Sweet Fancy Moses!: Ron Paul Leads in Iowa! Nate Silver Gives Him Top Shot at Vict'ry

Nick Gillespie | 12.19.2011 9:12 AM

Surprising news!:

A new survey by left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) finds the Texas congressman now leading for the GOP nomination in Iowa, where voters cast the first ballots of the 2012 presidential contest on Jan. 3.

Paul today also announced on his website that he raised more than $4 million since Friday in his latest "money bomb," aimed at helping him in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- which all hold early caucuses or primaries.

Tough break for the Gingrich:

Paul's rise comes as Newt Gingrich fades. The former House speaker has dropped nine percentage points nationally since the beginning of the month, according to the Gallup daily tracking poll.

More here.

Recall, of course, that Paul underperformed (based on polls) in Iowa and New Hampshire in the 2008 contests (In Iowa, . But he was so much older then, he's younger than that now. As former Reason intern Jeremy Lott writes over at Real Clear Politics:

Paul…didn't have an organization to speak of last time, and finished fifth in Iowa. He used much of the money raised in the last primary season to build an organization.

Paulistas have been testing their organizational strength for years now, winning several straw polls. The overall campaign effort is better this time. The ads are professional and hard-hitting, as is the candidate himself. Paul this time around is more committed to the fight, having sworn off running another term for the House of Representatives.

The Paul campaign has thrown a marker down in Iowa and it has thrown it wisely: must win third place or better on Jan. 3. That way, if they take second, they beat the expectations game. And if they take first, it's a whole new race for New Hampshire a week later.

Update: Nate Silver, bloggerkind for the New York Times, a daily newspaper, gives Paul the inside lane:

The model gives him a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich's chances have crashed to 15 percent.

Reason on Ron Paul.

Reason on (god help us) on 2012 Election.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Baby, You're the Highest Incarnation of the Revolutionary Comradely Love

Hide Comments (152)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Fluffy 13 years ago

THE GINGRICH THE
1. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
  
  We interrupt this fellatio-fest to bring you the downfall and deposition of your racist paranoid traitor kook and his Messianic delusions:
  
  P.S. to the Paul supporters.
  
  Saying NU-UH, doesn't make the facts above go away.
  Shouting, "LIAR!" ? doesn't make the facts above go away.
  Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn't make the facts go away.
  
  Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn't make the above facts go away.
  
  Saying this is old news, doesn't make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.
  
  Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn't make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.
  
  Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
  
  Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.
  
  Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn't make the above facts untrue.
  
  Calling the evidence bogus doesn't make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you're calling Ron Paul's denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?
  
  Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul's name doesn't prove a thing, shows you're clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.
  
  Paul supporters may ask, "How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?" It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul's name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone's name without their consent or permission.
  
  Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn't make the above evidence go away either.
  
  Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He's not the messiah. He's not perfect. He's not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don't care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn't a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.
  
  Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?
  
  You can't negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it's laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don't care about proof in the first place.
  
  Stating, "That's all you have?" ? does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that's the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, "That's all you have?" In Paulbot land facts don't matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show.
  1. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    Yes, I'm pretty sure he's lying about that.
    
    However, since, as you note, all politicians lie, the full balance of the evidence doesn't stop him from being better than the alternatives on offer, including the current President, even if I'd prefer Gary Johnson.
    
    Yes, these things exist. But simply pointing out that Ron Paul has skeletons in his closet like every other politician doesn't make the others a better choice.
    1. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
      
      wow you read all that JT?
  2. contrarian 13 years ago
    
    Why did Barack Obama begin his political career in the home of Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers? This is the equivalant of hanging with the KKK. Why did Obama attend a racist and anti-Semitic church for years? He needs to answer these questions.
    1. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
      
      He should have to answer for those things, but he's a Democrat, you see. Unlike Republicans, Democrats never have to answer in the lamestream media for racist newsletters, retarded conspiracy theories, terrorist affiliations, and batshit insane worshipers.
      
      Poor Paultards. Nobody's treatin' them fair!
      1. Contrarian 13 years ago
        
        Mr. Troll,
        I congratulate you on the amount of bile you have summoned up in your hatred of Paul and people who support him, whom you have never met. It is called dehumanization. Funny, I have friends and aquaintancences who run liberals to conservative, we disagree strongly and still treat each other as fellow human beings. You might try meditation maybe? A little self-awareness of how you appear to others?
      2. PaulR 13 years ago
        
        But apparently everyone has to answer for promoting a foreign policy of peace. End American Swinging Dick Imperialism? Never! Keelhaul him!
        
        Why do you luv war so much, HAM?
      3. DB 13 years ago
        
        You speak in dumb slogans.
        
        Poor, poor Republicans. Always treated so unfairly.
    2. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
      
      A helpful reminder from Glenn Reynolds on this subject:
      
      As I've said before, if you're a civil libertarian you should always want a Republican in the White House because they face so much more press scrutiny.
  3. Zeb 13 years ago
    
    Pick a fucking handle and stick with it, asshole.
  4. MJGreen 13 years ago
    
    But if he's a liar... maybe "his" comments about black people were lies!
    
    Checkmate!
    
    (and lol at "a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist")
  5. Old Mexican 13 years ago
    
    Re: Imbecile,
    
    Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the "racist" newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above.
    
    Here's the link to the newsletter in question.
    
    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
    
    Read it and tell me honestly if it wouldn't be something you would find in one of those single-title books by Ann Coulter.
    
    Stop the lying, bitch. It wasn't "racist newsletters" in plural, it was ONE newsletter about the LA riots with un-PC language. That's it.
  6. Fluffy 13 years ago
    
    The second issue here is that even if Paul were a frothing-at-the-mouth racist, all the policy views he holds that could be ascribed to that racism would still be the same even if he wasn't a racist.
    
    I don't care what's in his heart when he opposes, say, the Civil Rights Act. On non-racist theoretical grounds that go to the core of libertarianism, the Civil Rights Act has to go.
    
    To make me care about the newsletters, you'd have to give me a policy implication that isn't a policy I'd support anyway on non-racist grounds.
    1. Old Mexican 13 years ago
      
      Re: Fluffy,
      
      I don't care what's in his heart when he opposes, say, the Civil Rights Act.
      
      Truth be told, he opposes the part that violates property and contract rights, not the part where segregation laws are repealled, as the role of the Government should be to protect liberty.
      
      Besides, read the newsletter and tell me with all honesty that it wouldn't be out of place in an Ann Coulter book. I read it carefully; I witnessed the riots (as much as American journalists wanted me to see, albeit Mexican TV was very good in its coverage of them;) I saw roving groups of thugs looting and burning, most of them black Americans (they were all gringos to me, anyway.) I saw that white truck driver being pulled from his truck and hit in the head with a blunt object. I saw Korean business owners with hunting rifles on watch detail over their buildings, to keep their shops safe. I SAW IT ALL. I did not find any of the narrative in that newsletter out of place with what happened back in 1992.
      
      Once I read all the paragraphs in context, I realized that New Republic's Kirchick had done a very sloppy hatchet job against Paul, regardless if he wrote that essay or not. And the Reason staff that regurgitated it did not follow any sort of due dilligence one would expect from skeptical journalists. They simply swallowed the whole thing line, hook and sinker.
  7. jaja911 13 years ago
    
    Ron Paul isnt racist. After Ron Paul got done being a military Surgeon in Vietnam and running for president in 1988 he went back to being a Doctor. During the time he was a doctor four newspapers were being published under the Ron Paul name while he was working as a full time medical doctor in a poor area with a large number of minority's. He often worked with the less fortunate free of any charge. The president of the Texas NAACP who has known and worked with Dr. Paul for over 20 years has said their is no way Ron Paul racist. He made a mistake letting people write for him with out reviewing their work, but that does not make him a racist. As far as I know Ron Paul has had no other history of racism. He personally volunteered to use his own money to fund a Rosa Parks statue instead of spending tax payers money. Dont fall for the lies people are going to be spreading about this man because he will actually try to stop the massive government corruption. He has been a saint his entire life. The guy was delivering poor babies of all races for free for most of his life and people want to call him racist?
    
    And even if this is true and he knowingly allowed some semi controversial statemates in his newsletter, that was over 20 years ago, and is the only occurrence of anything that even resembles racism in his either of his careers. He has food drives that raise 10,000 pounds of food for inner city food banks. If more people did this we could combat hunger in a very meaningful way. And he has been promoting the pardoning of non violent drug offenders for years and ending the drug war, which disproportionately effects minorities.. Trying to play the race card on Ron Paul will blow up in your face and if the Ron Paul campaign cant knock this out of the park then he doesn't deserve to be president. He should come out of this with even more national support. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Stewart does a piece defending Paul from the attacks from both sides of the ally.
    
    BRING IT ON PAUL HATERS. He has more support from the military then all the other candidates and Obama put together. His support from people under 40 is TWICE as much as the other options. I guess some random statements in 1 of the 4 magazines featuring Ron Pauls name in the title is enough to negate everything else in his life.
2. Ska 13 years ago
  
  But no one who speaks German can be a bad man!
  
  (Posted just to see where this comment ends up in this clusterfuck, but also to acknowledge Fluffy's awesome ref to Bob Terwilliger)
Tim 13 years ago

THis means nothing, NOTHING!
1. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
  
  RP worshipers are retarded:
  
  #
  Winston says:
  December 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm
  
  Ru Paul is a crazy old man who needs to go away forever.
  #
  KC says:
  December 16, 2011 at 3:34 pm
  
  I would love nothing more than to see the liberal wolf Ron Paul who is pretending to be a Conservative sheep disappear from the 2012 race, and from politics forever. I have a sick feeling that wRONg Paul and the Paulastinians are responsible for the attacks on Herman Cain that forced him to end his bid for the White House. Turnabout is fair play! Can't wait to hear him Paul announce that he is dropping out of the race!
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm
  
  Ok Paulbots, for the sake of debate I'll defer and say it was a ghost writer. If that's true then..
  
  1.If Ron Paul can't manage his own 8 page newsletter, then how in the world is he going to manage the executive branch?
  
  or
  
  2. Why would a person writing for Paul think writing racist content was ok with Ron Paul? Probably because Paul made it known that it's ok!
  
  Listen Paulbots, either way, this disqualifies the scumbag Ron Paul. He's either a man who can't run his own eight page newsletter, thus he shouldn't be elected to run an entire executive branch, or he's a flaming racist.
  
  Either way the sociopath Ron Paul loses.
  #
  Archie says:
  December 16, 2011 at 3:59 pm
  
  Thanks for sharing the truth with us. Now we know not to trust this man.
  #
  Ted Fisher says:
  December 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm
  
  What a fucking loser you are. Stop spewing shit out your venereal wart mouth and hemorrhoidal ass. You're a total dickhead. Nobody say he ghost wrote it. What fucking slipshot reporting.
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm
  
  Well if it wasn't a ghost writer, then it means sociopath Paul wrote it.
  #
  yomomma says:
  December 16, 2011 at 4:06 pm
  
  @ Ted
  
  You mad bro?
  #
  Mike says:
  December 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm
  
  Ted Fisher is a PRIME example of how classy the neo-confederate RuPaul supporters are. Way to go dumb-ass.
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm
  
  Seriously Paulbots quit acting like you care about facts, truth and evidence. Your incessant whining is weak and pathetic. Nothing you can say, spew, conjecture or in other ways blather forth from your idiot holes invalidates all the truth/facts/evidence above. So quit trying.
  #
  MJ says:
  December 16, 2011 at 9:20 pm
  
  He is a Commie-enabler.
  Repealing DADT.
  Wants legalized prostitution
  Wants to legalize heroin
  
  He AINT a Conservative.
  He is a LIBERTARIAN=Liberal.
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 9:27 pm
  
  Paulbots trying to reply are getting sent to the spam folder. This is a Paulbot free zone.
  
  I may approve one of their comments if it's asinine enough to provide us a few laughs.
  
  So hang in there sports fans.
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 9:30 pm
  
  Dear Paulbots ranting about your money bomb and the millions you raised and bla bla bla bla bla. Who cares! In 2008 Ron Paul raised 28 million and had more cash on hand in Iowa than Huckabee and Mccain combined.
  
  Ron Paul can extort millions from his fringe few. That doesn't mean a substantive part of the electorate is going to vote for him. It just means that his loony fringe is trading in their pot money for campaign contributions.
  #
  MJ says:
  December 16, 2011 at 9:38 pm
  
  They ARE crazy!!
  I get 120 plus emails a DAY from them, they have their own Gospel of insanity.
  Good part is, since they act so nuts, I have started to seriously investigate this NUT!
  #
  Benjamin Parish says:
  December 16, 2011 at 9:54 pm
  
  Hahaha
  #
  admin says:
  December 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm
  
  Paulbots keep the comments coming. Be sure to spend at least 15 minutes typing. It makes it more fun to send to the spam folder knowing you put much thought in to it.
  
  Listen, no matter how you fling your e-fecal matter, the facts are the facts and the evidence up above stands.
  
  Conjecture, whine, complain, all you want. Once your e-fecal matter splats on the wall then slowly slides down, the truth in this entry remains the truth.
  
  But please, keep sending those comments. I have plenty of room in my spam folder.
  #
  Winston says:
  December 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm
  
  Ron Paul is a communist
  #
  Brad M says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:10 am
  
  ROFL @ you desperate scumbags! Ron Paul will win the nomination and you will cry like infants knowing you're being weaned off the state teat forever!
  
  Bye bye statist parasites!
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:11 am
  
  Ok I had to approve this one. He used the word statist. That's as intrinsic to a Paulbot as woof is too a dog. Except a dog knows not to pee on the carpet.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:42 am
  
  Hey Paulbots, saying the word slander, quoting Bible verses about slander, will not make the evidence up above cease to exist.
  
  Yes sports fans, now they're quoting bible verses and chanting slander.
  
  They can say slander until they're blue in the face, but the evidence shown above won't cease to exist.
  #
  John Scotus says:
  December 17, 2011 at 1:36 am
  
  Thanks for posting this. People need to hear the word of what a liar and fraud Paul is so they will stop giving him credit and support. He is not a conservative and he is not representative of the GOP. He is an outlier, and should be treated as such.
  #
  jcm267 says:
  December 17, 2011 at 7:38 am
  
  Excellent article. Thanks for posting the links to all of those TNR newsletters. I've had trouble accessing those myself. I also took you up on the offer to re-post this excellent article at my blog, for redundancy in case your blog goes somewhere.
  
  Keep up the great work. You're doing a wonderful job!
  #
  ThePaganTemple says:
  December 17, 2011 at 10:53 am
  
  A point about being spammed by Paultards would be appropriate here. I have a little known blog, but it does end up in the top page of Google listings at very times for keyword searches, depending on the topic, and I have posted various articles about Paul and his followers. They never spam me, and I have to wonder why that is. It can't be merely because my humble little blog is so humble and little, because I have commented on their own Facebook pages, and they very seldom dispute me, and what few times they do, its like a gaseous vapor with nothing to it. I think that's because I tell it like it is. What ones aren't racists, on the order of Klansmen and Nazis, are booger-eating conspiracy theorists, and sometimes they are both. They don't dare dispute me, because they can't. Sure, they might defend Paul is I criticize him in a "reasonable" way, but when you point out their own lunacy, they can't stand the heat, or the light. That's because when a booger eater picks his nose, he knows he had better stop and look around to make sure he's not being seen, or he will be derided and rightly so. But sooner or later, somebody somewhere will manage to catch them in the act, then its game on. Thus, when you see or hear a Paultard spewing about the Mossad and the government being behind 9/11, they will always follow it up with some wild-eyed tinfoil hat inspired "evidence". When they do that, that is the equivalent of a booger-eater picking his nose and looking to make sure he's not seen before he swallows that booger. Don't try to reason with him or her. Just call him or her what he or she is, a booger-eating conspiracy theorist trying to hide his own neurotic craziness under a cloak of "reason".
  #
  Kevin Talmund says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:18 pm
  
  I do not support Ron Paul because of his Foreign Policy. His policies would not only lead to the destruction of Israel, but eventually also the United States.
  
  However, what he said about Blacks in DC, their athletic ability and I could go further, their proven sub IQ level compared to other groups, is true. Why is it so horrible to point out facts? When we can no longer tell the truth, but have to hide behind some political correct garbage, then we are doomed.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:23 pm
  
  It may be a fact, but what's the point of pointing it out in the first place? The only reason you point it out is to make some sort of racist point. Plus if Paul claims he's against 'collectivist' thinking, then he shouldn't view this through the lense of race in the first place.
  #
  Kevin Talmund says:
  December 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm
  
  You certainly have a valid point. I believe he is trying to get the vote of racists.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm
  
  Paul supporters now say the constant defense of Paul of these newsletters and the first person language is laughable as proof that he wrote them.
  
  Ok, so we have Paul defending the newsletters. We have newsletters with first person language. The newsletters don't give any indication that anyone but Ron Paul is the author.
  
  Yet all that remains 'laughable' as evidence.
  
  Paul supporters may say, "Yeah but he had a ghost writer, writing for him using first person language."
  
  To which I say, "So Paul charged paying subscribers for content they thought was his writing but wasn't his writing? That is very deceitful and shady. His readers paid good money for what they thought were his thoughts. Shady shady Ron Paul."
  
  Then Paul supporters say, "But everyone uses ghost writers. Ron Paul isn't doing anything that others aren't doing."
  
  To which I reply, "But I thought Ron Paul was pure. I thought he didn't follow the shady practices of other people. Well if he's willing to con people out of their money here, using deceitful tactics, simply because everyone else does it too, then how do we know he won't do that in other things also?"
  
  To which the Paul supporters will reply with "Neo con. Warmonger. bla bla bla bla."
  
  Case closed Paulbots. Give it up.
  #
  Mary Jones says:
  December 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm
  
  Keep up the good work!
  Next could you please do an expose on 9/11 & chemtrails?
  Thanks
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 3:54 pm
  
  I can't. I'm too busy running my secret HAARP satellite in sector magnum-6 over Wasilla, Alaska. I'll beam some skin burns in your direction though, just so you know it's me.
  #
  Mary Jones says:
  December 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm
  
  Thanks 🙂
  Merry Christmas!
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 3:59 pm
  
  You're welcome. I aim below the tin foil hat. So be careful.
  #
  David Vincent says:
  December 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm
  
  How sad "admin" that you are so utterly clueless when it comes to racial realities. I would recommend [retarded link redacted] for starters. Heard of the "Knoxville Horror?" Didn't think so. But you have heard about the Duke lacrosse rape case right? You're blind and will likely suffer for it.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm
  
  None of what you just said negates the facts above.
  #
  robotevil says:
  December 17, 2011 at 7:30 pm
  
  This is a really well sourced and well written piece, good job.
  
  Also full disclosure: I'm a commie loving liberal. And as a liberal, please don't lump us in with them. They have their own brand of crazy isonationlism that's tied more closer to facism than liberal or conservative. Also, it's an insult to commie-liberals when you compare us to them? actually it's an insult to idiot-holes everywhere when you compare them to Paulbots. Paulbots are likely the lowest form of society.
  
  Also, please publish the "slander" comment, just to make fun of them for not understanding the basic difference between libel and slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. You can "slander" someone on TV, but it is impossible to "slander" someone on a written blog. Considering Paultards are not big on reading, it does not suprise me they don't fully undertand this basic concept.
  #
  Michael Zentz says:
  December 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm
  
  Who cares if he wrote it or not. Maybe he did say those things. Whats acceptable to say and think culturally changes overtime. Lots of Conservatives used to be homophobes and aren't any more, they're just lucky they didn't have newsletters. He's obviously not racist now and if he was before, he hasn't been for a very long time. All I'm saying is, who cares?
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm
  
  We're talking the HIGHEST office in our land. Do you really want to trust that office to a man who amassed wealth for TWO decades off of racism?
  
  Don't just tune out on me. Sit there. Think about it!
  
  A man who knowingly amassed wealth for two decades off of racism, sitting in the highest office of the land.
  
  If you think it's dangerous to trust a socialist like Obama with that office, imagine handing it over to someone with this history.
  
  It's just too dangerous.
  
  Again. Don't go off in to Paulbot denial and ignore mode.
  
  Sit there and seriously think about what you're suggesting.
  
  You can sit there and speak about what Ron Paul talks about now. But for crying out loud. Look at what he did for TWO DECADES. Think about all the powers granted to the POTUS. Imagine all those powers in the hands of a man with Ron Paul's racist past!
  
  Please, don't tune me out. Don't go on some stupid diatribe. Seriously, think this out!
  
  And it's not just the racist newsletters. It's the fringe groups he's pandered to.
  
  Click the Paul icon on the right. It will take you to a post detailing all his associations and panderings.
  
  Imagine putting a man with that past in to the highest office in the land with all the powers that office holds. It's simply too big a risk to take.
  
  I don't care what Ron Paul says and projects now. His past makes him too big a risk and too big of a gamble.
  #
  MJ says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:07 pm
  
  "Commie lovin liberal"
  
  Communism murdered MORE people than Nazi-ism.
  
  If you are an American, you SHOULD be 100% OPPOSED to Communism AND Nazism, both end result is genocide.
  Real Americans want NONE of it
  #
  bob says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:37 pm
  
  paultards are funny. although they may be well educated, they don't understand that Paul is
  a racist and his beliefs in liberty are a lie. he flip flops all da time and he a racist on black men
  and woman. Ron Paul is old and don't know what's up. paulbots are dum for supporting this closet natsie.
  newt-romey 2012!
  #
  Ken Kasriel says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:38 pm
  
  Just three narrow, but ? unusually for this thread ? on-topic points:
  
  1) The use of the first person is hardly proof that the articles were not ghost-written. On the contrary, impersonating someone else is exactly what ghost-writers do.
  
  2) There is footage on Youtube of Ron Paul going back twenty years. Please show me a clip of the man himself saying anything remotely like ? in substance or style ? what is written in those newsletters. Same goes for his books. Go to Amazon and look inside. They style is completely different.
  
  3) Ron Paul has never been afraid to be in a minority of one ? he sticks to his guns even if the rest of the world thinks he's crazy. In the House he has been the sole dissenting voter loads of times. And on youtube you can see him basically heckled and ridicules by the entire audience and the host of the Morton Downey Jr show ? and he didn't budge. My point is that whether you agree with him or not, he is not afraid of sticking to contoroversial views. If he really believed the racist things attributed to him, it would be very much in his chartacter to defend them. I think he disavows them simply because they are truly not his views.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:42 pm
  
  To which I've already replied with..
  
  Paul supporters now say the constant defense of Paul of these newsletters and the first person language is laughable as proof that he wrote them.
  
  Ok, so we have Paul defending the newsletters. We have newsletters with first person language. The newsletters don't give any indication that anyone but Ron Paul is the author.
  
  Yet all that remains 'laughable' as evidence.
  
  Paul supporters may say, "Yeah but he had a ghost writer, writing for him using first person language."
  
  To which I say, "So Paul charged paying subscribers for content they thought was his writing but wasn't his writing? That is very deceitful and shady. His readers paid good money for what they thought were his thoughts. Shady shady Ron Paul."
  
  Then Paul supporters say, "But everyone uses ghost writers. Ron Paul isn't doing anything that others aren't doing."
  
  To which I reply, "But I thought Ron Paul was pure. I thought he didn't follow the shady practices of other people. Well if he's willing to con people out of their money here, using deceitful tactics, simply because everyone else does it too, then how do we know he won't do that in other things also?"
  
  To which the Paul supporters will reply with "Neo con. Warmonger. bla bla bla bla."
  
  Case closed Paulbots. Give it up.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:47 pm
  
  Now Paulbots are saying, oh he may have sent some of them in and on and on it goes!
  
  Here's the verified evidence once again.
  
  1. Paul defends the newsletters in the 1990?s.
  2. Paul doesn't deny writing them until way later.
  3. The newsletters give every indication he's the author. First person language. Header image with his name. No one else's name mentioned.
  
  The fact you have to build such a plausible deniability case, shows you're on the wrong side of the argument.
  
  To those arguing in favor of a ghost writer I offer this.
  
  Paul supporters now say the constant defense of Paul of these newsletters and the first person language is laughable as proof that he wrote them.
  Ok, so we have Paul defending the newsletters. We have newsletters with first person language. The newsletters don't give any indication that anyone but Ron Paul is the author.
  Yet all that remains 'laughable' as evidence.
  Paul supporters may say, "Yeah but he had a ghost writer, writing for him using first person language."
  To which I say, "So Paul charged paying subscribers for content they thought was his writing but wasn't his writing? That is very deceitful and shady. His readers paid good money for what they thought were his thoughts. Shady shady Ron Paul."
  Then Paul supporters say, "But everyone uses ghost writers. Ron Paul isn't doing anything that others aren't doing."
  To which I reply, "But I thought Ron Paul was pure. I thought he didn't follow the shady practices of other people. Well if he's willing to con people out of their money here, using deceitful tactics, simply because everyone else does it too, then how do we know he won't do that in other things also?"
  To which the Paul supporters will reply with "Neo con. Warmonger. bla bla bla bla."
  Case closed Paulbots. Give it up.
  #
  bob says:
  December 17, 2011 at 9:58 pm
  
  screw paulterds. we need gingritch or rommey in office! Ron Paul is a Muslim simpatizer who want to let Israel get bombed by Iran. dey have nukes and will blow us up too if Paul is da prezedent. we need to nuke da whole middle east and turn it into glass. gotta kill those smelly muzzies! and the gays too while we're at it.
  #
  admin says:
  December 17, 2011 at 10:02 pm
  
  Oh please Bob. Even I know that's silly talk. Probably a Paulbot trying to see if I'd approve the comment. Then he can go to his Paulbot friends and say seee?that neocon site approved that.
  #
  Michael Zentz says:
  December 17, 2011 at 11:11 pm
  
  I hear you admin, and I'm not in denial. I just know that there have been times when I thought things that I am now ashamed of, I won't hold it against him. His voting record and platform are all things I support. Not to mention the fact that his record lines up with his platform. Normally something like this might throw me off of a candidate. Sadly the other choices are worse. I'd rather have a man who might have been racist in the past. than Romney who is not conservative or Gingrich who is nothing at all. Santorum and Bachmann are too excited about going to war. So Ron Paul it is, former racist or not. In the cultural climate in which he made those comments they wouldn't have been considered racist anyway. America grew up, Ron grew up. Let's all grow up.
  #
  Kenner311 says:
  December 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm
  
  Wow, he blames the 1993 WTC bombing on Israel. I guess that makes a lot of sense regarding his foreign policy, and why he doesn't think Iran is really a threat. I'm still trying figure out what ulterior motive he thinks Republicans have in making us go to war in Iran. He's stated that the Bush Admin wanted us to go to war in Iraq and were "gleeful" with 9/11, but I wonder who he thinks is behind this all? The Bildeberg Group possibly? It reminds me of the nut job from the movie Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts.
  #
  L Ron Paul says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:17 am
  
  Dear Admin, if you check out the November 1992 issue, you will find the newsletter author casually making references to an article he read from "Contemporary OB-GYN." So either Lew Rockwell is studying to be a gynecologist, or Ron Paul wrote that newsletter.
  
  Really, of all the personal details in Ron Paul's newsletter, that one would be the hardest to explain. Because it's something that wouldn't be well known even among Ron Paul's inner circle.
  #
  admin says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:29 am
  
  Hmmm. Can you provide some evidence for this. I prefer claims to be backed up with proof. If you can find a link, and post it, I'll put it up.
  #
  admin says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:30 am
  
  Only approving this dude cuz he seems like he's speaking from the heart and not like a blathering Paulbot. NOt that all Paulbots who speak from the heart will get posted here.
  #
  
  buckeyelady says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:54 am
  
  Dream on all you Republicrat/Neocon dirtballs. Each and every one of you know that this entire CRAP is not even close to the character of Ron Paul. He's out of your league, all you hawksters and shysters. You wouldn't know what a true American is about or a conservative for that matter. You war mongers.
  
  So funny to see you squirming over these old newsletters. You act like it's fresh hot off the press. It's stale. LOL, is this the smoking gun to smear Ron Paul when he's so hot in the polls and surging in popularity? LMAO, your stupid political tactic smears aint gonna work.
  
  Lots of good people are supporting Ron Paul, and you cry babies can kiss our ass!
  #
  admin says:
  December 18, 2011 at 1:00 am
  
  I had to approve this one just because of its rote Paulbotness.
  
  Look at him. The neocon reference. Him sitting there staring at a burning house as he chants, "There isn't a house in front of me burning."
  
  Totally dismissing 20 years of racism by saying it's old news.
  
  Yup. This my friend is full on Paultardedness. His short bus is extra short.
  #
  robotevil says:
  December 18, 2011 at 2:49 am
  
  @MJ That was a joke 🙂 . I don't really support communism in anyway. I do support free-market/socialist mixed economies like France, the UK and Canada, but not communism. That was just a bit of self-deprecating humor.
  
  On a positive note, one thing I've noticed by interacting with Republicans over the issue of Ron Paul, is that we actually have a lot in common. Both liberal and conservatives want to improve government, just with slightly different ideologies. Two years ago I would have called you an idiot for being a Republican, that's not the case anymore. I've come to realize that both sides of the fence have good valid points and both sides have very smart people on them, only with different viewpoints on how things should be run.
  
  So the point being: one racist old kook with a cult following can dismantle 200 years of polarizing politics, I guess there's one thing positive about Ron Paul after all.
  #
  Onofre's arm says:
  December 18, 2011 at 4:55 am
  
  Unfortunately for the Paultards, they are completely bereft of any original and insightful talking points, it's as though they've all come off a rhetorical assembly line with little pull strings that when activated, compel them to recite remarkably identical defenses for the imperious leader of their cult. How many times have Paultards claimed that RP has been rigidly consistent in his positions for the last 30 years? Yet, when confronted with embarrassing and shameful positions he held only 20 years ago (and obviously still does), the reflexive Paultard response is "You can't hold him to something that he said sooooo long ago, he doesn't feel that way now??..????.Which is it? You can't have it both ways you ignorant Paulistas, either he was once a racist and has changed, although that's doubtful, which would make him a flip-flopper on the race thingy?wouldn't it? Or???he's still the rock solid, never changing, never yielding, racist and anti-Semite that he was 20 years ago that has clearly been exposed by the news letters that he obviously wrote himself, and he's just polished up his act for the sake of purely political expediency. RP is a fraud and shouldn't be in the Republican primary, like a phoretic parasite, he has been getting a free ride on the GOP elephant, without which, nobody would have ever heard of him, he would never have been afforded the national stage that he undeservedly enjoys by lying when he calls himself Republican. If he were to attempt a run at the presidency on the Libertarian ticket, few would ever hear about him, and if he honestly ran as the Neo-Nazi that he is, he would be condemned by the vast majority of decent Americans, but at least he wouldn't lose his base.
  #
  Korry says:
  December 18, 2011 at 9:53 am
  
  Jeff Goff? Hmmm? Guess Ron is under your skin and you have to fight dirty now.
  #
  admin says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:37 pm
  
  No more dirtier than Ron Paul is to Newt with his three negative ads and multiple anti Newt blogs on Paul's site. Or is it only Ron Paul's who's able to be negative?
  #
  Xeno says:
  December 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm
  
  I found it extremely suspicious that, following the debate, once he came near the end of his interview with Hannity and was being asked questions about this, he made a point of suddenly veering to a completely irrelevant change of subject, as if it was incredibly important (saying it was the anniversary of the Tea Party; emphasising it with heightened voice and a point of finger). Seemed like a highly suspicious attempt to deflect further questioning about it.
  
  Could be useful to analyse the body language of that if it's up somewhere.
  #
  Jack says:
  December 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm
  
  Does nobody else notice that this guy just took sections from the different articles and then showed you a cut up section that says "editor: Ron Paul". It's pretty ridiculous. If he had real evidence of Ron Paul being the editor then why on earth would he cut the articles like that. I'm not a Ron Paulian but I would rather call myself a Ron Paulian then call myself whatever you guys are. Ron Paul is clearly the most anti-racist because he is literally the only contender running for the 2012 elections that is against the wars. Do you guys think that he's illogical enough to believe that black people are biologically inferior but that he's empathic enough to sympathize with the US killing innocent brown people overseas?
  
  Don't become scientists.
  #
  admin says:
  December 18, 2011 at 2:30 pm
  
  First of all, quit with the guise that you care about evidence.
  
  I have evidence piled up to your nose. It's laughable for you to ask for even MORE proof to reach over your head, when you're sitting there with evidence up to your nose.
  
  I have links to all the evidence at the bottom of the entry. I cut the footer image off because it was hard to see in the bigger context.
  
  But assure you, if you click the links at the bottom you'll see the full image, you claim you want to see. Although we all know your request for 'evidence' is really a guise and sham. It's really just your delay tactic to keep us on the defensive, even though there IS overwhelming evidence already presented.
  #
  John says:
  December 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm
  
  What's amazing to me is that we even have to resort to digging up this kind of evidence against Paul to convince people that he is unworthy of getting a conservative nomination for president. His foreign policy stance of extreme isolationism should be all we need to know to discount him as a serious contender for president, and his recent answers in debates gives us all the evidence we need. I was cheering Bachman for handing him his ass for that "meddling" rant on foreign policy in the last debate. If his foreign policy is so principled you would think he'd be repulsed to win elections as a "Republican". That being said, it would be an awful thing for the country were he to run as an independent because we all know the dismal ramification of that.
  1. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
    
    I need to give Ghandi more credit.
  2. n8 13 years ago
    
    dick
  3. T 13 years ago
    
    TL;DR
    
    And seriously, I thought comments had limits. Can I cut and paste a book fro Gutenberg into a comment block?
    1. Field Marshall Gill 13 years ago
      
      If the book is Wealth of Nations I will vote yes.
      1. Brandybuck 13 years ago
        
        How about Hayek's "The Pretense of Knowledge"?
    2. Randy 13 years ago
      
      TL;DR
  4. ? 13 years ago
    
    Memo to Reason Comment Enhancements Committee: Implement word limit on commentary. If you can't say it in, say, 150 words, then you can't say it.
    1. johnl 13 years ago
      
      Ditto. Maybe 150 bytes is a little short. But a 5k comment should have a brief intro followed by a link to the 5k of text someplace else. This is just too much to scroll through.
  5. Fluffy 13 years ago
    
    Don't care.
    
    He has destroyed Gingrich.
    
    Romney is an empty suit.
    
    It's OK by me if I lose as long as you lose, too.
  6. dope 13 years ago
    
    This is why I like twitter
  7. Devil's Advocate 13 years ago
    
    Thanks for the insight. Now you can return to fapping away to pictures of Newt.
    
    BTW, linking to an article on a site that posts a hatchet-job article on a subject and then moderates the comments to make sure that any contradictory information is censored does wonders to enhance your credibility.
    
    RP's ads against Newt have been effective because they use Newt's own words against him. The "RP newsletters" were written 20 years ago, by someone other than RP, and they expressed opinions with which he disagrees. If that is the best the neo-cons can come up with, then maybe RP does have a chance.
  8. CrackertyAssCracker 13 years ago
    
    Spam infraction.
  9. DB 13 years ago
    
    Sometimes you have to work at being a complete asshole. It's not always easy.
Fluffy 13 years ago

RedState is already whining.

"Wah! Their poll sample is wrong! Wah!"

Bitch, if I have to watch Rasmussen put out push polls and Luntz set up fake focus groups every day, you can put up with the PPP sample.
1. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  The poll sample shows an unusually high percentage of Independents and Democrats claiming to vote compared to recent years.
  
  Of course, there's no Dem nomination race this year, so it could easily happen.
  
  It's fair to say that whether or not this happens depends on how many Independents and Democrats decide to go to the GOP caucuses.
  1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
    
    I'll take as big a tent as necessary.
  2. Bueller 13 years ago
    
    And there is now a second poll with him in the lead. And the number of "kids" in the poll is quite low - you could cut half of them out and RP would still be in the lead.
    
    I am truly enjoying the RP derangement syndrome enveloping the lovely neocon shits at RedState.
2. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
  
  God, welcome to libertarian land, circa 2008, bitches.
  
  I'm less of a Ron Paul supporter than I am of a neo-con hater. If I can find a way to shove their asses out into the woods, I'll take it.
  1. Bueller 13 years ago
    
    a lot of them are from Georgia so you can do more than that with their asses once you shove them in the woods
3. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
  
  You're busted, Paultards:
  
  Our friend Andrew McCarthy from National Review has made a very interesting discovery in the piece I linked to on Ron Paul's newsletters, to which he has kindly alerted me.
  
  If you noticed in the photo images of the Ron Paul Newsletters over at Conservatives News you will see that one of the images clearly shows Ron Paul listed as "editor."
  
  Now move on to this link provided in the story...a link that takes one to a Ron Paul interview
  with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the newsletters. At 2:45 into the interview Blitzer asks about "how did this stuff" (various racist nonsense) get into the newsletter. "Who wrote it?"
  
  To which Ron Paul responds:
  
  "I have no idea. Have you ever heard of a publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing ....The editor is responsible for the daily activity."
  
  And who is listed in the pictured newsletter as the editor?
  
  That's right: Ron Paul.
  
  Big problem - and growing.
  1. Old Mexican 13 years ago
    
    Re: Imbecile,
    
    Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the "racist" newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above.
    
    Here's the link to the newsletter in question.
    
    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
    
    Read it and tell me honestly if it wouldn't be something you would find in one of those single-title books by Ann Coulter.
    
    Stop the lying, bitch. It wasn't "racist newsletters" in plural, it was ONE newsletter about the LA riots with un-PC language. That's it.
PS 13 years ago

Apparently his "rantingly out of touch" position on Iran struck chord.
1. Rich 13 years ago
  
  A dangerous man for dangerous times.
  1. PS 13 years ago
    
    The "rantingly out of touch" quote comes care of the idiot socialists at the BBC and it still pisses me off.
    1. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
      
      Limey socialists advising American constitutionalists on foreign policy?
      
      I think my head just exploded -- justifiably.
    2. Zeb 13 years ago
      
      The ranting bit is a bit much, but I think it is fair to say that he is out of touch with the mainstream republicans.
2. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
  
  With Nazis and leftards, yes.
  
  Saying NU-UH, doesn't make the facts above go away.
  Shouting, "LIAR!" ? doesn't make the facts above go away.
  Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn't make the facts go away.
  
  Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn't make the above facts go away.
  
  Saying this is old news, doesn't make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.
  
  Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn't make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.
  
  Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
  
  Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.
  
  Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn't make the above facts untrue.
  
  Calling the evidence bogus doesn't make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you're calling Ron Paul's denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?
  
  Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul's name doesn't prove a thing, shows you're clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.
  
  Paul supporters may ask, "How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?" It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul's name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone's name without their consent or permission.
  
  Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn't make the above evidence go away either.
  
  Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He's not the messiah. He's not perfect. He's not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don't care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn't a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.
  
  Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?
  
  You can't negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it's laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don't care about proof in the first place.
  
  Stating, "That's all you have?" ? does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that's the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, "That's all you have?" In Paulbot land facts don't matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show.
  1. poetry 13 years ago
    
    Did not consider audience. An effective persuasive essay will appeal to some aspect of it's readers' emotions or sensibilities, not abuse them. Very well researched, though, and lucidly structured.
    
    B-
    1. Old Mexican 13 years ago
      
      Re: Imbecile that slaps himself in the back with a different nick,
      
      Very well researched, though, and lucidly structured.
      
      No, it wasn't. Nothing in the post indicates you did any research at all.
      
      And don't bother saying that you're a different person, Sybil.
Arduin Grimoire 13 years ago

Newt's Nudes: Renaissance paintings with Newt Gingrich's head
Newt's Nudes imagines a world where Newt Gingrich attends decadent feasts, consoles distressed Biblical characters, and occasionally, as a cherub, saucily peers down on amply-bosomed maidens. Perhaps not that far off from real life!...
Brett L 13 years ago

Are we doing the links one at a time this morning?
1. Top. Men. 13 years ago
  
  One. At. A. Time.
  1. db 13 years ago
    
    One Link at a time, sweet Jesus!
invisible furry hand 13 years ago

MSM translation: New poll puts Romney in second place
Joe M 13 years ago

Recall, of course, that Paul underperformed (based on polls) in Iowa and New Hampshire in the 2008 contests. But he was so much older then, he's younger than that now.

Not really. He was pretty much on target in Iowa, and maybe a tiny bit low in NH, but not by much. There's probably the whole vote for a winner syndrome, which he should be able to capitalize on now.
1. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  It depends on whether the young and Independents turn out for caucuses. Hard to say.
  
  Usually they don't, but Paul has pretty loyal followers.
  
  What Paul really needs are disaffected civil libertarian Democrats (and "liberalitarians") to hold their noses and vote for Paul as a protest vote, since they don't have any Democratic protest votes to make.
  
  And for those people to handily outnumber Democrats who register Republican in order to vote for their worst imagined candidate.
  1. robc 13 years ago
    
    How is no one running against Obama? Shouldnt there be at least one wackadoodle challenging him?
    1. John Thacker 13 years ago
      
      Oh, there are wackadoodles. Enjoy.
      
      The person with the most amount of FEC registered funds running as a Democrat is Randall Terry, the Operation Rescue guy.
      
      In his case, he's running as a Democrat because the FCC has special rules preventing campaign ads from being censored, so he can run gruesomely intense footage of abortion in his ads.
      1. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Randall Terry's site, he's running ads in Iowa and so forth.
        
        Here's another list of random Dems running.
      2. robc 13 years ago
        
        I meant wackadoodles in high office, like the House or some governor somewhere.
        
        The real wackadoodles, not relatively sane guys like Terry.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Oh, in that case no.
        
        The Dems don't even have a former governor fringe candidate like Buddy Roemer.
        
        Well, there is Raphael Herman of Florida, who filed with the FEC. He ran for mayor of Miami or something in 2008 or 2009, closest any of these people have gotten to office.
  2. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
    
    Democrats that register republican are republican until otherwise proved.
    1. John Thacker 13 years ago
      
      Sure. I'm merely talking about what needs to happen, and wondering about whether or not it will happen.
      
      I'd much prefer Paul to win the caucus, but I'm not sure that the crossover voters he needs will go to the caucuses.
      1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
        
        *shrug* What will be will be...
sarcasmic 13 years ago

When he wins the headline will be "Gingrich comes in third behind Romney".
1. Zeb 13 years ago
  
  Nah. My prediction is that they will be really surprised when Paul wins and then explain how it really doesn't mean anything because caucuses are weird or the weather or something.
sloopyinca 13 years ago

Here is the Atlantic's story on it.

FTA: The bad news for Paul, however, is that when asked for their second choice for President, only 9% said they would vote for him after their preferred candidate. That means if supporters of any of the second-tier candidates sense defeat and decided to abandon their choice at the last minute, those votes are more likely to go to Romney. Even if Romney doesn't win, the stronger than expected showing could be the snowball that starts a primary avalanche for him.

Seriously?
1. The Other Kevin 13 years ago
  
  If Paul wins, he loses. Also, if he loses, he loses of course.
2. Brett L 13 years ago
  
  Romney is the one guy who will reliably lose to Obama. Of course The Atlantic is shilling for him. Newt would probably implode, but nobody wants to bet against him with real money. If Paul gets the nomination, he'll almost certainly win -- because the entire political landscape has to shift for that to happen.
  1. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    Eh, the polling has consistently shown that Romney does the best against Obama.
    
    I think that Romney is quite likely to beat Obama, probably the most likely to do so. I just think that politically it would make no difference.
    
    Indeed, the congressional GOP would be likely to support more spending if Romney were Prez than if Obama proposed the same thing. So why would I want Romney to win again?
    1. Maxxx 13 years ago
      
      Romney is the one republican that will probably lose to Obama.
      
      He's electable the same way that Meg Whitman was.
      1. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Based on what evidence? Certainly not any polling.
        
        sloopyinca 13 years ago
        
        Yeah, not a single poll on Paul vs Obama within the past week, and the last two are Rasmussen (in the tank for neocons) and NBC (in the tank for Obama), not exactly bastions of neutrality.
        
        Let's see where Paul polls with his momentum and debate performance since those polls.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Oh, I agree that Paul could do well against Obama, and that he's been ignored.
        
        But do you really think that Gingrich, Perry (after his intro), Bachmann, Santorum, et al. would do better against Obama? That they'd all "probably win" against Obama, as Maxxx claim?
        
        Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
        
        The only proper response to Maxxx is "ArfArfArfArfArfArf...."
        
        Field Marshall Gill 13 years ago
        
        The only proper response to Maxxx is "ArfArfArfArfArfArf.
        
        No, that is to "Max". "Maxxx" is not the same poster.
        
        sloopyinca 13 years ago
        
        I think Maxx is wrong if he's saying only Romney would lose to Obama. That said, I honestly think Romney would certainly lose to Obama. He's just been too wishy-washy on too many policies. Team Blue would smoke him because he's no different than Obama, has no foreign policy experience, is not a veteran and is just too damn vanilla.
        
        Paul, OTOH, sets up as a great foil to Obama, for the reasons why Romney isn't.
        
        Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
        
        Paul represents a libertarian vs. communitarian proxy battle, alot more interesting than communitarian vs. communitarian.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        "Romney is the one republican that will probably lose to Obama" by Maxxx and "Romney is the one guy who will reliably lose to Obama... Newt would probably implode, but nobody wants to bet against him with real money" by Brett L strike me as saying that Romney is the only GOPer who would definitely lose to Obama, which sounds highly unlikely to me.
        
        Paul has some chance to have an unusual contest, losing some Republicans but building support outside the traditional coalition.
        
        Most of the other non-Romney candidates I can't see winning against Obama, or at least would do worse than Romney.
        
        Joe M 13 years ago
        
        I want to see the traditional team red/blue coalitions destroyed. Let's build a liberty coalition already.
      2. DB 13 years ago
        
        And John McCain.
    2. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
      
      Romney's the technocrat that doesn't make any promises. It'll be hard to see daylight between him and Obama.
3. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  It's correct that that's bad news for Paul, that he's not the second choice of voters. His base is strong-- only Gary Johnson really competed for the same base, and Johnson has failed to get traction. Much as I prefer Johnson, if Johnson had caught on more it likely would have prevented Paul from leading Iowa. Good and bad.
  
  Romney likely prefer Paul winning Iowa to Gingrich (or most of the other flavor of the day rivals, like Perry, etc.)
  1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
    
    It's bad news until the field changes. Paul's voters may not cross over, but we'll see what happens to the other candidates supportes when its down to Paul, Gingrich and Romney. Noses are going to be held =by those that believe in nose holding. Hard to tell which way they'll swing, especially if North Korea becomes a concern that no one's talked about or implodes without effecting anyone outside.
    1. John Thacker 13 years ago
      
      Yes, we'll see, but that's why they asked the second choice preference question, to get a guess about what will happen when the lower ranking candidates drop out.
      1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
        
        yeah, but there's still alot of options, and its not like romney's 15% second choice win is steller. I'll wait until the field winnows to 3 before I look too hard at the second choice polling.
sarcasmic 13 years ago

He looks like such a dork in that picture.
1. TomD 13 years ago
  
  Really? His body language suggests otherwise. He appears situated over Reagan, and he's the one doing the talking as one of the 20th century's most powerful men listens intently. Even his legs are crossed in a dominant direction (i.e., away from Reagan).
  
  I'm not saying he looks like Superman there. But I've always thought it's a pretty cool pic.
  1. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
    
    ...he's the one doing the talking as one of the 20th century's most powerful men listens intently. Even his legs are crossed in a dominant direction (i.e., away from Reagan).
    
    I chuckled. But this is fun...
    
    Crossing knees may indicate greater anxiety or defensiveness, particularly if the legs appear tense and even more so if one leg is wrapped firmly around the other.
    1. TomD 13 years ago
      
      But the open palms suggest a casual confidence as he speaks.
      1. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
        
        But the averted gaze, the averted gaze.
db 13 years ago

My mom is a long time Democrat voter, even has a "Proud Member of Obama's Kitchen Cabinet" magnet on her fridge, and she loves Ron Paul. She even has taken to sending me e-mails telling me how she agrees with a lot of what he says, and that she's donated to his campaign.

I have pretty much just let her learn on her own. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that it's better to let her learn and convince herself on all the evidence rather than being force-fed information. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
1. me/dwc 13 years ago
  
  Or you could use inception.
2. MJ 13 years ago
  
  Your mother has some powerful cognitive dissonance going on.
me/dwc 13 years ago

Time for the powers that be to stop fooling around step up their attacks and get serious about destroying Ron Paul's candidacy. Time to draft that new memo to Fox and CNN and CBS and the Times and the Post and News Week, et al.
1. Colin 13 years ago
  
  Don't worry -- if shows any chance of really winning, it'll be newsletters 24/7.
  
  He has zero chance.
  1. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
    
    Obama's "newsletter" problem.
    
    A 1996 questionnaire, filled out on behalf of his state legislative campaign, says he wants to ban handguns. "Obama denied that his handwriting was on the questionnaire....Obama says the answers [filled out on his behalf] misrepresent his position."
    
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....for-obama/
  2. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
    
    Specifically, it'll be this 24/7.
    
    Plus all the videos of him defending Iran's "right" to go nuclear.
    
    Plus all the videos of him bashing Israel and fellating Hamas.
    
    Plus all the photos of him sucking up to Nazis and KKK members.
    
    Plus videos of him getting handed his ass in every single debate where anyone dared to call him on any of the above points (videos that always fail to make to worshipful blogs like this one somehow).
    
    You Paultards are going to have your asses handed to you the same as it was in 2008, and just as you did back then, you'll be lying around crying and wondering how the hell all your spammed online polls and blind faith in L. Ron HubPaul failed to garner him more than single digits in the actual primaries/election.
    1. n8 13 years ago
      
      Insecure much?
    2. Dave Anthony 13 years ago
      
      Neocon asshole is neocon asshole. I can smell the desperation that endless war might be close to an end.
    3. PaulR 13 years ago
      
      It's really sad just how much some people love war. That is the issue here. It's not racism. Ron Paul is an anti-imperialist and conservative America hates him for it.
    4. Old Mexican 13 years ago
      
      Re: Imbecile,
      
      You Paultards are going to have your asses handed to you the same as it was in 2008
      
      This is a surprising statement, considering he is rising on the polls, despite of what you allege.
    5. Fluffy 13 years ago
      
      Maybe.
      
      Just not by Gingrich.
      
      Gingrich = done.
Mike Spinney 13 years ago

When Ron placed second in the Iowa Straw Poll, he was ignored by the media pundits. Now, leading in Iowa according to PPP *and* the NYT, those same empty suits are already talking up a 2nd place result for Romney as a momentum-building win.
1. Chatroom Chatterer 13 years ago
  
  How many electoral votes is this latest poll worth?
  1. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
    
    0
The Frith? 13 years ago

Yes, but how is Katherine Mangu-Ward polling in the state?
1. Chatroom Chatterer 13 years ago
  
  "John" wants to poll her.
2. Trig 13 years ago
  
  My understanding is that she's receiving a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who's never going to be president.
  1. "John" 13 years ago
    
    Yeah, but isn't she adorable?
Citizen Nothing 13 years ago

Ah, fuck. So I (technically my wife) just sent a big campaign contribution.
I'm otherwise doing pretty well at keeping my hope in check, though.
AlmightyJb 13 years ago

You have to wait for evening links
PaulR 13 years ago

Romney will win. Forget the polls, forget the actual votes, Romney will win.

I refuse to allow myself a tiny bit of optimism.
1. Libertymike 13 years ago
  
  Its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.
  
  Democracy, isn't wonderful?
  
  Yet, there are still nitwit neconned nutjobs who assert that democracies don't start wars.
  1. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    I think even the nitwits only claimed that democracies don't start wars against other democracies.
    
    Which of course morphed into inane Thomas Friedman columns (but I repeat myself) about countries with McDonalds not having wars with each other.
    1. Libertymike 13 years ago
      
      JT, on the Janaruy 7, 2004 Charlie Rose show, Richard Perle said that democracies do not start wars.
      
      In a PBS interview, Perle said:
      
      The lesson of histroy is that democracies don't initiate wars of agression.
      
      Does he qualify as a neconning nitwit?
      1. Zeb 13 years ago
        
        That's a pretty funny quote considering the original democracy's record.
Chatroom Chatterer 13 years ago

Anyway, on yesterday's Face The Nation, Gingrich was presented as the undisputed front-runner. This Intelligent Man would rip up the First Amendment and establish an official state religion (guess which one?). This "historian" who is an "expert" on what the Founders really meant by the Establishment Clause would take America back to pre-American, European concepts of God and King (guess who would be King?) It was a chilling performance. The host, a clueless Bob Schieffer, never bothered to ask Gingrich why God is never mentioned in the Constitution, or if he (Gingrich, not God) had ever actually read the text of the First Amendment or studied the debates leading up to the creation of the Bill of Rights. Gingrich offered that as the newly elected King President of the United Christian States of America, he would deal with those pesky nonbelievers and Muslims in due time, with God's help.
1. Colin 13 years ago
  
  At least he's never published racist, homophobic tracts, over and over.
  
  And over.
  1. Chatroom Chatterer 13 years ago
    
    By "he," are you referring to Gingrich or the Christian God?
    1. He's an aPauling moRon 13 years ago
      
      He means you, Paultard:
      
      P.S. to the Paul supporters.
      
      Saying NU-UH, doesn't make the facts above go away.
      Shouting, "LIAR!" ? doesn't make the facts above go away.
      Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn't make the facts go away.
      
      Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn't make the above facts go away.
      
      Saying this is old news, doesn't make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.
      
      Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn't make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.
      
      Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
      
      Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.
      
      Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn't make the above facts untrue.
      
      Calling the evidence bogus doesn't make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you're calling Ron Paul's denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?
      
      Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul's name doesn't prove a thing, shows you're clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.
      
      Paul supporters may ask, "How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?" It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul's name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone's name without their consent or permission.
      
      Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn't make the above evidence go away either.
      
      Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He's not the messiah. He's not perfect. He's not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don't care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn't a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.
      
      Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?
      
      You can't negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it's laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don't care about proof in the first place.
      
      Stating, "That's all you have?" ? does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that's the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, "That's all you have?" In Paulbot land facts don't matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show.
      1. Old Mexican 13 years ago
        
        Re: Imbecile,
        
        Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the "racist" newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above.
        
        Here's the link to the newsletter in question.
        
        http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
        
        Read it and tell me honestly if it wouldn't be something you would find in one of those single-title books by Ann Coulter.
        
        Stop the lying, bitch. It wasn't "racist newsletters" in plural, it was ONE newsletter about the LA riots with un-PC language. That's it.
      2. PaulR 13 years ago
        
        Regarding the newsletters:
        
        So? *shrugs* I'd rather have an accused racist in office who stops sending our soldiers overseas to get pressure cooked in exploding Bradleys, who ceases bombing the shit out of countries that have not attacked us. Am I evil for this? In your view, probably, but not for electing an accused racist, but wanting to stop the wars.
      3. Loki 13 years ago
        
        Again??? Really????
        
        I'm not a huge supporter of Paul's because I knew the whole "newsletter issue" would be used to bring him down (and I tend to think Gary Johnson would be far better in a debate against the "big O"; he's a better speaker than Paul and doesn't have this baggage to deal with), but this is ridiculous. The same shit posted now 3 times in the same comment thread? We got it the first time asshole!!!
        
        Old Mexican 13 years ago
        
        Re: Loki,
        
        I'm not a huge supporter of Paul's because I knew the whole "newsletter issue" would be used to bring him down
        
        It hasn't. It is quite surprising that you would say this despite the fact that it has not made a single dent in his approval rating.
        
        Also, please read the actual newsletter and tell me if it is anywhere near the "racist" tirade that New Republic and the clueless band of nitwits at Reason made it to be.
        
        http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
        
        It looks more like an Ann Coulter or Michele Malkin piece than anything else, at worst.
        
        Loki 13 years ago
        
        You make a good point.
        
        Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I have a feeling that now that there's a chance he may win Iowa there's going to be a lot more sensationalized media coverage about these newsletters; first from the republican establishment, then from the Obama camp if he actually gets the nomination.
        
        And given that so many voters general election don't bother doing their homework on candidates, all it's going to take is enough repititions of "Ron Paul's a racist" to hand Obama a 2nd term.
        
        Again, hopefully I'm just being pessimistic and cynical...
        
        Old Mexican 13 years ago
        
        Re: Loki,
        
        but I have a feeling that now that there's a chance he may win Iowa there's going to be a lot more sensationalized media coverage about these newsletters[...]
        
        I don't think so, Loki. It already happened back in 2008 when Wolf Blitzen brought it up with Ron during an interview. It didn't make a dent then and it will not make a dent now. The reason is because the it will look like a neo-con attack about something so old and removed nobody will care, except probably Bachmann lovers and the warfarists.
        
        The content of the newsletter in question is not even racist. There was more "racism" in Juan William's comment on Fox News about being uneasy when young black men walk towards him. The language in that newsletter may be un-PC and without pulling any punches, but very similar things were being said then (as now) by many other conservative pundits. Like I said, I dare anyone to say that the language in the essay would be out of place in an Ann Coulter book, one of those with single titles.
  2. Libertymike 13 years ago
    
    I guess that one magazine essay is sure hurting RP.
robc 13 years ago

He used much of the money raised in the last primary season to build an organization.

A number of reason commenters strongly criticized this.
1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
  
  The commentariat was wrong!?!?!
  
  Someone write a memo...
2. Old Mexican 13 years ago
  
  Re: robc,
  
  A number of reason commenters strongly criticized this.
  
  Yes - wrongly. It is not like the loyal supporters are asking for their money back.
verduci 13 years ago

Props for the My Back Pages reference!
1. Proprietist 13 years ago
  
  Yes, best Dylan AND best Byrds song.
Joey Deesomore 13 years ago

See, I never would have thought about it like that. WOw.

http://www.total-anon.tk
1. ? 13 years ago
  
  This is like the worst anonybot ever.
  1. Lost_In_Translation 13 years ago
    
    like the towelie of anonbots?
death panelist 13 years ago

New poll - Insider Advantage Iowa

Paul - 24%
Romney - 18%
Perry - 16%
Gintrich - 13%
Bachmann - 10%

Paul now leading the RCP Iowa poll average.

Fun times.
1. "The" Media 13 years ago
  
  Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
2. Old Mexican 13 years ago
  
  Re: death panelist,
  
  Paul - 24%
  Romney - 18%
  Perry - 16%
  Gintrich - 13%
  Bachmann - 10%
  
  Paul now leading the RCP Iowa poll average.
  
  So much for the Bachmann comment being detrimental. It would seem that a bolder Paul is gaining more traction than the more polite version.
CultOfPersonality 13 years ago

Wow. Just wow.
I always tend to read the comments section on a lot of the articles here, and rarely do I actually comment, but this is just one of the most bizarre 'discussions' that I've ever seen on here.

This anti-Paulbot, "He's an aPauling moRon", is literally spamming the exact same ridiculous essay every 30 minutes. Which is essentially nothing more than a collection of carefully crafted one-liners that I can't help but feel like are some sort of strange sales pitch. And then to top it off, he's equipped with his own Anti-Paul website that's a combination of snippets we've all seen before, amateur art, conspiracy, and opinion that is somehow being passed off as the brutal truth. Also the cute play-on-words you're using with Ron Paul's name into kooky-witty insults is doing wonders for your credibility.
I scrolled to the bottom, and was absolutely amazed that I didn't see a "BuY iT nOw, E-bOoK, $9.95! FiRsT 100 cUsToMeRs ONLY!!!" button.

Truly bizarre, this is.
I'm not going to even bother getting into the discussion, logic, or history behind why Paul is factually correct on many of his 'fringe' positions, or how the 9/11 commission, numerous CIA directors, or even Benjamin Netanyahu himself agree with RP's views on the middle east. I won't get into the fact that not even 12 years ago, George Bush got elected for having the same views on foreign policy as RP has today.

Let's stick with the anti-Paulbots MAIN obsession, which are the racist newsletters and leave him with just 2 'thinking points'.

1.) Don't you think if this controversy had any real legitimacy whatsoever, that RP would have already had his entire career destroyed by now? A far left media that routinely crucifies candidates for unintended racial faux-pa's, bad jokes, or missteps would not have completely destroyed his entire reputation over this by now? A media that has and continues to do anything conceivable to marginalize this guy or make him look as crazy as possible, would not have used the newsletters to bury him? Is that your argument?
2.) What is the real motive here? Honestly, what is it? I doubt it is this sense of righteousness that you think you possess, nor do I think it is a principled hatred for bigotry. If that was the case, then how could you defend any of the other candidates that you have defended? Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum have been more openly bigoted in a single 2 hour debate than most politicians have been in an entire career. Somethings not adding up here. You're so against RP for these newsletters that have already been looked into 4 years ago, and dismissed by the MSM, yet at the same time defend candidates who openly hate and want to discriminate against Muslims (or 'Arabs' as some of them brilliantly refer to) and Gays -- and you don't want us to think you have a hidden agenda here?
Again, this is truly bizarre.

Now, I fully expect this lunatic to respond to this post with the same CTR-C, and he probably is just a troll and wasted my time. But Jesus, are "neo-cons" really this insane in general, or am I looking into his posts too much?
1. PaulR 13 years ago
  
  The issue here is Ron Paul's threat to American Imperialism. He is a threat the carefully cultivated atmosphere of JohnWayne-Israel-ApplePie-M4Carbine-CombatBoner that conservatives love to luv.
  1. Loki 13 years ago
    
    Paul is pretty much the only candidate in the race that can actually upset the status-quo of politics as normal. Johnson could have, but he was pretty easy to marginalize by simply not inviting him to the debates. Paul on the other hand is harder to marginalize this time around due to his fund raising and better organizational game.
    
    In '08 he was at best a side show, but now that he can't be ignored, the political establishment, red and blue, will have to try to destroy him.
  2. califronian 13 years ago
    
    Plus, of all the Republican candidates he sets off the liberals into a tizzy, because unlike the other Repubs, he's actually against government spending.
PaulR 13 years ago

Why do conservatives love war so much?
1. CultOfPersonality 13 years ago
  
  I don't think that they do...
  Those who actually know what true conservatism is, anyway.
  
  I personally consider myself an ultra-conservative Republican. Yet, I am not, nor have I ever been registered with the GOP. Since I have been able to vote (about 12 years ago) I have been a registered Libertarian. The simple reason is that the "Republican Party" is anything but Republican or Conservative anymore and has instead been completely raped, pillaged and hijacked in the past 20 years.
  
  So for me, While not having a problem with Gay Marriage, wanting drugs to be legalized, wanting to end our wars are now considered "leftist" social ideas, I personally adhere to the belief that these are actually old fashioned Republican beliefs...You know the "Individual liberty, keep the government out of my life" Part of the party? Unfortunately that has been replaced with "Kill Muslims, JESUS JESUS JESUS, and Gays are Evil" as 'Republican social values'.
  
  I don't get it. If the Republican party stayed true to itself, their really would never have been a need for the LP. But somehow the majority of the public has been convinced that since the GOP started moving far to the LEFT, that they actually moved far to the right...which is simply untrue.
  1. Appalachian Australian 13 years ago
    
    I think you're forgetting how the Republican Party was formed.
    
    It's anything but "conservative", leaving side the discussion of whether or not "conservative" is a good thing.
    
    The modern Republican party swapped places with the Dixiecrats in the 60s.
    1. CultOfPersonality 13 years ago
      
      Saying that the parties swapped in the 60's over the civil rights issue is not true. Yes you did have a handful of Democrats who jumped ship to the GOP over the issue - I agree, but the statement that the parties essentially flipped over all is an exaggeration.
      
      However, your point is a valid one, and in many ways it appears that way simply because of how far left both parties moved in the past 50 years, not so much flipping or swapping, but both shifting far left while somehow selling the public the opposite.
      Just think, if JFK ran today, a Dem in his time, he would hands down be running with the GOP.. Heck, if Grover Cleveland ran today, another Dem, he would probably be an absolutely maniacal, lunatic, Right winger in the eyes of the media.
      
      My entire point is that I don't seperate economic conservatism and personal conservatism by definition.
      
      It's completely mind boggling for our modern day politics to dictate that it's 'conservative' to preach that the government has no right to limit or restrict my finances, yet at the same time has every right to dictate what I put into my body, or who I marry.
      
      That's really my whole argument, I just think that holding some positions that are considered, somehow, 'socially liberal' -- are in reality 'socially conservative' positions. Since, as I said, I don't see how anyone can make an argument that being on one side of an argument is liberal as long as it has to do with personal behaviour, and being on the same side is Conservative as long as it deals with economic behaviour.
      
      The whole "Socially Conservative" farce that we are sold, isn't based on our countries values - it's based on what some people perceive as Christian values. We aren't a theocracy, so therefore in my opinion you can't apply religion to a left/right discussion.
      
      Hopefully I explained it better this time. And hopefully I made sense, I do tend to ramble but I think you got my point.
      1. Clevelandite 13 years ago
        
        I know I'm late to the comments here, and you'll probably never look at this thread again, but I just have a few points to make. The focus on individual liberty is, to my mind, no part of any properly understood conservativism. Rather, it exists as part of the liberal tradition--the word "liberal" here being used in the historically and etymologically correct sense from the Latin "liber," meaning "free."
        
        Properly understood, liberals are those who favor freedom, while conservatives are those who favor conserving the status quo in most instances. However, this distinction has easily become muddled in the United States for two reasons. Firstly, the sincere friend of liberty could historically support most of this country's status quo, while maintaining deep opposition to atrocities like slavery, because the liberal tradition is so deeply ingrained in so much of the country's early history. Thus, especially after abolition, many American liberals could call themselves conservative without being too wrong; many, for better or worse, did so. The second confounding factor is the appropriation of the word "liberal" by fundamentally illiberal elements in our national politics (particularly, the second Roosevelt and his ilk), which drove even more true liberals to call themselves conservatives to indicate their distaste for these elements.
        
        In time, the public perception of the term "conservative" itself shifted as the status quo shifted, further confusing everyone, especially the liberals who now called themselves conservatives. In the meantime, a more Old World flavor of conservatism, emphasizing respect for authority and militarism, transplanted to the U.S. and assumed the peculiar character exhibited in today's neocons.
        
        Anyway, after all that, I'm saying in the least pretentious way possible that perhaps "ultraconservative" isn't the best label for what your beliefs appear to be. Again, I don't presume to dictate your political identity to you; I'm just offering one insight on political-linguistic history that reaches a different conclusion than yours. While I think we agree on most policy points, I feel the accurate label for people of our views is "classically liberal," or, in a better world where we would be better understood, simply "liberal." The points I've made mostly come from Hayek's brilliant essay "Why I am not a Conservative," which I recommend most highly. If you ever do read this comment, Mr. CultofPersonality, I would love for you to read it and see what you think about it. No pressure.
2. Appalachian Australian 13 years ago
  
  Why do you hate America?
  
  Are you a Communist?
A Conservative Teacher 13 years ago

Come on people, read my blog! From my post Ron Paul- Drop Out of the Race:

"Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) is a good Representative to the United States Congress and is a good advocate for libertarian views on public policy positions- but he should in no way be considered for the office of the President of the United States of America. This means that he should not be encouraged or supported in any effort to do so through support in straw polls, campaign donations, or nice comments online, and that he should not fan any sort of flames for a Paul Presidency by running. He should drop out of the race for the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party and not even hint or flirt about running for President again...."

Read the rest of it at http://tinyurl.com/dy6oh6d
Bueller 13 years ago

Yep, RP derangement syndrome is in full bloom. We may have to increase funding to the suicide prevention hotlines if he wins IA and NH. Then again, maybe we'd be better off with a decrease....
jaja911 13 years ago

Ron Paul isnt racist. After Ron Paul got done being a military Surgeon in Vietnam and running for president in 1988 he went back to being a Doctor. During the time he was a doctor four newspapers were being published under the Ron Paul name while he was working as a full time medical doctor in a poor area with a large number of minority's. He often worked with the less fortunate free of any charge. The president of the Texas NAACP who has known and worked with Dr. Paul for over 20 years has said their is no way Ron Paul racist. He made a mistake letting people write for him with out reviewing their work, but that does not make him a racist. As far as I know Ron Paul has had no other history of racism. He personally volunteered to use his own money to fund a Rosa Parks statue instead of spending tax payers money. Dont fall for the lies people are going to be spreading about this man because he will actually try to stop the massive government corruption. He has been a saint his entire life. The guy was delivering poor babies of all races for free for most of his life and people want to call him racist?

And even if this is true and he knowingly allowed some semi controversial statemates in his newsletter, that was over 20 years ago, and is the only occurrence of anything that even resembles racism in his either of his careers. He has food drives that raise 10,000 pounds of food for inner city food banks. If more people did this we could combat hunger in a very meaningful way. And he has been promoting the pardoning of non violent drug offenders for years and ending the drug war, which disproportionately effects minorities.. Trying to play the race card on Ron Paul will blow up in your face and if the Ron Paul campaign cant knock this out of the park then he doesn't deserve to be president. He should come out of this with even more national support. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Stewart does a piece defending Paul from the attacks from both sides of the ally.

BRING IT ON PAUL HATERS. He has more support from the military then all the other candidates and Obama put together. His support from people under 40 is TWICE as much as the other options. I guess some random statements in 1 of the 4 magazines featuring Ron Pauls name in the title is enough to negate everything else in his life.
Seer 13 years ago

What annoys me about this anti-Paul spam, is I've seen it elsewhere and it's simply exhausting how long of a disclaimer it comes with that could be better written "Nuh uh, you can't disprove me la la la la la."

Please log in to post comments

Sweet Fancy Moses!: Ron Paul Leads in Iowa! Nate Silver Gives Him Top Shot at Vict'ry

Latest

Yes, Trump Really Put Higher Tariffs on Israel Than Iran

Senators Make Modest Moves To Reclaim Tariff Powers From Trump

The Supreme Court Blesses the FDA's Rejection of Flavored Nicotine Vapes

Trump's Tariffs Target Uninhabited Islands, Economic Dead Zones, and Individual Regions of France

Trump's New Tariffs on These 3 Countries Look Particularly Foolish

Recommended

Login Form