Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

On Iowa, Romney, Santorum, and Paul

Recs

64

January 04, 2012 – Comments (52)

Last night, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum finished in a statistical tie for first place in the Iowa GOP caucus vote. While Romney's strong finish wasn't surprising, Santorum's sudden rise in popularity will have many empty suits and skirts in the Dead Stream Media (DSM) scratching their hollow craniums. Ron Paul finished third, a few percentage points behind. While this isn't the stunning victory his supporters had hoped for, he still managed to more than double his support from his 2008 finish of 9.93% of the vote. Not bad for a fringe candidate that many 2008 political experts predicted would have no real impact on the future of American politics.

If it's true that Romney's strong showing in Iowa bodes very well for his chances to win the Republican nomination, then the biggest winner of the Iowa GOP vote was Barack Obama. But before I get into why Romney has no chance in the general election, let us try to understand where Rick Santorum came from. Then I'll attempt to paint his certain fall from grace as quickly as it will happen in real life.

How Santorum Won (yes, that's a win)

There were a combination of factors at work that propelled Santorum to his strong showing. I'm going to start with what I feel is the most important. I like to call it the RedState.com voting bloc. There is a strongly committed group of neoconservative voters that exhibit a similar level of passion as the hardest of hard core Paulbots. They probably don't view themselves as "neoconservative" and perhaps quite a few of them don't even know what that means, nor could they trace the history from Kirzner to Buckley to Cheney to Limbaugh, but they nonetheless unshakably agree with the ideological arguments presented by neoconservatives. Their home on the web is RedState.com. Their home on the airwaves is Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin. They watch FoxNews and turn it off when Napolitano and Stossel come on. They hold up Ann Coulter as a paragon of the intellectual 21st century American woman. They have their fingers crossed for Sarah Palin.

It's been a tough 4 years for the RedState gang. They became energized behind George W. Bush's so-called leadership in thrusting America into two failed wars and the never ending war on anything that looks terroristy. In 2008, they rallied around Mike Huckabee, propelling him to a commanding Iowa victory. When Huck's evangelical army couldn't carry on that momentum, they threw their might behind Guiliani. When he turned out to be a womanizing career politician that couldn't beat a fringe nobody named Ron Paul in the GOP debates, they settled on McCain. McCain promised to keep their sacred war in Iraq going for 100 years if need be (Constitution, be damned!). They were overjoyed when he hired the Alaskan sweetheart to stand next to him on the campaign trail. The only way McCain could have become more appealing to the RedState faction would have been to name Danica Patrick as Vice President. Unfortunately for RedState, and thankfully for the rest of us, John "Bomb Iran" McCain was completely out of step with the independent vote in America. They were already tiring of the war, they were angry over the bailouts that he (and Barack) had vocally supported, and they viewed him as 4 more years of Bush. In other words, he was exaclty what RedState wanted. Yes, by 2008, the neoconservatives were already out of step with Independent voters. Their base was shrinking.

The Joke's on EVERYONE

Santorum's Iowa victory is highly amusing. The RedState voters have become even more polarized and out of step with mainstream American thought than they were in 2008, when they were banning Ron Paul supporters from their forums for debating too intelligently. They are ready to latch on to anyone not named Mitt and especially not named Ron Paul. The hatred of Paul goes back a few years and is by no means a recent phenomenon. I don't know who fired the first shot, but it may have been Paul himself when he delivered a scathing speech on the history, ideas, and disastrous effects of the neoconservative movement on the House floor in 2006 (?????) That speech highlighted the chameleon political affiliations of the movement, e.g. siding with Moynihan and the Democrat Establishment in support of the Vietnam War. Paul also traced the history of the leadership and their views on foreign and economic policy. As I have pointed out in my blogs on a couple of occasions, reading neoconservative columnists like David Frum and David Brooks espouse economic ideas that resemble classical Communism makes you wonder how the gang ever found a home among Republican voters so quick to salute the American flag and so eager to remind pesky libertarians how a strong national defense purpotedly defeated the great Communist threat.

There is no doubt that 2012 has been a difficult year for the RedState faction. The opposition to America's foreign policy and growing domestic police and surveillance state has steadily climbed. The RedState party has found it harder and harder to rally behind a decent candidate. There was the flirtation with Michele Bachmann. That was followed by the rise of Perry. After his disastrous debates, they jumped onto Herman Cain's 999 wagon. Cain, the former Federal Reserve board member and ultimate Establishment insider, tried hard to paint his candidacy as an "aw shucks, I'm just a regular fella" routine, but he was way too stupid and promiscuous to pull it off. He collapsed more quickly than he ascended. Along came The Newt, everyone at RedState apparently forgetting his epic corruption, promises broken, infidelity, and megalomaniacism. After a few scathing ads from Romney and Paul reminded voters that he's about as Establishment as it gets, it looked like Ron Paul might actually get enough reluctant RedState converts to do the unthinkable, win Iowa.

Dropping Like Flies

And then Bachmann and Gingrich imploded, and the DSM took their best shot Ron. Michele was really done two months ago, but nobody told her remaining support. Still polling around 8-10% as the Iowa vote neared, Bachmann's campaign derailed with defections and absurd charges of bribery, followed by Michele's knee jerk reaction to fire her political director for honesty. This coincided with The Newt's rapid fall from favorite status. These events left RedState voters in a state of confusion. Do they do the unthinkable and vote for Ron Paul, or perhaps the slightly less detestable Mitt Romney? It's unclear whether the surge in support for Santorum over the last week was driven first by disaffected RedStaters or the Media (Un)Elite. It doesn't really matter anyway. The day before the election Rush Limbaugh threw his support behind Santorum, with no real explanation except that he wasn't that "kook" from Lake Jackson, TX. It's also unclear whether or not some reluctant RedStaters were deterred by the relentless media attacks on Ron Paul for his newsletters, but it did appear to stop his momentum. The confluence of events was the perfect storm to lift Santorum to a victory in Iowa.

Rick, We Hardly Knew Ye

But who is Rick Santorum? I'm not convinced that anyone who voted for him even knows. After all, his candidacy is a joke. Not only is he corrupt, but as far as nutcases go, Rick blows all previous nutcases (Perry, Bachmann, Huck, The Newt, Fred Thompson, Cain, Trump, and on and on) right out of the water. He is the nuttiest of the nuts, the wackiest of the wack, and probably the single most out-of-step-with-mainstream-America human being on the planet. And now, thanks to RedState desperation, he is a top tier candidate for the Republican nomination. How delightful! The DSM likes to mock Ron Paul for his so-called unelectability, but what will they say about RickRoll? He's about as electable as Coach Sandusky.

The Irrelevancy of the Neocons

The truth is that the RedState faction and their neoconservative leadership represent an ever shrinking and less relevant group in American politics. I am just going to be frank. Some of their ideas are laughable and some are downright crazy. Among the craziest is their fanatical belief that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon in order to wipe Israel off the map and install a global caliphate.

The Iranians Are Coming!

Let's set aside for the sake of brevity whether or not translations of Iranian proclamations and writings indicate that Iran actually wants to do these things and assume that the Rickster is correct. Iran is going to nuke Israel. Last time I checked, Israel had around 300 nuclear weapons, more than enough to respond in kind. No nation has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nuclear capable nation, because that is suicide. However, it's not because Iran might be suicidal that America (and Israel) is leaning towards war. It is because of the economics of violence. When a country raises its capability of self defense (e.g., through acquiring nuclear weapons), the cost of intimidating, cajoling, persuading, and forcing them to comply with the mandates of foreign powers skyrockets. This is a law of intervention. As the power of the defense rises, the cost of intervention rises. The Western powers, namely America and Israel, would like to continue to fight on the cheap. That's the secret to the Iran war propaganda.

Even crazier is the line often repeated that Iran wishes to install a global caliphate. I've heard this asinine suggestion repeated by Sean Hannity, the RickRoll, Ann Coulter, and Michele Bachmann, and quite a few others. My answer to that is "So Freaking What???" My history books tell me that the Soviet Union, the most powerful military the world had ever seen (at least from 1945-1970'ish) had roughly 10,000 nuclear weapons and all the global domination aspirations a Lindsey Graham could ever dream. Yet their sphere of influence rarely extended past Eastern Europe. They couldn't even control Castro and his rambunctious little Cuban commune. Yet, according to neoconservatives, I am supposed to be shaking in my boots if Iran gets just one nuke, as they will surely use it to impose Sharia Law all over the world, even... in my own neighborhood! My how Simi Valley, California will be different with a mosque on every corner!

I'm scared. Somebody hold me.

Support the Troops, By Voting Ron Paul

Finally, the real nail in the coffin for the neoconservative faithful, and the most delicious aspect of the entire RP vs. Neocon debate for many of us, is the paradox between the foreign policy rhetoric of Santorum and pals compared to the support they receive in turn from the Active Duty military. The general RedState feeling toward the military is one of reverence, God Bless the Troops, and awe for the supposed might of the American war machine, despite its paucity of actual victories. Ron Paul is seen as "soft" on national defense (really, it's National Offense) and "left of Obama" on war, is if all political ideas can be expressed in linear terms. To show their appreciation, the US Active Duty military showers the GOP with donations and shuns Ron Paul.

Oh, wait. Actually it is the opposite. The top three donors by organization to RP's campaign are the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. His military donations compared to Rick Santorum should be a national joke. Through three quarters in 2011, Ron had garnered over $113,000 in donations, while Santorum's total was so tiny I can't even remember if he had over $1,000. Santorum supports the troops, he says. However, just like every neocon and RedStater, he sure doesn't listen to them.

I Don't Ask For Much

Ah to be a debate moderator for one question! I'd ask Rickety Racket, "Mr. Santeria, if your belief that Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas are dangerous and a threat to our national security is correct, and your belief that America must remain aggressive to combat every threat in the War on Terrorist-looking-stuff is correct, then why is Ron the overwhleming, almost unanonmous choice for the Republican nomination among the Active Duty military, at least as judged by their pocketbooks?"

And as a follow up, "do you ever worry that completely rejecting and discounting the opinions of the Active Duty military, while at the same time constantly sending them into harm's way, might cause serious problems for national security that could include defeat on the battlefield or possibly even a military coup?"

I would just enjoy watching the Rickster try to explain to us why the military's opinion on national security is meaningless while he decorates every other sentence with effusive praise for that same military.

(And yes, after Ricky Ricardo drops out of the race a month from now, the same line of questioning would work just fine on The Face Guy of the Republican Party.)

I think it is rather obvious which hard core faction is out of step with mainstream Americans, and it ain't Ron Paul's.

Face Guys Up Front, Rude Dudes In The Back

That brings us to the Face Guy, Mitt, or should I say the bridesmaid to Baracks' 2012 wedding (ok, renewal of the vows with America- this analogy was a stretch). I'm going to put out some simple math for everyone. We know that Mitt's supporters (these are people you will never actually meet because Mitt inspires people to the level of "meh... whatever") can be swayed to vote for just about anyone, especially if it means the difference between winning and losing the general election. After all, to be a Mitt supporter, winning the election is all you can really care about. His history as a Progressive welfare statist, Wall Street lackey, and consumate insider can't be endearing qualities stealing the Republican voting base's heart. It's all about winning.. .duh.

But that's not how the Paultards roll. They put principle ahead of winning, and have done so for 4 years at least. Even as the base of support for Ron has swelled, the new additions over this last cycle have proven to be just as committed to the cause of liberty over the state as the 2008 base. I'm just one person, but I think I have the pulse of the liberty movement. In overwhelming numbers they will not compromise and cast a vote for Romney "just to win." They see clearly that a Romney victory wins nothing and hence, is pointless. That's anywhere between 8-15% of the likely national Republican base, plus another 10% or so Independents and Democrats that are committed to Ron that won't cross over. That's the death of Mitt Romney.

So let's hope that the Republicans voting for Mitt can do simple math. They'e not going to win, making their support for Mitt pointless. Their only hope is to rally behind Ron Paul. That being said, if your idea of an election is a game to be won, then your probably not politically conscious enough to recognize the value of Ron Paul or accept the reality that Mitt cannot win.

2012 may or may not be our time, but our time is coming. In the meantime, let's have some fun watching the dying RedStaters as they attempt to come to grips with their increasing irrelevancy.

David

52 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 04, 2012 at 8:43 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Yes, it was 2006 when Ron delivered that speech.  I meant to google that before I posted. Man, I have a memory on me!

 

David

Report this comment
#2) On January 04, 2012 at 8:54 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

+1 rec, even though I'm not reading it until I'm back tomorrow.  That's how much faith I have in your blogs (yours and TMFSinchiruna's).

Report this comment
#3) On January 04, 2012 at 11:14 PM, rofgile (99.41) wrote:

I like that Ron Paul is a serious candidate.  Its like as if Nader was in the democratic primary, tied for first place.

However, I have two big problems with Paul at this point.  I really value investments by the government in public education and research in basic medical science (those are my career lines).  I cannot support anyone who doesn't feel that these should be growing in funding support over time (rather than totally abolished as Paul wants).  Private sector will not do basic medical research.  All the major drug companies have been cutting their R&D to eek out a bit more profit, as they are so rich they can buy out a new drug cheaper than doing research for it.  In effect, drug companies profits are subsidized by the government basic research.

Other main problem with Ron Paul - he's old.  He's 73 now.  Being a president is terribly hard on one's health and ages people very fast.  Obama is getting grey hairs now, Bush II aged quite quickly in his first four years.  I am not sure it makes sense to put someone over 60's in the white house, just do to the stress/health toll.  And physical health really affects decision making and perspective.  I thought McCain was way too old in 2008 for running for president, and we would be walking into a timebomb of a Palin presidential takeover.

Santorum - scary!!!  (he's a moral nazi), Romney - scary!!!  (he's a job-cutter).

  Paul is definitely interesting (and amazing), I hope he wins the primary.  Then you'd have two very smart intellectuals for president, and some really good debates about the direction of the country.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#4) On January 04, 2012 at 11:20 PM, rofgile (99.41) wrote:

Also, +1 for the well written blog.  And happy 2012!

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#5) On January 04, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Option1307 (30.12) wrote:

+1

Report this comment
#6) On January 04, 2012 at 11:59 PM, FleaBagger (28.14) wrote:

Your link to Santorum's corruption is broken.

Report this comment
#7) On January 05, 2012 at 12:00 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Santorum's corruption:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/rick-santorum-top-tier-on-most-corrupt-member-of-congress-list-2-years-running

David

Report this comment
#8) On January 05, 2012 at 12:02 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

rof,

Glad you enjoyed the blog!

Paul vs. Obama debates would be great (if they asked important questions), especially to see the reaction of the Progressives that are so fed up with Obama's actions on the war front. I think Glenn Greenwald's head would explode!

David

Report this comment
#9) On January 05, 2012 at 12:07 AM, FleaBagger (28.14) wrote:

Good article, by the way.

Report this comment
#10) On January 05, 2012 at 12:17 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Thanks Flea

David

Report this comment
#11) On January 05, 2012 at 12:33 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Ah yes. Loved it. Sush............now don't let the news get out.
CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Endorses Rep. Ron Paul Scheuer supports “founders’ foreign policy wisdom,” notes Revolution PAC.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9073084.htm

January 5, 2012 The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/

Just a little something mostly watch the first part. . http://prisonplanet.tv/news/watch_free/free_to_look.php

 

 

 

Report this comment
#12) On January 05, 2012 at 12:52 AM, rfaramir (29.33) wrote:

You're right that Santorum will drop soon. He was the flavor of the month for the 75% of the AnyoneButRomney crowd.

If Ron Paul's 10% base last year has grown by about 50% (10+5) to 15%, then he's already gotten 5 more of those remaining 60% AnyoneButRomneys who weren't in his core. If he can increase his core by 5% more (to 15+5=20 core), and keep the 5 ABRs he's won (20+5=25%) and win half of the 50% remaining ABRs, he'll have the nomination in the bag.

A tall order, but there's no other option.

The more we learn about Santorum, the less people will like him. The same as it was with Gingrich and Cain. Bachmann was kind of a distant second choice for me, but I didn't pay enough attention to see why people have abandoned her, but they sure have.

 

rofgile,

You need a little more economic reasoning to see how public subsidies for education and medical research corrupt those necessary fields,

The above-inflation skyrocketing costs of education and its decreasing value are both because of the massive government subsidies. As the cost to the consumer is reduced, more is demanded than is fit for the economy. With an artificially low barrier, more kids go to college and waste their time (and their professors) than ever before, leaving with more crushing debt than ever. A lot of those kids need to get working straight out of high school. (And what justifies imprisoning them in high school in the first place? A lot of 15-17 year olds ought to be working full time.) More people working instead of failing to learn would make America a lot more productive and therefore wealthier.

Medical research has always been done by the private sector, and largely still is. From whom do you think the big companies buy their drugs? Little private companies who put their capital at risk to pursue a new entrepreneurial combination of medical ideas they think will profit consumers. Government only gets in the way. The FDA is a major roadblock to innovative new therapies and devices. (And a tyrannizer of private home owners who want to buy small swimming pools, as they might be used as home birthing 'devices' and get impounded by federal agents! "They claim they are unregistered medical equipment")

Subsidies, taxes, price controls, regulations, prohibitions all have negative effects. Aggressive force, threats of force, and fraud are the only things we need protecting from, and only in general form, not new laws for every particular form they may take. That leaves us with Liberty and the Peace and Prosperity that naturally result from the Division of Labor and Free Trade, which sounds best to me.

Report this comment
#13) On January 05, 2012 at 1:10 AM, DarthMaul09 (29.79) wrote:

It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required. 

Sir Winston Churchill  

(A message to the Republican Party)

 

America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.  ~Abraham Lincoln 

(No this quote was not from Ron Paul!!!)

 

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Sir Winston Churchill

(The basis for Fed Policy)

 

Report this comment
#14) On January 05, 2012 at 2:02 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Personally I think Ron Paul deserves his chance.  He is running out of tries.  I don't think he would win, but heck just say here's your chance Ron, go get 'em. Otherwise I think, undeservedly, Obama will win a second term, so give Paul his chance.

Report this comment
#15) On January 05, 2012 at 7:19 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Great article David.  This is Mits to lose, but I won't be voting for him.  I grew up democrat until college, then aligned with republicans to support our troops and now I look back and wonder why?

RP wouldn't be allowed to cut as much as he wants, but he would bring serious discusson on the role of the federal government and the federal reserve. 

 

Report this comment
#16) On January 05, 2012 at 8:11 AM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

The only thing that I have heard that made ANY sense whatsoever concerning the economy (etc.) has come from Ron Paul's mouth.  That's my vote.

 

Great article David.  Food for thought as I head off to the salt mine.

Report this comment
#17) On January 05, 2012 at 9:06 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

+1 Rec.

And stop bad mouthing Fred Thompson. He rocked on Law & Order. :)

Report this comment
#18) On January 05, 2012 at 9:57 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Thanks for the recs and support everyone!

Iquandland, that write up by Santorum's nephew is AWESOME.

LMAO @ cato

David

Report this comment
#19) On January 05, 2012 at 10:20 AM, FreeMarkets (92.43) wrote:

+1.  Romny is clearly status quo.  Santorum is clearly a big gov't fascist who would love to use federal coercion to teach you how to live your live according to his views.

Report this comment
#20) On January 05, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Louebsch (< 20) wrote:

"I am supposed to be shaking in my boots if Iran gets just one nuke, as they will surely use it to impose Sharia Law all over the world, even... in my own neighborhood!"

David, the state already has me shaking in my boots after they got congress to pass the NDAA law. Sharia law isn't half as bad. That is the question i want to talk about with Romney, and Obama. Do you support arresting American citizens in their own backyards and detaining them without trial? Why stop in the backyard, can we be arrested for speeding and shipped to a foreign country for interrigation which probably includes some form of torture? Sure that's a little overboard, but hey, it's legal now.

Also, as far as Rick dropping so quickly is concerned, have you seen this article titled, "Santorum gets big bounce in NH". It was taken by the washington times on Wednesday. Rick Santorum got a 1% bounce in the polls. Wait, what's that? Ron Paul's support jumps to 24%? hmmm. That's interesting. Maybe if Santorum gets another 1%, Paul will get another 5-10% bounce and no one will notice. Tell me this, what happens if Paul wins NH? What happens if Romney doesn't?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/5/santorum-gets-big-bounce-new-hampshire/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

If Paul comes in 1st or 2nd in NH, what will be the GOP establishment reaction? They are clearly going to have to address the situation because they know Mittens can't win a general with 25% GOP support. The question becomes, will the establishment choose to implode on itself and go with Romney anyway, or begin to recognize the anti war, fiscal responsibility side of the house?For some reason I don't see Paul taking any VP job with any other candidate. I don't even have a clue who he might pick for a VP candidate. Would he make a back room deal to take on Mittens as VP just to satisfy the GOP establishment? I doubt it, but this GOP race has been strange already. 

Something else I would like you to discuss is the Palin effect. I think it is clear that Palin is still driving a lot of voters. I think she is partially responsible for the Santorum bump or at least indirectly responsible by sinking Bachman's campaign for good a few days before the vote. Palin also seemed to make an interesting comment about Paul supporters and how they should not be marginalized by the rest of the GOP.

In the end, NH will be interesting. The only news coming out of NH will be if Mitt loses. Then they will head to SC for the last stand. Depending on what happens in SC, the race could be over for many candidates opening up super Tuesday to a 2 man race between Mittens and Paul. I think Paul wins super Tuesday if the only options the country has are Mittens and Paul.

Ok one last thing. Can you touch on electibility? Ron won 21% in iowa and it is rumored that for every independent vote that other candidates received, Paul got 8 independent votes. This seems like a 2 sided coin to me. Glad to see that a lot of independents are voting for Paul which bodes well in a general election, but we are trying to win the Republican election. Does Ron have enough Republican support to win in other locations?

Discuss.

Sorry for the long post.

Great blog. Love the discussion! Ron Paul 2012.

Louebsch

Report this comment
#21) On January 05, 2012 at 10:54 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

Good post.  A few things I'd like to point out.

1)  I think you're being a little tough on Mrs. Palin, dont-cha-know?  While most of her positions are clearly neocon, I've seen her at least entertain the idea of freedom enough times to see her in a bit of a different light.  Just after Iowa, she gave an interview on some FOX News show where she basically warned the GOP not to marginalize Ron Paul and alienate his base, because they need those votes to beat BO.  Although that's basic common sense to most of us, most GOP drones are either too stupid to realize it, or too biased to admit it.

2)  You're exactly right about Paul's base not switching over.  This is precisely what the GOP people don't realize.  Six months ago I was telling all my friends (about 90% of which are leftists) that Romney is the LEAST electable.  He has absolutely zero chance.  About 80% of the electorate is rooted in their party affiliation and going to vote for the D or the R no matter what.  Winning elections is all about appealing to the 20% or so who actually have something of an open mind and can be swayed.  Who is Romney going to sway?  What does he have to offer these people?  Hey, look at me, I'm slightly less of a socialist than the current President!  I was watching his "victory speech" in Iowa and looking at the people at his rally and asking myself:  Who are these people?  How is it even possible to be excited and committed to Mitt Romney?  Why are you there?  I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, I am legitimately curious.

3)  Are you familiar with Adam Kokesh?  If not, you should be and you should be watching his Youtube videos.  http://www.adamvstheman.com/  He reminds me of you but with a camera.  On one of these, he tried to ask the "Why do you suppose Ron Paul gets the most military donations" to Mitt Romney at a rally in Iowa and basically got a stammering non-answer.  That question is obviously the elephant in the room that nobody in the MSM will ever ask, admit, address, etc.  I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and in one segment, he was talking about how crazy Ron Paul is and how he just has no concept of foreign policy and how he's "more dangerous" than Obama.  In the very next segment, he was talking about how great the military was and how the big, bad, spooky leftists hate the military and we need to embrace them and help them and protect them.  What a joke.

Report this comment
#22) On January 05, 2012 at 10:57 AM, outoffocus (23.49) wrote:

Ron Paul definitely has a strong appeal amongst the independents (speaking from experience).  If he can get past the republican establishment I think he has a strong chance of winning.  I honestly think that disdain for the two party system is so strong in this country that Ron Paul could have had a serious shot at winning the election as a third party candidate.  Because as an independent, even if Ron Paul did win the Republican nomination, I would still need a shower after knowing I voted for a republican in the national election.

Report this comment
#23) On January 05, 2012 at 11:28 AM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

I to will vote for Ron Paul, but I won't need a shower :)

I just wish he had a more uplifting message that people can hold onto or hope.  Obama and Reagan did a fabulous job at this whatever you think of them as Presidents.

Also, I wish RP would keep his head up more.  He is always pictured looking down...I am sure their is some bias.

He is the only supposedly honest man/woman in politics.  I would have him as a God parent in a heartbeat that is how much I think of him as a person.

Report this comment
#24) On January 05, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Schmacko (44.40) wrote:

@ #22 I think Ron Paul running as an independent is the Republican party's greatest fear.  It's why the republican media is trying to amrginalize him so much.  Cause if he runs as an indepenent he'll split the republican base and Obama auto-wins. 

I think Romeny will get the Republican nod in the end (for good or ill) and the smartest thing he could probably do is try and convince Ron Paul to be his VP.  They might be too ideologically opposed to want to do that, but theoretically that would shore up the conserative base and possibly pull in other independents.

Report this comment
#25) On January 05, 2012 at 12:29 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

If Dr. Paul doesn't win the nomination, he's going to "split the base" whether he runs as a third-party or not.  I can't imagine many real Ron Paul supporters will be willing to vote for Romney or Santorum under any circumstance.  They will stay home, vote for the libertarian nom (if not Paul, hopefully Gary Johnson), or write-in Dr. Paul if they have to.

 

Well, that's what I'd do at least...

Report this comment
#26) On January 05, 2012 at 12:37 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

Also, if RP does not win the election, highly unlikely, drone missions will be flying within the US in 5 years.  Less if Obama wins. 

Sorry to scare people, but I feel this is the route we are headed as the terrorists must be monitored and stopped...cough...weez...cough

Report this comment
#27) On January 05, 2012 at 12:40 PM, amassafortune (29.62) wrote:

"This is crucial for our survival." It was true in 2006, many trillions ago, and is even more true today.

"We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences." Laws today are largely written between congressional staffers and lobbyists, with elected officials often taking an active role late in the process.

We have a much larger, more complex central government today with decisions still being made by 535 people as was the case 236 years ago. They can not possibly be knowledgeable on all the legislation that comes before them, so they either trade votes or take counsel from staffers or lobbyists.

A smaller government allows members of Congress to concentrate on issues that can only be effectively decided at the federal level.  

Moving many decisions back down to the state level means lobbyists have to convince 50 sets of decision makers to get something done instead of just a few in Washington. That makes lobbying much more expensive and less effective. This is one reason lobbying and power consolidation has been so beneficial to big business. Their large contributions allow the access necessary to influence decisions. 

The downside of the Ron Paul message is that individuals will, once again, need to be more self-sufficient. Stop looking to Washington for jobs, health care, or anything beyond national security and a few other core federal responsibilities. 

Ron Paul's age does not bother me. Even if a full four or eight years is not possible, he is still the only candidate willing to slow this treadmill we have been on so long. 

And a Ron Paul administration can't fix much soon, anyway. Cutting military bases saves money, but cuts one of the few sources of jobs for non-degreed young people. We will still have a poor economy under Ron Paul, but we will see the bottom and know our personal effort will not be devalued away in an effort to prop up the well-connected who made poor investment decisions.

Any progress on limiting the Federal Reserve will make the five largest U.S. banks less stable, though the other 8,000 banks will mostly do better. 

Don't believe the crap about RP wanting to legalize drugs. He only advocates moving decisions like these to the state level. Check his website before blindly accepting discrediting soundbites. Do this for all candidates.

To say that we, as individuals, are in a similar position as U.S. citizens were in the 1700s, is not to overstate the situation. If the founding fathers could have been tracked by the GPS in their phones, and their friends identified on Facebook, and the authorities had given themselves the legal right to monitor without warrant, how would individual freedoms look today?

Who knows, maybe we'd just be speaking better English. Then again, maybe many of the human developments that come from individuals pursuing their dreams, untethered from a curious, intervening governmental authority, would not yet have been created. 

Save Ron Paul, most of us were too complacent and complient when our homes were adding hundreds per week to our net worths. The perpetrators of 9/11 gave us all an excuse to allow even more penetration into personal lives. So much so, that even though we have hunted down many and added safeguards to hold off many more, we continue to leak freedom and hope for safety. 

The unintended consequence is that we have given up so much individual freedom that the entrenched may not want to give it back. Witness the Ron Paul blackout of many news articles and broadcasts.   

 

Report this comment
#28) On January 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

Finally had time to read everything.  Great blog, as always, easily one of your better ones.  I don't really have anything to add.

catoismymotor

Fred Thompson did rock on Law & Order.

Report this comment
#29) On January 05, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Momentum21 (44.33) wrote:

David: nice post but more importantly I want to thank you for turning me on to the Mark Sisson character. I have developed a new fascination with nutrition to help balance my obsession with biotech schemes.

Do you follow his tribal "diet"?  

Report this comment
#30) On January 05, 2012 at 12:53 PM, TheDumbMoney (58.51) wrote:

Actually, as far as mainstream media goes, Nate Silver of the New York Times stated before the election, on the day of, that he thought Santorum would win because of his momentum, even though Nate's actual polling data had him third.  Also, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post stated the morning after that it was no surprise Santorum had won, as he was simply the beneficiary of good timing, being the latest "Not-Romney" pick, and the one to peak at the correct time in Iowa.  Doesn't sound much like the scraping of hollow craniums to me.

As I have stated numerous times, RP has no shot, because far, far too high a percentage of Republican primary voters, in every state (red or not), favor a militaristic America.  As you correctly point out, these people are most often not actually in the military.

Report this comment
#31) On January 05, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Turfscape (42.48) wrote:

David, stop making sense! It's simply not...patriotic.
(end sarcasm)

I can't tell you how many times I've had to defend myself against the accusations of two-party system supporters for my third-party votes. There is simply no getting past the completely illogical stance that the "win" is all that matters (and really, they don't even care about the "win"...what they care about is that the other guy "loses").

Report this comment
#32) On January 05, 2012 at 1:13 PM, leohaas (31.21) wrote:

I was getting worried: no real Ron Paul messages during the day directly folowing the Iowa vote...

Excellent piece! Happy New Year, and a rec from me, even though you don't make any direct link to investing ;)

Your description of RedState is almost dead-on. The only question I am raising is to what extent the RedStaters have lost influence among the Republican primary voters and caucus goers (emphasis is mine, and intended). Perhaps you are overestimating that loss. I hold that they are still in control of the party to some extent.

The shift from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt to Santorum shows how divided the RedStaters are. It also shows they are desparate to find someone they can rally behind.  Apparently, efforts are now under way to draft VA Governor Bob McDonnell...

I just don't see the RedStaters ever supporting Ron Paul in a Primary. RedStaters are:
 1) kind-of-but-not-always in favor of keeping the Government out of our economic lives
 2) strongly in favor of Government intervention in moral/social issues
 3) defense hawks in favor of agressive intervention all over the world.

On point 1, RedStaters can probably find enough in common with Ron Paul to vote for him. On point 2, Ron Paul is with them only when it comes to abortion, but definitely not when it comes to any other social issue. On point 3, Ron Paul and the RedStaters are polar opposites. For how many RedStaters will this be enough to support RP? Not many in the Primaries for sure, as long as a neocon (ANY neocon) remains in the race!

RedStaters will also not vote for Romney in Primaries, as long as a neocon (ANY) remains in the race. The Mormon thing is really big among evengelicals (he might as well be a Hindu). His flip-flops make him not trustworthy. And ObamaCare is essentially RomneyCare at Federal level.

Bottom line: this thing is far from over. I don't know how it is going to end. But contrary to you, I think it will be the RedStaters who will decide. Good luck convincing them!

Report this comment
#33) On January 05, 2012 at 1:26 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

My favorite posts are the ones that generate a thoughtful discussion like this, with lots of ideas and opinions. It means I'm writing on topics my friends care about.  So thanks to everyone for supplying great comments. It means a lot to me.

I have to be brief in response. I apologize in advance.

Louesbch,

The NDAA is probably the worst piece of legislation paced in America since WWII.  Possibly since the Espionage Act of WWI.  It appears to remove any semblance of Posse Comitatus, which restricts (but does not eliminate) the possibility of using military forces to arrest and detain American citizens.  Posse com is very important to the older generation, especially those that served in the military.  In fact, I converted one senior citizen fomer soldier (and McCain voter) last year when I pointed out how Posse Com was already being circumvented, long before NDAA, which infuriated him 

I will say this. Though NDAA is scary, I agree, as Naomi Wolf pointed out in a recent essay, it is actually far more dangerous for those who signed the bill.  She drew on a reading of history that showed those who signed such sweeping military authorizations were often the first to end up on the wrong end of it. Scary, indeed, since revolutions, big and little, have often followed these kinds of laws.  

Obama stated that he signed it with no intent to actually enforce the provision. This is the worst thing he could have said.  Obama is admitting that such sweeping powers are unnecessary but he desires the power which it gives him (and future politicos, and the State).  That should terrify us all, and I hope it makes Obama supporters rethink his presidential credentials.  I know many many already have.

smartmuffin,

Both you and louebsch bring up Palin, and I understand the affection for her, since at first glance, there are certain aspects of political career that are appealing.  I loved that she was unpolished and disinterested in the Washington game. I loved that she couldn't care less the names of the sacred dieties of the Supreme Court.  Since the Establishment is the problem, when the media un-elite paints her as unelectable and unsophisticated that immediately makes me want to elect her!

But I cannot get past her neocon affiliations. I despise them more than socialists. At least the socialists are frank with you about what they believe and what they want to do.  They may sometimes cloak their movement under another heading to influence the public (like hijacking the conservation movement and rebranding it as the environmental movement), but when asked directly what they want, they level with you.  The neocons are the ultimate snakes in the garden.  If Palin ever dissociates with them and their foreign policy ideas, she will have my tepid support.

I love Adam Kokesh. He is as brilliant in verbal debate as anyone I've come across. That man can talk and think on his feet. He's awesome!

amassafortune,

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Momentum21,

You're welcome! I have put in about 80% of Mark's ideas into my routine. I'm a terrible cook which comes back to bite me at dinner time when I'm in a hurry and my options are limited.  Because of him, I've cut out most carbs, sugars, grains, etc. Increased protein intake dramatically. (Check out Isopure Whey Protein Zero Carb Shake).  Because of his post on the benefits of fighting I got into Krav Maga (and get beat up a few times a week.)  I started doing cross fit.  I bought Merrell Trail Gloves, and I'll never buy a normal pair of sneakers ever again.  They are amazing and make running enjoyable again.  I've lost about 30 pounds in the last 8 months.  I'm in the best shape since I was 25.  Yep, Mark is a god send.

dumberthanafool,

I'm sure there are exceptions. I'm not familiar with Silver and I stay away from Klein.  I was actually thinking more of the Morning Joe types and Good Morning Amerika's.

Thanks everyone!

David

 

Report this comment
#34) On January 05, 2012 at 1:29 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

leohaas,

Thanks for the kind words. 

I think you are missing my point. They still control the party, but my point was that their influence among the mainstream American is shrinking, and shrinking rapidly.  By extension, that means their core support isn't large enough to beat Obama no matter who they elect. 

I agree that their despise of Paul is too much to overcome. We can only hope that their is enough middle of the road Republicans who take a look at the landscape and help overthrow the neocon stranglehold on the party. Might not happen in 2012, but another loss worse than McCain suffered in 2008 could change things dramatically for 2016. Perhaps for Rand Paul, though I have my eyes on some libertarian stalwarts I'd prefer. We'll see.

David 

Report this comment
#35) On January 05, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Melaschasm (53.74) wrote:

Libertarian attacks against conservatives are as misguided as conservative attacks against libertarians.

Conservatives and libertarians agree on more issue than they disagree upon.  The Tea Parties were a great example of libertarians and conservatives coming together to fight for a common cause (cutting spending).

Major areas of agreement:  Tax cuts, spending cuts, gun ownership, and states rights

Major areas of disagreement:  Foriegn policy

Some disagreement:  social policies such as abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization.

On the other hand liberals and libertarians strongly agree on nothing.  They have some disagreement on social policies. 

Liberals and libertarians strongly disagree on tax cuts, spending cuts, foriegn policy, and state rights.

There is a reason Ron Paul runs as a republican, and not a democrat  As a republican he has a chance of winning the nomination, as a democrat he would have no hope.

Report this comment
#36) On January 05, 2012 at 2:38 PM, leohaas (31.21) wrote:

David,

Not so sure I missed your point. You are right about RedStaters losing influence among mainstream Americans (thank God for little favors), but mainstream Americans don't determine who will win the Repulican nomination! The party faithful will. And among the party faithful, RedStaters still do have a lot of pull. That is why I believe Ron Paul will not win the nomination. But I wish you all the luck to convince them!

I do agree that a neocon is unlikely to win the Presidency. But so is a Libertarian. 21% of the Republican base plus some disgrunteled Democrats isn't going to win an election, even if a majority of independents for some reason support RP.

Report this comment
#37) On January 05, 2012 at 2:53 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

leohaas,

Ok, I hear ya.

21% of the Republican base plus some disgrunteled Democrats isn't going to win an election, even if a majority of independents for some reason support RP.

That's correct. I'm thinking (hoping) that the ideal story would be that by Super Tuesday enough support for RP has built that the RedStaters give up and decide better him than Obama. In fact, I think that fear is what is driving The Newt to say that he's not sure if he would support RP against Obama (which should tell everyone all they need to know about the Establishment's two-party system).

Saying RP is worse than Obama appears to be the Establishment Republicans most desperate attempt to make sure the RedState hatred stays fever pitch long enough to keep Paul out of the Republican nomination.  

It might work. We'll see. I'm trying not to underestimate them and overestimate our power. I've been guilty of that before!

David

Report this comment
#38) On January 05, 2012 at 4:16 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

I think you're right on about Rick Santorum - he's a major douche.  I lost a lot of respect for 24.5% of Iowa after this week's caucus.

No mention of Newt?  That crazy bastard is going to do whatever he can to destroy Mitt's nomination.  Ron Paul is the one who'll benefit from his blind vengeance.  Go Newt, Go!

 

Report this comment
#39) On January 05, 2012 at 4:25 PM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

#35 To say that libertarians and liberals have nothing in common is a tad extreme. While the reasoning behind the liberal and libertarian view on certain policies may be different, the end result is similar. 

Take gay marriage, or drug legalization, or even being anti-war (a opposed to the bomb-happy neocons). 

And no, a lot of Democrats aren't all that liberal.

Report this comment
#40) On January 05, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Hawmps (< 20) wrote:

I didn't have to sit through one stupid politicing TV commercial telling me that the sky is going to fall on my head if I vote for the other guy... and Mitt Romney didn't have my phone number either to call me at dinner time to tell me the sky is going to fall on my head if I don't vote for him.  Therefore, there must be a God and HE's not just a kid looking over an ant hill with a magnifying glass in his hand.

Report this comment
#41) On January 05, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Melaschasm (53.74) wrote:

#39)    Since when are liberals anti war? 

While there are some mostly liberal people who are anti war, just as some mostly conservative people are anti war, I do not see any evidence that anti war is a central part of the liberal philosophy.

Did liberals oppose military interventions in Somalia, Haiti, or Yugoslavia (serbia)?

Report this comment
#42) On January 05, 2012 at 5:05 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Excellent analysis.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate running I'd even consider crossing the aisle and voting for.

Report this comment
#43) On January 05, 2012 at 5:11 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

Hawmps,

What are you talking about?  No disrespect intended, I just don't understand your incoherent ramblings.

Report this comment
#44) On January 05, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Louebsch (< 20) wrote:

@ PeteysTired, "Also, if RP does not win the election, highly unlikely, drone missions will be flying within the US in 5 years.  Less if Obama wins." 

There are already drones flying over the southern boarder in US civilian airspace.

 @ amassafortune, "Don't believe the crap about RP wanting to legalize drugs. He only advocates moving decisions like these to the state level."

I totally agree. Just to clarify, RP does not want to legalize drugs, he wants to decriminalize them, and as you stated this removes the federal government from the situation. As a matter of fact, some suburbs of Chicago have already done this. It's because they were catching so many high school rich kids with drugs that they didn't want to throw them in jail. So now the kids get a court date and pay a fine unless they catch them trying to sell. I think they have to be holding more than 10oz. (don't quote me on that amount).

Report this comment
#45) On January 05, 2012 at 5:27 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

@38, 

No mention of Newt?  That crazy bastard is going to do whatever he can to destroy Mitt's nomination.  Ron Paul is the one who'll benefit from his blind vengeance.  Go Newt, Go!

The Newt reminds me of the scene in the movie Predator, when Arnold gets him real good for the first time, and then Predator just starts launching bombs in every direction.  That's what The Newt is doing right now.  Just firing at everything and everyone.  He's done in a month, too.  Then, like McCain (and eventually, Santorum), he'll endorse Romney and pretend like all this never happened.

David

Report this comment
#46) On January 05, 2012 at 5:33 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

whereaminow

The Newt reminds me of the scene in the movie Predator, when Arnold gets him real good for the first time, and then Predator just starts launching bombs in every direction.

You make some of the best cultural references.  LOL!

Report this comment
#47) On January 05, 2012 at 5:42 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Ha, only if you grew up on 80s movies :)

Report this comment
#48) On January 05, 2012 at 6:00 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

whereaminow

I did!  That's why I liked the reference so much.

Report this comment
#49) On January 05, 2012 at 6:28 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

@Louebsch - you're absolutely right re: Ron Paul and the War On Some People Who Use Some Drugs. He wants to revert control of that to the states.

He's not against "the State" he's just for "the states." He has no problem with state government enacting any draconian policy they want.

 

Also, it's almost certainly not ten ounces that they decriminalized in Chicago. That is a LOT of ANY drug other than alcohol.

 Uh, so I've heard.

Report this comment
#50) On January 05, 2012 at 11:14 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

Nice David!!!

Mind if I tell a short story...ok screw you I'm telling it anyhow ; )

First time I was eligible to vote Ross Perot was running and that was my vote. Told relatives Democrat and Republcan alike, and they all declared that I was wasting my vote.

I refused to just blindly vote between a douche and a terd(wow profanity filter kicked in) just because it's a two party system.

Ron Paul 2012. (if the rest of the repubs actually cared about the country they would slink away, and let the Man who has the best chance of winning face Obama instead taking votes away from RP)

Cheers.

Report this comment
#51) On January 06, 2012 at 1:37 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

HarryCarysGhost,

Mind if I tell a short story...ok screw you I'm telling it anyhow ; )

I refused to just blindly vote between a douche and a terd(wow profanity filter kicked in) just because it's a two party system.

ROFL + nice South Park ref + username pays homage to Chicago legend

=

All good things.

David

Report this comment
#52) On January 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Hawmps (< 20) wrote:

43) I used to live in Iowa and if you are ever in Iowa during Caucus season you would get it.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement