Paul is harmless, really. But some of his followers aren't.
If Paul wins the caucuses Tuesday, that's almost as good from Romney's point of view as winning himself. Paul will quickly fade from the scene after the early primaries, and it's highly unlikely that he'll ever be as strong anywhere else as he is in Iowa. Paul is a distraction which makes it difficult for candidates not as well set for the long haul as Mitt is to compete. Since Paul has no credibility as an actual candidate for the nomination, Paul and Romney finishing one/two on Tuesday has no downside for the crowd in Boston.
But as you may have noticed, I'm not complacent about Paul. I just don't like the idea of the people of Iowa looking like fools in front of the entire world, even if the wound is self-inflicted. Moreover, I'm genuinely scared, not so much as Paul himself- a harmless eccentric with no real capacity to influence national policy- as of some of his followers, who are crazier than a flock of drunken loons.
If you want to know more, just read those old Ron Paul newsletters.
And besides, I kind of enjoy the attention the Iowa Caucuses get us. And face it: if Ron Paul wins the caucuses on Tuesday, who in their right mind will pay the slightest attention to the Iowa Caucuses in 2016?
Comments
Ron Paul doesn't "blame America," he wants to use knowledge of why America was attacked to form a better foreign policy that would keep America the safest it can be. Have no fear! He would not sit back and let Iran conquer the USA or anything like that.
Ron Paul isn't anti-Israel, he says the same thing that Netanyahu said in his address to our Congress. "My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Isreal, we're already built! You don't need to export Democracy to Israel we've already got it! and you don't need to send American troops to Israel we can defend ourselves!"
Jeff, you wanna bet Paul ever is in a position to win another state? Like all the Paulistas- and like Paul himself- you're living in a dream world of your own creation. You guys just don't do reality.
When faced with the truly over-the-top positions your candidate has espoused over the years, you simply retreat into your own alternate universe.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is the greatest threat to our national security in my lifetime. He would basically retreat from our responsibilities in the world and allow it to descend into utter chaos. He is worse than Obama. If by some miracle he were to win the nomination (and if he did, he wouldn't carry a single state), the Fall campaign would be a contest to see which candidate could grovel before our enemies ore abjectly.
You can rationalize away his conviction that al Quaeda are the good guys and America the bad guys. You can rationalize away his publishing a white supremacist, anti-Semitic, Truther newsletter and then having the gall to try to tell us he didn't know what was in it (essentially seeking to acquit himself of being a bigot and a whack job by admitting to being a fool). Either way, though, he is no potential president!
It's not that I'm over the top, Jeff. It's that Paul is- and everybody but you Paulistas know it. Newt Gingrich is exactly right: Paul is at least as bad as Barack Obama. Worse, in fact. We can survive four more years of Obama, as tough as it would be. I don't think the world would survive four years of Ron Paul.
Fortunately, we'll never have to find out. Sorry, Jeff. Your guy is a distraction. Ron Paul is at the very least the candidate of the dregs of the American political system, the very craziest and most bigotted nut jobs out there.
Fortunately, he only fools his own few supporters, who happen to be disproportionately represented in Iowa. So fortunately, he is no threat.
Enjoy tonight, Jeff. It's your last chance to pretend that Paul is a serious contender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Nobody- nobody- has ever suggested that Israel needs America to defend it, or to send American soldiers there, or to export democracy to it, or anything of the kind. You're engaging in the typical Paulista tactic of changing the subject when you find you can't defend your ground. The prime minister was rhetorically making the case that support of Israel need not entail those things precisely for the sake of isolationists and liberals like you and Paul who want America to play no role in supporting our allies or bearing the responsibility that comes with our position in the world. He was saying that diplomatic and economic support will do just fine.
The statement that Paul is anti-Israel doesn't come from his opposition to some plan to "nation-build" or defend Israel that nobody has ever put forward. It comes from Paul's own pro-Arab slant, and from the statement he made repeatedly to one of his former aides that personally he wished that Israel didn't exist.
Oh. And once again... yes, when you
make excuses for America's enemies and make America the bad guy when they attack or come into conflict with her, you are indeed blaming America. You can spin that point till you're dizzy, but words mean things- however inconvenient that fact may be for you and your candidate.
Yes, Jeff. Paul did manage to win the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The U.S. Virgin Islands. Nowhere else. Not a single state. And he couldn't even take the majority of the delegates in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
But he did win there. Congratulations. Not much of a consolation prize, but enjoy it. And by all means keep giving us the laughs with your comments!
Minnesota
Nevada
Even if he finished third in one of them.