Posted on 12/16/2011 10:21:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Iowa radio host and weathervane of the state's evangelical political opinion raises fears for Iowa's first-in-the-nation status should it select Ron Paul on caucus day.
"One thing is for certain," Deace writes. "if a candidate with Paul’s foreign policy views wins the Iowa Caucuses that will be the final nail in Iowa’s first in the nation status. Like it or not, the media and the Republican Party itself will simply discredit the results and start the process over in New Hampshire."
Chris Wallace made a similar point on Fox News before last night's debate: "The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this," he said. "But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee. So therefore, Iowa won’t count."
Despite establishment sentiment, Paul continues to do well in the polls....
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
At the risk of being redundant...he should run as a Libertarian. That is what Dr. Paul is.
More Alinsky garbage, and there has been a wad of it from the Republicans this year. That sort of thing gets tedious...
[ At the risk of being redundant...he should run as a Libertarian. That is what Dr. Paul is. ]
True he is at heart a libertarian.. BUT...
Many republicans are at heart democrats(for democracy).. as well..
Wonder if many democrats are at heart republicans?..
They are just words..
Right and in the last debate he said that if we go to war with Iran it should be because congress voted on a declaration of war. Not because the president made the decision alone. Why do conservatives have a problem with that?
The world probably needs a policeman but we can no longer afford that role.
In the first place, Libertarianism is at the heart of conservatism, and since many people don't see a lot of conservatism in the Republican party, I don't see how his alliance with Libertarians has anything to do with anything.
Secondly, even if you somehow think Libertarians have cooties, remember that the reason Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian is because he first sought the nomination from the Republicans, but they were too blind and ignorant to nominate him, so he accepted the nomination of the Libertarian party.
Furthermore, some very prominent politicians have changed parties, with no seeming ill effects. You may have heard of Ronald Reagan and Rick Perry, both of whom were DEMOCRATS before they were Republicans.
SO WHAT?
In the first place, Libertarianism is at the heart of conservatism, and since many people don't see a lot of conservatism in the Republican party, I don't see how his alliance with Libertarians has anything to do with anything.
Secondly, even if you somehow think Libertarians have cooties, remember that the reason Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian is because he first sought the nomination from the Republicans, but they were too blind and ignorant to nominate him, so he accepted the nomination of the Libertarian party.
Furthermore, some very prominent politicians have changed parties, with no seeming ill effects. You may have heard of Ronald Reagan and Rick Perry, both of whom were DEMOCRATS before they were Republicans.
SO WHAT?
Completely agree! The title of the article actually should be, "Can Iowa's voters be Intimidated?"
The DC establishment is running scared to keep up this overt --and insulting--pressure on Iowans. The GOP elite are the only ones wetting themselves over Ron Paul. Hell, I'd bet that Obama's people might be giving Romney & Gingrich $$$ at this point just to keep Paul out of the process just so they can keep their Stalinesque "choices" game in place.
Re the big picture of the race, it's only going to be days before MSM stories start handcuffing Gingrich directly & personally to Freddie Mac's fraudster Richard Syron, and start filling in the blanks. And THAT will blow Gingrich out of the water, leaving only Romney and Paul.
So if Iowans are actually successfully intimidated into voting for Gingrich & making him #1, then Iowa really WILL be discredited.
It's an MSM Catch 22 for Iowa either way, so they might as well vote their hearts & give the nanny politicos a three-finger salute.
Weren't you the same one crowing on here 4 years ago about how RUDY!!! was going to be the nominee? Forgive me if I don't take you seriously.
You are correct. Conservatism has strong influence from libertarianism (small l).
If the Libertarian Party (capital L) and the Republican Party shared identical platforms, there wouldn’t be any cause for two separate parties, would there?
I don’t think Libertarians have cooties at all. Everyone has the right to an opinion. As far as third parties go, they seem to have the largest constiuency.
Dr. Paul has clung to many L beliefs. I am of the opinion he runs with an R after his name is to garner more votes and attention. Most people can’t tell you who the L candidates are. There don’t seem to be any televised L debates.
JMHO
Nope, not me.
Newt and Romney are a turd cream cone with a little bit of chocolate in it. To think that we have all these other candidates and we’re here choosing between the two most terrible of them all.
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.