January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

UPDATE 1-8-2012:  We have eliminated Ron Paul due to spamming issues.  If you feel the need to cast a vote for Ron Paul, please do s0 by leaving a comment.

John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Buddy Roemer, and Paul Ryan never announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination as some had speculated, so they have been removed from the TAC Poll.  In addition, Gary Johnson has removed himself from consideration the moment he accepted the Libertarian Party Nomination.  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign which is nothing more than preventing the inevitable.

Here’s our latest poll so please vote in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses (voting ends 7pm this Friday):

 

Continue reading...

65 Responses to January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • I am surprised to see that Santorum is doing so well on this poll. Is it because he’s Catholic? I hope not, because the Catholic church teaches, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I do not see this practiced by Santorum in his legislative ethics, nor in his strident efforts to promote war with Iran, and now countries in South America (see the Iowa debate).

    The candidate who truly espouses peace is Dr. Ron Paul, and he has my support in the hopes that his administration would be one of peace & goodwill.

    whyronpaul.com

  • There is a difference between espousing peace Cynthia and being a naive fool about foreign powers that mean harm to us. Ron Paul crossed that line long ago. His viewpoint of course is that the rest of the world can go to Hell while America huddles down in Fortess America. Somehow I do not think that foreign policy lives up to the admonition of Christ that you cited.

    In regard to our Civil War Ron Paul believes it was completely unneccessary. Go to the link below explaining why he was wrong:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Two Paulbots have been banned for their charming attempt to recycle a slur against Santorum hurled by homosexual activists. All such additional attempts will go into the trash where they belong and the attempted commenter will be banned from this site.

  • It’s been pretty ugly for Santorum as the Militant Gay Lobby has been harrassing Santorum with their KKK tactics all throughout his Iowa campaign. It’s no coincidence that Paulbots are doing the same to Santorum considering that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters up until the 1990s.

  • Oh look, the Paulbots are stacking our poll:

    “Little poll that sanatorium is winning…

    Submitted by Howimademy on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 19:54.

    Thought it’d be fun to just knock him out of first…silly, maybe…fun, yes. 🙂

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/03/january-tac-gop-…”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/199365/iowa-caucus-night-info-open-thread?#comments

    Of course this has ever been the tactic of Ron Paul cultists. Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

  • Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

    Or friends or jobs or a life . . .

  • What bothers me (off topic just a bit), is that Sarah Palin are warning Republicans to not alienate these 9/11 Truthers, ie, Paulbots.

    Of course, this came a day after she said that “its not (Michele) Bachman time”. Considering that she has almost zero executive experience, I found this truly rich.

  • Ron Paul is no doubt the most Biblical candidate for 2012, if you are a true believer you would support Dr. Ron Paul. Here is a short series explaining as to why he is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYk5mEli68&feature=BFa&list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16&lf=player_embedded

    I urge everyone to watch this series so you can understand as to why he is the most Biblical candidate and why believers should support him and no other candidate. If you don’t you are just lying to yourselves and/or others.

  • Most Biblical? Indeed! Here is exclusive video of Ron Paul leading the Paulbots out of Iowa and across the Mississippi:

  • Are you proud to mock your religion?

  • I am a Catholic John. I mock the Ron Paul Cult that you are obviously a card carrying member of. Read back your original comment to yourself. It would be too much if applied to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, let alone Ron Paul. It comes across as completely over the top and invites the type of mockery that I gave it.

  • We will see.

  • They are just like cochroaches aren’t they…the Paulinista’s…they seem to be everywhere…I gotta give them credit…they are organized, but then so were the borg.

  • It was bound to happen in one of these polls that the Paulbots would manipulate poll. They know they can’t win, so instead of letting poll develop organically they spam it. Fortunately, that doesn’t work in politics. We can pretty much throw out the Ron Paul vote, meaning that Santorum has the Catholic vote behind him.

  • I am all in favor of ending the IRS.

    Thats one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul. (as if thats not enough by itself)

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • I would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic. Regarding Rick Santorum, I must ask, “What could be more ‘pro-life’ than peace?” What does “waterboarding” have to do with “family values”? I apologize for “Paulbots” who may have offended you. However, I am genuinely concerned that a President Santorum or a President Gingrich would start World War III in the Middle East by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for no good reason except political expediency.

  • I do not think Catholics can take Santorum seriously. Although he spouts pro life rhetoric at times, he places a higher value on politics. Why did he support Arlen Specter’s candidacy for Senate over Pat Toomey? Toomey was pro life while pro choice Specter was head of the judiciary committee and had fought Robert Bork.

  • Santorum was always a pro-life leader in Congress. He fought hard for every pro-life piece of legislation and always voted pro-life. In regard to the Specter endorsement in 2004, as the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    Santorum extracted a pledge from Specter that he would support every Supreme Court nominee sent up by Bush. This pledge was crucial if control of the Senate had shifted or if the Republicans had come back with a diminished majority .

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • “would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic.”

    He is also a paranoid conspiracy nut like Ron Paul. He is a 9-11 Truther among other charming conspiracy theories he partakes in.

  • Ron Paul does not ‘work well with others’ as the old grade school report card used to say. Whatever his viewpoints, if one hasn’t that power to sway other powerful and intelligent people to your side it is wasted. In all his years in Congress he has been a moody, strange loner. He’s like the kid who sniffed his fingers and his mother attach his mittens to his snow suit so he wouldn’t lose them. No one wants him on a team.

  • These folks make a habit of just spamming polls:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/200240/a-whole-bunch-of-polls-have-at-em

    Because nothing says your candidate is a massively popular guy on his way to winning a nomination than having to spend your entire day spamming meaningless internet polls.

    Well, at 8.6% unemployment, it’s understandable how they have the time to dither their day away. Doing arduous things like brushing up on that ole resume is just a bummer activity.

  • Completely counterproductive activity since everyone knows that the Paulbots do this, but they persist in it anyway merely to be annoying. Juvenile and delusional which basically sums up the Ron Paul Cult.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe.”

    This is where I would take issue with you.
    Let us examine the nominees of Bush:
    Roberts: pro life, but I doubt he would overturn Roe v Wade due to his belief in Stare Decisis.
    Harriet Myers: ???
    Alito: Pro Life, but it is not clear he would overturn Roe V Wade.
    Digging deeper, it was Arlen Specter who reportedly dissuaded Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzalez.
    So, by making the political bargain Santorum did, he passed on opportunity to remove a staunch pro choicer in exchange for gaining no headway in overturning Roe V Wade. I am not sure I believe Toomey was a sure loser against Spectre, as Spectre generally won by thin margins, though you make a good point. I see Santorum as playing party politics rather than sticking to his stated principles. I really do not trust him. I am from Pennsylvania and have followed his political career going back to before he was elected to the US House when he upset Doug Walgren.

  • Considering that Alberto Gonzalez is a pro-abort I think it was a very good thing that Specter talked Bush out of nominating him, although I hadn’t heard that. In regard to Roberts and Alito, judging from their votes in a partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, I have little doubt that they would vote to overturn Roe if the opportunity presents itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

  • I am a Ron Paul supporter. I’m not a Paulbot, not even sure what that means. I’m also a pro life follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not a pothead and I don’t spam polls. I do however go to any poll I can find and cast my vote for Ron. There are 3 people of voting age in my household and many times we can’t all cast our votes for Ron because most polls only allow one vote per IP address.

    I would like to personally apologize for the knuckleheads who tried to post the Santorum stuff on here. Something to consider though. We have a lot of young people in our camp, young people don’t really care to much for what us older folks would call propriety. I guarantee you, if you were to come over to Ron Paul forums or the DailyPaul and meet some of the people there that we are mostly, such as yourselves, kind and decent folk.

    Most of us only want to live in peace with our neighbors and the world. We love our country and see it slipping away from us. We are losing our God given rights buy the day, bankrupting ourselves with endless wars and entitlements, etc, etc. We love America, we love our neighbors, and we want to be free.

    You can hate us if you want to, not a very Christian thing to do but what the heck, live and let live. We are people just like you but with a different perspective, one that we did not get from CNN or FOX news. Many people don’t realize this but there is not one main stream media news network that isn’t owned by a larger enterprise that makes most of their money from the military industrial complex. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

    As I said, I am staunchly pro life as many of my fellow Ron Paul supporters are, but for us, being pro life extends beyond the womb. There are 75 million human beings living in Iran, approximately 50 million women and children. I personally am not willing that even a single one of them be sacrifice so that I might sleep a little better at night. Besides, God has not given me a Spirit of fear, it’s in the Bible, you can look that up too.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words. The media misrepresents Ron Paul and often flat out lies about him or puts words in his mouth. For example, Bill O’Reilly just said last night that Ron Paul said he didn’t want to be President, a bald faced lie. These are the kind of things that we are fighting against and some of us take it a little too far at times.

    God bless you all, and have a great day.

  • I agree, Don. I certainly think that Roberts and Alito would *like* to overturn Roe. As principled jurists (unlike Roe’s authors), they do have to take stare decisis principles into account, which does make the outcome harder to predict. That said, beyond reversing Roe outright, pro-life forces certainly favor judges who are sympathetic to their strategy of chipping away at Roe so as to limit its applicability as much as possible, and certainly Alito and Roberts fall within that description.

    I think the criticisms directed toward Myers were over the top and unfair. In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

  • In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

    The objection to her nomination went beyond how she’d decide cases to the potential quality of her jurisprudence. But that’s a debate for another time.

  • Ditto what Tito said re: “KKK tactics”

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  • Archie, I do want to commend you on your thoughtful comment. I do wish that more Ron Paul supporters were as reaonable and polite as you – frankly it would help his own cause if he didn’t have his supporters making such disgusting attack ads as this one against Huntsman.
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/05/you-stay-classy-ron-paul-supporters/

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words.

    Archie, the reason most of the people here think he is so far out there is precisely because of what we’ve seen Paul say in his own words. Frankly people like O’Reilly are full of hot air anyway, and I don’t need to listen to him in order to come to my own conclusions.

  • Paul, thank you for your kind words. I saw the video you posted, silly really. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. Huntsman is a decent enough guy and a very successful businessman, he obviously is not my first choice but I wouldn’t rule him out were he to win the nomination. My son speaks Chinese as well, so I’m really not sure how that’s a bad thing. What can I say, it’s politics, sometimes it’s ugly, sometimes just plain ridiculous.

    In fairness, Huntsman ran a very biased and misleading attack piece on Ron Paul as well, taking his words out of context and basically saying he was crazy. If you don’t agree with Ron that’s fine, but his views are particularly well thought out, not crazy. Concerning foreign policy, he has been supported by some of the better minds on the subject. The CIA has written and warned about “blowback” and the 9/11 commission report agreed with much of what he has been saying for years.

    Those of us in the Paul camp who have lived a little longer are a bit easier to deal with and welcome rigorous intellectual debate on the issues. If there is something that you have heard Ron say that troubles you or gives you pause, I am very interested to know what those statements may have been. BTW, I’m very pleased to hear that you are not one of the mindless drones who takes every word from FOX as if it came down from Mt. Sinai.

    Love and Peace in Jesus Christ

  • Father of five, Knights of Columbus Grand Knight here. Ron Paul is the only option for me when I size up the candidates against my faith. We don’t want the world to go to hell in a hand basket. Evil countries, evil men, and evil ideas around the world need to be stopped. It’s just the the US Federal Government should not be in charge of this. It’s not their role. The US Federal Government isn’t the only way to combat evil. We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.

  • “We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.”

    The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Donald, I understand your point. I’m not saying Americans shouldn’t do anything about these horrible atrocities around the world. I’m just saying that tax should not be collected from all American’s to fund a military operation across the world.

    What I believe should happen is what happened before we became the police of the world. Allow American’s to join foreign armies in times of need so that if an American is willing they can make a difference. If 51% of able-bodied American’s joined a foreign force to combat evil and/or contributed funds to these causes I think we would see evil be defeated in many cases.

    If you think that 51% of able-bodied American’s would not serve or fund other countries across the world on their own… then you and I have something in common. If 51% of American’s would not give money or risk their lives for other counties, then why the hell is our Federal Government doing this in the first place? Is it because “it’s the right thing to do”, or because it’s “just and righteous”? That’s what they told us about Iraq and i have to say I don’t believe them anymore.

    This is why I have changed my mind. I will (or want to) contribute my time and money to causes I feel are “just” and “righteous”. I don’t want the government taking my money and giving it to who they feel, or just say, rightfully deserves it.

  • “The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.”

    What did the US do about any of that?

    We did not bomb or invade them.

    Should we have bombed Ukraine, China, etc. to stop killing innocents?

  • We should do what we can T. Shaw to stop innocents from being massacred. Sometimes we effectively lack the power to do anything about it, but we should never rest our foreign policy on the presumption that murder of innocents abroad is none of our business. In regard to China, if we had effectively supported the Nationalists, corrupt though they were, in their war against Mao in 1945-49, how many tens of millions of lives might have been saved? After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1919, the US and its allies had an opportunity to support the Whites against the Reds. Instead the US and its allies tired of the conflict, pulled out of Russia and the Soviet Union was established, with the consequences to the world that we are all familiar with. When we refuse to fight evils at the outset, the evils often do not disappear, but grow in strength and end up killing hordes of innocents.

    This section from Proverbs 24 has always hit home to me in this area:

    10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
    how small is your strength!
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  • It was Catholics who put the worst president we have known in our lifetime, even over Jimmy Carter, into office. How can we do this again by voting for someone who cannot win with his crazy conspiracy theories and his isolationist thinking?

    Are we doomed to repeat history because we ignore it? Does anyone here think that the US has done anything to make clearly religious extremists, BIGOTS, whose religion like it or not, gives them permission to kill the infidel…that be us…just for existing into assassins hell bent oh no, paradise bent to kill us all. The entire Western Civilization.

    I have never heard Judge Napolitano espouse the conspiracy theory that the Truthers espouse but regardless, they are crazy. Ron Paul is pro life, thank God, but he is not prolife if he thinks he can negotiate us to peace with these people. They are more prolific than us, because most Catholics do not practice a prolife mentality and they are not unwilling to die. All I can see is that we are not willing to do what our fathers did, we are willing to die for our freedom and that of our brothers and sisters.

    How said for people like my father and I am sure many of yours or your grandfathers and mothers who laid down their life. Or was Hitler more of an enemy than a Islamist extremists who insinuate themselves into our culture, take advantage of our education, and good heartedness until ready to blow themselves up for what? 70 Virgins….doesn’t that offend anyone?

    When I stand before Jesus, I will have to answer for voting for someone who may use techniques of war, IN war, that I don’t necessarily care for, however, I feel better being able to say that I voted for a lesser evil in order to end the reign of a decidely anti life, scoundrel who has lied to us about everything and is not only trying to control our birth and death but how, when and where we can practice our faith, in fact I would venture to say, Obama would like to replace our Christian faith with a secularist faith based upon the ideology of green. To be a steward of this gift of earth is our task but climate change and all that has attached itself to it is not about science it is about ideology and a way to replace Christ, expecially in the minds of kids, with mother earth.

    We need a pit bull to go against the obama machine, not someone who thinks, much like Carter did (and look what that got us) that we can negotiate or worse just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is no other world out there…no enemy by us.

    I am so saddened that we may be the reason for another 4 years of hopey changey until the only change will be our Church muzzled and more of us blown up.

  • Hello Chris, May I offer a brief rebuttal from the Ron Paul side? Sir, you are completely mistaken or misguided when you refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I know the media says it all the time but it simply is not Dr. Paul’s view. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that were a significant threat present itself he would deal with it swiftly, vigorously, and completely, and then he would come home. That to me, does not sound like a man who is weak on defense, but rather a man who is wise on war.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is non-interventionist. Ron Paul wants free trade and friendship with all nations. When Ahmadinejad made serious overtures at the U.N. recently, that he was ready to negotiate, Obama wanted none of it. War has been the game plan from day one.

    Here’s a clip from General Wesley Clark stating as much in no uncertain terms.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uswDmTjLog

    I could go into greater detail of course but if this clip doesn’t at least get you to look into what I’m saying a little deeper, any additional words on the topic would be meaningless.

    In regard to the evil horde of Muslim extremists eager to destroy us and our way of life. Sir, as someone who has shared tea and tobacco with Muslim men, who has done business with Persians (Iranians), Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese etc. I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. My son who works in Naval Intelligence (no jokes please) doesn’t see it either and he is far more in the know than I am. I know these people personally. Most Muslims, Middle Easterners, Africans, what have you, they simply want to be left alone.

    Are there Muslim extremists? Absolutely. But there are Christian extremist, Hindu Extremists, every religion has it’s extremists. Here is something that so many people rarely ever think about. Of all the people in America who claim to be Christian, how many of them would you call fundamentalists, and out of the fundamentalists, how many would you label as extreme, and out of the extremists, how many are blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis? I hope you are beginning to see my point. Islam is no different than Christianity, Muslims are no different than Christians or Mormons or any other group. Religious practice in the middle east is as cultural as religious practices everywhere else in the world. They are no more devoted to their faith and all that faith entails than the average “Christian”. Most Muslims don’t know the Koran any better than most “Christians” know their Bible’s.

    When we place sanctions on countries who have done us no harm, starving their children, devastating their economies and overall quality of life, when we threaten them with war and regime change, we create the very extremists that we fear.

    In your comment above you spoke of “our Christian faith”, I share that same faith. In my 20 plus years as a Christian, and a Christian who takes his faith perhaps a bit more seriously than some, though admittedly not as much as others, I have yet to discover this concept of Christ honoring preemptive war. If you can direct me to the appropriate scriptures supporting this position I will consider them with prayer. Until then, may I leave you with a verse from 2 Timothy,

    “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind’.

    God Bless

  • I see Ron Paul is way ahead in this poll. I do not believe it is true Catholics who usually view National Catholic Register voting for Paul. The paulbots find polls over the internet and tell all of their paulbot buddies to go that site and vote for Paul. To love thy neighbor means help those all over the world. That’s what America’s been doing since her birth, starting at Tripoli, and part of why she’s been so blessed.
    God Bless America.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Archie,

    I too have sat and laughed and kibbitzed with may people of Middle Eastern background, including Muslims. Sufism is a lovely mystical version of Islam. Sufism was one man’s attempt to bring to Islam what we believe, that reason and faith are compatible and should work in cooperation. He was not successful because of the Koran’s religion and the pressure of the mainline groups, so it went the way of mysticism. But those who truly still adhere to it are lovely hearts. As a Middle Eastern Major in college, I have always had a love of the place, the people and the history. But I am not naive about their religion or their cultural ways. Are there extremists in all religions, heck yes, but how may certainly in this day and age blow up people of other religions for no reason. We have the nuts who go to military funerals and spew their hatred, but they don’t kill people, they don’t send their young children or mothers to die. The cool aid drinkers who think one or another of their prophets is Jesus incarnate or another Messiah tend to kill themselves rather than others. It is quite different and the difference come by the fact that we do not worship the same god…worshipping one god does not make it the same god. Their story is Abraham Isaac and Ishmael with the emphasis on Ismael. They cannot know God in any real way, a personal God for them is anathema. Jesus is just a prophet and not the last or with the last word.

    Have christians done bad things over time yes, and people always want to bring up the Crusades, but defending our own in the Holy Land was not necessarily doing wrong when we were asked in and it was a different age. We constantly judge our ancestors by our own 21st century values. We give everyone else a pass…loh that is their culture, we can’t comment or dislike it but when it comes to ourselves we say, how dare the Crusaders do this or that.

    Do not put Christian fundementalists in the same light with these people that is completely to twist the truth. If you are going to do comparisons, do them in this time and place. When was the last time CHristians savagely attacked any one of another religion without provocation, other than our religion/our God (to whom we are slaves remember that is the case for muslims) tells us it is what we should do?

    The Iranians are NOT going to negotiate. Iran is no different than STalin was or the Japanese even for their part back in the 30s and 40s. You are not dealing with honest people. Have you so soon forgotten Jimmy Carter’s debacle in that respect? While I have no use for Obama, he had to listen to HIlary and the people who know with whom we are dealing…zebras do not change their stripes.

    How about Obama’s tour of Mea Culpa at the beginning of his presidency, telling everyone how the US is to blame and we are sorry and we would just love to negotiate and work with you. Where did that get us? Perhaps that is why Obama stepped back a bit. He found out all he did was expose us to being considered weak and a target.

    I think Obama set out to wreck the country, period. All his ‘friends’ are out in th eopen communists, socialists and anarchists. He found out, we the people are in line with that and while most of his appointees drink the same cool aid, don’t think Hilary, does though I wouldn’t vote for her either. Like her or not, she is clearly working her tail off from the looks of her and she has here hands full.

    Can’t you see by the outcome of the so called “Arab Spring” that we are in for the biggist struggle of our lives. As soon as I saw the first country rise up, I began to pray, knowing full well it ws not going tobring a spring but a long winter of extremism.

    What does Ron Paul consider imminent danger? And I don’t want us to negotiate or give money to these people through the government. I am a believe not in redistribution of wealth, perhaps Distributionism but I don’t trust the government not to make that into socialism and communism as it is almost impossible for power not to corrupt. I believe in Subsidiarity whether it is here or abroad. When three planes are flown out to kill us for no reason other than we are who we are, we vote, we respect others’ religious rights, women’s rights…or we did before the feminist and gay rights movements and the cowtowing that the Obama administration is doing to their causes…that is a declaration of war. That you can’t pin point a country but must admit to a cultural enemy doesn’t change it. Makes it far more difficult and requires some not so typical tactics of war, but it still requires us to accept it for what it is and protect ourselves and our country.

    I do understand the culture and the religion. I don’t listen to the msm or anyone else on this one. I study history and I am tired of the tail wagging the dog in this country. Mostly I pray…and I would suggest we all do that rather than just listening to televisions and debates. I want a pit bull to go up against Obama and that isn’t Ron Paul and frankly it isn’t Ron Santorum though I admire him. It is Newt because he is knowledgeable and he has made our government work together before. One of the very few who have. He has the intelligence and the experience.

    If we were voting for a saint none of these people would deserve our vote. But we are not, we are voting for a man or woman who can reign in this government and it’s tenticles on both our money, our human rights and our religious rights to name the most important. We have ideologues on both sides and the only one who has ever been able to cut through that is Newt Gingrich. Like him or not, he converted and he was absolved ofhis sins. Who are we to second guess Christ. Is his personality great no, but this isn’t a personality contest. This is a contest for our country…is there a real monetary crisis coming…hell yes and no matter who gets in it will not be averted, perhaps mitigated but not averted.

    Let’s listen to history and to our God…let’s us pray for our country and that whomever we put into office, we will as a people put God back in the center of our lives and the life and laws of this country. That is where I stand.

  • Pingback: Character Assassination on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Friday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • So nobody’s supposed to vote in this poll unless you’re a regular on this site? How is it fair to completely remove a candidate from the poll based on that? Seems pretty biased to me!

  • Josette,

    You don’t have to be a regular at TAC, but Spamming does not reflect the electorate.

  • Ron Paul 2012!

  • first of all, just because we believe in the message of Ron Paul does not make us dishonest, cheaters, or less valuable in the eyes of the Lord or the United States. we each get 1 vote and believe me, we don’t have to cheat to have enough voters to beat any of the other candidates. We are also willing to support him from our pockets too. he does not take money from Lobbyists, churches, Wall street or big Government supporters. He attends Church ever Sunday, has raised a good, god Fearing family, has great values for himself and his offspring. How can you not support a man who is truly a Christian, a Military Hero, and honest person and a true Statesman? I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations!

  • “I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations”

    Initially Sour Melody 00, I put your comment in the trash where the rantings of anti-Catholic bigots like yourself normally end up at this site. However, the sheer stupidity of coming to a Catholic website to urge support for a candidate, and while you are doing so spitting on the Catholic Faith, was so monumental that I had to share it with my fellow Catholics for their amusement. Thank you for the laugh that your bitterness, bile and bigotry produced.

  • Mel’s a typical paulbot [email protected] I had favorable feelings for Paul (he’s right on the Fed for the wrong resaons). I never thought libertarians were worth the powder it would take to shoot them.

    After Mel’s hate-filled tripe, Paul can go to Hell and so can his freaking son Rand.

    To ensure Paul never got elected; if, in some nightmarish scenario, Paul were nominated by the GOP, I’d vote for Obama. Then, I’d go to Confession because that would be a mortal sin.

  • Mel you black-hearted protestant murderer.

    Now, I remember why I always threw in when they passed the hat for the IRA, you rat.

  • I second Donald.

    I initially was going to trash your bigoted rant, but Donald did the right thing to show how vile your hate is to all the world.

  • “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God”

    Mathew 5:9

Bye Bye Pawlently

Sunday, August 14, AD 2011

Tim Pawlenty is the first casualty of the Republican primary contest for President, with his announcement today of his dropping out.  I am not too surprised.  His only hope as a candidate was to win the Iowa caucuses.  His attacks against the frontrunner in Iowa, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, in the debate last week proved completely ineffective.  His loss in the Saturday Aimes, Iowa straw poll, coming in a distant third after Bachmann and Ron Paul (R. Pluto), demonstrated that his hopes in Iowa were minimal.

Continue reading...

53 Responses to Bye Bye Pawlently

  • Pawlenty’s campaign was a dud from the get go. Like Fred Thompson in 2008, T-Paw’s candidacy never was.

  • Always find the writing, opinions, and ideas on this blog to be interesting and well-reasoned.

    That said, I also find it extremely disheartening to see the flippant disregard to the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. Your notation of “(R. Pluto) after his name is a childish and snide knock at a solidly principled candidate for president.

    If you are looking for a candidate that has a decades long pro-life record, Dr. Paul is one.

    If you are looking for a candidate that has a decades long fiscally conservative record, Dr. Paul certainly qualifies.

    If you are looking for a candidate whose actions throughout their career demonstrates unwavering fidelity to rule of law, individual freedom and liberty, and the God-given rights of every human being, Dr. Paul stands out well beyond every Republican and Democrat candidate for this office.

    To tag him (R. Pluto) is to join Rush Limbaugh and his “nuts on parade” diatribe against the only candidate who truly espouses peace and freedom. This doesn’t make sense to me on a blog that otherwise seems to write in favor of these fundamental human principles.

  • What the hell is the purpose of a “straw poll” more than six months before the caucuses, which are themselves six months from the convention.
    Why does our election process from the “starting to begin to consider forming a committee” stage to finally actually casting ballots have to be so ludicrously elongated?

  • “That said, I also find it extremely disheartening to see the flippant disregard to the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. Your notation of “(R. Pluto) after his name is a childish and snide knock at a solidly principled candidate for president.”

    Nope, it is an accurate statement about Paul. The man is a headcase on foreign policy and his type of thinking would be begging for a nuclear Pearl Harbor.

    A typical Paul divergence from reality was when Osama bin Laden was taken out:

    “Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

    “I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

    Well maybe it was because we knew that sections of the Pakistani military are in bed with the Jihadists and have been protecting Osama. When it comes to foreign policy Paul inhabits a dream world made up of wishful thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering and raw ignorance.

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/05/16/isolationist-fever-ron-pauls-delerious-statements-on-bin-laden/

    Beyond that, his ignorance on a great many subjects that he insists on pontificating on, including the Civil War, is a wonder to behold. The Congress will be a better place when he is out of it in 2013.

  • “Why does our election process from the “starting to begin to consider forming a committee” stage to finally actually casting ballots have to be so ludicrously elongated?”

    Probably because those candidates who start early have tended to be the ones elected since the Sixties. That, and the huge amounts of money required to run a race, which takes an enormous amount of time to raise.

  • H. Bunce, if you are looking for a candidate who has ever superintended a corps of people larger and more complex than his office staff, Ron Paul is not that guy.

  • I’m with Bunce on this, McClarey. Ron Paul is only a headcase insofar as he aspires to return us to the days when we didn’t feel compelled to meddle in every part of the world where we might have had some tangential interest – and the US will be done as a nation before that ever happens, I am convinced. And one of the reasons is that nationalist idolators and military adventurists with far more public exposure than yourself share in your casual and cavalier disregard for ideas that you can’t actually defeat in a debate. Or, lestways, I haven’t seen anyone with gumption enough to even try, let alone succeed. Why bother, when dismissal or snide comments like yours and Art Deco’s are so much easier?

  • Wolfie, Paul yearns for the days when America could hunker down behind two vast oceans and let the rest of the world go to the Devil. His complete nonchalance about a rogue regime like Iran obtaining nuclear weapons amply demonstrates that he does not understand what we are facing in the world and does not wish to. Although I almost wish I could be there after a smuggled nuke takes out an American city to hear President Ron Paul explain how he will solve the problem by issuing letters of marque and reprisal!

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

  • I’m kind of disappointed to hear that Pawlenty dropped out… I was thinking that he might be a good president precisely BECAUSE he wasn’t the greatest campaigner nor was he a highly polarizing figure. The last thing we need is another president of EITHER liberal or conservative persuasion who cultivates a cult of personality or a “political savior” image. Just find someone who can do the job.

    In other GOP campaign (sort of) news, I just found out that the Sarah Palin bus tour stopped at the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield this morning. Nope, did’nt see her (would have been at Mass at the time anyway), didn’t even know she was in town until she was gone and the local newspaper (www.sj-r.com) posted a story on its website.

    The newspaper invited people who may have seen her at the museum to post comments to the story, but needless to say, NOT ONE comment so far is from anyone who actually saw or met her, it’s all Palin haters and Palin defenders arguing back and forth as usual.

  • As for Ron Paul, perhaps he, like Newt Gingrich, is half genius and half crazy — and you can’t always figure out which half is in charge at any given time. He might do well as a lower level economic adviser to a GOP administration, and might come up with some good ideas; just be sure he isn’t in a position where his bad ideas will do actual damage.

  • “…nor was he a highly polarizing figure…”

    Please speak for yourself — the man’s an ex-Catholic.

  • This is sort of unusual for me.

    I’m about 88% in agreement with AD on this one: “H. Bunce, if you are looking for a candidate who has ever superintended a corps of people larger and more complex than his office staff, Ron Paul is not that guy.”

    Absolutely! Currently, America is experiencing the horrors attendant with a president whose prior executive/superintending experience consists of organizing sit-ins, and aiding and abetting government frauds, i.e., Rezko.

    I’m starting to think the Swiss model: everyone knows not to attack us (ICBM’s, nuke trident subs, ABM) and keep our nose out of everybody else’s business. That may be appropriate for American peace and prosperity. The Swiss franc is the envy of the world, too.

    I recently converted to the gold standard. If you oppose central planning, collective control of the economy, or the Washington/Wall Street five trillion dollar a year money ring, Rep. Paul may the best man in the areas of fiscal and monetary policy.

    The 12% where I disagree with AD above is wherein I believe the federal government should be THAT small and THAT simple.

  • “Nope, it is an accurate statement about Paul. The man is a headcase on foreign policy and his type of thinking would be begging for a nuclear Pearl Harbor.”

    No, sir, it is wildly inaccurate. It doesn’t make sense to oppose the clumsy and destructive interventions by government domestically while simultaneously supporting the same clumsy and destructive interevention internationally.

    It is interesting to juxtapose your above statement with this one… “Well maybe it was because we knew that sections of the Pakistani military are in bed with the Jihadists and have been protecting Osama. When it comes to foreign policy Paul inhabits a dream world made up of wishful thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering and raw ignorance.”

    The Pakistani’s possess nuclear weapons, are corrupt (according to your statemtent, and I agree with you), worked closely with jihadists, and apparently were protecting/harboring bin Laden. Given this, shouldn’t we be warring with Pakistan first before we begin the war with Iran?

    Dr. Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, is his collection of statements and positions regarding American foreign policy both before and after 9/11. In my opinion, it is a stunning book that shows a grasp of foreign policy that rivals any office holder since the beginning of our republic. I’m sure you disagree, but it thoroughly refutes your claim of “wishfull thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering, and raw ignorance”. Raw ignorance?! For God’s sake, the man understands more about what brought our country to futile wars from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya (and beyond) than any potential Republican presidential candidate and certainly Barack Obama.

    When I was a young boy, the argument was we must fight and die in Vietnam to prevent the “dominoes from falling” to communism. 58,000 dead Americans later, Vietnam was a communist country. 40 years after that, we trade with them, we are tourists in their country, we invest in Vietnam. In short, we engage with them peacefully whether we like their form of government or not; whether they continue to oppress their own people or not.

    Fast forward to 2011, think about this Vietnam lesson, and ask whether we should be engaging Iran, Pakistan, Libya, and every other nuclear or non-nuclear country we currently vilify…or should we be bombing and killing them?

    To say Dr. Paul is an “isolationist” is a thoughtless smear. To say he is ignorant of reasoned foreign policy is contrary to fact. To say he engages in wishful thinking is the opposite of his entire record since his first term in 1976.

    You obviously don’t agree and I respect that opinion. To drop in the childish (R. Pluto) even further degrades that opinion.

  • “The Swiss model”

    Yep the Swiss model works! All you need is a United States of America to defeat Nazi Germany and deter the Soviets from conquering Europe subsequent to World War II. Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?

  • “Given this, shouldn’t we be warring with Pakistan first before we begin the war with Iran?”

    No Pakistani leaders have promised to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the US unlike Iranian leaders. Pakistan also isn’t supplying weapons to Hamas and to kill American soldiers in Iraq as Iran is doing.

    “40 years after that, we trade with them, we are tourists in their country, we invest in Vietnam. ”

    And the Church is persecuted, the Vietnamese know no political freedom and over a million Vietnamese fled their country, risking their lives on the high seas. Why it’s Nirvana!

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is quite simple. Retreat to Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hell. His foreign policy, if implemented, would be a disaster for the US and the rest of the world. Fortunately he will never get the opportunity to learn how little his delusions accord with the real world.

  • Maybe if he would have had something other to stand for other than bashing Obama.

  • “No Pakistani leaders have promised to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the US unlike Iranian leaders. Pakistan also isn’t supplying weapons to Hamas and to kill American soldiers in Iraq as Iran is doing.”

    Pakistani leaders and the nation’s population as a whole is deeply influenced by Islam and Pakistani’s have made innumerable statements condemning and threatening Israel. And just where are the sanctuaries and support (weapons among them) currently for Al-Qaeda and Taliban? The answer is Pakistan. Who is killing Americans in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

    “And the Church is persecuted, the Vietnamese know no political freedom and over a million Vietnamese fled their country, risking their lives on the high seas. Why it’s Nirvana!”

    Come on, this is a complete and total straw man argument and you’ve always been better than that on this blog. Did 58,000 American dead prevent Church persecution, no political freedom, or any of the other misery of life in Vietnam? No, it didn’t and I never intimated that this country was any sort of paradise. What has helped some since the end of the war, and may do much more in the future, is American trade, tourism, investment, interaction with the Vietnamese people. It can do so much more effectively, and morally I might add, than American guns and bombs. THIS is the foreign policy advocated by Dr. Paul.

    It can do the same for Iranians, Libyans, Somalis, Pakistanis, ……

    “Ron Paul’s foreign policy is quite simple. Retreat to Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hell. His foreign policy, if implemented, would be a disaster for the US and the rest of the world. Fortunately he will never get the opportunity to learn how little his delusions accord with the real world.”

    This is a gross mischaracterization of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy positions. In fact, it is completely the opposite of his 30+ years of speaking and voting on all these matters. Each of us, and generations yet unborn, are facing a debt burden that is unpayable and immoral. This is due in large part to NOT following Dr. Paul’s exhortations against American empire building. And this doesn’t even begin to calculate the staggering human cost of our current course of foreign policy, advocated by all the other Republican candidates.

    Don’t take my word for it, and certainly don’t take the MSM word for it. Find out for yourself by investing a few hours in reading what he has to say. If you find no merit in what he actually says, then so be it. At least you will be clear in what Dr. Paul’s ideas are. Agree or disagree, one could not help but respect the man and his adherance to the principles of freedom and peace.

    He may not get the opportunity to implement his policy views. And that is too bad for my children and yours.

  • “Pakistani leaders and the nation’s population as a whole is deeply influenced by Islam and Pakistani’s have made innumerable statements condemning and threatening Israel.”

    They have never threatened to nuke Israel and the United States. Additionally, elements of the Pakistani military have been fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for years. This places them in a different category than Iran. It is precisely an inability to make such distinctions that makes Ron Paul such a buffoon on foreign policy. That, and his belief that the solution to our conflicts overseas is simply to abandon the field to our enemies and to retreat to our shores.

    “Did 58,000 American dead prevent Church persecution, no political freedom, or any of the other misery of life in Vietnam?”

    The Church was certainly not persecuted while American troops were in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese enjoyed far more political and economic freedom and over a million South Vietnamese had not had to flee their homeland to escape Communist tyranny. There are real life consequences when we give up, take our marbles and go home, and the consequences for the Vietnamese who fought beside us during the Vietnam War were dire. Ron Paul and other isolationists simply refuse to deal with the real life consequences of their preferred solution to foreign policy difficulties which is always US retreat.

    “Don’t take my word for it, and certainly don’t take the MSM word for it. Find out for yourself by investing a few hours in reading what he has to say.”

    Oh I have been following Ron Paul and reading his writings long before he came into the public limelight in the last decade.

  • The constant name-calling against Ron Paul by mainstream GOP members only reveal how childish and morally bankrupt they are. Instead of honestly debating him, they simple appeal to the voter’s base nature.

    Ron Paul scares the establishment because he’d actually shrink the size of government, and not just talk about it. Who here actually thinks a theoretical Republican president would rollback the size and scope of D.C? God forbid they actually passed a balanced budget, let alone wrote one.

    On foreign policy, the GOP won’t be happy unless they are blowing up somebody on the other side of the planet. War is their solution to every problem, it seems. They love war, and slurp it up from the public trough like it’s an ice cream sundae. They love war just as much as liberals love the welfare state. Fact.

    But you know, I could let that all slide if only the opposition were capable of being mature, decent human beings. You know, Ron Paul has some strong rhetoric, but I can’t recall him ever singling out a person and calling him names. Maybe he’d do better in the polls if he actually did.

    People like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman and Rick Perry honestly give me the creeps. I would rather sit out the election or vote third party than be morally culpable for the whirlwind these crazies would stir up.

  • “Ron Paul scares the establishment”

    No one is scared of Ron Paul Anthony, because no one believes he will ever be President. He is simply a clown who has a cult who adore him and who stack internet and straw polls for him. He is the GOP Lyndon Larouche and his act got old a very long time ago.

    He is also a hypocrite when it comes to government spending as his long time love affair with government pork projects indicates:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/104609/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget-updated

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

  • Looking at the GOP field so far, I’d say Barry has little to worry about.
    Paul comes off as a wacko, Romney as an empty suit, Bachmann as Palin lite, Cain as an overachieving pizza maker, Santorum as a yawn, Perry’s “that’s fine with me” on homo marriage as wishy-washy, Gingrich is yesterday’s news, and Pawlenty proved he’s a RINO and irrelevant.

    As for the straw poll, only George W. Bush, winner in 1999, came out first in the general election. The other winners all went nowhere (George H.W. Bush, Pat Robertson, Bob Dole and Phil Gramm – they tied in 1995 – and Mitt Romney).

  • You still haven’t made a single argument. You’ve just got schoolyard name-calling, like any old bully or pundit.

    The man says what he believes, believes what he says, and has the voting record to prove it. Paul is far from perfect, but he has my respect, and for that he’ll get my vote in the primaries.

    I’m sick and tired of the chattering classes telling us all what to think, and Paul’s candidacy is for people sensitive to this growing and constant problem. I genuinely hope he causes migraines for the GOP.

    I have zero confidence that the GOP is capable of putting in a president who will change the nation’s course for the better. I’m 100% confident that should any of the mainstream candidates get in the oval office, we will get more of the same: more war, more spending, and steady decline.

  • “You still haven’t made a single argument.”

    Rubbish Anthony. I have made arguments as to Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy and his love of pork. You have chosen not to respond to the arguments.

    “I genuinely hope he causes migraines for the GOP.”

    No, even as a purely gadfly nuisance candidate Ron Paul is completely ineffective. I would like to see him run on a third party ticket with Dennis Kucinich (D. Neptune), however, for the sheer entertainment value.

  • D-Neptune. Priceless, Don. Paul, R-Alpha Centuri

  • Looking at the GOP field so far, I’d say Barry has little to worry about.

    Gallup has some handy historical statistics published, covering the entire post-war period. Given B.O.’s level of public esteem at this date, should he be returned to office it would be…an innovation. And that is presuming the current unpleasantness in the Eurozone does not draw us into the maelstrom.

  • Joe Green.

    I’m having quite a laugh here. You say Ron Paul (R – Alpha Centauri)
    Don says Ron Paul ( R – Pluto).

    At least, Alpha Centauri is a remote galaxy – Pluto is essentially a non-existent planet.

    Take your pick 😆

    I’m sure Ron will be happy with his retirement package in a few years.

  • “Yep the Swiss model works! All you need is a United States of America to defeat Nazi Germany and deter the Soviets from conquering Europe subsequent to World War II. Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?”

    That was the. This is now.

    I don’t relish debating “What would have happened if Custer had machine guns” possibilities.

    War and peace are tough for me.

    Today is a BIG (Feast of the Assumption!). I love this Feast.

    History: Today in 1971, President Nixon (he robo-signed signed my commission) officially closed the Treasury gold window. He took the US off the gold standard. Gold was $35 an ounce. By 1974, gold was $195 an ounce. By January 1980, it was $800 an ounce. Nixon ended the gold standard to assist with the misguided wage and price controls regime.

    The government can’t central plan or collectively control the economy with the gold standard. Since 1971, the world has experienced 39 hyper-inflationary episodes . . . and umpty-umph recessions.

  • “That was the. This is now.”

    Human nature doesn’t change T.Shaw, and I do not think that the challenges we face abroad will vanish if we decide to retreat to a Fortress America.

    In regard to Nixon, it always amused me that he was hated so by Liberals, as his Presidency indicated that he was one of them, a fact noted by conservative critics of the Nixon administration at the time. His moniker of “Tricky Dick” was well earned, but his main trick was putting a conversative facade over what was a RINO essence.

  • I think it is difficult to discern a set of political principles from Richard Nixon’s career that would fix him at a particular place on our domestic spectrum. Garry Wills attempted it in Nixon Agonistes, but his framework told you more about Wills than about Nixon. I suspect the man was a careerist reacting to the world around him. Both he and Spiro Agnew had a vigorous (and, one suspects, genuinely felt) antagonism to the liberal establishment as a subculture, but they carried with them little or nothing in the way of plans for dismantling the liberal establishment’s policy architecture (beyond dismantling goofy initiatives like the Office of Economic Opportunity).

  • Nixon was a big government man through and through Art. Wage and Price controls, the EPA, expansion of domestic federal spending, these and more underlined that Nixon, no less than Johnson, was a believer that large Federal spending was the key to bettering society. His downplaying of human rights as a consideration of US foreign policy and his China policy, indicated that his anti-Communism was skin deep. He opposed abortion publicly, but privately supported it in some circumstances, a stance he embraced openly in his retirement.

    His antipathy for his liberal critics I think was always more because they hated him and wouldn’t let him be a member of the club. He thought there was some snobbishness against his humble background, and I think he was right on that. Nixon in many ways was a fairly conventional liberal Republican in the Thomas Dewey mode. His initial campaigns for the House and Senate in which he pretended, for political expediency, to be a conservative set a pattern by which he was misunderstood throughout his political career by opponents and supporters.

  • With the loser GOP field we have, Obama is headed for a second term. Not one of them could beat him in a general election, regardless of the “polls”. As the old saying goes, Americans deserve the government they want, good and hard.

    As for US foreign policy, it is soon to be irrelevant. Collapsed countires cannot do much foreign policy – we are about to become as relevant as Argentina (only with a crappier soccer team – on the bright side, our wines will still be as good).

  • I do not think that the challenges we face abroad will vanish if we decide to retreat to a Fortress America.

    Kind of begs the question – would we have to face these challenges abroad if, um, we weren’t abroad? Donald, this just seems to be a particualr blind spot for your otherwise pretty spot on analyses.

  • I was not inside either Nixon’s head or Agnew’s head. I merely note that both men were in their way practitioners of bourgeois virtue in their mundane lives, both came from petit bourgeois backgrounds (w/ both fathers in small business), and (until they were well into middle age) lived on (and saved from) their earnings; neither man had much in the way of social connections. A characteristic of liberal opinion of the age was to belittle (from several different directions) the achievements and tastes of men such as Nixon and Agnew. Wills does that in spades in Nixon Agonistes, even sneering at Sprio Agnew’s dog. I do not think either man wished to join a club populated with the likes of Garry Wills and Arthur Schlesinger.

  • Nixon was essentially a morally bankrupt career politician (but I repeat myself). No more nor less than about 90% of our political class.

  • Similar predictions were made cmatt about the inevitability of a second Carter term in 1979 when looking at the Republican field. Reagan was especially written off as an over the hill politician who was far too conservative to be elected. That is why we have campaigns, to see if our crystal balls are working well or not. Considering that Obama is now descending into the thirties in approval in polls that I think understate Republican strength, I believe whoever the GOP nominates will have an excellent chance of giving Obama an early start on his true career: World Celebrity For Life.

  • “I do not think either man wished to join a club populated with the likes of Garry Wills and Arthur Schlesinger.”

    Agnew the corrupt small time politician I do not venture an opinion on. Nixon certainly did. Hence his churning out turgid tomes in retirement to be taken seriously as an elder statesman by the chattering classes who despised him. Nixon was partially successful in this, as the “moderate” Nixon was a useful stick with which to belabor current conservative Republican politicians.

  • With the loser GOP field we have, Obama is headed for a second term. Not one of them could beat him in a general election, regardless of the “polls”. As the old saying goes, Americans deserve the government they want, good and hard.

    Again, Gallup has made available some historical statistics. Several of our recent presidents have recovered in public esteem sufficiently to be returned to office: Truman did, Nixon did, and Reagan did (a task at which Messrs. Carter and Ford failed). Obama will have to recover more territory in less time than any of them (bar, perhaps, Carter). That is not something you would rule out without qualification, but not something you would expect, either. (Most particularly with the Eurozone mess).

  • That is why we have campaigns, to see if our crystal balls are working well or not.

    That’s not why we have campaigns.

    I think Nixon and Agnew were more interesting (and tragic) figures than you say. They both had a great many assets, unfortunately put to ill use.

  • Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?

    China. Not because it will want to, but because it has the most to lose/gain from instability as it conquers the world. And frankly, is the only one that can at this point. We won’t like it, I’m sure, but not too many actually “liked” the Pax Romana either (for that matter, there are many dissenters of the “Pax Americana” as well). But these things do not happen by choice, they happen by force, and I am afraid we no longer are in a position to exercise significant force politically, economically or militarily for much longer. We had our run, it was a decent one (although rather short-lived), thanks for all the fish.

  • Kind of begs the question – would we have to face these challenges abroad if, um, we weren’t abroad?

    Yes, and that is the problem with Ron Paul. He fancies international conflict as a function of the discretionary decisions of policy-makers not so wise as he. No problem with self-esteem there.

  • “That’s not why we have campaigns.”

    You are too much of a literalist this morning Art! 🙂

    I have never had any use for Nixon. I think the man did great damage to the nation and the GOP. His one saving grace is that the men he defeated in 1968 and 1972 would doubtless have done even greater damage to the nation.

  • I believe whoever the GOP nominates will have an excellent chance of giving Obama an early start on his true career: World Celebrity For Life.

    I would love for that to be the case, provided his replacement truly is a better candidate and not something the same or worse.

    As for Ron Paul’s alleged craziness, well, as Mr. Joel sings, he may just be the lunatic we’re looking for. We’ve tried just about everything else, why not give him a shot?

  • “China. Not because it will want to, but because it has the most to lose/gain from instability as it conquers the world. ”

    Please. China will be doing well if it can hold together mainland China, and not have it disintegrate into warring parts, a fairly frequent occurrence in Chinese history. The aging Communist bureaucrats who run China realize this, even if outside observers from the West are blind to it.

  • “As for Ron Paul’s alleged craziness, well, as Mr. Joel sings, he may just be the lunatic we’re looking for.”

    If the times call for Ron Paul, put me in suspended animation now.

  • Far be it for me to make predictions, but I can easily see a Perry/Romney or Romney/Perry ticket defeating Obama/Biden next year.

  • How about just for giggles, Palin-Bachmann. That would complete the maternalization of America.

  • Another Liberal media gotcha moment about Bachmann, taking one stupid quote and blowing it up into a headline:

    “She didn’t sit down to visit with us and eat with us,” attendee Mel Shaw, 57, told the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper. “She came into the room like she was Madonna or something, a big star appearing before all us little people. She didn’t want to answer questions. That’s not the way we do politics here.”

    Complete story can be found here:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44142133/ns/politics-decision_2012/

  • Whew! I was not praising Nixon. My attempted “point” was about taking the US off the gold standard, nothing else, 40 years ago today.

    PS: the gold standard was invented by one of the most intelligent men that ever lived. The man invented Calculus.

    Mitt Romney named the Obama (Palin-copycat) bus tour: the “Magical Misery Tour.”

    Obama cannot run on his horrible record. His orc minions must demonize the opponent.

    By the way: Gallup poll finds Obama’s approval rating is down to 39%, and disapproval is 54%.

    “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with” Nixon.

  • A couple of hours ago i watched the ABC interviews etc. the day after the Iowa straw poll – Pawlenty pulling out etc., and Perry, although not there in Iowa, presenting himself as a candidate. Much of the show also focussed a lot on Michelle Bachman.

    Now from an outsider just looking at Perry and Bachman, they both look great, speak great, have their successes – Perry benefitting from the current economy in Texas and its growth from escaping Californians, low internal costs etc. etc.

    I know its far too early to make any sort of call, but right now, I don’t think that would be a silly ticket – Perry/Bachman. I feel that the US isn’t quite ready for a Madame President at this time, but who knows?
    My 2 cents.

  • Pingback: GOP Presidential Poll for August | The American Catholic
  • Ron Paul should be president … of Russia.

    Seriously, from hacking Estonia’s government to invading Georgia (advancing beyond the boundaries of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and probable interfering with Ukraine’s elections, it seems to me that the Rus could use some isolationism.

    And the fact that someone here wants to give world leadership over to the People’s Republic of China – a nation that forces abortions, persecutes Christians, jails dissidents, and was founded by a man who killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined – is deplorable. It’s hypocrisy worthy of Biden or Pelosi.

    (You could almost say it’s the unofficial credo of “paleocon” foreign policy – OK for thee, but not for me.)

    I’m not sure who my favorite GOP candidate for the White House is (O Santorum, why must you approve waterboarding?) In any event, I think we should get together and start a grass-roots movement to put Ron Paul in the Kremlin! 😉

  • I think the country is indeed ready for a woman president, but it must be a conservative or moderately conservative woman who is more accomplished and less eccentric than Bachmann.

  • Too bad we can”t turn the clock back 30 years and get Maggie Thatcher over here. I have nothing against eccentricity although it didn’t help Adlai Stevenson, for one.

Newsweek and the Demonization of Michele Bachmann

Tuesday, August 9, AD 2011

Newsweek, the newsmagazine worth every cent of the dollar it was recently sold for, is running a hit piece against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann this week.  They aren’t especially subtle about what they are doing as the cover indicates:

 

 

Here is a photograph of Michele Bachmann by a photographer not employed by Newsweek:

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Newsweek and the Demonization of Michele Bachmann

Some Gaffes Are More Equal Than Others

Monday, July 18, AD 2011

I don’t know Klavan on the Culture.  I had always assumed that the media downplays gaffes by Obama because he is obviously a genius and that therefore when he makes a gaffe it is simply a mistake, and no big deal.  Republicans on the other hand are self-evidently idiots, or they would be Democrats, and therefore when they make a gaffe it is revealing of their essential idiocy, and thus newsworthy because it alerts the public to the fact that Republicans are idiots.  No media bias here!

Continue reading...

One Response to Some Gaffes Are More Equal Than Others

  • This is driven by the progressive agenda.

    Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann don’t have Ivy credentials and once or twice misquote arcane facts in history and the dem/prog propaganda organ (a.k.a. the main stream media) call them idiots.

    Obama, Bernanke, Frank, Geithner, Pelosi, Reid, etc. devalue the dollar by printing $3 trillion in Federal reserve Note and no jobs are created; kill the coal and oil sectors – $4 a gallon gas and heating oil; take over the best health care system on Earth; slashed economic growth with 15,000 regulations and uncertainty; pass laws so they can learn what’s in them, etc. and the Obama-worshipping imbeciles repetitively claim that Bachmann and Palin are morons.

    Makes sense to them, I guess.

    We are screwed.

This Issue’s A Bust

Friday, February 18, AD 2011

Once in a while the political news circuit gets stuck on a topic so amazingly trivial and foolish that the spectacle of such a large tempest raging in such a small teapot makes it hard to look away. This week, the leading ladies of the right and left have decided to fight it out over breastfeeding.

I picked this for obvious reasons, but the parent in me says “No diaper and white dress: Watch Out!”

How, you might ask, could something like breastfeeding become a hot political issue? It seems that as part of her Let’s Move program to reduce childhood obesity, Michelle Obama has decided to promote breastfeeding. A nurse-in at the White House? No, that might actually be interesting. Rather, the proposal is for the IRS to grant a tax deduction for breast pumps and other nursing supplies.

Seeing a chance to turn a phrase, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have weighed in, saying that getting the government involved in breastfeeding is the ultimate in “nanny state” politics. And this has given political commentators on the left the chance to weigh in with “Palin attacks breastfeeding” and “Bachmann says government has no business telling women what choices to make about their bodies” type headlines.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to This Issue’s A Bust

  • Its stupid stuff like this, I think, that keeps many people in the center from embracing the Republican Party. I agree with you that the suggested tax deduction is almost a meaningless gesture… at least it was prior to Palin and Bachmann chiming in.

    They might have a point if the government was proposing a consumption tax on formula, but the government has long used tax deductions to provide an incentive towards particular behavior. Whether we should or not is a question we can debate, but I don’t see Palin complaining about how the government is interfering in where we choose to live by giving us a Mortgage Tax Break or Bachmann complaining that the government is trying to tell us who to give money to with the Charitable giving tax break.

    In any case, for many Americans, stuff like this makes them look petty. To a certain extent, I think the Republican party is starting to make the same mistakes Democrats made after the 2008 election. My take on the 2010 election like the 2008 election before it is that the side that won succeeded not because they had convinced most Americans that they were right, rather they convinced most Americans that they were simply less wrong than the side in power. The Republicans might not get hammered by this in 2012 since Democrats still control the Senate and the White House, but if Palin and Bachmann keep opening their mouths like this they might hurt the chances of the Republicans from gaining the White House.

  • This tells me that Palin and Bachmann are merely being partisan and contrarian.

  • “This Issue’s a Bust”

    Bad Darwin. Bad, bad Darwin. 🙂

  • There’s already a huge economic incentive for breastfeeding. You don’t have to spend $100 to $200 a month on formula.

    I picked this for obvious reasons, but the parent in me says “No diaper and white dress: Watch Out!”

    Obvious reason being boobs no doubt.

  • There’s already a huge economic incentive for breastfeeding. You don’t have to spend $100 to $200 a month on formula.

    No kidding…

  • Nah, I’m not touching this one with a 10 inch milk bottle.

  • GROAN:
    I’m so upset. I could give that kid a bust in the mouth.
    GROAN

  • As a non-libertarian and non right-liberal, meaning the valuing of virtue and societal posterity as greater than abstracted “freedom” and “liberty”, I have no theoretical problem whatever with government promoting breast-feeding. I hope they do. (Just as I hope they get rid of the carb-heavy food pyramid.)

    Good for the First Lady.

  • Its stupid stuff like this, I think, that keeps many people in the center from embracing the Republican Party. I agree with you that the suggested tax deduction is almost a meaningless gesture…

    You mean it is trivial for Gov. Palin to comment on the issues but not trivial for people to make the issue decisive in determining their party affiliations?

  • As a non-libertarian and non right-liberal, meaning the valuing of virtue and societal posterity as greater than abstracted “freedom” and “liberty”, I have no theoretical problem whatever with government promoting breast-feeding. I hope they do.

    I don’t have a principled problem with promotion of breast feeding — and I suppose arguably it is the job of first ladies to immerse themselves in earnest and harmless concerns with great fanfare — I just think that the likely benefit of a tax deduction for this is going to be trivial at best. (The working class women who could most use a hand in this regard probably won’t benefit at all, since if you make under 40k and have one or more kids you generally don’t end up paying any taxes anyway.)

    I suppose one could say that Palin and Bachmann are marginally more at fault in that they’re supposed to concern themselves with substantive issues while the first lady is supposed to focus on fluff and the IRS is supposed to focus on minutae — but the fact that this is being blown into a “is the GOP against motherhood?” circus strikes me as deeply silly all around.

  • Oh, no doubt Bachmann and Palin are going to be unfairly beaten about for this, although the fact they never turn down a tv appearance has somthing to do with that.

    As for the trivial benefits of a tax deduction – probably. Economic incentives don’t matter nearly as much as economist types think they do for our tribal and social status seeking species – the whole reason we finally have behavioral economics.

  • Here, Michelle Antoinette is on to something.

    First, this is typical Obama-worshipping media bias.

    Check out the Misery Index as it rises going forward. Obama-regime-generated inflation added to perennial high unemployment will force mothers to breast feed because (assuming their husbands are not unionized, government millionaires) they will be unable to afford formula or milk. The first lady is correct about breast feeding but gives the wrong reason.

  • Initial unemployment claims unexpectedly rose 25,000 from last week to 411,000.

    That is just the 11,000th reason the Obama-worshipping media need to constantly talk about Palin.

  • I suppose arguably it is the job of first ladies to immerse themselves in earnest and harmless concerns with great fanfare

    Mrs. Truman spent much of her time in Missouri.

    Among Mrs. Obama’s problems are that she quit practicing law in 1993 and there are only so many jobs for professional diversicrats at greater Washington’s hospitals.

  • You don’t actually need a breast pump to breast feed. Most babies can feed directly. You only need the pump if mommy is going to leave baby regularly. Typically it means mommy is going to work. So it is not about encouraging breast feeding but encouraging breast-feeding mothers to work. If the government want to help it should enable moms to stay home longer. Most women will breast feed if they have the chance to focus on baby in those first few months.

  • You only need the pump if mommy is going to leave baby regularly. Typically it means mommy is going to work. So it is not about encouraging breast feeding but encouraging breast-feeding mothers to work.

    Agreed. My wife has breastfed all five of our kids, and we’ve never owned a pump. My bias is very much towards mothers staying home — at least while their kids are young enough to nurse.

    Though to be fair, I think it’s more that these folks are assuming that all moms will work and hoping that they won’t forgo breastfeeding even though they’re working. Thus the equipment.

  • Ok, I feel I sort of have standing to address this issue. I tried to breastfeed my one and only child, and could not manage more than a few drops here and there, despite repeated attempts at pumping and other measures. I’m not sure why exactly. My mom told me she tried and failed at breastfeeding also so perhaps it’s inherited. So, as natural as it is, there are women who just can’t do it — whether it’s a psychological thing or a hormonal thing or what.

    I have no objection with promoting breastfeeding in general and I agree it is healthier — that’s why I tried so hard to do it myself. But all the tax deductions in the world probably wouldn’t have helped me and it probably won’t make a whole lot of difference to other women either.

  • If the federal government will be granting tax deductions for breast-feeding, they may as well pay people to have children. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers meant to do when they signed the Constitution.

  • Darn. All the good puns have been taken – been milked dry.

  • Pingback: Taxation and Breastfeeding « Vox Nova
  • “The parent in me says, ‘No diaper and white dress: watch out!”

    That’s for sure. She might as well be tempting fate as much as she would be if, for instance, she washed her car before planning a picnic or outdoor wedding (thereby insuring that it will rain).

  • I miss Laura Bush. She kept a simple, low profile encouraging children to read. Every time I turn around M.O. is telling me what to eat and to move it! Its an ironic choice for a first lady agenda given M.O.’s physical stature and eating habits as reported by the MSM.

    Our family has had a vegetable garden for years, eats very healthily and is involved in a plethora of activities to keep us fit. We’re Republicans, we figured these things out on our own, but I guess some people need to be told what to do.

    As a mother I wold say as far as breast feeding is concerned – do what is right for you. The decision to breast feed MUST be made at the individual level. Bachmann and Palin are right, it’s not the government’s business. But again, I guess some people need to be told what to do.