I'm sure Presidents Kerry, Huckabee, Gore, Dole, Harkin, or Gephardt can offer a word or two of consolation to Rep. Paul.

With a real headline of Ron Paul calls Newt Gingrich a 'chickenhawk', and that's the best headline subby could come up with?

:sadface:

Hasn't PON RAUL won Iowa before? Who gives a shiat?

The real winner of the Iowa caucuses was Obama.

RexTalionis: Iowa has caused a phenomenal amount of butthurt among the Ron Paul supporters within my social network. I think they simply can't deal with the idea of their candidate, who was predicted to be winning Iowa a week ago lost to the Republican version of John Kerry AND the man with only two issues - that he hates same-sex marriage and that he hates abortions.

According to one, Santorum coming in on top of Ron Paul was all the fault of the media because the media anointed Santorum as the one to beat. Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

Yeah, I'm seeing the same delusional backpedaling amongst the Paultards in my circle.

I'm no fan of RON PAUL, but he kinda has a point. He may have finished third, but it was a very strong third, and a huge step up over his 2008 campaign. I could see that as a personal victory.

Not the kind of victory that matters in the grand scheme of things, mind, but a victory nonetheless.

RexTalionis: Iowa has caused a phenomenal amount of butthurt among the Ron Paul supporters within my social network. I think they simply can't deal with the idea of their candidate, who was predicted to be winning Iowa a week ago lost to the Republican version of John Kerry AND the man with only two issues - that he hates same-sex marriage and that he hates abortions.

According to one, Santorum coming in on top of Ron Paul was all the fault of the media because the media anointed Santorum as the one to beat. Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

When push comes to shove, the overlap of conspiracy nuts and Ron Paul supporters becomes more and more evident. It's kind of funny, in that it drives away support from more sane people when it's needed the most.

RminusQ: "You always can do better, it inspires our people, and it inspires me to do better, but coming in third in essentially a very, very close race if you put the other two together, we're actually in second place. They were tied for first."

PLACEMENTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

If you throw Santorum and Romney in the river, RON PAUL is in first place!

Bag of Hammers: RexTalionis: Iowa has caused a phenomenal amount of butthurt among the Ron Paul supporters within my social network. I think they simply can't deal with the idea of their candidate, who was predicted to be winning Iowa a week ago lost to the Republican version of John Kerry AND the man with only two issues - that he hates same-sex marriage and that he hates abortions.

According to one, Santorum coming in on top of Ron Paul was all the fault of the media because the media anointed Santorum as the one to beat. Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

Yeah, I'm seeing the same delusional backpedaling amongst the Paultards in my circle.

All of the Paulites on my FB are completely silent except for one guy who stole the comment about pulling the trigger if he has to choose between the soulless robot and the frothy substance.

RexTalionis: Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

I thought Ron Paul picked up something like 30% of the evangelical vote? His supporters should just face facts - the mainstream of the Republican party doesn't believe in Republican principles any more.

sprawl15: The real winner of the Iowa caucuses was Obama.

QFT

They all get 7 delegates, so no one really won. He needs to finish well in NH and then start winning some western states outright. Or he can scream and pout for a couple months before he runs as a 3rd party

Of course as the Caucus process involved electing delegates who elect delegates. Who actually won the most delegates devolves into issues of geography and district lines. You would need the vote count per district to guesstimate who wins the most delegates, but the vote for the national delegates by the district delegates won't happen for while.

Ron Paul: Just because I lost the primary doesn't mean I didn't win it.

Rand Paul: Just because I'm not certified doesn't mean I'm not a real doctor.

badhatharry: Ron Paul is doing just fine. Nobody expects him to actually be President. It is important that the Republicans get the picture. No more of this stupid shiat or the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs.

I'm starting to think the only GOP candidate who isn't just using the campaign as a book tour is Romney.

RexTalionis: Iowa has caused a phenomenal amount of butthurt among the Ron Paul supporters within my social network. I think they simply can't deal with the idea of their candidate, who was predicted to be winning Iowa a week ago lost to the Republican version of John Kerry AND the man with only two issues - that he hates same-sex marriage and that he hates abortions.

According to one, Santorum coming in on top of Ron Paul was all the fault of the media because the media anointed Santorum as the one to beat. Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

Do you blame them? They're pissed off. Like you weren't in 04?

Ron Paul really needed to win Iowa to have a symbolic victory that he could be the mainstream candidate. Now that he hasn't done that it's pretty much guaranteed to go to Romney in the general election. there is no spinning it, Iowa was more than just electoral votes. Romney will lose, but there really isn't any major long term discernible difference between Obama anyways.

I think the most interesting thing to come from last night was the demographic spread between the voters. Ron Paulism shows signs of being the future pf the republican party once the baby boomers die off. I think in 08 you could count him off as an electoral quirk but you really can't anymore when you have things like Santorums nephew endorsing Paul.

Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate? Here in Canada that's a big no-no, where you can't be seen to show favour in any politician or political party - political objectivity of the military, and all that.

If only Tim McVeigh was still alive to serve as Ron Paul's running mate!

Well, he did annihilate Newt Gingrich with the deferment and chickenhawk comment so... that's cool.


/the Primaries are over.
//You should run independent Ron.
///Please?

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate? Here in Canada that's a big no-no, where you can't be seen to show favour in any politician or political party - political objectivity of the military, and all that.

That's a pretty big breach of decorum here in the States, too, but I'm not sure if it's actually illegal.

ChuDogg: I think the most interesting thing to come from last night was the demographic spread between the voters. Ron Paulism shows signs of being the future pf the republican party once the baby boomers die off. I think in 08 you could count him off as an electoral quirk but you really can't anymore when you have things like Santorums nephew endorsing Paul.

Was about to comment that Paul won't outlive the Baby Boomers, he's not immortal or anything. Then I realized you said "Paulism", though I don't know of ANY candidate or person that the movement would really get behind. Most of the Libertarians are way nuttier than Paul.

It's more the fact that Santorum has been at near 10% the entire time.

He's spent less than $30k on advertising in Iowa compared to Romney (who came in second in 2008) who spent over a million.

Then, in less than one weeks time Ron Paul who was at 28% and likely to win somehow drops to 22% and Santorum jumps to 25%?

But the metrics show the real story. 1 of 8 independents voted for Paul.

If 40% vote Democrat and 40% vote Republican you need the Independents to beat Obama.

So the answer of who can beat Obama has been answered.

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate?

Not as active duty. Active duty members are explicitly restricted from campaigning for politicians even if they are out of uniform and don't mention that they are in the military. They are allowed to voice an opinion if asked, so if a reporter walks up to a soldier on the street he can say who he's voting for, but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

I don't know the exact context of the soldier interview, but I'm pretty sure he was at the actual rally in uniform.

Like I said, the Romney-Santorum death match was a circular firing squad.
The one-issue rural evangelicals came out against the Mormon and vice versa.
They voted against each other, not for a candidate.

Votes for Ron Paul, however, were FOR someone and something.
There's makes a difference.
But the media are not on Paul's side, since he's the only genuine populist candidate in the GOP clown show.

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate? Here in Canada that's a big no-no, where you can't be seen to show favour in any politician or political party - political objectivity of the military, and all that.

Not if they are active duty

HeartBurnKid: That's a pretty big breach of decorum here in the States, too, but I'm not sure if it's actually illegal.

It's an Article 92 violation of the UCMJ.

sprawl15: but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

Meanwhile, Dubya and Obama have used active-duty soldiers as a pretty backdrop for political speeches any time it pleased them.

We wouldn't want someone crazy like Ron Paul to win the nomination, let's support the guy who took a dead fetus home to see his kids.

This just in, Ron Paul has a core group of very vocal, very active supporters who show up early, give him a huge bump out of the gate, and then cry into their drinks while he fizzles out on the straightaway.

This is mostly do to the fact that most people who have actually looked into Ron Paul, the things he's said and done, and his actual positions on more than just pot and war have concluded he's not for them. This informational process makes sane people realize that, while many of his ideas sound good in principle, if enacted, they'd be absolutely disastrous in practice.

Ron Paul will never president. He will never be vice president. He will never be anything more than a Congressman and occasional sideshow attraction because most people don't like him.

I give him kudos for sticking to what he actually believes in and gladly backhanding the establishment talking points if he doesn't feel like sticking to them, but that doesn't mean I think he's a viable candidate. A different kind of crazy is still crazy.

HotIgneous Intruder: sprawl15: but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

Meanwhile, Dubya and Obama have used active-duty soldiers as a pretty backdrop for political speeches any time it pleased them.

It's good to be the King Commander in Chief

/haven't seen them use military personnel as a backdrop for a non-military based speech
//President can't speak without it being political in nature, get over it

damiandt: He's spent less than $30k on advertising in Iowa compared to Romney (who came in second in 2008) who spent over a million.

Don't forget that Santorum visited all 99 counties in Iowa, too. That was an expensive and time-consuming endeavor.

Also, I love how Newt got crushed instantly at the end by the Romney money bomb.

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate? Here in Canada that's a big nio-no, where you can't be seen to show favour in any politician or political party - political objectivity of the military, and all that.

Yes, that's a big no-no. But is something of a trend over the last 10 years that keeps sliding. Technically he can be prosecuted but that is something the Obamam administration would not want to be seen as persuing. But it also shows a lack of accountability in their chain of command.

9/10 they are likely to be reservists, or a support personnel that are not really used to having a chain of command in their ass. That's still no excuse however. I think in some of these cases their unit is taking them out to the woodline behind the scenes, but alot of times I see E-6s and E-7s doing it so I can presume a total lack of respect for these rules is becoming widespread.

I dont even like it when retired personnel show up in their Class A's, unless you're maybe a medal of honor winner or something what relevance does it have?

HotIgneous Intruder: sprawl15: but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

Meanwhile, Dubya and Obama have used active-duty soldiers as a pretty backdrop for political speeches any time it pleased them.

And?

RexTalionis: sprawl15: HeartBurnKid: That's a pretty big breach of decorum here in the States, too, but I'm not sure if it's actually illegal.

It's an Article 92 violation of the UCMJ.

Eh? You mean this Article 92?

""Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." "

Yup. Failure to follow DoD Directive 1344.10.

HotIgneous Intruder: sprawl15: but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

Meanwhile, Dubya and Obama have used active-duty soldiers as a pretty backdrop for political speeches any time it pleased them.

I think there's a bit of a difference between giving a speech as the Commander-in-Chief, and during a campaign event. Besides, the soldier actually SPOKE AT THE PODIUM about why people should vote for him. Not even close to the same thing.

Ron Paul calls Newt Gingrich a 'chickenhawk'

Damn, and I'm in no position to Photoshop right now. May as well phone it in.

[ron paul] : [foghorn leghorn]
[newt gingrich] : [henery hawk]
[rick perry] : [barnyard dawg]
[rick santorum] : [miss prissy (?)]

ChuDogg: RexTalionis: Iowa has caused a phenomenal amount of butthurt among the Ron Paul supporters within my social network. I think they simply can't deal with the idea of their candidate, who was predicted to be winning Iowa a week ago lost to the Republican version of John Kerry AND the man with only two issues - that he hates same-sex marriage and that he hates abortions.

According to one, Santorum coming in on top of Ron Paul was all the fault of the media because the media anointed Santorum as the one to beat. Never mind that Santorum had the support of, well, pretty much every major evangelical in Iowa and rode to victory exactly the same way Mike Huckabee did 4 years ago, it must be the fault of the media.

Do you blame them? They're pissed off. Like you weren't in 04?

Ron Paul really needed to win Iowa to have a symbolic victory that he could be the mainstream candidate. Now that he hasn't done that it's pretty much guaranteed to go to Romney in the general election. there is no spinning it, Iowa was more than just electoral votes. Romney will lose, but there really isn't any major long term discernible difference between Obama anyways.

I think the most interesting thing to come from last night was the demographic spread between the voters. Ron Paulism shows signs of being the future pf the republican party once the baby boomers die off. I think in 08 you could count him off as an electoral quirk but you really can't anymore when you have things like Santorums nephew endorsing Paul.

But what happens to "Ron Paulism" when Ron Paul isn't around any more? Who will pick up the banner of Neo-confederate wing of the party once the RON PAUL cult of personality has passed?

damiandt: It's more the fact that Santorum has been at near 10% the entire time.

He's spent less than $30k on advertising in Iowa compared to Romney (who came in second in 2008) who spent over a million.

Then, in less than one weeks time Ron Paul who was at 28% and likely to win somehow drops to 22% and Santorum jumps to 25%?

But the metrics show the real story. 1 of 8 independents voted for Paul.

If 40% vote Democrat and 40% vote Republican you need the Independents to beat Obama.

So the answer of who can beat Obama has been answered.

That's it right there. Obama has more to fear from Paul than he does Willard.
And Obama has pissed off multitudes of his voting block.

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Besides, the soldier actually SPOKE AT THE PODIUM about why people should vote for him.

It must have been a different soldier that I saw, then, I saw some guy on CNN talking to a reporter about how rad RON PAUL was. Yeah, talking at the podium in uniform while active duty could get the guy a dishonorable discharge and 2 years in the slammer.

Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: I think there's a bit of a difference between giving a speech as the Commander-in-Chief, and during a campaign event. Besides, the soldier actually SPOKE AT THE PODIUM about why people should vote for him. Not even close to the same thing.

You're right. A president would never use troops as trappings to make a political point.
You've convinced me -- Mission Accomplished!

sprawl15: Gen. Patton Harvey Oswalt: Okay, can someone from the US help me out with something: watching one of RON PAUL'S speeches last night, he had a soldier, IN UNIFORM, come up and talk about how great he was. Is this legal there, for military personnel to show a political affiliation like that, by effectively campaigning for a presidential candidate?

Not as active duty. Active duty members are explicitly restricted from campaigning for politicians even if they are out of uniform and don't mention that they are in the military. They are allowed to voice an opinion if asked, so if a reporter walks up to a soldier on the street he can say who he's voting for, but showing up to a rally in uniform is a no-no by default.

I don't know the exact context of the soldier interview, but I'm pretty sure he was at the actual rally in uniform.

RON PAUL basically introduced him, by rank, and he came up in his BDU's to say how great he is. He had a nIce high-and-tight going, big neck tatoo; it's possible he could have been active duty.