Ron Paul in Iowa

Ron Paul’s doing well in Iowa, so well that there are some who project a win for him there.  Interestingly, despite his frontrunner, or near frontrunner, status, the MSM is remarkably quiet.  Some think it’s because the MSM knows he can’t possibly win, so why bother.  Others wonder the MSM is lusting after a Republican presidential nominee who can be destroyed, ensuring an Obama victory.

With regard to the latter theory, cast your eye over this post and this post, both of which explain why, in a civilized, decent nation, Ron Paul will be unelectable.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    So Ron Paul ran a newsletter under his own name, for years, that was ghost-written, but which he claimed to have written himself.  To the point where, during a campaign where some of that nasty content became a campaign issue, he and his team decided STILL not to admit that he was not the author, and claimed instead that the vicious comments were instead merely being taken out of context.

    Reading those newsletter bombs… there’s nothing to be taken out of context!  They’re vicious and extraordinarily foolish, period.  For Ron Paul to claim he did not know about them, while they were being published under his own name, indicates a problem.  I would never let anything be published under my name that I didn’t carefully review first.  Either Ron Paul is not a serious man, or he is a liar.

    This is a man who is proud of his numerous vetos of spending bills in Congress.  Yet he inserts loads of pork for his home district into those bills that he knows will pass, and then issues his useless veto against those same bills, knowing that they’re going to pass, and takes his pork home to his constituents.

    On foreign policy he claims to be a careful, prudent non-interventionist, but what he is is a pure isolationist.

    He claims Islamic jihadi hatred of the USA is based on our intervention against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  Has he no sense of history?  They were after us with vengeance during the early 70s and ever since.  They have been irrevocably aligned against us since we voted to support the creation of Israel in the late 40’s.  Ron Paul has no sense of history.

    He’s right on pure economics, I think. But that scarcely qualifies someone to be President.  He could perhaps qualify as a Cabinet head in charge of economics.  But in no way, shape, or form, can he assume the role of President.

    I’m glad the vetting is occurring now, rather than after Iowa.

     

  • Danny Lemieux

    But then, I thought that Barack Obama was unelectable in an educated, civilized nation.

  • suek

    >>They were after us with vengeance during the early 70s and ever since. >>

    Longer than that.

    “From the halls of Montezuma..

    to the shores of Tripoli…”

    Those words are based on history.

    We’ve been in conflict with the muslims since the late 1700s.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The power of propaganda is that the more educated you are, the easier it becomes to fool others or to be fooled. In propaganda, high IQ is not a defense. It’s a vulnerability. The more people think they know, the easier they are fool. Some dumb guy out in the woods that only know how to work with his hands, that guy is hard to fool. Just saying.

  • cerumendoc

    Ron Paul benefits from what I call the ‘David Duke Effect.’ David Duke was the KKK grand wizard (or some such high position in the KKK) that rose to prominence in Louisiana politics some two decades back; even coming close to being elected governor.  But, his rise to prominence was the fact that he merely talked about subjects that had been driven beyond the pale by liberal politicians and their fellow travelers in the MSM. One of the subjects at the time was out of control welfare.  But, to comment on this was ‘racist’ and/or insensitive to the plight of ‘poor’ single mothers and their children.  ‘Welfare Queen’ in the minds of these liberals was a racial code word; the near equivalent of the n-word. Never mind that the welfare regime of the time was destroying families, promoting out of wedlock children, and otherwise spawning a whole host of social pathologies such as crime, drugs and a complete absence of any work ethic.  And, all on the taxpayer dime. At the time, all David Duke did was to speak about these issues; thereby making what should have been a fringe politician mainstream by addressing issues that should have been seriously discussed by mainstream politicians.  But, conservatives refused to speak for fear of being pilloried in the press as racist.  And, liberals encouraged that fear since welfare was vote-buying walk around money. Ron Paul is doing the same.  Despite his past, he takes on the patina of credibility by addressing issues that other politicians ignore as if tiptoeing around the pink elephant in the middle of the living room.  Federal spending and the FED’s complicity is destroying the trust that is so essential in any system of fiat currency.  The Fast and Furious debacle specifically engineered to create a crisis to justify more gun control (never mind the hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American law enforcement agent dead).  Crony capitalism, that in the case of GM and Chrysler, stripped pensioners of their right to claim their due in any bankruptcy proceeding.  Not telling Europe ‘no’ to any bailout on the American taxpayer.  And so on.   All you have to do is just point out this herd of pink elephants and you’re going to look like a sane and credible candidate. The minute someone like Romney starts taking those issues as his, Ron Paul’s David Duke Effect will evaporate. 

  • cerumendoc

    Ron Paul benefits from what I call the ‘David Duke Effect.’

    David Duke was the KKK grand wizard (or some such high position in the KKK) that rose to prominence in Louisiana politics some two decades back; even coming close to being elected governor.  But, his rise to prominence was the fact that he merely talked about subjects that had been driven beyond the pale by liberal politicians and their fellow travelers in the MSM.

    One of the subjects at the time was out of control welfare.  But, to comment on this was ‘racist’ and/or insensitive to the plight of ‘poor’ single mothers and their children.  ‘Welfare Queen’ in the minds of these liberals was a racial code word; the near equivalent of the n-word.

    Never mind that the welfare regime of the time was destroying families, promoting out of wedlock children, and otherwise spawning a whole host of social pathologies such as crime, drugs and a complete absence of any work ethic.  And, all on the taxpayer dime.

    At the time, all David Duke did was to speak about these issues; thereby making what should have been a fringe politician mainstream by addressing issues that should have been seriously discussed by mainstream politicians.  But, conservatives refused to speak for fear of being pilloried in the press as racist.  And, liberals encouraged that fear since welfare was vote-buying walk around money.

    Ron Paul is doing the same.  Despite his past, he takes on the patina of credibility by addressing issues that other politicians ignore as if tiptoeing around the pink elephant in the middle of the living room.  Federal spending and the FED’s complicity is destroying the trust that is so essential in any system of fiat currency.  The Fast and Furious debacle specifically engineered to create a crisis to justify more gun control (never mind the hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American law enforcement agent dead).  Crony capitalism, that in the case of GM and Chrysler, stripped pensioners of their right to claim their due in any bankruptcy proceeding.  Not telling Europe ‘no’ to any bailout on the American taxpayer.  And so on.  

    All you have to do is just point out this herd of pink elephants and you’re going to look like a sane and credible candidate.

    The minute someone like Romney starts taking those issues as his, Ron Paul’s David Duke Effect will evaporate. 

  • jj

    We don’t do real well with actual, naked, not-necessarily-winsome truth in this country cerumendoc.  There are absolutely minefields upon which one may not tread, and about which one may not  comment – and that’s simply that.  Even Bookworm begins with the premise that in a civilized, decent nation Ron Paul would be unelectable.  I have no use for Ron Paul – but I don’t have much use for this kind of alleged “journalism,” either.
     
    The first article, the Sanchez one about the writer of the newsletters, talks a lot about “early 1990s writings” and darkly hints at all sorts of slurs written therein, but we don’t get much in terms of examples.  A couple of unsourced pull-quotes, unattributed as to newsletter issue, date, etc.  Really lame and unacceptably bad research for any place where I ever had an editor – but okay: I believe they happened.  The one about the welfare checks and the riots, well, I wasn’t there.  But if the checks came out on Wednesday and the rioting stopped Wednesday morning, is that a slur, or is it an observation?  Sanchez doesn’t address that part of it.  Indeed, in this country these days, you can’t.  And his primary focus in this – largely circular, and really badly written, Jeez! – article is on finding out who the writers of the pieces were, seemingly some guys named Rockwell and Rombard.  Never heard of either one of them, and that doesn’t bother me – but then I’ve never followed any part of Ron Paul’s act.
     
    Jeffrey Lord’s article is equally circular.  (Of course he starts right off using “due to” when he means “owing to,” but what the hell.  With the construction “alright” becoming increasingly common on the printed page, I guess reasonable grammar’s going the way of the Dodo.)  Leaving that aside, he goes on to reference the article referenced above.  He even quotes a couple of samples, which is interesting because I didn’t find either of them in the Sanchez article source from which he’s “quoting” – but okay.
     
    … we’re (sic – I assume he meant “while we’re…”) constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.  This is from, apparently, 1986.  I’ve forgotten exactly when Jesse Jackson remarked that if he heard footsteps at night on the sidewalk behind him he worried about it, unless they turned out to belong to a white guy.  So – Jackson’s a racist?  (Yes, btw, he is – but not in this context.)
     
    Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions.  I don’t know how “sensible” is defined, but the only poll that counts, presidential elections, consistently shows that they vote monolithically for the candidate of the party that has been defecating on,and lying to, them non-stop since before the Civil War.  They consistently vote against the party that has always done the most – by huge margins of action, not talk – to advance the cause of civil rights in this country.  Is that “sensible?”  Got me, but the question seems worthy of being called.  If you can’t even address these things honestly, then I’m afraid the future seems murky.  (Though I am very gratified to have been here for the occasion of Michelle Obama’s being able to be proud of her country for the first time in her life.)
     
    I have no use for Paul and none for Rockwell and Rombard, whoever the hell they may be.  But not much for Sanchez, Wiegel, and Lord, either, I’m afraid.
     
     

  • Michael Adams

    Also, jj, “Get off my lawn!” 
     
    We are fighting some noble but losing battles, like, “How are you?”  “I’m good, thanks.”  Augh!  Or “different from.” Fifteen years ago, when we still listened to NPR, the family was at the supper table when the NPRtists did it again, and the entire tribe, down to two-year-old Julia, turned as one and screamed back, “Different from!”  I suppose you all know, it did no good.
     
    Paul ought to flame out on his own, probably before the Iowa vote, as is only right, but you are entirely correct about the sloppy journalism.  Then again, a hatchet job is not surgery.

  • Michael Adams

    Well, Hell! I put “different from” where I needed the horror, “different than.”  So, who am I to complain?  Still, get off the lawn!