The American Spectator

Ivan| 1.4.12 @ 12:47AM

Ron Paul 25%, all others 75%, Ron Paul "lost", all others "won"!?
Jeffry Lord = moron.

Me Tinks| 1.4.12 @ 2:22AM

Lord's moral compass is for sale on craigslist.

Clint| 1.4.12 @ 4:50AM

Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.

Social Conservatives Won't Be Able To Carry Santorum ,The Big Government Statist.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.

Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:49PM

Cwint:

Ron Paul finished third. Rhymes with turd. The Razor predicted his finish: Precisely.

Keep talking Paulbots---you lost. Your movement is...no more.

"C'mon, Yitzhak, we got some Rachel Corries to bury here."

Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:53PM

3rd place. Bwah-ha-ha.

stevn| 1.5.12 @ 8:15PM

3rd place with both left wing media and "I'm a consoivitive" blight wing talk show hosts attacking him, not bad I'd say. The problem with you draft dodging war mongering chicken hawks is you all are not willing to defend your foreign policy theories with your own posterior. And classy use of a murdered American, Rachel Corrie, let me see Americans murdered by Iran....hmmm, can't think of one.

Ivan| 1.4.12 @ 12:59AM

And as for Ron Paul's "left-wing" foreign policy views, I suppose that a genius would consider those two gentlemen also the "radical left-wingers":)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTy1QsJ4wyQ

http://www.hooverpress.org/pro.....fm?PC=1470

Seamus| 1.5.12 @ 2:43PM

Yep, he would. Because words mean what he chooses them to mean—neither more nor less.

Clint| 1.4.12 @ 12:59AM

Apparently, That's Not What Media Talkin' Heads Are Sayin'.

We Dr.Ron Paul Tea Party Patriots Helped Get Dr.Ron Paul 21 Percent Of The Vote, We Got Lots Of Campaign Money, Lots Of Organization And We Head To The East Coast To Take On Two Israel Firster BIG GOVERNMENT GOP Frontmen,During A Smaller Government Rebellion.

The Tea Party Rebellion Moves Now, To The East Coast.

Israel Firster Smear Bund Boys Wouldn't Know Real Conservative Foreign Policy If It Punched Them In The Face.

They Oughta 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 Heading for The east Coast.

Watch This Short Video.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/316304

Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:53PM

3rd. Turd.

MikeN| 1.4.12 @ 2:19AM

Ron Paul did twice as well as he did 4 years ago? Now what could have changed in the interim. There was no Democratic primary so plenty of stragglers came in. On top of that you had debate after debate of candidates declaring what they would do to Iran. What type of sanctions, perhaps a nofly zone, perhaps bombing nuclear compounds. You don't think it's possible a substantial part of Republicans decided to vote for Paul because of that?

Clint| 1.4.12 @ 3:02AM

Dr.Ron Paul Has Plenty Of Campaign Money, Lots Of Organization, And Two Israel Firster Chickenhawk BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans To Run Against, During Our Tea Party Smaller Government Rebellion.

Watch And Learn During The January 7th & 8th New Hampshire Debates .

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To New Hampshire.

Tom| 1.4.12 @ 6:31AM

The Paultards can spew forth their usual stupidity. But there are two undeniable facts; A, their Kult Fuhrer finished THIRD, and B, 78% of the Republican Party was smart enough to absolutely reject his neo-isolationist, Hate America First, Blame America Always nonsense.

I'm no Romney fan, but Good Job Iowa!!

And Herr Doktor Nutjob will only do worse in future primaries when he won't be able to import his Demokratic friends.

Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 9:44AM

Recklessly bankrupting America in pointless foreign interventions to spread democracy (wishful thinking) is Hating America First. America is broke. Neocons will finish the job of bankrupting America. They, not Obama, are the real enemy.

Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 9:47AM

Okay, Obama is the enemy too. (Misspoke).

JR| 1.4.12 @ 10:37AM

You said it Hobbes, you hate Neocons and not Obama. Personally I couldnt give a shit about spreading democracy. I just want to destroy the enemy, Islmofasicts. You didnt say a word about the reckless spending on domestic intervention. Lets be honest you support Obama and really just engaged in a operation kaos from the democrat party.

JB Harshaw| 1.4.12 @ 9:22PM

>I just want to destroy the enemy, Islmofasicts.

Turn off your boob tube, you old fart. Faux News is feeding you a line of BS.

Gadfly| 1.4.12 @ 12:09PM

More than 78% of Republicans rejected him. The exit polls said about half of Dems and Independents who voted in the Republican caucuses were voting for Paul, and they made up about a quarter of the voters. That means Republican voters probably voted something like 85-15 against Paul.

Solo| 1.4.12 @ 7:37AM

There is no joy in Kookville tonight. The mighty RuPaul has struck out!

LOL!

C Bowen| 1.4.12 @ 8:14AM

The Ruling Class wins again. Dog bites man.

Sea Cucumber| 1.4.12 @ 8:27AM

Really? I'd call doubling his support from the last election a pretty decent success.

JR| 1.4.12 @ 10:39AM

Really? Thats like the losing football team saying they won cause they scored twice as many points in defeat as they did the last time they played. Only losers talk that way.

Sea Cucumber| 1.4.12 @ 6:04PM

I don't think you understood my point. The point is that Paul's support has grown significantly since the last election. This means that his ideas, including his Old Right foreign policy, have likewise spread. Which is rather remarkable considered the near-universal hostility he has received from the political establishment.

Liberal interventionists like Lord can crow about Paul not winning a majority of Iowa's voters, but he's missing the point. The fact is that Paul - and his ideas - are are gaining ground, while Lord's are in retreat.

Dan Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 9:28AM

Jeffrey Lord is astonishingly clueless about political philosophy and the meaning of terms. Despite being corrected on numerous occasions, Lord continues to simply assert that intervention is the conservative position and non-intervention is something other than conservative. When he is in completely clueless mode he calls it liberal, leftist or neo-liberal. (Lord has no clue even what neo-liberal means because a distinguishing feature of neo-liberalism is its internationalism and frequent support for intervention.) But Lord's mindless assertions do not make it so. American style interventionism (as opposed to rank British imperialism for example) is an inherently leftist position. In its American form, interventionism is inherently revolutionary and Jacobin-like. It borders on if it doesn't cross the border of messianic (America as savior nation). Non-intervention is the inherently conservative position. This is so obvious that it is hard to explain without seeming pedantic. Conservatives conserve things. (Go figure.) In particular, they conserve their own things (culture, religion, institutions, way of life, their piece of soil, etc.) American style interventionism is animated not by the desire to conserve our things, but to export revolution. This is so obviously a left-wing notion that Lord is either dense or disingenuous if he continues to insist otherwise.

Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 9:47AM

Preach, brother, preach!

David T| 1.4.12 @ 9:51AM

Yes, conservatives conserve things. That's why, when there's a bully threatening their neighborhood, conservatives band together to throw him out.

Seamus| 1.5.12 @ 2:44PM

And apparently the Persian Gulf is in our neighborhood.

Le Cracquere| 1.4.12 @ 11:07AM

If only a Paulite foreign policy can qualify as "conservative," then to hell with conservatism. Fetch me my tweed jacket, NPR tote, and Prius.

Or, you know, remember to take tendentious crank definitions of conservatism with a pillar of salt.

Eric Dondero| 1.4.12 @ 10:00AM

Jeffrey Lord, you say in your piece there's "nothing remotely conservative about Ron Paul's foreign policy. That may be true. But more importantly: THERE'S NOTHING LIBERTARIAN AT ALL ABOUT RON PAUL'S FOREIGN POLICY EITHER.

We libertarians do not want our wives/girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, our marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life, alcohol outlawed, prostitutes stoned on the streets, and freedom of speech banned, as would happen under a Ron Paul appeasement of Islamism foreign policy.

Please conservative friends, note, WE LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT SURRENDER-ISTS. That's only the fringe Ron Paul faction, who've infiltrated our libertarian movement.

But more importantly:

Felix| 1.4.12 @ 10:04AM

"Our" libertarian movement?

Mr. Dondero, maybe you could compare Mr. Paul's showings in 2008 and 2012 with those of "your" libertarian movement. "Your" movement just might be the infiltrator.

Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:51PM

Dear Eric: you go, Man. Paul finished third. Rhymes with turd.

Sea Cucumber| 1.4.12 @ 6:06PM

Eric,

Do you have any proof that the majority of libertarians are pro-war?

stevn| 1.5.12 @ 8:30PM

Libertarians want to impose a way of life on the Islamic populations? Free their women to wear bikinis, bomb them so they a free to drink liquor, and make prostitution acceptable? Yes they are backwards, let's change them to our way of thinking because Libertarians have such a compassionate streak about the Islamic populations freedoms that we'll bomb them. Scratch that, Our Brave Soldiers will bomb them, you'll just sit here in this country and sip cheap scotch, surf free porn and hire high class hookers on the downward slide of aging, because they work a little cheaper once they hit the middle age. True Libertarians HAVE surrendered the national border, after all freedom means free movement of capital AND laborers. Pick any strawberries in your day?

Felix| 1.4.12 @ 10:00AM

It is factually inaccurate to say, as Mr. Lord does, that there "is nothing remotely historically conservative" about his philosophy of non-intervention. It's just flat-out wrong.

Senator Robert A. Taft -- "Mr. Republican," a devoted non-interventionist in the mold of Mr. Paul -- was the chief ideologue and spokesperson of the conservatism of his era (1930-1950). He was not, and is not, considered left-wing in any sense of the term.

Mr. Lord, you may not agree with Mr. Paul, but to say that there is nothing "remotely historically conservative" about his views demonstrates that you are either ignorant or deceitful.

Seamus| 1.5.12 @ 2:40PM

Amen to that. I wonder if Mr. Lord is even aware that conservatism has a pedigree that goes back before 1980.

tonypal| 1.4.12 @ 10:31AM

Finally, Ron Paul and I agree on something:

http://realclearpolitics.com/v.....eally.html

Clint, I hope you appreciate the cut and paste job.

KH| 1.4.12 @ 12:39PM

It amazes me that people agree with a foreign policy that says " terrorists" hate us because of how we live. Bin laden himself said it was the policies of the U.S. that drove his desire. Really think about this. Think about the innocent people we kill while we overthrow govts. Think of the hypocrasy of backing leaders then taking them out once we had enough. Think of how we occupy other countries. Now our rights are being taken from us. Tell me....Do you feel safe?

Brian| 1.4.12 @ 12:59PM

No, I do not feel safe. We need Ron Paul.

Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:52PM

Goodbye, paulbots. You shine and stink---like a DEAD mackerel by moonlight. Am Yisroel Chai!

Bemused| 1.4.12 @ 2:00PM

Lordy, Lord,

As an actual conservative, not a neocon poser, I look at this strategically. We want Santorum and Romney to do well. Indeed, we want Perry and Gingrich to stay in the game. Let Wallstreet and the Dispenstationalists maul each other. They weren't going to vote for Paul in any case.

Chris| 1.4.12 @ 3:22PM

You're so pathetically desperate aren't you?

Doesn't this mean that 70% of Republicans rejected Ronal Reagan in 1980 when he got only 30% of the vote in Iowa in a loss to George H W Bush?

Nobody with a shred of intellect falls for these sorts of childish arguments you're making.

Your sick twist obsession with Ron Paul is, frankly, creepy.

Dan Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 3:27PM

My blog reply to this brainless post:

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=10702

Jeffrey Lord, who is fast becoming a favorite nemesis of mine, still doesn’t understand the terms he uses or the basic philosophical premises behind them. (I have already schooled him at length on this matter.) Again he simply asserts that interventionism is conservative and non-intervention is “non-con.” We have been over this before, but as long as Mr. Lord continues to simply assert falsehoods, I will correct them, because this is an essential issue.

Interventionism is without a doubt one of the “three-legs-of-the-stool” of the modern (important modifier) “conservative” movement, and this is what confuses poor Jeffrey, but that doesn’t make it the philosophically conservative position. Here is how I replied to poor confused Jeffrey:

Jeffrey Lord is astonishingly clueless about political philosophy and the meaning of terms. Despite being corrected on numerous occasions, Lord continues to simply assert that intervention is the conservative position and non-intervention is something other than conservative. When he is in completely clueless mode he calls it liberal, leftist or neo-liberal. (Lord has no clue even what neo-liberal means because a distinguishing feature of neo-liberalism is its internationalism and frequent support for intervention.) But Lord’s mindless assertions do not make it so. American style interventionism (as opposed to rank British imperialism for example) is an inherently leftist position. In its American form, interventionism is inherently revolutionary and Jacobin-like. It borders on if it doesn’t cross the border of messianic (America as savior nation). Non-intervention is the inherently conservative position. This is so obvious that it is hard to explain without seeming pedantic. Conservatives conserve things. (Go figure.) In particular, they conserve their own things (culture, religion, institutions, way of life, their piece of soil, etc.) American style interventionism is animated not by the desire to conserve our things, but to export revolution. This is so obviously a left-wing notion that Lord is either dense or disingenuous if he continues to insist otherwise.

What is particularly amusing is Lord’s use of the word neo-liberal. He seems to have coined it jokingly as a play on the word neocon, but I’m not sure he was even aware that there already really was something called neo-liberalism, and he ends up looking like a clueless jackass, especially since neo-liberalism is in large part distinguished by its internationalism and is often comfortable with military interventionism. Maybe that’s why he decided to use “non-con” here, because he saw the error of his ways. Or more likely it was just another of his silly play on words – non-cons vs. the alleged neo-cons – an attempt to substitute cuteness for actual thought.

James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:27PM

The American Spectator is nothing more than a neo-con Zionist mouthpiece. Here you will find an excellent expose on same:
http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....-santorum.

Jessie M.| 1.5.12 @ 4:16AM

Fear controls you. Fear controls every person afraid to embrace freedom from government. Government should only be there to protect freedom.

Ron Paul is an advocate of Nuclear Submarines and Tactical Nuclear Weapons and global positioning of such weapons.

Ron Paul is not for sending our children into third world countries to protect the interests of chicken-hawk politicians, banks, and corporations.

You are the most dangerous America has to offer. You are a part of the problem. You are the fear laced nail driving into the minds of people who don't yet understand the freedoms given to them by god.

People are beginning to understand once again that this era of gross waste, commercialism and corporatism is coming to an end. The communications age is bringing an end to this type of society, it is driving away the fear originating from sources such as this, and it is unleashing the ideas of freedom into the minds of the people.

George| 1.5.12 @ 12:26PM

“Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?”: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods69.html

At the Heritage Foundation, Kirk said that “In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Whereas “Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world.” But “Now George [H.W.] Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats.”

Robert Nisbet:
“Of all the misascriptions of the word ‘conservative’ during the last four years, the most amusing, in an historical light, is surely the application of ‘conservative’ to the last-named. For in America throughout the twentieth century, and including four substantial wars abroad, conservatives had been steadfastly the voices of non-inflationary military budgets, and of an emphasis on trade in the world instead of American nationalism. In the two World Wars, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, the leaders of American entry into war were such renowned liberal-progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. In all four episodes conservatives, both in the national government and in the rank and file, were largely hostile to intervention; were isolationists indeed.”

http://ronpaulnotebook.tumblr......-con-right :

"a moral dilemma for Lord: Either his knowledge of conservatism, the right-wing, and the scholars associated with it is terrible and he is not qualified to be an authoritative voice to question the right-wing credentials of anyone, including non-interventionists, or he’s simply a demagogue and is to be viewed as a disinformation propagandist."

Alan| 1.5.12 @ 3:50PM

I don't believe any republican can win the general election without the votes of a good share of Ron Paul's supporters. I also don't believe that the way to encourage his supporters to vote for the eventual nominee is to call them and Paul, nut jobs, kooks or the pejorative of your choice. Until the main stream candidates start talking about sound money, reeling in the Federal Reserve and ending foreign military adventures I really am not interested in what they have to say.

Chris Mallory| 1.5.12 @ 6:21PM

How many nations did Reagan invade during his 8 years? 1 Grenada. Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon after he saw the fight wasn't ours and not worth any more American blood. He kept Libya and Iran in check without invasion. He made peace with the USSR. Sounds a lot closer to Paul's FP than the Neocon's.

Snaggle-Tooth Jones| 1.6.12 @ 1:57PM

Reading this drivel (Lord's article and the comments from his pseudocon supporters here) and praying for a 3rd party run.

http://lsrebellion.blogspot.co.....ftist.html

http://theamericanconservative...../18/00010/