Nov 26, 2014
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party and Political News Reporting

Bye Bye Ron Paul: Time to Thin the Republican Field

   

Paul v. Santorum

An Op-Ed from The Bunker by Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

Thanks to Rick Santorum, Ron Paul’s bid for the U.S. Presidency was effectively over by the end of the CNN sponsored Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate on September 12, 2011.

On Monday night, the volleys directed at the front runner Rick Perry were to be expected.  In recent debates it has become clear that the handlers of Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman and Michelle Bachmann have advised that the best course of action is to fire barbs and accusations Perry’s way to find out what will bounce off and what will stick.  The goal, strategically, is to find a blow that can cause Perry to lose his cool.  Rick Perry has weathered the storm well.   From his stance on illegal immigration to his executive order to have young Texas women immunized for HPV, Perry’s second-tier opponents have been relentless in their assaults.  Governor Romney, by contrast, has been gracious in seeking clarification about Governor Perry’s position on whether or not he would seek to reform or end social security.  Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, the Georgia boys, have chosen to remain aloof from the fray, and both have chosen to simply put forward winning ideas on a regular basis.

What has become patently clear from virtually every poll, though, is that two candidates should throw in the towel: John Huntsman and Rick Santorum.  Huntsman and Santorum hold a combined 4 to 5% of the voters.

Huntsman’s smarmy delivery on virtually every issue smacks of RINO elitism…his presence in the race at this point is due his belief that he can garner independents and moderate Republican votes – in complete denial of every poll in the world that says no one knows who he is or why he is even running.  It is time for Huntsman to go the way of Pawlenty, bow out and endorse Romney.

Rick Santorum, after a disappointing showing in the last few debates, primarily due to intentional sidelining by the moderators, should take his recent success in his heated exchange with Ron Paul in last night’s Tea Party Express debate, step aside and throw his support to Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain.  This simple step would slingshot Gingrich or Cain into a tie with Michelle Bachmann, change the dynamics of the race and the impact of future debates.

Bachmann’s focus on the Perry HPV mandate, which has largely become a non-issue since it was never enacted, has ended in the relative implosion of her candidacy.  The fact that Rick Santorum jumped on the bandwagon to score points against Rick Perry is yet another indicator that Santorum’s candidacy is at an end.  Since her victory in Iowa’s straw poll, Bachmann’s popularity has been sliding.  Her passion for the country, the constitution, and the virtues of a faith-filled life are read by the average man and woman on the street as holy rolling zealotry – whether that label is deserved or simply the effect of a left wing media spin machine kicked off by Rolling Stone.  Bachmann does still hold currency in the Tea Party set for her powerful work in Congress to date; however, with Ron Paul and Herman Cain in the race, the Tea Party core is split three ways – and if Sarah Palin were to jump in, it would split again.

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are, at this point a dead heat for fifth place in a field of six.

Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul are virtually even at third place.  Interestingly, if Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum all dropped their bid and endorsed Herman Cain, he would emerge as the front runner.  This reality is unlikely to happen.  What is more likely is that Herman Cain will emerge as Marco Rubio’s competition in the selection of a running mate for Rick Perry should he win the nomination.

Newt Gingrich’s slow play at this point is due to his political baggage.  Hands down, he is by far the idea man among the candidates.  His ability to chop down Democrat talking points, deliver cutting analysis and act as a uniting force on the debate fora shows his capacity to lead.  His knowledge of history, politics, foreign policy and fiscal policy is hard to beat.  To date, his only debate failing is his continual focus on the age of Ronald Reagan.  The audience is not voting for Reagan or the Reagan candidate in 2012 – they are voting against Obama and Obamacare.

One unfortunate reality in the Republican field, at present, is the fact that Ron Paul’s devotees are completely blind to any failing their candidate demonstrates.  The left wing media has wrongly coined Paul the father of the Tea Party movement.  He is a libertarian thinker with good ideas on fiscal policy and that is where the affair with the Tea Party movement ends.  Ron Paul’s inability to cope with the threat of radical Islam and other foreign threats (without becoming unhinged) completely undermines his bid to be President of the United States.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have squared off on Foreign Policy.  Ron Paul called Santorum’s drive to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons “propaganda.”  Rick Santorum, Monday, called out Ron Paul’s 9/11 message to America on his website www.ronpaul.com, for essentially blaming America for the attacks on 9/11/2001.

The shot came after Ron Paul, again, as he seemingly always has these last few months, charged that U.S. militarism around the world should be replaced with wise foreign policy.  Paul was booed for clarifying what he believed were al Qaeda’s motivations for attacking the United States.

The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul’s blog post should be read by every Republican.  He focuses on the idea that occupation is the problem with American foreign policy.  However, perhaps more importantly, Ron Paul cites the scholarship of  Robert Pape, who coauthored “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.”

What Ron Paul fails to recognize is that Tea Partiers and Republicans will soon learn that Robert Pape was once a teacher’s assistant to John Mearsheimer, who (in addition to serving as his adviser in 2008) served as a policy adviser to Barack Obama in 2008.   Robert Pape co-directs Chicago University’s International Security Policy program with Mearsheimer, the coauthor of The Israel Lobby.  The March 2006 white paper by Mearsheimer and Dewalt, which became a book, offers the rationalization for an anti-Israeli foreign policy as an attack on Bush era neo-con policies.  Ron Paul calls the studies of this thinker “honest.”

By falling into the anti-neo-con rationale of Mearsheimer and Pape, Ron Paul has, perhaps unwittingly, adopted an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian foreign policy.  By focusing on the concept of occupation as the source of suicide bombing, Paul completely absolves Islamist ideology as the instigating force of jihad.  By attempting to soften Republican policies toward Islam, in general, Ron Paul reveals his foreign policy positions to be closer to Obama and Kucinich than to Reagan or Bush.  The desire to demilitarize and withdraw from foreign theaters, while intriguing to Republicans weary of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, completely misses the boat on realistically assessing the threat of Islamist radicalism and Shariah Law.

Ron Paul will always have 10% of Republicans supporting him – but will never graduate to 20%.

He is in a tough spot.  He has no ability to sway the election in 2012.  Republicans can have a more photogenic choice in Romney, a more masculine choice in Perry, and a wiser foreign policy choice in Newt Gingrich.  Virtually all of the candidates in the Republican field espouse a capitalist outlook, so the strength of Ron Paul is not his exclusivity in appeal to libertarians.

Republicans rolled their eyes at Ron Paul’s assertions that marijuana should be legalized.  Republicans will not be able to roll their eyes at the natural corollaries of Ron Paul’s foreign policy wisdom – that ending U.S. involvement in supporting the Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian lands is the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian question.

With rationales like this, Ron Paul will never be able to serve as a unifying consensus candidate, that much is certain.

Ron Paul’s best option, at this point, is to bow out of the race.

Gary H. Johnson

Senior Contributing Editor for the Tea Party Tribune, Senior Advisor for International Security Affairs at the Victory Institute, Contributing Editor at Family Security Matters, Jihad & SCF Consultant for hire.
Show full bio




55 Comments

  1. Joann S.

    September 14, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum or Herman Cain should be on the same ticket. I would be happy with any one of them for President, however, Newt is the wisest.

    • Jo F.

      September 14, 2011 at 8:28 am

      Ron Paul does not seem to be concerned about American's national security. That is unsettling.

  2. Suzann

    September 14, 2011 at 8:55 am

    You are senseless. We Americans won't be fooled…I have done my own research and found you wanting.

  3. Medusa

    September 14, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Why don't you educate yourself before you go on sounding like an ignorant fool – read bin Laden's letter yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theob

    Perhaps the CIAs analysis would be helpful?
    “Blowback” is a term that was invented by the CIA to describe the often unforeseen and unintended consequences of foreign intervention. The 9/11 Commission Report lists blowback as a primary cause of the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden also cited American foreign policy as a primary reason for radical Islamic outrage.

    Or, as a last option – why don't you ask our TROOPS what they think? Ron Paul has received more donations from active and retired military than all other candidates Combined! Why do you think that is?
    Perhaps it's because they're not watching U.S. TV 'media' promote the Military Complex…the biggest lobby in the history of the world.

    You're a fool to not listen to the truth – and it's shameful that the (co-opted) "Tea Party" is promoting such ignorant views.

    • GHJJ

      September 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

      I don't normally respond to gorgons. But, it is apparent that this Medusa, like Paul, is no Titan. It is good that you are reading the words of bin Laden, but the truth is Ron Paul is a whiner with no shot at winning. His views on foreign policy are half-baked. Ron Paul is a Dhimmi. He is ready to surrender to the Taliban, to Hamas, to the Ayatollah in Iran. It is good that he is raising awareness of the fact that U.S. military activity is on the rise, but to refuse to laud the troops for advancing liberty is anti-American. There are hundreds of leaders in Washington who believe America is the problem – Ron Paul is one of those.

      I don't have a problem saying our diplomats, state department, CIA activity and presence in areas fuels discontent and provides terrorists recruiting fodder. I don't have a problem saying that counterinsurgency strategy is flawed. I don't have problem saying that the U.S. has used buffer states as influence spheres in a war against Communism. But, I do have a problem with Ron Paul's focus on the word "occupation" to describe American activity in the world. The word "occupation" implies that Americans are evil invaders and this attitude is not productive and it plays into the hands and propaganda of America's enemies.

      • handyman

        September 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm

        what is apparent is GHJJ is playing into world powers. Living on the phrase war on terror. either that or he was a school yard bully that just picked on those that could not fight back.

      • Medusa

        September 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm

        Well, what word would you use to describe setting up bases on foreign land? It sounds like you have an emotional response to the word "occupation', so perhaps if the semantics are different you'll agree that there are few other ways to describe our Placement (?? is that better) of troops in 130 countries around the world.

        The bottom line is that the troops need to come home. Aside from the obvious benefit of reuniting families and allowing the brave members of our armed services to provide actual Defense for our homeland, perhaps we could give them Much Needed raises if their paychecks were coming back into our own economy (this is my own opinion, nothing specifically described by Ron Paul). Eisenhower warned us against the Military Industrial Complex – I'm all for Defense spending, but I don't want to contribute one more dollar to the making of bombs that are used in the Middle East to kill innocent civilians.

        • GHJJ

          September 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm

          If you spend any time reading anti-Israeli propaganda from left wing writers in the Middle East, you will recognize the central theme of Israeli "occupation."

          Pre 2006, when you read leftist writers and thinkers on American foreign policy in Iraq from Noam Chomsky to Fareed Zakaria to George McGovern, the phrase "occupation" was pulled like a gun as the reason we should cut and run.

          Policy is the defining factor between militarism and defense spending. Innocent civilians will continue to die if we continue to fight radical Islamists of the al Qaeda stripe (either covertly through CIA drone attacks or through direct combat). That war will continue, whether we continue fighting it or not.

          The goal of the Bush policy was to drain the swamp – to provide al Qaeda terrorists a magnetic draw that would divert them from attacking our homeland. We utilized a counterpunch methodology from 2003 to 2008 in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have superior firepower and we win in standup fights with Taliban and Qaeda terror types…so it is not a mystery that al Qaeda attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the fact remains that over 17,000 terror strikes have occured around the globe since 9/11 due to Islamic Supremacist ideology…Pakistan is attacked supposedly because the government accepts U.S. financial support. Does that mean we should no longer support the poor of Pakistan, because it might cause suicide bombers to get riled?

          The philosophy of Pape and Paul on jihad and Sharia are withdraw oriented. Perhaps a good moderator in an upcoming debate will ask him his opinion of Dhimmitude…and whether or not his foreign policy will lead to American submission to radical jihadists.

          [Note to Handyman – I spent my youth beating the tar out of bullies]

  4. Iva

    September 14, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    War Pigs took over the Republican party. Then the War Pigs invaded the tea party. The War OF Terror must continue until we are homeless in the country our forefathers fought for and we have no freedom left to be "safe" . Like the Drug War, it will never end. You fake teapartiers cannot have prosperity as long as we spend trillions on occupations and the police state.
    Wake up to the war propaganda. Who really profits? Follow the money. Politicians invested in the war machine bought by lobbyists, the banks, and corporations. How does war benefit YOU?

  5. wirelessjohn

    September 14, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Ron Paul is the wisest politician I have ever heard. The truth is always the best medicine. And like all children the tea party hates medicine. I have attended tea party meetings and it is the same as we saw Monday night. They are more worried about foreign affairs than they are here at home. Also wanting to force religion where ever they can. The Tea Party is not what I thought it would be. Real conservatism to shrink government and get back to our constitution. If the tea party would listen to Ron Paul and not the media that loves controlling and scaring them to death they would understand why Ron Paul will be our next president.

  6. MJU

    September 14, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Ron Paul has only gained support since the debate. Everything Dr. Paul says can be backed up with factual information whereas the lies Rick Santorum spreads only makes us less safe as a Nation and makes Santorum look even more foolish. The worst thing Ron did was actually responding to an opponent who is sub 2% in polls. Dr. Michael Scheuer who carries a "little" more weight in the Counterterrorism World than Rick Santorum says that "Ron Paul is exactly right" and "Ron Paul never blamed America" then Scheuer totally dismisses Santorum as ignorant. Don't be afraid to read, study, and learn instead of just assuming what motivates suicide terrorism.

    • Medusa

      September 14, 2011 at 5:38 pm

      Agreed –
      and quit letting the media tell you who is worth your vote. Amy Kremer (chair of Tea Party Express) made a point of stating on C-SPAN the other night that Ron Paul didn't bother to show up at any of "their" events. Aside from the fact that Dr. Paul is pretty busy representing his constituents, I'm glad he's steering clear of the MediaTeaParty madness. I used to identify with the Tea Party as well, but no more – the next thing we know, they'll be following John McCain's endorsement for the next candidate. If these people aren't willing to face the fact that this country is being bankrupted by military spending (and the countless lobbyists promoting it), they'll never accomplish smaller government.

      The Sleeping Giant is truly awakening – and it's Not the Tea Party.

      • GHJJ

        September 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm

        It is not shocking to me that you have dropped the Tea Party. You have decided that Ron Paul is always right and refuse – absolutely refuse to believe that he is not the best candidate to beat Obama.

        I would say the progressive entitlement and legacy cost policies of union thuggery and crony fascism are the main things that need to be remedied at the federal level. What I am sure of is that crooked lefty politicians will work with Ron Paul styled Republican thinking to punish the military, to strip the U.S. Defense capability and weaken National Security…the notion that a Presidential election will change two decades of lobby happy corruption is laughable. It will take 20 years worth of repair to accomplish that, and the reason lefties are successful is because people like us will always be fighting one another rather than striking blows where they will be most effective.

    • GHJJ

      September 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      Dr. Scheuer has had a chip on his shoulder since he was dismissed from his CIA position by the neocon administration of George W. Bush. He has never gotten over it, and has made a career as a writer by countering the pro-democracy, liberty forward agenda of groups like FDD and AEI. When Scheuer says someone is exactly right, I assume that person is actively working against the advancement of American interests overseas.

      • MJU

        September 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm

        Dismissed? He resigned. Yes, someone who is trying to change our foreign policy to eliminate the only recruiting tool Islamist Extremists have to convince others to carry out suicide terrorism AGAINST us clearly is working against "the advancement of American interests overseas". Spreading democracy around the globe is a progressive fairy-tail first promoted by Woodrow Wilson. It's been reinvigorated by modern-day progressives such as Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama. I think the 18 veterans currently committing suicide everyday disagree with your assessment GHJJ.

        • GHJJ

          September 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm

          The Koran, Shariah, the Hisba…these tools exist to radicalize and recruit whether our foreign policy drives us to build bases in foreign countries or not. From my position, I would say he was dismissed. He resigned as a result.

          Our soldiers advance the cause of Liberty – that is not a fairy tale. They do not occupy countries, they liberate countries. We, as liberty's champions, as Americans, are advocates for the democratic values of self rule and human dignity. Just because progressives twist and mutate good ideas does not mean the good in the idea is lost. Concern for the environment does not become progressive pap until it mutates into climate change gloom and doom and twists into save the spotted owl anti-industrialist nonsense. Advocating for Liberty and Justice for all is not a progressive idea, it is an American idea.

          Is that all you have left, pull the suicidal vet card? They would probably not agree with anything either of us would say – at the point of their collapse, all is fubar. Whether our foreign policy drove them to that state or not is questionable – perhaps they were just tired of the Ron Paulbots evangelical streak which drives them to convert neocons, conservatives, capitalists, and Republicans into fed-wise libertarians while calling everyone who doesn't agree with them traitors to the Tea Party.

          What I am sure of is that those who serve are heroes in my eyes, and those that choose to end it all by their own hand were not well counseled throughout their tours, or have not been well received upon their return. War is tough, death is pervasive…it has the capacity to rub off on those without a support network. If I could give any soldier or vet seriously considering killing themselves advice, I would say don't be afraid to ask for help.

          • Nick

            September 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm

            You've got to be kidding me with this, "champions of liberty" crap. Our FOUNDING FATHERS wanted a global position of neutrality!!! Not butting our heads in the business of other nations. Why should my tax dollars be used to liberate some country halfway around the world? How about using that money for something useful for me and my family. To quote John Adams…
            "America goes not in search of monsters to destroy."

  7. Medusa

    September 14, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Let's see how the neo-cons handle this:
    "The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region."
    — Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former director of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, now chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/veto-a-

    • GHJJ

      September 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm

      Obama's U.S.-Muslim Engagement has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of strongmen in North Africa and in the Middle East. The Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, are itching to undermine whatever deal the United States attempts to structure. American influence in the region is not under threat of decline. We have the money – we buy the oil – we buttress the Islamic Financial picture through public private partnerships through organizations like OPIC and the World Bank. Israeli security will be compromised if we accept a Palestinian leadership which refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Iran will be empowered in either case: If the U.S. accepts the Palestinian bid and supports it, Iran will appear to be the reason; if the U.S. refuses to back the bid, Iran will facilitate a propaganda campaign throughout the Muslim Brotherhood clients from Tunisia to Syria.

      The fact is Prince Turki is assured that the Obama Administration will do whatever it can between now and the election to actively weaken the Zionist leadership in Tel Aviv.

      The question is, does Ron Paul have the capacity to recognize the gamesmanship at play here. His natural reaction in this instance would be to support the Palestinians because he has bought the narratives of insane radicals like bin Laden and anti-American apologists.

      Ron Paul will actively work to give Jerusalem, in full, to the occupation of Palestinian Muslims to ensure that suicide bombers and qassam rocket brigades won't have an excuse to attack Israel. Paul will then help make the case that Palestinians imprisoned by Israel for terrorist crimes should be released to stop the cycle of militarism…all while he ends America's financial and military support of Israel.

      If Ron Paul can prove to American conservatives that this is not the direction of his foreign policy, he can earn the respect of many; however, I suspect, he would not only proudly agree to the direction, he would hasten it to ensure America didn't have to bother itself with guarding something as trivial as an alliance with Israel.

      • Medusa

        September 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm

        Actually, I believe he has suggested getting out of the UN – and while I don't necessarily agree with Everything he says, I certainly agree with that idea!

        • GHJJ

          September 14, 2011 at 6:59 pm

          We are at a crossroads, Medusa…I appreciate your due diligence and spirit…but I must be getting on with other stories and look forward to your comments in the future.

          But the reality is that for at least the next 15 months, we will be a part of the UN…and likely will remain a part of the UN and NATO long after 2012, regardless of who comes to power – even if Paul were to somehow catch fire and win the hearts of every conservative in America.

          You raised the question – what will neocons do with this piece of information and the reality is they will deal with it in terms of geopolitics and actively work to support Israel.

          My contention is that both Obama and Ron Paul would actively work to disengage from supporting Israel – and would justify it using punch points and zingers about how America is overextended and everything we are doing is with borrowed money.

          Does a weakened Israel serve America's National Interest? That is the question I pose. Ron Paul argues that a nuclear Iran is no more of a threat than a Nuclear Russia…but this argument assumes Iran is a rational player.

          I do not assume Iran or any Islamic Supremacist outfit – Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hizb ut Tahrir et al. – are rational players. The neocon argument against a nuclear armed Iran, the neocon argument against a weakened Israeli ally, the neocon argument against radical Islam should not be dismissed out of a willful blindness in hopes of saving a few nickels, or scoring points against a lobbyist or two, when what is necessary to balance the budget and win the future is placing the American economy into overdrive and generating trillions of dollars in revenue by creating a low tax, pro-business, pro-capitalist environment.

          We cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran.

          We cannot afford an emboldened Islamic Supremacist hegemony in the Middle East.

          These are my opinions, and I am sure you have yours; but, in the end, I believe we will have to disagree, knowing that we will in all probability vote for Rick Perry or Mitt Romney to stop the Obama freight train of despair and punishment.

  8. GadsdenGurl

    September 15, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    How DARE you ask Ron Paul to step down! Without him, there would have been no tea party movement started in 2007.. This site is a GOP fake shill for the NEOCONS. You are NOT tea party.

    • GHJJ

      September 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm

      Ye have little faith. Tea partiers have this capacity for calling it like we see it. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann – none are immune from this little thing called reason. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist libertarian. His message needs work if he expects to gather all Conservatives and Independents onto his page. I did not ask Ron Paul to step down, I said his only real move is to bow out. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but I doubt it. My opinions are my own, when I write my thoughts represent me not this publication – if you have a problem with my daring approach, sorry – the Tea Party Tribune is a shill for nothing save life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Ron Paul, from my perspective, is not the champion of Liberty, the candidate of Justice in the race. His denial of the threat posed by radical Islam places him in the Dhimmi category – not what America needs (we already have that).

      • MJU

        September 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm

      • Brian Horsfield

        September 17, 2011 at 10:04 am

        I debated two military guys at a recruiting booth recently. I asked them if killing terrorists using the military is a winnable proposition. They said no – it just creates more terrorists. And these were Army recruiters! This is why Ron Paul has more support of the military than ALL the other GOP candidates COMBINED. They understand what Blowback is. Santorum has no clue.

        Ron Paul also pointed out in a debate recently that there were LESS than 10 suicide bombers per year nbefore 9-11. And hundreds now…. so much for the War on Terror making us safer. It's totally flawed logic and serves only the military-industrial lobby.

      • Mac

        September 17, 2011 at 7:55 pm

        His only real move is to bow out?

        Why would he do that? You sound like a competent enough gentleman. But really? If the point of Paul's running is to win the presidency, and he is third in the runnings against RomPer in almost every poll and increasing slowly but steadily… I'm stumped. Can you give me a logical reason why he should drop out and not Bachmann? And not just a reason fueled only by your disagreement with his foreign policy?

        I'd like to hear it but really I'm gonna be voting for Paul regardless. On a side note, I'm looking forward to Santorum and Huntsman dropping out too. And Newt. And Cain. And eventually Perry and Bachmann.

        Take care

        • Gary H. Johnson

          September 19, 2011 at 12:57 am

          Mac, thank you for the questions. First of all, recognize that this was one article – it does not encompass my entire argument on any candidate’s qualities or the viability of their candidacy. I don’t believe Michelle Bachmann should step aside, yet. The left wing media has decided to portray her as a christian fundamentalist crusader…a good campaign manager can utilize solid messaging to counter the tactics of the secular msm. However, if she were to bow out before Christmas and re-engage her run for the House, I would cheer.

          As far as a logical reason why Ron Paul should drop out besides foreign policy – I think Ron Paul has great ideas for the most part. His understanding of the fed and monetary policy is great – I like austrian economics. I have not seen many polls where Ron Paul is rising in popularity. I see one every now and again that puts him in the 15% range and dozens that place him at the 6% mark. I put him at a solid 10%.

          I believe most Americans are keen to perception. I think most of America perceives Paul as a whiner, because his voice has a weird timber. He sounds like an old man complaining about a price at a check out counter more than a statesman. He is awkward, walks funny, has a strange posture and seems to be hiding palsy. The presidency, it is said, ages you 10 years in four. I personally think his health will become a factor by the primary if he sticks with it. And let’s face it, he exudes frailty not strength.

          I think, more than anything at this point (and we’ll see it again on the 22nd) the candidates have their talking points down by now. It is time for them to branch out and talk about big ideas for fixing the country’s economics. Sure, creating an environment for trade to return is all good and well…but what I am missing right now is any sense of these candidate’s visions for the country. So far, the candidates have been talking policy – what will win most independents and crossover democrats and unite the party is a vision that Americans can get behind.

          I also think they have not been challenged on foreign policy – I would like to hear Ron Paul’s answers on questions revolving around Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the situations in Libya and Syria.

          Point blank questions like “will you seek to disarm Hezbollah?” seem to be missing from the debates.

          Domestic questions like “How do we save the California economy?” would also be worth while at this stage.

  9. Veteran33

    September 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Well, the Tea Party knows nothing about reason because they who qwrite this crap did not read Osamas FATWA! This is such a joke!

  10. veteran33

    September 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Wow! Really this is not the Tea Party if they censor comments what a joke! I will let my fellow tea Party Members tonight at our metting of 300! LOL nice try NEOCONS!

    • GHJJ

      September 15, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      Thank you for your service. It is good to see Ron Paul fans are not offended. Actually Veteran 33, I have spent 5 years studying Islamic Supremacy. I have read more al Qaeda treatises and propaganda than 99.99999% of America. The fact is, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri both declared their defensive jihad due to our occupation of the holy places – they declared it permissible to use suicide bombing and terrorism due to the fact that we were such an overpowering force that they could not stand toe to toe with us. They admit as much. Now, I do not have a problem with Ron Paul's non-interventionist lean. I think most of America wants to tie off the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, many Americans believe that we should withdraw from our positions in at least half of our bases around the world and return that money to the American economy and that force to our own borders. I am sympathetic to that. I get it. However, the fact is, al Qaeda and the Taliban , Hezbollah, HAMAS, the IRGC, the Muslim Brotherhood and all other Islamic Supremacist organs are all nodes of terror that will eventually flare, whether we are involved or not – and they will all justify it as a protest against something we have done, even if it is not reality. The enemy we face is operating on narratives, fanning narratives, inventing narratives, and actively fostering propaganda. We are in a war of ideas – and if Ron Paul can come up with a way to win the war of ideas that does not amount to America's submission to Islamic Supremacy, I am all ears.

      Now, as to all of you Ron Paul fans out there who can't read an article like this without becoming apoplectic – loosen up and prepare to lead with calm dialogue. Stop screaming at the TV, take a chill pill and get to solving the problems of this country. Want an assignment? Want to write? Got time on your hands to do some research, let us know that you have idle time you'd like to fill bye helping your country, and we can work together. For those that can't handle this kind of article, Paulbots and Palinistas both – thank you for your vote in 2012 against Obama…

  11. GHJJ

    September 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Realize Ron Paul Supporters, I am not the only one who feels that Ron Paul is out to lunch on the issue. Here is the take of Peter Wehner – http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/31/ron-

    And here is the immediate follow-up he made due to the avalanche of crazed rabid Paul supporters taking him to task for speaking his mind – http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/01/ron-

  12. Guest

    September 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Generals gathered in their masses
    Just like witches at black masses
    Evil minds that plot destruction
    Sorcerer of death's construction
    In the fields the bodies burning
    As the war machine keeps turning
    Death and hatred to mankind
    Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!

    Politicians hide themselves away
    They only started the war
    Why should they go out to fight?
    They leave that role to the poor
    Yeah!

    Time will tell on their power minds
    Making war just for fun
    Treating people just like pawns in chess
    Wait 'til their judgement day comes
    Yeah!

    Now in darkness, world stops turning
    Ashes where the bodies burning
    No more war pigs have the power
    Hand of God has struck the hour
    Day of judgement, God is calling
    On their knees, the war pigs crawling
    Begging mercies for their sins
    Satan laughing, spreads his wings
    OH LORD YEAH!

    • GHJJ

      September 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm

      Lame.

      The urban dictionary defines lame as "just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless."

      Take your pick.

  13. HarryInMI

    September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I am no Ron Paul supporter ( Herman Cain ) but i do have to admit this whole article reeks of neocon. Sorry to break it to the author of the story but the Tea Party was formed out of frustration with not just the dems but wasteful spending in DC, Ignoring the constitution ( see Patriot Act ) and a ever growing government. Thus conservatism NOT Neoconservative. For ANYONE to call themself tea party and support the likes of Rick Perry, Romney, Santorum, Newt and yes even Bachman is a total joke. All of them = Buch/Cheney neoconservative. Everyone else NEEDS to remember the neocons have MASSIVE backers ( special interest friends ) and they are doing everything they can to take out those who do not follow along via going to msm and establishment GOP members and telling them to ignore ( try not to mention ) the likes of Herman Cain for starters. He has not and will not take a dime of their filthy money. Ron Pauls downfall is foreign policy which even i question ( I think it would be very bad for both national security and economy ) but i am not a big neocon donor either. I like Cains approach to looking for the problem ( waste ) and fixing it. That is me though. STILL the Tea Party better get it's act together before it becomes the party of Bush and we see how that worked out in 2008. Sorry but neocons are not it. Try Conservatism.

  14. GHJJ

    September 16, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    Thanks Harry for your thoughts. I agree that Herman Cain is being ignored. It astounds me, though, that everyone expects in one 1200 word article the complete coverage of everything that is found in the Tea Party movement – its origins, its hopes, its actual start date. As to reeking of neocon – ooo it begs a strong foreign policy based on realistic assessment of world threats to ensure a national security strategy that is cohesive and effective in its defense of sovereignty and (the horror) does not focus on fraud, waste and abuse. Harry, many of my other articles focus on the waste and pathetic policies involved that have led to fraud in foreign policy, foreign assistance and diplomatic largesse that defies all logic. Dealing with the Patriot Act and the fourth amendment ramifications of the neocon policies in the wake of 9/11, in my estimation, is something that the American people should have a conversation about – not a debate, not a rally, not an ideological pissing match, but a good, long constructive discussion based on achieving the spirit of the constitution at all levels. it should be noted, though, that the fourth amendment foundation was founded by the likes of Hunter S. Thompson, a scion of the left wing press and anarchist psyche [not that I have a problem with that – I think his writing is some of the best in the twentieth century].

    On the whole, I sure am glad those who are reading articles here at TPT are so critical in their evaluation of slant and so determined to label the authors of pieces based on their own preconceived prejudices. At least Harry is willing to admit his and that is a step forward from all previous comments thus far on this track.

    Thank you all for your keen attentiveness to my moral compass and your willingness to contribute in your own way.

  15. Boris

    September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    You're right…Ron Paul IS awesome! Good article. I agree he should win the nomination.

    • GHJJ

      September 17, 2011 at 7:38 pm

      Thank you Mr. Badenov, you are always good for a laugh. Send my best to Natasha.

    • Dan

      November 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      When I read articles like this, I agree with you, it makes much more sense when taken as sarcasm.

  16. HarryInMI

    September 16, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    NP Gary. Count me amongst those who are tired of THE SAME and thus see Bush/Obama. I see Perry/Romney/Newt/Santorum as = the same. Yes i am one of those who was alive and well and remember what Newt did back in the 90s with Clinton etc. He ( along with Clinton etc ) did their own spitting on the constitution with their war on the so called dead beats. Thus see what it says about debtors prison/jail. Nice how that is conveniently forgotten. See how all of that has EXPLODED the government and a big reason for the welfare rolls exploding again and spending out of control. So yeah my trust level with Newt is not great. Not helping is he is too tied to the establishment. You are correct about everything else where the man is concerned though. He is one heck of a speaker!

  17. Ken

    September 17, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Nice try, no cigar, ain't gonna happen. This website exists today because of Ron Paul.

    • GHJJ

      September 17, 2011 at 7:47 pm

      Ron Paul did release a campaign video called "The One"

      His disciples apparently believe him to be the messiah.

      • carlc55

        October 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm

        ha ha you are REALLY funny – go back to Demorats you specious reprobate

  18. Wahoo

    September 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    For the Liberty Bearers,
    The Tea Party has been compromised. The Tea Party was virtually created by the Ron Paul campaign in 2007. But since then their ideals and philosophy have been hi-jacked by neoconservative talking heads from the likes of Fox News and Clear Channel for financial gains. After realizing how much money and supporters Ron Paul brought in from the Tea Party Money Bomb in 2007, members of the media and political establishment used Tea Party rhetoric as a way to cash-in and distance themselves from the George Bush Republican. If you really believe in limited Gov't, sound money, a humble foreign policy, and restoring the Republic, then follow Ron Paul 2012.

    • GadsdenGurl

      March 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm

      It's true. These dumb neocons don't get that our current foreign policy is the UNs and it's the liberals the elites are making our boys cannon fodder for, NOT the sovereignty of the USA.. So the neocons are helping the globalist commies to take over our country. They are traitors.

  19. krmasterson

    September 24, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Why are libertarians so freaking annoying?

    • Dan

      November 7, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      It's truth under the skin.

    • GadsdenGurl

      March 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      Why are you fake conservatives so dishonest?

  20. teapartydaddy

    September 25, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Did a link to this story appear on a Ron Paul website? Alot of rabid, undeserved comments about it.

  21. Bill

    October 14, 2011 at 11:26 am

    The one man that can ensure Obama's success at the polls is Herman Cain and his plan to increase taxes for most of us. I did not join the Tea Party movement and attend its rallies to have it associated with an Insider interloper, ex Fed Reserve director, who seeks to ensure taxes for the government and simultaneously financially destroy the retired, the unemployed, the weak and the sick.

    Ron Paul is our founder and our only remaining hope.

    What is happening to the Tea Party? It has had no leaders; let's keep it that way.

  22. carlc55

    October 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    I have to admit the NeoCons are smart – they are VERY good at preempting any conservative movement and making it their own. Thus we see the demise of the Tea Party as RABID (oh that was the term GHJJ used for RP supporters) NeoCons setup websites like this, spout conservative buzz words like FREEDOM, SMALL GOVERNMENT, the CONSTITUTION etc and then proceed to support politicians whose policies and actions are antithetical to the very political philosophy they supposedly espouse. It really is quite ingenious. HarryInMI is an especially example – claiming to be a Herman Cain supporter and then ranting against NeoCons. He obviously doesn't even know the definition of the word (continued in next post)

  23. carlc55

    October 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    (post continued)
    Here it is from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (although it is a rather weak one I might add)

    Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

    1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

    2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military mean

    Note the second definition Harry – that IS our current foreign policy and something that RP is adamantly against. Not because he against United States interests but because he knows such policies do NOT further our interests. They have only served to weaken our nation for the past 60+ years to point were we are on the brink of collapse.

  24. carlc55

    October 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    God is this author not the EMBODIMENT of neoConservativism? Can any true constitutionalist take him serioulsy. What a clown. He blog and his "ideas" deserve exactly zero further consideration.

    If this guy represents the Tea Party the all I can say is

    R.I.P. Tea Party

  25. REDNECK OF ALABAMA

    October 23, 2011 at 10:09 am

    I have wrote before and i will again.. Do not worry about me i will never vote for Ron Paul. He not the right person.
    Anyone who hate Isreal hate me and will not support him. Understand. He does not have any anwrers that we
    need to help America…I will vote for Sarah Palin if she changes her mind…I love the Tea Party and will help all
    i can. THANKS REDNECK IN ALABAMA

  26. Dan

    November 7, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    If someone PAID me to write an article posing as an ultra-neo-con it would look just like this one. Bravo.
    Restore America 2012. Revolution.

  27. GadsdenGurl

    March 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    This must be one of those bogus tea party websites, because Ron Paul is the only TRUE tea party candidate. AFter all we started the movement in his honor in 2007 on December 16th.

    The foreign policy that Romney, Gingrich and Santorum would follow is the same as Obama/NATO/UN/Kissinger/Rockefeller and therefore it's the one for the new world order.

    If you don't support Ron Paul you are a fake tea party.

Leave a Reply