Ron Paul Wins Iowa GOP Debate; Is Right On Iran

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
From SFGate (San Fran Chronicle):

Ron Paul Wins Iowa GOP Debate; Is Right On Iran
by Scott Rubin

The verdict is in - Ron Paul won last night's GOP Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. Much to the chagrin of the neo-cons at Fox News, the polls, and applause, overwhelmingly showed that the people thought Ron Paul won the debate. Fox News was even forced to take down its own poll from its website after Paul crushed the competition in a landslide. Readers can can view that poll here. This is the largest online GOP debate poll, and just under 30,000 Americans have voted. Ron Paul has received a whopping 16,188 votes thus far, which is more than triple the support of runner-up Newt Gingrich.

In fact, Paul is winning nearly every single online GOP debate poll, many of them by a very wide margin. It was also obvious who the crowd preferred last night in Ames, as Ron Paul supporters were clearly the loudest and most influential contingent at the event. Still not convinced? During and after the debate last night, Ron Paul was #4 on Goggle Trends, well ahead of the other candidates. At last check, he is still #4, which is quite a feat. Furthermore, he remains one of the top trending topics on Twitter, which is a very reliable gauge of interest.

Even TheHill.com is declaring Paul victorious. Last night, was a huge boost for the Texas Congressman who has emerged as one the GOP front-runners, and is polling third nationally, only trailing Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

It is becoming quite clear that the American people are gravitating towards Paul's honest and principled positions which emphasize peace and personal liberty. Unfortunately, the rest of the field is made up of Establishment figures whose pandering is determined by which way the wind blows. Clearly it is blowing in the direction of Dr. Paul, as his influence continues to shape the course of the GOP primary, with candidates such as Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann now parroting many of the ideas that he has been promoting for the last thirty years. Gingrich actually attacked the Federal Reserve last night.

The problem that these other candidates have, however, is that their records simply don't lend them much credence, whereas Paul has an unblemished, and unimpeachable, Congressional voting record. Despite the best efforts of the media to get Dr. Paul to flip flop on his libertarian views, he just won't do it - even when the questions are tough. Last night, when he was asked what his response would be to the possibility that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, Paul stuck to his non-interventionist position and said that he would prefer more diplomatic discourse and trade with Tehran, as opposed to just relying on threatening rhetoric and war mongering.

While this may have seemed like an extreme position to Americans whose only source of information on Iranian/U.S. relations is media propaganda, it is in fact quite sound, and part of an already existing strategy. The Obama administration has acknowledged that Iran deserves a seat at the international table. In 2009, he told the Iranian people that "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right-but it comes with real responsibilities." Iran and the United States also are trade partners.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has been warned in no uncertain terms by a panel of academics and ambassadors that a military attack against the country would be a mistake, and that the only viable course of action was unconditional negotiations. This panel included former special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, former ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering, and Middle East scholars from American universities. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to claim that his country's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with the United States. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

On the terrorism front, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has said that Iran is "a helper and a solution" for Afghanistan and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq stated that Iran has a "positive and constructive" role in helping the Iraqi government improve security in that nation. Another thing to note about Iran is that it is a democratic country, and the hard-liners may not be in power much longer. Ahmadinejad's 2009 re-election caused significant debate and protest in that country, and it is becoming ever more clear that he is losing the support of the Iranian populace.

We have seen this trend throughout the Middle East in countries such as Libya, Egypt, and Syria. None of this should be interpreted as an endorsement of Iran as a shining beacon of peace and freedom, but it does underscore where Dr. Paul is coming from. Under his foreign policy, countries such as Israel, and the Europeans, would have much more latitude to deal with the Iranians as they saw fit, without U.S. meddling.

The American people have absolutely no desire to engage countries such as Pakistan and Iran in war, yet the government's rhetoric suggests otherwise. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can guarantee the American people that we will not preemptively engage in another war of aggression such as Iraq, which is now viewed as a mistake by the majority of U.S. citizens.

Link to original article: Ron Paul Wins Iowa GOP Debate; Is Right On Iran
 
Last edited:

moose

Veteran Expediter
Won't win my vote.
lack any meaningful foreign afire policy.
same as last time. as a 2008 runnerup he was a master of the 'why can't they just get along, and we can talk them out of it' worthless agenda.
he can bury his head in the sand, but his tail still show.
we needs an president that can engage the international community, not one that is afraid of them.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Won't win my vote.
lack any meaningful foreign afire policy.
same as last time. as a 2008 runnerup he was a master of the 'why can't they just get along, and we can talk them out of it' worthless agenda.
he can bury his head in the sand, but his tail still show.
we needs an president that can engage the international community, not one that is afraid of them.

I think the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul cares more about his country than he's worried about the rest of the world. It's not about burying his head in the sand; it's about thumbing his nose at the notion of a one-world government, and the UN. Basically, getting out of policing the world. You may not like it, being from Israel; but it is what it is. We just can't keep doing it forever.
 

garyatk

Seasoned Expediter
I totally agree with Ron Paul's stand on these issues. However, he comes across as a baffoon. For this reason alone he will never win...

I think that Herman Cain actually won the debate. We need a business person to turn this thing around. So I would support a Cain / Bachmann ticket, with a cabinet postition for Paul running our foriegn policy and overseeing bringing our military home, and opening upour closed bases, and securing our borders.

I would love to see Cain turn Bachmann loose on congress when they are acting like 2nd graders on the playground!!!

I would like to add that I am not a Republican. They lost me during Bush Sr.'s reign of terror... I have supported Libertarians and Constitution Party candidates since.

I do like Cain, Bachmann, and Paul! I like them most for what they are doing in the GOP! It is long over due...

BTW... The Democrats are just a joke that never was funny... IMHO
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Won't win my vote.
lack any meaningful foreign afire policy.
same as last time. as a 2008 runnerup he was a master of the 'why can't they just get along, and we can talk them out of it' worthless agenda.
he can bury his head in the sand, but his tail still show.
we needs an president that can engage the international community, not one that is afraid of them.

It's the opposite. It's the neocon chickenhawks that are afraid.

"BOMB THEM! BOMB THEM! THEN BOMB THESE OTHER LITTLE BROWN PEOPLE OVER HERE!"

The military seems to agree. Dr. Paul gets more support from military members than any of his competitors.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Cain did a good job. He is one of the best choices. I don't see him getting enough backing or money, unfortunately. Santorum did really well also. Paul was good but not the best, seeming almost somewhat manic at times. Bachmann had her moments, in both connotations, and Romney, well Romney was mr. plastic as usual.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I totally agree with Ron Paul's stand on these issues. However, he comes across as a baffoon. For this reason alone he will never win...

He doesn't "come across" as a baffoon (sic), he's portrayed as one by the establishment that is happy with the status quo. Dr. Paul will upset the apple cart, so the RNC tells Beck and Hannity "GET 'IM!" The left doesn't want the political 3-card monte game overturned, either, so the media attacks from the left.

I'm surprised there were no black helicopter questions, like last time around. And I wonder if the GOP will cancel any more straw polls or caucuses that Dr. Paul is about to win, like they did four years ago, along with other dirty tricks. That the establishment doesn't want him is reason enough to back him.

I think that Herman Cain actually won the debate.

Well, it's a little subjective, so it's hard to declare a winner. Cain won in your eyes, but you already favor him, as you point out below, so I think you're judging backwards. The truest gauge is what the public thought, and their votes say Dr. Paul won.

I doubt there's any political figure in Washington who can beat Dr. Paul in a debate. In fact, though he trails Obama in a head-to-head poll, debating is his how he would win. The more debates he has with Obama, the more votes he would gain. If he's nominated, and then if the GOP doesn't have him assassinated the next day, he should insist on as many debates with Obama as possible...6 or 8, maybe.

We need a business person to turn this thing around. So I would support a Cain / Bachmann ticket, with a cabinet postition for Paul running our foriegn policy and overseeing bringing our military home, and opening upour closed bases, and securing our borders.

If Dr.Paul is to have a cabinet position, it should be domestic/economic. We'll crack up the ship of state on those rocks before the big, bad brown menace gets to us, the way we're going, and economic policy is an even stronger area for Dr. Paul than foreign policy.
 

Camper

Not a Member
The paradox with respect to Ron Paul's fringe candidate status is he's marginalized because his views are actually the most aligned to those of the independent majority. Thus, he's viewed as a threat by the establishment.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I watched this for the hell of it and noticed that Santorum needs to get out of the race with his views. Bachmann should focus on doing something in congress which she has done little and Cain is ... well surprisingly more libertarian than conservative and many seem to support him with his 'like Paul' views - wow!

I think that great thinking and conservative entertainer Mark Levin showed me what Ron Paul's problem is - he is a threat to the conservative mainstream movement by his off handed and rather stupid comments on last night's show.

Ron Paul's foreign policies are almost the same as mine - we do not need to extend ourselves beyond our borders unless we are attacked.

The subject of Israel is an easy one to justify with that policy, we need to support them without any doubt and even if need be, be there for them on their land if there is a question if our presence actually protects them - which in all honesty, I do not think our presence in the middle east protects them but just adds a little bit to their defense.

Korea, Japan, Germany, Africa, the Balkans and other places where we are at, we do not with any reason need to be there unless we are paid to be there because we are not the deterrent everyone thinks we are when it comes to the other powers in the world - China, Germany, Russia to name a few.

Can we afford to reduce the size of our military?

Yes, and still be effective in fighting anyone who attacks us.
 

Falligator

Expert Expediter
I like Ron Paul myself. Always have. Sadly though he doesn't stand a chance with the majority political base of the Republican party. I can't stomach Mitt Romney and would rather have four more years of Obumma than either him or Bachman.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
alg_resize_jersey-shore.jpg

The Cast of MTV's Jersey Shore

DEBATE-articleLarge.jpg

The Cast of the Fox News' GOP Iowa Debate

Which of these Group of Eight are more famous?
Which one was watched by more people on Thursday night?

Jersey Shore - 7.4 million total viewers
Iowa Debate - 5.0 million total viewers

Ron Paul may have won the Iowa debate, but Snookie (the fireplug in the coral dress) cleaned his clock in the ratings.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
\ of Obumma than either him or Bachman.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Do you also like pounding nails in you skull?

At least we can say Ron Paul is balanced for every good idea he has he equals it out with a a crazy one. Ok uncle Ron time to go back to the basement.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Ron Paul is a very nice man. He comes across as totally sincere and thoughtful. Yet, Ron Paul is clearly not a threat to any major candidate, let alone the Republican Establishment. Ron Paul has served in Congress for 30 years. By definition, he is The Establishment. Someone who hasn't been serving in Washington, DC for the past 30 years could legitimately claim to be non-Establishment. Ron Paul exudes niceness, but he is yesterday's news. A nice old man limping into his dotage.
 
Top