printIn choosing Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (40% of the vote), South Carolinian voters showed that they were unable to comprehend that Ron Paul’s message is pro-military. That confused me. If Ron Paul’s support among the military is as large as it is purported to be, why is it that a pro-military state did not warm to the congressman’s message (13%)? Is it because these voters perceive Paul as threatening to cut the Gordian knot or the umbilical cord that sustains them, even if their “jobs” involve fighting and dying for naught? What a shame.
Is it perhaps because soldiers are not nearly as moral as some would like you to believe? You can say that again.
Major Garrett credits Gingrich with uniting “economic, social and national security conservatives”:
Gingrich united all three in South Carolina and his double-digit victory there will go down in party lore as one of the historic snap-back moments for the conservative movement. It’s not as if conservatives didn’t have a voice in Iowa or New Hampshire. They did. But they came together in bigger numbers and with a greater sense of fulmination and rage at what they perceive is the establishment Republican tendency to dismiss or delegitimize conservatives in the nominating process. This grievance has burned with varying degrees of intensity in every nominating contest since 1964 and if it were ever to find its full expression, South Carolina would be the place.
I don’t see how on earth anyone can see Gingrich, the man who describes himself as “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican,” as a conservative.
When all is said and done, “there is no path to the nomination without Paul. All candidates are angling for Paul’s supporters,” seconds Doug Wead, senior adviser to the Paul campaign, who also ensures supporters that Paul is still angling for the nomination.
As National Journal sees it, “for Rep. Ron Paul, it’s all about the delegates. [I]f you win elections and win delegates, that’s the way you promote a cause,” confirmed Paul. “In his Saturday night speech, [Paul] said his campaign will push forward and concentrate on caucus states that award delegates proportionally, because that’s the name of the game.’”
Unfortunately, most people “buy” their “koolaid” from the mainstream media or dinosaur media (whichever you prefer).
I was disappointed in Dr. Paul’s showing in South Carolina. I would have thought, also, that the military would have voted for him in droves. Especially if what I read and hear on the internet is true, the “grunt” in the military is tired of endless war and empire.
“I don’t see how on earth anyone can see Gingrich, the man who describes himself as “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican,” as a conservative.”
As you well know, the term “conservative” used to mean something quite different from what it evidently means now. Watch out! The same abuse of language will happen to terms like “pale-conservative”, “paleo-libertarian”, etc.
70 years ago, these were the old Dixiecrat New Dealers who were perfectly fine with big government, big military, etc. They were less comfortable with “counterculture McGoverniks” (a Newtonian term) – e.g. blacks, hippies, dope smokers, racial intermarriage, atheists, gays, hip-hop than they were with the New Deal. Now they have chosen Newt as the exemplar of moral social values. BARRRRRFFF!!!
But this is just a style-Conservatism – the flip side of style-Liberalism. As long as someone “cool” like Hillary or Barack Obama is dropping bombs on some country, that is fine but heaven help us if a “warmonger” like Bush or Cheney does the identical thing. For the style-Conservative, a “Prescription Drug Plan” of “Health Care Mandate” is fine as long as they teach “abstinence education” in the schools. For a style-Liberal, the Patriot Act is fine as long as they teach “Heather Has Two Mommies” in the school.
I grow tired of hearing how “important” it is to replace Obama with Newt or Rick or Mitt. If I support individual liberties, smaller government, sound currency, and property rights, there is but one choice (however imperfect) – and that is Ron Paul.
I think that the unfortunate reality is that many Americans prefer that the U.S. be the empire that it is, and perceive a strong, offensive military as a means of ensuring that empire. It appears to me that many Republican voters in South Carolina hold that view.
This is not hard to figure out if you study the exit polls
# 1 The southern boys & girls really think Newty will clean house on the Big O in the debates & they think Newty can beat O , They said @ a 51 % clip that Newty can beat O in the general election & only 4 % said Ron had a chance to beat O , when all the polls show exactly the opposite Newty is the weakest against O & Ron & Mittens run # 1 as the strongest against O in the general election
# 2 On the Military/Foreign Policy They have the belief that the USA has a God given mission to protect Israel at all costs to the USA , they believe that we should bankrupt the USA to defend Israel , their support for the Military has very little to do with defending the USA & is mostly about defending their religious convictions & why they do not support Ron’s FP on defending the USA & let other nations take care of their biz
Bottom Line is the southern boys & girls voted that the southern boy can beat O , even against overwhelmingly evidence that this is not the case
How do you fix Stupid if Stupid does not want to be fixed ?
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc
Ron Paul has a high popularity among the military soldiers, sailors and airmen; not necessarily the military itself. Like Kipling said- it is always left to the soldier to do the dirty unglamorous work. Everyone else gets the glory image and they don’t want to lose it.
Basically, for most of the Old South, a “conservative” is anyone willing to re-do Pickett’s Charge; any “enemy”, real or manufactured, will do. Given the manifest disappointment w Obama on the Left, RP is actually going to do better in more liberal & in caucus states that allow party crossover voting. And, to be fair – ideas aside – he is an awful candidate. Old (4 days on the trail, 3 days off), whiney, & way too much foot-in-mouth on too many issues. Not the least of which is: why run at all, if he’s not going 3P?? Oh yeah, right…they’ll let make a speech at the Convention and influence the “party platform”…
Election 2012 – it is looking more like 4 more years of Messiah Obama:
(1) Pugnacious Newt makes Nixon look like a pussycat and is likely to lose independent women voters by 2:1.
(2) Ayatollah Santorum is better on style but his culture warrior nature is the one thing to guarantee that Democrats turn out in big numbers.
(3) Robotic Mitt, the most “electable”, is a not-very likeable sub-billionaire who comes off as an insincere programmed candidate.
He can win if the economy tanks big time but it gets hard to see how he wins those swing voters who moved away from the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.
(4) Ron Paul might go into a deadlocked convention with 25% of the delegates but the other 75% will NEVER settle for him. Even if (miraculously) he was nominated, 25% of the Republicans would defect or stay home in pique as Romney and Rockefeller did in 1964.
Newt comes off as a good ol’ boy, and that perception plays well in SC. Also, I think the debate question about Marianne Gingrich’s allegations backfired and gave Newt more support than he would have had.