Iowa Caucus Day: Will there be a winnowing — or not?
Phew. Are you ready? There are an estimated 614,000 active registered Republicans in Iowa. A small fraction of them will turn out tonight to vote in the first-in-the-nation GOP presidential caucus. The anticipated top three placers are a toss-up. Sunday’s PPP poll had it 20/19/18 for Paul, Romney and Santorum. Election Projection’s Scott Elliott posts his predictions:
Rick Santorum – 24%
Mitt Romney – 23%
Ron Paul – 22%
Rick Perry – 15%
Newt Gingrich – 9%
Michele Bachmann – 6%
Jon Huntsman – 1%
Traditionally, the Iowa caucus winnows down crowded fields.
But — egad — will any of the back-benchers actually drop out after tonight?
Jon Huntsman’s anemic vanity campaign has the support of Vogue Magazine, his wife and children, his deep-pocketed father, and very, very few others. But he’s not budging yet. He skipped Iowa to concentrate on New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Jan. 10. This means he’ll get to bloviate again about the need for moooooderation and civility during two more debates this coming Saturday and Sunday in Manchester. Despite his failure to organize a competent effort to get on the ballot in Virginia, he is publicly deluding himself (but certainly not New Hampshire voters) that he can “steam” ahead to South Carolina, Florida, and beyond.
Michele Bachmann is promising a “miracle” in Iowa tonight, but her numbers look dismal and the glow of her long-ago Ames straw poll win is a distant memory buried by a series of unfortunate campaign staff debacles/defections. Whatever the outcome, she said Monday she has no intention of dropping out and will fly straight to South Carolina.
Rick Perry, who followed Bachmann’s sizzle-and-fizzle footsteps in Iowa, will also follow her to South Carolina in hopes of a defibrillator-like campaign recharge. Perry says Santorum can’t beat Obama. But this comes from a guy whose “epic failure” in Virginia exposed utter incompetence — and whose first instinct was to sue the state (along with fellow Virginia ballot botcher Newt Gingrich) instead of accepting the consequences.
As for Newt Gingrich, he’s blaming Romney, a staffer that he hired, money, and, yes, his own reasonableness for his burst bubble. Newt’s been way past his expiration date for years. He’ll cling bitterly to this presidential campaign vehicle until the next p.r. ride comes along.
And then there’s this:
Well, I think that’s possible, although we have these two debates next weekend in New Hampshire. Candidates might hold on for those. Those have been great opportunities for people to make a stand and take advantage of somebody else’s mistakes.
So it’s possible that we’ll see the candidates go on for just a little while longer. The fact is, we might see these candidates go for quite a bit longer given the changes in Republican rules this time. We haven’t really focused on this. But, you know, we’ve become accustomed to Republican races that get settled pretty quick by those Super Tuesday contests.
Mathematically, they have pushed all those — pushed some big contests back. They’re requiring proportional representation in the contests that come before April 1. And that could have the effect of pushing this contest into April and May, maybe even into those final primaries into June.
A refresher on those rule changes:
Rule change #1: Except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, no state can hold a binding primary or caucus before March 6, 2012. Any state that does, loses half its delegates to the national convention.
Consequence: Florida (Jan. 31), Arizona (Feb. 28), and Michigan (Feb. 28) all decided to hold their primaries before March 6 this cycle, and all three lose half of their delegates to the national convention. Florida’s delegation – usually the third largest delegation behind California and Texas – gets knocked down from 99 to 50 delegates; Arizona goes from 58 delegates down to 29; and Michigan’s delegation gets reduced from 59 to 30. Five other states hold caucuses or primaries before March 6, but they are not penalized because none of the contests is binding.
Rule change #2: Even the four traditionally early states – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada – are not allowed to hold a binding primary or caucus before Feb. 1. If they do, they lose half their delegates.
Consequence: After Florida jumped to January, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina decided to hold their contests in January (before the Feb. 1 cutoff). Iowa’s caucuses are not binding (i.e. the Iowa delegates can vote for whichever candidate they want at the convention, regardless of the caucus results), so Iowa does not violate the rule. But New Hampshire’s and South Carolina’s primaries are binding: New Hampshire goes from 23 down to 12 delegates, and South Carolina goes from 50 down to 25 delegates. Nevada decided to hold its caucuses in February, so they are not penalized.
Rule change #3: Any state that goes before April 1 must allot its delegates on a proportional basis. It cannot be done in a winner-take-all format. Any state with a winner-take-all contest before April 1 loses half its delegation.
Consequence: In previous years, dozens of winner-take-all primaries took place early in the calendar, so the presumptive nominee was often clear after Super Tuesday or shortly thereafter. This cycle, most of the states holding primaries earlier than April changed their system so that delegates are split up proportionally instead of all being given to the candidate with the most votes. This could lengthen the nomination process because even if a candidate “wins” a particular state, that candidate may not strike a decisive blow in garnering delegates.
In any case, we’ll update you as things get underway tonight. The process kicks off at 8pm Eastern.
You can catch up on Iowa Caucus primers galore and more here:
Des Moines Register
CBS News
Real Clear Politics
By the numbers
Iowa’s Sound and Fury – Michael Walsh, NYPost
Stacy McCain on Santorum’s surge
Many members of the punditocracy on the left and right are lamenting the Iowa caucus process and deriding Iowa voters.
I’d have no problem with a rotating first-in-the-nation slot and other systematic tweaks. But there’s a distinct air of sore-loser-dom in some of the complaints. Undecided voters in Iowa are simply reflecting the wider discontent among grass-roots conservatives and Tea Party activists with the current Pageant of the Imperfects. I told you these would come in handy, didn’t I?
Photoshop: Reader Jimmy D.
On the other side of the aisle, this USA Today headline is snort-worthy:
“Obama readying for re-election bid.”
When has the perpetual campaigner-in-chief ever not been in re-election bid mode?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments‘Prominent’ GOP Senator: If Romney Loses Michigan, We Need a New Candidate
February 20, 2012 05:46 PM by Doug Powers
112 Comments
Obama Campaign Setting Sights on Santorum
February 18, 2012 04:43 PM by Doug Powers
137 CommentsIt Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Joseph Kennedy III Announces Run for Barney Frank’s House Seat
February 16, 2012 11:27 AM by Doug Powers
133 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,Ron Paul
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
Except there is one flaw in this theory. FOB’s are primary for power projection. Someday it may not be as technology may allow us to get to where we need to go much faster and lighter than we currently need to do. It is not so much about protecting other countries borders (that is a side benefit for the country in which the FOB is located) as it is about giving us the ability to stike anywhere within hours with a force not to be reckoned with.
The problem with pulling back within our own borders is more akin to being under siege. Allowing your enemies to wall you only gives them time to build up for a serious blow.
there are some basses that should be closed and others that should be opened. I would be all for closing the basses in Germany and moving them to Poland or the Czech Republic. Both are in better striking positions of the troublespots we may have to deal with, both have offered us more favorable lease aggrements with less restrictions on training, and both are more akin to our Conservative beliefs.
These thugs were merely lying in wait for all those years. Power and money are the same thing to those who covet them. Just look at Washington, DC for proof.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Sorry, I’ve got to take you to task just as I have OK_Loyalist and Pasadena Phil… resist the urge to resort to ad hominems, no matter how tempting. It reflects poorly on Ms Malkin when we stoop to the language skills of your typical leftwing, OWS blogger.
You can refute him without adding the “putz”.
Exactamundo! It was our foreign policy that brought on 9/11 according to Ron Paul. Of course, Mr Paul neglects to note that our foreign policy is not developed in a vacumn. It is in response to past, current and expected future events. It will never be perfect as no countries will ever be perfect.
To think that the murderers on 9/11 are justified because of our bad foreign policy is beyond the pale. It is reprehensible and reckless. I suppose black peoples policies towards whites give Ron Paul the excuse to publish racist newsletters too. He’s just giving them blowback.
Or maybe if Iraq forcefully occupies another country, they should be attacked. Except that Kuwait was already taken. It’s a little late to fight back after you have been conquered. Paul believes that Kuwait should fight for itself and we should not be involved. Well, Saddam would take over Kuwaits oil fields and would have gone into Saudi Arabia too. The money and power he would have would be enormous and he could keep right on going. Who could stop him? Thats what will happen here if isolationist policy is adopted. Our enemies will eventually become strong enough to take us by force. then it will be our fault? Too late for that once Sharia or communism takes over. Or maybe because we are so nice, they will just leave us alone. Like the Ostrich that buries it’s head in the sand, he is not safe doing so.
Moe: are you insinuatin’?
Curly: no, just dancin’.
To step back from discussion of any one candidate for a moment, and address some comments regarding the purpose of armed conflict in general…
Armed conflict is, at its core, an extension of diplomacy and politics. As much as we military folks hated to look at it that way, it’s ultimately the root and core of military action. When diplomacy and politics fail to produce the desired result, the military is called into action. Whether it be in wars of conquest (Government says, “Give me your land or I’ll take it from you”) or in wars of defense (Government says, “Get off my land or I’ll kick you off”), the military solution is the next step of escalation after the politicians get their turn.
Likewise, the military has an adjacent purpose in overseas commerce. Countries use their military to protect the mercantile interests of their own citizens in areas outside of their borders. It was under this purpose that wars against various pirate groups were fought, as those pirate groups interfered with US overseas commerce.
Nation-building, peacemaking, humanitarian intervention, etc, are primarily 20th century inventions, and history is still deciding how to judge and evaluate such efforts.
Off-topic, but conservative hispanic just reminded me that I’m mad at Santa.
I asked him to bring me my very own Michelle Malkin, and all he brought me was a stocking full of
coalCFL lightbulbsThere is a bigger problem with it: history.
The British failed dismally with that strategy, as did the Greeks and the Romans. Are you really of the same mind of the socialists, who think their failed system will work just fine if somehow they can find the right person to run it? I didn’t peg you as being of that mindset.
There’s a much better way to go about it. If the Germans want our military presence in their country, let them pay for it. That way, we don’t put unnecessary strain on our own economy, and they get what they want.
Tens of thousands of bases all over the world to the point that the sun is always shining on an active duty US soldier is WAY too much.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
LOL!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
T-Bone, I guess Ron Paul would think we’d be justified to blow up Beijing or Tokyo because of China or Japan’s policies which have hurt us economically? Just trying to apply his logic to another region of the world…
I’m out all!
Have a great day!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Darn you left, but I’ll respond anyway
Not in my viewpoint, since I still believe that the United States was meant to rule the world after WWII… and we botched it.
That is not comparing apples to apples. The Roman’s, Greek’s, and British were out to create an empire and nation build so to speak. I am not advocating that in the least bit. Having basses in countries in which we have negotiated a lease aggrement is far different than a military conquest and setting up a base.
I am not calling for thousands of basses world wide and we certainly could cut down on the basses (especially in coutries that would rather we not be there like Japan for example). The amount of basses should be limited in scope and mission to what we would really need to project our power in a hurry. Instead of hundreds of basses all over Europe we put a few in key locations. Same goes with the Pacific theatre of operations as well.
Hiraghm:
Sorry, but I could’ve called him something far worse. When a poster is lying in such a blatant way, it really pisses me off. When you try to reason with them, and they either ignore your questions, or change the subject, it shows not only lack of honesty, but also lack of intellect. When they demonstrate that their intellectual capacity is below prosimian level (as in below a mouse lemur, the smallest primate alive, 3.6 inches long, weights 30 grams), then they at least should be gracious enough to withdraw from the thread. Some of the Paulbots here are like the Borg: you can’t reason with them. But don’t worry: in the future, I’ll try to bite my keyboard.
BTW: as for you wanting a Michelle Malkin for Christmas, may I remind you that she’s married with children? No wonder you got a stocking full of CFLs!! LOL
There should be some big blowback to Iran I think. Or is Iran justified in killing Americans and threatening our interest around the world because we supported the Shah.
Or maybe we have to go back to any number of armed conquerors who took territory and resources from others to build the Persian empire.
Or perhaps the American Indians have a right to fly planes into the Empire State building because of our past and possibly current Indian policies. It’s insidious, whether the chicken or the egg came first.
America is a shining light of freedom in the world. Many people have beneifted from our foreign policies, including all those involved in World War II. We saved their butts and the world is better off because of it.
America is NOT the problem in the World. We are not the cause of 9/11. We are not the sole inventors of slave societies, we are not the inventors or perpetuators of the barbaric religion of Islam. Heck, even the crusades were a response to Muslim hordes invading neighboring countries.
Apparently, Obama and Ron Paul think we are the cause of all the evil in the world. I strenuously object to that line of reasoning and would have to nosehold to vote for the LOTE, Paul or Obama.
T-Bone:
You make sense. The Paulbots can’t stand that. When faced with their foreign policy contradictions, they either change the subject or go crazy.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Xerxes, Cyrus, Alexander, Ghengis Khan, and any number of barbarians, tyrants, kings, and warriors have conquered and pillaged parts of the world long before America was even born.
If not for the brave men and women who stood in their way, the world would be a different place. The atrocities would have been a magnitude greater than the holocaust or genocides that have taken place in the world.
You ignore this threat of inherent evil at your peril. If Ron Paul thinks we can stop it all by being nice to our neighbors in the world, he will enable evil to rise. They will come for us sooner or later.
Ron Paul is dead wrong here. He is already old so the dead in this wrong will be our children and grandchildren. Not something I am willing to take.
And Obama would do better than Paul in that regard? Not a good sign.
I think this is spot on, really. Even though I’m on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues, we can agree that the discussions should be more substantive. The pettiness and triviality of the press coverage is infuriating, and it pushes the candidates’ rhetoric to be petty and trivial as well. I hate it.
I’m hoping for a Santorum win, followed by Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Newt and Romney.
Pretty much the order of my preference of the final outcome.
I’m winning over people in VA to vote Paul instead of sitting it out.
Anybody but Obama/Romney 2012!
They managed to keep digging on the one candidate that really threatened the two-headed monster until they found enough. Eventually hounded out of the race the guy who should have been President.
But absolutely no curiousity about Barry Soetoro or whatever his name really is. And that includes the GOP.
I’m waiting for just one of these candidates to come out and say, “Let’s find out a bit more about our mysterious POTUS. College transcripts, old friends, and will someone please clear up the Social Security number issue? There is something strange there”. How hard is that to say? I just did it and I’m not even running for POTUS! Just spit it out, people!! If our candidates can’t even deal with questions of Obama’s past, what good are they?
Amen, happy.
I left Huntsman out entirely, oops, I forgot he was running like most people apparently have.
BIGGEST WINNER – The Iowa residents who (for the time being) can forget about the constant robo-calling, polling and campaign ads flooding our mailboxes and our t.v. sets. sheesh!
Michelle and Doug must be really busy these days!
On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm, rightwingrocker said:
Correct. Prior to 1776, the British Navy protected our merchant ships because we were a British colony. During the Revolution, we had the French Navy as an ally. After the war, however, we had no Navy, and that is when the Barbary pirates started attacking our merchant ships.
Washington wished for a Navy. Why?
Adams funded the building of a Navy.
Jefferson used that Navy to carry Marines over there (“to the shores of Tripoli”) and kick the Barbary pirates’ arses.
From that same link…
Bigot, you just thought you took me to task.
Are you sure it wasn’t our bad foreign policy that caused them to attack us?
Was it a religious law and not something we did to annoy them?
Its was based on Islam and not us talking down to them or bulding buildings too tall?
Didn’t we support a Shah or a despot and they were just mad at us for what we did?
Are you sure, because Ron Paul says 9/11 was our fault. Could it be that it is really Islams fault and Paul is wrong? History repeating itself.
ITookTheRedPill:
Thank you so much for proving, once again, that Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement. The words of our First President condemn this cowards, and the actions of our other Founding Fathers should show them the right way to deal with our enemies. Maybe some of them will finally see the light.
In that event, the RINO’s would partner with the Dims to block conservative legislation using one excuse after another for doing so. That and trying to weaken the same said legislation.
Conservative hispanic,
Relax, Ron Paul is not going to be nominated. I’m just voting for him in VA’s primary to deny Romney those delegates. Although frankly, I’d have to get less drunk to vote in the general for Paul than Newt Romney.
I’ve already scheduled a vacation day for Nov. I’m sure drinking heavily is going to be required.
ba da da da.. da… da da ..feeling snarky
Virginia Patriot:
Thanks for the idea. Heavy drinking tonight! And some more on November 6!
Santorum/Bachmann 2012!
Uhm… they’re pirates.
They’re going to have some justification for their actions, even if they have to lie.
They’re Moslems. (repeat previous paragraph).
The motivation behind the unprovoked attacks was Sutton’s Law: that’s where the money was.
Iowa has T.V. sets now?
Does yours have a turntable and 8-track too?
Do you have anything to contribute to this topic, or are you just here to vent your spleen?
Fox news is already claiming it’s a 3 man race… which is amazing, cause between Romney, Gingrich and Paul, I don’t think you could scrape together one man…
I’m thinking of supporting Paul in the primary if Bachmann drops out. An argument has been made that, in the general election, we should support the Republican candidate because he’s not the Democrat anointed one. Therefore, in the primary, I’ll use the same logic and support Paul because he’s not the Republican anointed one. Paul will get slaughtered by Obama, anyway. But, if I can’t have a conservative on the ticket, then I can deny the people who wish to choose my candidate for me victory.
Bigot, my contribution has been as worthy as your comment that you dragged me into this. Now go kick rocks!
i gotcha thread killuh right heeeya
hey, maybe instead of cheap shots y’all might wanna get all intellectually curious wid it– like this guy:
This is an attempt to raise awareness and make both subjects imminently relatable and understandable though they should be unpalatable and unconscionable to those exhibiting eternal vigilance.
If we’re honest with ourselves, can we not admit that have we have already been subjugated by our politicians and other elected officeholders and have been living under the meHEE’a (Mexi’a) for some 15-20 years or more?
Every legal citizen in this country has an inherent contract with the country. Its politicians are to be held responsible for their broken contract by their malfeasance and or corruption when they eventually perjure themselves having previously sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and secure the borders from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Allowing the United Nations (Immigration Department – currently run by Muslims for the delivery and deployment of Muslims) to select and place which group of refugees are immigrated to which country, makes our politicians derelict in both regards, does it not?
Elitist talking heads continue offering the false premise that immigration just doesn’t matter – it’s way down on their list… shut up and vote for the one that can beat Obama.
There are millions of under-employed citizen-Americans that wish to inject a bit of plainspoken economics into the debate… it’s analogous to the recession/depression question: if your wages have been undercut by illegal aliens – you are in a depression.
Consider the continued wealth redistribution of allowing illegal aliens to undercut wages and the subsequent sending of billions of dollars out of the country. Are these legislators either not smart enough to comprehend this or are they simply complicit?
Is there any real honest attempt to get the newcomers to assimilate? Are they being encouraged or rewarded for NOT assimilating?
Should we not be wary of your kindergarten and first graders’ teachers and the seditious superintendants mandating the instruction of Spanish language ‘skills?’ What about Arabic? Would that create more teaching jobs? Would it make these future voters more “understanding” of amnesty legislation?
Is there somehow a bit of “racism” between Catholic illegal aliens and Islamic illegal aliens or illegal aliens in general?
Let’s compare the family reunification part of the current amnesty/asylum/forever visas and see how different that might be from tolerance for four wives producing 4-8 kids per wife – work that out for ten years and then forty years.
Also consider that for the first time in centuries of Mexican history the enormous increase in the number of beheadings of victims of thugs.
Easily more than one trillion of America’s wealth has been redistributed over the last ten years to reward illegal aliens with free education and healthcare ($126,000,000,000 in 2010). Several hundred million also went to help rebuild mosques last year, not including all the other rebuilding efforts (much of which is repeatedly blown up and rebuilt,) (plus the, what, 50-200 billion of cash that’s been stolen from the war effort with no accountability?).
Try this for subjugation:
– An east coast judge mandating 6 votes for every Hispanic vote.
– The tolerance for killing American soldiers by Muslims.
– The tolerance for killing American citizens by illegal aliens (avg. of 27 people every day).
– Latinos lower American flag at US Post Office and raise the Mexican flag… others trample said flag.
– Latino high school students threaten lives of “white” citizens for wearing US flag apparel at a May 5th event.
What could possibly be constitutional about this country’s subjugation to BOTH: the maHEE’a and Shari’a?
It is time to stop BOTH usurpations of American exceptionalism dead in their tracks,
Questions anyone? Because you’ll be vilified with slander that you’re a racist if you ask them.
But is this what 1.3 million of our troops died for?
hopin_society, what are you suggesting re: the Iowa caucus?
hopin_society, what are you suggesting re: the Iowa caucus?
tol’ ya
S-o-L: all the way up to november
funny, can’t seem to get the link to post, but it’s at noisyroomdotnet/blog/ with the following title:
Moral Fracture Lines In The National Foundation
I can’t kick rocks. You’ve gathered them all up to throw at the contributors to the comments section of this blog who happen to disagree with you.
You’re quickly dropping to the level of regard reserved for ILMC.
You first and only (as best I can see) contribution to the comments of this topic was to hurl ad-hominems.
Fox just said that the most conservative candidate’s coming in last, and the most liberal are leading.
Never, ever thought I’d have to count on Santorum. I don’t see him beating Obama.
To use a catchphrase from my college days… #awasux.
We wouldn’t be having this back and for but you insisted on dragging me into this thread, so cam it bigot!
Finally, home from work.
For a long time I read MM’s boards, disappointed that I couldn’t add my two cents, waiting for open enrollment.
Many posters gave me a chuckle, most gave me different viewpoints, many of which modified my take on things.
Finally the day arrived and luckily I was online at the time and my ‘application’ was accepted.
Now I can actually have a conversation with Happy_Scrapper, Danceswithdachshunds, txvet2, chapoutier, Rogue Cheddar, Misscheryl, zyzzyg, rightisright, and many many more; some who I agree with and some who I don’t.
I considered it the best blog on the net: sometimes the discussion became heated, arguments erupted — mostly due to misunderstandings, but always — civility ruled, apologies were made and accepted, wounds healed, and friendships ensued — even though opinions continued (often strongly) to differ.
Unfortunately, apparently some democrat trolls have entered the arena, no longer are differing opinions discussed on their merits.
It’s now – agree with me and my beliefs or I’ll call you a name and never consider your arguments, no matter how many facts you have to back them up.
123_upnorth: I want to thank you for having the stomach to discuss American politics with people who abhor your opinion — the very people who allowed the sock-puppet into our White House. I’d wager the people who put you down couldn’t name your Prime Minister.
Happy, over time I felt you and I think very much alike, it seems we desire the same things from (and not from) our government.
Believe it or not, I believe Dr. Paul most closely aligns with your articulations about how you think things should be.
For example, would you have supported any of these bills; none of which passed?
HR 6416
Introduced 11/17/2010 American Traveler Dignity Act
American Traveler Dignity Act of 2010
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. co-sponsors 2
HR 5970
Introduced 07/29/2010 SEC Transparency Act
SEC Transparency Act of 2010
To repeal the amendments made by section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. co-sponsor 1
HR 5444
Introduced 05/27/2010 The Private Option
Private Option Health Care Act of 2010
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to replace it with provisions reforming the health care system by putting patients back in charge of health care. co-sponsors 0
HR 4995
Introduced 04/13/2010 End the Mandate
End the Mandate Act of 2010
To restore the American people’s freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance. co-sponsors 25
HR 4248
Introduced 12/09/2009 Legalize Competing Currencies
Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009
To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.
co-sponsor 1
HR 1830
Statement Introducing Unpasteurized Milk Bill,
May 16, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products. Hard as it is [...]
HR 1207
Introduced 02/26/2009 Audit the Fed
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009
To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes. co-sponsors 320
HR 459
Introduced 01/26/2011 Audit the Fed
Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011
To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes. co-sponsors 196
HR 2438
Introduced 07/07/2011 American Traveler Dignity Act
American Traveler Dignity Act of 2011
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. co-sponsors 0
The following speaks for itself:
66 You’re a womanizing nut job.
71 you’re just another mesmerized Paulbot.
72 Put down the bong
109 you didn’t answer the post, you schmuck!
127 Idiots. They’re so stupid, they would march straight to the gas chambers
148 yours must be the single-wide in the trailer park here
154 you’ve proven that you’re either a liar or an imbecile. …putz
160 You can kiss my hispanic rear end…
226 Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement
Til…I hear what you are saying. It is true we have been a bit uncivil to each other lately. Part of that is just the frustration and weariness over all the crap going on, the corruption, the incredible destruction that is happening to our country. That is no excuse for us snapping at each other, but I believe it is part of the reason. We feel comfortable enough with each other to vent. But, like in families, we need to show more respect for each other as familiarity results in loosening of the rules of civility.
Now, as for your list of nasty remarks…they are pretty nasty. Except for the first one directed at 123UpNorth. That one is spot on.
Boohoo, little crybaby til can’t stand the fact that I like to smack down Paulbots with my strong opinions. Cry me a river!
Your post speak for itself… Paulbots can’t answer direct questions, and BTW, post 66 is not mine. I believe it’s happyscrapper’s.
And yes, Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement. And if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the thread.
All libs resort to name calling when they lose an argument, I think it makes them appear sophomoric, your propensity to ‘smack down’ undermines your credibility.
just sayin
happyscrapper:
Sorry, but I’m not going to allow some idiot to the take my words out of context, and not be challenged. I don’t see any need to be civil and nice to people who don’t answer direct questions, refuse to enter in a give and take, resort immediately to personal attacks and who have shown an utter lack of curiosity and intellectual honesty when challenged about Ron Paul’s views, specially in the defense and national security arenas. And if they can’t do any of that, they should move to one of the lefty blogs.
Who moi?
til:
I asked you 3 times: “what would George Washington do about Iran?” You never answered. Fortunately, ITookTheRedPill answered for you. Unlike you, he had the intellectual curiosity and werewithal to find the answer. I was pleasantly surprised that the answer was so strong. If you bother to read it(post #222), I HOPE IT HITS YOU LIKE A 20 POUND SLEDGEHAMMER BETWEEN THE EYES. And since he’s never given me reason to doubt his honesty, I’m sure his quote is correct. That is one of the many reasons I say you Paulbots are full of bovine scatology. You pretend to be the authority on the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and in reality, you’re ignorant of our history.
BTW, Ron Paul is projected to finish third in Iowa. That’s soooo sweet.
Yeah, CH…I’ll take credit for that one! Most of the comments were justified. If someone acts and talks like an idiot, they deserve to be called on it.
When you think about it, we have one big election on one day in early November that decides who sits in the WH. Since campaigns begin the year before the general election, if not sooner, one election in all fifty states on the same day early in the election year can decide who each party’s nominee will be.
appyscrapper:
What the Paulbots can’t seem to understand is that we’re way past the time of niceties with the Islamo-Fascists. As good old George would say, it’s time to “crush them into non-existence”.
huh. what am I? Chopped liver?
Absolutely not – that would be Chap.
Yooooohooooo Chap – where are ya?
On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:44 pm, conservative hispanic said:
You are very welcome. Thank you for thanking me.
If you’re chopped liver, I’ll be the plate…..
I love chopped liver. What’s wrong with that?