Posted on 12/15/2011 7:47:03 AM PST by Liberty1970
The race for the Republican nomination may be coming down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, but in the contest for the Iowa caucuses, their high-profile battle might still turn out to be a sideshow. The national party has spent the last two weeks resigning itself to a choice between the former speaker and the former Massachusetts governor. But Iowa Republicans may end up choosing between Gingrich and Representative Ron Paul.
In every post-Thanksgiving poll but one, Paul has been neck and neck for second place in Iowa. In most of them, he has lagged well behind the soaring speaker, coming in just below 20 percent while Gingrich hovers around 30. But a new Iowa survey, from Public Policy Polling, shows Gingrich leading Paul by just a single point, 22 percent to 21.
Moreover, the caucuses are not won by opinion polls alone. They’re won by the politician who can pack Iowa’s churches, libraries and community centers at 7 p.m. exactly on a frigid January Tuesday, and whose supporters won’t suddenly decide to back a different candidate during an hour’s worth of jawing, dealing and very public voting.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com ...
"Most important, they represent two very different endpoints for the Tea Party movement. Paul, for all his crankishness, is the kind of conservative that Tea Partiers want to believe themselves to be: Deeply principled, impressively consistent, a foe of big government in nearly all its forms (the Department of Defense very much included), a man of ideas rather than of party.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is the kind of conservative that liberals believe most Tea Partiers to be – not a genuine “don’t tread on me” libertarian, but a partisan Republican whose unstinting support for George W. Bush’s deficit spending morphed into hand-wringing horror of “socialism” once a Democrat captured the Oval Office."
What Ron Paul is this article talking about?
You anti-newt types will jump in bead with anybody. Whats next, will you start quoting obumber as support for your temper tantrum?
Ouch. Yes, Republicans can do better than Gingrich. Much better.
I do think the last line of the article is wishful thinking. They conclude that a Ron Paul victory just hands the nomination to Romney. Whereas it is clear that Romney has always had a ceiling of less than 30% on his poll numbers. SOMEONE is going to eventually coalesce and beat him, it's just a question of whom.
“Paul, for all his crankishness, is the kind of conservative that Tea Partiers want to believe themselves to be...”
...Libertarians? No, thanks. If I wanted to be a libertarian, I’d be one. If I wanted one to represent me, I’d be one. If I had lost my mind, I’d be one. I’ll stick with Conservatism, thanks.
Why doesn’t the son of a bitch run as a Libertarian and leave us alone? He’s like a GD Democrat “progressive” trying to avoid saying he’s a socialist. Declare yourself, Ron, stand up for your Libertarian party like a man, or STFU.
I am a NO on Ron Paul and will be extremely upset if Paul does not get the nod and then runs as the Libertarian candidate.
He already said he would not run as a third party candidate
So when Gingrich implodes, who will you vote for between Paul and Romney?
Ron Paul just released this video on Foreign Policy - tell me what you disagree with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=player_embedded
I think that most of the "conservatives" around here are pro-slavery. They just want someone like Gingrich as their plantation owner rather than Obama. Any faith I had that 'mainstream' conservatives were significantly different from liberals was dashed by the Bush/Republican-congress years as the liberal agenda marched forward or even accelerated.
It's frustrating that they choose the status quo and the security of slavery over freedom, but we can't give up. Yeah, we'll be able to say "I told you so" if they win and still make a train wreck of the country because they won't change course, but that's small solace.
I think it's like gun control: most conservatives grasp the fact that banning guns with laws does not equate to making them vanish from the hands of criminals. Yet these same conservatives imagine Ron Paul supporters doing drugs (etc.) because he won't criminalize them. (By contrast, I'm a tee-totaler whose never smoked a cigarette or done any drug, period.) They don't grasp that the 'war on drugs' is a miserable failure and that there are better approaches.
Likewise on foreign policy. Bush/Obama foreign policy has wasted over a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, watched nation after nation slip into Islamism or otherwise into anti-American postures, managed the extermination of Christian communities across the mid-East, fueled Islamic recruiting and operations to defeat an aggressive 'Great Satan' America - and these people worry about Ron Paul????
Jack a##. Did you study for that or were you born that way.
Many of us, like abused spouses, want to believe in Newt as a good man but in our hearts know otherwise. I do find it interesting that the press is so shocked at his ascendancy, but are chuckling, hoping he gets the nod.
I see Newt this way: I won’t waste a minute campaigning for him, but will vote for him as “anyone but Obama” if he’s the candidate. Not exactly a compelling argument for victory.
I would think the NYT would love Ron Paul....what with his appologizing for America for causing 9/11
Wasn't received very favorably on a Conservative forum then either.
Article does not mention the fact that much of Paul’s Iowa support comes from Democrats.
“Rino Ross” Douthat is a Vichy Republican with a long history of attacking conservatives. Before going after Newt, he was smearing Sarah Palin.
Some people will fall for even the most obvious establishment horse manure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.