Paul: Gingrich a “chickenhawk”

posted at 10:00 am on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

At first, I wondered why Ron Paul would spend his morning after Iowa recycling Democratic demagoguery from two presidential cycles ago.  Then I remembered who was talking:

Ron Paul came out swinging Wednesday against Newt Gingrich for calling him a dangerous candidate, dubbing Gingrich a chickenhawk who avoided the Vietnam War.

“I don’t want to fight a war that’s unconstitutional and I’m the dangerous person? You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn’t even go,” Paul said on CNN later in the morning.

“So right now he sends these young kids over there to endure the danger, and the kids coming back, the young people coming back and the ones in the military right now, they overwhelmingly support my campaign. We get twice as much support from active military personnel than all the other candidates put together. So, Newt Gingrich has no business talking about danger because he is putting other people in danger. Some people call that kind of a program a chickenhawk and I think he falls into that category,” Paul said.

Like most of Paul’s arguments, this is an exercise is hyperventilation and contradiction.  First, Gingrich hasn’t sent any “young kids” anywhere; when Gingrich was last in office, it was before 9/11, and he was Speaker of the House, not President.  In fact, between the two of them, only Ron Paul has voted to send “young kids” to war, with his assenting vote on the 2001 AUMF regarding Afghanistan (a correct vote, by the way).  Second, c0ntrol of military policy properly belongs in the hands of elected civilian government, not the military itself.  This attack relies on a rather fascistic notion that only those who have been in uniform can make those decisions, which would invalidate the entire idea of free elections.  Gingrich didn’t break any laws in seeking and gaining those deferments, and it has little bearing on the wisdom of one’s national security policies, unless the presumption is that a flight surgeon from the 1960s has some special national-security insight that can’t be learned through study elsewhere.

However, that’s not the real message from Paul in this attack.  At a moment when he should be taking aim at one of the two front-runners, Paul is wasting time and effort getting personal and nasty with a man he beat by eight points and thousands of votes in yesterday’s caucuses.  That signals a sense of frustration, desperation, and a serious lack of focus from Paul.  Clearly the Paul campaign thought they would win in Iowa and make a case for national consideration; instead, they fell thousands of votes short of both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.  Paul could have easily shrugged off Gingrich as irrelevant, had he considered his finish last night a positive development.  Instead, with only a third-place showing and little hope of gaining any traction in the next couple of states, Paul will fade back to the fringe quickly enough.

Update: My friend David Freddoso reminds me that Gingrich voted for the AUMF for the first Gulf War in 1990, but that hardly negates the point above.  In terms of current conflicts, which have been the focus of Paul’s vehement campaigning, Gingrich didn’t cast a vote at all, and Paul voted for one of the two AUMFs in question.


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 4

Driving a windowless panel van around town with ‘Free Candy’ emblazoned on the sides will make you popular with the kids… but the kids don’t and/or can’t vote, Uncle Ron.

The blimp didn’t work last time, either.

Obviously, the kooky old guy needs to grow up.

SD Tom on January 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM

That’s OK. Just keep voting for big government politicians and we’ll be alright.

Notorious GOP on January 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Ron Paul will drop out after South Carolina and his Paul-nuts will convince him to go third-party. The liberal media will provide tons of free air time opining how wonderful he is with his anti-war isolationism, while failing to mention his disdain for Obama’s fiscal spending policies leading us to a nanny-state welfare community that Carter embraced. The liberal media will push Paul as much as they can to produce a 10-12% third party vote that will be the margin of victory for Obama. It will be important for the new online press to expose the liberal media of these motives—a battle all Conservatives will need to address going forward.

Rovin on January 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM

This is like saying that if you never had an abortion, you have no right to talk about it.

thebrokenrattle on January 4, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Judging by his unwillingness to wear his nation’s uniform, I would guess that Newt doesn’t have the fortitude to kill anything stronger than his marriage.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

You’ve really lost it.

Ward Cleaver on January 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM

We get twice as much support from active military personnel than all the other candidates put together.

I call complete and total rubbish. I want to see the numbers that back this statement up. Twice as much support? That could either mean twice as many military members supporting him, or twice as much money be contributed. Either way, he’s saying that if you take all six other candidates and combine the support they’ve received, and then double that, that’s what Ron Paul has received.

Absolutely impossible.

Shump on January 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Paul will fade back to the fringe quickly enough.

It had better not be a third party fringe.

The only reason he hangs around is that the media know he is disruptive to the GOP. This guy is a libertarian and should belong to that party. His running as a Republican is dishonest and self-serving.

And he’s impractical. (A snarky ad hominem would have been fun but I try to reserve those for lumberjack Moochele Obama.)

the_souse on January 4, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Ed, by your reasoning why did Gingrch aim his fire at Paul, who came in third?

Tater Salad on January 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Anyone who uses the word “chickenhawk” in political discussion is not entitled to be taken seriously.

Red Cloud on January 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

.
And then there is this:
Chicken Hawk:

A Gay term for an older man that constantly chases after younger men typically in their 20′s.

The heterosexual female equivalent is the Cougar.
.
We all remember, I hope, that the “teabagger” epithet emanated from the leftist ranks of gay-hating bigots posing as tolerant. Destroying one’s opponent through gay-bashing related behavior is quite the rage in authoritarian circles covens.

ExpressoBold on January 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I call complete and total rubbish. I want to see the numbers that back this statement up. Twice as much support? That could either mean twice as many military members supporting him, or twice as much money be contributed. Either way, he’s saying that if you take all six other candidates and combine the support they’ve received, and then double that, that’s what Ron Paul has received.

Absolutely impossible.

Shump on January 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I’m not a big Ron Paul fans, but…
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

Abby Adams on January 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Ed, by your reasoning why did Gingrch aim his fire at Paul, who came in third?

Tater Salad on January 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

At the time, Paul was in a virtual polling tie (and in some polls slightly ahead), and Paul was at least in front of Gingrich, not eight points back.

Ed Morrissey on January 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

“So right now he sends these young kids over there to endure the danger, and the kids coming back, the young people coming back and the ones in the military right now, they overwhelmingly support my campaign. We get twice as much support from active military personnel than all the other candidates put together.

A bald faced lie..

I want to see real numbers, real surveys, because there isn’t a frigging chance in Hell, the kids who volunteered to serve in combat units, believe in the Paul mantra that terrorists are no threat, and Iran will hand out kittens if we just gutted our military.

Paul may get the odd cook or clerk who picked a support job, but really, I refuse to believe Paul’s outrageous assertions, when he hasn’t backed them up once. Just take his word for it?

Paul can kiss my a*s, the men I knew and served with, would have laughed at this absurd little gnome and his hatred of Israel.

Times change, the warrior ethic does not.

Prove it or shut the Hell up Paul, your desperate grab at power is done.

What’s really galling, is so few Paul voters actually served themselves, making the chickenhawk smear terribly ironic. Wasn’t long ago a Paulite was here yelling chickenhawk, and was amazed so many of us were vets. No clue that conservatives are the core of militay service, 60 plus percent of serving troops admit to being conservative or having conservative views.. via Stars and Stripes..

Chickenhawk…. an ignorant view anyway, since the Constitution itself mandates civilian rule of the military…

are don’t you Paulites believe in following the Constitution?

Paul should have been slapped for his speech last night.. he’s not our champion, not our leader hero,.. he’s an obnoxious little stub of a human being… unworthy, unfit,.. and now..

a loser.

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:01 AM

That’s OK. Just keep voting for big government politicians and we’ll be alright.

Notorious GOP on January 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Gotta say, you’re following the playbook reasonably well, although your attempt at following #3 would have been better if you just called me a neo-con.

http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/paulbot-playbook/

Here’s a list of things you’re certain to find a Ron Paul supporter doing or saying at some time in your interaction with them. This will be added to at times.

1. They’ll tell you you’re ‘afraid’ of Ron Paul simply because you disagree with him.

2. If you run a simple blog, webpage or any other simple online content critical of Ron Paul, they’ll accuse you of being funded by the CIA or some corporation. They’ll say this despite the fact that your content looks very simplistic.

3. They’ll accuse you of being a neo-con.

4. They’ll accuse you of hating liberty, freedom and the constitution, simply because you disagree with Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

5. They’ll mimic your anti-Paul content, with a pro-Paul, passive aggressive, tone. For example if you have a Ron Paul Exposed Blog, they’ll make a Ron Paul Exposed Blog too. Only they’ll say things like, “See we’re exposing how Ron Paul likes that dumb thing called freedom.”

6. Even though you make it clear to them, that you don’t want to hear what they have to say, they’ll interpret that as a statement saying you want to hear what they have to say.

7. They act like the fate of freedom, liberty and civilization itself, rests in Paul’s placement in an online poll, straw poll, text in poll or the like. They will literally spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, recruiting people to go vote in said poll.

8. They will report any of your anti-Paul content online, to the owner of said site. For example, if you have a Facebook page with anti-Paul content, they’ll report it as abusive to Facebook. Yet they’ll maintain following anti-Obama, anti-Boehner, anti-Bachmann, anti-Franks, anti-Pelosi, anti-Bush pages, because there is NOTHING hypocritical about that.

9. Much like 8. They’ll rant about their love of freedom, liberty and speech, but if you even speak against Ron Paul, they’ll do everything in their power to take your anti-Paul speech and expression down.

10. They’ll harass anyone/page/site/blog/community online that is minding its own business, all the while touting how Ron Paul says we need a foreign policy where our nation doesn’t intervene and we mind our own business.

11. They’ll go to online content of their own free will, which is anti-Paul, then they’ll claim the owner of said content is harassing them. Even though the owner and followers of said content are minding their own business and not encouraging or actually going and bothering Paulbots.

12. They will literally spend hours/days/weeks/months conniving for ways to convince one person who comments in a negative way about Ron Paul, on some blog or news article.

13. They literally have no concept of thinking outside themselves. They have no ability to comprehend that others simply don’t think like they think.

14. If Paul finishes, say 4th in a poll or actual election at say 9% and he finishes ahead of someone like Gingrich, or Giuliani, they’ll act like this is a sign he actually won! Because he finished ahead of such popular people! All the while forgetting that three other people finished ahead of Paul, with much bigger poll/election results. To them 9% and fourth place, trumps 1st place at 40% or 2nd place at 33%. The 9% for Paul is a sign of a groundswell of support. The 40% the winner got means NOTHING! (Numbers given are just for figurative purposes. I think you get my point.)

15. Much like 14. They will act like a straw poll, text poll, online poll win is the real sign of victory. They act like raising $4 million in a day certainly shows Ron Paul is the next president. All the while ignoring actual, real world election results. You’ll hear them tout all the straw/text/online poll wins and money donations from 2008, but they’ll never mention he didn’t win a single primary. Hey why mention that, when you have more substantive things like online polls to tout?

16. After not winning a single primary, they will then go on and work for a write in campaign! Because we all know that if you don’t win a single primary, you will certainly get a majority of people to write your name on the ballot in a general election.

17. They’ll view their banning from an online forum/blog/website/whatever as being on the same level as our founding fathers who literally died as they fought for freedom.

18. They’ll play the insulting advocate. This is where they look like they’re insulting Ron Paul, but really it’s a passive aggressive, coy, sly statement that advocates for him.

19. They’ll claim you’re scared of Ron Paul, because you’re afraid of the truth.

20. They’ll call you a sheeple, if you don’t follow Ron Paul. Yet they have no problem getting together in large crowds and chanting Ron Paul together. They have no problem donating money, to the same guy, on the same day, all together. But yeah, if you don’t follow Ron Paul, then you’re the sheeple.

21. They’ll act like they supported someone else, then give their I came to Ron Paul testimony.

22. They’ll say they never heard of Ron Paul, until they saw you say/post something bad about him. But now that they read about him, due to your hate, now they are going to vote for him.

23. They’ll rant against the Huffington Post when there are anti-Paul articles, and they’ll call it a false source of information. But they’ll reference the Huffington Post if it backs up claims they love.

24. They’ll appeal to the fact that he delivered 4000 babies. As if this actually means anything.

25. They conflate Paul’s repeated appeals to the constitution and founding fathers, as actual evidence that he is constitutional and just like our founding fathers. They’ll act like our founding fathers would ONLY support Ron Paul.

26. They’ll come to a site critical of Ron Paul and act like they are an undecided type voter looking for facts. After looking at the facts, they’ll then act like the facts don’t exist, or they’ll down play the facts as unimportant, even though they scathe other candidates for the same things. I call this the sincere, undecided, seeker of information tactic.

27. After looking at said facts about Paul, they’ll try turning it on its head and say that the facts actually put Ron Paul in a positive light. This is actually similar to the tactic above where they mimic said content but use it to advocate for Paul. They’ll go so far as to say said facts make Paul look good, even when the facts clearly show Paul stands for a environment that would allow for states to have slaves again. If a page had a real photo of Ron Paul raping a baby, the Paulbot would say, “Well that puts Paul in a positive light. It just shows he wants to keep the child protective services busy.”

28. They’ll claim people follow the other candidates because the media puts thoughts in their mind and controls them. Almost as if people have no ability to make a choice! Yet if the media had this much power, wouldn’t it follow that the Paulbot making the claim, wouldn’t have the ability to choose Paul in the first place? Long story short, Paulbots can’t accept that the majority of people outright reject Paul, so they have to blame it on the media and the like.

29. Paulbots love to wear masks. You may see their avatar showing a Guy Fawkes mask or some kind of a chemical hazardous materials mask. Some of them even wear the mask in real life. Their love of the mask shows they love to emulate those founding fathers so much. Sure the founding fathers actually fought, put their lives on the line and lost blood, but the Paulbot feels like the moral equivalent because they quote those brave men while hiding behind a computer and or a mask. (Oh and Paulbots, before you go calling me a nameless, faceless coward, hiding behind a blog, keep in mind, I’m not making any claims to being the moral equivalent of the founding fathers. I am a coward behind a blog. I admit it. Unlike you!)

30. Shawshank redemption words. They love to use difficult sounding words, that sound like they may have been used in the movie Shawshank Redemption. Chances are if you see them using words that sound big, they saw them in a movie. They might say you’re a Luddite or myopic, or hey, you name it!

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I love Hot Air. But I also love the thing that Ron Paul stands for… why can’t you just tone down the anti-Paul rhetoric? You disagree with him on several issues, got it. But you disagree with every candidate on several issues and you don’t get this vile with them.

therambler on January 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If you ask me, there’s been a remarkable amount of restraint shown where Ron Paul and his supporters are concerned. Back when conservative leaders actually had a semblance of political courage and personal integrity, Bill Buckley publicly disavowed the Birchers and called them out for their blatant antisemitism, extremism, and paranoia.

So now, decades later with Buckley cooling in the grave, here you are again–same antisemitism, same paranoid conspiracy theories, same racist associates and associations–only now you call yourselves libertarians.

You can’t possibly imagine how ‘vile’ I’d like to be with Ron Paul true believers and their Stormfront pals–or how disgusted I am with GOP leadership for not banishing that drooling bigot and his equally demented followers to the darkness of the fringe where they belong. Ron Paul is no conservative, and neither is he a Republican. He wears the Republican brand solely for the sake of political expediency, in an attempt to give his lunatic views the veneer of mainstream respectability.

If Romney wants to be considered a leader, let him take a stand for once, and speak out publicly and call out Paul for what he is.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Abby Adams on January 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM

No one disputes that Paul’s supporters are more dedicated than most. But the amount of money donated is not the key-a couple of big donors can easily skew the comparison. It is the number of men and women in uniform that support Paul enough to donate money that would prove your point, and the numbers just don’t bear out your claim.

Paul’s support of the traitor Manning and his lack of support for taking out Bin Laden put Ron Paul at odds with 90% or more of those in uniform today, and Paul’s supporters are just fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I think last night was a victory for Paul. Coming in third is better for him because if he came in first the smear machines would be going strong, and he ends up with just the same number as delegates as Romney and Santorum (7 each).

Santorum is a flash in the pan, used to block a victory for Paul. Once people find out he is not a conservative, he will nose dive down. I think the whole santorum surge smells…funny. Did they pay people to vote for him or something? He is not qualified to be president and will lose to Obama, but then that is what conservatives seem to want to do…lose.

Continuing to bash Paul and his supporters is really really stupid. I guess conservatives think they can win the presidency without independents, youth, and moderates. Hmmm, seems to me the current potus did just that (won, I mean), but no, conservatives are too good to play that game, they would rather lose.

The continued bashing and unfair treatment and slimy smears against Paul at the conservative websites is so counterproductive that I am starting to think that is is really a bunch of Romneybots going around making these comments. At least I like to think it is not normal conservatives acting so stupid.

Puma for Life on January 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Also that since the donor form lets any schmo enter whatever he likes as his employer, with no enforcement mechanism at all, Ronulans are free to put in whatever they want with no repurcussions at all.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I’m not a big Ron Paul fans, but…
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

Abby Adams on January 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

My husband and brother-in-law are former Military(USMC and USN respectively) and I know plenty of veterans and current military.
NONE of them support the Ronulan.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Paul was drafted after medical school and his internship into the USAF as a doctor with the rank of Captain. He never says it, but it is highly likely that he also received college deferments while he was an undergrad and med student.

College deferments were commonplace at the time that Gingrich was a student. He did nothing wrong.

Reno_Dave on January 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

My father went to medical school during WWII, from 1942 to May 1945. He received a deferment, but he also had no summer vacation from his studies. His older brother received a deferment because of his advanced degree in refrigeration, which the military needed for the home front. Their little brother was the one that was finally drafted and sent to the South Pacific and was staged for the invasion of Japan. To this day, he says that those two bombs saved his life.

SC.Charlie on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Judging by his unwillingness to wear his nation’s uniform, I would guess that Newt doesn’t have the fortitude to kill anything stronger than his marriage.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

That’s about like almost every paulbot.
I’ve never seen so many azzclowns who are unwilling to serve their country gathered under one banner…ever.
And they all cast aspersions on everyone else’s patriotism – even those of us who have served.

The hypocrisy is strong in that mob.

Solaratov on January 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM

G M on January 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Not seeing any pics there of anyone wearing a German uniform.

So I’ll take that as: “Yes, JohnGalt23, I was merely talking out of my rectum. As usual.”

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

My husband and brother-in-law are former Military(USMC and USN respectively) and I know plenty of veterans and current military.
NONE of them support the Ronulan.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And I bet you can’t believe that Obama won, because nobody you knew voted for him.

Once again, perhaps you’d like to provide a link to something that can refute Politifact’s findings?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Ron Paul smears himself with his own words and affiliations which are fair game. He attacks his opponents but gets his feathers ruffled when asked a simple question about a topic he doesnt want to discuss. While I agree with him in principle on some issues I disagree with him on alot more. Where is there any eveidence there is anything fishy about Rick Santorum? He went out and did the hard legwork in Iowa and had a good showing for it. We are in a process and the candidates can speak for themselves in interviews and debates during the primary process. I think most republicans are smart enough to figure out who they support. Thats what the primary process is about. I do think Gingrich and Paul are both coming across as petty and whiny thats my opinion.

ldbgcoleman on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Have you considered this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/04/gingrich-why-yes-id-team-up-with-santorum-to-take-down-romney/

Bmore on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Back when conservative leaders actually had a semblance of political courage and personal integrity, Bill Buckley publicly disavowed the Birchers and called them out for their blatant antisemitism, extremism, and paranoia.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Is that the same Bill Buckley who, in 1988, had Ron Paul on his Firing Line program for an entire hour?

That Bill Buckley?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Bad night for the Ronulans.

What? Dude came second, didn’t he?

Reaps on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Paul’s support of the traitor Manning and his lack of support for taking out Bin Laden put Ron Paul at odds with 90% or more of those in uniform today, and Paul’s supporters are just fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

90% huh? You have polling data to back that up? Or are you merely engaging in Rectal-speak?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I’m not a big Ron Paul fans, but…
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

Abby Adams on January 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Campaign contributions from military personnel aren’t a sign of support from the military at large, but an example of the fanaticism of his supporters. Considering that service members make a paltry amount of money, only the most diehard of supporters will cut a check for $200 or more for a candidate.

From my personal experience, I have found most service members are relatively ambivalent when it comes to politics. The majority of men and women in uniform consider themselves to be above the fray on political matters. Much like most VSOs, they dont support one candidate over another. You never know who your next boss will be.

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Update: My friend David Freddoso reminds me that Gingrich voted for the AUMF for the first Gulf War in 1990, but that hardly negates the point above.  In terms of current conflicts, which have been the focus of Paul’s vehement campaigning, Gingrich didn’t cast a vote at all, and Paul voted for one of the two AUMFs in question.

This is intellectual dishonesty. Paul is against all unconstitutional wars, and the current Iraq war is an extension of the 1990 conflict. Paul voted to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, and he also served in the military. Your zeal to attack Paul leaves you blind to the truth.

Dante on January 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Next, we turned to the presidential candidates’ latest campaign finance filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission, which breaks out donations by donors’ employers. In an interview, commission spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger told us the agency makes sure that each report complies with a federal law requiring candidates to list the occupation of each donor of $200 or more.

Unmentioned is the fact that the committees only have to make a “best effort” to collect employment data. Or to walk you through it:

By law, every campaign has to file a quarterly report with the FEC with respect to financing. These reports list donations received and expenditures made. These reports are public information which you can find here (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/).

Now the first thing that hits you is: “Lyndon LaRouche’s campaign is still sending up reports?!” I know, right?

That aside, let’s look at Paul’s October 2011 report (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q3/C00495820.html) If you click on “Contributions by Employer” you’ll see a list of all donations sorted by the donor’s employer. And yes, it certainly does seem that there’s a fair amount coming from military folks (my quick scan came up with about $35k, your mileage may vary).

But now there’s the details, and we’ll start with the axiom that, whenever a poll or data point can be manipulated, Ron Paul followers will manipulate it (http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/the-myth-that-more-military-donate-to-ron-paul-than-any-other-candidate/)

First, there’s the law. When one makes a donation, the law requires the campaign to collect (as opposed to verify) employment data from the donor where the donation exceeds $200. (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#info) In practice, campaigns usually try to collect this information from all donors because the $200 limit is cumulative. The campaign can’t get around the requirement for donors who make a number of small donations.

However, and it’s important to note this, that the standard for the information is that the campaign has to do its best to collect the information. What does not happen is the campaign actually verifying all of this, and in fact there is no legal penalty for a donor to, well, lie when asked. In other words, any schmo can give Ron Paul $50 and say he is in the military when in reality the military he’s talking about is located in Call of Duty on his Xbox.

Indeed, check out some of the other employers listed in Paul’s report: “The Lord” (That must be some W-2!), “Business” (that’s a little vague!), “Thanks Obama!” (you’re welcome?), and my favorite, “The Man.” Obviously we’re dealing with some very shaky data here, certainly too shaky to make a broad statement about how Paul has strong military support. The better explanation is, with a campaign that has been historically fond of attempts to stack straw polls, flood internet polls, bombard websites, and so on (I seem to recall an effort by Paul supporters to game the Missouri primary and steal McCain’s delegates, resulting in those supporters being banned from the primary/nomination process), donors are being less than honest about their actual employment.

But there’s another check. If Paul had such overwhelming military support, it stands to reason that he’d mop up in elections where there is a heavy military presence. In 2008 Paul was still running when Texas (his home state) had its primary. Statewide Paul lost the primary to McCain (who received 51%) and Huckabee (who received 38%). In fact, Paul only received 5% of the primary vote, and no delegates, in his home state. But more illuminating is the county breakdown. (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html) Let’s look at Bell County.

Bell County is home of Fort Hood, one of the largest US military bases in the world. In that contest, 17,800 people voted with McCain receiving 58%, Huckabee 32%, and Paul 4%. If Paul had such rabid support from the military, why such a lousy showing in a county that has one of the largest military populations in the US? Moreover, why such lousy results in similar counties across the US?

Because a state primary isn’t as easy to game as a donor report with no verification mechanism.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

At the time, Paul was in a virtual polling tie (and in some polls slightly ahead), and Paul was at least in front of Gingrich, not eight points back.

Ed Morrissey on January 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Ed, who do you think is going to be Paul’s biggest competition in NH?

Rick Santorum?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Romney/Santorum 2012?

Bmore on January 4, 2012

Then welcome four more years of misery and global embarrassment.
It won’t even be close.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM

That Bill Buckley?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Yes, that Bill Buckley. Did Buckley know Paul was writing racist newsletters? Did Bill Buckley know Paul thought David Duke was a fine, upstanding young man who was ‘going places’? Buckley never claimed omnscience. If he knew what I know, he would’ve brought it up.

And speaking of chickenhawks and other, sundry varieties of abject cowardice and craven behavior, I’ve got your number, tough guy. Bold talk from an anonymous twit. Me, I use my real name on here. You or yours feel froggy, leap.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Kook, through and through. MB and Cain dropped out and this nutjob is still in it and a contender. Never mind the war, we are lost.

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Puma for Life on January 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Convince Conservatives that if Ron Paul is not chosen to lead the Republican Party, that he will not seek a third party position, and I will be the first to rebuke the “continued bashing and unfair treatment and slimy smears against Paul”.

Until Ron Paul makes this promise, (and keeps it), the man is a threat to everyone’s single purpose—unseating the current resident in the White House.

Rovin on January 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM

My husband and brother-in-law are former Military(USMC and USN respectively) and I know plenty of veterans and current military.
NONE of them support the Ronulan.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And I bet you can’t believe that Obama won, because nobody you knew voted for him.

Once again, perhaps you’d like to provide a link to something that can refute Politifact’s findings?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Galt,… are you this much an ass on purpose?..

The politifact article, asked Paul’s people, and used Paul’s numbers submitted to the FCC.. Paul’s numbers.. no one else’s.

and Politifact props up a useful nutjob to wreck havoc in the reblican base. What a shock..

I’m an Air Force vet,.. and I’d spit on a Paul presidency, which, thank God, will never happen. How many of you Paulites are vets?

how many?

you broadbrush claim huge support in the military, yet leave out, that the numberts of troops who will send money to a politician is miniscule compared to the number serving. I wouldn’t have,… and never knew a guy who would.

So he (even if true) collects more than Obama, or the others, when only a fraction would bother donating to begin with.. 25,000 in a month? out of how many serving? out of how many civilian employees? and how many Paulnuts just listing the military as an employer, because the Stormfront a-holes told them to to skew the numbers?

it’s an unprovable claim, which you cultists revel in, even though most of you were too gutless to serve yourselves.

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Agreed. We are completely lost.

ORconservative on January 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Me, I use my real name on here. You or yours feel froggy, leap.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

With a name like that, you really should consider a pseudonym.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

With a name like that, you really should consider a pseudonym.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

None too bright, are you? Or brave, either. Parents related?

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

At first, I wondered why Ron Paul would spend his morning after Iowa recycling Democratic demagoguery from two presidential cycles ago. Then I remembered who was talking:

Wow, Ed, aren’t you one to talk about oldness of attacks—after all, you are the expert; you keep bringing up attacks against Ron Paul (in particular, the notorious passages in his newsletters) from last century.

novakyu on January 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM

90% huh? You have polling data to back that up? Or are you merely engaging in Rectal-speak?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

No poll numbers, just anecdotal evidence from serving in an infantry unit and the CIB that I wear.

By the way, it looks like Paul has one less military supporter this morning-or at least one less military donor after the Article 15 takes half his pay for three months;

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/soldier-cut-off-by-cnn-invited-to-speak-by-ron-paul-jan-3-2012/

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

why can’t you just tone down the anti-Paul rhetoric? You disagree with him on several issues, got it. But you disagree with every candidate on several issues and you don’t get this vile with them.

therambler on January 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Because the other candidates whom we dislike in one way or another are not lying, racist, anti-semitic hypocrites – not to mention isolationists who would ignore danger to America – who are using our electoral system to fatten their own retirement account.
And doing it without caring that their destructive obsession with fame and fortune may aid obama in his run for a second term; and the destruction of America.

Solaratov on January 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Me, I use my real name on here. You or yours feel froggy, leap.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

With a name like that, you really should consider a pseudonym.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I use my name, and AFSC number, but I like Troyriser, a pretty cool, uncommon name. Mark Edwards, is like John Smith… so many of us, I wish I had a name like his.

Using a name like Galt is so much projection,.. I’d pick John Wayne,.. at least he loved all of America, not just the white nonJewish parts like so many Paulites. Galt also says you’re telling us your politics up front,.. not the best icebreaker,

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

therambler on January 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If memory serves, the folks here didn’t like Cain much either.

Bmore on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

It’s amazing to me that the GOP hates a guy who’s exactly the opposite of Obama in almost every way.

Notorious GOP on January 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM

They’re more alike than you think. They’re both racists, they both hate the Jews and they’d both like to get rid of the military. Oh yeah, I almost forgot…they’re both good buds with Cynthia McKinney. There’s lots of common ground between the two.

ReaganWasRight on January 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Ron Paul lost because of the Build-a-Bear group and the Illuminati!!! i knwo this becuase I saw a triangle somewhere during the election coverage!!!!

/Paulnut

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Using a name like Galt is so much projection,.. I’d pick John Wayne,.. at least he loved all of America, not just the white nonJewish parts like so many Paulites. Galt also says you’re telling us your politics up front,.. not the best icebreaker,

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Sorry, but I’ve been using it across the ‘net since 1996. I’m not prepared to abandon it, just because you have a problem with Ayn Rand.

And the Jewish parts of America rock. Where else can I get a decent knish? It’s the Jewish parts of Israel… or more to the point, the not-exclusively-Jewish socialist government in Tel Aviv laying claim on my tax dollars part of Israel… that I have a problem with.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM

…it’s an unprovable claim, which you cultists revel in, even though most of you were too gutless to serve yourselves.

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Well said. You saved me the trouble of debunking this lie.

I’m not surprised to see Ron Paul using this lie himself, as his supporters have been promoting it at least since 2008.

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Still waiting for someone to post a Ron Paul accomplishment.

(On another thread Logboy mentioned Paul’s billions in pork for his own district. There’s also his 9/11 trutherism, racist back story, antisemitic back story, his distortions of conservatives’ policies, his ineffectiveness in congress. Let’s put those aside for the moment.)

What are Ron Paul’s accomplishments?

shinty on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/soldier-cut-off-by-cnn-invited-to-speak-by-ron-paul-jan-3-2012/

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Paul a sitting Congressman, doesn’t know that active duty military are forbidden to engage in political activities or give political statements by articles of the UCMJ?

Paul’s an idiot.

It’s so the military won’t be screwed by certain soldiers acting as if they speak for the military, when they do not. They speak for themselves only. It’s destructive to civilian rule of the services to allow active duty personel to make desparaging statements about any of the civilian leadership, and destroy the trust the public has that the military is nonpartisan.

Congratulations Paul, you moron, for attempting to imply the entire military stands by you.. You just enduced that moron to commit a violation of the UCMJ, all for YOUR own benefit.

what a scumbag..

Hell I enlisted in Carter’s last year, and as much as we hated him, we did not speak to reporters, or campaign for his opponents.

Just when you thought Paul couldn’t be any lower a lifeform, he attempts to undermine the Constitutional mandate on civilian rule.. just so he can scrape up a few more votes…

Paul aside from being an idiot,..

Doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution, just the parts he can use to benefit himself, the rest he displays complete ignorance of.

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 12:05 PM

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Just so we’re clear… you have no evidence to refute Politifact’s findings. You only can claim that their findings are unprovable.

Do I have that about right?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

What are Ron Paul’s accomplishments?

shinty on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

As far as I’ve seen from his supporters, he talks about ‘liberty and freedom’ and it’s a positive that he has not been able to pass any bill, while in congress, even though he would have had to in order to “rein in big government.”

The closest he has come to accomplishing anything was his “audit the fed” bill, which he got numerous sponsors for, but still went down in flames.

Why we’re supposed to believe he would get any of his screwy ideas through our Congress is beyond my understanding, but then, so is the mindset of Paultards. Several of us have asked them how RP would keep his promise to cut over a trillion from the budget, and the only response we’ve gotten was that he would veto the budget bills. When asked what Paul would do if/when the congress over-rides his vetoes, they are mute.

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Just so we’re clear… you have no evidence to refute Politifact’s findings. You only can claim that their findings are unprovable.

Do I have that about right?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Confirmation bias much?

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

What are Ron Paul’s accomplishments?

shinty on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Hmmmm.

Served honorably in the US Armed Forces.

Successful OB/GYN practice, which delivered 4000 babies.

Author of at least one NYT #1 best-selling non-fiction book, with multiple appearances on the top ten list.

Elected to Congress twelve times. Serves as Chair of an important sub-Committeee.

Raised five successful children, one of whom now sits in the US Senate.

Frankly, I’d say, compared to much of the rest of the field… life well lived!!

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Just so we’re clear… you have no evidence to refute Politifact’s findings. You only can claim that their findings are unprovable.

Do I have that about right?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Um. No. Politifacts finding are not provable. That is a fact. They have no legitimate evidence for their claims. The statistics that they site are from a very small number of donors, who donate over 200 dollars. All donations are not taken into account, not to mention that the criteria for “military support” is anyone who has any connection whatsoever with the department of defense. They are manipulating statistics in a disgusting way to make it APPEAR that Paul has more “support” from military personnel.

Keep in mind that these are the statistics that they were citing in 2008

The center tallied money from donors who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer. Overall, these donations are miniscule: Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.

In many “reports” they simply left out the fact that Obama got more than Paul, and focused on Republicans to make their idiotic claim.

But by all means keep pushing this completely unsupportable assertion.

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

We are witnessing Newt’s strength and his achilles heel in action.

Newt can dissect an opponent and cut him deeply with magnificent rhetoric. That seems good until Newt uses it on someone whom he needs to be a friend. And observers of that skill also wonder if they will be safe around Newt.

Still, the most boring and bland cardboard man may not be a wise choice to beat Comrade Obama, who has a presence and a smile that draws voters. Being above it all is not that good of strategy in a fight where the media are dedicated to destroying you.

jimw on January 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

anyway,.. Paul’s done.. he serves no purpose now, other than to be a constant attack machine of the republican candidates so he can get face time on TV. He says he’s running against Obama..

he’s not.

He’s so egomanical he doesn’t care if he single handledly causes Obama to squeek by.. he’s about Paul, and Paul’s books, and Paul’s gold deposits, and Paul’s asset holdings..

You Paulbots are just an atm machine for him now, hows it feel?

He’s playing you all, and taking your money,.. and like his entire Congressional career, you’ll have squat to show for it… but take heart..

We’ll win without you, and fix the country while you all run home to horde canned goods. We will recover, and the Constitution will survive, and continue to be a basis of arguments for more generations. We’ll recover, and Paul, will barely be worth a footnote. oh yeah,…. he was that old geek who tried to wreck the 2012 recovery… didn’t he move to the Bahamas to join his money?….

yeah,.. that guy….

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Hmmmm.

Served honorably in the US Armed Forces.

Successful OB/GYN practice, which delivered 4000 babies.

Author of at least one NYT #1 best-selling non-fiction book, with multiple appearances on the top ten list.

Elected to Congress twelve times. Serves as Chair of an important sub-Committeee.

Raised five successful children, one of whom now sits in the US Senate.

Frankly, I’d say, compared to much of the rest of the field… life well lived!!

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

We’re talking about political accomplishments. Disingenuous much? What has he accomplished in Congress that is positive? Why should I vote for him?

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

What’s more annoying? People who refer to Ron Paul as ‘Dr’ or the ‘Herr Doktor’ folks?

Notorious GOP on January 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

That’s easy.

“Dr.”

That’s how the Ronulans themselves often refer to him, and it’s damn near impossible to get much more annoying than your average Ronulan.

Thanks for asking.

VelvetElvis on January 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Just so we’re clear… you have no evidence to refute Politifact’s findings. You only can claim that their findings are unprovable.

Do I have that about right?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

You can’t read Politifacts finding, and not see the glaring holes in it.. unless you’re so blinded by your mancrush, you refuse to see the obvious.

all the numbers come from Paul,..

you would reject any other politicians wild claims based on that alone, but refuse to, that’s the worst kind of sophistry. Yes, I refute Paul’s claims you clown,. because he has not proven them.

try. again, really, slow,

all, the, numbers, come, from, a, grandstanding, twobit, liar, of, a, crackpot, politician, with, zero, evidence, to support, his, claim. Politifact, is,a, leftwing, hack, factory, which, wants, to, spread, chaos, in, the, republican, race.

you are thick aren’t you galt?

and blind as all Hell to the sorry assed truth about your savior.

sigh,.. saying it’s true, without a coroberating source, makes the claim suspect..

unless you’re a Paulbot.

The conspiracists answer to everything, no proof, is proof, and they’ll hang on that till they die. You waste my time galt..

Prove his numbers true with an unbiased second source where Paul does not supply the numbers, or just admit the obvious..

you have no proof of his claim.

Do I have that about right?

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Last night, Paul assisted a member of the military in committing a serious violation of military regulations-that shows a serious disconnect for a man who preaches a strict adherence to the rule of law.

But what I want to know is why did CNN (apparently) edit the video to cover up the US flag and combat patch the soldier was wearing?

thuljunior on January 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Judging by his unwillingness to wear his nation’s uniform, I would guess that Newt doesn’t have the fortitude to kill anything stronger than his marriage.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

We have a winner! end thread/

rndmusrnm on January 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

mark81150 on January 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

So, I’ll take that windy screed as: “No, I have no evidence to disprove Politifact’s claim”.

Which is about what I thought.

And no, I can’t prove their claim any further than they already have.

I don’t need to. It’s already out in the public arena. I can cite it in any number of news sources, that other news sources take very seriously.

In short, it’s in the newspapers… it must be true.

Feel free to construct an argument that counters it, and then get that pushed into news sources. I’m sure at that point, the public will take such a claim seriously. Until that point, I’ll take your argument for the whining that it is.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Ron Paul supporters are sincere. They are also in serious trouble and don’t even know it.

When you feel that you are the superior ones gifted with strong insight that reasonable men reject out of being duped, then you are cut off from tested ideas and stuck inside a Cult that is using you, and is very analogous to Scientology.

It has happened to others before, and it will happen again, but save yourselves and your innocent children’s minds. Get the hell out of anything Ron Paul touches.

jimw on January 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM

So, I’ll take that windy screed as: “No, I have no evidence to disprove Politifact’s claim”.

Which is about what I thought.

And no, I can’t prove their claim any further than they already have.

I don’t need to. It’s already out in the public arena. I can cite it in any number of news sources, that other news sources take very seriously.

In short, it’s in the newspapers… it must be true.

Feel free to construct an argument that counters it, and then get that pushed into news sources. I’m sure at that point, the public will take such a claim seriously. Until that point, I’ll take your argument for the whining that it is.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Willful ignorance strikes again. It’s been refuted several times in this very thread. You holding your ears screaming LALALALA combined with moving the goalposts doesn’t change the fact that it’s at best an unverifiable claim, but most likely an outright fraudulent one.

Fail. You’re not even doing that great of a job of following the playbook. Double fail.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

And the Jewish parts of America rock. Where else can I get a decent knish? It’s the Jewish parts of Israel… or more to the point, the not-exclusively-Jewish socialist government in Tel Aviv laying claim on my tax dollars part of Israel… that I have a problem with.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And now you show your true cluelessness. Like so many other anti-semitic Americans. Israel receives so called help, and as you keep referring to it your “tax dollars”, which immediately comes back to USA to pay for american jobs (military equipment). On top of that, USA benefits from military research Israel does, think drones that do so much damage these days around the world without sacrificing USA military lives. How much is that research worth and how much would it cost locally? Then you need to understand that if this so called “help”, or tax dollars of yours, are not going to Israel (and then pays for american jobs), Israel will be more than happy to sell their military technology to a long list of eager buyers. A few years ago Israel had to cancel a sales contract with China upon USA’s demand to do so, they lost $300M as penalty for cancellation. Do you recall us repaying Israel those $300M? I thought so. Selective memory droll, like your Paul leader.

You and your anti-semitic idiot brothers, who support Paul, should really bone up on reading comprehension before you open your mouth to spout out stupidity after stupidity. That is if you can even read. As someone already pointed out to you, you ARE a coward no matter what you think of yourself. Same as your idiot “hero” Paul. Ayn Rand is turning in her grave with morons like you claiming her legacy.

Unreal.

riddick on January 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Amusing those (Paultards) who’ve been wailing and gnashing their teeth calling American service members baby killers, murderers and fascists (amongst other things) now attempt to hide behind the uniform.

catmman on January 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

The very idea that Ron Paul should be taken seriously on anything national security/military-related should have been buried after the last debate, with his stunningly irresponsible position on Iran.

If you saw that debate, and those remarks in particular, that should have been more than enough- forget about all the kooky conspiracy theories and racist newsletters- to disqualify Paul from consideration. Anyone who persists in backing Paul is either entirely ignorant and misinformed or consciously trying to get Obama re-elected.

Publius 2.0 on January 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Hmmmmmm…let me see if I have this straight:

You need Moderates and Independents to win a presidential election.

Which candidate won that voting block by 8 to 1 last night?

Hint: It wasn’t Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.

People are waking up, Ed.

Get used to it.

bmowell on January 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM

And now you show your true cluelessness. Like so many other anti-semitic Americans. Israel receives so called help, and as you keep referring to it your “tax dollars”, which immediately comes back to USA to pay for american jobs (military equipment). On top of that, USA benefits from military research Israel does, think drones that do so much damage these days around the world without sacrificing USA military lives. How much is that research worth and how much would it cost locally? Then you need to understand that if this so called “help”, or tax dollars of yours, are not going to Israel (and then pays for american jobs), Israel will be more than happy to sell their military technology to a long list of eager buyers. A few years ago Israel had to cancel a sales contract with China upon USA’s demand to do so, they lost $300M as penalty for cancellation. Do you recall us repaying Israel those $300M? I thought so. Selective memory droll, like your Paul leader.

You and your anti-semitic idiot brothers, who support Paul, should really bone up on reading comprehension before you open your mouth to spout out stupidity after stupidity. That is if you can even read. As someone already pointed out to you, you ARE a coward no matter what you think of yourself. Same as your idiot “hero” Paul. Ayn Rand is turning in her grave with morons like you claiming her legacy.

Unreal.

riddick on January 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

You sound like Paul Krugman with his comical Broken Window Theory. So let me get this straight. We need to send foreign aid to Israel so Israel signs contracts with our defense contractors, who in turn provide jobs for Americans. Fascinating rationale, which is purely Keynesian of course.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Anyone who persists in backing Paul is either entirely ignorant and misinformed or consciously trying to get Obama re-elected.

Publius 2.0 on January 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Directly the opposite. You are letting people like Ed form your opinion for you. Start doing some independent research.

bmowell on January 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I get it; Ron Paul lost in Iowa and you’re mad enough to spit…

Oracleforhire on January 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Directly the opposite. You are letting people like Ed form your opinion for you. Start doing some independent research.

bmowell on January 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

#28

They’ll claim people follow the other candidates because the media puts thoughts in their mind and controls them. Almost as if people have no ability to make a choice! Yet if the media had this much power, wouldn’t it follow that the Paulbot making the claim, wouldn’t have the ability to choose Paul in the first place? Long story short, Paulbots can’t accept that the majority of people outright reject Paul, so they have to blame it on the media and the like.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

#28

They’ll claim people follow the other candidates because the media puts thoughts in their mind and controls them. Almost as if people have no ability to make a choice! Yet if the media had this much power, wouldn’t it follow that the Paulbot making the claim, wouldn’t have the ability to choose Paul in the first place? Long story short, Paulbots can’t accept that the majority of people outright reject Paul, so they have to blame it on the media and the like.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Take Paul out of the equation. Why do the American people keep electing the same cast of characters for years? Did it ever dawn on you? Is it a coincidence? One hell of a coincidence.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Why do the American people keep electing the same cast of characters for years? Did it ever dawn on you? Is it a coincidence? One hell of a coincidence.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

How long has Herr Doktor been in Congress?

catmman on January 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Take Paul out of the equation. Why do the American people keep electing the same cast of characters for years? Did it ever dawn on you? Is it a coincidence? One hell of a coincidence.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

13. They literally have no concept of thinking outside themselves. They have no ability to comprehend that others simply don’t think like they think.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Last night, Paul assisted a member of the military in committing a serious violation of military regulations-that shows a serious disconnect for a man who preaches a strict adherence to the rule of law.

That seems consistent for Paul considering his statements supporting the oath-breaker and accused traitor Bradley Manning.

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Chickenhawk is slang for men who want to date/rape/molest, underage children.

contrarytopopularbelief on January 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

13. They literally have no concept of thinking outside themselves. They have no ability to comprehend that others simply don’t think like they think.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM

You didn’t answer the question. Why does nothing ever really change, despite the fantastical battles which take place between the despicable democrats and the righteous republicans? I can’t seem to place my finger on it. Why did we keeping moving left towards state control when the Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency. I simply can’t explain it. How can an entire party drift so wayward on the actual application of the principles it supposedly espouses? But I forgot. I wear tinfoil on my head and simply am incapable of understanding my fellow man since I’m caught up in a hopeless myopic rut of self-gratification. What I’ve observed first hand and ultimately concluded is irrelevant.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Take Paul out of the equation. Why do the American people keep electing the same cast of characters for years? Did it ever dawn on you? Is it a coincidence? One hell of a coincidence.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

As every Agent of the Illuminati knows, there are no coincidences. Grassy knoll? Never been there. Area 51? Never heard of it. Socrates, Aristotle? Morons.

Care for a nice tall glass of cool, refreshing, fluoridated water? Oh, and yeah: please ignore the incessant buzzing of the black helicopters. If you ignore them, they go away. Trust me.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

But I forgot. I wear tinfoil on my head and simply am incapable of understanding my fellow man since I’m caught up in a hopeless myopic rut of self-gratification. What I’ve observed first hand and ultimately concluded is irrelevant.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

This.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

What has he accomplished in Congress that is positive? Why should I vote for him?

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

What have any of the candidates accomplished in Congress that is positive? Here’s a better way to look at it. How many of the candidates helped pass bills that expand government? How many of those bills did Paul oppose?

EddieC on January 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

4. They’ll accuse you of hating liberty, freedom and the constitution, simply because you disagree with Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

13. They literally have no concept of thinking outside themselves. They have no ability to comprehend that others simply don’t think like they think.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM

As every Agent of the Illuminati knows, there are no coincidences. Grassy knoll? Never been there. Area 51? Never heard of it. Socrates, Aristotle? Morons.

Care for a nice tall glass of cool, refreshing, fluoridated water? Oh, and yeah: please ignore the incessant buzzing of the black helicopters. If you ignore them, they go away. Trust me.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Someone should tattoo Carroll Quiqley’s words to your forehead. Then every morning, when you wake up and look into the mirror, you have a greater understanding what is going on.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM

4. They’ll accuse you of hating liberty, freedom and the constitution, simply because you disagree with Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Hate? How can you hate something you have little to no comprehension of? I don’t know what some of these RP supporters are smoking but they’re wrong.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

4. They’ll accuse you of hating liberty, freedom and the constitution, simply because you disagree with Ron Paul’s interpretation of it.

You appear to be in a rut.

Gonna call me a Nazi again? But then, that would be another repeat of #4….

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You can really stop with the reasoned commenter stuff, Truther.

catmman on January 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Paulbots can’t accept that the majority of people outright reject Paul, so they have to blame it on the media and the like.

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

You can continue to practice marginalization through name-calling, but I won’t reciprocate.

Lol. And what am I blaming on the media? Paul’s more than doubling his support in Iowa from 2008?

Paul’s taking the Moderates/Independents by a margin of 8-to-1?

What you guys may want to begin paying attention to is the actual process that determines how many delegates from each State end up at the national convention.

When even your major media doesn’t understand how party politics in Iowa works (look at the conflicting delegate reports between CNN, the AP, Fox, etc) you kids are in big trouble. And you probably don’t even know why.

You’d better get on the ball.

bmowell on January 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I really hate taking the educational mantle in this forum but it must be done. Let it not be written that I did even try:

http://the-classic-liberal.com/not-dimes-worth-difference/

South Dakota’s first Senator and self-declared insider, Richard P. Pettigrew talked about the illusion of control by the clueless citizens of the United States. Emphasis on the adjective “ill-informed.” Note. Not evil, malicious or bad. Just ill-informed:

“The American people should know the truth about American public life. They have been lied to so much and hoodwinked so often that it would seem only fair for them to have at least one straight-from-the shoulder statement concerning this government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” about whose inner workings the people know almost nothing.

The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn in the wheel of fortune. The people voted for Roosevelt because he talked of “trust-busting” at the same time that he was sanctioning the purchase of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by the Steel Trust. They supported Wilson “because he kept us out of war” at the same time that Wilson was making preparations to enter the war. The rulers can negotiate “secret treaties” at home and abroad. The people, knowing nothing of either the theory or the practice of secret diplomacy, commit all sorts of follies for which they themselves must later foot the bill.”

Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor on the myth of the two party system:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

The closing paragraph is epic to say the least:

There is absolutely no ideological difference between the Donkeys and Elephants in Washington, DC. They run in the same circles, hang out with the same foreign dictators, and get funding from the same international oligarchs. Whether it’s “free markets” or “social justice,” they could care less. That is, beyond empty rhetoric to get your vote and an excuse to exercise more and more power and control.

There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Believing that there is … has put America in the sad situation she’s in now.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Look on the upside my fellow Hot Airians. When Ron Paul shuffles off into oblivion again soon, JohnGalt123 will lose its raison d’etre and we won’t have to put up with its insufferably pompous rants.

Trafalgar on January 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Someone should tattoo Carroll Quiqley’s words to your forehead. Then every morning, when you wake up and look into the mirror, you have a greater understanding what is going on.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM

You are, of course, referring to the Carroll Quigley, the conspiratorial wellspring from which the John Birch Society drew so much inspiration?

Buddy, you just keep proving my point. You guys are off living in some conspiracy-laden alternate universe, filled with secret histories and hidden agendas.

News: you are not a special person somehow gifted with insight into the secret workings of the world. Yes, there are powerful and influential people out there, and yes, some of them no doubt would like even more power and influence. That’s human nature and human nature is not in dispute here. But no, there is no cabal of evil Zionist international bankers using the US as a catspaw for Israel. No, Iran is not a persecuted victim of these same evil Zionists. No, the Council on Foreign Relations is not a front group for Bilderberger elites who want to extirpate 80% of humanity and make of themselves our technologically and genetically enhanced evil overlords.

For Heaven’s sake, snap out of it. You’re living in a delusion, equal parts mass hysteria and equal parts loneliness. Spend time in the real world with your family and friends. Start a garden. Work on an old car. Go outside at night and watch the stars.

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

When Ron Paul shuffles off into oblivion again soon, JohnGalt123 will lose its raison d’etre and we won’t have to put up with its insufferably pompous rants.

Trafalgar on January 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sonny boy, when you’ve put half the time in here that I have, come and talk to me.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

What have any of the candidates accomplished in Congress that is positive? Here’s a better way to look at it. How many of the candidates helped pass bills that expand government? How many of those bills did Paul oppose?

EddieC on January 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM

That doesn’t even begin to answer my questions of why I should be convinced that Paul will practice what he preaches if he’s elected, and how he will achieve those goals. If voting against things is considered an accomplishment, then Ron Paul is one great, big hypocrite for bringing home pork for his district, inserted into bills he voted against.

I can look to some positive things that Newt Gingrich accomplished, as a leader in congress, under a Democrat president, specifically, welfare reform, which Bill Clinton now tries to take credit for. Ron Paul has been there longer than Newt was, and he has nothing to show for, in getting anything rolled back. Why should I believe he could accomplish anything as president? The obvious answer is, “I shouldn’t.”

JannyMae on January 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Didn’t your mother warn you about not eating the mushrooms you find in the woods?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Ron Paul obviously thought that it was possible that americans in the government killed over 2,000 people on 9/11. That’s sick.

blink on January 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

And of course you have a link to that?

Or are you, as I suspect, engaging in rectal-speak?

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Sonny boy, when you’ve put half the time in here that I have, come and talk to me.

JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Sure thing sweetie-pie!

Trafalgar on January 4, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You are, of course, referring to the Carroll Quigley, the conspiratorial wellspring from which the John Birch Society drew so much inspiration?

Yes, Carroll Quiqley, bagman extraordinaire and dumpster diver.
Not only did Quigley teach and write at Georgetown, but he was a lecturer at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Brookings Institution, the U. S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College. Prior to Georgetown, he worked as an instructor at both Princeton and Harvard.

Troy, I am laughing my ass off in front of my keyboard watching the sands of your artificial reality erode beneath your feet. DENY DENY DENY. I could have a taped interview of Bill Clinton on his deathbed confessing that the entire political scene is one gigantic scam and you would still call me crazy. You’re a true believer down to the bitter end.

Pitchforker on January 4, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4