The American Spectator

bill| 12.19.11 @ 2:49PM

Newt Gingrich deserves to get the GOP node because

1. He led the 1994 GOP revolt

2. He balanced the budget and helped enact the welfare reform

3. He helped impeach Bill "Liar" Clinton

4. He pledges to overhaul the Judiciary Branch, have been invaded by those liberal activists judges. Unless we reform the Judicial Branch, Obamacare will be constitutional

5. He can reach out to Hispanic voters

6. He is a great debater, and Obama might need his teleprompter

7. Newt is no Mitt, Newt is charismatic and possesses leadership

Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 3:09PM

Newt has been burnt toast ever since he announced his candidicy. His record of corruption and stupidity would never let him be elected President. The people have found out about his record and heard him in debates. That is why he has imploded and will soon be gone. I predicted all this right along. It has always been a fight between the young insurgency of Ron Paul supporters and the old guard's mitt Romney. If there is no accomidation between these 2 sides Obama will be re-elected. Both Ron Paul and Romney Poll well against Obama. Ron Paul polls the best by far among disaffected Democrats, Independents, and the young. There should be vigourous and honest debates between these 2 men to see if the party can somehow come together.

bill| 12.19.11 @ 3:19PM

Ron Paul is great on fiscal policy but sucks on foreign policy.

Mitt Romney is a Democrat and concedes to Obama even if he wins the GOP node.

Rick Perry is solid and will make Obama run for his old senate seat in IL.

Hobbes| 12.19.11 @ 4:15PM

Sucks on foreign policy? Because he would have spared us the Iraq War? Because he wants Congress to declare future wars, like the Constitution mandates? Because the founders of Conservatism, Kirk, Weaver and Nisbet, were all antiwar like Paul?

bill| 12.19.11 @ 6:08PM

because he never supported our only friend in the middle east, Israel.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 6:55PM

Tell us about The Israeli Spy Ben Ami Kadish,who had the same handler,out of The New York City Israeli Consulate as Jonathan Pollard, tell us about illegal Israeli sales of U.S. Weapons Technology to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing our allies Taiwan & Japan, tell us about Israeli Company Checkpoint Systems getting the same treatment in The Sourcefire Deal by C.F.I.U.S , as Dubai Ports got.

You're Up Israel Firster.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

bill| 12.19.11 @ 7:49PM

Those accusations are false and baseless. They are coming from the playbook of Muslim Brotherhood and their ally, the Dems.

Israel never jeoperdise American security. Since 1948, Israel and America worked together and kept fighting with the Muslim terrorists all over the world.

Without Israel, America has no friends in the middle east.

Arabs hate America ans Israel. That's a fact.

We must never forget our enemies.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 8:36PM

The Hell They Are.

Do Your Homework, Israel Firster.

"Politics and technology collided Thursday as Israeli network security provider Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. dropped its plans to acquire Maryland-based Sourcefire Inc., which employs the creator of the Snort open-source intrusion prevention and detection technology. Although the companies announced the proposed $225 million acquisition in October, the deal had come under intense scrutiny from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, an inter-agency committee chaired by the Treasury Secretary.

Check Point's decision to abandon its effort to buy Sourcefire smacks of the same kind of political pressure that scuttled the Dubai Ports World of United Arab Emirates' plans to take over the operation of terminals at six major U.S. ports."

Now Go Look Up Ben Ami Kadish & Do Your Homework.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 7:32PM

It will be a fine day when conservatives can scrape the turd that is the Ron Paul campaign off the bottom of our shoes so we can focus on defeating the establishment repub/neo-con wing of the party. So left wing Ron Paul gets it accidently right on fiscal issues, who cares. I'm sure if (God forbid) he won the presidency would take a left turn as fast as the establishment repubs/neo-cons he and his ignorant minions supposedly despise. I'm sure Jack(off) in Wi. would be there defending him all the way. Ron Paul has no interest in being president, and if I may borrow the Paulbot tinfoil that adorns his minions empty skulls, believe he is an Obama/Soros backed plant. Notice the same tactic employed by the left during Obamas campaign claiming the most donations from the military. Obama claimed the exact same thing. It does not become "illegal" or looked into if the amount is under 200-300 (can't remember the exact amount) dollars, falsifying your occupation on campaign donations. You paulbots are #!@%$*ing despicable putting up this BS as if Pauls "foreign policy" views encompass the overall general attitude of the military. Ron Paul will peter out soon and go the way of the dodo. Would love to make a bet with you paulturds on it. I accept Paypal!

Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 7:46PM

Paul gets far more donations from the active military then all the other candidates combined. With the exception of Perry all these people are chickenhawks like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin who never met a war they didn't love as long as they didn't have to fight in it. 1 2 Punch you stink of the establishment. I have said it often enough. no prowar nominee has a chance to win for the Republicans. Especially such ignorant and cowardly people like Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 8:45PM

I stink of the establishment? Nice try. I know the difference between establishment and conservative. Reagan, Santorum, Levin; conservative. Bush Sr , Bush Jr., Will; establishment. Learn the difference. Cons do not believe in nation building. We believe in a strong defense and projection of power, and when need be, knocking the piss out of somebody and not worrying what other nations think of us like some high school girl. Pathetic try at "Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never met a war they didn't love as long as they didn't have to fight in it." Any self respecting vet or active knows this is a BS tac. Civilians vote, pay taxes and have children that supply our military. Some serve, some dont. There is no shame in not serving and having an opinion on how, what, when or where we defend ourselves. That's how it works. Don't like it move to Switzerland. My son will probably have to start getting in shape now due to this presidents blunder removing our military from Iraq. No help from you Paul fools either with your views on Iran and other dangers we face from the rest of the world. You and your candidates foreign policy views are not only foolish, they're dangerous and will end up getting far more servicemen and civilians dead.

Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 9:39PM

1 2 Punch you still stink of the establishment. Newt is a Rockefeller Republican, who passed himself off as a conservative to gain power. Once in power he made a fool of himself. He was blackmailed and rolled by Clinton on numerous occasions. His Republican house memebers had enough of all his BS and nonsense and dropped him like hot coal after a couple terms as Speaker. He then became a big fixer and influence peddler. He made and spent many many millions of dollars on top of his lavish pension. Mr Freddie Mac is dispised by most of the American population. He would get near zero votes from Independents, women, disaffected Democrats, and would lose a huge part of the Republican vote to a 3rd party or stay at homes. His favorite Presidents are the 2 most liberal presidents in history, FDR and Woorow Wilson. Gingrich loves big business, big goverment, and his own big ego.

The reason that National Review and all the neocon magazines are dumping on him is because they know all this and how unelectable he is. He is no conservative and never has been one.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 10:07PM

Riiiiiight, like Ron Paul trying to pass himself off as a Republican. He's a neo-confederate/leftist, who just by chance gets it right on the fiscal side. You should be more pissed at RP than Newt stringing you along when all he is doing is playing spoiler for Obama and will bail on his run. Let's say if unicorns were real and RP won the nomination, I WOULD vote for RP to get rid of this current menace. If Newt was the nominee, would you vote for him and rid us of this menace like me? Yes or no, no BS spiel.

C Bowen| 12.19.11 @ 7:47PM

It's called intrade -- intrade.com if you are new to computers and the Internets--when you want to be takin' seriously. You can wager, legally, on the elections, any aspect of them. Go clean up, already.

Were you scared of Iraq?

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 9:02PM

No, I could argue for going into Iraq, and not going into Iraq with equal vigor and still make more sense than RP and his followers. We went in, removed a menace and established a beachhead. We dispatched plenty of al-queda bad guys and other terrorists from organizations with cool muzzie names. Our guys suffered from bad ROE but pressed on. We have done great things in Iraq, now we will piss away any progress and validate the Iraqi's worries we would bail and leave them hanging. Now they WILL hate us (for good reason) and will make it worse when we have to return. Obama deliberately sobotaged the negotiation on granting immunity to our troops as an excuse to remove them. Now I'm scared of Iraq.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 8:48PM

You Wouldn't Know Real Conservative Foreign Policy If It Punched Ya In The Face, Punchy.

Try Reading George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right And Learn Something.

" 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.

Watch This Short Video.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/316304

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 9:12PM

I've already read them and know how you Paulturds twist Washingtons farewell address, and other founding fathers writings. Too bad comprehension and an understanding of the times eludes you. I have come to terms with how the world is and have seen it up close and personal. I listen to what the bad guys say and judge by their actions. I will not watch your video.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 10:18PM

We Don't Need Ya, RINO-CINO Faux Conservative.

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

Milton Friedman,
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 10:41PM

First off I do not watch Fox news, too busy to really watch much TV at all. Second, what was "87" or therebouts that fraud paul stabbed Reagan in the back. Third, WTF! is "yOu jUSt muCH wAtCH tEh eeeBUhl fAux nOOs" the f'ing default tactic for liberals and paulbots! What a left-wing tool.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 11:49PM

Like I Said Before, RINO-CINO Faux Conservative,We Don't Need Ya.

Do Your Homework.
Ronald Reagan And Dr.Ron Paul Endorsed Each Other. Dr.Ron Paul Was One Of Only Four Republican Representatives To Endorse Ronald Reagan in 1976 Against Gerald Ford.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“But, in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great,” Paul said. “But the consequence — we have to be honest with ourselves — it was not all that great: Huge deficits during the 1980s. And that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan’s message. His message is a great message.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgi7dsIHD7o

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 12:39AM

Congress holds the purse strings. Reagan vetoed, shut down government because of the BS budgets Tip O'neill sent up to him. Reagan fought the good fight and gave us a strong defense. Establishment repubs fought him too on trimming goverment. Ron Paul is not fit to polish Reagans shoes.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 11:02PM

Milton Friedman. Economics, yes. Politics and Religion, no.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 11:58PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
" The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 12:42AM

I don't disagree with this.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:35AM

Lovely.

Here's Some Change.

Go Me A Bag Of Peanuts.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 11:08AM

I'll bring them right to you, your the guy in the clown shoes an bozo hair, right?

florin| 12.19.11 @ 5:35PM

Sorry Bill, but leadership requires character - he did some good things in his time but his lack of character did him in; and yes he did help impeach 'liar' Clinton...Clinton didn't actually lie but he sure skirted the truth but don't you think it was pretty nervy of gingrich to go after clinton while gingrich himself was having sex everywhere possible with his current wife/former mistress callista? And don't you find it odd that gingrich is the only candidate (probably ever) to be requested to sign a "I promise I won't commit adultery anymore if you make me president"? He may be an able debater - not great - but good but that alone does not make a good president...

bill| 12.19.11 @ 6:09PM

Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and liar.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 10:47PM

@ Florin "Skirted the truth"! Tell me that was a pun!

Interested Conservative| 12.19.11 @ 2:57PM

To answer the question - not by his own doing. I suspect his plan was to survive Iowa and NH (i.e. at least 3rd in one, and 4th in the other, take your pick), and live to play to his southern strength.

Among other things, he's been saving his time and money (anyone seen any ad for him yet?), and I'm sure he expects one or more dropouts before SC.

I've said all along that Mitt needs to run against two-non-Paul candidates, and Newt wants to be one of them.

Mitt is running the Napoleon at Waterloo strategy, pick off one foe first, then the other. It might work, it's worked elsewhere, but it didn't work for Nap in the end.

Curious that Newt now has to battle falling expectations. Still, lots of time before Iowa.

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 3:17PM

Please don't mention Romney in the same breath with Napoleon, at Waterloo, Austerlitz, Jena or wherever.

In short, Romney is a mild mannered, non-entity who desperately needs a Republican establishment, WITH THE HELP of a cooperative media, to carry him to barely exceed the number he received four years ago!

HE'S BEING CARRIED.

Gingrich on the other hand has been running a shoestring operation and hasn't been able to respond on the airwaves to the aerial, saturation bombing campaign unleashed against him.

Napoleon was a genius, a flat out genius, and one who knew it. Not to mention Napoleon had wit, flair, style, insight into what motivates men. The Legion of Honour was his invention, knowing men will do many things for as he put it, "a bit of ribbon."

That stiff Romney couldn't get drunks excited about free viagra in a brothel!

Interested Conservative| 12.19.11 @ 4:21PM

OK - how about simply a divide and conquer strategy? Or is "conquer" unimaginable when discussing Mitt?

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 6:40PM

I'm not sure I'd go with ANY military metaphor when describing something Romney is doing.

And I don't think that strategy is something that he devised. I think the establishment is behind it, I don't think he's that savvy to come up with something like that.

Somebody else was behind it.

florin| 12.19.11 @ 5:38PM

I may not agree with all of Mitt Romney's policies but at least he is a man of good character, a faithful husband and family man...if you want a sleazy character with the gift of gab, totally and unabashedly self absorbed, one who writes notes to himself about how great he is, then your guy is newt...but his current wife/former mistress will never be 'first lady' - she's not his first and she is no lady...

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 6:43PM

You don't send in choir boys to take out Al Qaeda.

Likewise, you don't send in unimaginative boy scouts to uproot 3o plus years of establishment policies inside the Beltway.

Romney is the one guy in the Republican field who won't do anything to disturb the establishment, and disturb how things are done inside the Beltway, WHICH IS WHY he's acceptable to them.

Look at the guy they're most allergic to, the guy they're going absolutely ape over.

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 3:10PM

Late or soon is somewhat irrelevant.

What was coming, what was ALWAYS going to come, what could not in any way be avoided whether he peaked on Iowa's primary day or not, was that the establishment was going to become a barbarian mob at the thought of a Gingrich Presidency, because the GOP establishment as much as anybody now has a vested interest in the continuation of the absolute power of that establishment.

As Caesar was always going to see significant opposition to him, as men like MacArthur and Patton were always going to instil jealousy and envy in the breasts of lesser men and lesser generals, so too Gingrich was going to precipitate the lesser and the bitter to come after him.

Much of the venom and the insanity emerging from NR for instance is about the fact that Gingrich is brighter than them, better read than them, more insightful than them, ---- and what really rankles, has written FAR MORE BESTSELLERS than all of them combined! Of course there is that other thing going on too, I've little doubt Romney has quietly sent some serious money NR's way over the last several years, and with NR, that's HUGE!

Windy City Commentary| 12.19.11 @ 3:38PM

National Review has never been tougher on anyone than they have Newt. Of course, when it comes to Obama, they'll just focus on the strengths of Obama's opponent, but they found it neccesary to round up all the testosterone and red ink that exists at NR and tear down Newt. Newt only peaked too soon, because it gave the limp wristers at NR enough time to put their ducks in a row and commence taking him down.

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 3:50PM

NR went off the deep end.

And Steyn along with the rest of 'em.

And all to advance the candidacy of a non-entity!

That's what really gets me. If there was some political force waiting in the wings, some guy of wit and flair, some guy with a track record of taking on Democrats and winning, then yea, I can see trying to get rid of a guy who stood in the way.

But NR is going all rabid like in the service of ROMNEY!

Who has done NOTHING, who has been AWOL in the cultural battles raging the last few decades.

This is so unbelievable and inexplicable as to be surreal.

florin| 12.19.11 @ 5:39PM

gingrich is and has always been part of the Washiington establishment...

Bob K.| 12.19.11 @ 6:24PM

Even Gingrich, whose ego is legendary, would be nonplussed to be mentioned in the same sentence with MacArthur and Patton; two members of America's patrician aristocracy who would not have given him the time of day.

RJ| 12.19.11 @ 3:22PM

Whatever the polls report, the situation is so fluid that I don't pay attention to polls anymore. We won't really know how it is going to turn out until the caucus is held, which is the way it should be.

America is in crisis. Now more than ever, we need to select the best candidate to beat Obama and restore America. The former will be easier than the latter. My concern about Romney is that I don't see him as the agent for change that we need. So who is the best of the rest? I was hoping for more from Perry, but maybe he can still catch fire. Other than that, who has a record of accomplishment and is able to carry the communication battle against Obama and a hostile media as well as Newt?

Peppermint Tea| 12.19.11 @ 3:47PM

In the battle between the wings of the Republican party, Romney will win and immediately offer an olive branch to the Tea Party. Perhaps by picking Bachman or Santorum (or Palin?) as Veep. He will understand the need to keep the Paulistas aboard, maybe he will even pick Rand Paul. But Ron Paul's inability to sound sane on defense will preclude him from being the vp pick.
That's okay. As a Tea Partier, I'll take it.

Dan| 12.19.11 @ 3:53PM

What olive branch could he possibly tender?

I'm almost eager to see Romney selected just to see the chagrin when the promises and assurances made to Bachmann are proven WORTHLESS, and he sticks a shiv in her with the exact same ruthlessness she's demonstrated going after Pawlenty, Perry and now Gingrich.

She's a trip...............

Red Phillips| 12.19.11 @ 4:00PM

Yes Newt did peak too soon, but his surge was always unsustainable. Too much baggage and too many mixed emotions about him among the base.

Now with Paul in first place in Iowa, it is going to get really ugly. Lord’s obsession is just the start. Paul is too much of a threat to the Establishment left, right and center. What happened to Buchanan in ’96 after he won NH is going to seem like child’s play. Get ready for a hate/smear fest perhaps unprecedented in recent US political history. (Goldwater would be the only rival I can think of.) I hope all these Paul haters here at AmSpec (both commenter and writers, Mr. Antle and some others honorably excepted) realize what they are doing. They are carrying water for the Bankster Establishment against the only man who represents a real threat to the status quo.

OLDRAY| 12.19.11 @ 4:04PM

Romney is a looser. Newt has more energy, leadership talent and a wide understanding of what the USA faces as a world leader. Romney is another money man with the backing of GOP elites who don't want to rock THEIR ship. The media Right and left ,for various selfish motives are out to nail Newt. BUT, the public (independants included) can see the difference between a tiger and a tadpole.

florin| 12.19.11 @ 5:41PM

Romney has character and newt has none...romney has been a faithful husband and father, newt has not...newt is totally self-absorbed and will do whatever it takes to satisfy his massive ego...beware of gingrich...he is all surface, no substance...

Hobbes| 12.19.11 @ 4:12PM

YES! The Ron Paul Revolution is here. Now!

Anommynous| 12.19.11 @ 4:14PM

Newt has faced an onslaught of extremely negative radio ads from his opponents, and especially Ron Paul. Why hasn't Romney faced an onslaught of ads this negative, I wonder.

Anommynous| 12.19.11 @ 4:34PM

Well, I live in Iowa, but won't be able to caucus because I'll be spending the Christmas season visiting my family down in Texas, the only time of the year I get to see them. Up yours, Florida, for making me once again choose between politics and family.

Anyway, if I were able to caucus, I've made up my mind that I would caucus for Santorum. Many people here are saying they really like Santorum and would support him, "if only he could win." Well, damn it, Iowans, if that's your attitude, then why are you flirting with Ron Paul? If you're going to make this a damned protest vote, then can't you at least support a conservative? If not Santorum, then at least Bachmann; I have reservations about her, but she is a solid conservative and she did win the Straw Poll (how long ago that seems).

But yeah, Santorum. He's a principled conservative and he deserves a fair look. If Ron Paul wins, Iowa, it will be a badge of shame. You will forever be a joke.

Simon Templar| 12.19.11 @ 5:01PM

Did Newt peak too soon? That was a bad joke, right Antle The III? When should he have peaked 5 minutes before the Iowa caucus?

You should be proud you destroyed another conservative candidate and Romney has been able to keep combing his hair. You guys are getting good at spooking the herds and leading them by the nose at any point in time you choose.

florin| 12.19.11 @ 5:42PM

Which 'conservative' candidate.. ? Surely not gingrich...he is no conservative...just check his record -

Simon Templar| 12.19.11 @ 9:55PM

Yes, conservative by what definition and what standard? Yours? The talking heads? The Romney campaign? The establishment conservatives? Huntsman handlers? The MSM? Antler III? The Democrats?

As usual you miss the point. Try for once to think past your nose. There are a number of facts or realities here that you and many seem to ignore.

The first is the fact that this nation has been dominated by progressive liberal thinking for almost a century on every possible issue and that thinking has infected a large segment of the elite of this nation including the DC beltway. There has also been the development of a gigantic, corrupt, and self serving government that wields, with the aid of the MSM, tremendous power and influence over the general population.
Why do you suppose someone like Gingich and many of the others that have come up have been destroyed systematically by this media complex?
Now, many have looked at his record and found some very conservative actions and some not so conservative positions and actions. If he is not a conservative and not a threat then why is he not been promoted and accepted by the establishment GOP? They love moderates and have made it clear that a 'real' conservative can not be elected. Why then?

Because he is not predictable, reliable, and he has ambition which might result in him ACTUALLY doing something bold, powerful, and threatening to the status quo! He might actually take literally these conservative positions and do something very "extreme." He is not as controllable or predictable as Romney nor would most of the other candidates including your Ron Paul.

Step back and see the big picture and by the way stop following me around the thread.

bill| 12.19.11 @ 6:12PM

Congratulation! Newt Gingrich has just won the Tea Part Caucus in IA, participated by 23,000 conservatives.

Newt is far better candidate than Mitt "Liberal" Romney.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 7:18PM

" 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.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 7:02PM

"Gingrich Collapses in Iowa as Ron Paul Surges to the Front

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Ron Paul has taken the lead in the Iowa caucus race, while Newt Gingrich's support is fading fast. A different Gallup poll shows Gringrich still holding the lead, but slipping, while The New York Times has Paul in the lead as well."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

axbucxdu| 12.19.11 @ 9:26PM

How interesting that as Newt fades and now Paul surges for the time being, that lo and behold, we hear of the ruling class grumbling and mumbling to get Jeb Bush into the race. The comments came from tonight's Kudlow report on CNBC so it "has" to be true.

This evening on my way home from work, the fill-in for Hannity coupled the terms kook and Ron Paul three or four times in the span of thirty minutes. Limbaugh lambasted Dr No early and frequently on his broadcast last Friday.

These hacks are as transparent as glass only with less brains. Whatever happens in these primaries is a sideshow compared to what the conservative media has revealed about itself and its prior interest. Hack first, conservative a distant second, if at all.

Simon Templar | 12.19.11 @ 10:14PM

The hacks that you refer to have clearly stated many times that they support many of the fiscal ideas that Ron Paul supports and the general proposition of non-interventionist, non-nation building foreign policy. They object, however, and have every right to do so, to his particular positions and statements relative to the War on terrorism and the terrorist enemy.

The issue here with you fanatic paulbots is that you feel it is not necessary to explain anything on these issues or clarify your positions relative to other people's concerns and viewpoints. When anyone questions your thinking the neo-con label and card is thrown on the table...end of discussion. You use many of the same tactics and political manipulations as liberals do and often use the same exact smears, lies, and distortions the MSM and the liberal elite utilize. It is Ron Paul or ruin as you put it. Well, a lot of us find that intolerably arrogant and fanatic.

axbucxdu| 12.19.11 @ 11:06PM

You presume too much, since I'm not a Republican and cannot/will not affect anything in the Republican primary in my state. Nor I have put it as you say. I can, however, add. Every 24 hours we accrue 4 billion$ in new debt (from Stuart Varney on today's Hannity radio show). As a result of simple arithmetic, our government's financial choices will increasingly look more like Paul policy positions, again whether we like it or not. In effect, Paul is irrelevant. That's what I've said. This isn't at all defeatist, but nothing is gained by ignoring our rickety finances. Admitting a problem is the necessary first step taken to solve it. I apologize to you if that seems intolerably arrogant and fanatic.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 11:45AM

Your comment did not indicate that you were an independent nor whether you were a conservative per se but rather sounded much like many of the types of comments both in thinking style and lack of substance that I have read by paulbots and liberal trolls. So, you say your an independent, what kind, left or right leaning?

No one especially Hannity and Limbaugh are ignoring the nations financial debt crisis as they have covered this topic ad nauseum on their shows hundreds of times. They object to Paul's positions on foreign policy paticularly his definition of the problems and some of his solutions and find them to be out of touch with reality and very dangerous. Paul has remained relaltively unscathed and ignored during this primary. It is his turn as all the others to apparently be examined. That is all you are seeing.
You are right, Ron Paul is essentially irrevelant because ALL the candidates for the most part have focused on the debt crisis and have pledged to reverse course if elected. I think you need to pay a little more attention to what is going on in the GOP, the nation, and the conservative movement, it is a little more complicated then you present it. First thing you have to do is dump ALL your preconcieved notions that you got from the MSM, ninety-nine percent of it is pure lies.

axbucxdu| 12.20.11 @ 3:43PM

I was a TAS subscriber in the early 80's. I voted for Reagan twice and while I'm an independent, I've been loyal to the Republican party despite the mediocrities they've offered since he left office. No longer. Republicans controlled all three branches of the government and not only squandered their opportunity to rein it in, but went on expanding it to cheers from the other side. As a result, they've exhausted my blind trust and their lesser of two evils extortion is no longer effective.

Candidates and hacks are now in tune to the debt crisis? It's good to know that they can spare us their attention. Oh, and thanks for the advice, although it wasn't the MSM but RET and his 80s staff that influenced all my preconceived notions.

axbucxdu| 12.20.11 @ 1:00AM

One more thing, if I may. Of course they can object to Paul's ideas all they want as is their right. But if they want to persuade independents like me, I don't consider ridicule much of an argument against another's ideas. On the contrary, if all the opposition to Ron Paul can come up with is the word kook and pining for another Bush, then I have to question the strength and motives of that opposition. Consequently, the hacks weaken their own arguments by engaging in this adolescence.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 12:05PM

Now, you are sounding more like the independent who has no tolerance for negative campaigning, harsh words, strong passionate debate, and tough language when a Republican does it but not a peep about it when a Democrat does it. Ridicule against another's ideas? Interesting. If true you would be a right wing, christian, card toting GOP voter if that were the case. The Left and the democratic party specializes in this rancor, their whole modis operanda and identity politics is based on this. Their media pounds this out by the ton every day attacking and ridiculing conservatives, traditional values, Tebow, Palin, religious faith, the nations history, and on and on. Are you noticing? Or is this selective hearing? Let's get real, here, and knock the bullshit off. Paul has been roundly criticized about his foriegn policy positions for a long time. Most informed people have read tons of lucid, sunstantive articles about it including those you heard on TV that it is not worth repeating all of them over. Get informed. That is the trouble with you independents..you half as listen, half ass engage, your half ass informed, and
you selectively listen.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 10:24PM

You May Watch Or Not Watch This Short Video.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/316304

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 11:17PM

Video sucked. Go visit milblogs of guys that want to be their, to kill bad guys, so their boys dont have to. Plenty of them. Blanket statements from boys that missed home. They do not represent all military opinion. Period. Again with the left-wing type propaganda.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 12:08AM

" FACT: Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All The Other Republican Candidates Combined and More Than President Obama

There's no denying the Military's support for Ron Paul. To put things into perspective, take a look at how Ron Paul towers over them in the graph below. These are the total donations (campaign receipts) made by active US Military. These amounts were reported to and released by the Federal Election Commission and are backed up by hours of testimonials on YouTube from veterans and active Military."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 12:20AM

John Doe, america hating drum circle smelly hippy college student says "active duty military", mails in proper amount. See how that works!

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:37AM

Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Assholes Badmouth American Veterans.

See How You Work.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 11:17AM

.......says the internet tough guy from behind the safety of his screen to the guy who just got back from living in a BRM in that flea infested hell for a year, this fall, affectionately known as the the "stan". Pound sand asshole. I can opine on "veterans" being used as propaganda tools all day long.

1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 11:24PM

Another thing about your crap agitprop, we are not in debt because of this war against Islam. We are in debt because of the 40-50 plus years of entitlement/welfare spending.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 12:11AM

Everything Goes On The Budget Cutting Table.

"Military Expenditures

The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).

The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 12:28AM

Primary responsibility of government, uphold the constitution and protect the people. $698 billion, next seventeen nations, etc., etc. Money well spent, it's all the other sh*t draggin' us down, or does that not figure in your math?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 12:12AM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.

Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 12:33AM

What was your point with this post? Why would you think I disagree with this? You must have put up the wrong copy-cut-paste article.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:43AM

I'll Nail This One To Your Forehead, Sport.

You're An Argument Against Yourself.

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.

"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."

The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.

"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

1-2 Punch| 12.20.11 @ 11:23AM

I don't even get what your trying to debate here and neither do you.

Larry| 12.20.11 @ 4:17AM

It isn't as much that Newt peaked too soon as it is conservative media and organizations have stabbed him in the back, and given the MSM plenty of fodder to go with come November, even if Gingrich wins the nomination. Additionally, you can forget now about Romney, too, because when the MSM finally goes on its slander campaign against Romney in the fall, there will be no reason for conservatives to complain about "media bias."

axbucxdu| 12.20.11 @ 10:20AM

I'm not a Romney fan. Now that that's out of the way, his past accomplishments in the private sector align with what's sorely, utterly, add whatever adverb, lacking in the current occupant and necessary in the future one if US government finances are to have any future. To wit, no one can argue that Romney can't add. The current occupant cannot do arithmetic. It's anathema to prog philosophy. If Romney's really interested in this thing, he needs to press this unassailable advantage. The MSM offensive against him would implode. It's up to him.