With the media–both conservative and liberal–losing their patience for Perry, naturally Romney will go up in numbers. Perry’s immediate fall in New Hampshire is an indication that he is not what they expected him to be. But if the Tea Party man is not living up to debate expectations and can’t handle the hard oppositions from the establishment candidate (Romney) or the other Tea-Party candidates (Bachmann and Paul) then what is the electorate’s next move? Will they continue to support Perry’s difficult past or will they consider an alternative? Some may say this is the right time for Palin to come in or Christie. I hope both stay in their respective domain and work within their platforms. The field is full and all ideas are fairly represented. This is the time I think Paul can genuinely offer an alternative to what is going on. His consistency, as Jon Stewart, is fond of affirming, is precisely what is the Achilles heel of many of the candidates. No one can say that Dr. Paul voted this way ten years ago and now has changed his mind. Everyone knows that Paul is who he says he is. I believe this is Paul’s best hope at this stage. He continues to enjoy a restful third place in most local and national polls, but this is not enough to get the country’s attention. If in his third place he receives less questions than all other candidates (save Gary Johnson) it means that the MSM is still not seeing his support as authentic and worthy. One can say that his ideas are not understood by the mainstream media, but the mainstream in many ways make the candidate. A move to second place or a closening of the gap in the numbers and the eventual downfall of Rick Perry will offer Paul a greater voice in the months ahead.<>
Ron Paul goes on the attack…watch out Romney!
“The idea that more government involvement in health care is the solution, especially at a time when the nation is dealing with record deficits and debt, is preposterous,” he writes. “And the promised effectiveness of forced mandate health care is easily disproven by looking at how such a system has worked in Massachusetts.”
<>
Ron Paul, Top-Tier
Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post:
No longer is Paul the outsider that everyone else simply ignores, both on the campaign trail and in face-offs like Thursday’s Fox News GOP debate (he’s mixed it up with Rick Perry more than once). Paul is polling a clear third in most recent surveys– ahead of Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and her fellow second-tier candidates – and while many still doubt he can win, there is something to be gained from knocking him down a peg or two, because his supporters have to migrate somewhere.
Paul’s third place with 10-15% of Republican votes puts him in a great position to pursue the head of the pack. If Perry suddenly drops in the poll, Tea Party Republicans who have been at war with Mitt Romney, will most certainly direct their attention to the Congressman from Texas. Tonight will be an important night for Ron Paul.<>
Ron Paul Blasts Obama’s Policy Towards Veterans
Mary Stegmeir reports on Paul’s attack on Obama with the following words:
While Ron Paul spoke with voters across the state Tuesday, his campaign released an open letter the GOP presidential candidate addressed to the current Commander in Chief.
In the note, Paul asserts that the tax increases proposed as part of President Obama’s jobs and deficit reduction plan would result in cuts to veterans’ benefits.
Here’s the letter:
“Dear President Obama,
“As a Doctor, an Air Force Veteran, and Congressman, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and has always fought for the best interest of our troops, I was deeply concerned to learn that our military retirees are now facing benefit cuts under your proposed $1.5 trillion dollar tax hike.
“Our military men and women have fought bravely. In exchange, our country made a promise to them, and we must honor it.
“There are trillions of dollars in unwise and unconstitutional spending we must cut. There are few other leaders in Washington willing to cut spending as deeply as I am and truly balance our budget. But, we must make sure we take care of our Veterans who fought to take care of us.
“We have put our troops in harm’s way, and we must honor our promises. And, our troops have paid a heavy price these past ten years. Over 5,000 have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, 40,000 have seen crushing injuries, and hundreds of thousands more suffer from brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder
“Failing to meet the promises we have made to our troops would be unjust and immoral. The cuts you announced yesterday, combined with the rumored cuts in benefits reported in publications like Army Times, have our soldiers and Veterans deeply concerned.
“Mr. President, instead of cutting our Veterans benefits, I call on you to support our troops. Support them by bringing them home to our shores, to protect our borders and defend our country. Ensure that they are rested and equipped to repel any real credible attack. Re-unite them with their families. And, make sure they no longer play policeman in dangerous foreign civil wars.
“Cutting the benefits of our Veterans benefits while we subsidize the security of other wealthy nations like Germany and Japan and play World Policeman makes no sense. The money we would save extracting our fighting men and women and our equipment from overseas conflicts and regions will more than offset the savings you seek by upending the manner in which veterans receive care.
“Bringing our troops home would ensure that we keep the promise to our Veterans, strengthen our national defense and secure our borders.
“Do not mistake me for a pacifist or a person solely focused on the economics of the unsustainable global security and state-building that has helped our country arrive at the shores of financial ruin. On the contrary, I consider my military service as an Air Force flight surgeon during the Cold War to be among my highest personal and professional achievements.
“Authentic, Constitutionally-sound national security – a strong national defense – begins with guarding our borders and not the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“Mr. President, I call upon your to support our troops, honor our Veterans, and ensure our wounded get the care they deserve. To do so, we must end these protracted, trillion-dollar wars and bring them home.”
In Liberty,
Ron Paul<>
Knuckleheads and Santorum (but I repeat myself)
Paul Mulshine hits another home run. He writes:
Among my least favorite clichés is that one about “speaking truth to power.” It’s easy to speak truth to powerful people. There aren’t many of them and they don’t care what you say. What really takes nerve is to speak truth to knuckleheads. There are tens of millions of them. And they get to vote.
That is the charm of Ron Paul. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no politician in recent history has irritated so many knuckleheads in so few words.
<>
Free Society, Lordship, Rothbard, and Ron Paul
I am a Trinitarian Christian. I believe in God’s rule over all things. Yet, many people ask me why I would support a libertarian candidate. Just recently someone posed the following question:” Do you like Rothbard? His writing seems thoroughly secular.” I had previously stated how Jonah Goldberg from National Review found Rothbard to be consistent in his views of personal liberty, which consequently led to Goldberg’s positive assessment of Ron Paul’s policy on similar issues. In light of my support of Rothbard on this matter, the questioner then assumed that Rothbard and I have the same agenda. We do not. However, we have similar principles. Here is my answer:
I don’t know if you have read Paul’s analysis of von Mises…his analysis is overall positive, but in the end he critiques their secular pessimism. I would have the same reaction to Rothbard and Ayn Rand. My neo-conservative friends would agree with Christopher Hitchens’ fanatic defense of the U.S. wars in the Middle East, but again, they would strongly disagree with his overall religious system or lack thereof. Rothbard pursued a free society for the sake of secularism…I pursue a free society for the sake of Lordship.
<>
LA Times reports Ron Paul is Third
In a fascinating piece, LA Times writes that Paul is now officially third place:
Quietly, and very much under the radar, Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who no pundit believes has a serious chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, is staging a bit of comeback, returning to his position as a solid No. 3 candidate in the GOP race.
<>
Dismantle the TSA
They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.
But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.
Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”
“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”
<>
America, Wars, Foreign Policy, Michael Sheuer and Why we were Attacked on 9/11
“Unless you understand the motivation of your enemy…you will never their ability to recruit in future generations.”
–Michael Sheuer<>
Ron Paul third on CNN Poll
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who’s making his third run for the White House, is at 12 percent. Every other candidate is in single digits.
<>
