HeadlinesWe pick, you click.

NYT

Believe it: Niche voters could win Iowa for Ron Paul

In a year when the Republican field is unusually fractured, with front-runners coming around as often as carousel ponies, Mr. Paul’s ability to mobilize niche groups like home-schoolers may make a big difference. His campaign, which has won a number of straw polls and is picking up momentum, has demonstrated its ability to organize and mobilize supporters, which is particularly relevant in Iowa, where relatively small numbers can tip the scales in the caucuses…

“I’m buying Ron Paul today,” said Craig Robinson, a former political director for the Republican Party of Iowa, who on Wednesday sent a Twitter message saying, “Ron Paul’s Iowa Campaign Office was abuzz at 8 p.m. tonight when I drove by on my way to the bank. Impressive.”…

“I don’t think I was his core type, the young college type,” said Mr. Walsh, 42, a volunteer firefighter and veteran of the Persian Gulf war. He voted for Mr. Romney in 2008 and was leaning toward him again this year, but he changed his mind because the federal government, he said, needs more drastic cuts than Mr. Romney proposes.

Mr. Walsh felt squeamish coming out as a Paul supporter. “The reaction is, ‘Oh, the guy is fringe, he’s crazy,’ “ he said. “People tell me, ‘You’re throwing away your vote.’ I said to myself: ‘Chuck, you wore the uniform, you fought for the right to vote. If you’re voting with your heart, I don’t think you’re throwing away your vote.’ “

Read the Article

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

Paul would get maximum 10-12% of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. My guess is he’ll pick up 4%.

Nethicus on November 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Is anybody else sick of Iowa? Who cares. As Rush pointed out Friday: South Carolina predictably picks the nominee.

Marcus on November 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Go Ron Paul!!!

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

he is a kook, but a kook who happened to be right about a few things.

rob verdi on November 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Please, please not paul!
L

letget on November 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Ain’t gon’ happen.

nickj116 on November 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM

he is a kook, but a kook who happened to be right about a few things.

rob verdi on November 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

It turns out he was right about most things and that’s why the corrupt GOP establishment’s only recourse was to call him names.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I’d vote for Ron Paul over Romney. I abhor RP’s foreign policy, but he would be push to get this nation’s fiscal trajectory back in the black, and that is really all that matters right now.

Lawdawg86 on November 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM

If I were an Iowan and I couldn’t convince myself to support Newt… I’d go for Ron Paul. Shake up the establishment, baby!

MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

The establishment GOP will not stop Paul this time!

El_Terrible on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Mittens will pay people to vote for Paul. This would scare any fence-sitters to settle for Mittens.

SouthernGent on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Drudge has an article that paul won’t rule out a “I” run?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/18/ron_paul_warns_gop_not_to_capitulate_on_taxes_wont_rule_out_indy_bid.html
L

letget on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Lawdawg86 on November 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM

That’s about how I feel about it, too. The biggest existential threat America faces right now is our own ruling class, and they’re winning.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Mittens will pay people to vote for Paul. This would scare any fence-sitters to settle for Mittens.

SouthernGent on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Well then maybe Romney will win and split the liberal vote with Obama making it easier for a 3rd party.

But if Ron Paul doesn’t win I thin Sarah Palin/Ron Paul would be far more certain to win against Obama/Romney.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM

It’s the New York Slime!

idesign on November 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM

If the Democrats are smart they’ll replace Biden with Romney so that they don’t have to split their vote and allow a 3rd party win.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM

NYT is trying to encourage Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate guaranteeing a win for their Messiah.

“Watch the other hand…”

NickDeringer on November 19, 2011 at 2:52 PM

So what? He’d get a bump, pick up some money to continue with the fantasy and fade into crankhood oblivion like he did four years ago.

This is news?

catmman on November 19, 2011 at 2:53 PM

This isn’t 4 years ago, a lot has changed in case you haven’t noticed.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:54 PM

NYT is trying to encourage Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate guaranteeing a win for their Messiah.

“Watch the other hand…”

NickDeringer on November 19, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Is that why there seems to be this deliberative push for Romney?

MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Paul would get maximum 10-12% of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. My guess is he’ll pick up 4%.

Nethicus on November 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Prepare to be surprised.

Inkblots on November 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM

of course the NYT would love for this to be true. Which is why they are holding back on inquiry into his past, positions, etc.

To keep most from voting for him in Iowa would only take a little campaigning against him. Read some excerpts from ‘Liberty Defined’ and some of his web videos over the last few years.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Hey, good luck with your GOP establishment candidate, you’re going to need it. Have you seen this?

THROW THEM ALL OUT

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

But if Ron Paul doesn’t win I thin Sarah Palin/Ron Paul would be far more certain to win against Obama/Romney.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM

You fundamentally do not understand who Ron Paul is, his philosophy/religion, and what the agenda of Lew Rockwell and company is.

He will never, ever, support or campaign with a Sarah Palin or any conservative that “Doesn’t agree with everything he agrees with”.

If they don’t believe in his Utopian McGovernite worldivew, there is ZERO chance of any alliance or endorsement.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 2:54 PM

I agree. But not as far as Herr Doktor is concerned.

catmman on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

and good luck with a Neo-Liberal McGovernite.

Paul winning GOP nomination would guarantee one thing: The destruction of the GOP, split into multiple parties and an epic Obama landslide and Socialism on full scale in America.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:20 PM

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

So the guy who’s been in office in Washington longer than any of the other Republican candidates is a Washington outsider?

You yell to throw them all out which I agree with. Do you include Herr Doktor in that?

catmman on November 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Paul winning GOP nomination would guarantee one thing: The destruction of the GOP

They did that to themselves.

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:22 PM

You yell to throw them all out which I agree with. Do you include Herr Doktor in that?

catmman on November 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Herr Doktor? Is that from Rules for Radicals?

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM

I mean did you learn it from Rules for Radicals?

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Paul winning GOP nomination would guarantee one thing: The destruction of the GOP, split into multiple parties and an epic Obama landslide and Socialism on full scale in America.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Yet no concern over Mitt Romney getting the nomination.

MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Alt. Universe: Ron Paul wins Nomination…

Why would the GOP, traditional Conservatives and sane people in general feel they must support Ron Paul vs. Obama??? Consider….

Ron Paul recently stated he would not support the GOP nominee if they did not agree with everything he believes. By that he means an extreme George McGovern Foreign Policy, devoid of facts, reason and logic….this means everyone, outside maybe Huntsman will not get RP’s endorsement.

In 2008, Ron Paul refused to support McCain/Palin and on Sept. 10, 2008 he came out and supported the 3rd Party candidacies of Marxist-Anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney, Green Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and crank Chuck Baldwin. Instead of the GOP and McCain/Palin vs. Obama(who was much closer to Paul’s FP as a candidate).

Read it here: http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/

In 2010 and this year, the GOP House Caucus has had a Moritorum on PORK spending. Ron Paul ignored GOP Leadership and loaded up on Earmarks. He was 1 of only 4 House GOP
to request Earmarks. Read more here:

http://washingtonindependent.com/104609/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget-updated

I point this out, as we hear Paul supporters claim we have to support Paul in the laughable scenario of him winning GOP nomination. Why exactly, in this alternate universe, would we support someone who does not support
Burkean Conservatism, and the Republican party? Perhaps we could under this scenario, return the favor? We can call it Ron Paul Blowback

The simple fact, and anyone with a Political IQ above Zero knows this, is under this scenario Ron Paul would be destroyed as a Candidate by the MSM, Obama and Conservatives in a quick manner. All Obama would have to do is come out and read from the Ron Paul Newsletters and run some of his many insane views. A wedge with Evangelicals could easily be played
by his writings on Social Issues if Foreign Policy isn’t enough, there is no way an honest Christian would support Ron Paul once they become fully familiar with his actual positions, record and writings here. Many will find him worse than Obama.

What would happen, quickly, is the GOP would be destroyed and the DNC greatly stregthened. A viable 3rd party candidate would emerge in what would become the new GOP and the sane would flock to it. Paul would lose a 50 state landslide and Obama would win a 2nd term and be able to claim a massive Mandate for his policies(Socialism) and point to the destruction of the GOP and the lunancy of Ron Paul. The MSM would have a field day and full blown Socialism ensues.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The establishment GOP will not stop Paul this time!

El_Terrible on November 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

No, the GOP voters will. Again.

29Victor on November 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I hate RON PAUL!!! Wanna know why? Cause he sucks. Here, let me link to some source to prove how much Rupull sucks:

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+ron+paul+sucks

Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!! Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!! Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!! Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!! Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!Ron Paul is teh suckiest. He hates our troops. He wants us all to die because he’s an anarcho-liberal. Ahhh I hate him!!!

jpee on November 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Yet no concern over Mitt Romney getting the nomination.

MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I don’t want Mitt to get nomination, I’d vote for him before a bircher utopian neo-liberal though. SInce his main goal is to Govern a Purple country, not inspire a cult and destroy the GOP.

the back story on all this goes to when Buckley, Goldwater and company blackballed Ron Paul’s idol, Murray Rothbard out of Conservative circles and GOP along with the Birch Society.

Now that Milton Friedman, Buckley and Reagan are dead, they are trying to get revenge.

Ron Paul’s philosophical idol rejected Classical Liberalism in favor of Anarchism(thinks to his paranoia and logical fallacy thinking). Its not viable and every bit as Utopian as Communism.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Here, let me prove again why Ron Paul sucks so much:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/21/1018445/-Ron-Pauls-Muffin-care

The more I think about Ron Paul’s solution to the plight of the uninsured, the more baffled I become. So, churches are going to come to the rescue? That would seem to leave an awful lot of non-churchgoers to die, but maybe that’s the point. And what about, as the Beatles put it, all the lonely people? These same politicians calling for communities to pitch in together are the ones pushing the myth of the radically-atomized individual. They are the party of American alienation: inhuman-scale corporate bureaucracies, big-box stores, unchecked sprawl, barricaded McMansions, and oversized vehicles with outside-world-avoiding names like “Enclave.” (I generalize, but only slightly.) These are the people who crush attempts at fostering community through urban planning and the creation of public space. For these ideologues to lecture anyone about neighborliness takes a lot of chutzpah.

Not even Ron Paul’s muffin-based health care plan could help his former campaign manager who died with $400,000 in medical bills. He was reportedly ineligible for health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. ).

jpee on November 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM

FloatingRock on November 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Hey, don’t get mad at me for using a term people have been using for Herr Doktor since the last election.

Many of you cultists got po’d back then when anyone referred to him by anything other than ‘Dr.’ Paul. Herr Doktor seemed to fit the anti-semitic leanings and belief subset of many of his followers, so that’s what I call him.

catmman on November 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

This is who RP and his clique are:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64493.html

Glenn Beck’s Religio-Death Rally
Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 28, 2010 11:33 AM

One might yawn at yet another anthill assembly in DC. But the purpose of Glenn Beck‘s huge Lincoln-military celebration–with his fellow neocon warmonger Sarah Palin (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bill Kristol)–is to try to make all the Tea Party people obedient tools of the Republican apparatus, and detach them from Ron Paul. As usual, mass killing and patriotism undermine freedom. It’s more Armageddon-promotion in the Middle East, but the true Paulians will not be fooled. According to Glenn, blessed are the warmakers. It’s an honor to die for your country. It’s an honor to lose your limbs. It’s an honor to kill other people by the boatload. But hey, Beck, don’t just talk. Fly into Afghanistan. I’ll help pay for your parachute.

There is zero chance Ron Paul and Sarah Palin or any conservative will ever be on a ticket with Ron Paul.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM

More reason why RuPull is the worstest:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1662182/pg1

Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents.

Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.

He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kickbacks.”

Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.

He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens.

jpee on November 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Do Iowans in the caucus have to prove they are from there?

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Is that why there seems to be this deliberative push for Romney?

MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2011 at 2:55 PM

No, there is a deliberate push for Romney because the editorial boards know that the base doesn’t like him and they know that Romney’s actions as governor of MA will neutralize many Republican criticisms of Obama. Nevertheless, Romney won’t look so reasonable to them once he gets the nomination; Mormonism will suddenly become a heavily-discussed topic, Mitt’s record of flip-flops will suddenly come under strict scrutiny, his years at Bain Capital and his record of “corporate plundering” will become front page news, that picture of him with hundred dollar bills behind his ears and sticking out of his jacket will become his default profile picture in every major newspaper, and reporters will grill him on his record in Massachusetts (wait until the media roasts him on the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare in a one-on-one interview.)

Let’s review Romney’s statements about Romneycare that have thusfar gone unchallenged by the media, but will certainly come under fire if he gets the nomination:

Argument: “I am not going to walk away from [Romneycare]. It’s right for states to come up with their own solutions.”

Rebuttal: By this standard, so long as the law is a proper exercise of state power, its the “right thing to do.” That is a shallow argument that completely avoids any discussion of the substance of the law or its results.

Argument: “It was the right thing to do for Massachusetts, even if it hasn’t worked perfectly.”

Rebuttal: The CLASS Act failed recently and many Republicans warned that its just a taste of what is to come if Obamacare is not repealed. Governor Romney, couldn’t Obamacare simply be experiencing growing pains like MassCare?

Argument: “I’m proud of what we are able to accomplish. I will tell you this, though. We have the lowest number of kids as a percentage uninsured of any state in America.”

Rebuttal: The bill subsidizes health insurance for ALL Massachusetts residents earning up to three times the poverty line. Gov. Romney, are you defending the entirety of MassCare on the grounds that more children are now insured? How do you answer the President’s argument that his health care program will provide more health insurance for children nationwide?

Argument: “What we did in Massachusetts was not a big-government solution, what we did was we leveraged the private sector”

Rebuttal: Governor Romney, MassCare creates government-regulated health insurance exchanges. Administrative agencies determine coverage requirements for insurers participating in the exchange. As you are no doubt aware, the Affordable Care Act uses a nearly identical structure to extend health insurance access. You have described President Obama’s healthcare law as a “big-government driven, top-down solution”, but doesn’t the ACA simply “leverage the private sector” like your plan in Massachusetts?

Lawdawg86 on November 19, 2011 at 3:49 PM

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM

LOL, citing Cindy Sheehan’s Main Squeeze Lew Rockwell?

He’s even Battier than Ron Paul is, and that’s saying a lot.

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Thinking of doing some volunteer work for him in december in Iowa. Even if he didn’t win the nomination, winning Iowa would be a big step toward making freedom oriented candidates more mainstream.

ReformedAndDangerous on November 19, 2011 at 3:53 PM

LOL, citing Cindy Sheehan’s Main Squeeze Lew Rockwell?

He’s even Battier than Ron Paul is, and that’s saying a lot.

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Ron Paul is to this day in close contact and alliance with his friend and former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell. He regularly has RP speak at Mises and other functions to this day, and always they tie their views into an anti-war zealotry.

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Thinking of doing some volunteer work for him in december in Iowa. Even if he didn’t win the nomination, winning Iowa would be a big step toward making freedom oriented candidates more mainstream.

ReformedAndDangerous on November 19, 2011 at 3:53 PM

There is nothing freedom oriented and especially not Reformed about Ron Paul.

In a free society,…. all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. ….But look at where we are today, constantly fighting over the definition and legality of marriage……..I’d like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

- Ron Paul, Marriage – “Liberty Defined”

This is not “Liberty”, it is License. This is not “Under God”, it is “the Individual is God”

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM

The Liberal party in Israel often raises questions about apartheid conditions that Palestinians are subjected to…Former President Jimmy Carter is now persona non grata for raising the question in his most recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

- Ron Paul, Liberty Defined – Zionism chapter

“My advice: Leave the young people alone and they’ll find out that they prefer lovemaking to warmongering and are more anxious to get along with one another than the older generations who stir pots of war.”
- Ron Paul, Liberty Defined Ch. Zionism Page 316-317

World ignores Israel’s 200 nukes yet pressures Iran’s 1 nuke

Today, the Israeli political lobby is a powerful political force. Two to three hundred nuclear weapons, under Israel’s control, make Israel more powerful than all the Arab and Muslim countries put together. But that’s not where the real power lies. The UN can labor tirelessly in “controlling” one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn’t exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, the world community rarely even admits that Israel’s nukes exist–and at the same time Iran has never been ruled in noncompliance with the NPT. The fact that Muslim nations become annoyed with this policy is written off by most in the West by charging anti-Semitism.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.317 Apr 19, 2011

jp on November 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM

he is a kook, but a kook who happened to be right about a few things.

rob verdi on November 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Stopped clock and all that. Contrary to many Paultroons, you can embrace AND reject parts of his agenda. You can also reject him whole over the parts you don’t like and it doesn’t make you a bad person.

JeffWeimer on November 19, 2011 at 4:42 PM

jp on November 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I don’t need my political candidates to agree with my theology, just my politics. Another thing I dont need is for the government to impose my definition of marriage, or any other moral issue, on everyone else. I believe my ideas can win out by virtue of them being correct, without any “help” from government forcing them on others. Government should instead stick to what it was supposed to be doing: protecting the individuals person and property from being trespassed upon…

ReformedAndDangerous on November 19, 2011 at 9:15 PM