Talk Elections

According to an interview with CNN.

Also attacks Romney for being "moderate" and "not debating him one-on-one despite his negative campaigning".

Newt Gingrich is such a hypocrite. He's bragged about running a positive campaign solely on the issues, but once others start bringing up his terrible past, he gets dirty right along with them.

Typical.

Saying he won't vote for Paul/"Paul is no better than Obama" proves that Newt a functioning brain. Every Republican running for President should say what Newt has said about Paul. What is there to lose? Real Republicans obviously agree. It would serve as a nice wake up call to Iowa: if you vote for this guy, you're going to be relegated to joke status.

Calling Mitt a "moderate" wasn't a good move though. "Flip flopper?" "Closet liberal?" Sure, that works but attacking someone for being moderate isn't exactly a wise strategy. I know why he's doing it but that doesn't make it a smart move when one remembers the fact that there's still a General election coming up...

Newt Gingrich has to respond to the millions Mitt Romney's corporate-funded shadow groups have spent against him somehow. Not everyone has ultra-rich corporate/Mormon cultist backers to buy up all the Iowa ad time for them.

Newt is getting desperate. He's probably going to take third in both Iowa and NH. Ron Paul is not suppose to be a serious candidate and he is about to finish behind him in the first two primaries / caucuses. Newt won't win. As much as I'm hoping for Paul, Romney is probably going to win the nomination.

How is not supporting Paul being desperate? That's being sane and every single Republican candidate wouldn't vote for him including Romney.

IMO, this hurts Gingrich more than Paul.

Before Gingrich said he would support any of the other Republicans over Obama. Now he is changing his mind.

Not to mention in 1996, Gingrich (along with Bush 41 and Bush 43) worked to help re-elect the Democrat who was elected in 1994 who switch to be a Republican when Paul was challenging him.

Huntsman, Bachmann, Roemer, and I can't believe I'm saying this but possibly even Perry would. Johnson already is. Romney would likely support him. He really does not have a reason not to do so. If Paul loses (after being the nominee) Romney stands to gain some trust from what would otherwise be a very hostile fi-con/constitutionalist/libertarian leaning portion of the GOP in 2016. Romney is no dummy. He played this card in 2008. It's a smart move.

Gingrich and Santorum are the ones that stand to lose the most creditability, if Paul wins the nomination.

Johnson already is voting for Paul if Paul is the nominee? Wow. The Paultards truly are a warped bunch. Johnson, who plans on running against the eventual nominee as the Libertarian nominee, is going to vote against himself and vote for THE DOCTOR!!! instead. Brilliant.


Romney will not be running again if he loses in 2012.

It would be hypocritical if what he was saying wasn't true.

Keystone only hates Paul because he's jealous that Santorum can't seem to get a rise.

Yeah, this is a bit hypocritical for Gingrich, but it's also time someone treats Ron Paul the same way Paul treats everyone else in the Republican primary. When are we going to get angry that Ron Paul hasn't pledged to vote for the nominee whoever it is? Oh, wait, Ron Paul is different so we can't take every thinly veiled attack he throws constantly at everyone every time he talks seriously and can't expect him to support the rest of the party.

Word on the street is that Johnson is going to withhold from actively running until it's clear what's going to happen to Paul.
Even on his website it says (or at least said as of a few days ago if it has changed) "Support Gary Johnson. Support Ron Paul. Support the message."

Paul's only running as a Republican because even he knows that a third-party run would get him nowhere in a general election, like his 1988 run.  He's not actually a Republican at heart.  That's why his campaign is telling Libertarians and independents to re-register as Republicans just so they can support his nomination to a major party, so that he could stand a chance in the general.

In other words, he's a troll.

But libertarians pretending to be Republicans don't make up 24% of the Iowa GOP electorate. Ron Paul is getting normal Republicans to vote for him too. And for some reason even though Ron Paul has never been a team player with the rest of the party, people expect the rest of the party to be team players with him. It doesn't work that way. If Paul wants the establishment to support him, he's going to need to support the establishment.

I'm not saying you're wrong about that.  Then again, that is why in the end, Paul will not be getting the nomination.  The main reason why he jumped into the race was so he could influence the election and expand his fanbase within the Republican Party, which he has been very successful in doing this time around.

I was unaware that loyalty to The Party took precedence over loyalty to your values or to your country. Thanks for that spiel, Comrade

Well, other than party loyalty why would we expect Gingrich to vote for Ron Paul?

Well, that's just the way it works with party primaries.  It isn't moral, but that is what it takes to get the support of your party in order to represent it, sometimes.  Some people like politicians that can lead more than represent, others like politicians that can represent more than lead.

Newt has been claiming to be loyal to the Republican party above all else, whereas Paul hasn't. Newt also claimed he wouldn't be engaging in personal attacks either (Chris Wallace took him up on this), but thats a different story.

     I'm wondering about Paul's congressional campaigns in past years.  Have other Republicans in those cases endorsed his Democratic opponents?  It would be interesting to know about Cornyn and Hutchison, what they did, especially when campaigning in Paul's district.  Perhaps t it was a case of "Paul is not unusual enough to oppose when running for the House, but when going for the Presidency its a different matter".

Uh...sort of expected better from you. Anyway, I dislike Paul because he's dangerous, a fraud and a borderline cult leader.

Fixed.  Not sure where the fraud part comes in.

Pretending to be a fiscal conservative. The guy is a total hypocrite when it comes to pork barrel spending. Not to mention "Mr. libertarian's" views on a handful of groups of people...

I actually think he addressed the pork barrel spending issue quite well.  I'm an avowed libertarian and I find his explanation wholly acceptable.

I'll leave the newsletter stuff alone here, as I'm not sure it is a question of fraud, but rather, personal beliefs vs. political ones.  Even if you assume he has responsibility, it's certainly possible to be racist and advocate for non-/anti-racist policies.

He'd "have a lot of heartburn" with Paul over national security issues but Santorum claims he'd vote for him over Obama. Ugh.  :(

Oh, well. It won't come to that. Time to be happy about the real Santorum Surge in Iowa!  :)

$$$$

If 16% on a "Republicans only" poll less than a week from the caucuses is enough to win, I'll eat my underpants.

However, I feel you're happiness too, funny enough. Santorum has basically no chance of winning Iowa short of divine intervention, but he could perform well. He could even beat Romney for second! That would probably be the best case scenario for Paul, since Santorum has about as much chance of performing well outside of Iowa (and maybe, say, Louisiana) as I do of becoming the head of the GRU, while Romney's veil of legitimacy would be torn at the seams.

So what is Ron Paul going to do once he's out of Congress? Maybe do some of those "BUY GOLD!" commercials?

Well, it's certainly better than the newsletter business these days.

()

You've jumped the shark, dude. Please just log out and don't return.

I think he was suggesting that Paul will take up either professional photography or landscape gardening, Phil.  That's the only conclusion anybody in their right minds could draw from him posting that photo.

So Santorum and Romney are confirmed to vote for Paul, should he win the primaries. Both of them made statements. Interesting.