The Consistent Constitutionalist
On my way to work this morning I heard Jerry Doyle interview Ron Paul’s official blogger, Jack Hunter. Hunter did a terrific job elaborating the Paul strategy in the weeks ahead. By the way, Doyle has come out and endorsed Ron Paul. Hunter answered several questions that continue to be asked in this election cycle. Though the media portrays Paul as “the crazy uncle,” this crazy uncle might just have a chance of winning Iowa.
The Huffington Post and others are now placing their attention on the CNN/Time Poll, which shows Romney ahead of the pack with 25% followed by Ron Paul’s 22%. But the FiveThirtyEight blog of the NYT casts some doubts on the latest poll. With Santorum improving on his numbers and Gingrich essentially bidding adieu to Iowa, Paul has remained the consistent top-tier candidate in Iowa granting him a prestigious end on the third of January.
Finally, the Washington Post concluded their daily pinocchio test, which is usually a futile exercise in pseudo fact-checking. But on this one they asked whether Ron Paul was a conservative constitutionalist. They concluded:
Paul has distinguished himself as the most consistent candidate in the GOP field. He votes according to his principles almost 100 percent of the time, establishing a reputation as an uncompromising representative. In short, voters know exactly what to expect from him — which should make it easy to decide whether to vote for him.
Yes, Paul is consistent, but with a touch of sarcasm and lunacy, the Washington Post concludes: “…that is according to his definition of the constitution.”<>
Raimondo Ron Paul Prediction
Raimondo is not very optimistic about how the media will treat Paul:
The only antiwar presidential candidate will be continuously smeared, demonized, and eventually driven out of the GOP by the party Establishment – If Ron Paul even comes close to winning Iowa, he will have everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him by a grand alliance of neocons, Obama cultists, and Beltway fake-“libertarians.” First they’ll blame the weather, then they’ll blame the “fanaticism” of Paul’s army of volunteers, and finally they’ll blame the voters, who are supposedly so poisoned by “resentment” that they must be declared officially mad. Delegates won fair and square will encounter “problems” with their credentials. Gloria Borger will team up with a famous psychic to divine who really authored the infamous newsletters, and fresh non-scandals will be unearthed by enterprising “journalists.” In the end, a coalition of neocons and Romneyites will issue an encyclical, excommunicating Paul and his supporters from the Republican party – and opening the way for a third party bid that will threaten to put the GOP nominee in third in November.
Probability: 95%
<>
Deteriorating Relations with Russia
As someone who knows a few Russian missionaries, I wonder what will happen if U.S./Russian relations deteriorate. Justin Raimondo does not seem very optimistic. In fact, he says there is a 99% chance this will happen:
Deteriorating relations with Russia – This isn’t really a prediction, it’s a reality. The recent Russian election brought the downgrading of Russo-American relations to the fore, but the fact is that this has been the case ever since Russian strongmanVladimir Putin rose from the ashes of the Soviet collapse and imposed some semblance of order on a nation in the midst of a meltdown. American antipathy to Russia is largely a matter of habit – after half a century of the cold war, fear of the Russians is embedded in the consciousness of the American elites – but much of it has to do with distrust of any foreign leader who seems too strong for our own good. The Americans thought they could gobble up the pieces of the shattered Soviet empire with little or no trouble, and were surprised when Putin pulled his country out of the trash bin of history and started challenging the American would-be hegemon. While war is not an option, internal subversion most certainly is, and if any enterprising journalist wants to trace the financial links between the US government and the various Russian “dissidents” at the head of the “democratic” opposition, he or she will uncover a thriving industry.
Probability: 99%
<>
Buchanan Predicts Iowa Victory for Paul
Pat Buchanan–interviewed by Daily Caller–concludes:
Conservative commentator and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan says Ron Paul will likely win the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, and that a poor showing by Newt Gingrich would be a death knell for his struggling campaign.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/pat-buchanan-predicts-ron-paul-victory-in-iowa/#ixzz1hqut84ut
<>
Endorsement, Polls, and Vicious Attacks
My friend, Brian Nolder, influential pastor and thinker in Iowa has come out to fully endorse Dr. Ron Paul. His piece is a helpful demonstration of someone who has been thinking hard through these issues since last election and has given Ron Paul a chance. Many others have done so.
Paul is set to take a prominent standing in Iowa on the third of January and will most likely go to NH with significant strength. The latest PPP polling continues to show Paul at a small lead, but a lead nevertheless.
Meanwhile, Gingrich has come out viciously attacking Ron Paul’s newsletter even going so far as to say that he will not support Paul should he be the nominee. Newt’s de-contextualized comments assume Paul wrote all the newsletters. This will most likely backfire on Gingrich, since Paul supporters know the truth.
Gingrich has become quite a desperate politician in these last days, since a bad show in Iowa will most likely plunge him in NH. This is virtually–assuming Perry or Santorum do not break out of second-tier–a Ron Paul and Mitt Romney race. Romney, though plagued by flip-flops, will be the establishment’s choice. Paul needs a first or strong second finish in Iowa and overcome the newsletter charges in order to be competitive in NH, and versus the Romney machine.<>
Hiroaki Sato and Pearl Harbor
The Japan Times OnLine, Hiroaki Sato, offers a Japanese perspective on Pearl Harbor and he claims non-interventionism is right on most cases. He summarizes Buchanan’s piece:
Patrick Buchanan, the presidential candidate in 2000, has been dismissed as a credible polemicist and politician for some years now largely because of his “anti-interventionist” or isolationist stance. But I do not see much harm in nonintervention in most instances. Do you?
<>
What the Mainstream Media is Telling us about Ron Paul
So let me see if I understand what the media is telling me I am supposed to believe these days:
1. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it doesn’t matter, nor does the Iowa caucus, but who gets 2nd and 3rd matters a great deal.
2. Ron Paul is a racist, even though among blacks, he is polling HIGHER than all the other candidates.
3. No true patriot should support Ron Paul, even though our military men and women support him more than all other candidates combined.
4. Ron Paul can’t win a general election even though he polls highest against Obama in many polls, provides a true alternative to the status quo, and has more independents, young people, democrats, and other groups supporting him than all the other candidates.
5. Not wanting to get into a war with Iran is a ‘radical’ idea that disqualified him from consideration, while the majority of Americans agree with him, and while political analysts with integrity warn of WW3 if we do.
Dear Main Stream Media: It’s not working. We’re not ALL that stupid. {Thanks to Brian Nolder and Matt Bianco}<>
On Civil Liberties
Hasan assesses the current president:
I now regret saying Obama was similar to Bush. When it comes to civil liberties, once he signs the NDAA into law, he will be worse.
<>
A Harsh Assessment of the President
Hasan concludes:
Over the past three years, the former constitutional law professor has failed to close Guantánamo Bay, expanded the detention facility at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, defended the use of warrantless surveillance and military tribunals, and – shockingly – asserted the right to assassinate, via drone strike and without due process, US citizens he deems to be terrorists. As the leading US legal scholar Jonathan Turley has argued, “the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties”.
<>
