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 ...
You have learned well from watching the past 6 months of republican debates. Mis-state your opponents position then attack it. Ad-hominem works good too.
“As I see it, a lot of Ron Paul “supporters” are actually Obama supporters trying to sew seeds of diversion and division.”
You see it wrong.
Too bad you aren’t bright enough to figure out that Ron Paul runs for no other reason than to help elect the GOP beltway choice again and again and again.
He’s an intentional spoiler.
Just for you
I heard her on FOX at the first of the week shilling for Paul.
I excused that as trying to be “fair and balance”
But now she seems to have jumped the shark.
Even PAUL says he doesn’t see himself in the oval office.
Does he plan on working out of the Stormfront offices?
FISCAL policies. WHAT fiscal policies.
He’s going to cut a couple of trillion the first year. And just how does he plan on doing that?
disband the military. While ending any and all social programs. Maybe nationalize the oil industry. That’s what all Libertarian Communist think solves problems.
Pree-cisely. I have seen the R. Paul supporters and they are the Birkenstock crowd, who have -— btw -— been in evidence at “Occupy” events.
Just remember this, if we do not cut the budget by at least a trillion a year, right now, we will not be able to afford an aggressive foreign policy.
Paul has indeed defended earmarks, and has even advocated expansion of them. I'm not quite sure of his rationale for it.
But at least in today's environment, it's irresponsible. One analogy that I read long ago was that being elected to Congress was like being given an American Express Card.
You could spend as much or as little as you wanted, but you only had to pay 1/435th of the bill.
If you spent extravagantly, you only paid 1/435th of the bill. If you spent nothing at all, you still paid 1/435th of the bill.
It's a big simplification, but it's a good way to demonstrate how it doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility.
Yes, and don’t forget Dr. Paul’s recent stated desire to enjoin the Taliban in kumbaya fashion. I would call that going beyond “war weariness.”
well, who are you supporting?- im all ears and willing to listen to you.. all i can tell you is that i wont support Milt at all, ( mabe newt)..
I have no "opponent" in the race, nor do I have a favorite.
Ron Paul is a nutcase, followed by nutcases, and followed by Democrats who vote Democrat, but show up to egg him on.
Peaceniks and old Hippies make up the bulk of his voterbase, and if you THINK he's Presidential material, seek professional help.
And if Paul runs on a Libertarian ticket, as you imply he should, because his supporters have been driven from the GOP, as you suggest they should be, that will guarentee four our years of Obama.
And if Paul runs on a Libertarian ticket, as you imply he should, because his supporters have been driven from the GOP, as you suggest they should be, that will guarentee four more years of Obama.
It doesn't matter if we stick our fingers in our ears and go “ la la la”, its coming ! We don't have to look for it its coming to us. The question is, do we put someone in office who wants to play “Let's pretend it isn't so?”. We are doing the “Reality is optional approach now! How is that working for you?” It doesn't matter if we support Israel or not it is still coming! (Anyway I am completely convinced before my lifetime is out we will see a second Holocaust! Antisemitism is too wide spread and “socially acceptable” again for it not to happen!)
Right now its has the feel of the 1920s to 1930s, one could argue we just had our “Roaring 20s” and we are in a beginning to mid-stage depression era.
I understand what Palin is saying here, she wants Republicans to unite together for whoever the nominee will end up being, but Ron Paul supporters are not regular Republicans, the majority of them are Democrats, yeah there might be a few Republicans mixed in but who cares where they end up going. Ron Paul showed last night that his campaign will go no where, he will get 3-4 percent of the vote, really not enough to make a huge dent in the general election so there is no reason to be concerned about where they end up going
In the interest of fairness the GOP needs to alienate Willard Rinomney,too.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Coming from you, I'm guessing that she really said that Paul had some good points about fiscal policy, and you filled in the rest.
Even PAUL says he doesnt see himself in the oval office. Does he plan on working out of the Stormfront offices?
To quote a famous conservative, "there you go again".
Are you capable of posting anything without being insulting or inflammatory? Do you not understand that when people push back, you can't cry foul, because you instigated it?
In real life, you must be either a real pain, or bury all your anger for all those imagined slights so that you can lash out anonymously at your target of the day.
Do you personally know a Paul supporter who is a Democrat? I don’t. The Dems I know hate libertarianism more than they hate conservatism.
NO, a 3rd party Paul run is the best thing that could happen to us, because a lot of his supporters are actually extreme leftist Dem “youth.” He’s big with the OWS people and they love all of his attitudes, including his pro-Palestinian stuff and his claim that the US was behind 9/11.
That would leave the sane people in the GOP to select their candidate, and would also take many of Bambi’s disenchanted Dem voters.
That said, what in the world is Palin thinking? I used to like her. I was never a fanatic, but I thought she was dynamic, smart and conservative - and now I’m beginning to wonder about the last two. She has sure come out with some odd statements lately.
“Paul has indeed defended earmarks, and has even advocated expansion of them. I’m not quite sure of his rationale for it.”
Because the Constitution give Congress, not the Executive, the power to spend money
Third Party voting for The Ralien?
You should blame the Paulbot nutcases who vote for him, in lieu of a legitimate Contender. The Paulbots can't vote for anyone else, lest they lose their "status" as "Libertarians".
The only libertarians I have known have been former Democrats. Even the Dem Party requires too much in the way of responsibility for their taste. They are liberals who do not want to pay taxes.
That's how I read her statement, too. And it's what I've been trying to say for the past few months.
There's already been one thread on this article/statement, and I'll repeat what I posted there:
She is trying to warn the Republicans to not disregard Ron Paul's supporters. You probably don't agree with everything they believe in, but you probably agree with some of it -- specially their fiscal concerns.
The primary reason that a liberal like Romney is doing so well in the Republican primaries is because the conservatives and libertarians can't set aside their differences on other issues and work together on the fiscal issues. And frankly, the fiscal issues are the most important right now. If they aren't addressed in the next few years, the US is going the way of Greece.
How do you work together? You can start by ending the personal attacks on each other.
Yup, many are. Also, you can be be so extreme to the right that you actually meet the extreme left...
Obama is 8:45 - 9:30 (socialism is at 9:00)
Rush Limbaugh is 3:15
John McCain, Romney and Snowe are 7:00
Newt, Santorum(sp), Bachmann are between 3:00 and 4:00
Bill Clinton = 8:00-8:30
Jimmy Carter 8:45
Ron Paul is at 12:00 extremist (he's getting the extremists from both sides.
Ron Paul has the anti-war leftists (many I think will end up voting for Obama because of Ron Paul's "extreme" right stance on social programs.
Ron Paul also gets the support from the 1:00 constitutionalists who (like my-self and many here) believe Social Security is against the Constitution.
Question is, as a third party candidate who would Ron Paul hurt more, Obama or the republican. I tend to think he'd take more of our votes than he would take from Obama.
Like you say "a lot of Ron Paul "supporters" are actually Obama supporters trying to sew seeds of diversion and division."
I don't see the leftist support voting against social programs.
bump for later
So you actually think Ron Paul cleverly runs on the libertarian version so he can help the GOP beltway choice?
Too bad you arent bright enough to figure out that Ron Paul runs for no other reason than to help keep the libertarian ideal alive and out in front of the public, rather than for a nefarious vote-splitting purpose.
I know a lot of Republicans who are former Democrats, who don’t like paying taxes. Your point is?
Yeah I do.
Now go away boy I’m done arguing with a child.
All politicians are disappointing, some much more than others.
DES MOINES, Iowa Republican Ron Paul, a leading contender in Iowa’s presidential caucuses, said Monday on the eve of the leadoff 2012 vote that he does not envision himself in the White House.
The Texas congressman, near the top of the polls in Iowa, said the odds of him winning are slim and admitted that the path to the nomination was unclear without a strong performance in Iowa and the New Hampshire primary next week.
When asked Monday during an ABC News interview in Des Moines whether he sees himself in the Oval Office, Paul replied: “Not really, but I think it’s a possibility.”
He added: “I don’t deceive myself. You know what the odds are. The odds have been slim.”
DON’T YOU EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN CANDIDATE. I guess ole ron is more in touch with reality than his followers.
The problem I see is that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to spend money on themselves.
And no matter how you spin it, that's what earmarks are.
There is NO STOPPING the Muslim pursuit of "Infidels", and Jews are the number 1 target, followed by Americans. To think that it won't come to pass that another "Religious War" will happen is to ignore what's really happening. China will NOT allow oil countries to be taken, period. Likewise, we are so indebted to Chinese money that they won't take kindly to us not being able to pay, either.
A lot of Republicans will either vote for Paul, or stay home, if the GOP nominates someone who does not promise to dramatically cut government. I will stay home if Romney gets the nomination. I’m as tired of Republicans who grow government as I am of Dems who do it. If you’re so fond of big government, join the Nazi or Commie party. They’ll accomodate you adequately.
A lot of Ron Paul supporters are America-first, small-government activists who we need in the Republican party. I would vote for Ron Paul ahead of Mitt. People on FR dismiss the "Paul-bots", but one thing you CANNOT deny is that Paul has some pretty passionate people rooting for him, people that the Repubs will NEED in the General Election.
“Yeah I do.”
Shows what a stupid old woman you are.
She lost a lot of respect I had for her.....
Good for Palin.
The message was sent loud and clear in Iowa: 44 percent of Independents who participated voted for Ron Paul, as did every age demographic under 40 by wide margins, as did those who voted for the “True Conservative” in the race and those who voted because of government spending and the budget deficit.
The Ron Paul supporters message is this: no more wasteful and expensive neocon foreign wars for “dumbocracy,” no more neocon foreign wars that young people are expected to fight and pay for, no more wasteful big government spending programs in the name of “compassionate conservatism,” no more Wall Street bailouts for hedge fund managers, no more “No Child Left Behind” nonsense, etc.
Young people and Independents are on board with the Constitution, with the family, with states’ rights, with limited government, with opposing the welfare state, with the ideal of liberty and personal freedom ... NOT on board with a soaring national debt, with endless wars in the Middle East, with the Wall Street bailout, with government spending on utopian schemes like “No Child Left Behind,” with the Pentagon/HHS welfare/warfare state.
The neocon globalists like Newt Gingrich who believe American foreign policy should be a game of Risk with young people saddling up to go fight WW3 to bring on Armageddon (or for women’s rights and democracy in Iraq or Iran or Vietnam) are no longer the mainstream.
I agree with all you said and I am in the same boat with one exception, Newt. To me Newt is acceptable. Last time Newt was in power he governed as a conservative, so I am OK with Newt. Not happy but I think (hope) Newt would be OK.
Your insulting post makes me wonder if you aren’t a nutcase.
I’d be interested to know what chunk of our armed services support Paul, and why.
I don't think 2 dozen people staying home will sway the outcome of the 2012 General Election, myself.
Party failure retries to be bigshot.
Hold a two for one bong sale on election days and the Paulbots will miss the polls.
Their support is about as far reaching as Howard Dean’s minions in Iowa in 2004.
Spoken like a true Paulbot.
Myself, I won't stay home on voting day, even if Romney is the Chosen One and makes it (as planned by the RNC) to the ticket.
I would NEVER stay home on Election Day.
His rational is that if the money is earmarked the money goes where it was intended to go. If not the money goes into a general "slush fund" that the administration can spend anyway it wants.
I know- thats my point. we are Broke, we have massive unemployment, and wars without end. I know exactly what sarah means about war weary. The anti- war canidate will probally win- but i thought that a Libertarian was futher to the right than a republican?-
There were plenty of conservatives who (1) are not fond of Wall Street and (2) who believed the Wall Street bailout was a bad idea.
Why should Wall Street get a massive federal bailout? How is that conservative? What does that say to people - not the OWS crowd, but to ordinary people who work for a living - that Goldman Sachs is “too big to fail,” but not the man who has lost his manufacturing job because of outsourcing?
I think Paul would not be poling as well as he has if he was only getting nutcase support. I think he’s poling as well as he does because he’s the only candidate who specifically promises to cxut the government, and remembers which department he plans to eliminate. I hope Santorum will be the remedy for this. If I’m right, Santorum will drain away most of that support from Paul. He won’t if he insults them for having supported paul.
“Myself, I won’t stay home on voting day, even if Romney is the Chosen One and makes it (as planned by the RNC) to the ticket.”
I’m not surprised, and that’s why we can’t stop the growth of government, and the elimination of our Constitutional liberties.
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.