Is Ron Paul's boat in Iowa being raised by Obama fans out to cause mischief?

[Torie]

Some in Iowa think so. I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like! 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the latter point, the more I find out about the way caucuses work, the more disgusted I become. Primaries are bad enough.

[Oakvale]

I think it's more liberals/Democrats (who clearly don't know any of Ron Paul's positions, but I digress) saying they'll vote for him based on, uh, weed? And stuff?

I'm not so sure Paul's crossover support will actually bother turning out, but we'll see. I do agree with you that anything that gets rid of the stupid caucus system is a good thing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think OWS would try a "Operation Chaos" method on us with Roemer. He might get 4-5% one of these days, but the day before, he would only be at 1%. I don't think the Obama machine would support Paul or Huntsman to cause chaos, as both of them could do well in the general.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I doubt it would be a good idea so far as mischief goes. Paul winning Iowa leads to either a Romney nomination or a Paul nomination, both of whom are far more dangerous to Obama than Perry, Gingrich, etc.

His foreign policy stance and possibly drug wars/immigration stances almost certainly help, though.

[TheGlobalizer]

I doubt it would be a good idea so far as mischief goes. Paul winning Iowa leads to either a Romney nomination or a Paul nomination, both of whom are far more dangerous to Obama than Perry, Gingrich, etc.

His foreign policy stance and possibly drug wars/immigration stances almost certainly help, though.

[FloridaRepublican]

If it is, it just proves the point that open caucuses/primaries are very stupid and easily susceptible to party raiding.

[memphis]

Very doubtful. Maybe somebody somewhere is being a troll, but people, by and large, aren't that strategic. Face it, the GOP doesn't know what they want. Other than money. About that, they're quite certain.

[Bull Moose Base]

I think OWS would try a "Operation Chaos" method on us with Roemer. He might get 4-5% one of these days, but the day before, he would only be at 1%. I don't think the Obama machine would support Paul or Huntsman to cause chaos, as both of them could do well in the general.

The equivalent of Operation Chaos would be Democrats voting for Gingrich or Perry since the original was Limbaugh encouraging crossover voting to lift Obama by people who despised him but thought was the weaker nominee and then modified to lift Hillary by conservatives who didn't support her to try to extend the primary.

OWS and Roemer, despite some differences, actually have the same core message so that's not really the same as Operation Chaos.  Nor is the crossover support for Ron Paul strategic mischief rather than just his departures from the Republican platform genuinely appealing to liberals who lack a caucus of their own and are available to support Paul.

[FloridaRepublican]

Very doubtful. Maybe somebody somewhere is being a troll, but people, by and large, aren't that strategic. Face it, the GOP doesn't know what they want. Other than money. About that, they're quite certain.

Because everyone on the other side just spits at money, right? But I'm not talking about this tangent here.

[Likely Voter]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

[Хahar 🤔]

Ron Paul supports withdrawal from the UN, doesn't he? If he were elected President, the results would be catastrophic.

[Link]

I doubt it would be a good idea so far as mischief goes. Paul winning Iowa leads to either a Romney nomination or a Paul nomination, both of whom are far more dangerous to Obama than Perry, Gingrich, etc.

I agree.  The best thing for Obama is a Gingrich win in Iowa.  I don't know why anyone on the left would want to mess with that.

[Link]

Ron Paul supports withdrawal from the UN, doesn't he? If he were elected President, the results would be catastrophic.

How would that be catastrophic?  And can the president withdraw us from the UN without approval of Congress?

[Bull Moose Base]

If nothing else it's refreshing to see paranoia directed at Paul's supporters instead of coming from them.

[M]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

[Yelnoc]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

Wasn't Robert Taft a Non-Interventionist?

[Jacobtm]

Republicans don't understand the monster they've created.

30 years of ''government is the problem, starve the beast''.

They've created a class of voters who views government as tyrannical, and think only drastic cuts to everything can restore some mythical freedom.

And then they run Romney and Gingrich who both have, no surprise, used government to accomplish things. And voters recoil.

And now they're terrified that voters are beginning to believe the crap they've been spewing, and might actually vote on it.

[M]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

Wasn't Robert Taft a Non-Interventionist?

He was, not to the extent of Paul though (supported NATO and the Marshall Plan). But in many ways he was the last of a breed, dying in 1953.

I can even extend my model backwards, with the pragmatists being represented by Ike and Vandenberg, and the hawks by Dulles and Goldwater.

But then, Democrats were divided in much the same way at the time. The 1950s was not a good time to be a noninterventionist. The advent of ICBMs, nukes, and space flight, combined with the failure of appeasement, WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, was enough to convince Americans as a whole that two great oceans were no longer a perfect defense against the troubles of the planet.

[Likely Voter]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

Note I did say VERY old school Republicanism, but after Bush/Cheney neo-conservativism has become less popular in the party, the non-interventionist view has risen again. Many see how foreign entanglements are expensive and dont get the results as predicted. And has been noted, Ron Paul is the original Tea Partier as he takes the argument against big government to its logical conclusion.

And in IA there is an additional factor in that Paul has been making a strong appeal to evangelicals with his pro-life messages and commercials with him talking about how many babies he has brought into the world and talking about being affected by seeing fetuses thrown into the trash. With evangelicals having no single standard bearer like Huckabee, Paul is also cutting into that vote too. Thusly he is able to break past the 20% mark.

Bottom line is that Republicans cant pretend that his message resonates with portions of the party, especially the more conservative IA Caucus going population.

[Link]

Republicans don't understand the monster they've created.

30 years of ''government is the problem, starve the beast''.

They've created a class of voters who views government as tyrannical, and think only drastic cuts to everything can restore some mythical freedom.

And then they run Romney and Gingrich who both have, no surprise, used government to accomplish things. And voters recoil.

And now they're terrified that voters are beginning to believe the crap they've been spewing, and might actually vote on it.

This.

A simplistic fantasy sold to the dim witted.  If government is the problem then who paved the road to my work?  Who kept the poo poo out of my drinking water?  Who kept the rat feces out of my lunch meat?  I guess it was big benevolent corporations and the evil government didn't have anything to do with that.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Some in Iowa think so. I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like! 

What do you mean "a bit"?

Not surprised you like this kind of paranoia, but wonder what other forms of that malady you "like"?

[memphis]

Very doubtful. Maybe somebody somewhere is being a troll, but people, by and large, aren't that strategic. Face it, the GOP doesn't know what they want. Other than money. About that, they're quite certain.

Because everyone on the other side just spits at money, right? But I'm not talking about this tangent here.

If the Democrats are half as money hungry as the Republicans, they have a very strange way of showing it....

[Torie]

Some in Iowa think so. I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like! 

What do you mean "a bit"?

Not surprised you like this kind of paranoia, but wonder what other forms of that malady you "like"?

I'm sorry CARL, but your post makes zero sense to me. The last bit was just a bon mot. Get used to them - I do them a lot.

[Zarn]

If it is, it just proves the point that open caucuses/primaries are very stupid and easily susceptible to party raiding.

Yeah, for hypothetical example: A religion on the sleeve group joins a liberty loving party... let's call them the Elephant Party. Then they try to purge out the liberty elements of the Elephants in the social, economic, and foreign relations spheres. It's a good thing that never happened.