Jim DeMint: It’s time to start listening to Ron Paul

posted at 7:53 pm on January 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

November 2010: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.” Today: “What I would like to see is a Republican Party that embraces a lot of these libertarian ideas.” Those two statements aren’t directly contradictory — like DeMint, plenty of Republicans want more libertarianism on fiscal, but not social or foreign, policy — but it’s amazing to hear a guy known for being a strong conservative across the board talking up a candidate who’s often dismissed as catering to doves and libertines. Is this genuine respect or simple strategic caution? Dan Foster of NRO makes the case for the former:

Look, I don’t think Paul has a serious chance to win the nomination, but to my surprise he has run a quite serious campaign. Watching his speech last night confirmed this. Paul knows he is a million-to-one shot to win, but he also knows that if it comes down to just him and Romney, with the vote floor he’s established early, that he could run as high or higher in a lot of states, and come to the convention with a non-trivial number of delegates and an agenda. His holding fire on, and even defending, Romney from Perry/Gingrich attacks confirms the strategic sophistication of his campaign. Paul’s defense of free enterprise is certainly a principled one. But it also supports his interest in seeing the field winnowed down. It might also reflect a desire not to do damage to the presumptive party nominee — whom Paul has suggested he prefers to Obama — if he can build a strong position without doing so. Either way, Paul has shown a level of rationality and maturity that contradicts the caricatures.

Yeah, I agree that Paul has won respect even among his critics in the GOP establishment for running an effective campaign. How could he not have? Most of the campaigns this year are so astoundingly incompetent that they can’t even manage to get on the ballot in every state. Like Romney, he’s earned points simply for metaphorically showing up to his job interview in a suit. But there is, of course, a strategic consideration here: DeMint’s obviously and correctly worried about the GOP losing votes from Paul’s fans in November if they feel alienated. Some of those votes are lost regardless because, for some, Paul is The Only Man Who Can Save America. But some simply prefer him on the merits to the rest of the field and others are voting for him as a protest vote. A chunk of those can be won back with an “Anybody But Obama” argument, but the more their candidate is dismissed as a crank now, the harder it’ll be. (A WaPo poll last month found Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent head to head, but if Paul is added to the equation as a third-party candidate, Obama wins by 10 points.) DeMint’s taking the perfectly mainstream line that libertarians have lots of good ideas about spending and deserve to be heard in hopes that that’ll be enough.

Will it, though? I’ve never had the sense that cutting spending was the animating principle behind the Paul phenomenon even though it’s at the core of his platform. He might consider it the animating principle, but whenever I read or watch interviews with his most devoted supporters, foreign policy seems to come up much more often. (For all the lip service paid to drug legalization as being key to his youth appeal, I don’t see that come up especially often either.) I don’t know how you square that circle, even in a more war-weary party. It’s one thing to support a more modest international presence, it’s another to question the Bin Laden raid that pretty much everyone in America not named “Ron Paul” thinks was fantastic. If I’m right that foreign policy is key for most Paul fans, there’s really not much that can be done to keep them happy in the party. I keep thinking Rand Paul is going to build the bridge here simply because he’s managed to keep a foot in the mainstream and a foot in the Paul universe in a way that his dad never has, but we’ll see. If anyone in the family ends up getting a big role at the convention to win over Paul voters, I’d bet it’s Rand rather than Ron.

Exit question: Is Paul really doing dramatically better than expected at the polls this year, as most of this morning’s pundit CW claims? He’s improved on his 2008 numbers dramatically, but he’s running against a weaker field with a much better organization in a political climate (ever longer wars and mind-boggling debt) that’s vastly more favorable to him. Finishing a distant second in New Hampshire is great, but it was a distant second to a guy whom roughly 70 percent of the party dislikes for being a soulless RINO. If we do end up with a two-man Romney/Paul race, Mitt will win it likely without needing to run a single negative ad against him. If you can’t make the flip-flopping architect of RomneyCare sweat, how much heat do you have? Click the second image to watch.


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

Jim DeMint stated months ago that he would not endorse anyone in the POTUS Pub. primary. He has a PAC that supports conservative candidiates for Congress and the Senate. DeMint is hated by the establishment. He did support Romney against McCain in 2008. However, I do not think he is thrilled about Romney this go round. If I had to guess, I’d say DeMint would be happy to see Perry or Santorum win the nomination. But he will support the nominee.

It’s too bad we did not start working 2 years ago on getting DeMint to run. Conservatives screwed up by not having worked in unison 18-24 months ago, or as soon as Obama was elected to get a strong conservative committed to run against Obama. Had we done so, we would now be excited about the election and Romney would not be the front runner.

they lie on January 11, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Demint is trying to head off a 3rd party run by Ron Paul by saying “don’t go away mad, just go away”.

V7_Sport on January 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Demint is very close to the Pauls, after working with his son in the Senate. Go rewind the South Carolina presidential forum from earlier this year and examine the warm interaction between Jim and Ron.

Pitchforker on January 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Ron Paul would be a political prodigy if his foreign policy matched his fiscal ideals. I will give him his economic acumen, but Israel would be decimated if Ron Paul were president.

carbon_footprint on January 11, 2012 at 8:28 PM

No, it wouldn’t be. Even the head of Israeli intelligence thinks that’s overblown political rhetoric: Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel.

And moreover, Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan that might conceivably keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons (see here). So there’s that, as well.

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

He did say that he would not have entered WWII to stop the Holocaust. He also would clearly not intervene to stop Iran from getting nukes based on everthing he has ever said about it.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Newsflash. We didn’t enter WWII to stop the Holocaust, nor did we, even after knowing that it was going on, alter our war strategy to stop it. Human rights violations, no matter how egregious, take back seat to balance-of-power politics.

And Iran is going to get a nuke, largely because we blew all of our money and capital on a senseless war in Iraq, and we can no longer afford it.

Go ask our Chinese bankers.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You’re not alone! Rosie O’Donnel and Michael Moore share your concerns about the violation of bin laden’s human rights!

Mr. Prodigy on January 11, 2012 at 8:20 PM

I could care less about his rights. I just know when I’m being lied to. I’m not claiming to know what happened but the government has the responsibility to prove their stories. Are we just going to believe everything we’re told without a shred of evidence?

Jerry Bear on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

People need to separate Ron Paul’s ideas from Ron Paul himself. The guy is bring some pretty important ideas into the mainstream of the GOP. Yes, he personally is a bit kooky..that doesn’t mean he’s not an important figure when it comes to promoting laissez faire economics and limited government.

I personally don’t agree with his foreign policy, and think his base is full of cranks. But he definitely is pretty spot on when it comes to some important issues.

therightwinger on January 11, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Ron Paul is a Baptist who reintroduced the sanctity of life act in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Pitchforker on January 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Who knew commenting could take 20 years off your life…

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Some of his ideas and ideals are worth listening to… some are lunacy.

gekkobear on January 11, 2012 at 8:03 PM

If you have been a frequent tourist or visitor for whatever purpose in developing countries, you would understand what Paul is saying.

They generally don’t trust Americans and they blame America for everything.

They smile at you because they like your dollars. Nothing more. But if they can rob you, they will.

It’s time to also reconsider the foreign policy “peace and leadership through strength”. That’s reasonable if America is truly self-reliant and still highly prosperous.

There’s a great reason why we should consider what Paul is saying, on the exception that we have to continue our protection for Israel since the destruction of Israel, contrary to some beliefs, will not stop or appease Jihadist/Fundamentalist Muslim Countries … it will just bolster their pursuit of an Islamic World. A neocon, yes, but on a totally different purpose.

On that respect, Sarah Palin has more realistic foreign policy.

TheAlamos on January 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Newsflash. We didn’t enter WWII to stop the Holocaust, nor did we, even after knowing that it was going on, alter our war strategy to stop it. Human rights violations, no matter how egregious, take back seat to balance-of-power politics.

And Iran is going to get a nuke, largely because we blew all of our money and capital on a senseless war in Iraq, and we can no longer afford it.

Go ask our Chinese bankers.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Focused on the (magnitude) wrong expenses.

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Even if that ticket could beat the 0 ? ;)

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM

IMHO..Any ticket with Paul on it will not beat Obie..:)

Dire Straits on January 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

No ticket with Ron Paul will EVER get my vote!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn’t bolt the party?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Anyone see this piece from a few days ago about The Sustainable Defense Task Force? Teaming up with Barney Frank and allowing Soros peeps to propose defense cuts? Perhaps if RP proposed working with DeMint to cut waste out of defense, I could live with that but not the Soros crowd.

The Taskforce’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence, reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers, canceling the Joint Strike Fighter, “severely curtail missile defense” (a direct quote from the report)., retiring four Marine battalions, reducing the military by 200,000 personnel, cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years, and increasing health care fees for military personnel.

Daniel Greenfield…points out that many of the groups contributing to the report were funded by the notorious leftist billionaire, George Soros

http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2012/01/08/blinded-by-the-left-how-marxists-wrote-ron-pauls-defense-cuts-plan/

beacon on January 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

If Ron Paul had a foreign policy POV that wasn’t so naive, I’d be behind him totally.

blatantblue on January 11, 2012 at 8:32 PM

It’s those that believe that a foreign policy of continuous war on two continents can achieve anything other than bankrupting this country and ending our global power that are naive, more’s the pity.

If you care about our national defense, you should support the only candidate with a plan to balance the budget and return the economy to growth so we can remain the preeminent military power in the world.

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

And moreover, Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan that might conceivably keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons (see here). So there’s that, as well.

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Diplomacy and containment? Yeah ok.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Focused on the (magnitude) wrong expenses.

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Iraq is starting to come in at somewhere around $2 trillion, and in case you haven’t noticed, Iran is three times the size of Iraq.

So, what exactly is the budget for a war with Iran?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Dire Straits on January 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

You may well be correct. But could you vote yes? I think Allah should post it again. It to me is very telling, answer wise.

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Iraq is starting to come in at somewhere around $2 trillion, and in case you haven’t noticed, Iran is three times the size of Iraq.

So, what exactly is the budget for a war with Iran?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM

link??????? i don’t think so….

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Anyone see this piece from a few days ago about The Sustainable Defense Task Force? Teaming up with Barney Frank and allowing Soros peeps to propose defense cuts? Perhaps if RP proposed working with DeMint to cut waste out of defense, I could live with that but not the Soros crowd.

The Taskforce’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence, reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers, canceling the Joint Strike Fighter, “severely curtail missile defense” (a direct quote from the report)., retiring four Marine battalions, reducing the military by 200,000 personnel, cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years, and increasing health care fees for military personnel.

Daniel Greenfield…points out that many of the groups contributing to the report were funded by the notorious leftist billionaire, George Soros

http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2012/01/08/blinded-by-the-left-how-marxists-wrote-ron-pauls-defense-cuts-plan/
beacon on January 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

And yet Paul supporters say hes strong on defense.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM

link????????

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM

and they fought to a standstill……

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Interesting, thank you for that.

carbon_footprint on January 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM

So…no Huntsman as the new anti-Mitt?

Oh, come on. A guy who’s pro-life, pro-gun, a tax-cutter, healthcare-reformer, education-reformer, free-trader and a Jacksonian on foreign policy can’t be all too bad.

Aizen on January 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Human rights violations, no matter how egregious, take back seat to balance-of-power politics.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Nonsense, JohnGalt. Don’t you remember how we invaded the Soviet Union to stop the Holodomor (7 million killed) and China to stop the “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” (50 million killed)?

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I can be the most immature person but when it comes to the topic of Paul, Bernanke, fiat money, the fall of governments- essentially this. When the bottom suddenly feel out fall of 2008, the Baltic Dry Goods index cratered. That’s because insurance wasn’t available to insure ocean freight. That was the start of what would have ended in the fall of debtor western governments. The fact is when the sudden jolting recession hit, state and local tax coffers were slammed hard. The easy money from franchise, corporate income and sales tax suddenly dried up.

If Bernanke and the government didn’t pump money back into itself the recession would have been too much. Government workers joining the private sectors layoffs would have spelled doom for the government.

If Ron Paul had his way, he would be the Deacon on the supertanker in Waterworld. That is all.

pc on January 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Iraq is starting to come in at somewhere around $2 trillion, and in case you haven’t noticed, Iran is three times the size of Iraq.

So, what exactly is the budget for a war with Iran?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Because we need to invade Iran why? What was the cost of the Libya bombing?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn’t bolt the party?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM
He should run for president…of IRAN.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 8:50 PM

You’re not alone! Rosie O’Donnel and Michael Moore share your concerns about the violation of bin laden’s human rights!

Mr. Prodigy on January 11, 2012 at 8:20 PM

It’s not OBL’s rights that concerns me (and I don’t think it bothers RP in this case). It’s our relations with other nation-states, that have damn good cause to be upset that we are carrying out assassination missions on their soil.

Any doubt about that? Ask yourself: How you would expect our government to react if the People’s Liberation Army performed a kill mission on a Chinese dissident living in San Francisco, or if Iran carried out a kill mission on Salman Rushdie in NYC?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Some of his ideas and ideals are worth listening to… some are lunacy.

gekkobear on January 11, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I agree.
******
Maybe some of you Paul supporters can explain some of his curious behavior. As an example, if Paul wants to be taken seriously, why did he play Star Wars/ Darth Vader music for his intro last night?
Doesn’t that just play into the tin-foil-hat stuff?
What did he mean by doing that?

AZgranny on January 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Once again, because I know you have trouble reading from time to time:

Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn’t bolt the GOP?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Tarp was purely self defense. The ruling perception creators wished not for it’s game to end. Ron Paul wants a new government. How can he propose deflation of the currency the way he has and not want a new government. Ron Paul is several factors more radical than the Chicago crowd. Just saying.

pc on January 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I said the same thing here in Hotair weeks ago.

The GOP candidate will need to court Ron Paul supporters. I even suggested how.

joana on January 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Newsflash. We didn’t enter WWII to stop the Holocaust, nor did we, even after knowing that it was going on, alter our war strategy to stop it…

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You are sidestepping the point. Paul, knowing what we know now about the Holocaust, would have not entered the was and allowed the extermination of the Jews in Europe. The United States in WWII defeated Germany and prevented further slaughter. “Altering the strategy” is another deflection, as the Allies defating Germany as quickly as possible was the best way to stop the Holocaust. And if you want to suggest that the Allies didn’t really care about the Jews, then fine, but neither does Paul and he shows it in every way. He is a Jew-hater and beneath contempt.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I can be the most immature person but when it comes to the topic of Paul, Bernanke, fiat money, the fall of governments- essentially this. When the bottom suddenly feel out fall of 2008, the Baltic Dry Goods index cratered. That’s because insurance wasn’t available to insure ocean freight. That was the start of what would have ended in the fall of debtor western governments. The fact is when the sudden jolting recession hit, state and local tax coffers were slammed hard. The easy money from franchise, corporate income and sales tax suddenly dried up.

If Bernanke and the government didn’t pump money back into itself the recession would have been too much. Government workers joining the private sectors layoffs would have spelled doom for the government.

If Ron Paul had his way, he would be the Deacon on the supertanker in Waterworld. That is all.

pc on January 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM

so Bernanke just bought some time from the inevitable happening. All that over-leveraging and debt has to be contracted eventually. Eventually the interest payments will be too much to bear and then your waterworld moment will come without Ron Paul.

Pitchforker on January 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM

There is NO, repeat NO chance of Ron Paul running as a third party, no matter how much it kills him.

He had a life outside of politics and isn’t an egotistical maniac.

(I still don’t think he can win)

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Remind me again why Ron Paul shouldn’t bolt the GOP?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Because you never go full retard?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM

As an example, if Paul wants to be taken seriously, why did he play Star Wars/ Darth Vader music for his intro last night?

AZgranny on January 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Because, unlike some here, Ron isn’t too old to have a little bit of fun.

And if you can’t appreciate the Rebel Alliance entering to music usually reserved for the arrival of the physical representation of Imperial power, Darth Vader, then you are clearly one of those people.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Some of those votes are lost regardless because, for some, Paul is The Only Man Who Can Save America.

I don’t think he is ‘The Only Man Who Can Save America’. However, I do think he is the only candidate remaining that believes in truly limited federal government. The rest just want to switch to a new flavor of big government. (As can be seen by Romneycare, Manmade Global Newting, ‘individualism doesn’t work’ Santorum, and ‘vaccinate your kids for STDs’ Perry.)

Nephew Sam on January 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Because you never go full retard?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Hey, you ask me, someone not voting for the GOP ticket because of Ron Paul’s presence, when Barack Obama is on the other side… that is truly going full retard.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I agree that we didn’t enter WWII to stop the Holocaust, which really wasn’t that well known at the time, but I disagree completely with Paul’s position on Iran. His saying, “If I was an Iranian, I’d want a nuke, too,” and his general isolationism regarding Iran is, at best, naive and inexcusable. The leadership of that country wants to kill us and Israel, and has shown it in funding terrorism across the board, not just in the Middle East, and believes that in acquiring nukes and using them will bring into the world the Twelfth Imam and a Muslim caliphate across the world, to them the ultimate objective.

For Paul to ignore this, as Obama and company also does, is to invite the death of your children and grandchildren, or their complete dark future.

TXUS on January 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Iraq is starting to come in at somewhere around $2 trillion, and in case you haven’t noticed, Iran is three times the size of Iraq.

So, what exactly is the budget for a war with Iran?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Come on. Why must we invade to stop them?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Could you, as Allah suggested earlier in the thread support Palin/Paul 2012?

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

If you look at Paul’s record in Congress he is a loser. He has passed only a few simple laws and has no following from anyone. He has never made any advancement while being a Representative and it means that he has zero leadership ability. You guys are starting to sound like the Obama brigade with only listening to what he says and not what he has done. Show me the beef. There isn’t any.

inspectorudy on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I really don’t give damn what that worthless, hate-America first, Jew-hating, truther, conspiracy theorist does…or his vile minions do.
Really, he should join the far-left democrats…since they share many of his opinions on things like the Jews.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

And if you can’t appreciate the Rebel Alliance entering to music usually reserved for the arrival of the physical representation of Imperial power, Darth Vader, then you are clearly one of those people.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Oh. OOOKaaay …I see….
Thank-you for your kind explanation/insult.

AZgranny on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel , defends Hamas , calls gaza a concentration camp

► 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

golembythehudson on January 11, 2012 at 9:01 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Different sides of the same coin.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:01 PM

You are sidestepping the point. Paul, knowing what we know now about the Holocaust, would have not entered the was and allowed the extermination of the Jews in Europe.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Nor would the vast majority of Americans in 1941. We didn’t go into Turkey when they were slaughtering a million Armenians. We didn’t go into the USSR when they were starving tens of millions of their own people.

Once again, for emphasis: Human rights atrocities take a back seat to power politics. They always have, and they always will.

So long as it was a case of the German government killing German citizens, we would respect their internal affairs, no matter how distasteful.

And once again, sorry to bring actual “history” into this discussion, but we weren’t going to go to war, even after the Nazis took over Western Europe, until they did us, and themselves, the disservice of declaring war on us.

Atrocities happen. Not the business of the US to stop them.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Iraq is starting to come in at somewhere around $2 trillion, and in case you haven’t noticed, Iran is three times the size of Iraq.

So, what exactly is the budget for a war with Iran?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM

link??????? i don’t think so….

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Item Cost ($Billion)
Congressional War Appropriations to Pentagon 1311.5
Additions to the Pentagon Base Budget 326.2
Interest on Pentagon War Appropriations 185.4
Iraq & Afghan Veteran’s Medical and Disability 32.6
War Related International Assistance (DoS & USAID) 74.2

Federal outlays FY2001-FY2011, in constant $2011 1929.9

Granted, this $2 trillion figure is for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but it also doesn’t take into account veterans care costs going forward, which add an addition $600 billion to the cost by 2051.

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

For Paul to ignore this, as Obama and company also does, is to invite the death of your children and grandchildren, or their complete dark future.

TXUS on January 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yeah, because once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the thousands of nukes the US has will suddenly be totally worthless, and the hundreds of millions of gun-owning Americans will vanish, and Iran will dispatch a huge army from their country that is at best about 1/7th the size of the US, and take over America, and kill everybody, oh my!

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Hey, you ask me, someone not voting for the GOP ticket because of Ron Paul’s presence, when Barack Obama is on the other side… that is truly going full retard.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Maybe but I would understand it. The only reason I dont like him is his foreign policy is foolhardy at best. Economics wise I agree with quite a bit.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Could you, as Allah suggested earlier in the thread support Palin/Paul 2012?

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Philosophically… sure. I don’t think Palin is all that far off of where Paul is, even on foreign policy.

The problem is, I still worry if she has the political chops, not to get elected, but to avoid electoral slaughter. She has lots of natural talent, but so does Rick Perry. I think they both have glaring holes in their craft (Although Palin’s is nowhere near as glaring as Perry’s inability to debate).

But if she could actually broker that deal… sure, I could accept it.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Atrocities happen. Not the business of the US to stop them.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Libertarianism at its finest.

And by “finest” I mean… well, I’ll just leave that open to interpretation.

Mr. Prodigy on January 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Yeah, because once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the thousands of nukes the US has will suddenly be totally worthless, and the hundreds of millions of gun-owning Americans will vanish, and Iran will dispatch a huge army from their country that is at best about 1/7th the size of the US, and take over America, and kill everybody, oh my!

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

That’s about how it adds up, isn’t it?

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

German Jews were stripped of their citizenship after the Nuremburg laws were passed-therefore Germany was murdering NON-German citizens. My great-great aunt and my great-great uncle were shot to death at Babi Yar. They were born and died in the Ukraine. They weren’t German citizens. My Polish-Jewish relatives weren’t German citizens. My Latvian relatives weren’t German citizens nor were my Russian relatives.
I can go on if you’d like.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

And what exactly has Ron Paul and his disciples accomplished for the 30 years he has been in DC?

RobertInLexington on January 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Nearly $1.5 billion in earmarks for the 14th Congressional District in Texas.

…and came up with a very interesting argument that says bridges to nowhere are how the federal government is supposed to work!

Good thing he always votes “NO” on all those appropriations bills, kids! Otherwise, he’d be a huge hypocrite, amirite?

MTLassen on January 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Yeah, because once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the thousands of nukes the US has will suddenly be totally worthless, and the hundreds of millions of gun-owning Americans will vanish, and Iran will dispatch a huge army from their country that is at best about 1/7th the size of the US, and take over America, and kill everybody, oh my!

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

So your saying that if Iran used a nuke you’d be willing to use ours to wipe cities of thiers off the map? Because thats what you get if they do get a nuke, it goes dealing with a problem with airstrikes to maybe busting cities. You “let iran have a nuke” people cool with that?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 9:11 PM

So long as it was a case of the German government killing German citizens, we would respect their internal affairs, no matter how distasteful….

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Umm, it wasn’t the German government killing German citizens, it was a rouge nation invading all of Europe and Africa rounding up and killing Jews wherever they went. And you want to lecture me on “history”?

Of course, I doubt you have any problem with any of Paul’s associations, racism, anti-Semitism, etc.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Really, he [Ron Paul] should join the far-left democrats…since they share many of his opinions on things like the Jews.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Which would be?

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:13 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Thanks, I was surprised when Allah posted it at the beginning of the thread and no one responded to it except me and one other. I thought it was a unique ? I had no problem answering it.

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:13 PM

What about you MeatHeadinCA, could you support Palin/Paul 2012?

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

German Jews were stripped of their citizenship after the Nuremburg laws were passed-therefore Germany was murdering NON-German citizens. My great-great aunt and my great-great uncle were shot to death at Babi Yar. They were born and died in the Ukraine. They weren’t German citizens. My Polish-Jewish relatives weren’t German citizens. My Latvian relatives weren’t German citizens nor were my Russian relatives.
I can go on if you’d like.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

You can go on as far as you like. None of them, not a damned one, are any of my f**king problem.

I owe allegiance, through shared citizenship, to my fellow citizens, and as such, my blood and treasure are at their disposal to ensure our shared bond of citizenship.

Poles, Ukranians, Germans, Latvians, French… not my f**king concern, and certainly not worthy of my blood and/or treasure.

I have a government that engages in foreign policy, and that foreign policy had best be aimed at maximizing my interests, as an American citizen. If the entirety of the Jewry of Europe, or of the Armenians of Europe, or of the Laplanders of Europe, or any of the f**king peoples of Europe have to be sacrificed on the altar of diplomacy, so long as the people we hire to maximize our national interest are in fact doing so, then so be it.

And yes, I know it sounds cold. In a world of nation-states where conflict is settled either by diplomacy, or by war in which human survival itself is at stake, the realities of politics are often cold.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

. His saying, “If I was an Iranian, I’d want a nuke, too,” and his general isolationism regarding Iran is, at best, naive and inexcusable.

TXUS on January 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM

He is saying we should sit down and talk, to use diplomacy. That’s not isolationism.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Atrocities happen. Not the business of the US to stop them.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Oh, my . . . there just aren’t words to describe my feelings about that sentiment.

Voter from WA State on January 11, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Gotta love the Ron Paul threads. It let’s you see just how despicable his supporters are.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

What about you MeatHeadinCA, could you support Palin/Paul 2012?

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Yep

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Everybody who doesn’t want to invade and occupy Africa to prevent ongoing genocide there clearly is a racist who hates black people. Right?

Realize that the US’s responsibility is to its own citizens, which means not starting wars that cost American citizens’ lives. That is the basis of neutrality and non-interventionism. If some foreign skirmish is important to YOU, go volunteer to join the UN peacekeepers or IDF or French Foreign Legion or something.

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

The old fart is right about everything except national defense and foreign relations. ( not that the idiots in power the last twenty years knew manure from apple sauce )

If he was smart he would have waited for his son to grow up and put him forward. As it is the old fool will ruin it for the kid. Permanently.

nueces on January 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

*stares at screen…stunned*

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

He is saying we should sit down and talk, to use diplomacy. That’s not isolationism.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

That worked real well with North Korea.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Cool, Thanks.

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

…If the entirety of the Jewry of Europe, or of the Armenians of Europe, or of the Laplanders of Europe, or any of the f**king peoples of Europe have to be sacrificed on the altar of diplomacy, so long as the people we hire to maximize our national interest are in fact doing so, then so be it…

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Not quite sure, but were you quoting Hitler here? Sure sounds like it.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Sen. DeMint thats the problem.I have been listening to Paul.But the more i listen to him the crazier he sounds.

logman1 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Umm, it wasn’t the German government killing German citizens, it was a rouge nation invading all of Europe and Africa rounding up and killing Jews wherever they went. And you want to lecture me on “history”?

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Which calls into question very serious balance-of-power considerations, which are within the realm of high politics, and therefore war. Yeah, one nation controlling the resources of the whole of Europe poses a very real threat to the continued existence of the United States.

Of course, I’ll note that even after he had most of Europe, this nation didn’t see fit to enter the war. Had they seen fit, there is clearly an arguable case for why you would want to defeat Germany.

But stopping them from killing their Jews, or even killing other nations Jews, so long as they had those nations’ permission, is not the primary concern of US foreign policy.

And it never will be.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Yeah, because once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the thousands of nukes the US has will suddenly be totally worthless, and the hundreds of millions of gun-owning Americans will vanish, and Iran will dispatch a huge army from their country that is at best about 1/7th the size of the US, and take over America, and kill everybody, oh my!

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Are you clueless or just don’t give a shit? If Iran goes N, they won’t have to deliver the bombs via intercontinental missile systems and other such easy things to detect and shoot down. Their little presents will come in small suitcases or light planes from our open borders, disguised as daily drug runs, mostly ignored by our incredibly efficient DNS.

Then, when your wife and children are at a mall here or there or when you’ve gone to work at your nice building, in as many as ten or so cities across the country, BANG!!!

Yes, we can go the vengeance angle, not this president and certainly not Ron Paul, but this would throw our county into an economic and total abyss. Bottom line, the boys in Iran know it, and they want it more than you could ever realize. Obama, and your candidate, are playing bean bag as they plan for the ultimate annihilation.

TXUS on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

“Yeah, because once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the thousands of nukes the US has will suddenly be totally worthless, and the hundreds of millions of gun-owning Americans will vanish, and Iran will dispatch a huge army from their country that is at best about 1/7th the size of the US, and take over America, and kill everybody, oh my!

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM”

Because Iran would be so swimmingly transparent about their arsenal, I feel very comfortable with their nuke. Iran would never act in byzantine fashion, meticulously covering it’s tracks during the orchestration of a devastating terror attack involving nuclear weapons.

Look here dummies. You know that whacked out country known as DPNK? That country serves one purpose. Plausible deniability for China. You know that whacked out country known as the Islamic Republic of Iran? That country serves on purpose. Plausible deniability for Russia. If China and Russia ever had a reason for removing us from the world, they can count on their attack dogs to get it started. Because once we are hit, Russia and China can collectively tell us to cease and desist or suffer annihilation and while we are trying to locate the smoking hole that was DC or NYC it will have become instantly checkmate. Dummies.

pc on January 11, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I have a government that engages in foreign policy, and that foreign policy had best be aimed at maximizing my interests, as an American citizen. If the entirety of the Jewry of Europe, or of the Armenians of Europe, or of the Laplanders of Europe, or any of the f**king peoples of Europe have to be sacrificed on the altar of diplomacy, so long as the people we hire to maximize our national interest are in fact doing so, then so be it.

yep, this is the mindest of the average Paulbot, in my opinion the very epitome of evil, no moral compass just like their messiah

golembythehudson on January 11, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Every last one of you who complain about RP’s foreign policy, yet not one of you who does complain says what is wrong with it. You all just talk the meme coming from the media…sound bite visions.

Lets look at this:

Paul believes the United States is an extraordinarily secure country, with a robust nuclear deterrent, no powerful enemies nearby, and at present no major power rivals of much significance.

He instinctively rejects the paranoia and worst-case scenarios that have convinced Americans that we need to roam around the world trying to remake it in our image (a task, by the way, that we’re not very good at).

He believes that excessive interventionism and other failed policies are a primary cause of anti-Americanism around the world, and that the United States would be more popular and safer if we focused more attention on trade and diplomacy and domestic issues instead of emphasizing military dominance and overseas meddling.

He believes that a bloated national security state and a quasi-imperial foreign policy inevitably fosters greater government secrecy and erodes traditional restraints on executive power.

And like former president (and five-star general) Dwight D. Eisenhower, he thinks the current military-industrial complex wields excessive influence on our politics and has become a self-perpetuating engine for counter-productive meddling abroad.

Somthing he would like to have less say and power.

These points are all debatable, of course, but Paul is the only person in the race who even wants to discuss them.

The rest of the GOP candidates are mostly competing to see who can sound the most eager for war (usually with Iran) or most willing to toss more money at the Pentagon.

Ron Paul offers a much clearer alternative, and one that is not easy to dismiss with a sound-bite or two, which the dissenters here don’t give him chance for.

Given the nuclear revolution, America’s favorable geographic location, and the nature of the modern global economy, in fact, there’s a pretty good case to be made for a much more limited global posture that shifts more of the burden for regional security onto others and focuses on fixing problems here at home.

Neither pacifism nor “Fortress America,” mind you, but far less global crusading than we’ve been doing since 1945.

And has any of it worked? Give the man a chance and at least think for a change that perhaps he is right!

I would hate to think that the majority here who slam RP and are nasty to RP supporters at every chance, are just ‘warmongers’ at heart and cannot think of an alternative…

You have an alternative, yet you chose to not look any deeper than the LSM says you should look…sound bites, that’s all you have for an argument…pitiful.

Scrumpy on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

*stares at screen…stunned*

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Oh, and BTW, most of the people who taught me about Int’l Relations and Foreign Policy were, in fact, Jewish. And not one of them would be either surprised or offended by what I write about it. They might think me wrong and amoral, but they know that my point of view is absolutely valid…. because they taught me its validity.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Granted, this $2 trillion figure is for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but it also doesn’t take into account veterans care costs going forward, which add an addition $600 billion to the cost by 2051.

Inkblots on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

OK. So now it’s both wars, plus the costs of their medical care as they get older, which medicare would have picked up anyway….I get it

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Permission?
After he invaded many of the leaders escaped the continent or were MURDERED. In both cases they were replaced with Nazi puppets.
Honestly-If I responded to you they way I really want to right now…I’d get banned.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Don’t forget to subtract out the cost of any programs which might pay us dividends in the future (Drones?????? I am not sure on this one).

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Choose*

Scrumpy on January 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Not quite sure, but were you quoting Hitler here? Sure sounds like it.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

That is something far more likely to come from Hans Morgenthau or Henry Kissinger. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. They’re what are known as Realists

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Oh, and BTW, most of the people who taught me about Int’l Relations and Foreign Policy were, in fact, Jewish. And not one of them would be either surprised or offended by what I write about it. They might think me wrong and amoral, but they know that my point of view is absolutely valid…. because they taught me its validity.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

“Yeah, some of my best friends are Jews”

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Oh…I reread it. That was over 10 years!!!! Nough said.

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM

So your saying that if Iran used a nuke you’d be willing to use ours to wipe cities of thiers off the map? Because thats what you get if they do get a nuke, it goes dealing with a problem with airstrikes to maybe busting cities. You “let iran have a nuke” people cool with that?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Iran has a no-first strike policy. They have a messed up theocratic dictatorship, but ever since the rev0lution, they have been true to their word on this. They won’t use nuclear weapons. They want them so that nobody will declare war on them. Same reason every country (besides the US) has ever wanted nuclear weapons. Such radical countries as the Soviet Union and Communist China, at the heights of their communist radicalism.

If the only country to ever actually nuke cities full of civilians (the US) had a major party trying their hardest to pick a fight with you, and you knew that same country left countries with nukes alone, what would you do? You’d have to be retarded not to want nukes.

Daikokuco on January 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM

But stopping them from killing their Jews, or even killing other nations Jews, so long as they had those nations’ permission, is not the primary concern of US foreign policy.

And it never will be.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Ron Paul and his supporters, reviving the father Coughlin wing of the republican party one dead jew at a time

golembythehudson on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Which calls into question very serious balance-of-power considerations, which are within the realm of high politics, and therefore war. Yeah, one nation controlling the resources of the whole of Europe poses a very real threat to the continued existence of the United States.

Of course, I’ll note that even after he had most of Europe, this nation didn’t see fit to enter the war. Had they seen fit, there is clearly an arguable case for why you would want to defeat Germany.

But stopping them from killing their Jews, or even killing other nations Jews, so long as they had those nations’ permission, is not the primary concern of US foreign policy.

And it never will be.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

As much as I hate to admit it when put that way you are right.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

DeMint is only saying what Palin has been saying for weeks.

Respect Ron Paul supporters.

Even Kudlow had a segment on his program tonight about this.

Midwestprincesse on January 11, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Why? They don’t respect others, so I don’t see where the justification enters into things to somehow start ‘respecting’ Ron Paul supporters, whether Palin says it or otherwise.

Jim DeMint is treading in murky water here. The “We Disdain the GOP” crowd has but one message and that is that they disdain the GOP. But the rest of us can always rely on ‘them’ to appear wherever and whenever the DNC is loosing ground, and there they go again, with that same message.

Lourdes on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I didn’t bring this up, but I have to ask. I am not jewish. WHY are the jews who live here SO intent on seeing Isreal wiped out???

WryTrvllr on January 11, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Allah if your still up there, not up there, sorry, NY I suppose. I think your ? on Palin/Paul2012 is a good one. My reason is it forces a decision obviously, but it brings the Palin haters/defenders and the Paul haters/defenders out plus everyone else to weigh in on a very likely for some, unlikely to others hypothetical. I find it very telling as to how bad people really want to beat the 0.
Anyway,thanks for the ?, it had actually never occurred to me. Even though I was aware of Palins remarks pertaining to the unconventional primary season. And Dr. Paul having intimated he didn’t see himself as POTUS. That’s why I love this place, keeps me thinking outside the box.

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Don’t know where Morgenthau was born but Henry the K came to the US from Germanyduring the early-mid 30′s. Had his family stayed they most likely would have been murdered…which would’ve been okay with you since what Hitler was doing wasn’t really our concern anyway.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM

If Bernanke and the government didn’t pump money back into itself the recession would have been too much. Government workers joining the private sectors layoffs would have spelled doom for the government.

pc on January 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Yea, Keynesianism!!! Only what the truest of conservatives support!

Nelsen on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM

“I can go on…and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, ad infinitum, to no point at all” annoyinglittletwerp

I don’t intend to vote for Ron Paul because he won’t be on the GOP ticket or on a third-party ticket, so all this damning Paul is just a waste of hot air on Hot Air.

But, he does have a hard core group of supporters whose votes the GOP cannot afford to just throw away. If it was just the 20 or so Perry voters nationwide, no big deal, but some way should be found to bring Paul supporters into the tent.

JohnGalt23: Agreed. It is our Constitutional duty to protect America, not everyone in the world. We are not God’s Warriors.

Horace on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM

If you want libertarianism in the fiscal sense, do not use Ron Paul as an example.

Flapjackmaka on January 11, 2012 at 7:56 PM

This.

His porkbarreling puts nearly all democrats to shame.

Rebar on January 11, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Right you both are.

I indulged Paul a bit last night and let his latest yelling appearance go from New Hampshire before I muted the set on him, yet again. His mind never keeps to an issue, he wanders all over a general territory of negativity and hatred. Somewhere in there, he makes a point but his overall message continues to be derision of humanity. He derides, he’s a negative, destructive man.

Lourdes on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Ron Paul and his supporters, reviving the father Coughlin wing of the republican party one dead jew at a time

golembythehudson on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Oh, please. Ron Paul is no more pro-killing-of-Jews (or any other group of people) than Republicans are racist for not wanting to give out lots of welfare and AA.

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Permission?
After he invaded many of the leaders escaped the continent or were MURDERED. In both cases they were replaced with Nazi puppets.
Honestly-If I responded to you they way I really want to right now…I’d get banned.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Of course. I forgot how every European country would blanche at the idea of being rid of their Jewish population. Those pogroms never happened until Hitler, right? The Russians and French, why they would be appalled at the idea of chasing their Jews to Germany for… well, do we really think the Russians or French would have cared what happened to them one they were gone?

Stop. Just stop.

When Germany started taking its show on the road, then it became a question for US policy makers to determine if they were a sufficient enough threat to go to war over… which policy makers decided (wisely or foolishly) they were not.

Let us not engage in some sort of fantasy that a US that would not go to war over the invasion of Poland, France and Russia, would go to war over Germany killing German Jews. And if they convinced the European nations to ship them their Jews for the Holocaust, we still wouldn’t go to war, and in fact would be less likely to do so, because Germany would actually have some allies in their cause.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM

That is something far more likely to come from Hans Morgenthau or Henry Kissinger. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. They’re what are known as Realists

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Don’t get me started on Kissinger. As for Morgenthau, he did not promote naked national interest in foreign policy, but national interest informed by American morality.

Lightspeed on January 11, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4