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.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
A 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Elizabeth Warren touted Cherokee heritage in 1984 collection of recipes
May 17, 2012 10:26 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,Ron Paul
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
I hope you meant to say “2 living at home.” If not, I’m so sorry for your loss.
Wow…you need to re-read what I said! I said your opinions are welcome here unless you are a troll. Did I ask if you are a troll? Um…no.
I had hoped that my post to you was a welcome for you to feel free to make comments and not just lay in the weeds, as you went to the trouble of joining up.
Let’s start over. Welcome! I would love to hear your opinions. And no, I’m not asking if you are a troll. If you are, it will become evident as time goes on. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are a troll!!!!!!
If Paul were to win and go on to veto everything he would end up being a one term President as the American people are looking for a leader who will start to put the country back on track. Paul may have some ideas to do that, but without any help in Congress that will never happen.
Iowa First In The Nation Prepares To Saddle Up & We’re Off To The Races. Some video of Imus Guest This Morning, James Carville and Frank Luntz both humping the inevitability of a Romney nomination, and simultaneously pointing how weak a candidate he will be in the General.
We must also remember primary role of the President is that of keeping our nation safe. I do not believe that Paul’s positions will work. It is nice to think that we can avoid intervention and just keep to ourselves, but in the real world that just does not ring true. This comes from real world experience on my part serving overseas in multiple locations. Most third world countries look at the way we have fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as crazy and weak. They also look at an anti-intervention policy as just a way to allow them to regroup, rearm, and plan a bigger attack on the US. Just because we decide that we are not going to fight them now does not mean they will not attack us. And attacking them after the fact does not discourage future attacks, it only shows that we are reactionary (which is what they are led to believe anyway).
Dexter Alarius (can someone tell me how to use the quote thing…I don’t want to look like a moron as I try to figure it out! LOL) Unfortunately I do not mean at home. I have two living children and one in Heaven. We lost her many years ago at 20 weeks due to anencephaly. Thank you for your kind words.
letget…I have many friends here who are going to caucus for Paul and have tried to recruit me. They are all told the same thing. No
happyscrapper…I believe my confusion was with the puncuation in the middle of the sentence. Thank you for the welcome and sorry about the confusion.
I like the way you talk!
As for the loss of your child, my sympathies! I went through a similar loss. It stays with you forever.
To use quotes, just highlight the area you want in quotes. Then go up and click on the box that says “quote”. That should do it. It works the same way with “strong”, etc. Just highlight and click what you want. Try it, you’ll like it.
Why not, if we’re poised to retain the House and take over the Senate as currently predicted? Maybe an RP Presidency would give the new conservative members the stones to step up and slap the RINOS and Neo-cons into shape.
It’s pretty simple. Just copy the quote to the comments box, then highlight it and hit the “quote” box, add your comment, and then hit “preview” to make sure you did it right before you hit the “submit” button.
Rogue Cheddar:
I went back to post #32,and no, you didn’t answer the post, you schmuck! Ron Paul is an inefectual legislator!!! 1 piece of legislation passed out of 260 pieces of legislation introduced by him demonstrates it!! But what do you care? You’re just another stupid Paulbot. You’ll march to the slaughterhouse if Ron Paul says it’s OK.
And who cares about him being chairman of some subcommittee? A bang up job he’s doing. I didn’t know that that subcommittee existed until now.
Just saw this a bit ago. I am not a Rick Perry fan, but I would love to see more of the candidates handle questions from “unammed sources”:
While my boys give me consternation all the time, I can’t imagine the loss of a child. My condolences. Please feel welcome here. While we have our back and forths and get a little frosty now and again, we be good people deep down.
Now thats a stupid argument. People with college degrees are dumb. Yeah sure they are. Bachmann has led a VERY successful life. From advanced degrees including passing the bar. Something most on this site have never done and many could never do. Yet, they throw out the stupid monikor like they are the Captain Know It Alls of the world.
Michelle Bachmann is in no way, shape, or means, stupid. She may not be as smart as some of the posters here think they are but she is not stupid. Thats a ridiculous argument and shows a level of dumbness all it’s own.
Unfortunately, Paul has spent 30 years not cooperating with Republicans. There’s no reason to think that would change now.And besides that, he’s already declared several times his affinity for Democrats – for instance, claiming that he’d consider Kucinich for VP, declaring support for OWS, etc. HE’S NOT A CONSERVATIVE, NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.
Oops, sorry Happy, didn’t notice that you’d already answered that question. That’s what I get for not reading all the comments first.
Perhaps you did not read what I said. I said if he vetoed everything. Which was in response to Marco saying that he believes that RP would veto alot.
As for your premise, I do not think it would matter if the President was RP, Perry, Romney, Bachman, Santorum, etc. if we ended up with a more Conservative congress. If any of the above vetoed good Conservative legislation they would be doing so at their own peril.
Again, it would be good of the RP people to remember that it is Congress that creates legislation and the President who chooses to sign it into law. On the flip side it is the Exectuive Branch that negotiates treaties and policies with other countries and it is up to the Congress to decide to approve it or dissaprove it.
Why is that so hard for so many of the RP types to grasp.
Thanks!
(yawn) (Rogue notices some lint on his shoulder, flicks it into oblivion.)
I know Liberty is a scary thing for you, but you need to chillax. Try counting the Romney signs in your front yard or something.
Thank you, too! Sometimes it takes two telling me how something works to get it right! Ha!
I understand it perfectly.
We’ll just have to wait and see about that good conservative legislation, won’t we?
Disappointed to see Ms Bachmann trailing the polls. Not that my choice is trailing, but the complete idiots out there who are going to keep the country heading for socialist hell by supporting Romney, Gingrich and Perry.
Where’s Sarah Palin? Okay, she’s not running… she hasn’t thrown her support behind a candidate… but she should. There’s one candidate she should have, and could have helped a great deal, and by her own words has a vested interest in helping…
Palin & Ferraro election 2010 Fox News
The boo-hoo, poor picked-on feminazi bit gets started about 6:05, but gets to the meat about a minute later, culminating in the racist insult at 7:26.
So, she’s endorsing the poor, picked-on wittle females wunning foah office, but hasn’t endorsed Bachmann… why? Why no endorsement of Bachmann? She credits Ferraro with helping her get to where she got, she cites the importance of breaking the “glass ceiling”, yet she’s not willing to pay it forward, by helping a female candidate who’s not running for 2nd fiddle under some man, but is trying for the top spot… the only female to run for President on the Republican ticket, EVER (has there been one on the Democrat side?) And yet, she remains silent. Why is that? Is Ms Bachmann not conservative enough? Does she not have sufficient Tea Party credentials?
Oh, then, how about she’s not a very wise person which makes her look stoopid. Regurgitating the same info over and over and over doesn’t make her appear to be the brightest crayon in the box, nor does that deer in the headlights look and constant grin. Honestly, I liked her initially but she has become almost as irritating as Obama. She’s the right-wing’s Obama. We don’t need that anymore than we need 4 more years of him. Some people think he’s “smart” too. But I don’t.
Which was in response to your statement about a new Congressional members.
So based on the assumption that there are new Conservative members in Congress who would be putting forth legislation do you really believe that any of the GOP hopefuls would veto it?
Good thinking girl. I hope you don’t change your mind.
BTW, I am a ‘girl’ also, an old gal and I do not like for ‘some’ to tell me who and how to vote, it gets my thongs in a twist!
L
Which of the following are not conservative principals?
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible — economic and social.
The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s.
Sorry, Wasn’t Ron Paul advocating that 9/11 was Americas fault? Part of the blame America first crowd, which I proudly disassociate myself with. I prefer to blame the actual perpetrators and not that mean old America.
Then why do so many RP types always talk about if RP is elected he will end “insert name of dept here”?
Maybe I am asking the wrong RP supporter on this one as I do not recall you making those types of statments and if that is the case then I apologize for the earlier comment.
If that is the case then can any of the RP supporters who do believe that if elected RP will end any of the departments could you please explain how he would do that following the constituion?
swede:
I see all the Paulbots are out in force. Idiots. They’re so stupid, they would march straight to the gas chambers if Ron Paul says it’s OK.
I voted for Santorum, BTW.
No, he was advocating that “Blowback’ was real and should at least be part of the the dialog when dealing with foreign nations. Blowback.
Ron Paul is unAmerican. There, I said it. His view of The United States of America (caps intentional) is that, we are responsible for every bad thing that has happened to us. That we are solely responsible for what we do, but that nobody else is responsible for what they do.
That The United States of America must empathize and understand other peoples (even barbarians), but that other peoples are under no obligation to empathize and understand us. A typical leftist view of America.
I agree with him on much of his economic policies and Constitutional principles, but the reasoning behind his isolationism is unacceptably unAmerican.
While I hesitate to use such invective on Ms Malkin’s blog… Ron Paul can go to hell.
Then what’s with all the Romney signs in your front yard? Hedging your bets?
Last time I checked voting for or against a war is neither a conservative or liberal principal.
Also how is saying you would consider nominating Dennis Kucinich to your cabinet a Conservative pricipal?
Or what about accepting money for a newsletter written in your name (not saying he wrote it, but his name was used) that had overtly racist views is a Conservative principal?
Or what about the fact the RP refuses to disavow the support of Neo-Nazi groups to his presidency?
Seems to me like RP has plenty of skeletons in his closet that the MSM and Obama will be more than willing to use against him.
I agree with the last part of your statement, but not the first. In ’08, McCain didn’t win Iowa OR New Hampshire, yet he was declared the GOP candidate by the media BEFORE Super Tuesday. His momentum was purely artificial.
The primaries are a waste of time and money, since after all, it’s the RNC and MSM that pick our candidates. O’Reilly already told us to vote for Romney (he’s been telling us for nearly a year now), so I’m pretty sure that’s who we’re gonna end up with.
Wear covered shoes, then.
Yeah, that’s part of his problem. He’s not willing to make sure that OUR blowback against any aggression against us is far more severe than the original act, while making sure that any blowback we get is responded to with even more powerful blowback.
Here’s how you fight against “blowback”. It’s the Chicago Way…
You think Old Granny would be willing to take such a blood oath? I don’t.
As for the link you provided… screw Italy. Why are American planes flying over Italy? Because Italy, Germany and Japan decided to try conquering the world and dividing it between them. Our planes fly over Europe because it’s Blowback for WWII. Again, he, and apparently you, expect us to empathize and understand Italians, but don’t expect the same of them. So much for equality.
This is why I want to refresh the nuclear stockpile, and advance development for the successor to MOAB.
Ron Paul would want to destroy our nuclear stockpile in a gesture of good faith with the barbarians of the world.
That’s the nice thing about RP’s stance on Liberty. Anybody can choose to support him or not. He deigns not to monitor everybody or those they associate with. Kind of like MM’s blog here, we have our share of less than savory individuals posting here, but MM allows them freedom, without explicitly endorsing their opinions. It’s called freedom of expression, 1st ammendment rights, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
FYI, Rogue… there has been no Iraq war.
Iraq was one THEATRE of the War on Terror. Afghanistan was another THEATRE of the War on Terror, but the same war, just as The United States of America is yet another THEATRE of the war. DHS and TSA were created to fight this war on the domestic front; that’s why our individual liberties are being sacrificed at airports across the country, because every airport, every bus depot, every train station, every seaport is a part of the domestic theatre of this war we are in with Islam.
Wouldn’t flip-flops clean easier?
Except last I checked MM would never accept money from those unsavory individuals. RP cannot make that claim.
How about the right thing, which would be to have all of the primaries the same day so as to do away with the inevitable dog-and-pony shows like the one we are getting now?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I resent that! I’m very savory.
Not to mention Rogue that sounds alot like many of the Germans during WWII. They didn’t speak out against the extermination of the Jews, but that didn’t mean that they supported it what the Nazi’s were doing.
Let me know if you somehow can find a way around the party’s chosen winner of the nomination, Mitt Romney.
It was callable for McLame in ’08 at this point, but I held out hope the Republicans were smarter. They are not. It will be Oblahma and Romney vs. the American People’s better judgment in 2012.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
How’s that working out for you? You want to vote for more of the same? Do you feel safe now? How about if we even sacrifice more of our liberties? Let’s enforce curfews and recruit our children to snitch our friends and relatives. Looks like the brown shirts have already won.
Now that is something I completly agree on. One big super Tuesday winner takes all.
Why do 90% of the comment sections on this blog end up in an argument about Ron Paul??? Is there nothing more important to talk about, such as the real opponent, liberalism?
Show me any proof that any of the GOP hopefuls have said that they would like to implement those plans (and not something from an RP website please).
Vetoing the current brand of illegal legislation on a consistent basis would go a LONG way in putting the country back on track, one term President or not.
Sadly, there is no one out there better than Ron Paul running for President. God be with the USA.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Rogue Cheddar:
I had no idea you lived in SE ID! Then, yours must be the single-wide in the trailer park here… the one with the only Ron Paul sign I’ve seen in town.
In addition, voters in all 50 states can have a say in who gets the nomination, unlike the current method, by which the Party kiss@$$ gets it every time.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Will your candidate accept monies from various large coporations and lobbiests? Are they all squeaky clean? Will they deny and denounce funds from George Soros? Wasn’t he a nazi collaborator? How about donations from Saudi through corporate proxies?
We could say the same thing of Democrats today. Just because Democrats don’t speak out against Obamacare doesn’t mean they’re for it, right?
If I understand the law correctly, silence implies consent: qui tacet consentire videtur.
Problem with that is that very liberalism you decry has taken over your beloved Republican Party, and so many still hold out hope that they can fight liberalism by electing a liberal Republican.
A fool’s game, to be sure.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I’ll have you know it’s a double-wide with indoor plumbing, so show some respect!
Rogue Cheddar:
BTW, you’ve proven that you’re either a liar or an imbecile. Anyboy who has read my posts knows that I’ve always wanted either Bachmann/Cain/Palin/Santorum as the GOP nominee. So which one is it, putz?
Probably not, but then again I wasn’t trying to make my candidate out to be the only “true conservative” in the room.
Bottom line Rogue, you are not going to convince me to vote RP in the primary anymore than I am going to convince you to not vote RP in the primary so we are both wasting our time and plenty of space on this blog.
My only question is will you support the GOP candidate against Obama in the general election even if it isn’t RP? I know that I would vote RP in the general as I see him as less dangerous than Obama.
Because Ron Paul supporters are fanatical and tend to hijack threads.
Or Republicans that voted for it and now speaking out against it.
We would be better off using taxpayer dollars to arm and train every able-bodied American to fight the terrorists directly.
Someone should really listen to Sage. He is so right about this, it isn’t even funny. Just add anti-terrorism to the job, and he is spot on here.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
We respond to their posts so we are as much to blame as they are.
Rogue Cheddar:
Respect? You can kiss my hispanic rear end first!!
And yes, it’s a single-wide. I’ve got no idea if it has any plumbing or electricity, though.
Nope.
And it’s doubtful I would vote for him, either.
A nose-holder vote in any case.
The GOP candidate is going to be Mitt Romney. I will not vote for him, just as I did not vote for his evil twin four years ago. Paul? Please. Santorum? No way. Bachmann? Maybe. Cain? Probably. Neither of those two is going to the dance.
The point is that the GOP is not the party of the conservative American, it’s only the party of the Anti-Democrat. Just read the posts here for proof.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Did I threadjack? Last I looked, candidate RP was heavily involved in the Iowa caucus. I know, let’s follow the MSM in lockstep and ignore RP.
Let’s not forget the Republicans who voted against it, but would have supported something just as wrong.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Well let’s see one R in the House voted for it and none in the Senate. So you are talking about the one lone R to vote for it then. That lone Republican was Cao from LA and he lost his seat in the 2010 election.
Ron Paul allowed a newsletter to be put out in his name. If one doesn’t defend a trademark or copyright, its violation is deemed voluntary. He had a responsibility (a conservative principle) to keep his newsletter clean or deal with those who tarnished his image with it. He did neither.
So, keep dragging the issue far afield, but the racism charges stem from Paul, at best, not meeting his responsibilities.
If someone donates to “Nature Conservancy” in my name, it is not the same thing as someone who supports me donating to them. Someone does the former, I take action the instant I find out about it, because I hate the Nature Conservancy, and don’t wish to be associated with it.
That is what happened here. A newsletter went out in Ron Paul’s name, and he exerted no editorial control over it.
What we say in Ms Malkin’s comments section is not only disclaimed by Ms Malkin at the top of every comment section, but they are identified as comments. The racist remarks in Ron Paul’s newsletter were articles. Not the same thing.
Further, if one of us goes over the top in the comments section, Ms Malkin will take action (don’t ask me how I know). It appears Ron Paul exercised no editorial restraint over the contents of that newsletter. Even though he admitted having moral responsibility for it.
So were the Barbary Pirates. What is your point?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
As I prediscted six months ago, Ron Paul will not win one delegate. Not one.
This is all roaring and thundering over something that is just not gonna happen.
I didn’t make an accusation against you, I answered a question.
Agreed.
I will not vote for Newt Romney or Mitt Gingrich. I had Romney for Gov. No thanks, I’m full. Bachmann yes. Santorum no. He’s just itching for a war with Iran. Cain, could’ve. Hunstman no.
At some point, a line in the sand has to be drawn.
He will win some. This is due to the propotionality rules that MM pointed out in this post.
This and his making nice with “truther” nutbags are huge concerns.
Dealing out big government horsecrap are huge concerns for the rest.
One thing about RP (or as my esteemed blog-father calls him, Luap Nor), he is different, and in the way America needs. Sadly, these lapses in judgment make him a poor candidate at best, and Obama would (as he will Romney or whomever) handily waste him in the general.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The Barbary Pirates were a theatre of the War on Terror?
You REALLY don’t want to invoke the Barbary Pirates. Ron Paul would have continued paying the ransoms as an apology for offending the pirates.
Let’s see… Thomas Jefferson… Ron Paul… which one am I going to support? Hmmmm…
I might also remind you that the conflict with the Barbary pirates ended (about 200 years ago) when Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence, onetime President of the United States…) cut a deal that pretty much literally cut the throat of our ally at the time. The very kind of foreign policy Paul decries.
I apologize, I guess I inferred what you didn’t imply.
Well, I answered the question right after reading the following tweet by Steven Crowder:
So I might have been a little prejudiced…
Amen to this. EVERY voter must make this decision based on what he finds important in his candidate, NOT whatever crap sandwich some political party decides to hand him.
War with Iran could have and should have been fought and finished by now. Weak leaders like Bush and Obama saw to its delay.
I am not a supporter of Santorum, but if he’s “itching for a war with Iran”, he would be wise to send troops back to Iraq and get the advantage back.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Sorry, I was thinking about TARP.
Then let’s hope that Bachman will pull it out of the bag somehow as I fear any other candidate will lead to an Obama re-election.
Should be easy, no blowback to worry about.
Oh good – more personal feuds.
Even Michelle seems to abandoned her own blog…
Fair enough. And yes I agree with RP on TARP and the bailouts and truly believe that RP would be a much better, as well as more effective, treasury secretary than he could be as President. He is spot on when it coems to fiscal matters and seems to be one of a handful in DC who actually gets it when it comes to the debt and the economy. If he did not have to deal with foreign policy and could make some of the needed changes at the treasury department that could be legally done administratively (i.e. getting rid of some of the bureacratic morons and internal policy changes) that are well within the bounds of Constituitionality.
Btw, as much as I disapprove of the Occupation (what we would have called what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan back in the 1940s), I’ve always approved of constantly having some small war going somewhere, so that we always have seasoned troops and tested technologies and tactics for when the next big war breaks out.
RightwingRocker’s right; when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have appointed governor generals to both, crushed Iran between, swung west and smashed Syria, and then told the rest of the middle east to capitulate or face annihilation. Reeling from the “shock and awe” of our Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, the entire middle east would have turned against their fanatics, out of self-interest.
Officially it did, but they were Islamic terrorists just the same, and have not stopped their shenanigans, so to say the conflict ended 200 years ago is a weak argument at best.
We have never been at peace with terrorism. What is going on now is merely a continuation of that conflict. It will continue until every last terrorist is dead, which means it will not end. The day we stop shooting is the day we start waiting to shoot back. It’s only a matter of time.
The point is that we have been at war with Islamic terrorists since the Jefferson Administration and haven’t needed some internal agency to protect us. There is no need to start now.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Not that I am a huge supporter of Luap Nor, but I have a different perspective on what his response would be.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
They did indeed stop their shenanigans against the United States, and not by us kissing their butts.
The argument can be made that, had we crushed them then, we wouldn’t need to crush the middle east now.
But, that would have required regulars invading foreign countries, occupation forces, budget allocations for war… most of the things Paul decries about the War on Terror.
I could vote for Bachmann.
It’s not going to happen, though. Romney has already been chosen.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I have always said that one of the biggest issues we had in Iraq was the appointment of L. Paul Bremmer to head up the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Putting a bureactat in charge of a warzone was just plain stupid.
This is not Ron Paul’s philosophy.
.
I fear you may be right. Though Rush was talking earlier about a movement to try to get behind a Conservative to take on Romney head to head. Of course Rush also pointed out that would mean convincing everyone else to get out of the race so that one person could go head to head with Romney.
Gosh this is just Jan. of 2012 and we have ten more months of all these nasty comments of who should or needs to get elected. Will we get the same in future states doing their thing? Shouldn’t we with a brain decide who WE want when we finally get the choice of the early primaries? Just like last election, we got dear john. The msm gave him to us against bho. Well, I voted against bho for dear john and will vote against bho for almost everyone but paul. paul is a point about as bad as bho on his views. IMO. The only thing, bho hasn’t been in politics as long as paul, but both make a skunk smell good, IMO.
L
Methinks Paul would do better than you or I think on foreign policy. He tends to lean libertarian, which is a very strong position on defense once the important changes are made. The point you would have to look at closely would be how he would handle border security (correctly), and how he would respond in the case of an attack (shock and awe would pale in comparison). The idea of closing unneeded forward bases is actually both fiscally and strategically responsible. It’s the President’s job to guard our borders, not everyone else’s.
Just hard to get around the nutty stuff he’s done (which I mentioned before).
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Exactly the strategy I put out there for Bush when he was involved, save for the bullying mentioned at the end. We wouldn’t have had to “tell” them anything. Our actions would have spoken for us.
You will find that I am right about a great many things
.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
If you for a minute believe the shenanigans of the 1970s were anything less than these thugs finally sensing the US was weak enough to come out of the woodwork, you are naive.
We can agree to disagree on this, but that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Doubtful, seems Palin has kissed her on the forehead and told her to sit down. That’s not going to help.
Only when you agree with me… just like everybody else
We have a lot in common.
Heh, Hiraghm’s post wins alphbetically.
Not going to happen, of course.
As much as I love Rush, I, like most conservatives, differ with him regarding what it means to be a conservative. To Rush, anyone less liberal than a Democrat qualifies. To the rest of us, it’s a reverence for the Constitution and the Founders’ vision for the country.
This is why the Republicans are losing so many conservatives.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I’ll agree that this BS has been going on since the 70s, even since WWII. But the Barbary pirates were driven by a lust for money. The current batch of Moslem fanatics are driven by a lust for power. Far, far more dangerous.
Oops missed an ‘a’.