I hadn’t anticipated this line of attack. How do you convince people who are inclined to vote for Ron Paul in the Iowa Caucuses to change their mind? You can try to discuss issues and policies, but if they are already leaning towards Rep. Paul, that may not be too effective. How about telling people that if Rep. Paul wins the caucuses, the Republicans will stop letting Iowa be the first state in the nation to hold a nominating contest? In other words, if you vote for Rep. Paul, it may be the last time you get to vote in an important caucus. All the money that Iowa sees every four years may simply dry up.
With his left-of-Obama foreign policy views, libertarian outlook on social issues and paper trail of controversial statements, a Paul victory could represent a potentially devastating blow to the tradition of Republicans starting their White House campaigns in Iowa.
“Mortal,” said Doug Gross, a leading Republican lawyer and Branstad adviser, when asked how severe the wound of a Paul win would be.
“I think a Paul win would be devastating for the state of Iowa and the caucus process,” added Sam Clovis, an influential talk radio host in Northwest Iowa who endorsed Rick Santorum Monday.
The back up plan is to pretend that Ron Paul doesn’t exist. Here’s the Republican governor of Iowa speaking:
“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”
Now, what’s interesting is that the Republicans are also voicing concern about how they believe Rep. Paul will win the caucuses. They think he will attract a bunch if independents and some Democrats who will show up and register as Republicans on January 3rd. It’s similar to how Barack Obama succeeded in beating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the caucuses four years ago. The problem, from the Republicans’ point of view, is that they do not believe these voters will vote for the Republican nominee if it isn’t Ron Paul. All they’ll do is help select a candidate in Iowa who holds some very unorthodox and heretical views. It’s a rather self-limiting way of looking at things. Ordinarily, you’d welcome a candidate who was adding droves of new voters to your party list.
I’m not suggesting that the Iowa Caucuses are representative of the country as a whole, or even of Iowa as a whole, but it will still be meaningful if Ron Paul is more popular there than any of the orthodox candidates the Republicans could produce. It could be a canary in a coal mine, suggesting something fundamental is broken in the GOP’s coalition. New Hampshire allows independents to vote, and Ron Paul could surprise some people there as well.
Maybe Iowa has reason to be concerned about a Ron Paul victory in the caucuses, but the Establishment would let out a sigh of relief. It would allow them to sell Romney on national security grounds to a base that has so far resisted all sales efforts for the Mittster.
“it will still be meaningful if Ron Paul is more popular [in Iowa] than any of the orthodox candidates the Republicans could produce. It could be a canary in a coal mine, suggesting something fundamental is broken in the GOP’s coalition. New Hampshire allows independents to vote, and Ron Paul could surprise some people there as well.”
Yeah — and then the race goes to Jesusland, and so much for a guy who doesn’t hate Muslims.
Yup. Ironically, the South is not fertile land for Dr. Paul. He can probably do well in the Mountain West where libertarianism is strong and they prefer the caucus system, but there just aren’t too many delegates there. Plus, he has to contend with strong Mormon populations there who will probably go overwhelmingly for Mitt.
Yeah — and then the race goes to Jesusland
…where the numerous religious-right candidates (Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich if you’re really gullible, which they are) split the vote between them.
Most them will drop out after the first or second contest.
Why would they, when their “home turf” has yet to come up?
no money. no prospect of raising any.
Has any candidate, even Romney, raised any money? How many offices does Mittens even have in Iowa? I’ve heard that it is all SuperPAC spending. A great majority anyway.
I don’t know, BooMan.
I still think we have to watch out for Santorum coming up from the rear.
Ba-dump!
It is not beyond comprehension that Sarah the Wack may rise from the dead.
Well the Party has tossed out gays, Muslims, minorities & women, why not toss out Libertarians as well? And all for the sake of whom & what?
Apparently ending all foreign aid is to the left of Obama. Who knew?
I couldn’t imagine a better outcome for the Democratic Party than if the Republicans decided to ignore the Iowa caucuses as the first contest while Democrats did not. They would effectively cede the Midwest to Democrats because so many organizational resources would flow into the space from only one party. Which means it won’t happen, even if Paul wins. It’s an idiotic argument they are making against him, but very amusing too.
But I think you’re right. Ron Paul himself IS the wedge issue in the GOP.
by your partisan blinders, Booman?
You write:
I believe that the fast-building popular groundswell of support for Ron Paul is indeed ” a canary in a coal mine,” but not only in the GOP coalmine…in the DemRat mine as well.
As I commented in your piece Congress Sets Record for Unpopularity:
OH yes.
Bet on it.
Watch.
Obama had better watch out. He is in danger of becoming the smug little man on the wedding cake, Part II.
And Ron Paul is now poised somewhere just south of Harry Truman territory.
Already.
Watch.
All of the media…yourself included, although I sense a new tone to your most recent posts, a new respect for Paul if nothing else…that has been spewing that “Fall of Paul” nonsense now for almost a year. They might just come up with egg on their face.
Soon.
Watch.
It might be “The Paul Autumn” in less than a year rather than his political demise.
Remember what happened when Truman ran? The media were so sure of themselves that they actually printed headlines acclaiming Dewey the victor.. And what crusty old cowboy country fella actually won?
That’s right. Ol’ “Give ’em hell Harry” won.
Hmmmm…
Who’s giving ’em hell now?
Ron Paul.
As Truman said, “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”
And as (of all people) Tony Blair said:
“All the `isms’ are `wasms.'”
Yes’m.
That’s about right.
Yup.
Watch.
Later…
AG
You seem to be a full kool-aid drinker on this Ron Paul the Racist Avenger shit.
Let’s put a little money on it.
I will put up $5. You can put up whatever you want. I say that Paul will not be the Repukeliscum nominee. YOu probably say “Watch. Bet on it. You betcha. GOlleeeee ggeee you betcha. He’s gonna be the nominee. Watch. Bet on it.”
OK, let’s bet on it. I put up $5, you put up whatever. The one who loses has to send $5 to the candidate favored by the winner. However, if you choose to be take up my little wager, I will not send my money to the asshole racist Paul. I’ll send it to some Democratic candidate of your choosing.
I would not bet on it. Not yet. But the odds against his success are dropping rapidly. I would have said 20 to 1 against a year or so ago. 10 to 1 this summer. 5 to 1 only a couple of months ago. Now? 4 to 1 or even better. Win Iowa decisively? 3 to 1. Win New Hampshire or even make a really good showing? 5 to 2. After that it’s off the table. Who knows. The media war will be fierce. Wet work might be on the table as well. It’s happened before.
Tell you what, though. I’ll bet you this. Two things, actually..
1-If he does win the Republican nomination he will at the very least make the race against Obama a squeaker.
and
2-If he doesn’t, he will run on a 3rd party slate. How that will fare? Hard to say. Better than any other 3rd party chalenge has ever done, most likely.
AG
P.S. Your “Ron Paul the Racist Avenger” bullshit.
Prove it with something other than third party posts on a newsletter that he neither edited nor approved.
You can’t.
You know why?
Because he’s bulletproof. He has consistently staked out his positions…including the following…for the entire length of his career. He doesn’t lie; he doesn’t flip-flop and he doesn’t mince words much. If he was a racist he’d damned well say so, just like he damned well speaks his mind about every other controversial position that he takes.
But here’s what he himself says about “race” and racism.
Man, if you cannot hear the reality of that statement…the sincerity of it, the years of consideration that went into its composition…then you are so tone deaf that the tune “Happy Birthday” would sound like a scene from an Alban Berg opera if you tried to sing it.
Tune the fuck up.
Liberty in the Paulian view also apparently means allowing proprietors and other service providers to refuse services on any criteria they might choose, such as race.
I don’t know if it’s a racist position as such–I’d say it depends on one’s motivation for instituting it–but it’s at best incredibly naive to think that business owners could be shamed out of segregationist policies.
Oh wait. I forgot. It’s 2011. There’s no racism anymore, now that we have a black President and everything.
Don’t bet on it.
Paul’s position on this topic is quite clear. He believes that given the present social climate an open market will choose non-racist businesses over racist businesses in the long run. Could he be right? We do not know. What we do know is that the current approach to “civil rights”…current since the late ’60s…has not worked to effectively desegregate the United States of America. Not really. Racially (and thus economically) defined ghettos exist in every part of this country; our educational system is still largely segregated and both the welfare system and the prison population are overwhelmingly non-white.
Unless one believes in genetically mandated racial inequality in terms of character and intelligence…and I do not, on the evidence of a long life lived in a totally pan-racial profession (Jazz and latin music)…then these facts point to the failure of the civil rights movement after 40 years or so of effort.
It’s time to try another approach.
Past time.
AG
I’m pretty sure it won’t work. Since Obama’s election we’ve seen increasing instances predominantly in red states where individual business owners put up signs or advertise sales or even run local radio spots with overt racist appeals to drive business. It’s too much to research atm but I heard a lot of stories from this last year alone about a strip club putting up a sign telling blacks to stay out, a tv repair shop with a sign about pretty much the same, a gun shop teaching conceal/carry classes telling muslims to gf themselves, and etc. But, as you say, we do not know what would happen if we made this acceptable in a legal sense.
I think I know.
In my view, rather than removing current civil rights initiatives, it’d do a lot more good to do more about reigning in gerrymandering. When you stop ghettoizing voting districts maybe you can get some elected representatives in office who have the will to address the larger issues that lead to the ghettos we see today.
It’s an oft-demonstrated fact, when you increase access to education and opportunity, you erase crime and empower individuals to participate in the wealth of the state. Taking away gov’t regulations regarding access is only going to exacerbate the problems we face now.
Or that’s my humble opinion, anyway. And probably that of some others.
But I do want to mention one point that I didn’t make clear in my previous post: I personally have not seen sufficient evidence to convict Paul of being a “racist asshole.” As far as I’m concerned you may be judged by the company you keep, but in politics it doesn’t necessarily follow that you should be judged by the people who hitch their wagons to your star.
That said, I’d like to see how Paul reacted to these people who ran the newsletter or whatever. It may be unknowable at this point, I haven’t heard one way or the other. Rand Paul, otoh, will always be an inexcusable asshole for the way he dealt with the “Kentucky Headstomper” incident in his campaign in ‘010. That dude should have gotten two good kicks to the balls and a solid toss under the bus for his brutal actions, but he got a total pass and afaik is still a Rand Paul activist leader.
Here’s a potential litmus test for where Ron Paul stands on race issues: how does he respond to the recent flap over Jules Manson’s remarks on FaceBook. If it’s not on your radar, google it. It’s a telling issue.
Paul’s first reaction to the newsletter was to defend the points made.
His second reaction, years later, was to say “Wasn’t me…”
I need to see the newsletter and the response, in that case. I’ll see what I can dig up. Should be plenty of info on the web.
This is going to be more difficult than I thought. The issue has obviously been freeped.
“Freeped”, eh? Difficult to find, yes. It was a long time ago in some political backwater of the culture. Possibly manipulated by some interested parties? Maybe. But why “freeped?”
More leftiness kneejerking, it seems to me. Let me ask you…who has the most to lose by a Ron Paul success?
Answer?
Sure.
Right here.
“We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.”
Who has reason to tar Ron Paul with “unprovable” slurs of any kind? Those described by the above sentences.
The corporate-owned and controlled Permanent Government.
We need another word. Instead of “freeped,” how about “PermaGoved?” Or maybe “disincorporated.” “Disinfoed.” Or how about “predacted?”
Make the evidence go away and you can say anything you wish.
Bet on it.
AG
I intended a meaning of “manipulated by interested parties,” but was too lazy to say so. I’ll try to be more accurate in future.
Lazy, tired…whatever. When we are not fully in gear, that’s when the truth comes out. The truth of our programming by whichever organ of the hydra-headed Permanent Government with which we are most genetically predisposed to ally ourselves.
People are asking Ron Paul to stand by his early mistakes as a politician. I am only asking that he learn from them. And I also asking that you learn from this little “slip.” Slips of the tongue, slips of logic, slippery facts…all speak to our real inner truths. Freud wasn’t entirely wrong, he was just so focused on the psychological that he was unable to see the bigger picture. When you make a small “mistake,” try to understand why. In this case, you’ve been leftinessed. As if something resembling “freeping” doesn’t happen throughout all human behaviour; as if the biggest freepers of all aren’t the hypnomedia…our equal opportunity freepers. If it doesn’t fit the PermaGov narrative, it gets freeped. Big time. Bet on it. They have most certainly “freeped” Ron Paul, first by mocking him, then by attempting to disappear him and now by attacking his early mistakes using out of context quotes.
I repeat…if anything becomes some sort of meme in the mass media, it is guaranteed to be false. Deviously false usually, an expertly crafted falsehood but false nonetheless. Disinformation at the highest level. The big lie? Make it the shiny lie.
Check yourself out. Like a fish to a lure. Chomp!!!
You been had.
A thousand thousand times.
And you are by no means alone.
In fact, only the non-had are alone.
So far.
But on the evidence of Ron Paul’s successful run up to his point (win, lose or draw in the end) there are rapidly increasing numbers of people here in the U.S. who are no longer being had by the media.
Watch.
Watch.
It may not happen this time, but soon.
You can only stretch a lie so far before it breaks.
The housing bubble?
The financial bubble?
As above, so below.
The Lie Bubble.
Watch.
AG
You write:
But you are not completely sure.
I am “completely sure” that the civil rights system under which we now work is a failure. A partial success as best over 50+ years. I live in the cultural and financial capital of the U.S., New York City, and racism is only a little less prevalent here than it was when I first got to know the city in my teens…say 1963. It takes different forms than it did then, but it’s right here in full sight for anybody who isn’t a walking TV set, propagandized to believe that it no longer exists. The simple fact that there are still “white neighborhoods,” “black neighborhoods” and “Spanish neighborhoods” is all you really need to know on that matter. Further, the white neighborhoods are much more prosperous than are the others and when white people begin moving into areas where they were previously not particularly welcome…a process insultingly known as “gentrification,” a term that is itself as racist as anything ever uttered by a white supremacist, the general acceptance of which is simply another symptom of how sick we really are as a culture…when white people buy into non-white neighborhoods the housing prices inevitably skyrocket.
Segregation was never really about “race,” hz; it is, was and always has been about money. Impose a condition of accepted inferiority on an easily identified group and there you have it. Cheap labor. It happened to any number or European groups in this country as well, but when they assimilated into the mainstream after a couple of generations…after their markers became relatively invisible, after their accents and cultural habits became less identifiable…the segregation ended. But to the African and South American people (and to a somewhat lesser extent Asians and Native Americans, but not that much lesser), people who could not erase their markers because they were plainly visible in their pigmentation and facial structures…it never really ended. It just shape-shifted into our current so-called “post-racial” culture.
Post-racial my ass!!! Millions of American children of color wake up one day…usually at about 10 or 11 years of age… to the realization that in order to have a decent life they will have to excel to a very high degree while white kids are still pretty much guaranteed at least a working class-level economic level if they do not totally fuck up in some way.
What Ron Paul is really espousing is something more like a human ecological movement.
We have tried and failed to “manage” the natural ecology of this world. We have instead created an environment that is increasingly becoming toxic to life. Global warming, poisoned food, water and air…the works. And we have done the same thing to the human ecology. “Managed” it to the brink of disaster. Too many people and too many damaged people…of any and every race. Too many people who would not have survived and propagated were the “management” policies not in place. Yes, those policies were well meant…the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. And yes, there is no easy, morally acceptable way back from that precipice. No worldwide Hitlerian “final solution” will work any better than did his.
So…what to do, what to do?
Continue on our current path and hope that we can “manage” the planet any better than we have so far? Good luck with that. Look where we are now. Rely on the possibility that we can export people to other planets? Please. If we could, if that was even a remote possibility in some kind of acceptable survivalist timeframe the project would already be well underway. We presently have more than 7 billion people on this planet. Some projections have the world’s population as high as 10.5 billion by 2050. What then? I was just in Caracas, a prime example of overpopulation. When I first went there in the early ’70s it was a rich inner city surrounded by moderate to severe poverty, but one could live and survive there. Now? An extra several million people are living in the same valley area and it is a toxic waste dump of a city. The air is unbelievably polluted; the poverty is immense; the inner city is falling apart and violent crime is everywhere.
What Ron Paul is proposing when he says “free-market capitalism…rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity” is a truly revolutionary approach to the present human condition. We have tried another way and it’s just not working out. Maybe this approach will work. We are for sure going down the toilet if we continue with what we are presently trying to do.
He also says “Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism.”
Hmmmmm…
That’s all I have to say on the subject. Your results may differ.
AG
Tell you what. It’s late o’clock here, I need to hit the hay and you’ve thrown more at me than I can answer in a short time, and by the time I try to revisit this thread it’ll be buried 2 pages deep. But I’d like to carry on this conversation with you. I’ll bookmark this thread and shoot a response back to you in the next 24, one way or the other.
OK with me.
See ya…
AG
Sorry, holidays caught up with me. I’m on a train in half an hour. There will be plenty of chances to rehash this in the coming weeks though, for sure.
One could look at the last two generations of US history and conclude that the civil rights movement has failed. But, I would contend, one would have to be willfully oblivious to much of that history to reach that conclusion.
By numerous measures, the civil rights movement (north and south) scored impressive victories from, say, 1951 to 1981—victories that dismantled “de jure” segregation, that led to the rapid growth of the black middle-class, that led to a significant level of racial integration in housing and education.
By numerous measures, those gains were halted, and in some cases reversed, over the past 30 years. So, we have a little over one generation of American history with “de jure” racial segregation/discrimination outlawed. Before that, we have about 10 generations (starting with the Virginia Slave Codes of the 1660s) of legalized slavery, discrimination and segregation.
Given the extremely limited capacity of “the state” in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (at least compared with the 20th and 21st century state), I don’t see how one could rationally conclude that a “libertarian” approach to civil rights would work. (Of course, your mileage may vary.)
Ron Paul may be a lot of things but, with all due respect, I fail to see how he’s “bulletproof” on racial issues:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/
As Kevin Drum summarized when linking to the above post, “Which is worse?
* Openly espousing viciously racist sentiments.
* Systematically turning a blind eye toward viciously racist sentiments from others for both profit and political advantage.”
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/racism-and-tolerance-racism
P.S. And delivering the keynote address at the John Birch Society’s 50th anniversary celebration just 3 years ago isn’t the kind of thing that does wonders for Rep. Paul’s reputation either….
http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the-50th-anniversary-of-jbs
The attack continues, as is to be expected. It may well be successful. But here is what Ron Paul had to say about part of the so-called evidence that his opposition is presenting.
The most telling part…and most believable on the evidence of his campaign so far if for no other reason… of the above paragraphs is this:
“I never personalize anything.”
And he doesn’t. All of that name-calling that appeared in newsletters? It just doesn’t scan like Ron Paul. The syntax is wrong and so is the content. He wouldn’t say those things. Did he blow it by not calling out whoever did it? Yup. But there are mistakes and then there are other mistakes. If he is a vicious racist, that’s enough right there to deep six him as far as I am concerned. But if he was an ineffective administrator at one time who made some bad decisions? Not so much.
That’s my take on this whole flap. His opposition is grasping at straws because truth be told, his consistency over 30+ years of political life is extraordinary. They can’t pin stuff on him because he has plainly said what he believes in public and for attribution for three decades, so they are reduced to digging up the words of some of his followers.
Ron Paul on race:
If someone thinks that a man who can speak that clearly and that elegantly on any subject would pen the words ‘”Barbara Morondon” as a name for Barbara Jordan then their reading comprehension skills are in serious question.
AG
Well, I think we both know that people who can speak and write clearly and elegantly are also capable of speaking and writing badly and crudely.
I don’t know (or particularly care) whether Ron Paul wrote, edited or “merely” published the statements in his newsletters. (Here’s a decent summary of the newsletter excerpts in question: http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/ )
According to Sanjay Gupta on CNN, in 1996, speaking to the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul admitted writing an article in which he called Rep. Barbara Jordan a “half-educated victimologist”, and another in which he stated “95% of black males in [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/12/21/ac-kth-ron-paul-racist-writings.cnn
Then in 2001, speaking to the Texas Monthly, Paul denied writing the columns.
I do care about what he, or any public figure, does in his public life. The fact is that Ron Paul edited and published several for-profit newsletters during the 1980s and 90s. At times, he has implied he published the newsletter because he “needed to make a living”; this, despite the fact that he was a practicing gynecologist (generally considered a lucrative profession).
Voters will, as always, judge for themselves the importance of Paul’s publishing career—and his shifting explanations over time about that career—when deciding whether to vote for him to be president. You, and others, can decide that it’s irrelevant. What’s not helpful, in my view, is to deny that it’s a significant part of Paul’s public life and record.
The PermaGov word is now out.
This racist meme is one of the PermaGov’s most important weapons against Ron Paul, despite what he has planly said in person for over 30 years.
About that “95% of black males in [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal?” In context, please. Try to make some sense of what he is saying. It’s subtle but quite understandable.
So here he is making a point that the criminal justice system in DC is full of shit, as is this particular think tank. He is disagreeing with those figures. Duh. But taken out of context? Hoo boy!!! What an asshole he must be!!!
This is media disinfo at its best. Or is that at its worst? Either way, there it is. I have said this and said this here over the past several years. If something appears in the mass media news, it is by that definition untrue in some serious way. If the mass media overwhelmingly either supports or attacks an idea, an individual or a movement? Watch out. You are being hustled. Look for the magician’s other hand, because that is where the real action is occurring.
They say a word to the wise is sufficient.
OK.
Word.
Only…where are the wise?
Damned if I know.
AG
Here’s the problem Ron Paul faces. In the 1980s and 90s, when all he had to rely on for income was his medical practice and his speaker fees, he set up a for-profit publishing company with his wife and Lew Rockwell. The company prospered, generating revenue of about $1 million annually. And the newsletters contained multiple writings espousing racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic notions.
Since resuming his career in elective office, Paul has given contradictory, and sometimes evasive answers as to whether he wrote the essays, and whether he read the essays before or when he published them.
In his defense however, Paul has remained consistent in his public actions and statements about things like his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act—as demonstrated by his solitary vote against a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the law. Here’s his statement on the occasion of that vote:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
I guess I’d say at this point in the conversation that anyone who agrees with Rep. Paul that, “Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act” probably should go ahead and vote for him.
But don’t expect the rest of us to agree with your decision, or the tortured logic you use to defend Paul on civil rights issues.
Tortured logic?
I give up.
I got yer “tortured logic.” Right here.
The mass media are presently chock full of talking heads quoting this out-of-context “95% of black males” line. That is “tortured logic”…a veritable Abu Ghraib of logic. And it is also precisely what the media are all about. Media hype…the so-called “common knowledge”… has no reality other than whatever it has been told to spin and/or fooled into spinning. In defense of the PermaGov line, Ron Paul is now the villain. So it goes. It will probably take him down. So that goes as well. But at the very least…do not be a willing part of the dumbshow.
All we have left as unwilling subjects of this trancemedia-enforced system is our own intellectual integrity. Read what Ron Paul has said for 30 years; check out the idiotic “newsletters” that are being used to tar and feather him…his own early mistake, granted, but a political error, not his own beliefs…and come to your own conclusions. If you think that this tactical error disqualifies him from being considered presidential material, so be it, but do not kneejerk to the hammer of the mass media. He is not a “racist,” he’s just another politician who fucked up when he was starting.
And so it goes.
Just as it has always been.
Just exactly as it has always been.
Stupidity rules, and we get the leaders that we truly deserve.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
“Maybe Iowa has reason to be concerned about a Ron Paul victory in the caucuses, but the Establishment would let out a sigh of relief. It would allow them to sell Romney on national security grounds to a base that has so far resisted all sales efforts for the Mittster.”
I dunno Booman. The establishment can sell Romney to their hearts’ delight. There’s no guarantee anyone will buy. Judging by the GOP insider reaction, they are not enthused by the prospect of having to try. Will evangelicals vote for a Mormon or a fellow baptist who doesn’t want to bomb Iran? I don’t know the answer and I’m not sure the GOP kingmakers do either. My guess is they don’t want to have to find out the hard way. OTOH, I think that’s the match up Paul is counting on. He has a much better chance in the south against Romney than against Gingrich. Which is probably why Paul wasted no time unloading on him.
And are you sure Bachman and Santorum will really be gone by Jan 21? Seems if they manage 10% in Iowa (which is where they are polling now) they might hang on to try to pick up delegates for the convention. When did Duncan Hunter quit the race in ’08? They have more money and support than he had.
Finally, keep in mind that South Carolina is an open primary. And if Paul has a win in Iowa and a strong second.
While I have to admit Paul is a long shot given how strongly the entire establishment is piled up against him, he is no longer a zero shot.
The country truly needs an anti-war, anti-Drug war, pro civil liberties candidate. It’s a pity the Democratic party never produced one. If they had I might still be a democrat.
Paul is at heart a paleocon isolationist.
That puts him crucially at odds with the neocon and Christian right Zionists and the military-industrial plutocrats of Wall Street who have controlled the Republican Party for deacades.
And that’s the whole story on this flap.
That is the only point at which his commitments differ significantly from those of the bellicose, globalist, warmongering core of the conservative movement going all the way back to Barry Goldwater.