Posted under Election 2012 & Ron Paul
The latest weekend Public Policy Poll for Iowa was just released and for the first time Ron Paul now leads in Iowa over Mitt Romney with Newt Gingrich sliding into third place and the other candidates bunched together at 10 percent of the vote. I know for a lot of Paulians this is the moment they’ve been waiting four years for.
But Paul supporters should remember the old saying be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. By taking first with two weeks to go before the caucus means the media “blackout” of Paul will be lifted. Unfortunately it also means the attacks and smears are going to come at him fast and furious now. If you wanted Paul to be taken seriously as a candidate well you’ve got your wish but also means he’s going to be in for serious scrutiny and serious assaults from all sides of the political spectrum.
Tim Carney basically relayed the warning in the Washington Examiner. today. If Paul wins Iowa it’s all out war against him. Not just by the Republican establishment but by the establishment Right, Left, Center you name it. Why? Because Paul is a threat to the existing political order. If Paul wins the GOP nomination, a political realignment of the parties will take place not seen really since 1964-1972 Goldwater-McGovern period changed wholesale the make-up of the Republican and Democratic parties. Indeed, I guarantee you the Kristols, Limbaughs, Morris and O’Reilly will be supporting Obama rather than Paul which is no far fetched than watching union leader George Meany support Nixon. Many Paul supporters (including your truly) would like to see this happen but there are powers out there who making their living off the current system and do not wish to see upheaval and will do anything to stop it, fair or unfair. Make no mistake what this comes down to…all out political warfare. I hate to use the phrase because no one is getting shot at unlike real war but as of right now I can’t think of anything stronger and Paul supporters need to realize what they are entering into. It certainly test their faith in the system if there’s any left at all.
Just ask Pat Buchanan. Look at the political tremors he set off after he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996 and look at that went to trying to stop him. It’s the same thing. However, it’s not the same year. The establishment is much weaker than they were in 1996. The internet, online journalism and social media far more advanced as a political tool. Paul’s forces do have the resources to fight back effectively unlike a Buchanan hit from all sides, backstabbed by Rush Limbaugh and William Buckley and others on the Right who were happy to indulge him only when he wasn’t a serious threat to win the GOP nomination. If Paul can develop a broad coalition in the primaries and caucuses, then there’s nothing said establishment can do to stop him. But they will go on such a vicious assault to try and keep their own troops in line. But if they do they should remember they may win but it will be the equivalent of a victory parade in through the ruins of a nuclear holocaust as the Paulians will rip away their support for any candidate left standings who goes overboard in slamming them.
I will admit I’m not overly concerned who ultimately wins the White House since we’ve been living with socialism since 1933, what’s another four years? I think an Obama-Paul showdown would be a wonderful contest of philosophies and I’m under no illusion who would win out. But as Goldwater and McGovern proved in their landslide defeats, it doesn’t matter. These two men did more to influence U.S. politics in defeat than many Presidents do in victory and Paul can get control of the GOP, it will finally mean politics in this country can structured not on culture wars or national security or such, but between centralists and decentralists. Once that’s happens the decentralists, with the full backing of a major political party behind them, won’t have vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.
Bruce on 19 Dec 2011 at 12:47 pm #
What do you think of this VFR entry on Paul? Is this true?:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021246.html
“Daniel S. writes:
Last night on the Tonight Show Ron Paul said that Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims” and that Rick Santorum is anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim. Paul may buck the elites on certain issues, but when it comes to traditional principles and preserving our unique ethnic and cultural identity he is on the side of the organized left, perpetually crying about (non-existent) Islamophobia and homophobia. He is, like those Republican money men in New York who pushed homosexual “marriage,” an enabler of the cultural left.
LA replies:
It should never be forgotten: a libertarian is a type of liberal, he is not a conservative. A libertarian doesn’t believe in a cultural or moral order; he believes in equal freedom. And the consistent pursuit of equal freedom requires the destruction of all cultural and moral order, which is done by calling the defenders of any cultural or moral order “haters.”
Chris Hewlett on 19 Dec 2011 at 2:18 pm #
RP sounds like a liberal screaming racism on this score. Hopefully this doesn’t indicate a trend in his rhetoric.
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 2:56 pm #
Bachmann told an untruth at the debate last Thursday, attempting to generate support for aggressive war. Ron needed to respond one way or the other.
Did Ron suggest she be sent to Gitmo? Waterboarded?
He made a joke that was funny, and mentioned nice things about Huntsman, even Romney.
It was a clever set of tactics.
Do folks really not have youtube to watch for yourself?
Bruce on 19 Dec 2011 at 4:11 pm #
Folks have youtube but don’t always have time. That’s why I asked.
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 4:18 pm #
So you posted something negative from LA, before looking at the youtube in question?
You appreciate how that looks right?
Side question–these interventionist types like LA, they never seem to mention how with each intervention, some large refugee population finds itself in an American city–Iraqi’s in Michigan, the Somalians, the Hmong, and on and on.
Has he ever suggested what he would find as an acceptable amount of new Islamic Iranians refugees hitting our shores (being flown here by US tax payers no less) if yet another war commences?
Chris Hewlett on 19 Dec 2011 at 4:54 pm #
LA is not strictly an interventionist type. He certainly would not support an acceptable amount of refugees from wherever.
Bruce on 19 Dec 2011 at 4:56 pm #
I posted it and asked the very educated gentlemen at CHT (the authors and commentors) for their opinion. I didn’t post it and assert that it was correct. If LA is wrong, y’all should be able to quickly and easily poke holes in his entry.
I don’t think LA is an interventionist. He was against Iraq as I recall.
Savrola on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:12 pm #
it may be an urban legend that Breivik received treatment at Bachman’s husband’s clinic for retired homosexuals.
I don’t care, either way.
RP doesn’t come across like a liberal. He’s the only candidate, in fact who favors ORDER.
Now, the media onslaught means very little at this point.
Now its time to get on your ass and declare a war of your own.
This program is the key to Ron Paul’s success and volunteers are need right now.
It’s simple, not hazardous and may be done from the comfort of your home, prerequisites which should appeal to most of the conservatives on this site.
http://www.dailypaul.com/188031/ron-paul-phone-from-home-program-please-join
Savrola on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:19 pm #
LA is a Zionist and he thinks that the Iraq was wasn’t good for Israel.
Same with Ron Paul.
You either believe Iran respresents a clear and present danger to Anglo-Israeli interests or you don’t.
This is all about levels of understanding.
LA is a couple of notches about the talkshow tards and Conservative Times is couple of notches above LA (one would hope, anyway).
James on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:19 pm #
LA is a good guy with his heart in the right place. But, he is sometimes off the mark on the fundamentals of Conservatism and he sometimes comes about positions in a strange, wrongheaded way. Still, I enjoy his site very much and he always has something interesting to say. I think in his understanding of Conservatism decentralization takes a backseat of other, more cultural, issues. He, like many other Conservatives, needs to understand how radical decentralization can actually help heal the culture.
Chris Hewlett on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:31 pm #
LA despises Ron Paul. He (LA) has referred to RP as “the candidate to whom I will not refer” – or something like that. I understand his misgivings (LA’s) about libertarianism. My similar thoughts have given me pause concerning RP; although, I most likely will vote for him in the primaries. And he does come across like a liberal when he talks like one.
Savrola on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:33 pm #
LA has many interesting positions, but when the chips are down, the interests of his co-ethnics are always paramount in his mind.
Chris Hewlett on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:47 pm #
Rush Limbaugh says an RP nomination guarantees defeat – which means to him, of course, four more years of BO. I don’t have much of an opinion because I just don’t know, I just observe.
RonL on 19 Dec 2011 at 6:52 pm #
Whether or not you think that Iran is a threat, Ron Paul went PC commissar in calling Bachmann a hater of Muslims and Santorum a hater of Muslims and homosexuals. And for all those paleoconservatives and traditionalists who have fooled themselved into thinking Paul a conservative, these comments should be a wake up call.
Paul also made his own ridiculous mistake in the debate. He said that Bachmann wanted to go to war with the entire Muslim world. As if following the wishes of the Sunni Arab states in preventing Shia Iran from getting a nuke was declaring war on all Muslims.
Honourablemeans on 19 Dec 2011 at 7:09 pm #
@ Bruce:
Ron Paul’s condemnation of Islamophobia and homophobia is not “liberal” in the modern “progressive” leftist sense. It is a condemnation of bringing the attitude, without commenting on it’s legitimacy, into federal office where the executive order now carries the weight of an absolute ruler. Libertarianism is about freedom from government interference in one’s life, not about everyone being equal in the sense proposed by the left (that is, an irrational equality imposed on all by force, i.e. government power).
Matt Weber on 19 Dec 2011 at 7:25 pm #
The hater of muslims thing is troubling. When the challenges come in, is Paul going to be able to defend his positions or will he resort to denunciation? Denunciation only works if you have a power advantage. Whether Bachmann actually hates muslims is immaterial, Paul needs to be seen as the more reasonable person at the table.
I don’t think he will really win, nor would a Paul presidency break the back of the establishment or anything like that. But I don’t see how anyone who calls themselves a conservative can prefer Gingrich or Romney to Paul. No, Paul isn’t a cultural conservative like Auster who wants to return to the 50s. Oh well, the 50s are long dead, and neither Gingrich nor Romney fits that bill anyway.
RedPhillips on 19 Dec 2011 at 8:37 pm #
I agree with RonL that Paul’s language was unhelpful, particularly the homosexual part, but Bachmann’s comments on Iran in the debate were way off the mark. More in a separate post.
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 8:52 pm #
Santorum helped lie his country into war–he personally campaigned, against all sense, reason and his own administration that Saddam really did have WMDs, and he continued to spread the lie that Saddam was tied to 9/11… but comments on the Tonight Show, that goes to far?
I don’t see where Paul breaks with the ‘Clean Break’ Likudniks, so wouldn’t that put him on the Right of Larry on Israeli policy?
rjp on 19 Dec 2011 at 10:16 pm #
I will agree with LA (Lawrence Auster) that a Libertarian is a Liberal.
A Libertarian thinks everything will be hunky-dory with no rules or regulation. I disagree, I see chaos.
I think Ron Paul would be a step in the right direction however I seriously believe he is the only one who can start the process of shrinking government and I think electing him would allow the Libertarians to see they might need to conservative-up some of their policies and give strength to the growing right.
Kirt Higdon on 19 Dec 2011 at 10:31 pm #
Ron Paul could best be described as a paleo-libertarian and definitely not a conservative. Since the only thing American conservatives have to conserve on the political and legal level is the liberal American establishment, what is so great about being a conservative? While I do not favor a violent revolution, I do want to see the current system brought down, not conserved. And the American foreign policy practiced by the prior and current regimes and advocated by all the Republican field except Ron Paul simply consists in killing Moslems for Israel. RP’s criticism of Bachmann and Santorum was incorrect only if he intended to limit it to just those two.
Paul Supporters – Let’s Discuss the Coming Paul Bashing Amongst Ourselves | Conservative Heritage Times on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:04 pm #
[...] state or look like he might, then the weight of the Establishment - left, right and center – as Patroon points out below, would go ugly. So far a lot of the attacks on Ron Paul have been from ideological stakeholders [...]
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:12 pm #
CH:
“LA is not strictly an interventionist type. He certainly would not support an acceptable amount of refugees from wherever.”
He supports attacking Iran which contains multiple problems but to cover two of them:
If Iran is capable of building a nuclear weapon and a missile with an ability to launch, then Islam is nearly as capable as the West with science. They did just after all recently master 8-bit (think Nintendo Hockey 1987) technology.
Strange position for a Westerner.
I submit, in alignment with my country’s intelligence apparatus, that Iran doesn’t have the skill or the desire to get a bomb, but may well have a sensible interest in people thinking they have one, or can make one.
(As AEI, neocon central even conceded, they don’t think Iran would use the bomb if they could make one, but that would then prove Iran is not led by crazies and that is where the trouble lies–so they observe.)
Bachmann doesn’t even understand the nature of her lies- or worse, she does.
Secondly, any rightwinger claiming anti-immigration credentials who do not consider what tolerable amount of refugees, collaborators, expats, scoundrels, traitors, reverse anchor babies… from an intervention, is simply misdirecting.
mpresley on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:48 pm #
Paul is certainly a liberal, but so are all the other candidates, thus the charge is rather baseless. Liberal political philosophy can be traced back at least to Thomas Hobbes, and posits individual right prior to civil society. Some may think it odd that Hobbes, a monarchist, was a liberal, but that is because they do not have a clear idea of what they want to speak about, or know very well the ground from which their ideas flow. The idea of conservatism is also quite muddled, because today most conservatives are in fact philosophical liberals who have not taken their principles to a logical conclusion.
Against liberalism it is better to think under a rubric of traditionalism—thought typified by (in a general way) classical Greek political philosophy, and metaphysically derived from a strict Platonic realism, or a more moderate Aristotelian kind, along with its Christianized Thomistic variant (in contradistinction to the later Medieval nominalism).
I do not know Mr. Auster’s motivations, however from a practical standpoint I do not see how Mr. Paul could be “worse” than the mainstream Republicans. Certainly different, but worse? In fiscal matters he is much better; in foreign policy I suppose much turns upon one’s idea of empire, right or wrong, along with whatever “support for Israel” might mean.
Paul’s libertarian immigration views are probably not much removed from mainstream republicans in practice, and while his general social views would spell social disaster if adopted under the current polity, it is only so because most Americans do not have the requisite discipline to control their desires, or to use a Paulian term, their “freedoms.” But, again, in many respects our present liberalism has already created a morally bankrupt citizenry, so even this aspect may be a wash in the long run.
All this being said, the idea that a Paul presidency could result in any significant or lasting change is an open question, since the President has to confront an entrenched bureaucracy wedded to welfarism and foreign intrigue, along with a citizenry that is not very univocal in either its beliefs or wants.
One point about this Fed business: the Federal Reserve will only end IF the economy itself completely crashes, and the country balkanizes. Other than that, it will likely never happen.
I am somewhat perplexed inasmuch as many of Paul’s supporters view him not unlike they might a “rock star.” This phenomenon is quite Obama-esqe, although I am not sure exactly what it signifies, or if it is even a matter of serious concern.
Patroon on 20 Dec 2011 at 4:02 am #
If it were me I would not have said Michele Bachman’s hates Muslims. I would save said she hates Catholics because she went to a church (WELS) which thinks the Pope is the Anti-Christ. And I would have said Santorum hates “gays and Muslims” . I would have said he helped an abortionist win re-election to the U.S. Senate over a fellow Catholic.
If RP was running a pure libertarian/Ayn Randian he wouldn’t be at even one percent in the polls. Prior experience I think has taught him what bits and pieces of libertarians and conservatism work together for a coherent message.
Bruce on 20 Dec 2011 at 12:06 pm #
Bachman attended (past-tense) a WELS church.
WELS believes that the Pope is the anti-Christ in that he sets himself up (falsely) as a complementary Christ. This means that they don’t believe Roman Catholic claims about the Pope. It doesn’t follow that they “hate” Catholics.
Eric Dondero on the Ron Paul newsletters – Damning exculpatory testimony? « Mein Parteibuch Zweitblog on 21 Dec 2011 at 1:03 am #
[...] predicted: after it appeared that Ron Paul, the sole antiwar contender of the major parties in the primaries [...]