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 ...
Uh oh, Sarah Palin’s a Paulbot. The cognitive dissonance of this will surely explode many heads.
The Paul supporters who are Tea Partiers, So-Cons and the like we shouldn’t insult. Those who are peacecreeps, dopers, Lefties, Jew-haters and racists can go to Hell.
The Paulistinians will alienate themselves without help... their candidate is divorced from reality and rather alien when it comes to international issues.
“As I see it, a lot of Ron Paul “supporters” are actually Obama supporters trying to sew seeds of diversion and division.”
What does she know or care about it anyway?
The question is, how to do it. It won’t be easy. Paul supporters generally tend to be all or nothing and for years have been getting nothing as a result.
I don’t think anybody (besides the establishment neocons) hate Paul for not wanting to go to war at the drop of a pin, but for his nutjob positions such as not having Israel as an ally and not caring if Iran gets nukes.
Saying we shouldn’t alienate his voters (Politics 101) makes her a Paulbot? Please explain.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Lol, it was a joke. Not a serious suggestion. :)
Okay so she makes ONE comment about not alienating a certain group of voters though she has NEVER said anything positive about him except aspects of his economic policy and suddenly she’s a Paulbot? That makes absolutely no sense whatever. Also, unless this is the first interview you’ve ever heard or comment she’s make via facebook or twitter, you’d know she’s paid compliments to every candidate.
In fact the GOP should retire and hand over the controls to the TEA Partiers.
(P.S. Why is Willard getting all sorts of $$$ from The Goldman Sack?)
Good plan, let’s have the GOP be the hippie party.
Anti-war. Bush’s fault. Those are good campaign platforms.
Oh, let’s legalize all drugs.
All those people will vote for Mitt Romney, darling of big capital.
As long as he goes with that platform.
When he’s talking to Ron Paul supporters.
Then, when he’s in front of other people, tell them what they want to hear.
See, the real thing is winning the election.
We must have an establishment Republican - our team guy - in the White House.
And nice establishment majorities in Congress.
It’s like Occupy DC, Republican style.
Nobody will realize that we’re actually conservative and we’ll “win” the elections.
Seeing that the Republicans didn’t care about the Tea Party after the 2010 Election, I don’t think they’ll care about Ron Paul’s supporters after this primary either.
That’s right! We don’t need the votes of you 20-plus percent of the voting public who question the wisdom of this 15 trillion dollar debt and endless war on a noun!
That’s kind of what I’ve been saying and I have no love for Ron Paul. He brings up some issues that really do need real discussion.
Personally I think a real honest discussion of the issues would disarm him.
It’s actually a lesson Paul supporters could learn. You can’t win by alienating everyone.
Hey, that’s the beauty of FR...flip-flopping’s ok sometimes.
Yes, lets not alienate those voters who believe the USA brought 9/11 on themselves.
I tend to agree with you to a large extent, but there are fellow Tea partiers in my chapter who are Paul supporters.
As for the rest of it, I saw it best expressed on another blog that Paul supporters tend to marginalize themselves....
because “a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke” and Paul has reached that constituency well.
Being war weary is one thing. Being ignorant of the fact that Iran and the islamofacists will not stop trying to destroy America or not caring because “war is not the answer” is another thing..
Gee Sarah when did you become a racist anti-Semite?
I wonder if that is what the German people said about Hitlers thugs.
I agree with you. I first noticed their tactic during the 2008 primaries, when Google paid campaign workers to go in to New Hampshire and promote Wrong Paul. I truly wonder where his abundant funding comes from.
“Personally I think a real honest discussion of the issues would disarm him.”
Yes, but then who would you scream Paulbot! Hippy! Nutjob! at?
i would vote for ron paul over the other liberal rino Rep. - i made fun of him in the past, but better him than Milt or any of the others
Lol. You’re gonna get it now.
In my opinion, I have always suspected that she is a libertarian and promotes the libertarian agenda. She has done as good or better job of sowing dissension in GOP as has Wrong Paul.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually team up as a 3rd party ticket.
So, is GB correct that Rue Paul is promoted by S0r0$?
I’ve never supported Ron Paul for president before, he has run several times and I’ve always support someone else even thou he is my Congressman. This time I can support him or Newt, things are that bad.
I sort of agree and sort of disagree with Sarah Palin.
Those wanting Ron Paul supporters to join with them, in favor of someone else, need to divide the Ron Paul supporters - separating the “wheat from the chaff”;
by appealing to the economic-Libertarians and those who agree with Paul’s general concern for our personal Liberty (we can at least ask ourselves if everything about our post 9/11 national security regime fully respects our essential Liberty?),
and not by trying to appeal to the Paul supporters among the 9/11 Truthers, the antiwar enthusiasts, or the transcendental-mediators and isolationist peace-niks.
In all fairness, one can say the same thing about a lot of conservatives.
It's also a lesson that a lot of conservatives could learn, especially here on FR.
The answer is simple. Wrong Paul and the libertarians have their own party, the Libertarian Party. That is where they belong, but they have viewed GOP as a convenient vehicle to get their candidates elected to office, Rand Paul being one prime example. Have a look at Campaign for Liberty, if you have not already.
It is fundamentally dishonest on the part of adamantly anti-war, anti-military, anti-Israel, isolationists like Wrong Paul and the Libertarians to pose as GOP.... WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
What Palin is declaring is an aggressive campaign of infiltration of the Republican Party, which FReepers have experienced at the local and state levels, as well as within Tea Party groups.
The LP is where far right meets far left, in a particularly nasty and un-American fashion, in my opinion.
Your doctor meant for you to take those pills every day. Maybe write yourself a reminder where you can see it, like on the liquor cabinet.
Half of those "20-plus percent" of the "voting public" that voted for Paul would vote for Kookcinich in the Democrat Primary, too.
The infiltration of Lefty's in the Paulbots is rampant, and those who are "aged Hippies" follow The Ralien. He has no clue on Foreign Policy, Defense, or personal responsibility. Legalizing pot, and other drugs, is NOT Presidential OR Conservative, IMHO.
While I am no fan of Sarah Palin, she is right on this one... but for different reasons: The Reagan Coalition had the support of those who are civil-libertarian minded. He sprung from the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party, which, while not the same as Libertarianism, is very palatable to Libertarians. And thereby, Goldwater Libertarians are a necessary component of Conservatism.
I have said here before that civil-libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian ethic are what should inform the conscience of every conservative: Libertarianism without the Judeo-Christian ethic will inevitably wind up in anarchy... and The Judeo-Christian ethic without civil-libertarianism will inevitably slide into Christian Socialism.
While I am no Paul fan either, I can see what our civil-libertarian minded FRiends see in him. The difference between Reagan Conservatism and Neo-conservatism is basically the lack of civil-libertarianism.
Sarah Palin has made numerous admiring statements about Wrong Paul, over the past two years, to my knowledge.
I heard Ed Rollins say the same thing a few times last night and this morning.
im not just jumpin with joy, but paul is better than the other clowns we have. i wished palin would have ran, i would have been one of her biggest supporters, but shes not and i just think paul is more honest that the other rino scumbags. Milt, newt, perry, rick, are liberal rinos and there record shows it..
I think Palin is assuming that Paul supporters are Republican, this is where I disagree with her. Paul supporters are mostly Dems who are voting for him because they know if he is the nominee Obama wins in a landslide. Alienating Paul supporters doesnt bother me at all, since they are all a bunch of anti Semites anyway. I could give a rats behind what they think
Geez, Marty. You just can't help it, can you?
Sarah specifically highlighted her agreement with Paul's supporters with regard to fiscal issues. She didn't say that she agreed with anything else.
And you respond by accusing her with a racist smear? Do you not recognize the distinction? Or do you just not care and can't wait to fire with both barrels without even looking at your target?
Thank you. Are they not the most obnoxious inhabitants of the internet?
I can't wait until we get past caucuses -- at which the rabid Paulbots excel in spamming --- and to some real in-the-booth primary voting.
So because Americans are war-weary, we need a candidate that sucks up to Iranian tyrants and those that want to befriend them? Don’t think so.
My understanding is that Rue Paul adds all sorts of earmarks to legislation, then votes against the bill giving plausible denialability. Quite the hypocrite.