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 ...
Seems that a lot of Pauls supportors are out there past Pluto.
Sarah..you should have run. But you let a lot of people down. Dont expect a lot of hugs if you decide to get in the race. And dropping out made you look like you cant make decisons.
Go Rick S. Go
Romney is the Flat Candidate - no depth and no principles and no conservative ideals. I can see it now...the cardboard silhouette of Romney on the GOP websites with a caption saying:
Donate a Flat Romney® and help a despondent conservative stay connected to the Republican Party of America!
So, who do you favor, who will protect our liberties? The Republicans and the Democrats have been taking them away for all my life (62 years).
And I hope your vocabulary has more words than “paulbot” “RuPaul” and “Paultard.” It seems the PDS sufferers on this board have narrowed their usable vocabulary to those three words.
I guess I should have explained why I think Perry was done before he started. It also explains why he hasn't had a surge, and won't have one.
It can be summed up in two words: Bush fatigue.
No matter what Perry does, he will be associated with George W. Bush, because he succeeded him as Texas governor. And no one associated with Bush -- even tangentially -- will be elected as President in the near future.
The polls tell the tale:
Perry could be the best candidate in the field, and he would still have the same problem.
I do it all the time, except I call it being dynamic or having the ability to adjust to different situations.
Personally, I think it’s an admirable quality. Why lock yourself into a box? Thankfully, I’m not cursed with thinking I’m always right.
Thanks much for the compliment!
As a veteran I will remind you that you took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America not an out of control federal government. Please explain to me how WoD laws like no knock law, property seizures and warrantless searches are constitutional? Is it constitutional to invade, fight and occupy another nation with out a declaration of war? I hope you will stop and spend a little time contemplating exactly what it is you are supporting.
Sarah specifically highlighted her agreement with Paul’s supporters with regard to fiscal issues.
Fiscal issues like cutting off all foriegn aid to Israel?
Do you make inflammatory remarks like this in real-life, or only when you can hide behind an anonymous login? If it's the latter, that's good -- because it makes you look really ignorant. You can always change identities, if necessary.
Paul's supporters are vehement about their insistence on a limited federal government, with a balanced budget. Just like conservatives, I would expect that they differ on exactly what spending should be cut.
Maybe after you mature a bit, you'll realize that you can disagree with someone on some issues, but work toward a common goal on issues where you agree.
Seriously, I agree with the rest of your post. The quality has gone way down, as the best people have either burned out, or moved on. Some, like Iowahawk, have leveraged their talent into something bigger.
In general, FreeRepublic has become much less tolerant of differing viewpoints. It started with the elimination of obvious disruptors, but now anyone that dares to disagree with the groupthink gets zotted.
Yes I’ve noticed it (zotting) has become a game, in the old days you had to a serial trouble maker, a very oblivious troll, racist or really nasty individual. Primaries are always a dangerous time here at FR. Emotions run high, I don’t like all the zots but such is life. I’ll never support Romney but I would not mind hearing why others do. I’d enjoy the chance to maybe convert them to my guys. Romney supporter don’t scare me. That said I think management does a reasonable job here, which is why this is pretty much the only conservative web site that I am active in.
Seems to me you’re a bit thin skinned on this issue.
It’s inflammatory to ask if Palin would agree with Paul on the elimination of foreign aid to Israel, after you state that Palin was agreeing with Paul only on fiscal issues?
You raised the issue of Palin’s agreement with Paul on his fiscal concerns, not me. And foreign aid absolutely is a fiscal concern.
Do you think Palin would support the cutoff of aid to Israel? I don’t.
Perhaps you’ve been taking a beating from others and you thought my question was part of that beating? It wasn’t.
I was quoting Palin.
You invented something out of thin air.
So which one of us is thin-skinned?
Grow up, child.
I am wondering why it is necessary for us to borrow money from China so we can give it to foreign countries? Can you explain that to me?
“Since the bozos who would work for a government agency whose “mission” is CLEARLY unconstitutional ... the death penalty should be administered immediately”
Your mistake is driven by your belief that Ron Paul is a Constitutional force. He’s not, his interpretations come from a gumball machine. He is a charlatan who preys on the ignorant. Hell Ron Paul is the one worthy of execution, if you want to play that silly game.
If the DEA was “CLEARLY” unconstitutional...it wouldn’t exist. Your RonPaulian belief is not based on reality, but on a charlatan.
So which one of us is thin-skinned?
Grow up, child.
LOL. That would be you.
I’m not the one resorting to grade school insults.
I don't have a problem with people promoting or even disparaging candidates, as long as they do so on a factual basis, rather than making up things that never existed, and are completely contrary to the candidate's previously-stated positions. I do have a problem with zotting people that support certain candidates. It's a short leap to zotting people that disparage certain candidates.
But, what really bothers me is the people that make personal attacks on supporters of other candidates. As I've written elsewhere, there's a lot of common ground among conservatives. You can disagree on a lot of things, but agree on what I think are the most important issues right now. Engaging in a circular firing squad during the primary season only poisons the well and makes it very difficult to work together when the nominee is chosen.
I don't like any of the Republican candidates for President this year. If someone wants to vent their frustration, I'll suggest the Republican party leadership, for their inability to recruit a candidate that can defeat the most unpopular and incompetent incumbent President in my memory.
But for crying out loud, stop attacking each other. Agree to disagree, and move on to what is really important: building a coalition to boot Obama out of office. Each day, it becomes more apparent that the future of this country depends on it.
Selectively I have no problem with reduction / elimination of foreign aid across the world.
Israel, not so much.
I've found that grade-school insults are the only ones understood by grade-schoolers.
Start acting like an adult, and maybe you'll be treated like one.
Tolerance!!??...we doan need no steeenkin tolerance when we is right
“Is it constitutional to invade, fight and occupy another nation with out a declaration of war? I hope you will stop and spend a little time contemplating exactly what it is you are supporting.”
Yes it is and it is expressly stated so in the US Constitution...that is your homework assignment. Read the Constitution.
You guys are going to have to get past the a FruitLoops interpretation of the Constitution.
Do you believe we should allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons?
I see words but I don’t have the slightest idea what you are saying. Are you OK with cutting off all foreign aid? We are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend. Adding 1.5 tillion dollars a year to our debt. Now if you are not willing to cut aid to Israel along with all other nations please explain why we should borrow money from China to give to Israel? Can not Israel borrow money as well as we can?
No, I am not OK with cutting off ALL foreign aid. I don’t know how much more clearly I could have stated that in post #270.
Aid to Israel is not why we are borrowing 43 for every dollar we spend.
We can be selective about who we reward with our aid, no?
“...Yeah, the furniture gets tossed around, ...”
Been happening a lot lately...only the furniture is getting tossed at each other now.
Sad...we do this as the enemy laughs at us.
Ok, curious, I disagree since I think keeping our nation safe and sound is more important then give Israel free money that we have to borrow from China first before we can give it to Israel, but that’s just me. I will point out that there are probably folks here (USA) that would insist that we continue to borrow money from China to give to Egypt. We even borrow money from China to give them aid too! So IMHO best think to do is just cut off all foreign aid and then we can borrow a little less from China.
Hmmm, I missed the Article W, section Zero in my Constitution that said it is OK to go to War without a Declaration of War. Or as in the case of Libya even congressional approval.
Ok, curious, I disagree since I think keeping our nation safe and sound is more important then give Israel free money that we have to borrow from China first before we can give it to Israel, but thats just me.
I think the argument could be made that our safety would be diminished if Israel were to dissapper. And if the money we send over there keeps them in existence, I’m good with that.
Israel is what keeps us tied to the middle east and what keeps us engaged in endless wars there. Our being there means that the natural enemies of Islam, Europe, Russia and India get to play us for fools against the Islamist.
Do you think for 1 second Russia would be helping Iran get a nuke if the USA did not have a single solider within 500 miles of the middle east? Russias' south is entirely made up of Islamic states they are fools for arming Islam with nukes. They are only doing it because they are hoping Iran uses it on us.
Dumb Russians think we are their enemy, fools. But I digress, sorry, off the soap box, it's just that the Russians really piss me off by being so damn stupid. But blame that on the first Bush for not helping Russia after they collapsed. Wonder if the Russians will help us when China stops leaning us money and we collapse?
Oopps, I forgot to mention Clinton bombing the Serbs another really stupid thing to do. Now we pay the price for being PC in a very unPC world.
Oh, I have PLENTY of accurate synonyms for Paul (The Ralien) followers.
They don't appreciate that he has been abducted by Aliens on more than one occasion (based on his mental issues), nor do they care to be cauled "fools", "aged Hippies", "droolers", "un-informed Yewts", "anarchists", etc., etc.
Waste your vote again, and others will try to pick up the slack for you.
What we are seeing in the GOP is the purging of libertarians and paleocons by (Bush) neocons and social conservatives. Crazy Ron Paul is a libertarian/paleocon. Neocons hate paleocons and social conservative hate libertarians so Ron Paul catches hell from both.
So, who, pray tell, are you going to vote for so as not to waste your precious vote?
I suppose YOU can point to the specific section and paragraph and sentence which, per the Tenth Amendment, grants fedgov the authority to wage a war on American citizens over what they put into their own bodies. If it’s not there, there is NO AUTHORITY FOR IT. That also goes for the war on American citizens over what weapons they choose to carry and the capacity of magazine-fed weapons. Which is specifically protected by its own amendment. So if the feds have no qualms about violating THAT, it’s small wonder they aren’t troubled about violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All, of course, to the cheering and applause of mindless drones like you.
First, NO ONE, libertarian or otherwise, ADVOCATES drug use. That, like all purely MORAL issues, is a personal choice and, if it’s a bad choice, families and churches are the proper venue for instilling a good moral foundation in someone. The ONLY LEGITIMATE role for government, especially FedGov, is to protect the God-given, equal rights of all. The role of the family and the church is to instill and enforce righteousness and morality. That’s it and that’s all. Since the sole product of government is FORCE, it stands to reason that force should be the LAST RESORT, NOT THE FIRST. As Americans, our first thoughts should be solving our own problems, as we used to do. Calling on government should be a last-ditch, final choice, and then only for a situation where use of force beyond our capability is clearly needed.
I am a non-drug using Christian and I firmly believe that God can do His job of saving souls and keeping people on the right track WITHOUT the dubious help of an overweening government. In fact, I believe churches and so-called “Christians” are way off base when they call for government to do THEIR JOBS. Christ did not tell us to get laws passed outlawing sin. He told us to go out and be His witnesses to sinners. How does a government-enforced war on citizens help further the Great Commission???
And, while I appreciate your sentiment and meaning, America has NEVER thanked its servicemen and women. In peacetime we are an embarrassment and in war time we are an ugly necessity. Yes, there are exceptions, but most people are, at best, indifferent. Some do surprise me and come up and thank me for serving, but most of those are, on asking, also vets. It’s good that I never counted on the thanks of a “grateful nation” to feed my soul or I never would have made it past my first enlistment.
You haven’t explained why you think that there is a tie between Bush and Perry in the minds of the voters.
Being the next governor is like saying that Obama was/is “Bush mk. II” because he was the next President.
“Hmmm, I missed the Article W, section Zero in my Constitution that said it is OK to go to War without a Declaration of War.
You may want to reread segments that define the Executive Branch again...lol.
“...grants fedgov the authority to wage a war on American citizens over what they put into their own bodies.”
When people have no argument with a basis in fact, they often invent strawman arguments like that. Nobody said anything about declaring a War re: drug users.
Are you seriously stupid enough to think that federal law enforcement officers can’t pursue the illegal drug trade?
Fruitcake with nuts.
Santorum as a Bush agent in implementing "compassionate conservatism" aka socialism in the USA has zero credibility as a small government conservative.
Dcwusmc is absolutely correct, other then protecting life, liberty and property the federal government as no business enforcing it's version of morality by force of law. None, that responsibility is the familys', communitys' and the churches. Which are far better at it anyway.
Remind me please, which part of the Constitution regulates what I choose to eat, smoke or inject. thanks.
“Israel is what keeps us tied to the middle east and what keeps us engaged in endless wars there.”
These endless wars you speak of, simply don’t exist in any reasonable view of reality. Israel has been there since 47, in the modern era. 1)We went into Kuwait to kick the Iraqis out after they invaded a sovereign country. 2) Afghanistan, who AQ used to operate freely, train, and attack us on 9-11 3) Iraq’s refusal to live up to peace agreement after Iraq/Kuwait, and let WMD inspectors in as they agreed to do, violating over 26 UN Resolutions.
That’s it. That’s all. 3 ....not endless wars we have been engaging in.
Do you think for 1 second Russia would be helping Iran get a nuke if the USA did not have a single solider within 500 miles of the middle east? Russias’ south is entirely made up of Islamic states they are fools for arming Islam with nukes. They are only doing it because they are hoping Iran uses it on us.
Dumb Russians think we are their enemy, fools. But I digress, sorry, off the soap box, it’s just that the Russians really piss me off by being so damn stupid. But blame that on the first Bush for not helping Russia after they collapsed. Wonder if the Russians will help us when China stops leaning us money and we collapse?
“Remind me please, which part of the Constitution regulates what I choose to eat, smoke or inject. thanks.”
Do you really believe that the legislative bodies don’t have a right to pass laws in their legislatures?
Rule of law, not unlimited anarchical hedonism. It always comes back to dope for most of you Paultards...I do feel sympathy for the genuine limited government libertarians in that regard.
Wonder if the Russians will help us when China stops leaning us money and we collapse?
Economic ignorance on display here.
** China needs US markets, more than we need their 8% ownership in our debt instruments.
If we shut down our markets, China collapses in 1 week. Riots and unemployed that will make the Great Depression look like a Barry Manilow concert.
So, no, they won’t be hurting our economy any time soon.
Having said that, we need to immediately, upon winning the WH, cut out Budget Deficits drastically and get to the point where we start cutting into our Debt level.
A quick look through your posts shows you spend almost all your replies on personal attacks versus other posters. Wow, what a genius....
I am seriously saying there is ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to conduct a war on drugs or to preemptively ban anything. The Constitution was designed to be a limitation ON GOVERNMENT, not on we, the People. Recall the part of the ORIGINAL Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence? The part where they talk about government WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED? It’s apparent that you haven’t thought the idea through, or else you hope the REST of us haven’t. People cannot consent to have a third party do something in their name or on their behalf, unless they have the legitimate authority TO DO IT FOR AND BY THEMSELVES. In other words, no one can mandarin that you become a vegan, because they do not have that authority over you. Therefore, they cannot get a third party, government, to DO IT FOR THEM.
Recall, also, the Preamble to the Constitution, where it states that We, the People, do hereby ordain and establish, et cetera... Which makes the Constitution a contract between We, the People, and the Several States to establish the federal government, with its VERY LIMITED grant of authority, which does not, therefore cannot, include authority to wage war on its own citizens.
No, legislatures do NOT have the authority to regulate voluntary personal behaviors. We are CITIZENS, not subjects. That is the one simple point you need to get through your skull. The only authority they have is to regulate PUBLIC ACTS, such as driving under the influence or where and when you may discharge a weapon in non-emergency situations.
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.