The American Spectator : Ron Paul in the Crosshairs

Text Size

Ron Paul in the Crosshairs

By W. James Antle, III on 12.20.11 @ 6:10AM

The Texan’s Iowa surge will invite new attacks on his campaign.

“Democracy,” H.L. Mencken once observed, “is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Although mindful of the fact that the United States is a republic rather than a democracy, Ron Paul supporters are about to learn the truth of this maxim.

For months, they have protested as political reporters have ignored their candidate in favor of people with far less measurable popular support: Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and even Rick Santorum. They have seen the 11-term Texas congressman receive much less ink and pixels than a former pizza company CEO who insisted that the economy was just fine right before the global financial meltdown occurred — a crisis their man had long predicted.

Cover Ron Paul, many of his supporters demanded. Well, they are about to get what they want good and hard.

Two reputable scientific polls now show Paul with the lead in Iowa. He is third nationally, moving back toward the double digits. When it comes to measuring public opinion, polls are but a snapshot in time. But even the keepers of the conventional wisdom can no longer ignore the Paul campaign.

Expect outlets ranging from the liberal mainstream media to the more hawkish precincts of the conservative press to become one big reprint of the Ron Paul Survival Report between now and January 3. Already those who most disagree with Paul on foreign policy have been discussing the newsletters, which for a period of the 1990s contained some (reputedly ghost-written) racist content the congressman and his campaign have never explained satisfactorily.

There has already been a flurry of predictions in places as diverse as the New York Times and conservative blogs that Paul’s surge spells doom for everything from the Iowa caucuses to the Republican Party itself. Robert Stacy McCain has a good round-up. This is what it sounds like when hawks cry.

If Paul holds on to win Iowa, the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney predicts he will receive the Pat Buchanan treatment. After Buchanan won the 1996 New Hampshire primary, a terrified Republican establishment rallied to crush him in South Carolina and beyond. While Paul began his campaign opposed to the war that led to Americans being unceremoniously kicked out of liberated Iraq, Buchanan had most recently opposed the war that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Like Paul, Buchanan almost certainly had too low of a ceiling to prevail once the GOP field narrowed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” Carney concludes, “a Paul victory in Iowa will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”

Paul has risen among Republican voters who want a candidate who means what he says about cutting government and following the Constitution. The alternatives include a Massachusetts governor who drafted the blueprint for Obamacare and the prodigal son of the last Republican revolution, a former House speaker who illustrates a memorable M. Stanton Evans quip: “Most conservatives know when they come to Washington that it is a sewer; the trouble is, too many of them wind up treating it like a hot tub.”

Yet Paul’s successes will undoubtedly raise the political costs of his excesses. It should be possible to oppose a repeat of the Iraq adventure in Iran while maintaining greater rhetorical distance from the odious regime in Tehran. Similarly, one should be able to curb excesses in Republican talking points on Islam without making concerns about radical Muslims sound as outlandish as complaints about Romney’s Mormonism.

None of this means the attacks on Paul will necessarily be proportionate to his offenses, to say nothing of fair. Paul’s suporters can take heart in one thing: their man has a successor waiting in the wings to lead their movement, one who smooths some of the good doctor’s rougher edges. Pat Buchanan didn’t have that, but Barry Goldwater did.

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 (299) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:24AM

Uh Oh !

The Big Bad Liberal Media And Their RINO-CINO GOP Ruling Elite Girlfriends Are Comin' After Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr. Ron Paul.

So What's New ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:10AM

1. Ron Paul has absolutely zero to do with the success of the Tea Party. He's NOT involved with the Tea Party, and never has been.

2. Paul's idiotic foreign policy ideas will not do him any favors outside of Iowa.

3. Paul's ignorance of history, whereby America had traditionally been an isolationist nation that did not project power overseas, is factually inaccurate.

4. Paul does NOT understand the proper function if the Separation of Powers outlined in the Constitution. Otherwise, he wouldn't have criticized Newt Gingrich's opinion on impeaching Federal Judges and closing Circuit Courts, which is a power reserved for Congress and has been done in the past.

5. Paul's ties to fringe kook organizations, specifically anti-Semitic organizations and individuals, will not do him well in...gee...most everywhere.

6.Merry Christmas!

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 8:25AM

Dr Wrong in Haifa: The idiots are you Israel firsters, who want to fight with American blood and treasure. Do your own fighting and dying. We are sick to death of you and your cries of anti semiticism every time someone tells the truth bout your racist hell hole on the banks of the Dead Sea. Ron Paul wants to cut off all foreign aid so that prople can learn how to support themselves. Let the Muslims and Jews solve their own problems without any interference, or money, from us. After all it is their neighborhood not ours.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:45AM

So, as a self professed Catholic, does that make you a "Vatican Firster." Jack Torquemada?

BTW, My cousin Moshe just emptied the last $5 in your bank account. Better go cook a new batch of meth before they foreclose on your trailer. But if you do, I'm sure Main Line Clint has room for you in his mother's basement.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:58AM

"Vatican Firster"???

I LIKE that! Good one!

Jew-Hating Jack and Clint...the forum's "Vatican Firster" members!

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

Hey, they wanna do this "Israel Firster" crap, then it swings both ways. And, perhaps, since Jack's such a "good Catholic," maybe he's Irish. I wonder if he supported the IRA back in the day...

Could Jack be a "Provo Firster" as well?

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:16AM

cc,

Jack could never have been part of the IRA. It actually takes some BALLS to stand up and fight!

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:29AM

You're right. He'd be one of the Sinn Fein pansies who gave the orders.

Sean| 12.20.11 @ 9:45AM

"Vatican Firster" that makes no sense. First he isn't proposing billions of dollars in welfare to the Vatican. Second he isn't proposing we go fight the Pope's battles. Third he doesn't support Vatican spies that are caught stealing our secrets like Pollard. Fourth he doesn't back the Vatican as they purposely attack our ships like what happened with the USS Liberty. Fifth it does take some balls to fight, but that is why most chicken hawks support wars that they don't volunteer to go to.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:29AM

"Fifth it does take some balls to fight, but that is why most chicken hawks support wars that they don't volunteer to go to."

So the people who're all signing up for an enlistment, who KNOW that they're going to a combat zone at SOME point, are chickenhawks with no balls. Interesting.

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:02PM

Con, your typing like a moron. Go back and re-read what he said. It wasn't what you said he said. I'm willing to believe you just reacted in a knee jerk rather than just being a liar.

Jack in Wi.| 12.21.11 @ 12:10AM

Blessed are the Peacemakers. Those who live by the sword wil die by the sword. love your neighbor as yourselves. These teachings of Jesus are hated by our neocon and Christian zionist brothers and sisters. All they want is war, hated, and murder. Bachman does hate Muslims and wants to kill them. Dr Wrong and Occam want to use nuclear weapons on innocents just so that they can rebuild the fantasy Temple that God let be destroyed 2000 years ago. That this gang of warmongers is involved in any part of our country is a great burden on most of the American people. End the wars and bring the troops home to their families.

Alan| 12.21.11 @ 6:58PM

Well Col. Klink, when you see a "peacemaker" let us all know because you sure aren't one.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:13PM

Dr R, Con, Chuck---Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah! (I know you'll sort out which wish is for whom)

May G-d Bless and keep you all. Reading you guys makes my day!

(I love when Jack "proud 4-F coward" waxes savage.)

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 1:32PM

Right back at you, Sir! G*d bless!

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 1:37PM

Many thanks, OT!

Happy Chanukah!

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 2:59PM

Ah yes, the bite-me Chef is "permitted" to speak bitingly to the Papists, and has selective hatred for certain others who do the same. eh?

Merry Christmas, bite-me Chef.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:09PM

I used it to refute the Israel Firster theme espoused by those who profess to be Catholic. I in no way consigned those people to hell, as you so gleefully do, nor do I call their religion a "cult" as you do.

So again, bite me.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:21PM

Bite me Chef:

You're a liar and nasty little coward. I "consign" no one to Hell.

The Word of God does, which you openly reject:

"He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Jn. 3:18.

And you are a liar as well when you I "gleefully" your lie.
And I speak the truth, Catholicism IS a cult. Your friend here, Dr. Right agrees with me, and speaks as I do concerning it.

You are a hypocrite, who has selective hatred yourself for certain individuals, because what they say doesn't please your unbelieving ears.

Your SIN is between you and your Maker, and His Word~ not with me, bite-me Chef punk.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:50PM

Get bent, charlatan pretender. YOU are not the arbiter of what G*d desires. Worry about your own soul. Its rotten enough that you should have plenty of work to do. I REJECT your preachings to me. And just remember that without the first half of the book, there would BE no Christianity.

Gotta love Margie. Unlike the Jew haters like Jack & Clint, who just buy into the stereotypical anti Semitic crap, Margie is akin to the Mullahs in Iran. All non-believers are damned. "There is only one G*d, and Allah is his Prophet." Sounds like Margie's continued efforts to convert & preach to those who have NO INTEREST in what she's pitching. The only "christian" on this, or any other site I frequent, who's been as adamant as she has at consigning those who don't subscribe to the Church of Christ teachings as infidels.

You're a joke, Margie. And I'd bet my next 5 paychecks that most Christians would agree with that.

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:04PM

Con , you *ARE* acting like a moron. And I guess you are simply a liar. A knee jerk liar at that.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 7:33PM

He's a nasty little punk that has a lot of growing up to do.
Maybe he has to learn the hard way...
Maybe he'll never learn.
And I'm not the liar here, you are, little man.

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:37PM

All Jews are liars, according to Margie's literal interpretation of the Bible. Good to know.

Are you Clint's sister/wife or Jack's?

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:52PM

Wow, you prove what you are with each additional post, Bite Me Chef.
A coward AND a liar. You really ought to change your name to Clint, punk.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

Once again little pipsqueak: It isn't me that tells you where you're going unless you repent and believe the Gospel, it's the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

And you just read it. I hope you repent, pipsqueak.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 11:22PM

Why should I when I don't belive in your religion? I have nothing to repent for in that respect. I'm not buying what you're selling. Again, without Jews, there'd be no Jesus. Sorry if I don't believe that they people from whom Christ was descended were instantly relegated to Hell as soon as the ink was dry on what the scholars who wrote the New Testament finished their work.

"Evil brings death to the wicked,
and those who hate the
righteous will be
condemned.
The Lord redeems the life of his
servants;
none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned."

Psalms 34:21-22

So, Margie, I guess, as in Koranic studies, you follow the law of abrogation. Meaning that everyting that was written at the BEGINNING is immaterial to the things that were written towards the end.

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:13PM

I didn't say nor do I believe any of what you just said, except the Scripture.

And again: It's the same God of the Old Testament that speaks in the New Testament. The Old Testament is NOT null and void, but Christ came to fulfill it.

Since Isaiah 53 and numerous other Scripture prophecies about Christ and He has fulfilled God's telling His coming, each one of us is required to repent and believe in the only Son of God.

This includes all people, of all Religions.

You're really disingenuous and outright lying in your posts, and you are utterly unfair.

I have nothing against anyone, and it isn't up to me, I am only posting the Words of God, and and what I believe according to the Scriptures.

You are permitted to speak your unbelieving mind, and I am permitted to speak mine.

And that's just the way it is.

Steve| 12.21.11 @ 3:35PM

Con Chef (NB)
If you have Margie, Clint, Jack, and Quartermaster against you, then you are one fine upstanding American.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 7:42PM

"Get bent, charlatan pretender. YOU are not the arbiter of what G*d desires."

You sound exactly like the one you hate: Clint, the Vatican Firster.
You're nothing but a little punky kid who thinks he can walk all over whomever he wants to, because he's such a "man" of low esteem that he thinks he looks "cool" in the eyes of certain other "men" of like character.

And sorry, but I'm a child of God, according to the Bible that you spit on~ and therefore that gives the the "authority" to preach the Gospel.

And you don't get to tell me to shut up, kiddo.

And YOU are the one saying I'm the arbiter here, not me. I simply post His Own Words~ and that includes the WHOLE Bible.

You began your tirade against me recently when you started hurling insults.. and I have the right to respond in kind, got it?
But I will always respond in TRUTH~ unlike you.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:31PM

Funny. NONE of my posts were directed towards you. When I mentioned "Vatican Firsters," I was trying to make the point that it is equally ridiculous to call people "Israel Firsters." I explained that to you. No, I wasn't nice about it because you have repeatedly told me such things as I "spit on the Bible" when I told you my Bible is the Torah. You have castigated me, using scripture, as a non-believer. Funny how NO ONE ELSE, on ANY SITE, EVER has decided that I'm in need of a conversion. And even after I' ve told you previously on NUMEROUS occasions that I'm happy with my relationship with G*d & that its really only His & my business, you still carry on.

So tell me, Margie, what, exactly, am I supposed to make of that?

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:45PM

Castigating? Now that's funny, Con Chef.
Recently, it was you that let into me for no good reason, with a lecture that included insults.

I just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy in that you can call Clint a Vatican Firster but if I say a peep about how he or any other Catholic are Pope worshippers (it means the same thing), I get smeared.

And I base what I'm saying on Biblical truth as well.

And I am not "trying to convert" you. I am being myself and responding according to the Bible to your comments, because I'm a Christian and that's what I do.

Somehow it's ok for you to speak your mind and yet if I respond I'm a piece of trash.

Well, take your proud stand with the likes of Clint, the Vatican Firster, and master of insults. bite ME Chef.

Talk about frauds. kiddo.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 11:25PM

First off, I wouldn't bite you if you were made of Kobe beef. And for the second time, I made that statement to point out the absurdity of the "Israel Firster" tag line. I, in NO WAY, agree with your opinions about Catholics. But when someone is as dense as you apparetly are, I can see where they'd think I agree with them. Even AFTER I explained it.

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:24PM

" in NO WAY, agree with your opinions about Catholics."

Nasty little man.

If you call them Vatican Firsters, then sorry kiddo~ but you ARE agreeing with me.

A Vatican Firster puts their Religion before reality.

So yes, we DO agree, bite me Chef.

Now go wash your putrid mouth out with soap because God's going to do it one day, unless you repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:08PM

Margie: on everything Con is in opposition to Jack.

Sometimes kindness and forgiveness are good. As you told me once, on a different issue in which I may have been too harsh, don't argue yourself into a corner. I think you will find, if you read Con's notes, that you agree with him much more than disagree.

G-d Bless, and Merry Christmas. I have seen you capable of great kindness.

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:15PM

Occam,

Kindness means telling the truth to lies, sorry.

And I know that him & I agree politically.

He's just decided to jump on the liars bandwagon because it makes him look cool to the rest of the liars.

He gets what he deserves from me as far as TRUTH.

MikeG| 12.21.11 @ 10:15PM

What have you been reading here, Occam's Tool? Most of the people on this site agree politically. But that means nothing to Margie. She attacks, insults, and calls all them liars too.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 8:03PM

Furthermore Con Artist Chef:

You are also sounding exactly like the Vatican Firsters here, as this is what they love to say about me, so you are a blind fool!

You say I am a like a Mullah. Why? Because I DARE to speak the Scriptures? Like the Vatican-Firsters here, along with your lowlife pal, Ken the Reprobate liar, say the same thing.

They are in the darkness, otherwise they wouldn't speak thusly. If they knew Christ, they would speak truthfully~ and preach His Word as well.

And don't you know that the Mullahs are taught to kill anyone who refuses to convert? And you say I am like them because I don't let you get away with trashing me? And I speak my mind here?

No, Christ never commanded anyone to kill~ that is what the Vatican Firster's Religion did to my Christian brethren for six centuries~ and why?

BECAUSE THEY SPOKE AS I DO.
I'm proud of Christ, and have no shame speaking His Words to you or anyone else here.

You are actually on the side of the Vatican Firsters, young man. I hope you realize that.
They reject Christ in the same way that you do.
They are enemies of the Cross as you are.
I hope God opens your eyes. And that would be the God of the WHOLE Bible.
He is the same God.

The Entire AmSpec Bloggers| 12.20.11 @ 9:19PM

Margie
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

MikeG| 12.20.11 @ 5:00PM

Margie,
Are you still trying to convert Jews?
How many have you converted?

rhoetus| 12.21.11 @ 6:43PM

Thanks to Margie I am very close to converting to Judaism.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:00PM

Israel was founded by and still is run by Atheists Communists and Terrorists. Why the hell should we Christians give one penny to the Racist Entity on the banks of the Dead Sea? Every pennny sent to Israel by our government is an unconstitunional support of Jewish religious and non religious fantasies. We violate the 1st of the Constitution when we send money to the Jewish state. We violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and the spirit of the 14th when we send money to the racist apartheid state which treats half the people it governs like we used to treat the blacks or even worse. End the money. End the hate. Integrate the Apartheid state. Equal rights in all old Palistine muslim Jew and Christian. The racist entity and the rest of whole Middle East is not worth one penny of American money or one drop of American blood.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:06PM

Con job. You should love the the IRA. Its a terrorist outfit just like your hero's in the Stern gang and the Irgun. Israel was founded by terrorists and criminals and is still run by them. We should not support a terrorist regime like Israel with our hard earned tax dollars. Let Israel carry it's own water. We goyim have carried you on our backs long enough.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:16PM

Jack---where did you get your college degree? I only ask because I wish to avoid sending my kids there. Your illiteracy is a constant thread. Let's take your 12/20/11 506 PM blog.

Ignoring the arguments, looking at grammar, etc.:
"Its a terrorist outfit"---no, "it's a terrorist outfit. It is." "Let Israel carry it's own water"---no, "let Israel carry its (possessive) own water." "hero's in the Stern gang"---no, "heroes in the Stern Gang." 5 lines, three painful errors that my eight year olds have been trained to avoid.

Do you see why it is difficult to assume that you were a CEO?

By the way, explain how "we goyim have carried you on our backs long enough" makes you a philosemite, as you claim to be. This is the type of reasoning I expect from a man who supports the only Presidential candidate to approve of Bradley Manning, Ron Paul, "Treason's Friend." (And, if any presidential candidate staff are reading this website comment, please feel free to use it against Ron Paul in advertisements, etc., if you find it useful.)

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 10:05AM

Aid to Israel is a totally unconstitutional support of the Jewish religion. If we gave proportional money to the Vatican it would be at least 50 billion a year. The Pope would spend the money in, aid to the poor, education, and spreading the Gospel of Peace. Israel uses it's lavish subsidies to by bribe our government and make war on it's neighbors. It is time to defund Israel now. After 63 years on America's teat it is time it quit cutting bait and finally went fishing.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:12AM

Just as you assert that those of us who support Israel are "Israel Firsters," then so your support & laudings of the teachings of another nation state would put you in the same category. Just using your own criteria, Jackboot. Don't cry about it.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:08PM

got it. DNC plant.

peace. love. out.

W| 12.20.11 @ 5:10PM

Jack

You must agree that Israel is the only reliable and true ally we have in the Middle East. If Israel's citizens were not Jews, would you still oppose all aid to an ally in danger of attack from all her neighbors?

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:05PM

After their attack on the Liberty, and Pollard, who they are still trying to spring, I would have to doubt they are reliable.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:33PM

Give Pollard the needle. Period. While we're at it, can we hook Ames, Hanssen & Walker up to the same IV line?

lester| 12.26.11 @ 2:13PM

why do we need in ANY ally in that region? we don't have allies just because they are our allies, we have them for a reason, mutual benefit. There is plenty of benefit for them but very little for us. They are a liability. Suopporting them for moral / humanitarian reasons is another story, but they can't fairly be said tyo be of much use to us.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 7:36PM

Dr.Reich, American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Joisey White Trash Bigot Is The Big Yellow Bigot Bus Callin' The Lemon Pie Yellow.

RINO CINO Dr.Reich's The Guy Who Says He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:27PM

You're A Slandering Liar American Spectator's Resident Joisey White trash Serial Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich.

Catholic Tea Party Clint Steps On American Spectator's Resident Serial Anti-Catholic Joisey White trash Bigot, Dr.Reich.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

The hasbarets in Haifa are getting desperate. The whole world is sick of Israel and it's whinning. Do your own fighting and dying. The troops support Ron Paul. They are sick of endless wars which make no sense and only lead to more wars.

Ron and Rand for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:13AM

Thus speaketh the meth king & "proud 4-f." What would anyone in your family of cowards (as admitted by you) know about what it takes to confront evil?

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 9:56AM

I am a proud 4F. I actually went to the draft board and went through the system. Like Cheney, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Blarney I had more important things ot do then fight and die for lies and nonsense. LBJ lied us into Vietnam. FDR lied and tricked us into WW2, and Wilson into WW1.

I had many vets working under me and for me. I had key men who were marines who landed on Okinowa, and Iwo Jima, as well as other places. My most key man was all across North Africa and up the Italian boot until he got sick and was sent home. I had a man working for me who survived the Baatan Death March. Another of my key men was in the Battle of the Bulge. I had Korean amd Vietnam vets and a lot of vets from the German, Hungarian, Italian and Romanian armies as well. The list is endless, probably well in the hundreds. That is not counting all my uncles and aunts who were in the service. My one aunt was on New Guinea as an army nurse. My other aunt also an army nurse was on Tinian when the atom bombs was sent off from there. Why would anyone push such needless wars if they cared about the troops? The chickenhawks that post here should go talk to some vets and see what real war is like. I have and want nothing to do with any of it.

Ron and Rand for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 10:11AM

Damn, breaking my do not respond to Jack rule again, twice in one day.

Okay Jack, Mr. "I know more about history and current events than anybody here, even the editors", consider this:

Germany and Japan were both working to develop nuclear weapons during WWII. If, as you say, FDR had lied to us to get us into WWII, then we certainly prevented Germany and Japan from developing the atomic bomb. If we had not entered the war, or our entry was delayed, is it not possible that either Japan, or the Nazis would have succeeded in developing the atomic bomb, thus completely changing the outcome of the war, and drastically altering the shape of the world today?

Sometimes wars are necessary, because failure to confront evil can have even worse effects.

Thank your fellow workers for all of us, we owe them a debt of gratitude. As for you, you as a bloody coward, who deserves the scorn of the nation.

Ivan| 12.20.11 @ 4:08PM

"If we had not entered the war, or our entry was delayed, is it not possible that either Japan, or the Nazis would have succeeded in developing the atomic bomb, thus completely changing the outcome of the war, and drastically altering the shape of the world today?"

Which would be grossly different than what we got with FDR's failed courtship with Uncle Joe, who developed (stole) the nuclear technology from his American friends in 3 years time. Japan with the nukes worse than Stalin with the nukes? Maybe in the imagination of a confused leftist.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 4:45PM

Wow, you're kidding me, right?
You failed to take in account that, if we were not in the war, we certainly would not have spent the $10 billion required to develop the A-bomb, and Stalin would not have been able to steal it, even if they managed to survive WWII, which is doubtful if the Nazis or the Japs had developed the A-bomb.
Stalin was prevented from using the A-bomb simply because we had it to retaliate with. If the Axis powers had developed the A-bomb, there was nothing to stop them from using it to literally take over the world.
Think things completely through before you comment.

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:11PM

Despite your fever swamp ideas that Hitler had his eye on the entire world, or Tojo, ditto, we have known from the beginning they did not. The Brits and Frogs were idiots to hand Warsaw a guarantee they couldn't keep. If they'd have let Hitler and Stalin fight it out unmolested we would not have the communist menace hanging over our heads from '45-'89. Japan just wanted to dominate the far east. Neither Germany or Japan wanted war with us. We ended up with a war in the Pacific because of Acheson's mendacity and FDR's idiocy and war with Germany because of Hitler's stupidity.

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 7:51PM

Yeah, Japan just wanted SE Asia, yeah quarterbrain, maybe everybody have should just let them rape and murder the rest of the way across Asia like they did in china and manchuria and they would have left us alone. Japan didn't want war? Read the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy from the first world war onwards. They knew then their next opponent was going to be the US Navy and they designed their Navy and warships to that purpose. Yeah, everybody making decisions during WW2 already knew what the outcome was right? They had the luxery of knowing all this before it happened like those of us who lived the last 60 years. Anybody who professes to know what the outcome of WW2 or world history would have been if somebody had done that or we had done this differently, or patgronizing any other "what if" BS is an ignorant @ss. Revisionist history is the historical equivalent to science fiction written by suedo-historians who weren't in the drivers seats of the times and play their fictional shit out in books meant to make them $$$ and nothing else. Anybody who presently thinks what Hitler knew, thought, or perceived or how he would have behaved differently under other circumstances is, in a nutshell, FULL OF SHIT!

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 7:56PM

Some how I doubt that Hitler attacked the frogs over Poland. I think it had more to do with the humiliation of Germany after WWI. Hitler had designs on America, he was developing long range bombers that could reach America. He was trying to develop atomic weapons. Unless you are a victim of the abysmal public school system, you should be able to put the pieces together.
I still think the Nazis or the Japs would have been able to develop the A-bomb if we had not entered the war when we did.

The whole point of this discussion is, peace is preferred, but sometimes war is necessary. This country lost some 450,000 men in WWII, an awful price to pay, but how many millions of Americans would have died had Germany or Japan had the A-bomb?

Fast forward 70 years, and now we have Iran, led by a bunch of madmen.

You connect the dots.

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 8:11PM

To utopian pacifists and isolationists and appeasers war is ALWAYS the wrong thing. Not correct, not in human history and never has been, not always right, but not always wrong at times either. Japan did have an embryonic nuclear program, its chief physicist visited the aftermath of one of the A-Bombings and knew exactly what happened and what the weapon was. Germany had several thousand tons of Uranium ore stockpiled, which we liberated and used to create nuclear U-235 Plutonium pits for the follow on implosion weapons made shortly after the two used on japan were built. Hitler refused to give the program the funding and resources needed due to the need for weapon systems that would produce on the battlefield ASAP. If he wasn't under extreme military pressure who could say how fast they could have closed the deal.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:14PM

Thank you Alan.

irish19| 12.20.11 @ 10:42PM

"Germany had several thousand tons of Uranium ore stockpiled, which we liberated and used to create nuclear U-235 "
Link for this please.

Alan | 12.21.11 @ 7:08AM

Richard Rhodes, Making of the Atomic bomb.

Alan | 12.21.11 @ 7:37AM

http://webfairy.org/missilegat.....apter3.htm

and many other sources.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:27AM

Most of the people you decry as "chickenhawks" ARE vets, or are related to them, as you are. And a great number of them think that Ron Paul's policies are akin to that of isolationism in the face of a world that is always seeking to take global dominance from America.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:15PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:18PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette.

The Chickenhawk Hall of Shame

name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole

When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:14PM

You onbviously are abysmally ignorant as to the meaning of the term chickenhawk. There are *NO* chickenhawks that are veterans. None. Zip. Nada. If you don't understand that you are bigger idiot than you are coming across as here.

Chicken hawks never served. They don't want to serve, and most of them are utter cowards with no desire to serve. They are more than happy to send others to fight, be maimed, or die, but no siree Bob, they won't serve.

Incidentally, a 4-F could not serve for medical reasons. They are physically unqualified to serve. At least your bete noir tried to enlist.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:02PM

No, he didn't. Jack was drafted and failed--- (probably crapped his pants) his boasting is that he didn't run to Canada.

I, on the other hand, did apply for a ROTC Medical scholarship in a time of volunteer service, and was turned down.

At least I don't support Ron Paul, Treason's Friend. Paul, incidentally, was also a draftee.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:10PM

arrant nonsense.

if you look at the numbers....the support Paul is getting in Iowa! it's coming from Democrats!!!

nobody wants a senile isolationist for their candidate...let alone Prez.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:00PM

Just the facts, that's all we want!

Excellent, Dr. Right.

Bydand76| 12.20.11 @ 9:57PM

Unless you're a Catholic...........right?

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:47PM

When a Catholic is ready to speak Biblical truth, let me know, ok?

Are you a Christian or a defender of lies?

Nick| 12.20.11 @ 11:20PM

Margie,

I show you what the Bible really means, all the time. You just refuse to believe it, or, stop responding altogether, because you have no answers.

Just last night I posted several objections, explanations, and questions to you, in a couple of other threads, and, you have yet to respond.

When the going gets tough, those ignorant of what the Catholic Church really teaches, get going.
Merry Christmas to you and Victor.
God Bless!

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:18PM

"I show you what the Bible really means, all the time. You just refuse to believe it, or, stop responding altogether, because you have no answers."

An utter lie. Not surprising.

You do it continually, and without hesitation or repentance.

Repent, Idolator, and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead of a cult that teaches that Mary was sinless~ a doctrine of demons.

Beginning with Mark chapter 1.

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 7:00PM

I think makes jack just an asshole "firster", period, a jew hating asshole "firster" in particular. I'd love to know who "we" are. I enjoy how you elect yourself as the spokesperson of some mythical "we", there is no we, just you. But then again you seem to be full of your own pompous ass self most of the time aren't you? Fortunately, you don't matter and in the end thats the way it will play out.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:55AM

What's this "we", crap, Jew-Hating Jack???

You're a "proud 4-F", remember?

You're a disgusting, cowardly hypocrite, Jack. And your joke of a candidate won't get much farther than Iowa, I'd even that.

The disaffected always look for "heroes". You'd have fit right as a member of the Weinar Republic. I'm sure they would have found a nice brown shirt for your size able, 4-F gut.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:56AM

Remember, Jack's Daddy told him it was "better to be a live coward." Like father, like son.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:24PM

" Is Gingrich's Stance Constitutional?

Judicial experts, including Republicans, are questioning the constitutionality of Gingrich's stance. The Constitution specifically grants federal judges life terms and only provides for impeachment in cases when judges do not serve "in good behavior." While vague, experts say removing judges in any other circumstance -- especially because of a specific ruling -- is an affront to the separation of powers."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here AndIn Iowa.

jagscl | 12.20.11 @ 9:47PM

No more of an affront to the Constitution than Judges legislating from the bench. Just shut them down through Congress under article III.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:34AM

Paul's response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:39PM

Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.And In Iowa.

JFGalt| 12.20.11 @ 11:46AM

Doctor Right's comments were paid for by a contribution from AIPAC.

William R| 12.20.11 @ 12:33PM

You're dumber than a load of bricks. Ron Paul's supporters founded the Tea Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8LsnbN7d-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNP1-bokv2g

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 1:03PM

No, genius...they DID NOT.

That silly video proves nothing. The Tea Party, in it's current structure, wasn't formed by Ron Paul and has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

Go somewhere else to spout your idiotic Paul-bot talking points.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:02PM

Michele Bachmann can take credit much more, at least for her part, for starting the TEA party, than Ru Paul ever could

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:14PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:14PM

" Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted Thursday 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. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:18PM

Dr.Reich Wouldn't Know Real Conservtism If It Jumped Up And Bit His Anti-Catholic Joisey White Trash Fat Ass. .

Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 6:58PM

Correct, Dr Right, as usual. Isn't interesting how the Paulbots always put us in sunny climes on beaches with great looking women when they want to insult us?

Ron Paul, Treason's Friend: supporter of Bradley manning.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 8:19AM

The controlled media will always attack the populist hero. They can't stand the fact that people are sick of their misrule. The internet and the articulation of Ron and his followers are the answer to lies and BS that the media spreads. Keep kicking the media scum in the teeth with the truth and no matter how the campaign ends we will have struck a great victory for truth and common sense. No pro war Republican can win. If you want Obama back, go with any warmonger you want.

We are taking the Republican Party back or we are replacing it. We have the young people and the intellectual vigor on our side. They have nothing but lies, corruption, and nonsense. No more chickenhawk wars ever. Ron Paul has been atacked and ignored for 4 years and the movement has only grown. The reason is that he is right on the issues and has great charecter.

9thID| 12.20.11 @ 9:16AM

Liberal-tarians have NEVER owned the GOP any more than the Birchers did. You're better off fighting for control of the Democrat Party -- the breeding ground for the KKK.

Sean| 12.20.11 @ 9:55AM

What exactly is wrong with someone from the John Birch Society? If you have a problem with them you are probably a neocon from the communist tradition.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:22PM

Paul's campaign is gonna be over and done by Feb---it's gonna be flatter than a Paulbot run over by a Merkava IV.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:13PM

actually...you're very persona is alienating people left and right!

so keep it up.

Bydand76| 12.20.11 @ 10:28PM

Jack ,

What are you going to do IF Ron Paul does not win the nomination?

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:27AM

Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:29AM

In January 2008, the New Republic avstory reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s. Nearly the entire archive is available at the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:19PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette.

The Chickenhawk Hall of Shame

When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:45PM

Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.And In Iowa.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:31AM

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:20PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:33AM

What Ron Paul had to say about Jews and Israel is simply stunning.. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:44AM

Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:45AM

Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:47AM

In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.

Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:48AM

Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:14AM

Game, set, match, Doc! Well done!

Vern Crisler | 12.20.11 @ 1:19PM

Dittos Dr Right. You can find some of the same conpiracy stuff over on Lew Rockwell.com, along with anti-Lincoln bilge and health quackery, etc.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:27AM

Thanks DR! Well prepared, simply devastating to Paul.

Not that his brown-shirts will care.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 12:22PM

DR,

Notice how Jack, Mr. "I know more about history and current events than anybody else here, even the editors", can't respond to your posts?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:40PM

Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.And In Iowa.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:44PM

Asked And Answered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Serial Bigot Dr.Reich.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.20.11 @ 8:45AM

Whadda ya know, one more reason to change the order of the Primaries. Reason #1 is the Parade of Politicians with their pants pulled down, and a Jar Of Vaseline in their hands, as they prepare to Bend Over, one more time, for MORE SUBSIDIES, for a Product - ETHANOL - that nobody wants. And, now this.

Apparently they don't get Mad Doctor Ron Paul's Newsletter version of Mien Kampf. Or, maybe they do? Which only makes it worse.

Hey. I like Corn (To EAT) and I like Farms. But, I also like the MARKET. And, like the saying goes: If it needs a subsidy? It's not worth Subsidizing. (I just made that up.)

As far as this IDIOT being in the lead? Well, that's just more fuel for the fire. One more reason to start in Texas, or South Carolina. Anywhere but here.

"You know what, Caleb?" "What's that, Earl?" "I don't know about you? But I'm voting for that Squirrely looking guy from Texas. The one that wants to Legalize Heroin, and Cocaine, and LSD, PCP, and Methamphetamines." "Oh, yeah? Why's that?"

"Cause he GETS IT."

He gets it, all right. Someone standing next to old Ron, heard a "SNAP" inside his head, a long time ago. Probably back hen he WAS reading what was in his own Newsletters. He doesn't know what's in them, now.

At least, that's what he's saying.

"SNAP"

Did you hear that? It sounded like it came from IOWA.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:21PM

Tim, merry, merry, Christmas and Happy New Year!

Paul has no clue what's out on the street. I practiced in Cullman, AL for 7 years in the 90s and we rarely encountered any substance worse tham alcohol. Paul was a rural obstetric doc in the 70s.

I, on the other hand, am an inpatient psychiatrist in the teens, and the amount of meth, bath salts, and synthetic marijuana, along with the increased potency of hydroponically grown marijuana, is staggering. Paul is an ignorant ass on the drug situation. Wrong specialty, outdated medical knowledge.

Mike D.| 12.20.11 @ 4:03PM

Happy Holidays Occam!

irish19| 12.20.11 @ 10:46PM

Same here!

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:20PM

Mike and Irish, thanks guys. You guys are always awesome no matter what the season.

Doorgunner| 12.20.11 @ 8:47AM

Ron Paul- Noam Chomsky's kind of conservative.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:17PM

Actually, very likely yes regarding Chomsky, who, it should be noted, criticizes corporations but loves to shop at Wal-Mart. NICE call, Doorgunner!

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

Bend over Dr. Paul, it's time for your anal exam.

Oh, my, what do we have here? IT'S CLINT!

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:16PM

Damn you, Chuck, I wish I HAD THOUGHT OF THAT!

Magnifique!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don| 12.20.11 @ 9:35AM

Isn't Michelle Bachman the Tea Party Favored Candidate?

Drunken Sailor| 12.20.11 @ 4:05PM

Oddly enough Newt won a Tea Party Straw Poll. Bet that pisses Jack, Clint and Paul off.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/E.....-tea-party

Ann| 12.20.11 @ 6:59AM

It's sad... so many Americans are under the impression that we live in a free country, with a free democratic voting system. We pride ourselves on it. Yet in reality a very narrow range of choices are always selected for us, and we are not permitted to deviate, or ask fundamental questions about foreign policy, etc. If people learn nothing else from men like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, I hope it is this lesson. We aren't as free and democratic as we think we are. And we certainly have no business criticizing Russian elections.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 9:04AM

Dear Ann:

Amen.

Vern Crisler | 12.20.11 @ 1:29PM

Doesn't freedom mean that we are free to REJECT candidates, too? Also, while one could argue that Romney was "selected" by the Republican establishment, how were any of the others selected? Newt looked like a loser a month ago. Cain was on his way, until personal scandal and lack of detailed knowledge on issues, derailed his train. Now Ron Paul is surging. If the candidates were "chosen" for us, why all the ups and downs, the anyone-but-Romney see-sawing? Sounds like we have plenty of freedom in this country.

We also have plenty of ignorant voters in this country -- which is the real problem. Decades of public schooling and liberal TV and superficial culture have taken their toll on the electorate. We certainly vote into office the people we deserve.

SUBVET| 12.20.11 @ 8:37PM

Ann my lady...you must of saw the HBO special a few years ago "HACKING DEMOCRACY".

Do our votes really count ?

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 12.20.11 @ 7:13AM

extortion blackmail bribery did not work
new headline from American Spectator
new threat from American Spectator
"Ron Paul in the Crosshairs"
by W. James Antle, III

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:47AM

You sound like one of those idiots who thought that the crosshairs on Palin's map set Loughner off.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 7:19AM

It's one thing to have the media come after you. It's another thing entirely to have your OWN party, not your opponents but the pundits of the party and it's leaders, to attack you when if they supported you, and they really cared about winning, they'd support you.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:30AM

Gee, cry me a river.

Ask Newt, Cain, Perry, and Bachmann about it. Happens all the time. Grow up, and quit whine because people were mean.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 7:22AM

@NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

Don't forget lying and exaggerating on top of the extortion, blackmail and bribery.

Here is an example of outright lies and yellow journalism:

Ron Paul Attacked for Views on Health Care
http://tiny.cc/oc0kw

Ron Paul would rather lose than corrupt himself and so would all of his supporters.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:17PM

too late.

Mike Hawk| 12.20.11 @ 7:28AM

Ron Paul is a crackpot with no Tea Party connection.

9thID| 12.20.11 @ 9:23AM

No major Tea Party group has endorsed Ron Paul because he is a neo-Liberal and Blame America Firster. Paulestinians also claim exclusive rights to the Constitution because they tell me it was written on "hemp", and we know what Paulbots do with hemp. Lite er up...

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 7:32AM

@Mike Hawk

Without Ron Paul there'd be no Tea Party.

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:12AM

On what do you base this bizarre claim?

Mick Hawk| 12.20.11 @ 8:44AM

Paulbots claim a lot about their Dear Leader. Dear Leaders are superhuman, you know.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:48AM

They are worse than the Obamunists were in the '08 election. Its Jim Jones-esque.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:33AM

Clint is the Paulista version of the Black Panther with the club at the polling place. Stomping faces.

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 10:30AM

Remember, Ron Paul invented the interweb? And he wass right about global cooling, first!

You people just don't get it, do you?

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 7:14PM

They are messiah worshippers waiting for the chosen one to lead the mythical "we" out from under the massive Jewish Conspiracy. Those who unite behind some "ultimate" savior without sin or any kind of perceived personal fault or defect, so far above criticism by any of his followers, usually doesn't end well for the followers in history. In the animal kingdom we call them lemmings. In the geological world, we call what they follow their spotless leader off of is called a cliff.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 7:36AM

" ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul won another local tea party presidential straw poll in Iowa tonight, outshining his competitors in a display of growing organizational strength around the state.

“We’re pleased to have the support of many Iowans who identify with the tea party, as Ron Paul’s message of constitutionally-limited government resonates quite well among this core group of citizen activists. The results of this contest and others like it contribute to our goal of a strong top-three finish,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.

This local win follows Ron Paul’s endorsement by two Buena Vista-area tea party co-founders, his endorsement bytwo Dubuque-area tea party founders, and his winning first place in the Dubuque Tea Party presidential straw poll."

The tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:19PM

yes...cross-over Democrats are pulling strongly for Paul. wonder why?!!!!

Truth to Power| 12.20.11 @ 7:37AM

Ron Paul is the guy that all the idiotic Romney, Santorum and Bachmann supporters have been carrying water for. Enjoy.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:21PM

pffft.

Paul is a whiny little man. I just love every time he receives a contrarian opinion: he tightens his jaw, looks down and gathers himself for that unique Stan Laurel look that only he can replicate.

this guy has the emotional stability of a two year old.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:22PM

Carnot:

Stan Laurel was a genius in his field. paul may look like him, but he is NO Stan Laurel. He is, instead, a skinny version of Eric Cartman.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:23PM

Sorry, "Paul." Merry Christmas, Carnot; you are a joy to read.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 7:47AM

It's sorry to see all the other candidates try to parrot Ron Paul when, without his integrity, spouting his ideas and policies ring hollow.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:22PM

yea...we saw his integrity on the Leno show the other night.....petulant...whiny....clown.

Stan Laurel for President!!!!

James NC| 12.20.11 @ 7:52AM

@Mike Hawk

Given the current (shameful) state of the tea party, this is definitely a good thing.

As a lifelong republican, I can honestly say that the best outcome, short of a Dr. Paul victory, is that the GOP collapses under the weight of it's own hawkish lunacy. The idea that Santorum/Perry/Bachmann get even a single endorsement is itself an indictment of the state of the party. That Gingrich and Romney are viewed as even remotely conservative is astounding.

Please face the fact that modern "conservatism" is nothing more than militaristic socialism. The same old wealth redistribution that you profess to despise. All hail the new GOP, the party of big government!

Au Contraire| 12.20.11 @ 9:16AM

"Militaristic socialism"--elegant label, nicely done.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:23PM

my my...the empty rhetoric brigade is out in force!

Old Soldier| 12.20.11 @ 8:00AM

It will be interesting to watch Republican Statists and Democrat Statists both spewing poison against Paul. I see Lord has one down below.

I was never a big Paul fan in the past, however, only he and Gary Johnson have said anything outside the GOP norm.

I've lost interest in Romney and Gingrich debating about who can slow the growth of government more. That ship has sailed.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:32PM

and Paul is all platitudes. HE HAS NO EFF'ING PLAN. it's easy to spout BS about shutting down multiple departments and agencies. the devil, of course, is in the details. he doesn't have the ideas, persona or political alliances/ability to pull any of it off.

look at him! he's a whiny old man. there's zero that is inspiring about this guy. he appeals to a bunch of isolationist wingnuts who are quickly morphing into the enemies of the rest of us. those of us who can distinguish strategy from platitudes......real causes from pretend effects.

Paul will be destroyed before the primaries get to SC. and then we can indulge all the "principled" Paul-bots belly-aching like 3rd graders how they are abandoning ship to chart their own course (otherwise known as "my way or the highway" - a truly adult reaction to rejection!). why should anyone support Paul when his acolytes have announced up front that they will not back anyone else? the psychology of you people is so juvenile that it boggles the mind.

or is just laughable.

Old Soldier| 12.20.11 @ 3:50PM

So tell me about Gingrich's or Romney's tack record of shrinking government. I know they talk about it constantly but have done the opposite at every opportunity.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 9:07PM

pls no distractions. We can get to Gingrich and Romney later. What's Paul's plan?

bill| 12.20.11 @ 8:19AM

Ron "Great" Paul reminds me of Barry Goldwater, who laid out the foundation for the neoconservative movement based on fiscal and foreign policy.

I like Ron Paul's fiscal policy but he sucks on foreign policy.

Yet, he is a far better candidate than Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul can win IA and that will put him in the cross hair.

He is a great debater and has wisdom, and can destroy Obama in the debate.

Ron Paul is a legend, he is the "million dollar baby."

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:54AM

Until this man gives back the dough he got from Stormfront, or distances himself from his fringe "Turner Diaries" reading supporters, like Jew Hatin Jack & Moma's Boy Clint, he'll never gain any traction. Who cares about Iowa? Huckaboo-boo won Iowa. BFD.

Tell you what, Paultards. When your foil hats get the signal that your chosen "messiah" (again, just like Obamunists viewed MaoBama in '08) is gonna get the nomination, then call me. Until then, I'll just sit back & watch the same media whom you cheered in dispatching the "neocon" candidates get further up Ron Paul's ass than the IRS got up Wesley Snipes'.

Goldstein Chickenhawk| 12.20.11 @ 8:56AM

There are two big differences between Buchanan (who I believe is a patriot, and was undoubtedly smeared in the past by the Spectator) and Paul.
1) Paul knows free market economics, and has a track record. Pat didn't.
2) Pat was a cultural warrior. Paul isn't interested in legislating morality. So he is able circumvent the left/right paradigm.
Try as you might Lord, et al. You can huff, and puff about your phony concern over racism. But in your heart you really don't give a damn about black people, and your insincerity shows through. You truly are yesterdays men.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 9:08AM

Look how they cry; just like liberals. They aren't yesterday's men that is too high a praise for them.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:38PM

hmmmm......presumably Paul has some moral foundation and set of principles on right and wrong that extends beyond the essentially amoral idea that the individual decides.

pls amplify on the old man's moral philosophy. an anxious and adoring public wishes to know how his at root atomistic ideas translate into a comprehensive moral code that is not individually or temporally bounded.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:39PM

amoral in the sense of "how does the individual decide? based on what?"

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 9:04AM

@Con Chef (NB)

Obama WON.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:22AM

Great. And look what wonders someone getting elected purely on his cult of personality has gotten us. So now we can see that YOU (don't know about the rest of the Paulites) are a subscriber to the Alinsky theory that "the ends justify the means."

Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernie Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, "Father" Phleger. All names that the media & Obama's supporters told us were "no big deal." "Those associations were NO indication of the man he is NOW," they said.

Well, sonny, I've got news for you. The media isn't gonna cover for your boy Ron. He ain't Obama. So all the Alex Jonesers & Stormfronters in the world won't get your boy the White House. The more that comes out about his Stormfont dough, the more that comes out about these news letters, the more that comes out about his pork laden bills, he'll flame.

Bet you a bottle of Corky's BBQ sauce from Memphis on it.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:10PM

NB, the NYT had an article about the newsletters today.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

What a great blog...the same 3 morons sniffing eachother's asses to reconfirm to themselves that they are most assuredly spouting neocon turds.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:26AM

As opposed to you, Mr. Intellectual Giant, who thinks that being a libertarian is akin to being conservative.

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 9:33AM

At least you acknowledged you're a moron because I didn't call you out by name.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:39AM

It didn't take a MENSA membership to figure out who you were talking about, Carnac the Not So Great.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:37AM

cc,

They, like all the children, want the rights without the responsibilities. They want to be able to live their lives like they want, smoke dope, or shoot heroine, but when it comes to DEFENDING those rights, they are AWOL. Worse than that, they want to stop everybody else from defending their rights too.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:40AM

Liberal-tarians. Period.

Au Contraire| 12.20.11 @ 9:17AM

"This is what it sounds like when hawks cry."

Best line I've read in a while.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 9:23AM

In many respects Ron Paul has it right. Why do we keep funding the, for lack of a better word, wars in the middle east? The Hebrews in Palestine, Israel, will continue on inspite of the masses of Muslims stacked against them and inspite of our taxes or without taxes. Paul's domestic policies are pretty much correct. Look at Sharpton's financial mess, look at Jackson's private life, look at Obama's national financial quagmire. And you rant and rave over the newsletter that ran with Paul's endorsement? Big GovCo will manipulate, it will procrastinate, and it will pull snow jobs when it behooves them. Perhaps the only reason Raul went on the Alex Jones show(s) or Coast to Coast AM is because that's the only places that will give him air time. If in Nov. Ron Paul is the Republican nominee will you pull the lever? I will. I want Obama out once and for all.

9thID| 12.20.11 @ 9:34AM

I want Obama out, but Ron Paul is even to the Left of Obama on social issues and national security. When put in that perspective, Obama is the lesser of two evils! For this reason, Paul should return to the Liberal-tarian Party that he crawled out of. No way I could ever vote for either one of these tyrants. Obama is the face of Marxism and Ron Paul the face of anarchy. Bachmann is the only Conservative left standing...

Old Soldier| 12.20.11 @ 9:52AM

Social issues? What social issues are relevant to federalist government? Washington DC should be remote and irrelevant in our day to day lives.

Like me, Ron Paul is personally pro-life, but he has read the Constitution and knows that it is an issue that belongs to the States and the People.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 10:04AM

Obama is the lesser of two evils? I don't see it. Anarchy? Obama has brought this nation closer to anarchy than any other president. And will if he wins the election in Nov. Fast and Furious, KBR, FEMA Camps, National Defense Authorization Act, etc., are non-issues? You don't need to listen to Alex Jones to here about those. Obama campaigned against G. Bush more than his opponent and that's a big reason he won. An open and transparent government? How many czars? Obama's policies are eclipsing those of his predecessor and he's building on Bush's legacy.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 10:07AM

Oh yeah, Liberal-terian is a mis-nomer there. They're not liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:15AM

The blame American First theme is strong with them. And it is in this that they so resemble liberals. To me, anyways.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 1:09PM

That's true, sir, but then all three parties overlap in many of their policies.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:42PM

sounds like a profound and nuanced foreign policy to me. where do we sign up?

Bill Rice| 12.20.11 @ 9:26AM

Okay, we get your point. Be careful what you wish for. All we Ron Paul supporters ask for is a little context and fairness when rolling out the "attack points."
Bottom line is Ron Paul's campaign promotes limited Constitutional government and the protection of personal liberties. He actually does remind me in many ways of Barry Goldwater. "Conservatives" love and admire Goldwater but for some reason they ridicule and disparage Paul. Fortunately Paul has millions of dollars in the bank to combat the smears that are coming. May he spend and use it wisely!

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 10:00AM

Bill;

The main political philosophical difference between Goldwater and Ron Paul is that Goldwater understood that before personal liberty can be protected national security must be maintained.

Ron Paul believes that we need to re-assert the primacy of Constitutionally-protected personal liberty whilst disengaging from international politics. I agree with him that we have ceded a great deal of our personal liberties (How in God's name can they construe operating my personal automobile on publicly-paid-for roads to be a "PRIVILEGE" not a right?), and that this situation needs to be reversed. How ever, I, and many,many others apparently, believe he is sorely mistaken on the latter point about being able to maintain our international security without international involvement.

Since our founding, we have found that by trading around the world, we have inevitably encountered political entities that will attempt to take your people or your goods within their grasp. International trade is the reality that makes the quality of life we enjoy possible. It is also allowing the rest of the people of the world have access to it-through trade, not theft and war.

If we retreat behind our borders, international trade takes a huge hit because the Gulf of Hormuz piracy goes global. No more free and easy shipping - piracy would drastically curtail international trade. This would impact us and the other PEACEFUL parties around the world, directly and economically. So sorry, but we ARE the world's police force.

We didn't ask to be the global cops, we actually volunteered. What? In 1919 by going home from Versailles empty-handed, and again in 1945 through the mid-50's by helping re-build our fierce enemies, Germany and Japan, after vanquishing them both without retaining any political power. We are doing it again next week as we clear out of Iran leaving nothing, not even our war dead.

But if we were not the world's police force, it would be those notorious advocates of freedom and fair trade, the Russians and the Communist Chinese controlling the seas and the trade. Without the security of a 'police force' the world would not be a safe, fun place to live and work.

Ron Paul does not want to protect our country in the world, only within our borders. That isolationist thinking will not protect us in the global economy today. That is why Ron Paul is NOT the Barry Goldwater of the 1960's.

I'm going to hunker down now - I sense incoming...

Bill| 12.20.11 @ 11:40AM

All due respect, with $15 trillion national debt, America will be better off if we avoid intervention in foreign affairs, if it does not pose a national threat.

I love Barry Goldwater, but that was in the 60s.

Ron Paul vowed to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, abolishing dept. of education, energy, commerce, HUD, EPA, and that will save us $1 trillion just in the first year of his office.

Ron Paul is wrong on foreign policy. He is wrong on Iran and Israel.

We must not let Iran have the nuclear weapon, and should never abandon our true ally, Israel.

Frankly, Rick Perry is my first choice to be the GOP nominee. But in case, Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, I will write "blank checks" for him.

Ron Paul is a legend, he is the "million dollar baby."

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 1:12PM

Bill,

I guess we agree on many things but disagree on one:

Force projection.

Our pacifistic responses to Muslim attacks on US installations in the 1980's and 1990's led to the 9/11 attacks.

Not the location of our bases around the world.

Think about it: Between 1950 and now there have been exactly NO attacks on us by Japanese, Korean, German, Italian, Philipino, Cuban military forces (Yes, there were the crazies - but they'll always be with us, I mean, against us.)

So the concept that our physical presence is the problem fails a simple test of logic. Does presence encourage attack? Not in instance for 60+ years. Apparently not.

Does withdrawal stop attacks? Sometimes, but not always.

Lebanon 1983.
Mogadishu 1993
USS Cole in Yemen.

Not exactly base closings, but not any form of a re-statement of our commitment to protecting our people and assets, that's for sure.

So cutting and running does not fare as well as maintaining position.

But running back to our borders as advocated by the left, the progressives, the Ron Paul LIBERTARIANS serves notice to the thugs and bullies of the world that we are not ready to fight for our interests, unless they cross 'this line' at our own geographic borders. That's a good way to make sure that future battles are fought "Over here" not "Over there."

I'm glad I live far from a cost and not too near a really big city... How about you?

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:51PM

more to point....a political theory that bases its conclusion on the notion that physical proximity is the lone precipitator to violence is simple-minded in the extreme. it's the sort of concept structure a two year old employs: "If I move away from the threat...they won't come and find me." It disguises visual cues for deeper running causes......something I have suspicioned all along is the root problem of Paul and his bots: Constitutionalism/libertarianism aside...they are profoundly ignorant of the complexities in life and the wellsprings to action. they live behind this wall of platitudes that shelters them from nuance and subtlety. we already know they do not present one iota of empirical evidence to back their theories about terrorism and international enmity.

when examined....it really all sounds like what it is: a group of children crying for attention while backing out the rear entrance.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 6:45PM

he is the "million dollar baby."

Didn't see the movie, eh? "Million dollar baby's" "Mo Chuisle" races after a deadly injection and then flatlines.

tonypal| 12.20.11 @ 10:59AM

Bill, it's very simple. Many of us believe Ron Paul is naive with respect to foreign affairs. While I agree with many of his views when it comes to domestic policy, I think his attitude towards foreign affairs is dangerous. Is that disrespectful, or just an honest disagreement?

Bill| 12.20.11 @ 11:41AM

All due respect, with $15 trillion national debt, America will be better off if we avoid intervention in foreign affairs, if it does not pose a national threat.

I love Barry Goldwater, but that was in the 60s.

Ron Paul vowed to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, abolishing dept. of education, energy, commerce, HUD, EPA, and that will save us $1 trillion just in the first year of his office.

Ron Paul is wrong on foreign policy. He is wrong on Iran and Israel.

We must not let Iran have the nuclear weapon, and should never abandon our true ally, Israel.

Frankly, Rick Perry is my first choice to be the GOP nominee. But in case, Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, I will write "blank checks" for him.

Ron Paul is a legend, he is the "million dollar baby."

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 1:13PM

And I disagree with your apparent proclivity for pasting the same post one or two posts apart - shows some serious laziness on your part....

bill| 12.20.11 @ 1:57PM

Because I was making the same argument.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:55PM

I ask for the umpteenth time: what exactly do you agree with vis domestic policy? while I agree with shutting down or severely reducing many government departments/agencies....Paul's notion of doing this in a single year is ridiculous....not to mention hugely truculent.

where are the details? or is he also just another windbag spouting BS that appeals to an interest block?

MonkeyThumbs| 12.20.11 @ 9:51AM

It's truly funny to see how out of touch these hasbeens/neverwases are. I bet they have been posting here for a decade and still watch Faux Newts...meh they probably work for Faux.

Conservatives prefer small government. Mitt Gingrich and Newt Romney are HUGE government corporatist lackeys waiting to bilk the US taxpayers out of more money and send other people's children to kill poor uneducated brown people in foreign lands.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:19AM

Last I checked, it was an all volunteer military. No one with half a synapse joins the military today & DOESN'T expect to be deployed to a combat zone at least once during their enlistments.

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 10:22AM

Ya, simian one, Gingrich made a point in his opening of last week's debate: he has a lifetime ACU rating of about 90. That's over a 30 year period.

Romney never having served in Congress doesn't have one, but I'd venture that it wouldn't be 80 or better, to wit, Romneycare.

Even Ron Paul is a lifetime 88 ACU.

Maybe you don't remember that Gingrich was the guy who challenged the notions that you couldn't restrict welfare - which they did, shoving it down in Clinton's throat, that the Republicans could not take control of the House, which they did, after a 40 year long absence as House leadership, and the House budget balanced in the mid-90's, saving Clinton's useless presidency and proving that it could be done.

Yeah Gingrich sounds like a kook, because he instinctively rejects the statist's argument that you can never change the status quo. He has done it and in doing so seemed to be completely screwy.

Right now, we need someone screwy enough to think that the Constitution still matters and that we still need to follow it. This concept is highly unpopular with the statist Republicans and any breathing Democrat.

No, I am ready for Newt - big head, bad hair and all. He could make mincemeat of the boy President in a debate - he could also come up with the unconventional means to undo all the socialism that FDR, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama have foisted upon us.

Mitt would just be a statist trying to make things a little better than they were under Obama. Gingrich has shown that he can find ways to actually change things with the tools at hand.

Ron Paul was in Congress for almost the same length of time that Gingrich was - what did he ever get done in Congress? His effectiveness in Congress mirrors Obama's. Sorry, but it does. Look what Gingrich did, look at what Paul did. Only sane response for a Paul supporter? Nolo contendere!

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 10:38AM

Agreed,

Newt is a street-fighter when it comes to politics. I bet most people don't remember that he was the man who filed the ethics charges that forced then Speaker of the House, Jim Wright to resign in disgrace. The Democrats have been after him ever since.

Then he really pissed them off when he came up with the Contract with America, which led to the Republican take over of the House and Senate in 1994.

Time to make the Democrats foam at the mouth by electing Newt President.

Old Soldier| 12.20.11 @ 10:52AM

Gingrich is also the guy who went on TV in 2001 to tell me that what the newly elected Republican majority needed to do was ... Medicare Drug Benefit? WTF? Not spending cuts, not tax reform - pills for oldsters.

Not being in Congress, Newt doesn't get demerits for his oldster pills, global warming ads, or the rest of his statist idiocy.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 12:14PM

The ACU isn't a fair rating when it comes to Paul because it doesn't factor in the rational for certain votes. For example, the ACU might score a vote for a particular Republican budget, but Paul would have voted against it because he votes against all budgets. The best measure of Constitutional voting is the John Birch Society rating, and on that Paul is at or near 100 year after year.

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 1:14PM

Dr. Paul is too pacifist for me, thank you...

ralph hornsby| 12.20.11 @ 10:21AM

I will toss my vote Obama's way before I reward the Republican party for their conduct in regards to their treatment of Dr. Paul, and I absolutely HATE Obama as a politician. If Newt or Romney is confirmed, Obama will not only get my vote, he will get my time as a volunteer and my money in campaign contribution, FOR SPITE. A defender of liberty must defend even his own enemy from oppression and persecute even his own brother for tyranny.... Ron Paul is the only politician that seems to understand that notion.

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 10:27AM

Oh Ralphie boy, be careful with that Red Ryder BB gun! You might shoot your eye out!

If you could vote for Obama because people have looked hard at Ron Paul's positions, you won't even notice if you shoot your eye out, you are totally blind!

You could shoot out your ear to with similar effect, your nose, too, I'm just saying...

Vote for Obama? Are you drunk? Stupid? A socialist tool, fool? Oh wait, you're a Democrat, yeah, yeah that's the ticket, a Democrat.

Get outta here!

tonypal| 12.20.11 @ 10:49AM

Ralph, I think you might be the dumbest person who has ever posted here. That goes for all the trolls, libtards and Clint.

As for the treatment of Ron Paul, I simply ask if it is possible for someone to disagree with the Congressman. You Paul supporters are the equivalent of Obama supporters who believe that disagreement with Obama is racism.

I disagree with Ron Paul's views on foreign policy. I was astonished by his attitude towards Iran during the last debate. I believe he is naive with respect to the realities of the world. Pretty easy to understand and not disrespectful in any way. Can you handle that?

irish19| 12.20.11 @ 11:54AM

"You Paul supporters are the equivalent of Obama supporters who believe that disagreement with Obama is racism."
And that says it all.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 4:00PM

that's cool. we'll know who to look for when things deteriorate even further.

and geez....what a bunch of absolutely brain dead cliches you Paul-bits wish to pass off as "deep" philosophy. one reality...among many...is that Paul is rejected precisely because in second review...the ideas strike one as banefully simplistic and non-actionable.

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 10:34AM

Why doesn't AS have an article today on the Payroll tax cut extension? Is it because the Republicants are all tied up in knots over whether to even have a vote on the bill? The Republican House Speaker was for the Senate version of the bill before he was against it. Is he an idiot? In the meantime, every worker in this country is going to get a TAX INCREASE Jan 1st because of the dithering of the Speaker of the House and his Republicant minions. Why are they so out of touch with Americans? Their big excuse is because employers with have to do some arithmetic, which is most likely by computer, because the Senate bill extends the TAX CUT for 2 months so more negotiation can occur for the full year extension. But, no, the House Republicans want all of us to have a TAX INCREASE Jan 1, for some d* political reason. Through them all out in 2012 !

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 10:41AM

Headline yesterday said the Senate plan "could not be implemented".

And I thought your side says taxes are good, even patriotic to pay them. Unless of course if your Tim Geithner.

Dick Nome| 12.20.11 @ 11:12AM

Why do you want to defund Social Security?? Better an income tax cut, but as a liberal you can't have that, can you. Costs the gummint revennooo.

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:25AM

The Payroll Tax goes to the "gummint" or didn't you know that? Moreover, the D's wanted to pay for it, by asking the wealthiest to help the Republic by kicking in a paltry 1.9% on their second million dollars. The Republicants don't, they'd rather put in on the national credit card. In any case, I'm tired of explanation and excuses - just pass the d* payroll tax cut extension.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:15PM

The Republicans do pay for their payroll tax cut by freezing budgets and cutting government employment rolls, which have grown exponentially.

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 12:23PM

And, your pea brain doesn't get that causes job loss? They add to the unemployment ranks and they are surprised when people see the Republicants as anti-job creation? While at the same time protecting millionaires and billionaires from a small surtax. Is it any wonder that the Republicant party is seen as the party of the 1% who pay for their campaign war chests, and NOT for the American people that voted them in. 2012 cannot come soon enough to wipe them all out of office.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:55PM

Three must reads for your edification. Allah knows you need them:

Big Government Robs The Middle Class Because That's Where The Money Is!

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....class.html

Obama's Neo-Nationalism II

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....sm-ii.html

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:57PM

The Non-Existent Stairway To Socialist Heaven In Sweden

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....alist.html

Here's a fourth, too:

"Lies" About Social Security and Medicare Pandering Politicians Never Told You

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....icare.html

Stop being such an idiot. It is soooooo unattractive.

Dick Nome| 12.20.11 @ 1:57PM

You are a dummass first order. The payroll tax is the funding for Social Security. Cut that and you cut SS which is already bankrupt. But you big gummint Liberals it's Hey, WTF. Let's raise Income taxes.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 4:04PM

ahhh...da poor widget who was arguing mos ago that government "revenues" increase when tax rates go up is unsettled.

Louis Jenkins| 12.20.11 @ 4:31PM

Purp:

A tax cut for 2 whole months!! Whoopie!! Now we're down to cutting taxes by the month. Next it will be by the weeks or by the days or by the hours. The Americans want a permanent tax reduction, not a cut or a break. Not some 2 month dream world, because in that time period we'll be right back were we started. Cudos to the Republicans on this one.

JimH| 12.20.11 @ 11:21AM

Paul may have some skeletons. All the significant candidates do, to some degree. For the GOP the issue should be less about Paul the man than the issues he represents. Like it or not a significant portion of GOP support is libertarian/PaleoCon leaning. Part of Paul's strength is that he is the only candidate speaking to this group. Paul is unlikely to be the nominee, but the party would be wise to stop demonizing him and to incorporate at least some of the positions this wing espouses. There is a lot of agreement between Paul supporters and much of the Tea Party, particularly on domestic and fiscal matters. The biggest split comes from disagreements on the size and role of the military. Whether one agrees that Iran is an immediate danger to the USA does not preclude considering how one might best use our limited resources in restructuring our military and other institutions in a way that better defends us and maintain our liberty.

irish19| 12.20.11 @ 11:58AM

I think that many of the posters here agree with Paul on domestic and fiscal matters. Some of those positions would make excellent planks for the party's 2012 platform.
The disagreements about the role of the military are profound. Paul seems to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the military should only be deployed when an enemy is physically landing on our shores. Given modern technology, that is IMHO totally unrealistic.

Sean| 12.20.11 @ 2:54PM

You are wrong. Ron Paul in an interview recently gave some scenarios where our interests would be threatened. One scenario was a country closing the Panama Canal to us. He said it would be Congress's decision to declare war as per the Constitution. He would then fight to win the war fast.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 11:39AM

"I''ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grover-perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style 'smartcard' the Justice Department has in mind for you."

- Ron Paul

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....te-no.html

So, forget about Iran. The Skull & Bones & the Bohemian Grove folks are all out to get us. Oh, the horror!

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 12:00PM

With regard to the Payroll tax cut extension, it' hard to not get the feeling that the congressional repubs are looking at this from basically an ROI perspective. When they cut taxes for the wealthy, at least some of the upside from that gets re-invested in their campaign, as this is basic wealth management. Giving the 'house' its 'take' if you will. Since these middle class folks dont do any of that, there's no return for them. Its like why the Casinos have about 10 times as many dollar slots as penny slots.

Truth to Power| 12.20.11 @ 12:10PM

Republicans are looking at it from a jobs perspective, a heath of the economy perspective, not a class warfare perspective, not a government power perspective. You are a stooge for the fascist liberal state. Your guy sells influence like a pimp in the blue part of town.

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 12:29PM

Really? Then why did the House Republicants pass a bill that reduced unemployment benefits? That's supposed to help the economy - how? Why did the Senate Republicants balk at extending the Payroll tax cuts at a greater than $1000.00 deduction up to $2000.00 deduction for most Americans?
Who said anything about class warfare ( which the rich have been waging for decades) or government power (which increased exponentially under GW Bush)?
If American's taxes go up Jan 1st, it is the fault of the Republicants, pure and simple, trying to play politics with American's lives. And they won't forget it in November, you can take THAT to the bank.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 12:49PM

If you turds are so concerned about jobs, you would've passed that bill with the Keystone Pipline provision in it. Your "peeps" would've joined with Repubs to back S. Carolina against the Marxst run NLRB. But, as with all things regarding regressives, you're a hypocrite.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 8:58PM

bingo!!!!!!!

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 1:47PM

Purp, or Perp however you spell it,

Only that famed genius of economics Nancy Pelosi holds that extending unemployment improves the economy.

If you are a student of economics studying Nancy Pelosi, you are probably also studying Al Gore's imaginary physics.

Ronald Reagan said it best, "It's that so much of what they know, isn't so."

Purp, someday, you will be mugged and find that you wish you'd had a gun to protect yourself.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:13PM

Jake Tapper
Dec 19, 2011 1:50pm

Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Passed By Senate, Pushed By President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....perts-say/

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 12:27PM

Purp, aka purpleguy missed that one yesterday, too busy getting the daily talking points from Soros.

Purp| 12.20.11 @ 12:33PM

Since when do Republicants care what experts say? They don't believe in global climate change. They don't even believe in Evolution, for cripe's sake.
Besides, this is a simple arithmetic problem. 2/3 of 3months = 2 months payment. Surely, our bright businessmen can figure that out, especially since most use computers, it shouldn't take more than 2 weeks to program, test and deploy. That's a stupid reason to INCREASE TAXES on all Americans like House Republicants want to do. Maybe the House and Senate Republicants ought to talk to each other before they all look like fools, which they surely do today.

Resist We Much! | 12.20.11 @ 12:50PM

I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative, 'tupid 'tard.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 12:08PM

"I actually think Paul is somewhat to blame for his newsletter problem. The abjectness of his disavowal gave credence to the charge that they were that bad to begin with, but the quotes in question were clearly pulled out of context for shock value and when read in context are easily defensible from a conservative standpoint. Justin Raimondo does a good job of demonstrating this in the link below. In fact, some of the supposedly shocking quotes happen to be true. Martin Luther King was a philanderer? Umm … well he was and this is common knowledge. Black men commit disproportionate amounts of crime? Umm … well they do and this too is common knowledge. So I guess part of the charge is that Paul spoke truth that isn’t supposed to be spoken?

What Paul should have done is apologized for what is arguably indelicate language but pointed out that the allegedly offending quotes were pulled out of context for shock value, and in context are easily defensible. That option has passed for Paul because he has essentially conceded with his disavowals the premise that they are “racist.” But it hasn’t passed for us, his defenders."

My post: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=10567

Raimondo link: http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1h2S6u1c3

Truth to Power| 12.20.11 @ 12:26PM

Have fun Red. This dog won't hunt in the general. It is time for Ron to enjoy quotes taken out of context, truthful comments that won't sell to the middle and just outright racism. Needlin indeed. You are so lame as not respond to the Doc point by point. You chose to hide down the page. The Ron Paul approach to party building was never consensus but name calling. Apparently as Doc pointed out he has hung with every conspiracy creep that would talk to him. Paul has been aligned with Romney supporters all along. He seems woefully unprepared for the onslaught when they turned on him as they obviously would. The effect is likely to be four more years of Obama. Good work.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 1:42PM

The Doc? You mean Doctor Right? I didn't hide down the page. When I got here there were already about 100 comments I believe, and I posted what I wanted to post at the bottom. I didn't even read the posts above before I posted. I posted the exact same comment on Lord's Dondero post.

That said, I have no problem dealing with the conspiracy issue. Unlike some, I'm not squeamish and have no problem saying what I believe. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, particularly elaborate conspiracy theories. I try to keep an open mind and not accept the official explanation and the conventional wisdom at face value, but elaborate conspiracy theories strike me as unfalsifiable and self fulfilling. The lack of evidence is just more evidence. So while I'm not certain Vince Foster killed himself in Fort Marcy Park, not sure we know the whole story about the Kennedy assassination, think Obama might be hiding something about his background even though I don't think he was born in Kenya, etc. etc. etc. I don't claim to definitively know the truth when I don't know it, and I don't, using something akin to Occam's razor, extrapolate elaborate conspiracies when more mundane cover-ups or banality will suffice.

That said, neither am I conspiracy phobic which Doctor Right appears to be. As someone who identifies not with the “mainstream (inauthentic) right,” but with the “far (authentic [in some of its iterations]) right” I realized early on that conspiracy theorists were a substantial part of the coalition. This goes with the territory. So if I was some sort of priss who was afraid to sully my hands by association with conspiracy theorists then I would be advancing “mainstream (inauthentic) conservatism” by default.

Here is the dynamic I think is in play with the conspiracy phobics: There is a very fundamental divide between those who see the current Regime as flawed but fixable, and those who see the Regime as irredeemable and beyond repair. For the former, with some tweaks and modifications the Regime is part of the solution and represents a bulwark against the chaos of non-Regime. For the latter, the Regime is the problem and must go. Conspiracy theorists usually fall in the latter group. This is why defenders of the Regime – left, right and center – react so hysterically to conspiracy theories. Because they fundamentally question the legitimacy and benevolence of the Regime, a Regime they are emotionally invested in and feel compelled to defend. For defenders of the Regime, conspiracy theories are the emotional equivalent of talking bad about their Mother. I, however, am not a defender of the Regime, therefore I don’t get emotionally tied in knots at the suggestion that the Regime is up to no good, even though I think most of their theories are highly speculative and not falsifiable. This is also why defenders of the Regime react so hysterically to criticisms of our foreign policy and our current system of money and banking. Both issues are fundamental attacks on the legitimacy of the Regime that tax policy and spending issues on the margin are not.

It is obvious why conspiracy theorist would be drawn to a candidate like Ron Paul who represents a fundamental challenge to the Regime vs. a mainstream defender of the Regime like Romney for example, and if the conspiracy phobics could think with their brains and not with their emotions, they would see this too. Likewise, I’m certain there were more conspiracy theorist supporters of Kucinich in ’08 than there were for Hillary.

So there you have it. Red Phillips on conspiracies. You and Doctor Right are free to respond as you see fit. But please don’t accuse me of ducking. I don’t duck anybody.

Truth to Power| 12.20.11 @ 2:08PM

You were called out. You answered and you illustrated your neo lib roots. Radically taking a system apart can never square with a true conservative. Thanks. By the way I don't think of conspiracy theorists as challenging any system but as laughable and always in the end ineffective. They stain those associated with them. Reverend Wright is their kind of man. Needlin types like Ron Paul can compare notes with the CIA AIDs types and test what works with the easily influenced. Race obsessed politics is another thing that is always associate with libs (neos and otherwise). I still hope you manage to enjoy what is before you.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 2:35PM

Rare is the day that Mr. Phillips & I agree, but the Vince Foster & Ron Brown deaths stink to high heaven. Just me though. I'm not convinced they are what they appear to be, but nothing in the "conspiracies" about either incidents has sold me either.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 2:39PM

T to P, I may be many things but any kind of liberal ain't one of them. As a paleoconservative, I even eschew the label of classical liberal that many libertarians embrace. I oppose the current Regime, because I am a conservative. The current Regime represents a fundamental break from the Republic intended by our Founders; therefore if I want to restore the latter I must oppose the former. This may make me a radical, but it does not make me a liberal.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:28PM

Red: your guy just came out supporting Bradley Manning. That's not really popular in mainstream America.

That roar you hear is an oncoming Merkava. If Paul gets the nomination Obama will carve him up like a Kobe steak. His campaign is over. He just committed political suicide over Manning. It's over.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:29PM

PaleoConservatives, the last I heard, don't embrace TREASON. They are antisemitic assholes, but they are not traitors. Supporting Bradley Manning is POISON.

H Abdullah Shabazz| 12.20.11 @ 12:20PM

Ron Paul
He opposes your American Empire
Which is insane.
And has bankrupted us.

Look at Brazil. Like us stategically:
A big country bordered by weak neighbors and the ocean. Plenty of oil and other stuff.
They spend 4% of what we do on the military.

And what does Brazil get for peanuts? Security!
Brazil has never lost a war, never been invaded, never worrried about atomic attack, doesnt need body bags.

If we had followed Paul's lead for the last two decades, we'd be solvent! Run the numbers. The national debt would be $2 trillion, not $14 trillion.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 12:31PM

Actually we'd have a surplus, but the Soviet Union would be alive and well, the Iron Curtain still up, Eastern Europe still in bondage, and the U.S. weaken to the point that our allies would be gone. We'd be all alone in the world.

rhoetus| 12.20.11 @ 2:11PM

FDR gave Eastern Europe to the USSR on a silver platter at Yalta. It was negotiated by Alger Hiss the American Communist Party member and traitor. The Cold War was unnecessary as it could have been prevented.

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 4:51PM

Fool, the Soviets took it and never left. They only way to get them to leave would have been to forcibly eject them, something no one was willing, or for the most part, able to do.

Good Lord, some people are dense!

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 1:15PM

Brazil is also a socialist state with rampant poverty & crime. Ever heard of the favellas? Get a clue.

Gee, let's be like some mediocre socialist south American country. That's the way to do it! Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 2:48PM

"Brazil is also a socialist state with rampant poverty & crime."

Con Chef, that has nothing to do with anything. He is making a point I have made repeatedly. If it is really necessary for the US to spend 1 trillion a year on defense then it would also be necessary for China to do so. Russia to do so. etc. But they don't. They spend a fraction of what we spend. Thus, the 1 trillion is not about defense. It is about maintaining hegemony.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:13PM

Big deal. Who cares what we spend, compared to others? Cut the welfare state. We still only spend 20% of the budget on the military. If no effort is made to cut the welfare state, we'll end up like Britain, with no Ark Royal.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 3:58PM

But what we spend compared to others illustrate that what we spend is excessive.

Let me make this simple for you. If all the little girls in a class spend $500 a year on school clothes except Missy who spends $10,000 then Missy's expenditures are obviously not about adequately clothing her. They are about dressing here like a Hollywood diva.

If America spends 1 trillion and Russia spends less than 100 billion, then...

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 4:44PM

When you have the one of the largest economies in the world, don't you need a military to protect those interests, in all the far flung corners of the globe they may be located?

Sorry, I don't give one hoot in hell for the argument that, "well, THESE people spend less." They spend less because their equipment sucks & they have little regard for the lives of those who fight their wars.

The whole, "well THEY spend less, so we should too" thing is like the Occupados who cry about people who make a million dollars a year. It is parallel with what Obama thinks when he said that we can't drive our SUVs, consume all the energy, & eat all we want because we take more than our fair share.

Sorry, Mr. Phillips. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:32PM

Russia's ability to project power is miniscule compared to ours, now. Our military is vastly more capable.

JP| 12.20.11 @ 12:29PM

Goldwater hated and blackballed Ron Paul's Intellectual idol from the Progressive/Libertarian Left Paul dwells from.

Rand should be disqualified and ran out of town on a high horse for endorsing his lunatic, humanistic father.

William R| 12.20.11 @ 12:36PM

Is that why Barry Goldwater Jr endorsed Paul in 2007 and again 2011??

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 1:16PM

STOP THE SKULL & BONES FRAT & THE BOHEMIAN GROVERS! Elect Ron Paul, 2012!!

With every dontation to the perpetual candidate's campaign, you'll receive one free "Have You Hugged Your Mullah Today" t-shirt & a copy of his most recent e-book, "Channelling Chamberlain: Peace in Our Time in the Ron Paul Model."

bill| 12.20.11 @ 1:22PM

Hi, guys, check out the interview of Dr. Ron "Great" Paul in CNN, and you will see how patriot and authentic Dr. Paul is.

Dr. Paul championed liberty and fiscal sanity. You bet!

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:33PM

And he champions Bradley Manning, too!

Bill, I rate foreign policy higher than you do because we are about to cruise into the storm.

rhoetus| 12.20.11 @ 1:27PM

Mencken also wrote: "Every election is an advance auction sale of stolen goods." We could use another Mencken in the conservative media rather than the pundits that are obsequious to the status-quo in America. What Reagan and Goldwater couldn’t achieve in American politics surly Bush41 and Bush43 diminished or destroyed conservative progress; the former attacked Reagan in the 1980 primaries and diminished Reagan’s ideas as his successor while the latter ran as a conservative and governed like LBJ.

America is too corrupt to take a technocratic approach to government; we need a “Velvet Revolution” similar to Czechoslovakia. Who will lead us politically? Who will be our Vaclav Havel or Vaclav Klaus? It appears that Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking of these needed reforms. Let Freedom Ring!

bill| 12.20.11 @ 1:29PM

I hate bureaucrats and those big labor unions.

Ron Paul vows to dismantle bureaucracy and restore fiscal sanity. That's good enough for me.

His foreign policy puzzles me but I don't care so much about who invades Georgia or who how many people gets killed by the sucide bombers in Iraq.

Ron Paul will end the federal bureaucracy and get us out of the fiscal mess we have now.

He will never surrender because he never did in the past.

Ron Paul is a legend.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 1:35PM

Yeah. He's a legend in his own mind.

rhoetus| 12.20.11 @ 1:40PM

Yea Con Chef, and W was LBJ with a human face.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 2:38PM

Last I checked, El BJ said, with the passing of the civil rights act, "I'll have those n**gers voting Deomcrat for the next hundred years." I don't recall Jr, despite his shortcommings as far as Reagan conservatism is concerned, ever saying anything like that.

bill| 12.20.11 @ 1:41PM

Good News!

According to CNN Poll, Ron Paul is polling 14%, remember the 2008 GOP Primary, John McCain was polling behind Rudy and Fred, and McCain was the ultimate GOP nominee.

Any clue? It's Ron Paul time.

DTOM| 12.20.11 @ 1:50PM

It'll last about fifteen minutes, fortunately...

Here's a fun game: Compare and contrast what Newt and Dr. P accomplished in Congress.

Doctor Paul, you can't count votes that got nothing done....

rhoetus| 12.20.11 @ 1:57PM

Fighting the socialists is a noble cause. I'm sorry that piecemeal slavery is so appealing to you.

bill| 12.20.11 @ 2:01PM

Dr. Ron Paul led the fight for liberty and fiscal sanity for 30 years, and most of the time the Dems control the House, and yet he never surrendered his stance on fiscal issues.

Ron Paul is invincible.

Rob| 12.20.11 @ 2:05PM

If you want to Learn about Ron Paul's beliefs on Foreign Policy. Here is the latest video Ron Paul has on it.
http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo

bill| 12.20.11 @ 2:08PM

Here is the problems with the GOP Candidates:

Mitt: Romneycare, abortion, gay marriage, guns rights

Newt: Big government, immigration, climate change, Washington insider,

Rick Perry: Old Texan

Ron Paul: Bad foreign policy

Rick Santorum: lost his senate election in 2006

Jon Huntsman: worked for Barack Obama

Michelle Bachmann: suits in teh cabinet post, tresaury or AG

My Choice:

GOP nominee : Rick Perry

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 2:39PM

PA now is not the PA of '06. He'd win in a heartbeat. Especially considering this state just elected the equally conservative Toomey.

bill| 12.20.11 @ 3:25PM

I understand your point. But Rick Santorum is the same old Rick, aggressive debater and sloppy campaigner, no accomplisment and lacked leadership, I know, who wants to be Mike Huckabee?

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:54PM

I'd agree with you on the crappy campaigning.

Dick Nome| 12.20.11 @ 3:30PM

Romney lost the only Senate race he ever entered, he must be a loser too.

martin j smith| 12.20.11 @ 3:30PM

RON PAUL WILL NOT GET THE NOMINATION BUT TELL ME WHEN WILL ROMNEY GET INTO THE CROSS HAIRS-EH ?

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:34PM

OOOOh, good point, Martin!

bill| 12.20.11 @ 3:41PM

It's either Rick Perry or Ron Paul, one of the two Texans, may be never Obama.

Ralph Hornsby| 12.20.11 @ 4:18PM

OMG! They found a recording of Ron Paul's racist rants!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....EADdr-5AY#!

bill| 12.20.11 @ 4:23PM

Ron Paul should write a book about liberty and fiscal sanity, it'll be NY Best seller, he 'll make millions of it, and it sure will become a "bible" for conservative movement for the next 100 years.

Slacker| 12.20.11 @ 4:25PM

Ron Paul wouldn’t be my first choice but, I think many are too caught up on his foreign policy ideas. Regardless of who wins next year, our foreign policy future will be basically non-interventionist. This is a certainty for a bankrupt nation.

Predictions that the establishment will blow a gasket if Paul wins Iowa are no doubt correct but, in the end the establishment will not get their way either. The other candidates are debating foreign policy philosophy. None of them can implement anything bold because whoever follows Obama will have to govern a weak and bankrupt nation.

Some form of Paul’s foreign policy is coming either way.

And if you think that sucks, wait until your social security is paid back in inflated dollars.

bill| 12.20.11 @ 4:25PM

The best book I've read in my life is Mark levin's " Liberty & Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto." I read that book several times, and I just love it. It's enlightening.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 4:46PM

One of my faves as well. If you want to go WAAAY back in history & read something great, try Cicero's Philippics. Or click my handle for a piece I wrote about them.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:29PM

" Ron Paul, Polls and Panic

The conservative media flips out over the latest front-runner

The Ron Paul Panic is officially under way.

The Texas congressman has been gaining strength in Iowa all year, but the media—and the Republican establishment—have been content to treat him dismissively.

Oh yeah. Interesting character. Seems to have tapped into something. Has a cult following. He can’t win the nomination, the refrain goes, but he’s an interesting sideshow.

But a couple of Iowa polls showing Paul bursting into first place—past the previously hot Newt Gingrich and the slow but steady Mitt Romney—are forcing the press to take him more seriously."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 9:00PM

yes...with cross-over Democrats making the difference!

Kevin| 12.20.11 @ 10:03PM

Ron & Rand, The Traitors Paul. In Bed with Obama, In Love with Osama. Sharia Law upon One and All.

Red Phillips | 12.20.11 @ 10:54PM

All right big talker Kevin. I'll ask you the same thing I've asked others. Please draw me out the scenario whereby America is subdued by a Muslim country or countries and Sharia Law is imposed upon "all." I need specifics. Which country or countries? How do they make it happen militarily? What are their military capabilities? Etc. Have at it big talker. I anxiously await your reply.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:43PM

Here it goes again. One invades after one destroys. (When one is dealing with a major player, not Iraq.)

The question you ask yourself is "how many major cities would it take to destroy the US as a political organization?" That's the number of nukes. My view: Washington, NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, Frisco? That's exposing maybe 10 percent of the US public to nuclear annihilation, plus the fragmentation of our financial system?

Could do it with Eight 2 megaton devices easily. How to get them in?

Direct plane flights from overseas countries that are questionable (say, Saudi Arabia) are very frequent to US cities. The Saudis have embassies/consulates/headquaters in the US for their national airline in---- surprise (Houston, NYC, Washington, DC.)

Red, you must look at your enemies' capabilities and think strategically. Your ability to do this is laughable.

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:45PM

Sorry, that's "surprise---Houston, Washington, NYC."

By the way, that's 3 out of 8. Did you note the ease in which bombs were on their way to synagogues in Chicago earlier in Obama's term from, I believe, another Arabic country?

POST American| 12.20.11 @ 11:34PM

"----And Gingrich is even worse than Romney
if that's possible.
------------PRO open borders
---------------PRO abortion
------------------OPEN Illuminati
----------------------For the end of the family
-------------------------For micro-chipping
-----------------------------For 'world govern-ANTS'
---------------------------------PRO carbon taxes"

And, need we add, he was there, at the helm,
during the very heyday of the Globalist-RED
China set up, sellout, TREASON and EUGENICS
OP.

---------------------GET BEYOND RON PAUL.

Draft your own candidates for local, state, and
federal office.

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

The Bruce| 12.21.11 @ 12:53AM

Since when did the author, along with a number of Conservatives, start confusing Ron Paul with Conservatism rather than Libertarianism?

Seriously? And I'm not talking about true Conservatism vs. (Compassionate) "Neo" Conservatism.

The Bruce| 12.21.11 @ 12:58AM

Has Conservatism and Libertarianism been lost on the audience, vis a vis Ron Paul Supporters?

Look, there are things I like about Paul. He's all about reigning in the budget, the FED, and returning us to the Gold Standard.

On that last point, while he supports going back to the Gold Standard, he never explains how we'll do it, since the USD has been decoupled from the Gold Standard since 1970. Back in 1970, an ounce of gold was worth under $30. Now it's worth upwards of $1700.

So where do we go from here?

Zak Klemmer | 12.21.11 @ 3:17PM

The Progressive Movement became a majority in both thought sponsored in academic institutions and in politics by propagandizing to the so-called common man. The status-quo is the result of their efforts. Both the old and new Right have battled against this left-wing movement by proposing counter arguments to the Progressive socialist ideas. Our institutions have failed due to the socialist ideas which are contrary to human nature.

We are still on the Utopian Trail of Tears, until now even the Republicans have not been able to reverse the trend. What are true-conservatives trying to conserve? The legacy of George W. Bush and John McCain or constitutional principles?

Zak Klemmer | 12.21.11 @ 9:11AM

The "Conservative Movement" is dead. Its founders have all passed away; Frank Chodorov, Leonard E. Read, Bill Buckley Jr, Whittaker Chambers, M. Stanton Evans, Rev. Edmond Opitz, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Willis E. Stone, Barry M. Goldwater, Ronald W. Reagan, et.al.

There was some hope that the election in 1980 of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States, the “movement” had influenced public opinion enough to turn the preverbal corner toward traditional American ideals. The “Movement” had been weakened in recent years its strength had been drained by squabbling about single issue politics and Conservative politicians that governed like Left-Liberals.

Alas, the younger generation having taken the reins of publications such as National Review has lost the meaning. With their 15 minute attention span they no longer advocate individualism and strict observance of the US Constitution. They seek legitimacy in supporting the established Progressive government institutions. They are no longer motivated to advocate free-market solutions to government programs.

Adele in Texas | 12.22.11 @ 1:03PM

NEVER refer to Ron Paul as a "Texan". He merely resides in Texas and the vast majority of us fervently wish he would return to the Pennsylvania of his birth.

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:07PM

Jack Cafferty on CNN: "People In Iowa Are Rallying Around Someone Who Represents real change, REAL CHANGE!" And that scares the heck out of both parties.
Watch this two-minute video to find out who that "scary" guy is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Ron Paul: Israel is “Our Best Friend”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....FZpL8F4FgU

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:08PM

Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...../id/420247

Israel & Ron Paul Reality Check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....v9bQFanXj8

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:11PM

Ron Paul’s Mainstream Foreign Policy:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ts/249081/
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12.....or-empire/
v=I8NhRPo0WAo#!

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:13PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....NhRPo0WAo#!
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12.....gn-policy/

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:14PM

International Business Times - "Ron Paul 2012 - Why He Is Right On Foreign Policy"
http://www.ibtimes.com/article.....policy.htm

Ron Paul Explains: Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism:
http://patriotupdate.com/16011.....ventionism

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:15PM

Ron Paul Supports George W. Bush’s Foreign Policy:
From 2000, that is, of being a “humble nation” that does not engage in “nation-building.” Many say everything changed after 9/11. It did. America was attacked by radical Islamists, so we went into Afghanistan to route the Taliban who had aided and abetted Al-Qaeda. Virtually every American supported that mission, Congressman Ron Paul voted for it and the world was on our side in that fight. But what really changed after 9/11 was the degree to which our government used that tragedy as an excuse to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq and to stay in Afghanistan far longer than any American would have ever imagined. It is our post 9/11 haze, and the unconstitutional expansion of Executive power that accompanied it, we created a political environment in which President Obama can now send America’s military off to Libya without so much as consulting Congress. What George W. Bush describes in this video represents the foreign policy sanity Ron Paul would like to return to. Paul’s foreign policy is basically what Americans voted for in 2000. After a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, most polls show that a war-weary American majority is eager to vote for the same policies in 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....9SOVzMV2bc

Is Ron Paul Wrong About Iran? What is more likely? Circa 2003: That Iraq has WMDs and poses a great threat to the United States? Or what Ron Paul said—that America was overreacting and we would find ourselves in a quagmire? In 2003, everyone said Ron Paul was wrong. In 2011, most Americans agree that Paul was right. What is more likely? Circa 2011: That Iran might have a WMD and poses a great threat to the United States? Or what Ron Paul says—that America is overreacting concerning Iran and going to war with that country will find the US in a quagmire once again? The notion that Paul is being “absurd” in his policy toward Iran does not make sense if history, experience and common sense have any bearing on the matter.

Return Of The War Party?
http://www.theamericanconserva.....r-party-2/

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:16PM

GOP Establishment Fears Ron Paul!
http://campaign2012.washington.....owa/264111
http://drkatesview.wordpress.c.....-ron-paul/

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:17PM

Ron Paul: Reality Check!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Kaq4qoQvOs
http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:18PM

Why Tea Party Voters Are Returning to Ron Paul:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-tea-....._1DdKMg#_=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Earle Belle| 12.22.11 @ 2:18PM

And Even More Reasons:
http://www.revolutionpac.com/2.....can-trust/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....XCZVmQ74OA

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 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

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

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

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Ron Paul in the Crosshairs

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (299) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:24AM

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:10AM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 8:25AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 8:45AM

Doctor Right| 12.20.11 @ 8:58AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:16AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:29AM

Sean| 12.20.11 @ 9:45AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:29AM

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:02PM

Jack in Wi.| 12.21.11 @ 12:10AM

Alan| 12.21.11 @ 6:58PM

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 1:13PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 1:32PM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 1:37PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 2:59PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:09PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:21PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 3:50PM

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:04PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 7:33PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:37PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:52PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 11:22PM

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:13PM

Steve| 12.21.11 @ 3:35PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 7:42PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:31PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:45PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 11:25PM

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:24PM

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:08PM

Margie| 12.21.11 @ 9:15PM

MikeG| 12.21.11 @ 10:15PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 8:03PM

The Entire AmSpec Bloggers| 12.20.11 @ 9:19PM

MikeG| 12.20.11 @ 5:00PM

rhoetus| 12.21.11 @ 6:43PM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:00PM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:06PM

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:16PM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 10:05AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:12AM

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:08PM

W| 12.20.11 @ 5:10PM

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:05PM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:33PM

lester| 12.26.11 @ 2:13PM

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 7:36PM

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:27PM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 9:12AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 9:13AM

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 9:56AM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 10:11AM

Ivan| 12.20.11 @ 4:08PM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 4:45PM

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:11PM

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 7:51PM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 7:56PM

Alan | 12.20.11 @ 8:11PM

chuck| 12.20.11 @ 9:14PM

irish19| 12.20.11 @ 10:42PM

Alan | 12.21.11 @ 7:08AM

Alan | 12.21.11 @ 7:37AM

Con Chef (NB) | 12.20.11 @ 10:27AM

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:15PM

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:18PM

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:14PM

Occam's Tool| 12.21.11 @ 7:02PM

carnot| 12.20.11 @ 3:10PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:00PM

Bydand76| 12.20.11 @ 9:57PM

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 10:47PM

Nick| 12.20.11 @ 11:20PM