A leftie pinko walks into a bar and asks…

…a “Question for my GOP friends:

So, seriously, is Ron Paul going to be the new flavor of the month … at just the right time? Asking honestly here? Does that guy have a chance to win?”

To which the Republicans in the bar said “no.” Not that stranger things have happened in politics, but the phrase “so crazy it just might work,” has never been said about Ron Paul.

Feel free to share your own opinions in the comments.


  1. Charlie says:

    I believe my answer was “No. Zero. Zilch. Nada.”

    I’ll be more than happy to let Ron Paul’s supporter make thier case of why it’s going to be different this time before I explain why it won’t be.

    • Sure does feel like 1979… when that other “nutjob” and “monkey’s uncle”, possibly “antichrist” (remember? even the establishment socons tried to stop him with the “Ronald” “Wilson” “Reagan”=666 crap)… “extremist”, that eventually lead to sentences like this to be printed in Manchester after the GOP primary there; “landslide victory here was built upon the conservative constituency that had rallied to his anti-federalism philosophy“… at a time when the establishment Rockefeller replublicans were saying the same as Charlie…

      so, yes, it’s possible.

      • Three Jack says:

        difference being reagan believed in peace through strength, paul peace through conversation, appeasement and apologies. don’t try to compare paul w/reagan, not even close.

        • 3-Jack,
          You’re wrong. RP believes in a strong National DEFENSE…. just not police to the world, nation building… and pre-emptive Bush Doctrine OFFENSSIVE wars.

          Reagan got talked into getting involved in the Middle East too… but he soon saw the wasteful expense of our soldiers in such an effort and brought them home.

          I will not feel sorry for anyone that chooses to attack the US under a Paul presidency… I just hope they’re prepared to lose their country if they do.

          • Three Jack says:

            you are correct about paul being the only veteran in the bunch, but i stand by my original statement that reagan and paul differ greatly on national defense.

            reagan came into office with the military in total disarray, underfunded and morale as low as ever…i was in the navy at the time and have firsthand recollections of the situation. as promised, he spent billions and eventually not only brought us back to being the strongest military in the world, but more importantly gave those of us serving at the time reason to take pride in our service again.

            paul has promised over and over that he will cut military spending which is more in line with jimmy carter than ronald reagan. morale will decline, new technology will be unaffordable and america will eventually get to a point where we are no longer considered a force to be reckoned with under a paul presidency. he may be able to sustain minimal defense forces here at home, but there will be limited to no resources abroad where we currently fight our enemies on their home turf instead of american soil.

            in addition paul has repeatedly stated that we should talk with leaders of iran instead of treating them as the wacked out terrorists they are (again just like jimmy carter). what will paul do after it becomes clear to him that they have no desire to talk? will he stand by and watch as iran attacks israel? takes over iraq? paul’s policy of appeasement would cost far more than simply maintaining a strong military presence throughout the world as a deterrent to our enemies.

            • “paul has promised over and over that he will cut military spending which is more in line with jimmy carter than ronald reagan.”

              So how many hundreds of military bases do we need around the world? Those are all free to operate and are part of our “defense”, right? We can’t possibly close those down and save a couple bucks here and there can we?

              • Three Jack says:

                david, it depends on which bases he intends to close. based on his statements, one could draw the conclusion that paul won’t be happy until all foreign bases are closed.

                as with any government operation, there is room for spending reform in the military which i think most fiscal conservatives would agree. but america needs to maintain military operations around the world if we plan on being relevant. otherwise we might as well cede our decades old place at the world table to china, russia and/or india.

            • benevolus says:

              I don’t want to defend Ron Paul, but taking your statements on their own:
              – We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. Surely we could get by just spending more than the next, say, 10 countries combined.
              – If the morale of the military is dependent on it’s size, we’re doing it wrong.
              – “Talking” with Iran (or anyone else) doesn’t mean we forfeit the ability to impose our will if necessary.

              • Three Jack says:

                benevolus — i believe i covered my agreement with spending cuts in the following statement .. “there is room for spending reform in the military…”

                morale is dependent on competent, well-informed leadership ala jimmy carter v. ronald reagan. i doubt very seriously that morale would increase under a ron paul presidency.

      • Engineer says:

        I too was going to cite Reagan, but you beat me to it.

        While I feel your comment (and this blog post itself) comes across as being intended as an insult, Mr. Hassinger you are correct in the comment, ” the phrase “so crazy it just might work,” has never been said about Ron Paul.” remark. There is good reason for that, his principles and beliefs are completely sane and reasonable, only a person completely out of touch with reality would see it otherwise. 🙂

        Paul is striking a nerve on both sides of the aisles. I have lifelong Democrat friends that hate his fiscal policies, but have repeatedly stated they would vote for him solely on his social and military policies, not that his policies are very out of whack. After all, George W. Bush won in 2000 on an anti-interventionism policy message ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc ).

  2. ZazaPachulia says:

    Nope. Not a chance. If he were running for governor or senate from Minnesota, the answer would be a resounding yes, but the rest of the country is less enthralled with the Jessie Ventura/Al Franken/Ron Paul-style novelty politicians. But do keep in mind that Iowa and Minnesota share a long border. Some of the crazy has surely made it’s way to Sioux City and points south. Uncle Ron will be part of the conversation come decent bowl season.

    A follow up question: “What does the fact that this Ron Paul question is actually being taken somewhat seriously say about the other candidates and the GOP voters’ “passion” for them?”

  3. drjay says:

    i’ve been quietly wondering about this myself, pat buchanan in 96 is the closest paralell i can come up with, and that year saw the “powers that be” really circle the wagons for dole, i kinda see the same thing happening and, i guess, romney ends up being the beneficiary…

  4. saltycracker says:

    Damn. Did Newt just blow himself up with threatening activist judges with hearings or arrest ?Don’t think that’s the way we go about it.

    Ron Paul? No.

  5. gcp says:

    Yes, Paul is not Saint Reagan because Paul would actually cut spending, would not legalize 3 million illegals and would not get this country involved in foreign situations like Lebanon where we lost 242 Marines.

  6. Harry says:

    As I’ve already said here, I’m voting Ron Paul on March 6 but I’d be just as surprised as anyone if he ends up getting the nomination.

  7. Ramblinwreck says:

    Like it or not Ron Paul voters are going to determine this election. Most, like me, if they’re not voting for Ron Paul in the general election will be voting for Gary Johnson, or whoever the libertarian candidate is in November. The GOP can embrace the only candidate who actually embodies the platform they claim to cherish but who would actually uphold and defend the Constitution which NONE of the other candidates would do. If Obama is reelected it will be because the GOP has failed to field a candidate who is not simply more of the same neoconservative BS that has contributed to the near collapse of the country. You only waste your vote if you don’t vote your conscience. Mine won’t be wasted either way. I can’t say that if I happened to vote for any of the other GOP candidates.

  8. Romegaguy says:

    Paul Broun has a better chance of being sworn in as Congressman than Ron Paul does of being the GOP nominee

  9. Andre says:

    Does Dr. Ron Paul have a chance to win the GOP presidential nomination?

    I’d say he has about as much chance at winning the nod as Scott Brown had at winning the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy.

    There are no givens in politics.

    Roy Barnes was the far and away favorite to win re-election in 2002. . .

    . . .until he lost.

    Jim Whitehead was supposed to be the next Member of Congress from Georgia. . .

    . . .until Dr. Paul Broun beat him.

    No matter how hard the media tries to create their own desired result, every candidate running for office has a good, sporting chance at winning their election. And I say that because, on election day, every candidate appearing on the ballot is equal. Every candidate starts with an equal number of votes.


    Then the people have their say. The votes are counted. And the chips fall where they may.

    So does Ron Paul have a chance to win?

    Sure, he does.

  10. TheEiger says:

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy of appeasement is the exact same stance that European leaders took with Hitler. We saw how that worked out. After WWI, heavy sanctions were put on Germany yet world leaders continued to allow Germany to rebuild their military strengeth well beyond what they were allowed. They even gave Hitler the go ahead to take over German speaking areas of another country in the hopes he would go away. This just embolden him. What good are sanctions if they are not enforced.

    This is the same road we are traveling down with Iran. They will continue to push the line and with President Paul they will cross that line.

    • Engineer says:

      Why should we have to be policeman of the world? Who would be paying for these wars? Why can’t their closer regional neighbors take care of it (EU, Russia, China, Israel)?

      We’ve got offices and offices full of diplomats in Washington, why not use them?

      • TheEiger says:

        So we are going to trust Russia and China to make sure Iran doesn’t get the technology for a nuclear weapon? These are the same two countries who have been feeding them the technology to build ICBMs and centrifuges for the past 40 years. Yeah, I think that’s smart. They will self-police themselves. Come on. Be serious.

        Also you mention allowing Israel to handle the situation. Are you okay with allowing them to bomb the hell out of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Your boy Paul doesn’t support Israel. He thinks we should just leave them alone and not give them any type of support military or domestic. Again I go back to my original argument that if we appease Iran and allow them to continue to push the line they will try wipe Isreal off the map. This is the same thing that happened in the lead up to WWII with Hitler. Are you okay with allowing Israel to be attacked with nuclear weapons?

        • Engineer says:

          All I have seen are pro Israel policies from Dr. Paul, so I’m not quite sure how you can say he doesn’t support Israel. If you are talking about Dr. Paul wanting to cut foreign aid then I think you should notice he wants to cut aid to “all” countries, so that is just him being consistent with his proposed policy.

          If you are talking about defense, I guess Israel’s repeated statements that they don’t need our help don’t matter to you. In the past they have defended themselves against the combined forces of nearly all the nations of the middle east (Ever head of the Six-Day War?) and each time held their ground and even pushed back without our help. I guess us staying out of Israel’s business and not telling them what to do like any sovereign nation should be allowed to, is a bad thing to you?

          In regards to Iranian nuclear capabilities, remember all those weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed were being made in Iraq? We hastily went to war and to make things worse, no evidence of any new WMD production was ever found (yes some product from the time prior to the Gulf War was found, but no new production sites or new product were ever proven to exist). The last thing we want is to hastily go to war (without a Declaration of War) and get bogged down with more spending of the lives of our soldiers or the money of our taxpayers.

          “Are you okay with allowing Israel to be attacked with nuclear weapons?”
          Israel is currently believed to have 75–400 warheads of their own. Iran knows well that any major attack on Israel would likely be returned with interest. So I doubt they would attack Israel first.

          Best yet, why don’t you take 2 minutes out of your day and actually listen to what the man has to say on the matter.

        • Lo Mein says:

          “Are you okay with allowing them to bomb the hell out of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Your boy Paul doesn’t support Israel.”

          Actually, in 1981, Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq. Most of congress voted to condemn this act (violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, etc.) Ron Paul was one of only a few republicans that disagreed. Briefly discussed here at 1:24:

          “[A]lmost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/05/25/israel-and-the-right/

    • cheapseats says:

      Paul has a very slim chance but it’s only because the GOP candidates are just pitiful.

      I respectfully disagree that any of these candidates would be better than Obama. The only ones that I see in the field that would be any improvement are the ones polling in single digits. I may have to just vote “None of the above” for POTUS.

      Maybe my theory is right: Nobody qualified to be POTUS is dumb enough to run for that office.

    • Lo Mein says:

      Despite poor Debbie’s severe case of Paul Derangement Syndrome, talking about Paul’s numbers in Georgia over three months before the primary here can only be compared to polls in Iowa taken at the beginning of October. Hmmm, let’s see… looks like Paul was hovering around 10% at that point, and 5% nationally. Now he’s going to win Iowa and has more than doubled his national percentage, rising all the time… Gee, Debbie, you’ve given the Paul supporters renewed hope that he can win here! Wait, you meant to do that… right?

  11. John Konop says:

    Ron Paul is a classic example why the Tea Party is split on some key issues and why he has been steadily rising in the polls. Ron Paul is definitely the purest candidate on less government via fiscal and social issues. I find it rather bizarre how anyone thinks we can balance the budget while pushing the policemen of the world foreign policy. And how so many of you so-called conservatives support policing social behavior ie war on drugs, bashing gays…………….

    As far as Iran, Ron Paul is right. Ironically Jimmy Carter took a harder sanction stance than Reagan against with the USSR, which at the end hurt us more than it helped by us not selling wheat to the Russians. We have never recovered the % of market share since that policy move. Also Reagan had real dialogue with the USSR, while Carter was the one who had less dialogue. I judge people on actions not political posturing in speeches. Finally the Powel doctrine( anti-NEOCON) was incubated out of the Reagan administration after the failures in Lebanon/Vietnam. The Powell doctrine at this point would not be for invading Iran at the point.

    I like many have reservation about Ron Paul going too far on issues ie like the gold standard. Yet his points about spending and the irrational risk tax payers having taking via the lack of oversight on government backed loans is valid.

    …..The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

    1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
    2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
    3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
    4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
    5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
    6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
    7. Is the action supported by the American people?
    8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[1]……

  12. Ed says:

    New York Times had a piece about Ron Paul’s organization staying intact following the 08 election. Campaign manager said they have instructed volunteers not to argue with people in opposing camps–a marked departure from that race.

    I suppose the message is slow to hit Georgia.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I think that’s close to the case. If they support him, they are in like Flin. If not, they hold their nose and wait for him to go away.

      • Ed says:

        The point is, the campaign realized how incredibly toxic and unproductive the strategy of supporters berating opponents is, but the message is not reaching all of Team Paul.

        • Ken says:

          Concise and accurate, Ed.

          I especially love the “If Ron Paul is the nominee, you GOPers better support him! If Ron Paul is not the nominee then I’m voting Libertarian for Gary Johnson!” sentiment expressed by some.

          Reality Check!

          “Reality Check!”

          Personally, I like Gary Johnson more than I like Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee I will not only vote for him, I will campaign hard for him against Gary Johnson as well as against President Obama, because if Dr. Paul is the GOP nominee then he has an opportunity to beat President Obama.

          And that is apparently the difference between defining one’s self as a Republican first and defining one’s self as a Ron Paul supporter first.

          I’m a libertarian-leaning conservative and most Paul supporters would call me a “mainstream” Republican despite my Tea Party activities because I’ve held office for so many years within the GOP and I don’t hate the people I think of as “establishment” Republicans.

          So, if Ron Paul is the GOP’s candidate, then he will be my candidate. When I decide upon a candidate and if he is the GOP’s candidate, will Ron Paul’s supporters allow him to be their candidate? THAT is the question.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Latest numbers as of this morning in Iowa, about 24% Paul, 22% Mitt, 14% Newt, and 12% Perry. Translated, 24% Paul, 22% Mitt and 26% not Mitt or Paul + the remainder. It’ up in the air in Iowa and it really doesn’t matter who wins for these top four. Bachman and Santorum could do better than expected, but if they don’t do well somewhere soon, they will be out. Huntsman is a non-starter for me. I just don’t see him going anywhere.

            • Engineer says:

              Outside of his hawkish stance on Iran, I like Huntsman. Perhaps in a few years he might be a good candidate for the GOP, but this isn’t his year.

              I suspect following Iowa, we will see Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry bow out if they don’t make a top 3. So far, Huntsman has been placing all his bets on New Hampshire. If he doesn’t get 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire, I believe he will likely drop out. That would leave us with 3 candidates heading into the primaries, assuming somebody like Jeb Bush doesn’t randomly decide to jump into the mix.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                Sen Santorum has stated he will drop out if he comes in last in Iowa. I don’t think anyone else will drop out until after New Hampshire.

                I like our next crop of GOP candidates in 2020. I predict a win against the President if the economy stays close to as it is now. In no particular order: Gov. Christie, Gov. McDonnall, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Walker, Gov. Pence (he’s working on it), Sen. Paul, Sen. DeMint, Gov. Jindal,

  13. Doug Deal says:

    I am no Paul supporter but I am sick of the GOP turning him into a boogeyman.

    Much of what he says is right, whether you like him or not. There are some things that make him a tough pill to swallow, but who doesn’t have that stigma?

    Is Newt really without flaws? Romney? Perry? Huntsman? In the end I will still vote for any of these guys if they get the nomination.

  14. drjay says:

    going several steps down the road here, i have a hard time figuring out who paul would find acceptable as his vp, and wonder what rank and file gop’ers would make the career move of being his running mate if asked???

Comments are closed.