Skip to comments.Palin: GOP Should Not Alienate Ron Paul Voters
Posted on 01/04/2012 1:16:42 PM PST by La Enchiladita
Sarah Palin said she wasn't surprised at Rick Santorum's success in Iowa, and warned that the GOP should not take Ron Paul's supporters lightly.
Speaking on Fox News before Iowa's final numbers were in, she called Santorum "spot-on" with his policies toward Iran and praised his "social conservative" positions.
Her strongest comments came for Paul, however, saying "the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this" because "a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke" and Paul has reached that constituency well. She warned that the GOP "better work with them."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
As bad as Paul’s people are, the real threat of dangerous infiltration is by the Romney crowd, there is a real threat of Romney becoming the nominee whereas Paul can’t.
We all need to be united in stopping Romney at all costs before he destroys conservatism with his anti-Reagan, anti-conservative agenda and political beliefs.
It’s more like a lot of Obama supporters were just Independent swing voters and first time Millennial voters who opposed the Iraq War. Those people at the center of the electorate have turned more strongly against him than any of the other White subdemographics.
They are not hippies and nutjobs or liberals who show up at OWS with purple hair to beat drums in Atlanta. Just people who thought that Iraq was a disastrous clusterfuck and who resent having to pay for it.
It wouldn’t be surprising: Ron Paul is winning 48 percent of voters in the Iowa Caucus under the age of 29.
If Bachmann,Perry,Santorum said this; you would start and bash them in about three threads in one day.It wouldn’t be ‘politics 101’ if it were someone else that said it.
“The question is how to do it [turn Paul supporters}”
The nominee offers to appoint him as Fed Chairman, so Paul can get inside the Fed and audit it to his hearts content. It might well satisfy both Paul and his followers- Id be happy with it.
Milt is just another obama but worse i think. that clown will look you streight in the eyes and lie like a dog, and never blink an eye- that dude gives me the creeps.. if hes the nom, then good luck cause i will go fishing on voting day. and i really mean that..
BTW, I listen to Sara last night and I heard her describe herself as an independent. I thought that was curious, probably a slip of the tongue. One other thing if not for Paul voters mostly young, mostly independent mostly thinking they were conservative the GOP turn out would have been way down in Iowa. Maybe Sara is right and maybe the GOP should be a little more welcoming to Paul and his supporters, just saying.
Yes, I know he gets 115% of the weed vote, but I’m curious about the vet vote.
I know several libertarians. I spent many years as a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, although I drifted away a few years back over their preoccupation with the War on Drugs. Neither I nor my other libertarian friends ever were democrats, nor were we ever in favor of big government.
“What a load of crap. Bachmann said that she would work to eliminate the EPA and Department of education right off the top as well as killing Obamacare and that’s just for starters. “
I like Michele, and I’ll miss her in the campaign, but that sounds like a bit of a hedge on her part. To promise to work to eliminate the EPA, is not the same as promising to eliminate the EPA. The President can do that by vetoing any budget that includes funding for the EPA.
I thought Libertarians were for small gov.?
I do, I know tons of democrats that are Paul supporters since I live in his district and I don't know a single one that would vote for Obama (again). Of course not one will vote Paul in the GOP (open) primary since they are democrats.
The essence of libertarianism is to minimize government, and have as much as possible handled by private means.
The overwhelming sentiment that motivates Ron Paul’s supporters is opposition to utopian social crusades - whether it be foreign military interventions by neocons or “duty to protect” liberals, or domestic spending programs like “No Child Left Behind” - and a resentment at being expected to pay for these things.
The majority of Ron Paul’s supporters are not hardcore ideological libertarians like the Lew Rockwell crowd. These people are appealing to a broader slice of the electorate - especially Independents and under 40 voters - because of war fatigue and the general sense that the federal government is unresponsive, favors the privileged, and is out of control.
Most of Ron Paul’s supporters can be won over quite easily:
(1) If respect was shown to them. Something that can easily be done. As Palin is wisely doing here.
(2) If there was a serious effort to cut government spending, massively cut the size of government, and reign in the incestuous, corrupt relationship between Wall Street and DC.
(3) If the saber rattling, warmongering neocon element were reigned in who destroyed the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 through the unwise intervention in Iraq - or, in Newt’s case - through his hypocrisy in the 1990s.
It is repudiation of George W. Bush-style “compassionate conservatism” more than anything else.
sounds good to me-
thats not good—lol
And that’s a bad thing?
“It’s also a lesson that a lot of conservatives could learn, especially here on FR. “
Oh, I don’t think Ron Paul supporters are Obama supporters. Just the opposite.
They admire his government completely out of our lives stance.
They are also disenchanted with sending our men and women to fight in foreign wars where there is no satisfactory end game and where nothing will ever change.
I feel that way also.
Where we break with Paul is his crazy isolationist ideas where he still thinks that if we would stay home, make our armies weaker and mind our own business, there would be no war.
And his feeling that we somehow contributed to the World Trade Center bombing is beyond ridiculous and infuriating.
We must be vigilant, ready to defend ourselves and do it, if necessary.
I believe in more bombing and fewer troops on the ground and in not interfering with countries to help them get rid of some cruel leader, when we should know they will only end up with an even more cruel one.
Or try to change their societies to suit us. Let them alone but if they attack us, give them hell.
After 10 years of war, how many Iraq and Afghan vets and their families (these people all being under the age of 40) do you suppose are ready to support Newt Gingrich’s WW3 with Iran?
Do you honestly want to run Newt or Santorum against Obama in 2012 on a WW3 platform. Obama is going to run as the “I brought the troops home” and “I killed bin Laden” candidate.
Do you want to make the 2012 election about starting a war with Iran? I mean really? Are there people who seriously believe that “WW3” is what American voters want right now?
People in other countries may want to do a lot of things but that does not require that the USA drain it's blood, wealth and future to suppress every mean regime in the world. Mao wanted nuclear world war to bring about the socialist future and openly spoke of China's ability to absorb many millions of casualties, talk far more chilling than anything ever heard from Iran, yet the USA never saw the need to go to war to stop him and his regime from developing a nuclear bomb.
Yes. I tried hard not to alienate Cain supporters because I didn’t want to turn them against my candidate.
But Ron Paul supporters are in a different class. they are fanatics mostly.
I don’t know what they will do in the end. I hope we can find a candidate with enough anti-big government leanings to attract some of them.
There’s actually a candidate like that out there and he’s another Texan.
There you go again. “Surrender Monkey?” How the hell do we afford an aggressive foreign policy without at least a $trillion a year in budget cuts?
No, just trying to dispelled the notion that most of Paul supporters are Rats running some kind of operation ciaos on the GOP.
You Paulbots vote for the Ralien, and waste your vote, and what have YOU got to show for it (except a few bumper stickers and "I voted for Ron Paul" buttons)?
I’ve never believe that. If they were doing that sort of thing, they’d be supporting Romney.
You know, it makes me wonder what will happen if someone like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum does get elected, and starts a war with Iran (in an America that is sick of foreign wars) to position themselves as the favorite candidate of Christian Zionists and the pro-Israel Lobby.
I can’t see that as being a good thing for Israel. On the contrary, I can’t think of anything more likely to stimulate anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Having dealt with these people on the internet (who believe everything is a Jewish conspiracy), I am sure that would be like oxygen to the whole anti-Semitic sub-culture.
Paul is correct about spending and the federal reserve and fixing the corruptions, after that he gets out in the weeds a whole lot.
WH, that’s a well thought-out analysis. My proposal was just pragmatic.
As you know, there’s about 50M voters who don’t bother to even show up- and I think that’s in good part because they don’t believe there’s any difference between the parties.
I guy like perot, or Palin or Paul resonates wt them. I’m just saying if you give these people one of their planks— a real demonstration that the Fed will be audited by a credible person-— that might show them some of the respect that you advocate.
And you have what to show for your robotic souuprt for whoever the GOP puts up? A bankrupt government, inflation, regulations up the kazoo. That’s what you got, but you sound like that’s what you love, so enjoy it.
Sarah Palin is totally right in expressing the heart of the matter. And as our national financial situation gets worse and worse, this sentiment will only strengthen. The national balance sheet will ensure an end to the era of endless national crusades.
Y'know, even if she doesn't run for any office again, she's still done a lot for American conservatism. A helluva lot, considering that she's a human being and not Wonder Woman. She's suffered a lot for the cause too, and so has her family.
My point? Let Palin be Palin. She's a lot more than a stirring speech. I'm not trying to pull any guilt-strings here, and I specifically disclaim any such implication, but I sometimes wonder if she's been thanked enough.
You can sense a third party run coming up, I just hope and pray it doesn’t lead to Obama pulling a 1992 style wedge victory since his 35-40 per cent won’t likely erode much if Paul and some GOP are the alternatives.
But the GOP could still beat Obama and Paul if they have a strong enough ticket. Santorum-Perry with Gingrich on board as sec’y of state designate would inspire confidence.
Paul would be a disaster but an issue not yet discussed much is, who would his running mate be, an important point with such an isolated figure starting in as president at 77 years of age (hypothetically). I hope he sees the error of his ways and resists the temptation to compromise the election. America needs a clear choice.
I am here talking with 3 over 50 men who are Ron Paul supporters. All have been long time conservatives and voted Republican, two even voted for the rino Mccain.
Two are evangelical Christians.
All three work for a living, one is retiring next year.
None are hippies, or smoke dope.
Those of you who think Ron Paul supporters are all lefties are shooting yourselves politically in foot. Two won’t vote for Romney no matter what, one probably won’t. One won’t vote for any of the others running for the GOP.
All this malice towards those who have voted Republican in the past and now support Ron Paul, is nuts. Do you guys want to lose the White House again. There is good reason these people support Ron Paul and you had better wake up, especially after what the polls showed from last night. Ron Paul has strong support from those who have voted Republican, some who have voted Republican for decades. Add in the younger vote that supports Ron Paul and want Obama out, we need these peoples votes, duh!
I quoted this from your previous posting:
And I responded:
Then, you respond by quoting Ron Paul? Do you not recognize which of your two sentences above I was referring to?
Do you not realize what you are doing, or do you just not care? Or now that your preferred candidate has been handed his hat, are you just lashing out at anyone that dares to challenge you?
DONT YOU EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN CANDIDATE.
Ron Paul is not "my" candidate, and neither is any of the other assorted fruits and nuts that are running for the Republican nomination this election.
However, there's no excuse for the circular firing squad going on between Republican candidates and especially Republican voters.
What really disgusts me -- even more than you and people like you -- is that the Republican party leadership couldn't recruit a decent fiscally conservative candidate to challenge the least popular and least competent incumbent President in my memory.
“Do you want to make the 2012 election about starting a war with Iran? I mean really? Are there people who seriously believe that WW3 is what American voters want right now?”
Palin makes a good point.
In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus.
The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina, Pauls support is higher among those who usually dont vote in GOP primary elections, notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.
In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Pauls supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.
Well, I would just like to vote for a candidate who won’t bankrupt the country - debt is now above 100% of GDP and that is just what is “on the books” - unfunded liabilities have the potential to bring us to financial ruin in the next few years - this, as we send all of our industry out of the country.
I also would like to not have to see TSA agents ‘feel up’ my girlfriend. Or worry about TSA pervs touching my nieces. I feel like we are in a different nation now - not the one I grew up in.
I am sick of watching the constitution be destroyed on a daily basis.
I want to vote for a candidate who is not business as usual and won’t bankrupt us.
My great, great, great, grandfather was actually AT Valley Forge. My family’s been here since 1630 - I want to vote for someone who will defend personal liberty - the liberty that made US exceptional. I am sick of the USA being just another monstrous federal bureaucracy that tells us what to do, and when to do it.
SOMEONE tell me of someone who will bring back our liberty, what the founders, and my own ancestors bled for? Not just a slow descent into tyranny via endless laws, regulations, and nonsense.
Or is this just the same old ‘hold your nose’ and vote for McCain situation?
I think that's great. I do wish that a few other people (some of whom have posted to this thread) would follow your lead.
But Ron Paul supporters are in a different class. they are fanatics mostly.
I see that, too. But, if they could be co-opted by the eventual Republican candidate, that fanaticism could be converted into something useful.
I dont know what they will do in the end. I hope we can find a candidate with enough anti-big government leanings to attract some of them.
I think that's what it is all about: Ron Paul's supporters are trying to effect a change in fiscal policy within the Republican Party. By making enough noise, they hope to get a coalition candidate to lean in their direction. That's what I mean by getting libertarians and conservatives to at least temporarily set aside their differences and concentrate on what they agree on: fiscal issues. It's what I think is most important anyway, at the moment.
Theres actually a candidate like that out there and hes another Texan.
I think Perry was done before he started. The only question is what candidate his supporters will switch to, and whether it will be enough to counter Romney.
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.