NCG from Texas here……….Perry – 0.7%
Stick a fork in him…………………

A great night, esp for Romney’s perfect hair!

No coverage of Rick Perry? Not even a ‘Rick Perry’ tag?

Jon Walker, as a Texan I’m hurt and offended.

/s

More good news. The Newtster and Santorum TOGETHER barely beat Huntsman.

Looks like Florida will rap it up for the NOT not-romney faction. THat’s a shame, I was kinda hopin’ to milk this freak show ’til May.

He’s gonna keep raising money as long as he can. I don’t expect him to bow out any time soon.

heee… R U happy now? methinks Perry will still “soldier on” to SC…

yes, and ditto for Newter & Santorum.

All these yucks are in it for the money.

Kris, See #1. I’m number one. I’m number one.
..
..
0.7%……….0.7%, It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood

His backers want him to “forge on”. I get to say it one more time…….
Perry, they ain’t no quit in that boy. No smarts neither.

I think we should rally to get ‘That stray cat’s left nut’ on the ballot in SC, just to see if it garners more votes than Perry.

I’m ECSTATIC. Thank you very much.
Perry will BE in SC. But don’t pay him no nevermind.

You realize that 0.7% is just .7% from being NOTHING.

Where are the turnout numbers? I want to see how many people .7% actually represents.

Conservatives aghast at Perry, Gingrich attacks on Romney

Eh? I dunno. Perry, I’m sure, is raking in the buckola$$, so he may not be *that* stupid. These grifters sure know how to go after the money.

GoodHair & Newters broke Zombie Ray-gunz “rules.” Oh my! Cat fight tonight!!!

Newters is gonna hafta crawl on his hands ‘n knees to genuflect & kiss LardAss’s hugely giant lardass and beg forgiveness from the Grand Vizier! ha

In other important news, the pope has found a way to help fill the empty pews and collection baskets.

Some Churches that have allowed gay marriage, women priests, gay clergy and gay bishops have been losing members to Catholicism, and the Vatican has taken steps to facilitate their conversion.

See, he be no dummy!

I don’t think Huntsman is actually running for 2012, he’s running for 2016. It would have been a much better story for him to have come in second. I don’t really know the dynamics of such a campaign – does he stay in as long as possible, or just try to get a couple of decent results then drop out? He may try to compete in Florida. I haven’t seen any recent Florida polling.

I’m not too surprised that Paul outperformed in NH. I don’t expect it to continue. His core support seems to be around 9% nationwide, so he is picking up a disproportionate share of the not-Romney vote.

All Santorum had was momentum, and now it’s gone. The Spirit of the Not Romney will find a new vessel.

SC will be Perry’s last stand. He either shows some results or heads back to Texas and secedes.

Gingrich’s strategy actually makes a little sense. A single not-Romney candidate can beat Romney easily. So you have three options:
1) play Mr. Nice Sociopath and run a positive campaign and may the best slimeball win.
2) attack your fellow not-Romneys and try to knock them out and take their supporters. This offends their supporters and lets Romney off unscathed.
3) attack Romney with everything you’ve got, trying to keep people from settling on him while showing that you are the attack dog that can beat him. Supporters of other not-Romney candidates will see you as the most-likely-to-beat-Mitt and drift to your camp.

SC is not Romney’s kind of state. The last poll I saw had Romney in the mid-30s, but I don’t expect it to last. He will probably drop below 30, maybe to his support level of 25.

Didn’t Buddy Roemer do better than Perry? Why join the media blackout on this different kind of Republican candidate?

The best thing about the NH primary is that Rs are finally raising the subject of wars and Bain, and in no uncertain terms.

One might argue that is a victory for Occupy.

Let’s not forget to be happy about Paul’s second place finish. Not only will this insure SOME discussion of the issues he is good on, but I predict that it will actually benefit Stein and Anderson, as the MSM will turn to them on those same good issues at some point as the only way to restrain Paul. That may be Stein’s and Anderson’s best and only hope of getting onto the public’s radar screen, as they are not succeeding in doing it so far.

Yes, and the same dynamic that Paul is discounted as ever really being the nominee means that as far as media coverage Huntsman will reap the same benefit as if he was in 2nd. This is what he needs to get the coverage, keep in the race, and establish his cred as the heir apparent after this race is done.

So I disagree this wasn’t helpful for Huntsman. Unlike most Republican candidates, his speech after New Hampshire was addressed to the general election not to the Republicans who chose candidates. He knows that to be the heir apparent he needs to establish his cred with the general population so he has the aurora of electability for the next race, which is much more important to the Powers That Be who fund races, do endorsements and get he machine behind a candidate… just like they are doing for Romney now.

I’m not a Perry fan but it bears reminding people that Perry didn’t campaign in NH(and boy does it show). After deciding returning to Texas and then deciding to soldier on he headed directly to SC.

Now mind you he isn’t going to place there either if polling is accurate.

That being said the game plan for Perry was always to compete in SC. So it isn’t a surprise he didn’t drop out.

Did you see the talking heads absolutely giddy at the prospect of Paul leaving the R Party to run as an I in the general?

Right! The way to support Rocky Anderson now is to support Paul as a protest vote against Empire. It’s a safe way to do it since he’ll never get the G.O.P. nomination (the Powers That Be will never allow that) and so we don’t have to worry that we’d be supporting his Randian economics or rabid anti-abortion agenda.

IMO it is a combination of Occupy and Ron Paul and now Newticles seeking Mitt’s ruin. *glee*

It’s a solid victory for Romney but that’s not news. The man bites dog story is Ron Paul who is going strong despite the corporate media. Democrats and Republicans hate Ron Paul. How does he do it?

That’s my thinking exactly.

Right. That’s why I predicted he’d do bad in New Hampshire but not drop out. He won’t drop out until after South Carolina or Florida loses. Perry is really running for V.P.; for him the real calculation is how long to stay in and hopefully get some bounce versus how soon to drop out and endorse Romney. Obviously Palenty dropped out too early in his quest for the V.P slot.

The MSM will do anything necessary to not treat Paul as a serious force. If they did, they’d have to start covering all the issues the Establishment cannot tolerate having debate about-foreign wars, drug war, civil liberties, rule of law. What struck me last night was how they focused on Gingrich rather than the second place finisher. Reminiscent of the great send-up Jon Stewart did on this subject a while back.

Would Paul have done as well or continued to have been ignored by the media were it not for Occupy. Would Newt have had the nerve to run those ads if Occupy hadn’t raised consciousness.

Jefferson had a healthy fear of corporate aristocrats. Any wonder why Jefferson warned of corporate aristocratic or financial institutions, corporations and the undue influence of “monied interest?”

So what is Willard? A working Joe? NO… How about Newt, another corporate blowhard aristocrat? Seems America suffers from collective dementia or ADHD? I Lets US call this what it is… Protect the slave owners Round II!

Agree, and whoever thought one might be sort of “grateful” to Newters?? After all, Gingrich is the one who’s really done the most to highlight the BANE of Romney’s existence! Pretty funny, that. And we get the added “delight” that Limbaugh is now pissed off at Newters. Pass the popcorn, please!!

I actually think Santorum may be the eventual, not Romney. Newt’s numbers are cratering in SC and he’s already making noises that it’ll be difficult to continue without a win in SC.

The question for me is whether Newt sees a second or third place as a win? He’s stronger in FL than he is in SC. Does he soldier on if he places third in SC?

Additionally can Paul make a showing there? According to reports Paul has decided to forgo spending in Florida(and he has high unfavorables there so he may be right about spending the cash there). So if Paul doesn’t place in SC and then FL what does that do to him and his momentum?

The public will get another non-choice. Romney is as an empty suit as ever there was and so is Obummer. NEXT!

Good questions. I’ve been pondering, in particular, Newt’s decision to run those ads, which clearly upset the PTB. Possibly Occupy had something to do with it, no matter how much the PTB pretend that Occupy is just a bunch of sex-deranged DFHs who can’t be bothered to work.

Hades would freeze over before I ever supported Paul.

I didn’t watch the coverage until the end, but I did notice the numbers and they were only a few thousands of voters.

Hunstman actually did exceptionally well for a blacked out candidate.

Anyway, I laughed at the numbers. It told me that NH was really not that into the Republican’t primary.

Protect the slave owners Round II

Absolutely.

I will totally giggle if he does.

It’ll be fun watching the Paulites walk back the statement that 3rd party candidates can’t win.

The Kochs started the TP but then the pols took the grievances in various directions (most of which did not address those grievances and took advantage of naive TPers, but that’s another story).

So my thinking is that Occupy raised real grievances and the pols are taking that in their own directions. Still surprising that Newt should be so SHRILL. (heh)

I tend to disagree with you on that. Poppy Bush said it is Romney, or I like to call him Romoney. Therefore, the moneied elites will back him all the way up.

I guess it must be all the Stormfront voters.

Either that or a whole bunch of idiots labor under the delusion that there really is a such thing as a libretarian paradise.

I noticed the second is what Paul was crediting for his strong showing.

Oh no, I think Romney will win. I just think Newt will drop before Santorum.

Yes, it is to be expected that Pols will attempt to co-opt/use the greivances & messages of the Occupy movement. And I think Newt is shrewd enough to realize that the populace has been “awakened” a bit to be able to *grasp* what it means for Mitt to have been a corporate raider with Bain, etc.

I’m still trying to figure out Newt’s “angle,” but as someone else pointed out on another thread, Gary Trudeau has always depicted Newt in Doonesbury as lit bomb. I have to hand something to Gingrich: he has provided a source of amusement and wonderment, where I thought there would be none.

Barry Goldwater finished ahead of Perry.
..
..
..
Isn;t he dead?????

Huntsman is interesting. I’m actually kind of sad(though not surprised) that he didn’t/won’t get more traction.

He’s actually been trying to appeal to disenfranchised Dems. I actually like how he pointed out that the TBTF banks are now bigger.

He made it a point to say the GOP needs to be reaching out though and he specifically says to Independants and disenfranchised Democrats.

Newt’s numbers cratered in SC, and about half of them seem to have gone to Romney. Newt on the attack might be able to bring some of those back.

SC is also the last stand for Santorum. If he can place second there, he gets a BIG boost. If he gets less than 10%, he is toast.

We’ll get a barrage of SC polling very soon and will know more than we do now.

You are right, as usual.

Perry is ion SC, bigtime. I suspect he will double or even triple his figures there!!!

Let’s not forget, as handsome as he is, he’s still a friggin moron. “I’d re-invade Iraq”……not a good stragedy.

I think Huntsman may have come back from China with the idea of running a conventional race, but was appalled at the lunatics in ascendance this cycle.

After the Republicans get their asses handed to them this cycle for running extremists instead of electable moderates, he will be nicely positioned as the adult in the room for the next cycle when Republicans will be more interested in incremental gains than the final phase of revolution.

“lit bomb” certainly seems to work in this case.

That’s an interesting observation. Both are pretty stubborn and BOTH have “come back from the grave”.

LOL Yeah, I think we are starting to get that. It does seem like you are starting to border on the monomaniacal about it, though. You are ignoring a hell of a lot of good counter-arguments to your just-hate-Paul stance. Even those that inure to the benefit of your preferred candidates, Stein and Anderson. When the MSM is seen to share your determination to keep Paul down, a thoughtful person might want to rethink a little. Just sayin’ . . .

My puzzlement on Newt is that NOBODY likes him. He left the house in disgrace and is an old curmudgeon. What in the Vulcan universe of “D quadrant made him thinkg anybody would vote for him as president? Was he, as several here say, just in it for the money??? He obviously has NOT had any fun doing this and didn’t NEED to do it.

The part of Paul’s post election speech that dwelt on economics was filled with MEGO language and, if you actually listened, made no sense whatsoever.

Best observation you have made. What you’re saying, if I may use an an analogy, or a metpahor, is that Huntsman showed up to a wife-swapping party and he was the only one who brought a wife to swap.

I’m so glad you said that. I’d had three Dos Equis and I thought it was just ME.

I love primary nights.
“Stay thirsty my friends?

Well….three and a half.

Nope. He sucks on policy(and that includes the absurd postion that the UN is some maniacal organization determined to make one global government).

I’ll pass if that is what passes for sanity.

I suspect it went something like this:

Newt is old (68).

He’s been running a (probably completely legal) scam for about 15 years wherein he almost runs for president, gets a bunch of contributions, and funnels them through various front organizations who all pay the Gingrich Group big consulting fees, pay his travel expenses, etc. This boosts speaking fees and book sales. This is the grifter model that Cain and Palin have been following, but Gingrich is the pioneer and the master.

But all good things come to an end. At 68 he has to be looking at his retirement, and he can’t be a serious contender in subsequent cycles, which puts his empire at risk.

So this is the big score to set him up for his golden years.

When the Spirit of the Not Romney visited him, his fundraising undoubtedly jumped. Things were looking good for the Newtster. Not only would he be able to roll all that delicious campaign money into a PAC, a victory or near-victory in Iowa would be worth millions more.

Then Romney crushed him with a boatload of attack ads.

Hell hath no fury like a grifter whose pot of gold is snatched away from him.

So he is motivated by a) revenge and b) the hope that he can get the contributions flowing again, if only for a few weeks. Every week he is near the top of the pack is a year of living La Vita One Percent-a.

I honestly think the guy may have dementia. I feel kind of sorry for him because it’s very clear he believes what he is saying.

eCAHN, I don’t give a damn about his economic views. I view him only as a vehicle to raise awareness of the issues I care most about, i.e., foreign wars, drug, war, civil liberties, rule of law and accountability. Without Paul, those most-important issues get no coverage whatsoever in this entire election cycle. It is ten days since OBUMMER signed indefinite detention into law-am I the only one aghast that the MSM ain’t covering it at all? Do you have to have a law degree to see when the fascists are actually taking over?

I am amazed at your capacity to respond to arguments I don’t make, while steadfastly refusing to address the one I do make. Like I said, monomaniacal.

A lot of libertarians suffer from dementia regardless of their age.

To be polite, I’d describe libertarians as having simple solutions to complex problems.

They are not the only ones, to be sure, but they are some of the most extreme.

I personally like Paul. He’s a bit of a loon sometimes. But sometimes not.
However, I would NOT let him fix my toaster.

I thought I made that point a few comments ago (20). My subsequent comment was in response to the issue of actually voting for him.

Dude, quite an insightful analysis. You ought to have your own column.
..
..
And hire me as comic relief.

The fascists?

That’s actually kind of funny since Ron Paul would provide no regulation for corporate America. None. Nada. Zip. They’d be free to poison your kids. Free to discriminate against you. Free to exploit their workers. How does that square as not fascism?

I addressed your argument. You either didn’t like my answer or understand it.

Paul is terrible on policy, even the policies some are insisting he’s wonderful on(like “civil liberties” or foreign policy).

I don’t vote for people who have terrible policy to “spite” the media.

“A lot of libertarians suffer from dementia regardless of their age.”.
—-
I think THAT is what MAKES them libertarians. :-)

And now, a little actual data for SC from Nate Silver:

NY Times

Romney 31.8%
Gingrich 24.2%
Santorum 19.5%
Paul 11%
Perry 6.6%
Huntsman 5.1%

Some of those Romney voters were Gingrich voters before Iowa. If Gingrich can pull some of those back, and seduce some not-Romney voters away from Santorum he could win this thing. Santorum could win it if he can succeed with his argument that he is the conservative alternative to Romney.

I’m surprised to see Huntsman doing that well.

Paul near his standard support level of 9%.

Perry at the Alamo.

Maybe I could get a show on CurrentTV! They seem to hand those out to anybody…

Indeed, Gingrich was at 36% couple of weeks back with romney in the mid 20′s. Romney’s historical position. I suspect that Romney will pickup a few points from his recent wein and Newt may likely drop a few with his dismal showing.

Huntsman has no legs south of the Mason-Dixon line. He’s the “last place Mormon”.

Lastly, there were 3,000 Mexican and only 186 Texicans at the Alamo. We didn’t expect to win. That was just a “stalling tactic”.

OTOH, your analogy, or is it a metaphor, IS accurate.

Pretty much.

I hear Oprah (OWN) has some prime spots open. Can I be your Ed McMahon???

I’d describe libertarians as having simple solutions to complex problems

“We didn’t have any problems until you people came along and tried to solve problems. Now we have all these problems. If you just quit trying to solve the problems, the problems would go away!”

Paul, for all the pseudo-intellectualism of libertarianism, is basically just a 1920s Republican.

Republicans can basically be divided into:

* Those that want to take us back to the Cold War (with Muslims as the evil empire)
* Those that want to take us back to the 1920s
* Those that want to take us back to the 1820s when the darkies knew their place and there were only 12 amendments to the Constitution
* Those that want to take us back to the Middle Ages, wherein they get to be kings and aristocrats with cell phones and private jets, and the rest of us are barefoot illiterate peasants ruled by fear and superstition and our sex lives regulated by the Church.

I see your #20, I didn’t pick up on it because you did not mention Paul specifically. For me, it’s beyond just the foreign wars; the rule of law and civil liberties considerations are MUCH more important to me, and so is the drug war issue. We are losing our freedom around those latter issues, just like watching a re-run of Nazi germany in the 1930′s. We grew up with people saying, “How could that have happened?” Now, it’s happening here, and we see how it can happen, people are oblivious to what really matters.

You think fascism is gonna be funny? Girl, you’ve got a hard education coming your way.

You addressed nothing. Foreign wars. Civil liberties. Rule of law. Drug war. You addressed none of those. You seem unable to grasp the importance of having those issues discussed in the election cycle.

You do realize that if Paul wins that you have 50 different versions of drug laws? He doesn’t legalize them per se, he makes it a state issue.

Not saying that state by state isn’t how we’ve had to fight on ALOT of issues, including drugs. I’m just saying that there is a decent chance some states would still cling to arcane rules that jail drug users.

Do you know what fascism is?

You seem to not understand that fascism involves corporate control. Guess what happens when corporations have no rules?

Actually the dictionary definition of fascism is as follows:

“a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

Fascism requires government control of corporations and everyone else. Unless you believe the government is one big corporation (which it may be), it is the government that controls under fascism, not private corporations.

Corporations without government rules is the complete opposite of fascism.

Ron Paul 2012

“We are losing our freedom around those latter issues, just like watching a re-run of Nazi germany in the 1930′s. We grew up with people saying, “How could that have happened?” Now, it’s happening here, and we see how it can happen, people are oblivious to what really matters.”

Yes they are. The left-right paradigm is so, so much more important. I’m presently reading “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” – it’s chilling how things are going the same way here as Germany in the 30′s. Oh well, I suppose all us malcontents can leave the country permanently, as many, many Germans did in the 30′s.

Again I addressed it.

On foreign policy, Paul does not believe in international groups like the UN-he believes there is a plot to create a single government under the UN. Paul does not believe in foreign aid. There would be no more aid for AIDS, no more donations for impoverished regions(and yes I am more than aware ALOT of aid is military in nature). He does not believe in treaties. This is something I find ironic since he has little problem mentioning the international agreements and he sure as heck cites the work of the IAEA when discussing Iran

On civil liberties- He opposes discrimination laws, he opposes disability laws, he opposes any and all type of rules that would protect you in the workplace or in the “market”. Meanwhile he would regulate gay marriage and reproduction. If you aren’t a healthy, white male then Paul’s America makes you a second class citizen by default. You no longer get to make personal choices like who to marry or what medical procedure can be available to you. Business, on the other hand, would be able to say, “I’m not hiring you because your black. I’m not putting in a wheelchair ramp. If you don’t like me ogling your breasts find another job.” Not what I consider strong on civil liberties at all.

Rule of law- Quaint term. Feel free to explain to me how it’s application will apply when we eliminate many laws that actually protect people from being prayed upon.

Drug war- Again, under Paul it would be a states rights issue.

There. I’ve summed up his positions.

You can’t beat Willard’s victory speech for top-quality bullshit. Why the high unemployment? Because President Obama wants a “European-style entitlement society,” of course!

Then there was the part about how people who complain about losing their jobs and homes because of the shameless Wall Street billionaires who crashed our economy are just expressing “resentment of success.”

“Economic freedom” means no more “cradle-to-grave assurances” like Social Security and Medicare. The victims of Wall Street must be free to starve or die because they can’t see a doctor.

There’s a saying that diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. That’s Romney’s politics.

Hell hath no fury like a grifter whose pot of gold is snatched away from him.

Summed up Newter’s primary “run” nicely. It’s all a Grift, imo, but you put forth a credible “reason” for why he’s been so up in arms lately. I think Newt just wanted to make sure he could get as far as possible in this race, in order to fill his coffers. Willard’s rise to the top (seemingly faster than Newticles expected) caused Mr. “Lit Bomb” (aka Doonesbury) to explode!

KA-BOOM!

Again: pass the popcorn!

Another legacy silver spoon (albeit smarter than W, but that’s a very low bar) who shovels shit but makes it sound like shinola.

I’m an FDR gal

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

I tend to define it as he does.

Mitt Romney? A Great Night? Every Level?

You must be crazy, or a closet Neocon, pro Wall-Street freak.

Mitt Romney has spent 5 years trying to win his home state (he owns a house there), with mega-millions of Wall Street, and the Mainstream Media pimping for him. So he finally won, but it was no landslide.

About 41% of the voters voted for Ron Paul or Huntsman …surpassing Romney’s total, and also showing a clear ideological divide. Both Paul and Huntsman want to get out of Afghanistan, completely out of Iraq, and cutback on the Military — things that Mr. business-as-usual Romney would never go for.

This demonstrates the weakness of Romney (a puppet candidate, with no actual policy message) rather than its strength. Like Obama, Romney is just a creation of the Media and Wall Street, and has no policy substance.

Basically, Romney just bought an election win in his own backyard.
Big deal….

The real winner last night was Ron Paul, who proved that he is not some “fringe candidate” but commands a large and growing segment of the electorate. The GOP cannot possibly beat Obama if they are forced to lose the Ron Paul wing of the electorate to put up a candidate.

And Ron Paul finished only 3000 votes behind Romney in Iowa. So the story of 2012 here is the political movement of Ron Paul, and how it has indeed gone mainstream: A near-win in Iowa, and a strong 2nd in Romney’s back yard.

If the race narrows to a two-man contest between Romney and Paul, Paul may earn enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination. And all the real grassroots energy is on the side of Ron Paul.

The Mainstream Media would like to pretend that Ron Paul doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter. But they’ve now been proven wrong. He does. And the movement that he represents (exposing the corruption of the Federal Reserve Monopoly, Corporate Subsidies, War Crimes, War policies and propaganda, and cutting largess from the budget) are only gaining more and more traction.

The story is Ron Paul!

PAUL AIN’T WINNING ANYTHING!!!! Stop that shit already. That doesn’t mean he can’t serve a useful purpose in getting important issues addressed. You like Stein and Anderson, right? Paul is their best chance to get enough media attention to become relevant.

Fascism has been coming for four decades that I’ve been seeing it. Do you have any memories that go back that far? Can you not see how much freedom individuals have already given up? What the fuck will it take to wake you up? Is it only your vaginal issues that move you? Seems that way. How long do you think your privacy rights re abortion will survive when the privacy rights of all individuals are completely gone?

I predict that some of the crap Romney is sayinbg to GET the GOP nomination will come back to “bite him in the ass” in the general election.

I’m giving odds………..

You got any with cheeese?????

I said it before, you know how redundant I am, I HOPE that Paul runs as third party and is INCLUDED in the national debates. IMO, it helped when Perot ran and when Anderson ran back in ………..uh…… whenever the hell that was.

cwaltz is a girl? I think I called her “dude”. sorry

If you think that is addressing my issues, you’re not as smart as I’ve always given you credit for. Your telescopic vision seems to limit you to seeing everything from the viewpoint of some minority interest or other. When us “white men” have lost our freedom, all of yours will be gone as well. Get a clue.

I don’t see how any rational human being with progressive leanings can take any other position. The alternative is to still be believing Obummer and the Dimocrats are really on our side, and will win for us in the end. I can’t imagine anybody that comes here on a regular basis can really be that stupid.

Agreed. I wouldn’t give OUR problems to a monkey on a rock.

Tell you what, I’ll trade you all of MY problems for your Corvette.

Romney, having governed next door where New Hampshire’s media is headquartered, has been running for President in NH for seven years. He’s spent millions of dollars and couldn’t crack 40%. I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Lawrence O’Donnell: there’s nothing good about this win for Romney, it’s a very weak finish for him, he should have no momentum going into South Carolina.

I’m sorry to see FDL’s Elections guru supporting the Legacy Media perspective that last night was “Mitt Romney’s night.”

Besides, when Iowa releases its certified results next week showing Rick Santorum the winner there, all the ‘making history’ aspect of Mitt’s win will leak out of his balloon, just as South Carolina voters, concerned as always with picking the winner, not expressing their own views, try to decide who’s destined to be the nominee and vote for him.

While Paul clearly has a strong base of support, he is unacceptable to the vast majority of the party. Most people don’t think he can ever become the nominee.

Correction: The MoTU don’t think he can ever become the nominee. If Faux News and Fatty Limpbaugh started telling the mass of the Rethug base tomorrow that Paul is “their” candidate, they would start flocking to him in droves. The vast majority of voters vote for the “winning” candidate, not the other way around.

Democracy Now had an discussion this morning about some of the points you just made. Add to that, Newticles only started slamming Romney for Bain over the last couple of days. If the Bain talk continues, Romney could suffer greatly from that.

cwaltz wrote:

On foreign policy, Paul does not believe in international groups like the UN-he believes there is a plot to create a single government under the UN. Paul does not believe in foreign aid. There would be no more aid for AIDS, no more donations for impoverished regions(and yes I am more than aware ALOT of aid is military in nature). He does not believe in treaties. etc.

On civil liberties- He opposes discrimination laws, he opposes disability laws, he opposes any and all type of rules that would protect you in the workplace or in the “market”. Meanwhile he would regulate gay marriage and reproduction. If you aren’t a healthy, white male then Paul’s America makes you a second class citizen by default. etc.

Oh my what a load of crap. These are of course, false, cartoon-like, distortions of Ron Paul’s positions.

On Foreign Policy:
1. The fact is that Foreign Aid hurts our own people (taxpayers have to pay for this instead of fixing our own problems), and then this money is funneled to the rich people in these poor countries (which you trust?). But we give billions of dollars to Arab nations, Dictators, Puppet-Regimes all over the World — and all at a time when we are so broke and so far in debt that our own Economy is crippled. No Thanks. If you want to give your own money voluntarily to Saudi Arabia or wherever then go ahead…knock yourself out — but Ron Paul is correct that it is 100% unconstitutional to indebt the middle-class taxpayers billions and billions of dollars and ship their money overseas. This is like a bankrupt person stealing someone else’s money to give to a faux-charity or corrupt weapons manufacturer while they continue to starve themselves and their family to death. Makes no sense.

Second point: Ron Paul does support international treaties, trade, diplomacy, and negotiations, and he has said so many, many, times. But he does not support U.N. or NATO Resolutions (which are just orchestrated by the War Interests) to compel our Country to go to War. The only valid reason to go to War is in the case of legitmate and real defense to protect our people. But it is unconstitutional and immoral to use the tactics of terror, Bombs, War atrocities to micro-manage some other sovereign country to your liking.

Point three: The Europeon Union is real and it does exist. The North American Union (renamed into the Security and prosperity partnership) is real. The World Bank is real. The WTO is real. These global bankers and corporations really do want to breakdown the concept of sovereign nations, and put nations under international economic control through their global banking, trade, and corporate consolidation manuvers. David Rockefeller even wrote about this in his own biography. Now our country was supposed to be controlled locally by its own people, and not by unelected international bodies and organizations. As it is today, most of our public policy comes from not from the people but from rich white men who are affiliated with these global banking and corporate organizations. Ron Paul is smart enough to recognize that global control means we have no ability to affect public policy. It is time that we simply followed the model of constitutional government and not cow tow as pawns to these elite wealthy interests.

Civil Liberties: Ron Paul is the best possible candidate for minorities and people wrongfully persecuted. Unlike Obama, he supports The Bill of Rights and opposes the jailing of anyone without a proper trial. He also supports ending the Drug War and the criminalization of minor drug use which would save billions of dollars (and close down CIA drug trafficking) and disproportionally hurts minorities and poor people who can’t afford lawyers. He also believes in the rights of all individuals as individuals. People who constantly try to separate people into groups and ethnicity are the ones who create the racist tensions and barriers. If you instead promote the rights of individuals as Ron Paul does and apply the law equally then there is no discrimination. Ron Paul has said simply that the Federal Government should stay out of marriage issues, and have no role. This is not anti-gay or against anything. Instead it creates an environment free from government interference and “judgement”. Finally Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to repeal The Patriot Act, Obama’s new NDAA gulag, repeal Human Torture, close the Torture Sites, and promote and protect the rights of Whistleblowers. Ron Paul would free Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, and he would jail Dick Cheney. This is exactly the kind of change that we need to have in our Country. I cannot think of a more ethical and better ‘human rights’ candidate than Ron Paul. He would bring back to our Country government openess and transparency, protection of whistleblowers and truthtellers, and bring serious consequences for the War Criminals and Wall Street criminals.

A constitutional government is not a bad idea…
It is the Empire of Corruption and mass-violence which spoonfed sheep like you wish to see protected that Ron Paul wants to reverse.

Think again.

Everything is the same with Obama,nothing has changed,fall very short expectations,middle class and poors have been kicked on butts.
Anyone from Rodney to Bachman to Paul etc would be fine in order to unseat
Obama.