Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ron Paul seeking to pick off Santorum

Ron Paul seeking to pick off Santorum

Richard Viguerie has an interesting observation regarding the methodology of Ron Paul’s campaign intended to leave Paul as the last not-Romney standing, Ron Paul Goes Bird Hunting:

Experienced bird hunters and fighter pilots know you don’t aim for the leader of a flight — you start at the back of the flight and work your way forward.  This is apparently what Congressman Ron Paul is doing to his opponents in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Rather than aim at purported frontrunner Mitt Romney (who should be the number one target of his libertarian supporters), Ron Paul has been working his way through the flock of less well-funded and less well-defined opponents, thinning the field as he goes.

After raking former Speaker Newt Gingrich with fire in Iowa, the libertarian-oriented congressman from Texas has been zeroing-in on former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum in South Carolina.

And zeroing in on Santorum he is, In South Carolina, Paul Renews Santorum Attack:

Santorum’s response? Repeat Newt’s mistake in Iowa of not counter-attacking on television.  Santorum may not have the money or may be conserving money for a longer fight, but getting dragged down by Paul in South Carolina (which appears to be working) may damage Santorum even worse than Iowa damaged Newt.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Heel-biting little bugger. When does he think he’s going to run against Romney? In the general election?

    scottinwisconsin in reply to janitor. | January 12, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    After Florida, it will be a 2 man race. Only Paul and Romney will still have donors.

    That leaves 8 more states after Florida that have proportional delegates, before Super Tuesday. He might even win the Maine and Nevada caucuses.

    Either way, he’ll get lots of delegates without winning a state.

    He will likely win a number of western caucauses outright after Super Tuesday. Remember how Obama cleaned up on Caucuses?

    When faced with choosing either a moderate, or a libertarian, we’ll see where the soul of the Republican Party lies.

    At the very least, he’ll come the convention with 400-500 delegates, and a prime time speech.

    And when Obama beats the moderate Romney, Rand Paul will be the presumptive front runner for 2016.

    Not bad results for a “little bugger.”

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/

      Thank you for this interesting information.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      So Libertarians are now Heriditarians ?

      Who would have thought.

        scottinwisconsin in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | January 12, 2012 at 7:13 pm

        You’re a moron.

        Rand Paul isn’t inheriting anything, if Ron Paul doesn’t win, is he? Republicans may believe in inherited titles (Bush 41 & 43!), Libertarians are about individual merit.

        Rand Paul just happens to be the one other national figure that regularly defends the Constitution, votes for liberty, and wants us to be free and prosperous, rather than servants of a bankrupt empire.

        And he would be best positioned to build on the awakening that Ron Paul has brought forth over 20+ years.

        It must burn all you Paul bashers to see him pull almost 25% of the vote, and growing . . .

        Again, you’re a moron.

Paul is the definitive gadfly — and it’s all he will ever be. But he’s now also either a key component in a Greek-American tragedy in the works, or a useful idiot to the removal of Romney. I don’t know which anymore.

My sense is that if Paul penultimately succeeds in his attack from the rear approach, and Romney remains and wins at the end, Paul will run third-party.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to raven. | January 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Ron Paul will NEVER run 3rd party, because he wants Rand to be President.

    He’ll take his prime time convention speech, and wait for 2016.

      Wait, Ron Paul isn’t in it to win it?

        scottinwisconsin in reply to punfundit. | January 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        He will win it, if most Republicans prefer liberty to serfdom. That’s a close call.

        More likely, a majority of Republican Primary voters will turn out to be big-government “conservatives” like you, who prefer subsidies, empire and bankruptcy, to freedom and prosperity.

        So then he’ll take his floor speech, issue a final warning to a sleeping America, and watch the inevitable collapse of America from the sidelines, hoping there’s still something worth saving in 2016, when Rand can run.

        Now say something you imagine is “clever,” pun, since you never have anything of real substance to add.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          Gawd, I love the internet. And is there anything cuter than a Paulbot hero worshipper?

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm

          Is there nything unglier than the clowns who march to the orders of the MSM, and mindlessly dismiss the only honest, honorable, decent, Constitution-defending, liberty-loving candidate?

          Or anything more ridiculous than the clowns who wonder why American is going to hell, yet make fun of the only people trying to actually stop the trip?

          Keep giggling, clown, while Rome burns. You’re part of the problem, not the solution.

          And he’ll hold his head high, knowing that he is more right than anyone else in the world, when Barack I is coronated thanks to the split primary and the ankle-biting of a back-stabbing political opportunist. How he will rejoice in the glory of his supreme authority as Defender of Liberty as Barack I finally finishes off the economy, selling us all into the slavery of poverty and malaise. Oh, what joy, what sublime perfection it is to think of oneself before ones countrymen.

          scottinwisconsin, since you are so well informed on Ron Paul, please, tell us what Paul’s connection was with Rothbard?

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm

          Scott –

          By 2016 Rand will have been walking in the cold Kentucky rain with a long Senate record.

          Paul got away with 443-1 but a Senator must make compromises .

          2008 was an outlier because the whole field was Senator City. Which I see as part of the problem- the nation spiralling down & out & these egos out there wanting a bigger public funded prize.

          Besides this current whole Senate is disgusting.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm

          You mean the Murray Rothbard who wrote more than 20 books on Austrian Economics, and is considered a centrally important figure in the American libertarian movement?

          The Economist who has been dead for 17 years?

          I would guess the connection is that Ron Paul has read his works, and understand the economic arguments therein. UNLIKE you.

          You ask about his “connection”, like you’ve discovered a secret room in his home, where he worships the devil.

          This isn’t Ayrs and Wright. We’re talking about a dead Austrian Economist. Wise up.

          You’re another idiot, who fires inside the tent, and uses the same mindless, knee jerk attacks that the left uses.

          You’re part of the problem.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm

          You’re wrong about Rand Paul’s voting record come 2016. This guy actually has a soul, sticks to his values, and will have no bad votes.

StrangernFiction | January 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Richard Viguerie has an interesting observation regarding the methodology of Ron Paul’s campaign intended to leave Paul as the last not-make sure Romney is the last man standing, Ron Paul Goes Bird Hunting:

FIFY

If it comes down to Paul vs Romney, God help us all.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to damocles. | January 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    We should be so lucky.

    When was the last time we had the chance to actually select a small-government, Constitution-loving public servant, who would truly cut spending, and dismantle the police state? Goldwater?

    I think what you mean is, If it comes down to Romney VS Obama, God help us all.

      Paul interprets the Constitution like Muslims interpret the Bible.

      Tell us, what part of Rothbard’s philosphy does Ron Paul follow?

        scottinwisconsin in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm

        You’re an idiot.

        Please, enlighten us. Give us a single example of where Ron Paul “enterprets” the Constitution in a twisted way, that would offend the Framers.

        You can’t, because he doesn’t.

        You just think you can make a phony analogy, and score a point. You don’t.

          I’m not sure why you put the word interprets in quotes and then spelled it wrong, that would suggest that it was spelled wrong by retire05, which it wasn’t. Quite odd.

          But let me take a swing at your challenge. Ron Paul consistently says that Medicare is unconstitutional, because there is no authority in the Constitution to set up a healthcare plan for workers and charge them for it. He explicitly states that, in his opinion, the commerce clause cannot be used for that.

          Besides the whole fact that the SCOTUS case Helvering v. Davis already decided it was Constitutional, there’s further evidence that the original intention of the founders and framers of the constitution was for the federal government to have this kind of power. In 1798, a bill was passed by a congress made up of a fair number of the framers of the Constitution, and signed into law by President and co-founder of the nation John Adams, called “An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen” that taxed the wages of seamen and used the funds to pay for the care of sick and disabled seamen in existing hospitals, as well as pay for the construction of new hospitals for seamen.

          So either Ron Paul’s interpretation is wrong, or the founders of the nation and framers of the Constitution are wrong. I guess you could hold on to it being Ron Paul, but it does seem a little silly to tell the authors of a work that their interpretation of that work is wrong.

          …I guess you could hold on to it *not* being Ron Paul…

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 12, 2012 at 8:17 pm

          Please Read Article 1, Section 8. Ron Paul is Right.

          The fact that SCOTUS upheld it means nothing. Look at all the crap they have agreed to over the years. 4 members of the current Supreme Court can’t even find a right to bear arms in the Constitutiion! Some authority they are.

          And within a few years of the signing, the government began violating the Constitution. Consider the Alien and Sedition acts, which outlawed criticizing Congress!

          The Constitution itself was a coup, overthrowing the legitimate Articles. Only ONE state put the Constitution to a vote, Rhode Island, and it got 8% popular support. The Constitution was a counter-revolution in many ways.

          Which simply supports what I take to be Rothbard’s central contention, namely that government is always and ever simply a power grab by a few, bent on stealing our wealth, and it typically uses the tactic of taking our freedom, to make the stealing easier and more profitable. It always ends up in the hands of the worst people, and robs and murders the rest. See Obama, Reid, Pelosi . . .

          The 200 million murdered by governments world wide over the last 200 years would vote for Anarchy, if they could.

          Hey, you asked for an example of a way in which Paul “enterprets” the Constitution that would offend the framers, and I supplied. If you’re only response is, essentially, that you don’t care, then why did you ask the question?

          Please admit defeat and kindly apologize for being wrong when you said it couldn’t be done.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | January 14, 2012 at 12:50 pm

          Paul sticks to the Constitution, period.

          If individual Framers didn’t and quickly strayed from the text, that does not indict Paul, it indicts them.

          You’ve shown nothing to indicate Ron Paul does anything other than defend and support the Constitution, even when everyone else fails to.

        scottinwisconsin in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 7:40 pm

        Regarding Rothbard, I hope he agrees with all of it. I know I do. This should be the heart of the Republican Party Platform:

        “Building on the Austrian School’s concept of spontaneous order, support for a free market in money production and condemnation of central planning, Rothbard advocated abolition of coercive government control of society and the economy.

        He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the state as nothing but a “gang of thieves writ large”—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.

        Rothbard concluded that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector.

        He viewed many regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the “public interest” as self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they were not subject to market disciplines.

        Rothbard held that there were inefficiencies involved with government services and asserted that market disciplines would eliminate them, if the services could be provided by competition in the private sector.

        Rothbard was equally condemning of state corporatism, criticizing many instances where business elites co-opted government’s monopoly power so as to influence laws and regulatory policy in a manner benefiting them at the expense of their competitive rivals.

        He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and “a compulsory monopoly of force” prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers.

        He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics. Rothbard opposed military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations.”

        Wiki.

      Oh, and what’s a “neo-con” anyway?

Santorum is over and done with imho

Good guy, great platform… alas, zero charisma and not a fighter, as noted in above post

As for Mitt- the day’s soon approaching when he’s going to regret forcing the doughboy to go nuclear.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right Mittens?

ha ha ha ha ha

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Reaganite Republican. | January 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    And what a man of Principle Santorum is . . . who’ll ever forget his ballsy support of Arlen Specter, over an actual conservative primary opponent.

    And that great foreign policy platform! A President Santorum would have guaranteed the profits of the Military Industrial complex for decades to come, assuming America survived that long.

    And the police state he invisions — A TSA agent in every home, by the end of his second term.

    Oh, what we’ve missed out on, by not having President Santorum.

      Hey, how about that Ron Paul getting into bed with Barney Frank?

      You know, that whole Sustainable Defense Task Force thing, the one with money from how many George Soros organizations?

        Awing1 in reply to punfundit. | January 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm

        Wow, with so much to attack Paul on (and I believe there is quite a lot) I’m surprised there are so many baseless attacks. Paul co-sponsored the task force because it was focused on cutting the military’s budget, something he’s been consistently in favor of. The fact that Barney Frank was also a part of it is irrelevant, and not at all the same as expressly supporting him, that’s the fallacy of guilt by association. I’m a strong supporter of poker rights, and so is Barney Frank. We both lend our support to the Poker Player’s Alliance, but that hardly means we’re “in bed together”.

        You can attack Paul all you want on actually wanting to cut the military budget, but using this to try to demonstrate he’s inconsistent is just laughable and completely illogical. Don’t stoop to falllacies to attack Paul, there are so many other sticks in the woods to throw at him.

          syn in reply to Awing1. | January 12, 2012 at 6:19 pm

          Obama is beating Ron Paul to the ‘cut military’ punch, so if Ronulan should win then there won’t be any military left to cut.

          Say we cut the 20% in the budget for military defense-wiping out that Industrial Miliatary Complex- what are Ron Paul’s plan to cut the 56% in the budget for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare Entitlements?

          The Road to Serfdom is through America’s Industrial Entitlement Complex, what is Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate SS and Medicare/Medicaid as well as Welfare?

          That said; I wager there are a multitude of Ron Paul fanatics who hold up signs “Government, keep your hands off my Medicare and Social Security!” believing they are Entitled to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

          (And before you say that you pay into your SS, remember you don’t pay into your own SS but into another; the system is set-up so that the worker pays for the retiree)

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | January 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm

          I’m pretty sure Ron Paul believes Medicare is unconstitutional. Mostly because he’s said that a fair number of times (sorry for the weird format of the video, it’s the first one I found and I’m to lazy to keep searching). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6o1TMO6KZU

          punfundit in reply to Awing1. | January 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm

          *sigh*

          The central point is Ron Paul’s association with several groups affiliated with George Soros. Not so much the spooky, conspiratorial aspect of it (the Ronulan disciples pretty much own the tinfoil hat thing), but the carelessness of seeking support from leftist groups aspect.

          As for the Ron Paul/Barney Frank thing, that’s just a play on words. You know, a pun. In this case, accompanied by a particularly disturbing mental image. It was intended to draw the reader’s attention. Perhaps I should have included a punchline rimshot.

[…] Republicans are busy attacking other Republicans – Ron Paul Versus Rick Santorum – Perry losing backers over his Bain attacks – Romney Superpacs versus Gingrich Superpacs […]

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Ron Paul is a fraud and a hypocrite. He sputters and spouts about Government spending, but elbows everyone else out of the way to stick his nose deep into the earmark trough.

In 2010 he requested $398 Million dollars worth of earmarks. In 2011 he was one of only four Republicans to request earmarks to the tune of $138 Million. That is over half a BILLION in two years. Here’s his 2011 ‘shopping list’:

·$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers.

·$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”

·$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.

·$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”

·$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”

·$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).

·$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”

·$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”

·$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.

·$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.

·$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”

·$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

Paul isn’t the solution to the problem… he’s a BIG part of the problem.

    Actually, earmarks are pretty consistent with Paul’s small government philosophy. His argument is that, if you don’t earmark spending for specific projects, it goes to an executive agency who will then decide how it’s spent, adding more bureaucracy and ostensibly less accountability.

    I don’t agree with Paul, but lets keep the attacks fair.

      retire05 in reply to Awing1. | January 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm

      and Awing1 will provide us with the Paul written legislation that would change how money is distributed to executive agencies in 3…..2…………

        Awing1 in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm

        I’m just going to keep post these to you until you seek help.

        In thirty years he couldn’t write any such legislation, how else would he be re-elected term after term after endless term if he didn’t keep his own ‘big government’ porker pig voters fed.

          Awing1 in reply to syn. | January 12, 2012 at 6:51 pm

          How money is spent by the executive branch is determined by each spending bill individually. That’s how our government works, Congress passes laws, including spending laws, and the executive branch enforces those laws, including actually spending that money. The idea of “writing a law that would change how money is distributed to executive agencies” demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how government expenditures work, because every appropriations bill is a bill that changes how money is distributed to the executive agencies.

          Congress essentially has two choices when it creates appropriations legislation, it can give discretion to the agency, or it can give specific directions. The latter choice is called an earmark.

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Awing1. | January 12, 2012 at 6:47 pm

      “Actually, earmarks are pretty consistent with Paul’s small government philosophy. His argument is that, if you don’t earmark spending for specific projects, it goes to an executive agency who will then decide how it’s spent, adding more bureaucracy and ostensibly less accountability.”

      His argument is without merit. It merely shifts the bureaucracy and less accountability to his district. Spreading out the fat doesn’t mean there is less of it.

      As to his hypocrisy; it is evident simply by the sheer amount of pork he greedily carves out while daintily voting ‘No’ on the spending bill he knows is going to pass anyway. He’s very much into having his cake and eating it too.

        “It merely shifts the bureaucracy and less accountability to his district.”

        How so? There is considerably less bureaucracy because there is no government agency that must formulate a bid process, create rules for the bid, advertise it, accept submissions and then review and rank them. The money just goes directly to whomever or wherever it’s earmarked for. Theoretically there is more accountability (and I’m not sure I agree with him here but the argument certainly has merit, even if it’s ultimately wrong) because, unlike a government agency with career employees, an earmark is done by a representative who is accountable to his constituents.

        The first part unquestionably cuts costs, because there is a cost to that process. While the money for the project is spent either way, the administrative costs are lower, which is consistent with Paul’s overall position.

        One could make the argument that, by eliminating bidding, you ultimately increase costs for projects because the one who would do it for the lowest amount wont always be chosen, but that’s not empirically true, it’s just a guess. You can’t call him a hypocrite just because you believe his way of cutting costs doesn’t actually cut costs, hypocrisy requires one not believe what one claims to believe, and a difference of opinion on effectiveness doesn’t provide the basis for such a claim.

    “Fraud and a hypocrite.”

    Those are strong words. Is name-calling all you got?

    Paul’s position on earmarks is rational and defensible:

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/government-not-shutting-down-so-blog-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-295277

Well considering Ron Paul lies down with Barney Frank, it should be any surprise that he likes approaching from the rear.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm

“Those are strong words. Is name-calling all you got?”

Since you obviously didn’t bother to look at all of the data I backed it up with in my post, would it really matter to you?

Karen Sacandy | January 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm

I’m going to repeat some things I wrote earlier, because I doubt folks read both sets of comments.

I do not believe Rick Santorum or Ron Paul are hypocrites. Sen. Santorum has not been perfect, but no one is perfect. None of us have all the facts upon which he based his decisions. None of us is perfect. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Rick Santorum has gotten good bills passed over the years. In comparison, until the last year, I’m not familiar with any significant legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that passed. Last year, the Rep. Paul’s bill requiring information from the Federal Reserve passed. Extremely worthwhile, but pretty minimal output over two decades.

I have asked myself, AND I ASK FOR, thoughtful responses, about what would happen if Ron Paul is elected? If he sticks to his guns as he mostly has, and vetos (vetoes??) legislation which is unconstitutional, will the House and Senate routinely override his vetoes? If so, then what? Will the Republicans finally wake up and do the right thing? Or with the Democrats do what we should have been doing all these years, and sitting like a stubborn mule, and refusing to pass any bill they don’t like to begin with?

How would this work? I’d LOVE to know.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 6:54 pm

“How would this work? I’d LOVE to know.”

Since Ron Paul will never be President, we’ll never know.

As to the rest of your thought experiment, it is evident by how you phrased your questions that you know exactly how it would go… as do I.

The answer is found by locating and addressing the problem. In this case I believe the root of the problem is the Republican leadership itself. They are quite content with maintaining the status quo. In order to turn out the leadership, we need to elect in conservative Republicans. In essence, save the Party from itself. It sounds like a simple enough answer, but in practice will be quite difficult. It can, and – IMHO – must be done for the good of the country. It will take time and toil… but it can be done.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | January 12, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Indeed, it is being done, beginning in November 2010, although many of those TP electees were likely co-opted the minute they got to DC.

    If this were a Godfather movie, the dialogue would be that Boehner & McConnell need to go – they simply aren’t wartime consiglieres.

Anyone who believes Ron Paul will ever be elected president is delusional. The man is a crackpot and a hypocrite at the very least.

Did I just launch a “visceral meme?”

Actual quote by Deputy Barney Fife on Ron Paul:

“I’ll tell ya what he is, he’s a NUT is what he is!”

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 10:24 pm

“The money just goes directly to whomever or wherever it’s earmarked for”

And then the administrative costs due to bidding, ranking, etc. etc. occur. They just occur locally. And you really haven’t decreased the costs associated with Federal department because they still hum along regardless of if they are stuck the administrative task or if it goes, along with the earmark, to the local level. There is no zero sum gain here. Any ‘cost’ savings due to earmarks would be, I think, suspect.

“You can’t call him a hypocrite just because you believe his way of cutting costs doesn’t actually cut costs, hypocrisy requires one not believe what one claims to believe”

No… I’m calling him a hypocrite because he derides superfluous government spending, but is one of the bigger abusers of it on the Republican side of the isle.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend