Image 01 Image 03

Doomsday Poll – Who would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama?

Doomsday Poll – Who would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama?

Following up on my post this morning regarding whether conservatives and libertarians would stay home or support Obama if Newt were the Republican nominee, I wonder which if any of the other candidates generates such feelings.

So, here is the Doomsday Poll, in two parts.  First, which of the candidates, if nominated, definitely/likely would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama.  Second, which of the candidates, if nominated, possibly would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama.

The polls will be open until noon (Eastern) on Wednesday.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Tom Dickson-Hunt | December 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm


Yeah, even if the debil hisself gets the GOP nomination, I’ll be holding my nose and voting for him. I’m practical that way.

theduchessofkitty | December 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm

In the “None of the Above” answer, you should have added, “I’d rather vote for a Syphilitic Camel over Obama any time!” 🙂

I would vote for Clinton (any of them including George) if the GOP nominated them. Anything to get Obama out of office.

billy j;

the problem is NOT whether too many conservatives will stay home as much as it is how many independents and moderates who are disposed to vote against obama will NEVER pull the lever for a perry or a santorum or a bachmannn or a paul or a newt.

i think they will vote for mitt in a heartbeat.

and this is what will get the gop the WH and the Senate.

mccain would have beat obama if obama had not outspent him 8-1 and if there had been no crash – and if obama was properly vetted by the legacy media.

mitt will do better than mccain did with independents – and will be able to match him in fundraising.

there is no evidence that newt can do either.

a mitt/newt ticket or a mitt/demint ticket or a mitt/ryan ticket or a mitt/rubio ticket will carry conservatives at least as well as mccain/palin did.

so the question should be, “who will best carry the gop to victory?”

ann coulter and chris christie and I think that mitt is the one.

that could change. he must win NH and so well in the next three months after that.

    janitor in reply to reliapundit. | December 13, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Perhaps Romney ought to get behind Gingrich and support him. I’m tired of Romney’s eternal campaigning, saying anything that seems to him to be expedient for the moment (as if it’s just some academic ordeal to show up at and get by), while attempting behind the scenes to muscle and buy his way into what he considers his superior Mormon leader elite birthright.

    So I should change my vote because an independent who was stupid enough to vote for Obama wants someone ALMOST as stupid?

    I’ll vote for the best conservative and America can suffer with Obama for another 4 years if they haven’t learned their lesson.

    Remember- 52% of Americans deserve this President. My give a damn for their suffering is broken.

Even Ron Paul would be infinitely better than Obama.

I’d vote for Jimmy Carter over Obama. Not kidding.

Remember: Carter worked hard to deregulate transportation (unlike Clinton with Welfare reform, which he vetoed 3 times but gets credit for). The Airline Deregulation Act (October 24, 1978), Staggers Rail Act (signed October 14, 1980), and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (signed July 1, 1980). We continue to benefit from these bills today. Every product transported by truck, rail or plane (ie. everything) is cheaper as a result of these bills. Aside from his selection of Bo as First Dog (brilliant!!), what can Obama point to as a successful decision?

Yes, he (Paul) is a disaster on foreign policy, the military and immigration. But so is Obama.

Paul would do more to rein in federal spending than any of the candidates. No, I’m not a Paul supporter.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Aarradin. | December 14, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Yeah, because a man like Ron Paul who wants to dismantle government bureaucracy and restore liberty is a kook, but a man like Barack Obama, who wants to enlarge government to control how you live and steal your liberty is so much better than being free.

I’m in a Blue State And Definitely Won’t stay at home!
I Definitely will never vote for a Democrat, including Obama.
I Definitely will not vote for any “Third Party Candidate”

I Could picture ‘possibilities’ where I might personally cast a vote for everyone but the presidential candidate.

What a lot of people are very losing sight of is that between now and November 2012 there are TWO different elections available to every voter. In my states April Primaries for example I have the option of not voting, voting for my ‘no longer in the running’ candidate, or voting for a ‘lesser of two evil’s’ candidate.

Professor, you left out a very important category: 3rd party.

If the GOP candidate is anyone but Bachmann or Santorum, I will vote “none of the above”, aka 3rd party.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, he gets my vote.

I never vote for Democrats or liberals, ESPECIALLY when they run as Republicans. (Pasadena Phil rule)

If Ron Paul is the GOP candidate, I’m not decided as to whether I would vote for him or 3rd party but there are two things I know for sure:

1) If Romney, Gingrich or Perry wins the election, government spending will continue to accelerate as will debt and global government will continue to entrench itself. This represents no improvement over Obama except that those rolling out global fascism will be more competent at getting it done.

2) If Ron Paul wins the election, at least we will finally have someone who can be trusted to actually shrink government and rein in the out-of-control Federal Reserve. Smaller government means more freedom for citizens and more power. I’d rather by working on those things that worry me about Paul facing a smaller, less powerful government than those things that bother me now and will be at least as bad were Obama, Romney, Gingrich or Perry and facing an even bigger and more powerful government.

The real problem we are fighting is not Obama but an entrenched and corrupt one-party system. Just follow the money. “Both” parties are competing for the same big globalist money and in order to get it, they have to prove that they are the favorite to win and that they can be trusted to deliver on the globalist agenda. The global economy is already wired for global government. All that is missing is the formality of treaties and a high-minded narrative of “the brotherhood of man” fulfilled

    IrateNate in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 13, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Key word, Phil is “try”, as in “I believe Paul can be trusted to TRY to shrink our growing debt.”

    Try as he might, no President can do a thing without cooperation from the aged elitist ruling class currently occupying congress, some for more than 40 years, most all of which fit all too comfortably in the back pocket of corporate lobbyists.

    One thing is for certain, regardless of his opponent: I would never vote for Obama.

    Election of 1992

    George Bush the Elder – 37% of votes cars
    Ross Perot – 19% of votes cast
    bill Clinton – 43% of votes cast

    thank you very much, Ross Perot

I would stay home if Bachmann were the nominee. She represents the anti-science, home schooled, the earth is 6,000 years old segment of the population and nobody like that needs to be anywhere near the levers of power. A “Jesus Camp” candidate come to life. The Gardisil flap was the dumbest comment I have ever heard a major candidate make. Equating herself with the Jenny McCarthy anti-vaccination kookoos. She should have ended her campaign the next day. I absolutely loathe that woman.

    Astroman in reply to Jaydee77. | December 13, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Oh noz, she luvs Jesus, what a horrible person she must be!

      tsrblke in reply to Astroman. | December 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm

      Astroman, It’s not that she loves Jesus ergo she must be aweful (but thanks for the strawman!) Her statements are idiotic quite often.
      Gardisil is a great example, 0 evidence, yet she trots it out. Did Perry Screw up with the Gardisil mandate, heck yeah. Does it mean vaccines are causing retardation? No, flat wrong. People like her perpetuate the anti-vaccine myth, and they animate and give it power.

        Astroman in reply to tsrblke. | December 13, 2011 at 7:38 pm

        No tsrblke, it isn’t a strawman. See the following quote:

        “She represents the anti-science, home schooled, the earth is 6,000 years old segment of the population and nobody like that needs to be anywhere near the levers of power. A ‘Jesus Camp’ candidate come to life.”

          tsrblke in reply to Astroman. | December 13, 2011 at 8:46 pm

          You stripped the final statement, stripped it of all it context and threw it back at the original poster expanding it to all religious people not the anti-science group being described. I did read the post, and interpreted it quite differently.

          Astroman in reply to Astroman. | December 13, 2011 at 9:17 pm

          tsrblke, when most people want to go after Bachmann on her Gardasil stance, they usually don’t include a long list of Obama-approved Bible-thumper-bashing swipes. Unless, like Obama, they look down on them poor dumb bitter-clingers.

      tsrblke in reply to Astroman. | December 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm

      @astroman (since it seems to not let me reply directly.)
      Fair enough I suppose. Although I think that “Anti-Science” should be up for grabs by either party, not just PrezBo.
      The problem is of coures 2-fold. First, we live in a pluralistic society, so anyone who places too much emphasis on a particular conception of religion whne justifying a particular legislative choice simply will not do well come election time. (Conversely anyone, say a president, who relies to much a particular form of secularism also can’t properly legislate pluaristicly, so it cuts both ways.) Suck though it may, thems the breaks. And no, I’m still not sure what the proper balance to satify the constraints of pluralism are (but when I know, I’ll run for office I guess.)
      Having said that, canidates who run around claiming myths (in this case about a particular vaccine) as truth give the rest of us a bad name. Let’s be clear this is not about religion (e.g. faith, differentiated from myths). But the fact that such a canidate maintains credibility allows our opponents to paint us with one hell of a broad brush.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Jaydee77. | December 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    I would like to point out that one of Bachmann’s sons is a resident UConn psychiatrist. Read that -not psychologist . So he has definitely prospered by his home schooling . That is a monster educational achievement.

    pLus she looks fantastic I am in awe of her rust outfit she wore in SC – everything about her looked better than Carla Bruni. At 55 she looks amazing. That Christian stuff is working for her swell.

    Michele is gorgeous .

Instead of this poll on who would cause one to stay home, how about a poll with the question:

If your candidate is not chosen as the nominee will you vote for a second Communist term by voting for Obama, a third party or from abstaining?

Then for a follow up poll ask the question:

Do you think voting for a conservative candidate in the primary is a bad idea?

A Romney nomination will certainly make me vote 3rd party.

A Gingrich nomination will almost certainly make me vote 3rd party.

A Paul nomination is frankly inconceivable.

I voted for the Constitution Party in 2008 and I will do so again if the GOP candidate is a faux-Conservative.

I will not vote for a big-spending,statist even if he calls himself a Republican. You can thank Rove and Bush for teaching me that lesson…

    sybilll in reply to WarEagle82. | December 14, 2011 at 12:32 am

    I could not vote 3rd party, assuring Obama a 2nd term and be able to look my kids and grandkids in the eye and say I stood on principle whilst sacrificing their future.

    valleyforge in reply to WarEagle82. | December 14, 2011 at 2:00 am

    And if Paul is the Constitution and Libertarian nominee? Vote Green?

    Election of 1992

    George Bush the Elder – 37% of votes cars
    Ross Perot – 19% of votes cast
    bill Clinton – 43% of votes cast

    thank you very much, Ross Perot

I sure hope the results of your polls so far are not representative of what people might actually do. If as much a third of conservatives don’t see the need to get rid of Obama at any cost, we’re in trouble. The country is in trouble.

huskers-for-palin | December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Somewhere there is a picture of Sarah Palin saying “miss me yet?”

Last time I checked, the Moderates and Independents are jumping off the Obama train.

Professor, I think you need one more choice: “Write-in vote.” Although functionally that would be the same as staying home.

Ron Paul was where I had to stop and think about it, since I think his national security policies are little short of suicidal. At least Obama gets some of those right. But, in the end, the horror of another four years of “I won” overcame that hesitation.

The day Mitt Romney announced his candidacy, I decided I would abstain from voting rather than vote for him. ROMNEY IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE … never has been, never will be. I had decided in 2010 that I would never vote for a non-conservative again. If we are going to have a liberal, or a mushy moderate, I’d rather they were a Democrat.

    WarEagle82 in reply to teaandbonbons. | December 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Since McCain-Feingold, I decided that I would NEVER vote for McCain. I made the same decision about Romney very early in 2006 or 2007.

    If the GOP wants to jump off the cliff the can go without me…

      reliapundit in reply to WarEagle82. | December 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      if the gop jumps off the cliff then they and obama will take you with them.

      whether you like it or not.

      there can be no abstaining in 2012.



      janitor in reply to WarEagle82. | December 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm

      Please don’t do this, War Eagle. It’s like saying if there’s a fire in the building, and a bunch of people who need to be saved, but I can only get one or two out, then the hell with all of them.

I absolutely can not vote for Paul – I just can’t doom the future of so many kids around the world like that.

I support about 70% of what he says, and I know he would do some really, really good things… But when it gets to foreign policy or taking the “Government cant stop us from…” argument to the level of drugs and such, he just becomes more of a liability then Obama IMO – at least Dumbo will basically be a lame-duck if re-elected, and would lead to people recognizing the Dems even more after the extra 4…

Sorry Paul supporters, but its the Christian in me.

And when I am really honest – I have gone back and forth on whether or not I would vote for Mitt a couple times. I see his Presidency being somewhere between a 3rd Bush term at best, and something getting pretty close to a lame-duck 2nd Obama term at worst. I would just live in constant fear that he would move way Left if his poll numbers started dropping – and it makes it difficult to honestly say I would definitely punch his name. I probably would, but I cant be sure.

Just to be clear though – I wouldn’t vote for Obama in either case, and would instead just vote Republican down the line with the Presidents spot marked NOTA (or, more likely, Nader – which would actually result in me feeling as if my vote wasn’t wasted, as maybe he would get his 5% this time around)

I’d also like to mention I’d support anyone else, including even Johnson, in a heartbeat though – including doing whatever campaigning I can to help.

    valleyforge in reply to Darkstar58. | December 14, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Yeah, I remember Christ saying “Go forth with a large army and occupy all the nations, and imprison those who taketh unapproved narcotics.” So Christian of you.

    Don’t forget the Election of 1992

    George Bush the Elder – 37% of votes cast
    Ross Perot – 19% of votes cast
    bill Clinton – 43% of votes cast

    thank you very much, Ross Perot

      Sanddog in reply to logos. | December 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

      You’re thanking Ross Perot for the GOP’s inability to put forth a candidate who wanted to do something other than maintain the status quo?

    Sorry> YOu can’t play that game. If you vote for a third party or don’t vote, you DID vote for Obama.

Who could cause me to stay home or vote for Obama?
Anyone – with a large bore Smith & Wesson.

+1 here. Mitt=obama

The day Mitt Romney announced his candidacy, I decided I would abstain from voting rather than vote for him. ROMNEY IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE … never has been, never will be. I had decided in 2010 that I would never vote for a non-conservative again. If we are going to have a liberal, or a mushy moderate, I’d rather they were a Democrat.


As much as I may agree with Paul domestically his foreign policy/military position is so wackado I could never pull the lever for him.

These two would make me waste my vote on the libertarian candidate. (yes I do realize the inconsistency in this last statement)

    valleyforge in reply to traye. | December 14, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Um, if you don’t like Paul’s foreign policy you’re not going to like the Libertarian candidate’s. At least Paul’s been on the Foreign Affairs committee and knows what he’s talking about.

I could never vote for Ron Paul. I could never vote for Obama. So I’d abstain in that face-off.

Any other GOP candidate in the field I could vote for.

    I don’t see that. Ron PAul sucks royally at foreign policy. . but at worst its just as bad as Obama’s, and at least the rest of the mix woudl be better than him, Obama is so horrific that the worst of the republican candidates is a massive improvement.

The poll’s order-randomizing algorithm sometimes moves the “none of the above” choice above the bottom. To the literal-minded, this is quite confusing. You either need to configure that choice to remain at the bottom, or failing that, change the wording to “none of these” or something.

They refer to them as the Ronulans, or the Pauliacs. I have a new name for them: The Ron Paul-ine Kaels. Why? Legendary New York Times critic Pauline Kael’s most lasting (albeit apocryphal) remark had nothing to do with the movies, but the aftermath of the election of Richard Nixon. Reports vary as to what she actually said, but the version that goes around the most is in the realm of “I don’t know how he could have won when nobody I know voted for him.”

Paul fanatics seem to also believe high estimates of the number of their peers without considering for a moment that they are not as legion as they imagine. This is a man who has never seriously tested political waters deeper than the Galveston, TX region that sends him back to Congress every two years. Nevertheless, they believe the shrill voice of (their brand of) reason will serve as the agent that rids America of Barack Obama — that is, of course, if only they can get Paul into a debate with BHO.

All you need to know about how that would really go is to watch him being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about how in the world controversial remarks that make Newt Gingrich sound like Joel Osteen made it into the political newsletter bearing his name. Think Herman Cain dissembling about whether he remembered knowing certain women was uncomfortable? That’s nothing compared to this. Haven’t seen it? Now you have.

Only two conclusions can be drawn realistically: Paul either didn’t pay enough attention to know who in the world puts out his own newsletter, or he’s just a liar who thinks everything will disappear as soon as he lays out his cool plans to restore America. But like the constant drumbeat of high heels that followed Cain around, the newsletter situation drowns out any elucidation of even the best solutions for the nation (which I don’t think Paul has).

The Obamastration is always saying whichever frontrunner emerges is the one they want to run against. If Paul is somehow nominated by the GOP, they wouldn’t even have to campaign, they’d just watch Paul self-destruct. Sarah Palin would give them a tougher run (yeah, I know, she’s not gonna).

    valleyforge in reply to L.N. Smithee. | December 14, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Guess we know who you’re not voting for in the primary, but the question is will you vote Republican in the general if any of the 7 candidates is nominated? And if not, why do you think Obama’s 2nd term will be better for America?

    By the way, resurrecting Paul’s 80s newsletters is old hat and was hashed out in 1996 and again in 2008. Got any evidence he is a racist other than he doesn’t support Barack Obama? Talk about Newt using liberal smears against Romney…

Ron Paul will be worse than Obama on foreign policy, and he’s a big unknown on domestic issues. He likes to paint himself as fiscal conservative, but I don’t trust him because he is known to ask for earmarks. Plus, he lets his newsletter publish racist crap. If he gets the nomination (which he won’t) all of this will come to light. The media has been silent about Paul because he is the only candidate Obama can beat.
I’ll vote for anyone else.

    valleyforge in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | December 14, 2011 at 1:44 am

    He’s got a thirty-five year voting record. You can see exactly where he stands on every issue and it’s consistent. There is no unknown.

    Obama’s foreign policy tries to have it both ways – keep the empire but make everyone like us. Paul wants to actually pull back our interventionism rather than just make pretty speeches to confuse allies and enemies about where we stand. In that he’s following 150 years of American foreign policy from Washington to WWII, the foreign policy Mr. Republican Robert Taft embodied, the intellectual foundation Bush’s 2000 platform against Clintonesque nation-building was erected on, and the policy that a majority of war-weary Americans favor.

It will ultimately depend on several things:

1. what state I’m living in during Nov. 2012 (don’t know where yet)

2. who the VP nominee is

3. how I’m feeling at the moment

Since chances are I’ll be living in a non-purple state, it really won’t matter if I vote for whoever. So if we end up with a nominee that I can’t stand, I have no motivation to vote for him/her.

Of the candidates that top my do-not-vote-for list, it would be Newt and Cain (prior to Cain’s recent departure). This is because I think they would be very dangerous in office, and cause America, Republicans, and conservatives great harm.

With Ron Paul, hmmm, I’d probably vote for him. Yeah, he is insane towards Iran, but it is possible that Iran will have the nuke by then, anyway, and if not, are any of the candidates (and America) really willing to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the nuke? I fear not. (I personally think we should be willing to cross EVERY bridge to keep Iran from going nuclear, but I’m probably in a tiny minority on that).

I would vote for my neighbor’s birch tree over Obama. It would do a better job, because it would do nothing. Obama’s first task was putting the train into reverse.

DINORightMarie | December 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm

I would never vote for Obama. You couldn’t pay me enough to vote for him. Really.

ABO. That includes Paul, I suppose…….although that would be a disaster for our nation’s foreign policy.

I have to agree with Sarah Palin, once again: any one of the candidates running for the nomination is better than Obama.

I don’t think Paul will pull off the nomination, because that foreign policy of his will sink him. Unless Democrats do an Operation Chaos type deal, where the Dems vote to choose our nominee (by changing their party or just open primaries, like here in VA) to get someone like Paul on the ticket.

Newt is the one who is showing he is able, has vision, will take it to Obama – as I’ve said before. I prefer someone who is more Conservative, like Sarah Palin but she’s not running so I have to choose among those running. And so far, Newt is the one who I see as the most capable of keeping Obama and his failed policies as the focus.

He may not be the most Conservative. I get that. But I will gladly vote for him, or Romney, or whoever to get this man out of the White House – Obama needs to be a one term president!!

The importance of Operation Counterweight can not be overstated. The GOP presidential candidate may not be as committed to shrinking the size of government as needed. Sending more conservatives to reinforce DeMint & Co and replacing Boehner in the House with a conservative speaker is just as crucial with a GOP president as if Obama is re-elected.

My God people! A non-vote IS the same as a vote for Obama. Vote third party to appease your conscience? SELFISH! Get a grip and remember how many like myself held our collective noses and voted for McCain last go around in an effort to stop this from happening in the first place. Vote for you man/woman in the primaries, by all means. But vote to defeat Obama in November not to “fell good” about your morals while Obama wins another term.

I vote we all rent an island for four years beginning November 2012 and just stay really, really drunk/stoned/both.

Fell good? I wish I could take that last post back.
Please forgive my fat fingers on tiny keyboard:

My God people! A non-vote IS the same as a vote for Obama. Vote third party to appease your conscience? SELFISH! Get a grip and remember how many like myself held our collective noses and voted for McCain last go around in an effort to stop this from happening in the first place. Vote for your man/woman in the primaries, by all means. But vote to defeat Obama in November not to “feal good” about your morals while Obama wins another term.

    valleyforge in reply to oxrock. | December 14, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Amen. Voting for McCain in Pennsylvania (it was supposed to be close) was painful but it was the best I could do to stop Obama at the time.

Syphilitic Camel Rule.

Not complicated.

Anyone running, regardless of baggage, warts, or whatever, would be a better choice than the incumbent.

Even someone who promises to spend his time getting blow-jobs from interns would be preferable to the incumbent.

oxrock | December 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm

Ditto… mistakes and all 😉 That’s all there is to it as far as I’m concerned. The attitude of “cutting off ones nose to spite one’s face” is, in my opinion, tantamount to suicide. You want to give Obama another shot at destroying what’s left of our country and our way of life, abstain from voting. You will prove nothing but how principles got in the way of pragmatism and common sense. You can still retain your principles and fight another day for their purest form, but first get something to fight with!

Hard not to sound like a huge Ron Paul supporter, but what is it about Paul’s stance that has suddenly caused the entire country to fear this imminent nuclear attack from Iran?

Has no one been paying attention for the last two decades? We can pretend all we want to, but if these guys want a nuke, they will get one. We have two solutions: economic or military. We’ve gone the “sanctions” route, and it has proven useless.

So, what’s left? If we truly want to prevent Iran from building a nuke (if it’s not already too late) is military intervention. Are we so adamant that our only response is to preemptively attack and destroy Iran?

If attacked, we would certainly defend ourselves. But Iran cannot be the only country which harbors ill will towards us, so if we launch a preemptive strike against Iran, who’s next on our hit list? Are we really ready to go down this road?

I had no idea that we were so bloodthirsty. Perhaps there is more to this whole 2012 EOTW thing than we are willing to acknowledge…

    Darkstar58 in reply to IrateNate. | December 13, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    It has nothing to do with being bloodthirsty – its about knowing what small action to take today to eliminate the need for gigantic actions tomorrow.

    Whats left is strategic bombing to eliminate the possibility they could build it – much like Israel has done on multiple occasions in the past to keep countries like Syria from obtaining Nukes.

    Obama warned Israel (who had already done drills on it) about targeting Iran in such a raid, and sat on his hands himself. Iran was actually anticipating us bombing it – and Obama wouldn’t! Now Israel cant do anything without US backing, because Iran has had too much time to brace for it, and gain sympathy.

    Its similar to Obama’s sitting on his hand with the loss of this Drone, or Obama’s sitting on his hands when protestors provided the best chance we have ever had to remove A-Nut-In-A-Dinner-Jacket from office.

    Paul, with his worse then Obama strategy of “let them do what they want”, will allow Iran to do just that – what they want. That is the absolute last thing we need at this dire time. “Let them do whatever” as if they probably have good intentions and we’ll just deal with any possible consequences later is even kind of what led to WWII…

      valleyforge in reply to Darkstar58. | December 14, 2011 at 1:27 am

      Israel is doing a fine job on their own of destroying Iran’s nuclear program between Stuxnet, targeted assassinations, and mysterious explosions, they don’t need explicit US support. Paul has shown plenty of backbone in defending America’s real interests, including our military personnel and assets. Retrieving or destroying the drone would have been a no-brainer for him to avoid our enemies using the technology against us (not that the drone would have been there in the first place).

      Iran is not the new Nazi Germany. They are at best a colorful distraction like fascist Italy or a non-entity like fascist Hungary. The real geopolitical threats are Putin’s Russia and China. Confronting Iran would be like France sending their forces to suppress Algerian unrest on the eve of Germany’s invasion of Poland. But I don’t see you begging us to confront China over oil in the South China Sea or Russia over their manipulation of elections in Ukraine. Iran is the neo-conservative bete noire du jour. Our real threats require political and economic engagement and are not going to be solved by military saber-rattling.

        Darkstar58 in reply to valleyforge. | December 14, 2011 at 2:39 am

        The guy who just said Bush was overcome with “glee” after 9/11 because it would mean he could invade Iraq is now somehow defending our interests?

        And no, retrieving the Drone wouldn’t have been a no-brainier for Paul because Paul would never be using the Drone in the first place. Remember, the Drones are the reason the “People Of Pakistan Can’t Stand Our Guts”.

        Shoot, this is the guy who wanted to impeach Obama for killing Al-Awlaki! How in the world do you feel he has our best interests in mind?

        Oh, and so you know, WWII didn’t start with Germany. I don’t think your “Confronting Iran would be like France sending their forces to suppress Algerian unrest” argument makes much sense though; and I would instead consider it closer to something like the US standing up to Japan’s threats before they brought their declared was on us to our shores.

        Its frighting that you (like Paul) seem to consider Iran such a non-threat though. I mean, have you not paid attention to the fact that they are getting allies with similar desires together all over the world in an attempt to bring war to us?

It has to be said honestly that Ron Paul is a dangerous crank who, if allowed to do what he says he wants to do, would collapse American power and inflluence in the world, creating global chaos and threatening our security and our prosperity. Aside from that he seems like a nice old guy.

    valleyforge in reply to JEBurke. | December 14, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Get some perspective. Paul supported the Afghan war and taking out Bin Laden. His policy is identical to Bush’s 2000 platform which refused to divert our armed forces from defense to quixotic nation-building. Few would have supported starting either the Iraq or Afghan wars if they knew the exit strategies would be botched and became ten-year quagmires requiring huge bailouts (excuse me, surges) before being turned over to corrupt governments who would quickly fall into Iran’s sphere of influence. Paul has joined most Republicans in attacking Obama for his extra-constitutional Libya adventure. Most Americans are not interested in empire-building and just want a solid defense. Your real problem is Paul’s stance on Iran and Israel, which no president including Reagan and both Bushes has come close to solving. Pakistan has a nuclear weapon today and no one suggests we should do anything about it. Israel can and is constructing a missile defense and has border controls to prevent a worst case scenario (they know how to keep a fake humanitarian flotilla at bay), and have 300 nukes they can lob at Iran and Iran knows it. You really think US involvement has been helping Israel or hurting Iran these last 20 years? It’s that blindness to actual foreign policy results and realpolitik in favor of a pink-rosed vision that the US can maintain peace and the balance of power everywhere without provoking nationalist eruptions that is the real dangerous delusion.

huskers-for-palin | December 13, 2011 at 9:08 pm

Question/Poll….How much of a “game changer” if Palin was the VP pick?

AFTER the Primary Election for a given voter, there will be a November 2012 General Election.

There are TWO Elections within that November 2012 Election:

Most Obvious is the vote/unvote/nonvote for President.

Less obvious is that Every Representative will be up for election.

For most voters there will be a Senator.

Same thing applies to “The Primaries” only more so:

Every voter will have a choice to make for What Kind of Congressman ….To Nominate for the 2012 General Election.

I won’t be sitting out either my ‘blue state Primary” or my “Blue State General Election” in any case.

BTW I was as distressed as anyone to hear that “20% of 2008 Obama Voters self-selected as “Conservative Voters”

BTW 2 – When Congress pushed through the “Kansas-Nebraska Act” in 1854, there wasn’t a “Republican Party”.

BTW 3 The ‘civilian death count’ from ‘the most polarized’ period of American History was 50,000 people. We aren’t there yet.

    Darkstar58 in reply to kobayashi. | December 13, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    BTW 3 The ‘civilian death count’ from ‘the most polarized’ period of American History was 50,000 people. We aren’t there yet.

    The “most polarized” period of American history saw Two Americas! I literally cringe every single time I hear this tossed around – how in the world can anyone even begin to believe its even close to true?

    Shoot, this is basically just normal (happens nearly everytime we elect Democrats – and has for a long, long, long time…)


It makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing I voted with the majority of my fellow commenters here.

How Ron Paul gets the poll numbers he does, I’ll never understand.

He’s as dangerous as a one eyed weasel in a foot hold trap.

    valleyforge in reply to jakee308. | December 14, 2011 at 12:46 am

    I hear Thomas Jefferson was a dangerous one-eyed weasel too. They share the same non-interventionist foreign policy. Remember how the US fought alongside France in the Napoleonic Wars? Oh, right, those crazy Paulites kept us out and allowed Britain to take down our ally and dominate world shipping for a century. If only we had John Bolton and Dick Cheney to steer us right back then.

Romney supporters that can’t vote for Newt?

They may be that committed to their hate, or they may be like kids promising to hold their breath till they get their way.

Krauthammer was joking with O’Reilly, hinting that there really is no “Republican establishment” that is against Newt. He mocked Bill for using the term. So I guess he cast the splinter out of O’Reilly’s eye … but certainly there are establishment Republicans. And there is conservative leaning America that has been sold out by the DC cocktail party.

The shrillness rising in the GOP establishment is beginning to sound a bit like whistling past the graveyard.

I would have a hard time voting for anyone but Gingrich or Perry at this point. But the most difficult for me to vote for would be Ron Paul. His foreign policy positions concern me (and that’s an understatement). I’d have to get drunk and plug my nose before pulling the lever for him.

But I would still rather have Paul that Obama.

(I haven’t paid much attention to Michele Bachmann because I find her a little too socially conservative for my taste so I didn’t know that she homeschooled until someone mentioned it above. I would never send my child to a government school and I can’t afford private school so I am giving my daughter a classical [secular] education at home. I’m now a little curious about what she taught her children.)

    valleyforge in reply to angela. | December 14, 2011 at 12:42 am

    My wife and I homeschool our 4 children in a secular fashion as well. Paul has a lot of support among homeschoolers who want their parental rights respected and government to lay off their kids. Bachmann is part of the religious homeschooler movement which sees the schools as deficient in moral and religious teaching. They are less concerned about how government schools infringe fundamental parental rights and indoctrinate kids outside of the religious arena.

Who would cause you to stay home or vote for Obama? [or vote for 3rd party candidate/write in].

I won’t stay home and I won’t vote for Obama.

Q1: Paul
Q2. Romney

Day 9 — Drone Held Hostage

With all the crap-tastic “McCain, Part II” candidates, I think…

1.) Whichever of those RINOS gets elected, he or she is not going to be fixing the economy. They’re all too business-as-usual, head-in-the-sand. And…

2.) America, like a drug addict, probably needs to hit rock bottom before she figures out the dangers of the drug called “compounding debt.” And…

3.) I think I want a 2-term democrat fool on the throne when it collapses. I sort of like the way that’s going to go down in history.

Anyone who is prepared to vote Obama if one of their acceptable Republican candidates is not nominated needs a wake up call. Who do you want selecting the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices? Who do you want appointing regulators to EPA and HHS? Who do you want receiving the Obamacare repeal bill? Who do you want negotiating with Congress on whether to balance the budget, reform entitlements, and revamp the tax code? Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich, any of them will move us in the right direction. Obama will continue to lead us off the cliff. So your worst case is Iran gets a nuclear weapon and President Paul doesn’t immediately attack them? Are you so sure President Obama would? (or any sane president?) We can survive 4 years of scaling back as world policeman. Can we survive a new multi-decade liberal Supreme Court majority, Obamacare becoming entrenched, a huge permanent tax hike, ballooning spending, and continuing trillion-dollar annual deficits?


    You summed it up nicely.

    “Can we survive a new multi-decade liberal Supreme Court majority, Obamacare becoming entrenched, a huge permanent tax hike, ballooning spending, and continuing trillion-dollar annual deficits?”

    the answer is a resounding NO!

    Not sure we haven’t already passed the point of no return, but we can’t give up. In 1777, The Continental Army camped at Valley Forge did not give up and went on to Victory.

      Darkstar58 in reply to logos. | December 14, 2011 at 11:44 am

      so what youre saying is that what we really need is fewer Ron Paul supporters, least he get this foolish idea he has enough support to win and run as a third party (again) risking our chance to get rid of the worst President we have seen since the last time he did just that…

      I find it ironic that Paul tried to split Republican Votes in the Regan/Carter election and is now a real threat to do it again against Obama. (I guess History really does repeat itself…)

        Maybe, that’s what I’m saying.

        But, primarily, I’m hoping Ron Paul has the good sense not to run third party. I’m being repetitive, but:

        1992 election
        Bush the Elder – 37% of the votes cast
        Ross Perot – 19% of the votes cast
        Bill Clinton – 43% of votes cast

        And look what that got us.

        If he runs, he will take the vote of his loyal Ron Paul supporters and Obama will win another term – if there is an election, at all.

        All the issues cited below will be the least of our worries if we allow hostile governments to run amok, because, ultimately, we are the target of all the nuclear wannabes.

        “…multi-decade liberal Supreme Court majority, Obamacare becoming entrenched, a huge permanent tax hike, ballooning spending, and continuing trillion-dollar annual deficits.”

It’s soooo predictable — the Paul-ine Kaels reach back decades to lash at Newt, Romney, Bush, and others, but when it comes to what Paul was doing when The Ron Paul Political Report was speaking to its subscribers in terms barely tolerable even in that era, that’s “old hat.”

Whatta crock! Even taking him at face value, aren’t you even interested in knowing who wrote that stuff if Paul did not? Don’t you want to know how the man who wants to be the Commander-in-Chief literally lost control of his own message? Apparently you don’t, because he answered none of those questions in the Blitzer interview!

Ron Paul is a right-of-center version of Dennis Kucinich; a fascinating zealot who is harmless as long as he is powerless, but that well-informed people agree shouldn’t be allowed access to the long knives.