Tagged: Ron Paul Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
First, I take no pleasure whatsoever saying this. Romney will be the GOP nominee. Santorum has run out of field. There are not enough truly conservative states left to get him to the nomination. Of course he will keep going in the hopes of a contested convention, but in their hearts of hearts they know it is not in the cards.
Therefore, it is time. VP Stakes:
There are plenty to choose from.
Herman Cain: I don’t see it. The issues that came up about the affair would scare off any candidate in my mind. Why deal with that distraction when you don’t have to? I give this almost no chance.
Paul Ryan: A great choice, but very young. He also has very young children who he doesn’t want to put into the spotlight at their tender ages. Which just makes me love him all the more. Also, very remote chance of this happening.
Chris Christie: This is a non-starter as far as I am concerned. I like many things about Christie, but he adds nothing to the ticket. He won’t bring NJ over to the GOP. He is just as moderate as Romney is in most respects. So I give this almost no chance.
Michele Bachman: She will excite the base, but let’s be honest; she is a loose cannon. Romney won’t take the chance of her blowing his last chance at being president.
Marco Rubio: He is dynamic and from a swing state. He had a great deal of tea party support. Notice I said had. There are many in the Tea Party who have lost confidence in him. He has some issues with a brother-in-law who has had some drug dealing issues. Of course that has nothing to do with him, he didn’t marry the guy, but the media will have some fun with that. He also has said that he has zero intention of taking it even if offered. Of course much easier to say no to a reporter than to the nominee. He is also young. He may feel he isn’t ready yet. I would give this a 50/50 chance.
Allen West: West has been favorable towards Newt, although he never came out and endorsed him. West has the entire package that the conservative base is looking for. He will make an excellent attack dog on the stump. He will pull no punches with Obama, which will allow Romney to stay above the fray and concentrate on comparing and contrasting policies with the Obama administration. West had some issues in Iraq that will come up again. He sometimes doesn’t always filter what he is saying. He also just moved in order to run for congress again. I would give this maybe a 40% chance.
Sarah Palin: Heaven knows she has been vetted. But she is also very polarizing. I also don’t think she would accept. Why be the small dog again when she had the chance to run for the big seat and decided to bow out? I give this less than a 20% chance.
Rand Paul: I like Rand. A lot as a matter of fact. He also is another that will take on Obama without fear. His down side is that it will add fuel to the fire to the people who accused Romney and Ron Paul of working together and Rand getting the VP seat as the payoff. It will alienate the people who believe this. But, it may bring in Ron Paul fans. Not likely, but some may be willing to vote for him. I would say this is about a 30% chance.
I don’t see him taking any of the candidates he went up against. The blood between Newt and him is way to bad for it to be repaired. It looks like it is starting to get that way with Rick now as well. I would give this the least likely of the scenarios.
My pick is Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia. He is currently the head of the RGA. Has a rising profile nationally. He has spoken at the Reagan library recently and was received well. His administration has been very successful. He has increased revenues without raising taxes, VA’s ratings has increased under his administration, he has kept most of his promises when he was elected, (one more year to fulfill the balance). He is also a very good campaigner. He is a staunch conservative, which Romney needs to excite the base. Virginia is a swing state, and right now is trending to Obama by 8 points with Romney as the nominee. (Which Romney was the best of the remaining candidates).
“A brokered convention is now our stated goal, and winning the nomination for Dr. Paul at said convention will require extensive politicking.”
Jesse Benton, Campaign Manager, Ron Paul for President
Be careful what you wish for. He has people organized all over the country to be the delegates at the national election. They will be voters for a second ballot and just as importantly, they will be voting on the planks of the platform that the candidate will be running on and defending. We could see a GOP Party plank that does not contain pro-life language.
SignPainterGuy is discussing. Toggle Comments
“The last thing I’ve done is talk to Mitt Romney. Besides he wouldn’t talk to me about that. That’s just fiction and its mostly been promoted by I guess by somebody who’s super involved in conspiracy theories. That’s Santorum doing that but it doesn’t make any sense at all that that would be the case. And, my son can take care of himself.”
Congressman Paul addressing the rumors that he is working with Mitt Romney behind the scenes – the payoff being a VP slot for his son Rand.
Who is it that spends all that time on the radio with Alex Jones? Yeah, I think that is Ron Paul.
I have actually enjoyed many of the Huntsman Videos. I will miss them when he drops out shortly.
just a conservative girl and Beowulf are discussing. Toggle Comments
Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.
But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.
Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic
There are many things that I like about Ron Paul’s stances. I most certainly have a streak of liberation in me. Sometimes that streak is bigger than at other times. But like the author, I view libertarianism not as a form of government, but a personal way of living your life and how you vote.
I despise and mock any politician that is surrounded by a cult of personality. We have had way too much of that in the past four years. Politicians are (thankfully) not gods, miracle workers, nor do they have a magic wand. The process back to a limited constitutional government will be long, slow and painstaking. It is up to us to continue to pay attention no matter who is in office.
You can take this short quiz to see who you match up with. Apparently I am more of a Paul fan than I ever thought. He is coming out as my top pick with Michele Bachmann in second and Rick Perry in third.
Maybe I am just a liberation girl instead?
Michele Bachmann will win by a small margin
Ron Paul will come in second or third. He is an expert at getting people to vote in straw polls
Mitt Romney will do better than most people think.
Herman Cain will place in the top 6, but it will not be enough to give him the momentum he needs to raise his profile and much-needed cash
Pawlenty really hurt himself the other night and he fill finish very poorly and will be dropping out of the race before the real vote is cast
Gingrich will finish close to the bottom, he won’t be too far behind Pawlenty in calling it a day
Huntsman won’t even register
Rick Perry will have a very good showing even though he is a write in
Sarah Palin will do remarkably well for someone who has not announced her candidacy
Santorum I think will do better than originally predicted, he had a good showing at the debate last night, he is also beloved by social conservatives for his strong and outspoken voice for the voiceless on abortion
McCotter may actually have a bit of an impact in the poll. He has a wonderful dry sense of humor and is a Midwesterner Some votes of his are suspect, but overall a good solid conservative
I read in the paper today what the candidates are serving in their tents – i.e Cain is serving Godfather Pizza of course, Bachmann is doing B-B-Q and Funnel Cake, Paul wouldn’t announce what he was serving, but the funniest part is that almost every candidate is having Mike Huckabee playing his bass. He will be making the rounds for the party tomorrow in Ames – I suppose he need to fill his one hour show on Fox
Who do you think will win?
SignPainterGuy is discussing. Toggle Comments
Most people more than likely could care less what I think, but since I blog I am going to put it out there anyway.
The overall grades –
A- to Rick Santorum. To me hands down he won the night. Now, I don’t think it will change the fact that he has little to no chance of getting the nomination, but he did very well. He can very proud of his performance.
B+ Mitt Romney. He walked away unscathed, which I am sure was his goal for the night. Iowa is going to be very difficult for him to win. But I am going to downgrade him to a B- because the truth is he didn’t answer many questions, he did a great deal of evading.
B- Herman Cain – I think Herman did very well through most of it. He got a little defensive with Chris Wallace when asked about some of his Fox News Sunday appearances. But, he laid out some specifics on certain things, something he has not done much of in the past. But he needed to hit it out of the park to give himself a better chance in the Straw Poll on Saturday. He did not accomplish that.
C Michele Bachmann – She didn’t do as well in this debate as she did in the last. She too was a little defensive on certain items. The back and forth with Pawlenty I think actually hurt her. She should have taken the high road and instead punched back. Some found it refreshing, I personally found it rude. She was asked a question about her husband’s role in her White House. Many found it to be unfair, again I am in the minority and didn’t find the question unfair. It wasn’t all that different from the questions we were asking about Bill Clinton’s role in a Hillary White House. Spouses talk to each other about their jobs, it isn’t unreasonable to question what type of role that spouse will play. I personally don’t want an activist spouse, as they were not elected.
C Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty was another one that needed to hit it out of the park and did not. I personally find Pawlenty to be a good general election candidate, but the primary is going to be a little difficult for him. He is the Anti-Obama in certain ways, that I think would translate well with independents, but not very well with GOP primary voters. He must do well this weekend in the straw poll, or his candidacy is all but over. I think he will be one of the first to drop out.
C- Newt Gingrich Newt found a way to look like a brilliant strategist and all out bafoon all in one evening. He came across as angry and defensive. He called out Chris Wallace for asking “Gotcha” questions. Sorry Newt, but if you can’t run a campaign you certainly are capable of running a super power that is in major crisis. I think he won’t be too far behind Pawlenty in dropping out.
F John Huntsman He barely answered the questions. He kept referring to his record as Governor of Utah. Excuse Mr. Huntsman, but I don’t live in Utah and don’t know what the record is. If you want me to judge you on that record, the very least you can do is tell me what it is.
F Ron Paul I would give him a lower grade if one existed. While I agree with Paul on many fiscal issues, his answer to Iran was downright scary. A person who believes that a nuclear armed Iran is not a danger to the United States cannot be president. Doesn’t Iran call us the Great Satan? I think they do. Some of the extremist Muslims in Iran have no respect for human life, Jihad is a great calling as far as they are concerned so killing large groups of people is nothing to them. One of the main jobs of the President is to provide national security to the country. A Paul presidency would embolden our enemies and make us a target.
Here is a good clip on Iran.
This was classic. Paul fans think he got the best of Santorum on this, I don’t happen to agree.
SignPainterGuy and just a conservative girl are discussing. Toggle Comments
Just some quick thoughts as I don’t have a great deal of time.
I think that Michele Bachman did a great job. She sometimes has a habit of getting her facts a little mixed up, but not tonight. She showed that she is able to stay on topic and answer questions with quick soundbites that get to the point.
I think that Tim Pawlenty was the big winner tonight. He came across as likable, knowledgeable, and a good conservative. Job well done.
Newt showed why he has been described as the brain or the idea guy. He is in his element in a debate format and tonight was no exception. The big downside was that he outright lied in my opinion. He is sticking to his ridiculous story that what he said about Paul Ryan was taken out of context. It was a live interview Newt, we ain’t buying what you are trying to sell with this one. You just made yourself look dishonest.
Herman Cain I think was one of the biggest losers. Not because of his answers, just that he wasn’t given much of a chance to speak. The questions went mainly to Romney, Newt, and Pawlenty. I guess these are the three that CNN has deigned the viable candidates for the nomination. Overall his performance was strong, just not nearly enough face time.
Ron Paul was Ron Paul. I agree with much of what he would do on fiscal policy, but he loses me on social issues and foreign policy.
Romney was doing his somersaults about Romneycare or as Pawlenty’s newest phrase Obamney Care. Not happening Mitt. I am not buying it, you seem unwilling to sign an all out repeal and nothing less is acceptable. Screw this waiver idea of yours.
Rick Santorum also did pretty well, he showed he can debate with the rest of the field. Santorum is out for me, I will not vote for him even if he is the nominee so I don’t really care what he has to say.
What I did find refreshing is that they talked about some of the third rail topics. Ethanol and entitlement reform. We need to open and honest to the American people, we are broke and it is time we take on the tough and scary subjects. We are almost out of road and can no longer just the kick the can. The right needs to talk openly and honestly about these topics and not allow the media and the left to turn this into throwing granny over the cliff scenario. Oh, wait they already did that.
What are your thoughts?
Let me state for the record that I am not a Ron Paul supporter and doubt very seriously if I could ever be swayed to become one. I have a strong opinion about the Texas Congressman. He grates on my nerves more than a rotten rendition of the National Anthem by Christina Aguilera.
Following the announcement at the 2011 CPAC that Paul had won the straw poll, Young Americans for Freedom issued a press release advising that the group had voted him off its national advisory board.
Jordan Marks, the group’s National Director, said, “It’s a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative/libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than our current socialist presidential regime.”
Marks went on to harshly say, “Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board. Good riddance and he won’t be missed.”
Responding to YAF’s announcement, Ron Paul’s political director and an in-law, Jesse Benton belligerently said, “I haven’t heard of YAF doing anything in years, I thought they were defunct. Young Americans for Liberty is the group of the future.”
This “group of the future” is the national youth affiliate of the Ron Paul Revolution and was officially launched in December 2008 so it stands to reason that Benton would try to trivialize their decision to oust him.
Politico notes that the Paul group sought to skew the straw poll by buying 1,000 tickets to the conference and a Paul aide told another Republican that they’d recruited at least 700 supporters to vote for him. What this says to me is that his “Ronulans” are more adept at winning him beauty contests than primaries.
Ron Paul’s zombie cult of “Ronulans” showed their asses when they chose to heckle former Vice President Dick Cheney who was at CPAC to present Donald Rumsfeld with the “Defender of the Constitution” award by calling him a “war criminal”. They also yelled, “Where’s Bin Laden?”, “murdering scum” and “draft dodger.” Nice.
It was this exhibition of incivility that prompted Donald Trump, another CPAC featured speaker and potential presidential candidate to declare, “By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected. I’m sorry, folks. I like Ron Paul, but he has zero chance of getting elected.”
Ron Paul is so far out there that he’s literally in orbit; hence his followers are referred to as “Ronulans.”
Let’s begin with why I dislike Ron Paul.
He proselytizes fiscal sanity yet he is one of five U.S. House members who brought home more total earmarked money—54 earmarks totaling $398,460,640—three of the five Congressmen were defeated in the 2010 November mid-term elections. So he’s not really a crusader against spending.
Paul consistently hypes gold and the gold standard. His personal wealth is almost entirely invested in the precious metal and its mining stocks. He is mesmerized by the aura of gold so if his political stance is heeded his personal wealth increases exponentially. So he’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Further, Ron Paul is against “foreign entanglements”. Isolationism is not intelligent. How would he deal with an international menace?
John Bolton, speaking at CPAC 2011, took a stand against Libertarian-leaning Republicans like Ron Paul to reduce defense spending by saying now is “not the time for indiscriminate budget cuts in our national defense budget.”
In his often recited critique of 9/11, Paul never once mentions the fiery rage of jihadi fundamentalism that aims to restore “the lost caliphate” and invoke medieval Sharia law. In Paul’s world, resentment towards “U.S. entanglements” led a group of sexually repressed Muslim men, brought up on a doctrine of aggressive Wahhabism and the promise of seventy-two virgins to crash two planes into the World Trade Center.
Not once does he answer why, if U.S. foreign policy causes so many people around the world to “hate us,” Islamic murderers carry out their suicide bombings in India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and other unaligned Muslim nations.
From 2007 in the Washington Post, here’s Paul talking about America’s defenses:
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today…I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.”
Not only does his rhetoric shadow that of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “wiping off the map” threats, it unforgivably ignores the fact that a domestic passenger flight from Boston to Los Angeles is at the root of the tragic events of 9/11. Try as I might, I fail to see how a submarine can penetrate terrorism. I regard his statement as ludicrous fantasy.
Finally, there is a piece I found at American Thinker dated November 17, 2007 which sheds light on Paul’s apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups’ public participation in his campaign and financial support.
In a word, I find Ron Paul to be reckless.
Read more at No Sheeples Here.
Yukio Ngaby, Tweets that mention Ron Paul, The “Ronulans” and The Young Americans For Freedom Kerfuffle « Potluck -- Topsy.com, SignPainterGuy, and 4 others are discussing. Toggle Comments