Comments on: “And Then There Were Four …”

By: Mari Tyers

Mari Tyers — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:15:39 +0000

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.

By: My RON-PAUL i

My RON-PAUL i — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:20:36 +0000

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.

By: Rebel Without a Clause

Rebel Without a Clause — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:50:40 +0000

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”…

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:51:03 +0000

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.

By: Roy Bleckert

Roy Bleckert — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:56:01 +0000

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

By: Henry Bowman

Henry Bowman — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:01:48 +0000

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.

By: My RON-PAUL i

My RON-PAUL i — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:37:22 +0000

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.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:09:00 +0000

“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.

By: Stephen Bernier

Stephen Bernier — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:05:58 +0000

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.