America wants freedom. America wants Ron Paul

[Mr. Perfect]

Unbelievable poll. Ron Paul as I have said can definitely win against Obama, therefore the GOP needs to take a chance with him. Romney is a cake walk against Obama, but a Ron Paul is a once every couple of generations opportunity. All who love and cherish liberty tell everyone you know that Ron can win, and to support Ron in every way they can. We need to do this.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-pre ... a-20120109

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday's New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans.

Romney posts a two-point lead over Obama, 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. He leads Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent, among independent voters.

(CAMPAIGN 2012: Meet the Billionaire Who Wants to Help Gingrich Destroy Romney)

Obama's lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points.

[Typhoon]

I would be completely gobsmacked if RP won the nomimation for Republicrat POTUS candidate as he's a threat to so many vested interests,
with everyone from Spenglerman to the Wash Post doing what they can to discredit him.

My guess is that then it comes to voting time, the majority will vote for the status quo.

Still a contest between RP and Obama would make for an atypically interesting POTUS campaign. It would be even more interesting if RP was actually elected POTUS.

[Parodite]

Still a contest between RP and Obama would make for an atypically interesting POTUS campaign. It would be even more interesting if RP was actually elected POTUS.

I would rejoice! He is so much more human than the rest too.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ron Paul is now the Romney alternative.

[anderson]

So can someone explain to me why Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with a Libertarian like Paul for presidency? Is it just about gay marriage? Wouldn't Libertarianism in Washington be good for Red State folks, since Libertarians are in favor of shifting power from Washington to the states? Or are Evangelicals more into having the power to force their ways on people federally rather than just being left alone to do their thing by Washington?

[Ibrahim]

So can someone explain to me why Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with a Libertarian like Paul for presidency? Is it just about gay marriage? Wouldn't Libertarianism in Washington be good for Red State folks, since Libertarians are in favor of shifting power from Washington to the states? Or are Evangelicals more into having the power to force their ways on people federally rather than just being left alone to do their thing by Washington?

Evangelicals are a large and organized voting group with major influence in one of the political parties. As such, they can hope to have their agenda advanced through the existing political and governmental machinery. There is no incentive for them to back a fringe candidate with a pie-in-the-sky agenda, that doesn't help them do what they want to do.

The Paul campaign attracts people who don't really understand how government works (young people) and people who are into various dead-end or unpopular causes. Nobody with a successful lobby has anything to gain from Paul getting attention or success.

[Mr. Perfect]

So can someone explain to me why Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with a Libertarian like Paul for presidency? Is it just about gay marriage? Wouldn't Libertarianism in Washington be good for Red State folks, since Libertarians are in favor of shifting power from Washington to the states? Or are Evangelicals more into having the power to force their ways on people federally rather than just being left alone to do their thing by Washington?

Ron Paul is in second place in the GOP primary. That is an accomplishment right out of the box.

Ron Paul is a different kind of politician, one that has not spent a career glad handing different interest groups, rather been guided by a set of principles without compromising on them. So that he is not an Evangelical darling comes as no surprise, the Evangelicals have people competing for their attention.

There is a great deal for evangelicals to like about RP. And I believe they will come to see it, if given the chance.

[crashtech]

So can someone explain to me why Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with a Libertarian like Paul for presidency?

Israel.

[Enki]

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama. But it is looking less and less likely that he is going to win the Republican Nomination.

[Enki]

So can someone explain to me why Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with a Libertarian like Paul for presidency?

Israel.

They think he will tank the Federal Reserve gravy train and we'll be living under the thumb of the commnist hordes from Iran.

[Ibrahim]

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama. But it is looking less and less likely that he is going to win the Republican Nomination.

He can't beat Obama because the scrutiny of the general election and the marathon of campaigning would expose what an unsavory lunatic he is. The idea of Ron Paul can beat Obama in a poll today, but that wouldn't translate through to November.

This is why Romney is still winning even though nobody likes him.

[Parodite]

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama. But it is looking less and less likely that he is going to win the Republican Nomination.

He can't beat Obama because the scrutiny of the general election and the marathon of campaigning would expose what an unsavory lunatic he is.

Why you see him as an unsavory lunatic? Just curious.

[crashtech]

Mostly, Ibrahim revels in name-calling. I don't think he will have an original critique, but it might be fun to see.

[Ibrahim]

Mostly, Ibrahim revels in name-calling.

A blatant lie. I linked to scans of and discussed the content of his newsletters, as well a cited campaign ads directed at Huntsman with a racist tone.

I also cited the impossibility of implementing his vaunted First Year Plan without exceeding the traditional constitutional authority of the President, which he simultaneously boasts he will restore.

And then there is his brilliant economic recovery plan if summarily firing tens of thousands of Federal employees (thereby removing them and their families from medical coverage) at the same time he intends to remove all "social safety net programs" altogether. Apparently Paul supporters think arbitrarily reducing tens of thousands of families to poverty and stripping them off essential services and medical coverage counts as some kind of blow for freedom.



Ironic that you would chose to falsely slander me by accusing me of slander. Well, more pathetic than ironic. Come at me anytime.

[crashtech]

Yes, the newsletters. The interesting thing about that is that there is nothing else in Dr. Paul's public record that suggests he has a racist bone in his body. So many people rightly view the racism charge with skepticism.

Invoking the plight of soon to be unemployed federal bureaucrats is probably not the best way to turn people away from Dr. Paul. Firing functionaries will garner more cheers than jeers, I imagine.

At any rate, you haven't justified calling the man an "unsavory lunatic," not by a long shot. So why name call in the first place if you could just briefly recap your criticisms or post link to your previous postings?

My charge against you did have the desired effect, in that you managed to refrain from calling me names in your reply this time. As for its veracity, you know it is true, unless perhaps you have been posting in your sleep. But if you'd like to confine our future discourse strictly to issues, you'll hear no more from me about it.

[Mr. Perfect]

I would say unsavory lunatic charges have not been supported thus far. The newsletters are a very legitimate issue and while they do have a counterargument there has not yet been a sufficient explanation directly from Paul, which is troubling. But any apparent inconsistencies in the campaign issues is not notable or unique beyond any other run of the mill candidate.

[Parodite]

My impression was indeed that RP might aim at being too rigurous in cutting costs just to make the balance sheets match up again. But in the process he may further harm the engines of society and market. Keeping the engines running to claw back out of the pit is a necessity. If one only applies a bookkeepers aproach to this crisis, the end of the story could be that the sheets are balanced... but the patient dead.

However...it is MUCH better to start as POTUS with a very rigorous austerity package and only afterwards make some compromises whilst moving forward.. than the other way round. If you start with half baked measures just to win some of the social/dem votes...you will end up overspending again, making the debt pit only deeper.

I have not clear idea though how RP thinks about reforming the financial industry.

[Mr. Perfect]

The thing about Paul is even if he only accomplishes 5% of his intended agenda I will cry with joy for the rest of my years, so I personally am not really big on rigid implementation. All of that stuff will come over the next decade or two, RP will just give it a real shot in the arm, get it off to a real good start.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

The thing about Paul is even if he only accomplishes 5% of his intended agenda I will cry with joy for the rest of my years, so I personally am not really big on rigid implementation. All of that stuff will come over the next decade or two, RP will just give it a real shot in the arm, get it off to a real good start.

.

MP , write off Paul .. write him off

Rhubarb says no .. it is a no

so, don't waste you time

.

[Ibrahim]

Yes, the newsletters. The interesting thing about that is that there is nothing else in Dr. Paul's public record that suggests he has a racist bone in his body. So many people rightly view the racism charge with skepticism.

I said previously that the issue raised by the newsletters isn't racism but general craziness and/or incompetence. Either he published/wrote newsletters with various crazy ideas (some racist) for decades, or he allowed a newsletter with said ideas be published under his name and bearing his signature for decades.

Invoking the plight of soon to be unemployed federal bureaucrats is probably not the best way to turn people away from Dr. Paul. Firing functionaries will garner more cheers than jeers, I imagine.

Yeah, cheers! Fire people, take away their children's healthcare. FREEDOM! HELPING THE ECONOMY!

At any rate, you haven't justified calling the man an "unsavory lunatic," not by a long shot. So why name call in the first place if you could just briefly recap your criticisms or post link to your previous postings?

I've justified both. His association with various racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic elements gives me "unsavory," and all the restructure-the-government/Goldbug/I'd-be-the-super-President stuff gives me "lunatic." No problem.

Oh, and you omitted the racist attack ad against Huntsman that Paul said he had no knowledge of (just like the newsletters, hmm...).

My charge against you did have the desired effect, in that you managed to refrain from calling me names in your reply this time.

Not true, I called you a liar and implied you were pathetic.

As for its veracity, you know it is true, unless perhaps you have been posting in your sleep.

Again, this is a lie. I have, can, and will justify everything I've ever said about anyone. Or perhaps you can find an example here and there where I was unfair. But your repeated claim that I am habitually just calling people names without support or justification is a lie.

But if you'd like to confine our future discourse strictly to issues, you'll hear no more from me about it.

You can try all you want. I recommend you avoid personal attacks, for your own benefit.

[Mr. Perfect]

.

The thing about Paul is even if he only accomplishes 5% of his intended agenda I will cry with joy for the rest of my years, so I personally am not really big on rigid implementation. All of that stuff will come over the next decade or two, RP will just give it a real shot in the arm, get it off to a real good start.

.

MP , write off Paul .. write him off

Rhubarb says no .. it is a no

so, don't waste you time

.

Az, appreciate your concern. Sometimes Rhubarb does change their minds, sees error and corrects. Give them some credit, they have good intentions.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

.

.

The thing about Paul is even if he only accomplishes 5% of his intended agenda I will cry with joy for the rest of my years, so I personally am not really big on rigid implementation. All of that stuff will come over the next decade or two, RP will just give it a real shot in the arm, get it off to a real good start.

.

MP , write off Paul .. write him off

Rhubarb says no .. it is a no

so, don't waste you time

.

Az, appreciate your concern. Sometimes Rhubarb does change their minds, sees error and corrects. Give them some credit, they have good intentions.

.

true , they have good intention, true

BTW, you aware whether Paul already did the customary "pilgrimage" to Israel ? ?

Am not aware off .. makes things, for Rhubarb, bit suspicious


.

[Ibrahim]

BTW, you aware whether Paul already did the customary "pilgrimage" to Israel ?

Paul's friendliness with enemies of Israel (notably Iranian) are one of the impediments to his candidacy. The blog which hosted the scans of the newsletter pics also had a photograph of Paul with two men, one of whom was the organizer of a major American neo-Nazi website. Now even assuming Paul didn't know who the man was (which is probable), these kinds of things don't make for easy campaigning in the Jewish-American community.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

US right steps up fight to halt Romney

.

January 12, 2012 5:26 pm

US right steps up fight to halt Romney

By Anna Fifield in Washington

Conservative Republicans from across the US will gather over the coming days to try to rally round a single presidential candidate, stepping up their efforts to stop the relatively moderate Mitt Romney from winning the party’s nomination.

Rightwing groups are becoming increasingly panicked following Mr Romney’s victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to vote, and are trying to come up with a strategy to bring his winning streak to a halt as the nomination race moves to the southern states.

“The Tea Party in Iowa and New Hampshire did not have a strategy so the conservative vote was split,” said Mike George, founder of Strong America Now, a group of Tea Party fiscal conservatives. “It’s a problem that conservatives have not coalesced around a single candidate.”

Groups at the right of the Republican spectrum have become increasingly alarmed as Mr Romney – a relative moderate and a Mormon – has sped ahead, benefiting from a fracturing of the conservative vote.

Tea Party groups from across South Carolina, which will hold its primary on January 21, will meet on Sunday and Monday for a convention aimed at rallying the movement behind a single candidate. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both vying for Tea Party endorsements, are scheduled to speak. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina senator and dean of the Tea Party caucus, will also attend, as will Nikki Haley, the Tea Party-backed governor who has controversially endorsed Mr Romney.

Meanwhile, about 150 leading Christian conservatives will meet in Texas on Friday to consider the same question.
Interactive graphic: Race for the White House
US presidential elections interactive

The backgrounds and platforms of some of the declared candidates and others who have expressed interest in running

But the prospects for speaking with one voice seem dim.

Social conservatives have been generally backing Mr Santorum, who has taken a hard line on issues like abortion, contraception and gay marriage, while fiscal conservatives tend to support Mr Gingrich, the former House speaker who has been aggressively targeting the budget deficit.

Rick Perry, the Texas governor, also has some appeal for Christian conservatives, while Ron Paul has won libertarian and independent votes.

[..]

“The fate of the Republican party, the country, is at stake,” said Mr Viguerie, who backs Mr Santorum. “Romney does not walk with conservatives, he does not have conservatives around him, so it’s logical to say that if he became president he would not have conservatives in his administration.”

Although all the conservatives are trailing Mr Romney in the polls, their supporters do not believe that the victory for the frontrunner is a given.

“South Carolina and Florida will determine that,” said the Rev Jim Garlow, pastor of the Skyline mega-church in San Diego and one of those who will also attend the Texas meeting on Friday.

Mr Romney’s religion is also an issue for many evangelical Christian voters, who view Mormonism with deep suspicion. One Dallas pastor even called it a “cult”.

Mr Garlow said Mr Romney’s religion was not a major issue for him.

“What very deeply distresses me is his untrustworthiness. I don’t trust him on abortion or gay marriage. My concern is not that he’s a Mormon but that he’s not a very good Mormon,” he said. “I wish he were a better Mormon.”

.

.

[Mr. Perfect]

Azari, I also find the contact I have with mormons, they are not particularly happy with him either. Sort of an Obama problem, maybe you get your first black, your first mormon President, but maybe better to wait for a good one.