquiya and jihad.

AZfederalist on December 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM

I don’t even know who I’m leaning towards yet Cindy. I’m starting to not like our chances.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Gee ya think we won’t do that well with such hatred of any non-Romney candidate by the Romney crowd? Romney’s people are acting like he’s winning 90% of the primary vote instead of 25%.

Read the venom from Romney people here towards anyone who dares question Romney. Good luck with the GOTV efforts in November when you treat a significant chunk of your base like dogshit.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I’m not able to vote in the primaries anymore. I’m just looking at who to start sending money to. After sinking a bunch into the Brown campaign, I’m not going to get burned again.

As far as the general, you know somewhere at all three big networks there are already exposes being put together on Paul’s newsletters. They’ll have a field day with them.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 11:15 PM

I think Ron Paul probably prefers Romney because Romney is so dovish.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

1million + died in the Iran Iraq war waged by Saddam and the Ayatollahof Iran.

After 50 years of our imperial subjugation of the Arab lands /// we still haven’t come close to that #.

BoxHead1 on December 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Are you high or something? You do realize we had our hands ALL over that war right? We were the direct cause of the Ayatollah even being in power after we set up the Shah as a dictator in Iran and he spent 20 years brutalizing his people. Then when they finally reacted and the Ayatollah came to power, we turned to Iraq and Saddam. We helped them fight the Iranians.

The fact that you use this as an example of how it can’t be our involvement is effing mind boggling. This is why Ron Paul can’t win, because people are stupid and don’t know their history. The Iran/Iraq was is a DIRECT result of our actions and we were DIRECTLY involved in the war. Mind boggling.

thphilli on December 30, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6