But is it true? What percentage could Gary Johnson receive should Paul not get the GOP nomination and would it be enough to help re-elect Barack Obama? I suspect it is. To add more fuel to this fire Obama is starting to campaign as an anti-war president to difference himself from the GOP field of likely nominees. This “Campaigner-In-Chief” move could be completely stymied by Republicans making Ron Paul their nominee. Who would be the real anti-war candidate if it were a Ron “non-interventionist” Paul vs Barack “drone bomber” Obama contest? This is yet another reason to make Paul the nominee.

Let’s see what you think about the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson factor.

It seems to me that this process is more open and most like a general election. To win the general you need independents and party-switchers. This is why Ron Paul is in the best position to beat Obama. He wins in those segments in poll after poll. Something that should negate any question of “electability”.

Following the results, something the PPP folks noted on Twitter was the following:

Young voters and indys unusual winning formula for GOP caucus but if Paul really gets them out he can win.

This comment is specific to Iowa, but Iowa is probably the best microcosm we have at this time of a general election. Paul is rather notorious for getting supporters out to vote for him. He wins or places in just about every straw poll in the country, including a very close 2nd in this summer’s Iowa Ames Straw Poll. So that is truly the bottom line, if Paul’s unusual strategy works then he can win Iowa. And that unusual strategy happens to be the exact strategy to take votes away from Obama in the general election.

Some of Paul’s detractors make the claim he’d be “dangerous for America”. Well, okay, that depends upon how you define America. If by America you mean the statist-status-quo in Washington DC and Obama’s re-election chances then yes, he’s extremely dangerous for America.

If by America you mean the country of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” and if by America you mean a country that places individual liberty as its highest value then Ron Paul would be the best friend America ever had.

So yes, if you want to beat Obama, Ron Paul is your choice, but he’s also so much more than that.

Yeah, Newt… we who support Ron Paul are the indecent ones. You figured us out. Congrats.

Reality is immune to human fantasy

This truism is no more prevalent than now as we witness Ron Paul’s rise in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire to front runner status. All of the usual pundits in the usual media outlets are attempting to discredit a potential Paul victory in Iowa by calling it meaningless. This is irritating and predictable; however, it gets worse. The governor of Iowa has now joined in on this fantasy. From Politico:

Leading Republicans, looking to put the best possible frame on a Paul victory, are already testing out a message for what they’ll say if the 76-year-old Texas congressman is triumphant.

The short version: Ignore him.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

What country do we live in again? This ain’t America…. not even the America I was taught about in public school. Discrediting an election (caucus) merely because you disagree with the results is something Hugo Chavez does. It is not something we do in America. At least I thought we didn’t. Do these Ron Paul detractors really believe this behavior is acceptable? If the majority (or plurality) of people in your state vote for someone you don’t like how can you say it doesn’t count?

This effort at undermining their own process by making these comments has more danger of discrediting the election than Ron Paul winning. Hopefully Iowans and others see through this poppycock and vote without its influence.

The reality of Ron Paul should be no match for those naysayers living in fantasy land calling him an anti-semite, racist, and worse. It seems to me that once your foes start calling you names rather than debate you on your positions then you’ve already won.

During Paul’s 2008 campaign I wrote that I didn’t think America was quite ready for Ron Paul. Here in 2012, America just might be ready for him and the harsh reality he brings. We are going broke. We need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes. We need to bring our troops home from overseas to defend this country. We need to end all foreign aid. Yes, including Israel. Give them back their sovereignty.

If you fear a Ron Paul presidency just take a deep breath, calm down, and read the Constitution. That’s his platform. If you still think he’s too extreme then realize that there are 2 other branches of government that will be operating to limit his extremism. That’s a major reason we have the judiciary and legislature, checks and balances. If any other candidate wins, nothing will change. We’ll keep going down the spending death-spiral to our own demise. I’m not a big fan of demise. I’m voting for Ron Paul. Are you?

RIP Ron Smith.

This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.

During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”  Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.

This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.

During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”

Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.

See the entire appearance below in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0r0lRyiKY

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.

Yes, unsurprisingly it was Michelle Bachmann who lied or I guess if you are a supporter of hers, “stretched the truth”. Bachmann also appears to have lied about what is in the Iranian Constitution, claiming it “states unequivocally” to stretch “jihad across the world”. Well, unless the Wikipedia interpretation of the Iranian Constitution is wrong I see no mention of “jihad” or “caliphate”. In fact, it directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:

Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

There is certainly no “unequivocal” mention of jihad against the world. Hopefully voters will see through Bachmann’s and Santorum’s melodramatic horse-hockey.

Here are all of Ron Paul’s moments in the debate, totaling over 18 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c

DONATE TODAY! It’s Tea Party ’11 Money Bomb Time.

Next up are two familiar tools of status-quo politics discussing Ron Paul’s recent poll numbers in Iowa. Of course, I’m talking about Bill O’Reilly and Dick Morris. Dick Morris actually appears to shudder when he considers (and then immediately dismisses) the possibility of Ron Paul being the GOP nominee. What Morris doesn’t realize is that when he speaks later in the segment about his “cockroach theory” (whatever that means) he’s actually describing the very reason Ron Paul would win against Obama and not one of his choices of Romney or Gingrich.

This just, once again, proves what a monumental task Ron Paul is up against in his quest to spread liberty by leading by example rather than leading by a leash. The pundits are coming out in droves to discredit Paul’s candidacy because they don’t want to be forced to vote for him if he should get the nomination. I’d love for one of these tools to answer the question, “If Ron Paul gets the nomination would you support him?” They’d likely dismiss the question as “impossible” rather than admit they’d support him, eventually.

Paul has a long road ahead of him. Not only must he actually win enough votes in each state, but he must also win over the pundits and their despicable preliminary coronations of other candidates. Doing enough of the former will help with the latter. One thing is for sure, Ron Paul’s campaign this time around is not an educational effort like it was in 2008. He’s all in and if Ron Paul wins, America wins.

————–
Don’t forget to pledge and donate this Friday for the Tea Party 2011 Money Bomb. It’s one way that we can punch back at the Dick Morris types.

I think I have a pretty good idea what getting water-boarded feels like. I’m not sure why I do this to myself, but I sometimes find myself reading the comments on Ron Paul articles appearing on various mainstream and semi-mainstream news sites. It is akin to torture. One of the more common things I keep seeing from anti-Ron Paul people is the charge of isolationism. I thought this was an old argument that most people already understood. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Ron Paul supporters invariably reply to set things straight. I know because I’ve done it before, too many times to count.

Today, in the billionth thread about Ron Paul’s so-called isolationism someone posted something that truly demonstrates a lack of understanding. This person said the following:

“If Ron Paul brings home our troops from other countries who’ll be there to protect freedom?”

Uh-huh. And Ron Paul is the crazy one. “Hey you, Start being free or I’ll shoot!” Let freedom ring!

Yesterday’s poll numbers from Public Policy Polling show that Ron Paul is gaining serious steam in Iowa, only a single percentage point behind Newt Gingrich. I head over to Twitter to see the reactions and I see a post from a popular “conservative” blog entitled, “No, Ron Paul is not a threat to win the Iowa Caucuses”. The article itself is full of wishful thinking analysis and struck me as a bunch of flapdoodle. Yeah, I said it: flapdoodle!

Then I read about radio talk show host Mark Levin saying some bad things about Ron Paul. Sorry, listening to him is not something I can permit myself to do. His voice disturbs me. You know what I mean. Though, I guess it could also be the things he says. Apparently, he went on a rant (surprise!) and called Ron Paul some names like “Ru Paul” (surprise!). If you ever thought this to be humorous then Ron Paul doesn’t need your vote. Yeah, all 3 of you.

A few other Twitter posters wanted to make the following point:

“If we Republicans nominate Ron Paul then Obama will win easily”

This is obviously coming from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-after-they’re-all-dead wing of the GOP. Some people call them neo-conservatives, but I like my name for them a bit more.

The only way that Obama wins in 2012 is for the GOP to nominate a candidate not named Ronald Ernest Paul. Independents swing general elections one way or the other. The Democratic base will vote for Obama. The Republican base will hold their noses and vote for Paul because they hate him less than they hate Obama (except for maybe Mark Levin). Ron Paul is immensely strong with independents and moderate disaffected democrats. These two voting blocs will give Paul enough votes to beat Obama in the general.

The problem is that even if Ron Paul wins Iowa it means nothing unless he secures the nomination and it’s a tall order. Remember, McCain, the eventual GOP nominee in 2008, came in 4th in the Iowa Caucuses. Sleepyhead Fred Thompson even finished ahead of him.

Do you think the status-quo GOP would ever embrace Ron Paul as their nominee? I sure would like to find out.

That elephant might as well be a lion right now. Ron Paul is in the top tier of candidates for the GOP nomination. This is not wishful thinking or libertarian fantasy. Following his strong debate showing over the weekend he has the pundits wondering out loud, “Can Ron Paul win?”

If you fancy yourself a Republican, conservative, or independent and you want nothing more than Barack Obama to lose in 2012 then your only choice can be Ron Paul, even if you vehemently disagree with him on foreign policy or think he’s a nut job. I’ve said this before, but if any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, we’ll see a second term for Obama. And this won’t be due to Ron Paul running as a non-Republican as many in the GOP fear. It will be because the rest of the Republican candidates are weak where it matters to most Americans these days: honesty, integrity, and consistency.

Obama isn’t exactly stellar on those attributes either; however, he’s already in the White House. He’s the incumbent with charisma and those are kryptonite to the likes of Newt Romney. If you want to make him uncomfortable force him to attack from the Right. Imagine Obama debating Ron Paul on foreign policy. Who will his anti-war supporters support? The ones that don’t end up thoroughly confused will logically vote for Paul and his strong and consistent anti-war position. Paul will already have the support of the Republican base, some of which, may hold their noses and vote for him. He’s already proven in the polls how popular he is with independents. Those same independents went largely in favor of Obama in 2008.

This all adds up to a victory for Paul over Obama, if only he could secure the nomination. In fact, getting the GOP nomination is a tougher road for Paul than winning in the general. Another reason why the general election would be easier is that his experience in the GOP primary will prepare him for nearly everything he’s likely to face during the general.

A recent interview had Paul answering the “will you run 3rd party” question yet again. Then the ever-present followup question asking him if he’d support the GOP nominee assuming it wasn’t himself. Just once I’d like to see one of his opponents get asked those questions. It would probably go something like this:

BLITZER(CNN): Speaker Gingrich, if Ron Paul gets the nomination will you get angry, pick up all your toys and go run as a 3rd party candidate to give those in the GOP that do not agree with Dr. Paul’s foreign policy an alternative?

GINGRICH: I may not agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy but he’s better than Obama and I would not hesitate to support our party’s nominee, yes, even if that nominee is Ron Paul.

BLITZER(CNN): Governor Romney, same question to you.

ROMNEY: Ron Paul and I have our differences for sure, but I have greater differences with Obama, and I would support the Republican nominee, no matter which one of us is selected for that great honor.

So let me repeat and make it clear:

If you don’t want Obama for 4 more years, Ron Paul is your only hope.

If you consider his positions too extreme then you still must support him. He has two other branches of government to temper his “extremism”. Every other candidate is tinkering around the edges and would have a zero net effect on American prosperity. A libertarian-leaning president coupled with a more moderate judiciary and legislature is exactly the shot in the arm America needs right now.

If you are worried Paul would ignore his oath of office and the Constitution and use his presidency as an extreme libertarian power-grab, well then, you don’t really know Ron Paul and you need to study up on libertarianism.

Republicans rejoice! You have a candidate in the race who can beat Obama. It’s time you embraced your inner elephant and make Ron Paul your nominee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo

There are Republicans that will only vote Republican and stand behind the nominee no matter who it is.

There are Democrats that believe in unicorns, double rainbows, and “Yes we can!” that will vote for Obama no matter how much his actions suggest “Oh no we didn’t!”.

Then there are the the rest of us who will vote for the guy (Sorry Michele and Sarah but you gals don’t have a chance… how’s that feel coming from a Ron Paul supporter?) that actually agrees with us on approximately 80 to 100% of what we believe in.

If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee Obama would be forced to attack from the right on foreign policy, alienating those liberal voters who are ignorantly sympathetic to the drone-bombing fetishist, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Obama would be compelled to “let-me-be-clear” his way out of not being very clear on why there are still troops in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and maybe Syria and “Pock-ih-stohn”.

Now where would those voters turn after being stabbed in the back by their warmonger-in-chief? That’s right, the only other candidate in the race with years of truth and integrity spilling out of him: Ron Paul.

Nearly every question Paul received during the debate last week on MSNBC was obviously aimed at scaring people who have become dependent on the federal government. Even the CNN “Tea Party” debate earlier this week had some of this as well. Don’t fall for their magic markers. Paint your own picture of who Ron Paul is and what he believes (this video is a great start).

Newsflash: Hey MSNBC viewers, everything you despise about FOX News is exactly what MSNBC does except the paint dries blue, not red.

You have to take the crazy out of yourself before you will notice that Ron Paul is just not crazy. He is the candidate with the most common sense. I’m sure that one of Paul’s trusted advisers said to him prior to the debate, “Ron, if you look at the rest of the candidates on that stage, and you can’t find the sane one, then YOU are the sane one.”

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. We keep electing the same clowns over and over again and expect different results. But here is Ron Paul, once again, offering America new solutions to ancient problems.

He’s the only one that can truly beat Obama. Do you want four more years of recession, desperation, broken promises, and apologies? Vote Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Obama.

But if you want four years of prosperity, integrity, honesty, liberty, and peace. Vote Paul. He’s just the kind of crazy America needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g