Republicans: 5 Days To Go Till Iowa, Who Are You Supporting and Why?

haymarket said:

If Paul fails to win any of these early contests, then it goes away as far as this campaign goes. If Paul continues to hang around, the issue will still be there and will not go away. I strongly suspect that right at this minute some journalists are doing investigative work to come up with the step by step of how the newsletters were put together and who did what with them. Paul would be wise to get out in front of this now.

Click to expand...

I agree with this and thought to include in the previous post but preferred brevity as I don't believe he will contend past SC.

Unless this is really NOT about Ron Paul running for president and instead is about some other political agenda.

Click to expand...

Interesting, can you expand this?

haymarket said:

The people will decide that question. My post simply pointed out how poorly Ron Paul has handled this entire issue.

If Ron Paul did not write those racist and extremist newsletters with his name on them, who did?
If Ron Paul did not supervise those racist and extremist newsletters with his name on them, who did?
If Ron Paul did not edit those racist and extremist newsletters with his hame on them, who did?
If the racist and extremist views contained in the Ron Paul newsletters were not the views of Ron Paul, then just whose views were they?

I want Paul to win in Iowa. I want him to do very well in the entire primary season. I would be ecstatic if he won the GOP nomination. But he is hurting his efforts by his impotent response to this issue.

Click to expand...

Sure, Ron Paul can be attacked for possibly being a racist.

But Obama can be definitely be attacked for signing a law that allows the President the power of indefinite detention of American citizens.

So I think the American people would rather have a racist who will reduce the federal government's overreaching powers of arrest and imprisonment even on those he is racist against than someone who isn't a racist who wants the authority to infringe on the civil rights and liberties of people all over the world.

samsmart said:

Sure, Ron Paul can be attacked for possibly being a racist.

But Obama can be definitely be attacked for signing a law that allows the President the power of indefinite detention of American citizens.

So I think the American people would rather have a racist who will reduce the federal government's overreaching powers of arrest and imprisonment even on those he is racist against than someone who isn't a racist who wants the authority to infringe on the civil rights and liberties of people all over the world.

Click to expand...

Indefinite detention sure beats just shooting them on the spot like we did in the good old days.

Mitt Romney is a liberal.
Rick Perry would lose a debate to a brick.
Santorum is perceived by most as a religious nut.
Ron Paul is unelectable because he wants to legalize cocaine and heroin.

We need to make Gingrich the nominee.

Dickieboy said:

I agree with this and thought to include in the previous post but preferred brevity as I don't believe he will contend past SC.



Interesting, can you expand this?

Click to expand...

We seem to be in agreement on alot. good.

As far as how long Paul can stay in the race - it depends on what his goals are and what he actually is doing in the race. Also, Virginia looms large as right now its just Paul and Mitt and if all the anti-Romney forces unite in a STOP MITT strategy, Paul could end up the big winner there.

The questions is this: is Ron Paul running for the GOP nomination to the President of the USA or is Ron Paul running to advance libertarian political ideology and ideas? And perhaps there are elements of both but - in the end - its one more than the other.

How he is handling the newsletter fiasco tells me greatly that it is far more about libertarian politics than it is about his being nominated. Two weeks ago, Paul was flirting at winning in Iowa and rising in other states. Then the newsletter scandal erupted and he has lost ground. I know many political advisors on both sides of the aisle who would tell him - and tell him strongly - that they only way he can get that monkey off his back is to come clean and put it on the back of whoever was responsible. An political advisor is only loyal to who is paying them - nobody else. They do not care who else gets hurt or damaged as long as the client advances and is successful. That sounds cruel and cynical but that is reality.

Read this written just two days ago by a prominent libertarian and he touches upon what they are really afraid of - and its not Ron Paul not being nominated next summer:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/ron-paul-and-libertarians

So figure out whose name gets discussed at the Paul news conference where he does come clean and that should tell you everything you need to know.

haymarket said:

If Paul fails to win any of these early contests, then it goes away as far as this campaign goes. If Paul continues to hang around, the issue will still be there and will not go away. I strongly suspect that right at this minute some journalists are doing investigative work to come up with the step by step of how the newsletters were put together and who did what with them. Paul would be wise to get out in front of this now.

Click to expand...

Will be hard since he didn't write them and they went over this the last time around.

Henrin said:

Will be hard since he didn't write them and they went over this the last time around.

Click to expand...

His name is on them. They are written in the first person as coming from Ron Paul. If he wants to clear his name, he needs to convince America that he is not reponsible by establishing just who is responsible.

Right now the person responsible for those racist newsletters is Ron Paul.
Right now the person responsible for those extremist newsletters is Ron Paul.

If the content is so repulsive to Paul, why do his own speeches and statments seem to mirror and agree with content of those same newsletters as this article shows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-newsletters-conspiracy-theories_n_1175275.html

a small portion of the article

WASHINGTON -- Texas Rep. Ron Paul's old newsletters continue to dog the Republican presidential contender, even though he's disavowed the racist and homophobic passages within them. Part of the reason the newsletters may be too big a hurdle for him to overcome is that they reinforce Paul's previous writing and speeches in which he frequent dabbled in conspiracy theories. In Thursday's The New York Times, James Kirchick highlighted Paul's enthusiastic trips down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory, black helicopters and trilateral commissions. Kirchick seizes on the fact that so many 9/11 "truthers" have jumped on Paul's campaign -- and the presidential candidate has not repudiated the group's views.

Kirchick wrote:

Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones's show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration. The Huffington Post also examined Paul's previous writings, speeches and interviews. The presidential candidate, who has become a top-tier contender in Iowa, has left a substantial video archive and paper trail -- much of it can be found on a website run by his former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell. Some of the nuggets are predictable. For instance, Paul believed in the anchor-baby conspiracy. He has railed against vaccine mandates. He described a federal program providing mental-health screenings for school children as "Orwellian," defended Branch Davidian sect leader David Koresh, and saw an insidious conspiracy that brought down Eliot Spitzer.

Click to expand...

this is NOT going away anytime soon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ere-was-texas/2011/12/29/gIQAPKbwQP_blog.html

Crunch time came when the Iowa caucuses were pulling into view and Paul was showing buoyance in the polls. The media and rival campaigns jumped on the newsletters’ content and Paul’s inadequate explanations for them. CNN pressed Paul on the matter; so did many other outlets; voters have gotten into the act as well. Paul and his supporters say the story is old, that he has answered the questions, that he has disavowed the writings. Squirrelly evasions there — grounds enough for the media to obsess over the newsletters, even if Paul gets huffy and rude when pressed. That news outlets are dogging Paul at such a critical time speaks to the righteousness and elegance of our system. Says Corn: “News is often stuff that people have forgotten.”

Depending on which Paul responses you trust, he’s one of the following:
*A bigot;
*Not a bigot but heedless of things that are printed under his name, and thus a terrible manager.
We need to get to the bottom of this.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

And the detective work has already been done - in fact the answers have been around for quite a while now.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

haymarket said:

The questions is this: is Ron Paul running for the GOP nomination to the President of the USA or is Ron Paul running to advance libertarian political ideology and ideas?

Click to expand...

I believe it to be wholly the latter. I don’t believe the ‘establishment Republicans’ will allow him to get the nomination.

Read this written just two days ago by a prominent libertarian and he touches upon what they are really afraid of - and its not Ron Paul not being nominated next summer:

NY Times: Ron Paul Newsletters Leave "Stain"

So figure out whose name gets discussed at the Paul news conference where he does come clean and that should tell you everything you need to know.

Click to expand...

I read this three times and many of the linked articles but am still confused.
What are they afraid of?
Whose name will get discussed?

Dickieboy said:

I believe it to be wholly the latter. I don’t believe the ‘establishment Republicans’ will allow him to get the nomination.



I read this three times and many of the linked articles but am still confused.
What are they afraid of?
Whose name will get discussed?

Click to expand...

A split in the libertarian movement when Lew Rockwell is thrown under the bus by Paul.

haymarket said:

A split in the libertarian movement when Lew Rockwell is thrown under the bus by Paul.

Click to expand...

Based on the Reason article the movement has already been split, the lesser known ‘paleolibertarian movement’. The article doesn’t specifically attribute the newsletters to a single person but heavily insinuates Rockwell and Rothbard as leading candidates which would support Paul ‘throwing him under the bus’. There is a political strategy promoted in the article that is logical in that the racial rhetoric panders to a certain sect of the populous and thus garners campaign contributions from such. If this was the elemental reason for these newsletters it appears effective however controversial.

Further I predict this ‘ghost writer’ mystery will continue as Paul, Rothbard nor Rockwell (being the only ones who appear to know FOR CERTAIN) will admit to authoring the newsletters. Human nature causes this mystery to perpetuate some of the interest in Paul and to a greater extent the Libertarian/paleolibertarian movement.

If you go to the lewrockwell website they cannot do enough to suck up to Paul and they are still on board. After weathering the last week I am convinced that Paul will NOT come clean about who is responsible for the newsletters because protecting Rockwell protects the libertarian movement. And that is more important to him that a few weeks on top in the primary season when even he knows that he does not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

I was hoping that
1- Paul would do well in early primaries
2- his supporters would get even more geeked up on the kool-aid and actually believe he would win
3- the party would do their normal thing and shut him out
4- his fanatic supporters would get royally pissed off and demand a third party run
5- Paul would do the third party run
6- Paul would fail to crack more than a couple of percent in November but play spoiler in a couple of states and prevent the Republican candidate from taking it
7- permitting an Obama victory

We will see if any media outlet puts an crackerjack investigative team on the newsletter issue and breaks a major story on it. However, that hope is fading also.

I think Paul blew the small tiny chance he had but we found out he never was in it to win it anyways. Libertarians are like the pimple on the ass of the body politic anyways when it comes or presidential politics. This only insures that the pimple does not grow in size.

haymarket said:

If you go to the lewrockwell website they cannot do enough to suck up to Paul and they are still on board. After weathering the last week I am convinced that Paul will NOT come clean about who is responsible for the newsletters because protecting Rockwell protects the libertarian movement. And that is more important to him that a few weeks on top in the primary season when even he knows that he does not have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

I was hoping that
1- Paul would do well in early primaries
2- his supporters would get even more geeked up on the kool-aid and actually believe he would win
3- the party would do their normal thing and shut him out
4- his fanatic supporters would get royally pissed off and demand a third party run
5- Paul would do the third party run
6- Paul would fail to crack more than a couple of percent in November but play spoiler in a couple of states and prevent the Republican candidate from taking it
7- permitting an Obama victory

We will see if any media outlet puts an crackerjack investigative team on the newsletter issue and breaks a major story on it. However, that hope is fading also.

I think Paul blew the small tiny chance he had but we found out he never was in it to win it anyways. Libertarians are like the pimple on the ass of the body politic anyways when it comes or presidential politics. This only insures that the pimple does not grow in size.

Click to expand...

That is because this is a dead issue. I don't understand how you can say you hoped Ron Paul would get the nomination, yet call Libertarians "pimples on the ass of the body politic".

The main reason I support Ron Paul is that he is the only GOP candidate that isn't going to try and start a war with Iran. I have had enough with war to fill a lifetime and I think it is about time get out of the war mindset.

If he had a chance at the nomination, I'd throw all my support behind Huntsman. I like him a lot on military spending, foreign policy, taxes, energy, civil unions, and medical marijuana to name a few issues. But Huntsman for whatever reason can't get any traction.

So I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. He's more extreme than I am in a lot of areas. And frankly, if he had a serious shot at the Presidency I'd be very concerned about some of his positions, but I know he's never going to get the nomination let alone the Presidency so I can happily cast a vote for him as "send a message vote". The GOP needs to start living up to its rhetoric of small government and lower spending. I don't call decreases in growth spending cuts and the GOP shouldn't either. It needs to realize for tall its railing against leftist wealth redistribution, it supports countless subsidies to big businesses that redistribute wealth to the already wealthy. The GOP needs to return to a foreign policy that emphasizes American interests, not playing the cop to the world and nation building to "spread democracy". A vote for Paul might help send that message.

The only other candidate I could support in the GOP field is Gingrich and I say that with some reservations. Gingrich has a strong authoritarian streak in his personality that makes me wary of him. And his personal and ethical history suggest someone who at a minimum is far too comfortable with the "grey area" of things. But he does have credibility on getting the deficit under control and reforming entitlements. Plus I'll admit a personal soft spot for ole Newt as he was the leading the conservative figure when I first began following politics and someone I really liked back inthe day (my philosophy and views have since changed). Gingrich is far from perfect, but on spending and entitlements - which are probably the two biggest issues to me, he would be a step inthe right direction. Granted I'd go a farther than he would, but any step in the right direction is a step forward.

For the rest of them, Bachman and Perry just aren't that bright or credible. Santorum is a walking caricacature of the worst aspects of a social conservatism, and Romney is cut from the same cloth as GWB and Obama - a rudderless big government moderate who's main objective is getting elected.

misterman said:

Paul is a nut, Gingrich is a nut and loose cannon, Bachmann is a nut and doesn't have what it takes, Perry is a nut and a joke, Huntsman is...the only sane one.

Santorum is santorum.

Click to expand...

Nothing but nuts running and an economic and tax policy designed to continue to screw the majority. Perhaps the Republicans could just open a hardware store.

For a true conservative, Gingrich is the best choice.

Romney is a liberal.
Paul wants to legalize cocaine and heroin.
Santorum is perceived to be a religious nut.
The rest have no chance in a national election.