Skip to comments.Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.
Posted on 11/17/2011 2:26:31 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, long dismissed by the GOP establishment as a fringe candidate, has broadened his electoral appeal and emerged as a major player in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, according to several recent polls and conversations with a handful of longtime Hawkeye political operatives...
In a Bloomberg News survey conducted by renowned Iowa-based pollster Ann Selzer Paul was in a four-way statistical tie for first along with businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich...
And, in a new Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey, Paul took 20 percent behind only Cain at 25 percent...
Paul is using the relatively uncluttered airwaves to tell a story of himself as a consistent champion of fiscal responsibility in a field of candidates that have not always hewed so closely to that mantra.
One ad attacks the inconsistencies of Cain, Romney and Perry on fiscal matters TARP, economic stimulus before cutting to Paul; Ive been talking about these problems for a long long time...now were bankrupt and we have to decide which way were going to go, he says.
And, its not just Pauls television ads that have blanketed the state. Sixty seven percent of those tested in the Bloomberg poll said they had been contacted by the Paul campaign via email, direct mail, telephone or someone coming directly to their door over the last year the highest percentage for any candidate...
We have a strong ground game in the state that is reaching out at a faster pace than any other campaign, argued Trygve Olson, a Paul adviser...
We are picking up support among social conservatives in Iowa -- particularly ones who believe our countrys fiscal situation is in serious peril, noted Olson...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
freedom isn’t free? Do you want to go to war w Iran if Obama tells you so?
cowards? So I have to prove my man hood if Obama orders me to war in lybia, Ira, Syria, Uganda etc?
Sorry, no dice. let congress declare war and we will talk.
Ron Paul is the closest politician philosophically to the Founding Fathers
His ridicule is a measure of how far the United States have deviated from their original objectives of facilitating business with one another and the world.
The proof of this lies in the national debt...and a Federal Government no longer under control of the States.
FWIW I have never been a “Paulbot” ...nor do I believe he intends to ever get near the Oval Office....but he does try to influence the discussion to where he believes it should go. Whenever he gets traction...he does the “crazy uncle” thing just enough....
Similarly, there are many factors in play in the ME as well.
For anyone to pick one reason for the attacks is silly, and Ron Paul has not expressed such a definitive position.
Our military presence and bombing the crap out of them is probably not the real reason they attacked.
sorry, I am not willing to sacrifice other people’s family members for Obama wars. When congress declares a war, call me up and I will do my part.
Until then, I don’t buy into the wag the dog bs by Obama and our latest boogie man of the day bs.
Cut and run from what?
Our "military presence" was a function of...what?
Fighting to re-gain Kuwait for its people...and defending Saudi Arabia (and Mecca) from a pending Iraqi invasion. Was it not?
Our "bombing the crap out of them" traced to...what?
Our UN assigned role to protect the Kurds and the Shi'ites from attack and slaughter by Saddam Hussein.
If the Islamists were offended by these worthy roles, that's their problem. And Ron Paul's. Not ours.
There were many other factors in the run-up to WWII, the scrap issue was simply their excuse.
Agreed. An excuse...not a reason. Just like the two excuses you (and Paul) cite above.
I am voting for Ron Paul. The more I read, the more I research, the more I look in to issues RP is the only choice for me in the primary.
The same Ron Paul who voted to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military and said that heterosexuals cause more problems than homosexuals?
YThe same Ron Paul who said we must be friends with Iran?
That Ron Paul?
It is too bad that you don’t seem able to discuss things in a mature manner. My rules are that I let people know that if they wish to engage in civil discusion, then fine. However, if they don’t and wish to be nasty, then they will get as good as they give.
I am far from being a “surrender monkey”. I don’t listen to the MSM, nor is Romney my choice. But I know that Paul will not garner the nomination. Paul has some good ideas, but throws them down the drain when he heads for the cliff on the Left. His foreign policy, if you can call it that, would be disasterous. He thinks we should employ mercenaries, and privateers. There are other things that just won’t fly.
As for your assertion of the “fag agenda”, I would like to know what you think that is. BTW, good arguments are lost when resorting to using name calling, and derogeratory references. I disagree with the teaching of Gay studies in schools, especially pre-school and kindergarden. I don’t like when Gays push their agenda on businesses, etc. Is this what you are referring to?
I’m not up on all the abbreviations. I want to see if your closing comment “FUMR” means fk u mitt romney. If it was meant to offend. You lose.
WELL THEN QUIT SUPPORTING ROMNEY!
Your manners and grasp of the English language is not impressive either.
Sod off Swampie. I’m way out of your league. You are pretty dense, so I’ll go slow. I...never...supported...Romney.
Now go back to the hole.
End of transmission.
Romney sucks so bad even his supporters won’t admit they support him!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.