The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Pawlenty, Paul, and the Press

By on 8.15.11 @ 6:10AM

The media and a paper candidacy.

Tim Pawlenty looked good on paper.

Pawlenty had been twice elected governor in Minnesota, a Democratic state, yet he did not have the liberal baggage of an Obamacare-like health care law or flip-flops on abortion and other social issues. He was an executive who balanced budgets and (arguably) didn’t raise taxes. He was from the Midwest, a region where Republicans needed to do well. He came from a blue-collar background. He was both an evangelical and a former Catholic.

It was an open secret that Pawlenty planned to seek the Republican presidential nomination almost as soon as Barack Obama was elected. Pawlenty had been a runner-up to Sarah Palin in John McCain’s vice presidential sweepstakes. He received a lot of favorable attention from conservative pundits, especially those who hoped he would mix his pro-life views with middle class-friendly economic policies to build a “party of Sam’s Club.”

Perhaps most important of all to reporters with visions of a President Pawlenty dancing in their heads, when the former governor did decide to put together a presidential campaign, he hired quality staffers and respected consultants. There was just one problem with all this: the polls showed very little support for a Pawlenty candidacy among the real, live voters who would actually decide the Republican nomination.

As 2011 wore on, those poll numbers barely budged. Maybe it was just name recognition, pundits suggested. But Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann started out with similarly low name recognition, only to quickly bypass Pawlenty in popular standing. It’s still early, we reminded ourselves. Now here it is August, still months before the first binding contest of 2012, and Pawlenty is already out of the race.

There was nothing wrong with speculating that Pawlenty would have made a strong candidate for the Republican nomination. While I had my doubts as to whether Pawlenty’s record or rhetoric matched to mood of the GOP primary electorate, I found the theoretical case for him quite plausible myself.

But the mainstream and, to a lesser extent, conservative media were slow to let go of these theories even as they increasingly did not mesh with the facts on the ground. It wasn’t until it began to leak out that the campaign was having trouble paying those staffers and consultants that reporters began to cover Pawlenty as a dead man walking. By the time the Ames straw poll rolled around, it was clear something had to give. On Sunday, that something was Pawlenty’s presidential aspirations.

CONTRAST THIS WITH the media’s treatment of Ron Paul, who received twice as many votes in the straw poll as Pawlenty and lost to Bachmann by less than one percentage point. Paul has been running ahead of Pawlenty in scientific polls for months. USA Today/Gallup found Paul at 14 percent nationally compared to Pawlenty’s 3 percent; CNN had him at 12 percent to Pawlenty’s 2 percent. In the RealClearPolitics polling average, Paul is closer to Bachmann and Sarah Palin while Pawlenty is closer to the rear.

Yet Paul is treated as an afterthought. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote before Ames that it wouldn’t mean much if Paul finished first. Another reporter blogged “a Paul win would help to diminish the overall process in Iowa to outsiders.” Pawlenty himself was prepared to use the rationale that Bachmann and Paul were less credible than he, until the two Tea Party favorites bounced him out of the race entirely.

All this is somewhat understandable. If Pawlenty’s Iowa strategy had panned out and he got to go one-on-one against Mitt Romney, he had a hypothetical path to the nomination. Paul’s best case scenario is probably doing reasonably well in the early states, the caucuses, and the Interior West, and even then it is difficult to chart out a path to the nomination for him that doesn’t involve a lot of imagination.

Many reporters feel burned by Paul last time. When he beat the other Republican candidates in fundraising during the fourth quarter of 2007 and experienced a slight uptick in the polls, the media paid more attention to his candidacy. Then he didn’t win any primaries or caucuses, finishing outside the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire. But that’s no excuse for pretending his poll numbers now are lower than Pawlenty’s or Jon Huntsman’s when they are clearly not.

Ultimately, pundits — no matter how clever — don’t decide elections. Voters do.

There will be plenty of postmortems focusing on what Pawlenty did wrong. But let’s not forget that the media too was wrong to anoint Pawlenty too soon because he looked good on paper.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (174) |

Groad| 8.15.11 @ 6:24AM

Rube Paul is a 76 year old fringe Libertarian who runs as a Republican. He is not conservative and has more in common with the Leftist Democrats and Liberals than Conservative Republicans. He is not a Tea Party candidate either. His followers are largel;y composed of a coterie of dedicated crackpots and assorted fringe loonies. He is too old, too loony and too dangerous on too many issues.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.15.11 @ 6:32AM

Groad,
that pretty much sums him up in a "nut-shell".

NedB| 8.15.11 @ 9:10AM

PaulBots to begin auto defensive posting in 5..4..3..2..1

freejack| 8.15.11 @ 10:20AM

Post something worthy of defending. Right now you are just acting like a mindless troll.

SpiralArchitect| 8.15.11 @ 12:57PM

Paul is an isolationist.

Your retort please, freejack.

Charles| 8.15.11 @ 2:37PM

"SpiralArchitect",

I'll respond to your claim.

"Isolationist: n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/isolationist

I think you are either incorrectly using the term or intentionally misusing it, as per Mr. Balko's sarcastic observation: "the 'Isolationist' smear is usually directed at people who prefer trading with foreigners over killing them."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....foreigners

Regards,

Charles

Red Phillips | 8.15.11 @ 2:56PM

Charles beat me to the isolationist definition, but I will add this. SpiralA, despite what you have been told by mainstream "conservative" sources, non-interventionism is the only foreign policy consistent with authentic conservatism. Non-interventionism, not interventionism, is the policy that flows naturally from a consistent authentic conservative mindset. I'm sorry that you have been mis-educated, but it is time to face the hard truth. The "conservative" establishment has lied to you.

Red Phillips | 8.15.11 @ 2:30PM

Actually what is predictable is the reaction of the Paul haters who start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of his name.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:22PM

I dunno, Red, why is it a good idea to let maniacs have the Bomb when we can easily stop it?

Elaborate please. Extra points for Pig Latin.

I don't really care---in the Caucus in Iowa, he's gonna lose, and in New Hampshire he will be pounded like road kill.

Red Phillips | 8.15.11 @ 6:51PM

"why is it a good idea to let maniacs have the Bomb when we can easily stop it?"

"Let?" First of all let's examine your basic interventionist premises. So America gets to tell other countries what kind of weapons they get to have? Does Iran get to tell us what kind of weapons we can have? Does Mexico? Canada? On the other hand is Moldova also supposed to tell Iran what weapons it can have? Or Burma? You, as a red-blooded American male, would, I'm sure, tell Iran just exactly where they could stick it if they tried to tell us what kind of weapons we can have. I know this confuses you, but non-interventionism can be summed up pretty much as wanting the US to act like other countries which is, of course, the intuitively conservative position. Interventionists want the US to act "special," as if the same rules do not apply to us. This IS NOT conservative. It is Jacobin.

"we can easily stop it?"

Really? Easily? A war with Iran would be easy? A war with Iran would be disastrous. If you don't understand that you are out of touch with reality.

A Christian Just War case could be made for preventing an intractable enemy from aquiring a devastating weapon if you knew they would use it against you, but Iran doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that threshold. We don't think they have a weapon. We don't know if they are attempting to aquire one. (I don't doubt they would like to have one, but our own risk assessment does not confirm that they are.) And we certainly do not know for sure that if they did they would use it against us. In fact, they couldn't use it against us (mainland) even if they wanted to because they don't have the delivery capability so you have to postulate them giving it to a terrorist, something no serious analyst of the region thinks is plausible. So an attack on Iran would clearly be a preventative war "just to be on the safe side" and would not even come close to meeting Christian Just War criteria.

chuck| 8.15.11 @ 9:34PM

Your rant only makes sense with the complete absence of any knowledge of history. Some nations are much too dangerous to allow them to have large military capabilities.

Red Phillips | 8.16.11 @ 12:28PM

"Rant?"

Read my post again. It is not at all rant like. It is a very measured response to the question Occam asked.

Again let's examine your interventionist premises. "Allow them?" So America uniquely gets to decide what weapons other countries can have? Do other countries get to decide what weapons we can have? And if they decide so how do they go about enforcing their decision. No red-blooded American would tolerate such. But other countries are supposed to be OK with it if we do it? The entire interventionist enterprise is built on the idea that America opperates by a different set of rules. Many interventionist and neocons are proud to admit this. But this is face obviously NOT A CONSERVATIVE mindset. It is a modern day version of Revolutionary France. Don't tell me I don't know history. You don't know basic political philosophy. Interventionism is a manifestation of the revolutionary enterprise.

Florida Voter| 8.15.11 @ 10:36AM

As a Floridian I am tired of seeing these establishment big government candidates trotted out in front of us talking a little bit about small government but never having the record nor the courage to follow through.

My message to Republicans is that if they try another McCain ala Romney or Perry then I will do like I did in 2008 and sit out the general election.

And if they continue with this obvious bias I might even vote Democrat for the first time in my life just to spite them.

Will Berg| 8.15.11 @ 10:41AM

Good riddance. Take your Paulbots to the Democrat Party where you belong.

Red Phillips | 8.15.11 @ 2:59PM

Get a clue Mr. Berg. Internationalist interventionism is the liberal policy. Non-intervention is the inherently conservative policy. Study the philosophical first principles of each and then get back to me.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 11:05AM

Thanks to Jackasses like you Obama won in 2008. Explain that to your grandchildren when they ask why the country is so far in debt.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:49AM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.15.11 @ 10:15AM

Actually, RP was an enemy of Ronald Reagan. In 1983, his buddies Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard called Reagan a warmonger and a war criminal and called on Congress to impeach him. In 1987, Ron Paul called Reagan "a failure" as President, deserted the GOP, and joined the Libertarian Party.

Will Berg| 8.15.11 @ 10:25AM

I agree, the early Reagan was a wimp. He talked a lot about less government and cut taxes right from the start. Fortunately he came around to the one world government and got his act together. His deficit spending lead the way for our current acceptance of spending more money than we have as long as it involves wars. He is to be praised for getting off of his high horse about small government and doing what needed to be done to protect us from the Russians who were knocking at our front door.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 11:20AM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:03PM

Actually loser Ronald Reagan flew to Texas to campaign for Ron Paul. Yes Ron Paul did say Reagan had failed to shrink the size of government something Reagan himself freely admitted

William R| 8.15.11 @ 7:06AM

Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running. Whether it be on domestic issues or foreign policy.

Republican Errors -----Russell Kirk

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 8:47AM

Correction: Ron Paul is the most PALEOconservative running. "Conservative" here is too broad a term.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 11:32AM

Correction: Dr.Ron Paul Is Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate.

The Tea Party Sent A One-Two Near Dead Heat Message In Iowa ,With Our Presidential Candidates Michele Bachmann & Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Mike Hawk| 8.15.11 @ 9:31AM

Yeah, right. CO-sponsers a bill with Bahney Fwank to legalize Marajuana, advocates legalizing prostitution and other hard drugs, has a McGovern style foreign policy and advocates gutting the military. He also blames us for being attacked on 9/11 and thinks it is OK for Iran to go nuclear (they are just defending themselves he says), His crackpot supporters also think secession is constitutional. I would never vote to nominate a nutcase who will be 77 during the campaign. This guy ais a fringe kook. He is not a conservative.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:36PM

William F Buckley supported legalizing drugs. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. It is a state issue. Do you have something against the 10th amendment??

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:23PM

That was Buckley's bow to Libertarianism. We in YAF NEVER discussed legalizing drugs in a positive sense.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.15.11 @ 10:16AM

Ron Paul is not a conservative and never was. He's a Big "L" Libertarian who agrees with only a tiny part of conservative philosophy. Luckily, he's a non-issue. Just like you.

freejack| 8.15.11 @ 10:30AM

You're so damn shallow I can piss on the world and the puddle formed would be deeper than you.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 11:35AM

Asked & Answered TehranBoy.

Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:12PM

Hilarious. You think fighting endless was in the Middle East is conservative. Whereas in his memoirs Ronald Reagan wrote that the United States should be neutral.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:41PM

And you're dumber than a load of bricks.

Neoconservatism, not libertarianism, is the true aberration on the American Right.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.....id=1886651

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 7:30AM

Ron Paul is setting the agenda for the debate and everyone knows it. He gets the most applause. Has a huge national following, and can raise a lot of money. I 2008 he was ahead of the country. Now the country has moved his way. He is the intellectual and moral giant who is reshaping the RepublicanParty. The vast majority of americans are with him on ending the wars and bringing our troops home. People love his courage and knowledge. Head to head with Obama he is usually in the top two contenders. He gets far more support in polling from Democrats and Independents then any other Republican. No Republican can win without us. Get behind Ron Paul if you want to win. Another airhead Bush clone has no chance.

chuck| 8.15.11 @ 7:55AM

While I liked Paul on domestic issues, and I agree on scaling back our overseas commitment of troops, I think Ron Paul is way over the edge on some of his foreign policy beliefs. If not an isolationist, he's pretty damned close. Simply put, he stands no chance of being nominated or elected.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 8:10AM

The GOP Ruling Elite RINO-CINO Fops & Their Media Flunkies Are Setting Us Up For Their Boy Mittens Romney.

We Tea Party Patriots Are In A Media War.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Brett| 8.15.11 @ 9:32AM

If you are thinking that Ron Paul is an Isolationist, I highly recommend you acknowledge Clint's main point. We ARE in a media war.

If Ron Paul is Isolationist, then Canada must be too. Yet that doesn't make sense either, because Canada trades and is pretty open. Canada is no where near true Isolationism, not like North Korea.

Ron Paul would put us on a path to be more like Canada, who is more like we USED to be.

I fear the day we start looking at the world as having no possibility for peace.

Don't let the media judge this election. Stand up and fight with your mind. I have faith you'll come around to Ron Paul and stand firmly behind him once you follow more closely to what he says and writes.

He is a marvel in this modern age, my friend.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 10:00AM

Yes, let us all aspire to be Canada. There's something to shoot for.

Bill Moore| 8.15.11 @ 10:30AM

When was the last blowback attack on Canada?

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 11:32AM

Live small, aim low, so nobody will bother you.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:36PM

Quite frequently---in 2006, there was a plot to kill Stephen Harper by beheading, foiled.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 11:38AM

Let's Aspire To Be The Constitutional Republic We Once Were.

We Tea Party Patriots Support Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 12:18PM

Live Small, Lay Low, So Nobody Will Bother You.
Sit Down.

chuck| 8.15.11 @ 9:45PM

I've read your posts for awhile now Clint, and I can't help but get the feeling that you have appointed yourself spokesman for the Tea Party. I always figured that the Tea Party is largely a local gathering of people fed up with the crap going on in the country, but really has no national organization. Certainly not in any sense a national political party, but more of a movement. I can understand Bachman or Palin being described as a Tea Party favorite, but Ron Paul? Really?

Mike Rogers| 8.15.11 @ 8:48AM

The best you can say about Ron Paul is that he's bang on the money on constitutional issues, otherwise he just sounds like an anti-war, almost anti-American, fringe libertarian. That will get you a solid core of committed supporters, willing to got to the ends of the earth for straw polls, but it won't get you nominated.
Worse than that, the one kind of inspiration Ron Paul cannot provide to his supporters is to treat the competition with respect: From the ones who cannot be debated without them simply throwing insults against the other person's candidate to the staffer in Ames who loudly called a Santorum staffer "bitch" in front of many witnesses, the overriding theme is that there's a message, but no leadership: His supporters are as cranky as he is.
I am personally conservative, going on libertarian, and I do think that we need to get out of these wars, which are rapidly becoming pointless, while maintaining a very strong defense posture with global reach. What I won't do is blame America for the bad attitudes in the Middle East, which go back centuries.

Brett D| 8.15.11 @ 9:34AM

How do you mean anti-American? It might be worth reminding you he blows everyone away in military contributions. Our proudest Americans are standing behind Ron Paul, why isn't the rest of the country?

That still doesn't make sense to me, when we claim to support our troops. Except, they aren't allowed to have a voice who LEADS them to their demise or not.

Brett D| 8.15.11 @ 9:37AM

In fact, go on Youtube as soon as you have a moment and search for: Veterans for Ron Paul

You might learn something new about America.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 11:44AM

" LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, it was confirmed that the campaign of 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders, a distinction he also achieved during his 2008 presidential run.

“Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman, Jesse Benton. “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously, and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”

We Tea Party Patriots Support Our tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

David T| 8.15.11 @ 1:56PM

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish Ron Paul's foreign policy from the ranting of the "blame America first" crowd. That kind of talk will never win the hearts and minds of most Americans.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:38PM

Not all of our proudest Americans are standing behind Paul. Some of us heterosexual men are standing behind Michele Bachmann---just as Conservative, much better view. Of course, if one likes scrawny 78 year old white guy ass....

steve in ohio| 8.15.11 @ 9:44AM

I agree with most of what you said. Don't you think it make sense to cast a protest vote for Ron Paul. The establishment is going to force Romney or Perry on us, so we need some way to tell them the grass roots are getting fed up with the welfare/warfare state.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:16PM

So you love war?? That's real conservative.

Charles Easterly| 8.15.11 @ 9:16AM

"Groad",

You've paraphrased the "anti-Paul" mantra quite well. Your unoriginal commentary is so commonly used by pundits and citizens who favor the status quo that it has come to resemble a chant.

I've noticed that denying reality is another common trait, which you've also predictably done.

Governor Johnson and many other public servants who have a strong record of principled leadership and ethical constituency share fundamental views with Congressman Paul, but I can understand why it is important for you and others to ignore this so you can focus on misrepresenting Congressman Paul as standing alone on the fringe, and by extension, minimize his widespread support among ordinary citizens.

How do you explain his respect and support among our fellow citizens who serve in the armed forces, who have donated more money to him than all of the other Republican candidates combined?
You can't. It doesn't fit within your imaginary paradigm.
http://www.politifact.com/texa.....-him-far-/

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 10:51AM

Those numbers only count the contributions of $200 or more. They do not track smaller contributions and if they did, you might get a totally different result. Military pay being what it is, I don't know of to many people other than higher ranking officers that can just toos $200 to the canidate of their choice. Also, how many of those were from Reservist who would like to get back to their higher paying "Civilian" career? That # could also throw a whole new spin on the contributions.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:01PM

What Military Donations Did Your Favorite Candidates Get Drunken Swabbie ?

Dr.Ron Paul's Donations From Military Employed More Than Doubled All The Other Candidates Combined.


We Tea Party Patriots Support Our Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 2:32PM

You obviously can not grasp the points I made you knuckle dragging mouth breather so I will attempt to make it simpler for you.

The poll does not track donations under $200. Most people in the military can not afford a $200 donation. That means that there are most likely a lot of donations that are not counted that may or may not go to your messiah. In other words it is a incomplete picture.

It gets even worse for you if you look deeper into it. They only track who the employer is. In other words if a Department of Defense civilian list their employer correctly they also fall under the generic "Military" employer. In other words, your stats don't just show active duty or reserves but civilians as well. Basically there are to many variables to mean anything.

Basically your post implying the troops support Ron Paul make a illogical conclusion. Just as my saying that all White supremicst endorse Ron Paul based on this link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....68575.html

or this one.

http://www.americanthinker.com.....on_pa.html

Charles Easterly| 8.15.11 @ 3:20PM

"Drunken Sailor",

Generally, Congressman Paul receives more small donations than large ones, which fits well with your claim that "Most people in the military cannot afford a $200 donation."
However, I don't agree with your premise, and not just because the military service members and "military" families I personally know can easily afford to donate $200 to a campaign, especially for a candidate whom they believe will end their multiple deployments and the attendent familial strain. Combat pay.

During the last presidential campaign it wasn't uncommon to find individuals posting that donors lied about who their employer was just to make it look like Congressman Paul received more donations from members of the military than the other Republican candidates did.

Oddly, some of these same individuals used Senator McCain's military donations as proof that he was as supportive of "the troops" as they were of him.

"In the 2008 campaign ...individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul's top three sources of campaign donations. "http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005906

Many of us believe what we want to believe regardless of the evidence placed before us.
I don't include you among these individuals: at least you apply logic when addressing your incredulity.

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 3:52PM

Charles,

Not saying he doesn't have military supporters. I am sure he does. Just as I am sure he has more now than the first time he ran. Anti-war political donations always go up during a war.

Believe it or not. $200 can be a large donation to a enlisted man who is only pulling in approximately $1600 every two weeks and trying to provide for a family. And that amount can flucuate greatly depending on deployment status, moves, etc. When serving I knew E-5 and E-6's that qualified for food stamps.
All I am saying is:

1. The poll shows only donations over $200 (the ones below that may hold true to the same conclusion)
2. It also covers all DOD employees so to imply he has the support of the troops may not be entirely accurate.

You see the differnce, though it is minor. Clint can't see the difference past any critique of a posting for Ron Paul. You believe Ron Paul is the best canidate. Clint worships him.

Charles| 8.15.11 @ 7:22PM

"Drunken Sailor",

I know individuals who spend as much as (or more than) $200 on the weekend that they don't have duty. I'm certain that you do (or did) as well.

If you were presented with evidence sufficient to convince you that Congressman Paul (or another non-interventionist Presidential candidate) received more donations in time and money from our fellow citizens who are in the military, what do you think you would conclude from it?

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.16.11 @ 9:06AM

Nothing beyond he has military support. Spent 20 years in the Navy and believe it or not. Politics is largely not discussed. Mainly beacause we were to busy with the day to day crap and the command politics, not to mention watching our ass when deployed. National politics was saved for bitch sessions at the local watering hole. I am sure he has supporters and I am sure he received a lot of donations. Just as I am sure that doesn't determine he is the military favorite as many, many more do not donate than those that do.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:39PM

Governor" Pothead Destroys Medicine" in New Mexico Johnson? Gary "Severe MD Shortage" Johnson?

Will Berg| 8.15.11 @ 10:20AM

I agree. Old people not only don't matter but they stink with their old people smell too. The guy wants to end the income tax and end foreign spending and bailouts. This type of isolationism is not needed in a world government atmosphere we live in now. Send Ru Paul back to the old folks home where he can talk about the outdated Constitution and make believe he is Washington and Jefferson with the other dimensia farts.

freejack| 8.15.11 @ 10:40AM

The only thing that stinks is all that mold that has built up inside the voluminous cavern inside your skull where your brain used to be.

Grzmlyk| 8.15.11 @ 11:18AM

Yeah, that musty old Constitution is like Joan Rivers - old, wrinkly, irrelevant and past its expiration date. It should be thrown on the ash heap of history.

That is, until YOU want to invoke the first amendment as you smash windows and throw rocks at G20 meetings - then it's all, "Whah, whah, whah, don't you dare violate my free speech rights!!! Whah, whah, whah, you have to read me my Miranda warning!"

Hey, I know how we can arrange it so the fate of old age never befalls you, Will.

I'd even be happy to give you an early cash-out of Obamacare and help you do your part for humanity right now, before you age one more day!

You know, for the common good.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:06PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor, Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief Of The bin Laden Unit:

" On Iran, The President should:
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 10:21AM

Too charitable towards Paul by half. HE VOTES WITH DENNIS KUCINICH IN LOCKSTEP ON FOREIGN POLICY. He thinks Iranian nukes are good. And his bots believed that the Egyptian revolution would go secular. He's a foreign policy nitwit, probably from all the Pot he's been smoking (he wants to legalize it---he's a bloody idiot on that, too---as a board certified psychiatrist, I have a LOT more clinical background, skill, and experience than Paul on that.). Buffoon. AMES WILL BE HIS HIGH POINT.

Bill Moore| 8.15.11 @ 10:22AM

Sounds like someone has been smoking mushrooms.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:11PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, former Chief Of The Bin Laden Unit.

" On Iran, The President should:

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war."

TrueBlue| 8.15.11 @ 4:54PM

Which is a fool idea. Iran getting nukes is the worst possible thing for AMERICA just as it is for Israel. If you think for even a quarter of a second that Iran will not supply nuclear weapons and material to terrorists then you need to pay more attention. Iran is the largest state funder of terrorists in the world, and controlled by an extremist Islamic government that fully believes that anyone who does not follow their form of Islam should be killed.

Letting Iran get nukes is right up there with downsizing the Navy while China works to increase the size of theirs. Both of them invite attacks upon U.S. soil and that of our allies (Paul supporters do know what the word "allies" means right? It's hard to tell with all their calls for noninterventionism).

chuck| 8.15.11 @ 9:50PM

Ron Paul, and his vehement supporters are nutcases. If you disagree with them, they get all testy, and call you bad names.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 10:55AM

I always find it interesting to see that most times the canidates giving out the most free tickets to the AMES polls win. Same story this year. Bachmann gave out the most with Ron Paul close behind. They finished in the same order.

freejack| 8.15.11 @ 10:28AM

Interesting that you feel that way since:
1) most of the other candidates are just parroting what he's been preaching for decades on limited government and personal liberty.
2) people that say Ron Paul has no association with the tea party are completely delusional. He is the father of the tea party even before it was known as the tea party. Now it's been hijacked by the neocons and you have Rick "Big Government" Perry claiming he's part of the tea party. What a joke.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 10:58AM

"He is the father of the tea party "

I call Bunkum. Same thing has been said about Rick Santorum and even Jim Demint. Hard to be the father of something that has no centralized party.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:15PM

Dr.Ron Paul Is The Godfather Of The Tea Party And Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 2:34PM

Well it must be true if you say so Clint.

Just one little thing. You post he is the co-favorite & presidential canidate. Why do you never post who the other canidate is?

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:47AM

" Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll.The survey, an exit poll conducted by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 7:35AM

Keep quoting those polls Clint. You do a good job. He has a huge support. I can see it all over my area. He is the father of the Tea Party. The countryclub and neocon elites are dispised by most conservatives and americans. We will either take over the Republican party or we will replace it. We want our troops home with their families defending these borders and shores not the rest of the world. The world is a big boy now and can defend itself.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 10:22AM

Jack and Clint---get a room, you two.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:18PM

More Queer Talk From American Spectator's Resident Screwball Israel Firster, Tool Job.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Tool Job's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:41PM

Watch the knife, punk.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 9:00PM

now Be Careful, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Tool Job, Ya Might Hurt Yourself With Playtime Marine Wannabe Kabar There.

Aaaand Ya Could Poke Your Eye Out.

POST American| 8.15.11 @ 7:10AM

----The David Rockefeller CFR/RIIA/Chatham House vetted and Tavistock scripted Rome-knee,
Me--shall BALK---MEN,
'Que Sera Sera' Sarah Pail--in
AND, most certainly TTT-Rick PAIR--hee
aside for a moment.

It's a sure sign of panic that the capstone press
not only refuses to hardly mention Paul
(almost as ignored as the awesomely
unfolding RED China TREASON OP)
---but NEVER features his picture.

They REALLY are scared!

----------------------------LOL-----------AT LAST!

Appleby| 8.15.11 @ 7:14AM

Ron Paul has bizarre beliefs about everything offshore from the USA. In todays world he would be as dangerous a president as Obama.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 7:22AM

Dr. Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

TrueBlue| 8.15.11 @ 4:57PM

Better idea, trade with Israel, ditch the rest. The other Middle Eastern countries are not even close to what anyone would call "friends."

chuck| 8.15.11 @ 9:53PM

and the Dr. you always put in front of Ron Paul........okay, we know he's a doctor, but get over it, it sounds really elitist!

Dave| 8.29.11 @ 10:03PM

Maybe you should respect Ron Paul's wisdom and experience...and honesty.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 10:02AM

Lyndon LaRouche writ small.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:33PM

George Washington,
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. "

Lawrence Boccardi| 8.15.11 @ 7:19AM

My objection to Pawlenty was, I didn't think he would stronglt enough deflect the attack from the MSM and it's ally, the WH. My beef with Ron Paul is, for avery good idea that he presents (audit the Fed?) , he has a wacky one (it's OK for Iran to have Nukes, Israel does). Well, I haven't seen a lot of Jews blowing up buses full of innocent people. So, no to Mr. Paul!

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 7:29AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor, Former CIA Head of The bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer,

" On Iran, The President should:

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war."

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 8:50AM

Which is wrong. Iran is attacking American interests abroad, and serves as a danger due to their funding of terrorist activities. An Iranian-influenced Middle East is a clear and present danger even to the mainland US because of both oil and cyber-attacks.

Mimi| 8.15.11 @ 8:52AM

# 3 = PREPOSTEROUS , IRRATIONAL, UNTHINKABLE !

Grzmlyk| 8.15.11 @ 8:59AM

And when Iran gets nukes, what then?

Declare neutrality? Stand by as they nuke Israel? Stand by as they annex Iraq? Stand by as they obliterate Saudi Arabia? Allow them to blackmail the West? Accede to their demands? Appease an entire country that is happy to be one gigantic suicide bomber?

Don't forget, Iran has scores to settle within the Muslim world, too; 85% of Islam is Sunni, and Iran is predominantly Shia. We're going to allow the ascendance of this pathological counry?

Modern geopolitics just aren't that simple; geography has been obviated by technology.

In fact, since competing civilizations first bumped up against one another, it has never been so easy to mind one's own business on the world stage because the definition of what constitutes a country's interests is in the eye of the beholder. There are great swaths of nation-states whose interests are fundamentally intertwined even as they pursue discrete and often-contradictory objectives; technology has only further blurred the lines such that it is no longer possible to discern where one country's interests end and another country's interests begin. We see that in our own relationship with Mexico.

You can make a denfensible argument that we should have stayed out of WW1; you can even make a plausible argument that we should have stayed out of WWII. And we handled the Cold War poorly, no doubt. And our Iraq adventure (which I supported fully at the time) increasingly looks ill-advised, as is our further, futile endeavor in Afghanistan.

But in the "post-modern," 21st century world, with the collapse of Europe, the emergence of China and the rise of Islam, sooner or later, existential conflict is coming to our doorstep. The question is, where IS that doorstep?

POST American| 8.15.11 @ 8:21AM

---IF Perry, Romney or BALK----MEN get in,
you can set your dissolving RED China TREASON OP
clocks by David Rockefeller's whithers
for the next 4 years ---and maybe
the last 4 years, of even a vestigally functioning
POST America.

------The RED China sellout and TREASON OP
----------------------------IS-------------------------------
---------------the CORE issue kiddies!------------------

ALLL else is chicken feed and sideshows.

REALLY

TRULY

PATHETICALLY

Heggblade Marguleos| 8.15.11 @ 11:06PM

I still think thew question that most people, and by most I mean some, is, "What, if any, and if not, how much?" I know it's a question because I asked it.

martin j smith| 8.15.11 @ 8:22AM

The straw poll is not the poll of record. But Pawlenty is too weak and his behavior especially visi a vis Romney is telling. He did not put up. He did not have to give up--but I had a sense that he felt "comfortable "debating" a female than a male ?
Ironically perhaps Bachman came out on top of this thing--but there is more important debates and battles ahead. Too weak and good that he is out.

TURK| 8.15.11 @ 8:22AM

Amen to the comments on Paul and his crackpot ideas. Lawrence hits the nail on the head.For every good idea he has, he has a wacky one"

On Pawlenty-Consider: The media(including Fox) trashed him in and after the first debate! His crime ? He chose to eschew trashing a republican opponent (Romney) that early in the game. HERESY!!! And when he did joust with Bachman who had NOT been a shrinking violet, it was shame on him! When the media/experts, gang up on a candidate with (R) by his name I find myself wanting to know more about him or her. We will never see Pawlenty play out in the race.Why? Because the media chose to trash him.

Pelligrino| 8.15.11 @ 8:31AM

Turk, thank you, you are corrrect in your post at 8:22 a.m. This is now all about the media & "seasoned pundits" picking our results for us --- one more time.

They are winnowing all of them out. SEVEN months before the first primary (and only 6-7 weeks after some formally declared).

We have a banana republic.

Others choose your leadership for you; you are not trusted to do this on your own.

See my comment below and those in recent days. The more one examines this Iowa event on August 13th, the more you realize it is a tiny speedbump, nothing of import.

Pelligrino| 8.15.11 @ 8:24AM

Where's the analysis on who made up the voters at the Iowa Straw Poll? Are we really sure that there were not many bused in from even out of state?

Those with university IDs were allowed to vote. Even if from, say, Arizona or Texas. (so does that exclude 'students' at the grad level? Just call me a real Doubting Thomas)

Two weeks prior to the start of most classes on campuses, how hard would it be to get a core group of 400 - 600 male die hards to Iowa? Particularly when you throw in beer, pizza, BBQ for "their efforts."

Isn't that what we've seen at CPAC every year for the last couple of years?

The Iowa Straw Poll is severly flawed (it is tinkered and changed every go round -- about every 8 years).

Iowa? Less than 16,900 "voters?" This straw poll is nothing that permits any conclusions.

This is a small-time local event that should have no implications outside a 14-20 county area.

Sean| 8.15.11 @ 8:34AM

Why shouldn't students who now live in the state and attend school there not be allowed to vote? A lot of them also work in the state to help pay tuition. Now if they just worked, but did not attend school they would be considered residents.

Pelligrino| 8.15.11 @ 8:56AM

I'll gladly be corrected. But I think that this is correct: Iowa Straw Polls allowed participation for many.

1. One did not need to have any Repblican/GOP/conservative party affiliations (e.g. Those in the Green Party, staunch liberals who cannot stand the smell of even a John McCain, or Ralph Nader's core believers in Iowa could have been there voting on Saturday afternoon.)
2. Anyone now underage but who will be 18 on November 5, 2012 could vote.
3. There are no Iowa in-state requirements for those of college/grad school? age who wished to participate. Thus, college kids from neighboring Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, S. Dakota could all participate. One needn't have any ties to Iowa.
4. There is no such thing as absentee ballots. So a diplomat now overseas in Asia, a US Marine now in a FOB in Afgahnistan, a Navy Midshipman already back to the grind at Annapolis, or an oil company engineer, or the banker out of town in Chicago -- all these people born and raised in Ames -- they cannot participate. [**This is the same for the Iowa Caucus to be held in February 2012 -- no absentee ballots permitted]

This is how it has been verbally explained to me in recent days (Iowa Straw Poll rules change EVERY TIME it has been held -- just 6 times -- in the last 32 years) and what I find in print online is still vague.

This all seems rife to me for very skewed results.

Plus the Ames Straw Poll is "pay to play." Unless you or a politician who bribes (err gives) you the $30 for the dinner on Saturday, you ain't voting.

I'd love for clarifications on Ames Straw Poll indelible rules. Otherwise it seems completely illegit as a baseline for even how the GOP/conservatives in 1/2 of Iowa think.

IOWA STRAW POLL -- a complete misnomer. It is just not state-wide.

Red Bubba| 8.15.11 @ 8:58AM

You have to admit, Santorum looked surprised to learn from Paul at the debate that the US has been entangled in Iran since 1953.

Charles Easterly| 8.15.11 @ 9:30AM

"Red Bubba",

You pointed out "You have to admit, Santorum looked surprised to learn from Paul at the debate that the US has been entangled in Iran since 1953."

You're correct; it was quite obvious that he had no awareness of this fact. What's even more disturbing is that Senator Santorum has crafted belligerent policy regarding Iran with this level of ignorance.

It seems to many of us that the individualscalling for war against Iran are operating under similar levels of ignorance.

As Israel's government has proven time and again, if they feel threatened or want to attack a neighbor or just a single target, they are fully capable of doing so with overpowering force and lethality. It's past time that our own government stop treating the government of Israel as if it is an ineffectual dependent.

Regards,

Charles

Dai Alanye | 8.15.11 @ 10:15AM

Ridiculous! If Santorum showed any surprise it was at Paul's going clear back to the Mossadegh overthrow by Britain (during the Eisenhower years) for an argument about our problem today with a terroristic Islamist Iran.

I'm waiting for Paul to bring up our commercial sanctions against Japan as an excuse for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Charles Easterly| 8.15.11 @ 10:32AM

Dai Alanye,

Did you intentionally advance the points "Red Bubba" and I made through the use of sarcasm, or did you not realize that your "cause-and-effect" analysis basically proved our points?

What you've done regarding Iran is echo our own CIA's explanation of the unintended, counterproductive, and dangerous consequences of our government's interventionist foreign policies. It's termed "Blowback" and you can read more about it by accessing the following link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 11:02AM

Dai,

You missed it. Jack from WI actually used that argument last week for Ron Paul.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:17PM

They only won because of their names. Rand Paul would be there because of his intellect and to help his father. It is a dynamic ticket that would win the election and get something done. Rand and Ron Paul are among the most popular people in the party and also among the independent voters. The people want someting new. You countryclublers, neocons and liberals have destroyed the country.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:27PM

Drunken sailor: The attack on Pearl Harbor was a perfect example of blowback. We put severe sanctions against Japan. We refused to negotiate in any meaningful way to resolve our differences and we pushed them to the wall. There have been many books on the subject. I have one in front of me called Pearl Harbor the seeds and fruit of infamy, by Percy L. Greaves Jr. There are many other authors with the same beliefs. Roosevelt wanted to get involved inthe war and only could do that by getting attacked. He tried to push Germany into a war by attacking German ships in the Atlantic. It didn't work there but his actions forced out the moderates in Japan who wanted peace and gave the warmongers power.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 4:06PM

See what did I tell you.

There were 9 seperate investigations into this theory and the attack on Pearl Harbor. None of them came to this conclusion.

The problem I have with conspiracy theories is this. Try to keep a secret were multiple people know about it. The more that know about it, the exponitally harder it becomes to keep the secret. Something on that magnitude would be impossible to keep secret for 70 years.

Do you also believe the conspiracy theories about us bombing the world trade center on 9-11 because there is no way Jet fuel could have brought those towers down?

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:27PM

Drunken sailor: The attack on Pearl Harbor was a perfect example of blowback. We put severe sanctions against Japan. We refused to negotiate in any meaningful way to resolve our differences and we pushed them to the wall. There have been many books on the subject. I have one in front of me called Pearl Harbor the seeds and fruit of infamy, by Percy L. Greaves Jr. There are many other authors with the same beliefs. Roosevelt wanted to get involved inthe war and only could do that by getting attacked. He tried to push Germany into a war by attacking German ships in the Atlantic. It didn't work there but his actions forced out the moderates in Japan who wanted peace and gave the warmongers power.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:27PM

True History of Iran & US (Wake Up Warmongers)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....dded#at=86

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:42PM

Except that Clint always states that we should stop selling arms to Israel if it defends itself against Iran, whereas he has no problem with Iran getting Nukes.

Grzmlyk| 8.15.11 @ 9:17AM

Pawlenty came across as feckless to me. His pass on throwing down the gauntlet to Romney's face on "Obomneycare" at the first debate certainly reinforced my image of him as a bloodless technocrat as opposed to a naturally conservative leader (which he is NOT).

And while he tried to correct his image by going after Bachmann at the second debate, he didn't come across as strong, he came across as a bully - and the whole "where are your results" meme was foolish - Bachmann is one of 435 congress people with a Democrat senate and a Democrat president; it rang hollow when he used that as his coup de grace. What was she supposed to do, hold her breath until she turned blue in order to win those legislative battles?

I've been on the fence about Bachmann - I think her conservative bona fides are real, and I think she's capable, but I've also thought she's been very stiff and far too coached and prefabricated in interviews, repeating inane key messages far too much and not showing quite enough mastery of topics. But I liked what I saw on Fox News Sunday yesterday.

I do not mourn Pawlenty's demise; ultimately, I don't care who it is, if a GOP wannabe president has even given one thought to cap-and-trade, that GOP wannabe president deserves to remain a wannabe. WTF is up with that? BTW, that also disqualifies Gingrich, at least in my book (but then many, many things disqualify Gingrich).

JimH| 8.15.11 @ 9:18AM

Are Paul’s positions on foreign policy nutty? I don’t know I am not familiar with them in detail. The impression I get is that on the whole is positions are those of a significant portion of Americans. He would have us reduce our presence and commitments abroad. Is letting Europe, South Korea and Japan pay for their own defense nutty? Paul opposed going into Iraq. Many on both the left and right did. I believe he supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban. He is against our continued presence in these places supporting corrupt unpopular governments. One may argue against this view, but it is not particularly nutty. As to his comments on Iran in the debate, I did not see it, but I understand that he said he did not consider Iran having nuclear weapons to be a matter of national concern. Not being used to having the national attention he now has, I think his statements are not as polished as they might be (his son is better at this), and I think he sometimes says things just to be provocative. The man is not stupid. I’m sure he knows quite well that somewhere in the Pentagon is some group tasked with keeping track of all nukes in the world, both friend and foe alike. But to his point, if Iran has nukes, is it a threat to the US? If so how? Is it a threat to anyone around it? It’s only local current declared foe is Israel. I’m sure Iran is well aware of Israel’s nuclear ability and that Iran would cease to exist five minutes after launching an attack. One thing these nasty regimes have learned is that the only sure way to not be overthrown by outside forces is to have nukes. Compare Serbia or Iraq to North Korea.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:43PM

Iran is also a threat to the Saudis, the Kurds, etc.

Israel is a one nuke country. Iran's President has stated that he is willing to destroy Iran to destroy Israel. He is not sane.

fmm| 8.15.11 @ 9:30AM

The normal confusion reigns when Pawlenty polls way behind Romney while being the true conservative of the two. Hard to understand the peoples choices when so much is at stake. The only thing Paul gets right is the necessity for reduced government, otherwise he is a dangerous man.

Dick Nome| 8.15.11 @ 9:36AM

Ron Paul is an old crank. He is older than any President after they left office. In 2015 he will be 80. Groad is spot on, not repeating mantras.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 9:58AM

Like (Dr.Ron Paul ), Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is here.

Carpe Diem.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 10:06AM

Well that explains Reagan's ringing endorsement.
But I won't vote for someone who might die of natural Causes before the election.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:59AM

The answer for that is Ron Paul for President. Rand Paul for vice President. The Pope, Warren Buffet, Summner Redstone and George Soros, are running huge operations at a lot older age then ron Paul.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 11:03AM

So you were against a Bush dynasty but are will to replace it with a Paul dynasty? How convienent.

Drunken Sailor| 8.15.11 @ 11:07AM

Correction: willing to replace

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:23PM

Rand Paul would continue with his father's work, if something happened. Rand Paul is far far far more intelligent and capable then any member of the dimwitted Bush family. By the way I have 2 pictures of myself with old man Bush and his wife Babs. The whole family is dispicable. I used to be a big supporter.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 11:35AM

So the Paul family , King and Clown Prince can rule the Fruited Plains. America doesn't elect dynastys.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:47PM

What are you drinking? It didn't elect the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Adams' Bushes, Harrisons, Longs, LaFollettes?

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 1:05PM

They all won their own elections, they weren't named successors to their daddy like you want to do with Randy, the Clown Prince. What are YOU drinking? Are you overcome by stinky cheese?

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:39PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Both A Doctor & A Cyclist, Not A Smoker & A Golfer.

You're Confused & Making Cheap Excuses.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 1:07PM

So this confers immortality? Doctors and non-smokers much younger than Paul die every day.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:56PM

Now You've Become The Chairman Of The Bores, Cpm.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps Over Cpm.

We Didn't Feel Like Wipin' Our Feet Again.

Dai Alanye | 8.15.11 @ 10:20AM

You have noticed, I hope, that Reagan's foreign and military policies were just a tad different from the Paulster's. Indeed, had Reagan taken up Ron Paul's ideas the USSR would still be flying high.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:03AM

Reagan's final goal was peace and the end of nuclear weapons. He talked to both the Chinese and Russians. He wanted to make contact with Iran and end our disputes with them. He went into Lebanon at the behest of the neocons and got burned. He never went back and wanted nothing more to do with the Middle East.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:56AM

The countryclubbers hated both Goldwater and Reagan. They backbited Goldwater and knifed him every chance they got. They hated Reagan as well and ran a third party against him. Congressman John Anderson got a lot of votes that would have gone to Reagan. They ran a whole campaign by trying to make him look like a senile old kook. I expect that the gang will do the same thing if Ron Paul is the nominee. They figure a Democrat no mattter how bad is better than a Republican with principles. I think we should do the same thing if they force another braindead guy like Perry or Romney down our throats. I figure either we take over the party or replace it with something else.

Charles Easterly| 8.15.11 @ 10:44AM

Mr. Nome,

I am certain that Congressman Paul's age will be a factor for many of our fellow citizens, so here we agree.

Please answer my earlier question: "How do you explain his respect and support among our fellow citizens who serve in the armed forces, who have donated more money to him than all of the other Republican candidates combined?"

http://www.politifact.com/texa.....-him-far-/


Regards,

Charles

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:48AM

The Pope, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are running huge operations at a lot older ages then Ron Paul. The way to answer the age problem is to run Ron Paul for President. RandPaul for Vice President.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 11:37AM

We don't elect dynasties.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:26PM

We elected the Adams, Bushes, 2 roosevelts, 2 Harrisons and almost elected 2 Kennedys. What the hell are you smoking?

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 12:45PM

They all stood for different elections on their own merits, years, if not decades apart. Hardly dynasties. You want to fix it so when the old man croaks his son assumes the leadership. It doesn't work that way, not YET. If you want royalty and line of succession, go to England. So what the hell are YOU smoking?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:46PM

Ames is Paul's high point. If I am wrong, I will quit posting, if Clint and Jacque will take the opposite side of the bet and stop posting if he loses. That is to say---he will never win a Republican primary, nor the nomination, and Ames will be the closest he comes to winning. OK Clint and Jacque---do you clowns have the courage of your convictions? Huh?

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 7:18PM

Unlike The Israel Firster Tool Job ,We Don't Write Checks With Our Mouths That We Can't Cash.

Tool Job Has A Bad Habit Of It.

"Occam's Tool| 8.8.11 @ 4:30PM

Pawlenty is going to wipe the plate with Paul."

WilliamInWien| 8.15.11 @ 9:39AM

The comparison of Obama to Carter is appearing more frequently in the media. Carter was perceived as "weak" both at home and abroad while Reagan appeared "strong". Tim Pawlenty, certainly more qualified for POTUS than the current occupant of the White House, does not project a "strong" image to the public. Ron Paul's contributions inform the debate, but his best days are behind him. After four years of White House ineptitude, the majority of US voters will be looking for a strong and viable candidate...goodbye to Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman while Herman Cain would make an excellent Secretary of Commerce in the next administration. Cull the herd for some serious debates!

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:31PM

I agree. Iowa got rid of Huntsman, Cain, Pawlenty, Santorum, and Gingrich. A lot of dead trees were cut down. It is down to Bachman and Paul the outsiders against Perry and Romey the insiders. Ron Paul is the intellectual and moral giant who is setting the agenda in the debate. The country will finally have a real contest for president with real ideas for change discussed.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.15.11 @ 10:29AM

Here we go again. After he wrote a few sane posts, I began to think that Antle was finally sobering up. It turns out he's not. He's irredeemably stupid. He will never get wiser.

He's again promoting libertarianism (a proven losing ideology) and his favorite candidate, Ron Paul:

"CONTRAST THIS WITH the media's treatment of Ron Paul, who received twice as many votes in the straw poll as Pawlenty and lost to Bachmann by less than one percentage point. Paul has been running ahead of Pawlenty in scientific polls for months. USA Today/Gallup found Paul at 14 percent nationally compared to Pawlenty's 3 percent; CNN had him at 12 percent to Pawlenty's 2 percent. In the RealClearPolitics polling average, Paul is closer to Bachmann and Sarah Palin while Pawlenty is closer to the rear.

Yet Paul is treated as an afterthought."

Here's my answer to Jim Antle: The reason why Paul is treated as an afterthough, a joke, and a non-issue, is because he's exactly that: an afterthough, a joke, and a non-issue. Saying that you could denigrate him is like saying that you could denigrate Lyndon LaRouche. Both of them are self-proven flakes who don't matter.

Ron Paul is a perennial loser who clearly doesn't understand that he stands zero chance of getting elected President and continues to run again, just like Jimmy McMillan. Last week, he was defeated in Iowa by a junior Congresswoman who, like him, has zero executive experience and a record of zero accomplishments. That alone is a testament to what a flake Ron Paul is. He never wins any polls that really matter - presidential primaries and elections. He's a perennial loser who wants to roar, but doesn't understand why he can only squeal. Most candidates manage to at least poll highly enough to remain relevant. Most of those who don't eventually accept the fact that they're irrelevant and find some lesser office for which to run. Paul hasn't accepted that fact. The only reasons, however, why he continues to run, is that 1) he's deluding himself and his supporters that he can win, and 2) he wants to use the platform he gets as a candidate to spout his vile anti-American garbage (e.g. "the US is to blame for 9/11").

If you really believe that Ron Paul is a viable candidate, here's my bet offer to you: I will bet with you on one thousand bucks that in 2012, will not win any primary/caucus contest in any state. Not in Iowa, not in NH, not in any of the other 48 states of the Union.

C'mon, get it, dude. I'll be pleased to humiliate you.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:45AM

Ron Paul polls among the top 2 in scientific polls against Obama. Most of the country is behind him on ending these stupid wars and bringing the troops home. The whole Tea Party movement is about the return to small constutional government. That has been Ron Paul's motto for all his political career. We will take over the Republican Party or replace it.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 11:51AM

Step away from the cheddar.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.15.11 @ 12:26PM

You will not take the GOP, nor will you replace it. (And BTW, by "replacing the GOP", I assume you mean creating a viable national party which will be able to compete in all 50 states, for all offices from dog catcher to President, and will take over both houses of Congress by itself.)

Ron Paul does not poll in the top 2 in any scientific pols against Obama. Giuliani and Romney poll best. In the most recent CNN poll, Giuliani was shown leading Obama 51-45, and Romney trailed Obama by just 1 pp. RP will never be elected President. Period.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:37PM

Romney polls well. Drudge has had 3 national polls up with Ron Paul doing best against Obama. You have to be kidding about Guilanni. Nobody wants him period. Tell him to put his dress back in the closet. Ron Paul has the issues behind him and a lot of fervent activists. Those are the things that win elections. He also can raise a lot of money.

WilliamR| 8.15.11 @ 12:53PM

Despite spending 60+ million and getting millions of dollars of free air time on Fox(He's old friends with Fox News President Roger Ailes) news in 2008, Rudy got one delegate. Why doesn't it surprise me you're a Rudy(I'll bomb the Muslims back to the stone age)Giuliani

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:41PM

Antle can't ignore that Ron Paul is setting the issues for the debate has a huge following and can raise a lot of money, even if the less and less influential mainstream media ignores him.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:48PM

"Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.

Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012."

We Tea Party Patriots Support Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Steps On TehranBoy's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:49PM

Zbig---I posted mine before I read yours. My goodness.

Again, Clint and Jacque Fromage are the two most annoying posters here. How about it guys. Occam will stop posting if you win, and I will never have to see you two clowns in print if I win. Where's the guts and the FAITH!

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:52PM

I would not take that bet, for you are right, Polish one.

How you like my bet?

Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.15.11 @ 10:37AM

Oh, and just for the record, Jim, you're wrong about Gallup. The most recent Gallup data puts Paul at just 8%, behind Bachmann, Palin, Giuliani, Romney, and Perry. True, he's still ahead of Pawlenty (2%), but Pawlenty never gained any real traction in the polls. Comparing RP to Pawlenty is like comparing Romney or Palin to Thad McCotter (no offense, Thad).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:55PM

" Friday, July 22, 2011
Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he runs competitively with President Obama right now.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 37% of the vote, while the president earns 41%."

Only The GOP Ruling Elite RINO-CINO Fops Boy Mittens Romney polled closer to Obama.

We Are Being Set Up By The GOP Ruling Elie & Their Media Flunkies For Their Front Boy Mittens Romney.

We Tea Party Patriots Are In A Media War.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

michael| 8.15.11 @ 10:48AM

Every 4 years, pundits start building up a propsective candidate. The candidate then decides he really must be all that special, so he throws his hat in the ring, and before long sinks from view. Pawlenty is the latest.

The 2008 election was about dreams. The 2012 election is about something serious, and the voters know it. They want to know how a candidate will govern. No more "audacity of hope". Neither Romney nor Pawlenty has a clear message, only bromides. The difference between them is that Romney has the money to stay in the game. But Rick Perry will eat Romney's lunch.

Deborah| 8.15.11 @ 10:59AM

Regarding Ron Paul and the media feeling burned after Paul failed to carry more states in the primaries: much of the media went out of its way to ridicule Paul and his chances during the primaries. I can't think of any other candidate who was treated in this fashion. Hopefully, this time around, Paul's ideas and platform will get a fair hearing.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 11:39AM

So do I, then we can finally put an end to this nonsense.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 12:57PM

We Tea Party Patriots Are Gonna Put An End To The RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elite Fops & Their Media Flunkies.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 1:17PM

Well If You Are Then You Better Line Up Behind Someone Who Can Win An Election And Appeal To A Broader Constituency Than The Lunatic Fringe. You Act Like Paul Rules The Tea Party When The Only Truth Is That Some Tea Party Members Are Paulbots.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:34PM

I get the last word. Ron Paul gets by far the most support of the independent voters and Democrats then any other Republican. No Republican can ever win without those crossoveers.

Cpm| 8.15.11 @ 5:12PM

Ron Paul is your most hated species, a RINO; He's a libertarian but relies on the Republican brand to keep him in office. You know, a Republican in name only.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 6:17PM

Ron Paul is the most conservative and honest politician to run for president in my long lifetime.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:51PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor, Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief Of The bin Laden Unit,
" On Iran,The President should:
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

john dubose| 8.15.11 @ 3:43PM

Although I personally like what Ron Paul says and agree with almost everything, the media is not wrong to dismiss his candidacy. He is almost nobody's second choice. As the weaker candidates drop out, their supporters will go to someone else. Ron Paul will be making speeches from the sideline as the eventual nonminee accepts the mantle of the party.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 6:23PM

The vast majority of people are not committed to anyone. Ron Paul has by far the largest and most intense support. that usually traansltes into votes. nobody really gives a hoot about Myth Romney or Riccy Perry. They are clones from another day. Mrs Bachman is a nice lady but she can't even remember that John Wayne wasn't born in her home town. She is just a tool of her handlers. I am looking forward to all those debates.

john dubose| 8.15.11 @ 7:44PM

Sadly, the vast majority of Republican primary voters do not want Ron Paul to be president because they think that he is wrong about some specific issues and on a personal level, he makes them nervous.

Sorry it is just the way it is.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 8:09PM

Apparently, John Didn't Get The Memo.

" Harris Poll: If Ron Paul Won GOP Nomination, He Would Split Vote With Obama

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.

Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012."

john dubose| 8.16.11 @ 8:57AM

Alas, it is Republican voters who will not select him. Just ask a random Republican.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:50PM

All I can hear is the sound of the Chicken in the Cheese in Wi, and the Scumbag gambolling among the fruits and nuts in California.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:54PM

The Little Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Tool Job Is The Big Yellow Bus Callin' Wisconsin Cheese Yellow.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Tool Job's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

RabidAmerican| 8.15.11 @ 7:03PM

The trolling has gotten seriously out of hand here at AS. The trolls even fight the other trolls for troll supremacy. Like there's a troll 'food chain'. I'm sure there is and they probably start their meal at the posterior of their prey. You can pretty much smell it on their breath.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 7:24PM

Aaand, This Is Why They Call Rabid American " Breath Of Ass."

He Gargles With Liquid Plumber.

And Have A Nice Evening, Sport.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 8.16.11 @ 4:42PM

It's pretty simple. Pawlenty is out because he comes off fake. In an environment where people are tired of hearing candidates say one thing in campaign mode, then do entirely different things once inside the white house, he never stood a chance. People are looking for the genuine article. Someone they feel like isn't selling them a bill of goods. Someone they feel like they could loan a good sum of money and he would pay it back on time.

Bottom Line: People are voting for who they feel they can trust. Pawlenty comes off fake. Therefore, he's not that guy.

POST American| 8.16.11 @ 11:46PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

Tim 'PAUL---ain't---HE'?

Forget it kiddies. ----Ron Paul ---IS HE.

Alas, another capstone word op bites the dust.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Another Perspective

The United States of El Norte

May 24, 2013 | Larry Thornberry

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

May 23, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

The Other Gosnells

May 22, 2013 | Jordan Gonzalez

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

May 21, 2013 | Lars Walker

Stifle This, Mr. President

May 16, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/15/pawlenty-paul-and-the-press

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.