Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul?

Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul?

For a few weeks now I’ve been closely observing the Ron Paul campaign in Iowa.  He has been consistent is his message about getting back to the constitution and reducing the size of the federal government.  I’ve listened to a number of my fellow conservative bloggers rail against him for his non-interventionist foreign policy position and controversial letters published under his name a few years back.  These discussions have been extremely spirited with participates from both sides making solid arguments to support their position. One of the common themes that began to emerge out of these discussion was that Ron Paul was starting attract loons from the left.  I decided to do a little investigating and I discovered the below clip from Judge Napolitano’s show that was taped a few days ago

YouTube Preview Image

It looks like Ron Paul’s non-interventionist position is starting resonate with those on the left who feel a bit let down by a President they thought was going end the policies of George W. Bush and bring our troops home.  These antiwar liberals make up a sizable portion of Obama’s base and it’s beginning to look like they are indeed leaving Obama and moving towards Paul.  This movement has registered with the Democratic Party and concerns are starting to be expressed.

Lynda Waddington wrote an article for Salon about the Occupy Iowa Caucus movement and acknowledges these concerns in her closing remarks:

If Sterzenbach’s comments are any indicator, the Democratic party is more worried about the appeal of Paul’s message to potential Obama supporters than the specter of convention delegates not committed to Obama. If the Occupy Wall Street movement sends a message this week, it may be via the libertarian Congressman from Texas.

You can read the entire article here>>

There is a great deal of concern in Democratic circles that a Ron Paul candidacy could spell disaster for Obama.  His appeal with antiwar groups is powerful and could pull enough votes away from Obama to tip the election either in favor of the Republican candidate or lead to an outright victory for Paul.  So maybe a third party run by Paul wouldn’t be such a bad thing.  It’s now starting to look like it might hurt Obama more than the Republican candidate and the Democrats are starting to worry.

I support Ron Paul as many of you know in the Republican primaries; but I also I have the big picture in mind and will support the candidate who is nominated through the process.  We can’t afford another Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama and we definitely can’t afford another four years of Obama.

Let me know what you think.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • LD Jackson January 3, 2012 at 3:52 AM

    The biggest complaint against Ron Paul, other than his foreign policy, has always been his lack of electability. It is usually one of the first things his detractors bring up, that he would be unable to defeat Obama. I have always contended he had a much broader appeal than he was given credit for. This seems to bear that out.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Iowa Caucuses Straight AheadMy Profile

  • 5etester January 3, 2012 at 5:47 AM

    What I find interesting about the Paul debate is that with the exception of the newsletters, it’s always centered on his foreign policy. Yet, if he’s elected President the story will be austerity. He would propose a first year budget with $1 trillion in spending cuts and the elimination of 5 departments. That’s just the start. He may become the most unpopular President ever in record time. I firmly believe most Americans are all talk when it comes to austerity. When the cuts hit their pocket, the protests will quickly grow. Ron Paul knows this. Positive effects from his policies first require pain.

    So the big debate is his foreign policy today, but I see it as a minor issue if he’s elected because the fact is that the American people must be the ones to pay the price for so many decades of allowing the government to put us in this position.
    5etester recently posted..January 3, 2007 The day Obama won’t talk aboutMy Profile

    • John Carey January 3, 2012 at 10:50 PM

      The one thing I fear is exactly what Sarah Palin touched on tonight, the GOP marginalizing Ron Paul and his supporters driving him to third party run. I don’t believe he will based on his remarks tonight. I really believe he wanted a part in shaping the narrative and as he said tonight for the first time in a long time a large number of people are talking about the FED and the constitution. This is a good thing in my opinion.
      John Carey recently posted..Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul? My Profile

  • Bunkerville January 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    I appreciated your balanced approach to Paul. I will vote for Paul if he is the candidate. But I fear that the energy of those who support him may cloud the vision of the mission we are on. If he is not nominated, and he becomes a third party candidate, it is worrisome indeed. I have not made up my mind, but some of the rabid support for him is turning me off. Just present the facts.
    Bunkerville recently posted..Obama lies, insisted that detention of Americans be in Defense billMy Profile

    • John Carey January 3, 2012 at 10:56 PM

      People tend to become passionate about what they view as a cause. For many Ron Paul supporters, restoring the constitution and ending the perpetual wars America has been engaged in is a cause. It’s something different and not the same old crap we’ve been nominating the last few election cycles. Now he does attract some loons from the left no doubt, but the majority of his support appears to be coming from Libertarians and Republicans with libertarian leanings. I personally like his views on liberty and this is I why I support him.
      John Carey recently posted..Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul? My Profile

  • silverfiddle January 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    Elections are won in the broad middle. Kook fringies moving from one end to the other will not affect the outcome.
    silverfiddle recently posted..Freedom!My Profile

    • John Carey January 3, 2012 at 11:05 PM

      I don’t believe the antiwar movement is a kook fringe silver. I can tell you that if I talk to ten people in the street, five out of ten will tell me that it’s time to bring the troops home. That’s not a kook fringe. Many people have grown tired of war and they are beginning to understand the total cost associated with it and they’re not liking what they see. The GOP would be foolish to ignore this block of voters who are not only in the middle; but also within the conservative movement.
      John Carey recently posted..Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul? My Profile

      • silverfiddle January 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM

        The dedicated ones are, and I’m talking about the OWS types, not ordinary people like you and me who have come to the conclusion that a little more minding our own business is in order.

        Obama will continue doing crap like killing the pipeline and doing recess appointments in violation of the constitution to keep the left nuts in his corner…

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71115.html

        It’s hard to imagine the leftwing nutballs abandoning the messiah for an old anti-abortion conservative guy, even if he promises he will let them smoke dope and shoot heroin.
        silverfiddle recently posted..The NDAA and YouMy Profile

  • John Galt January 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

    Democrats worry about Ron Paul? Yes indeed, worry that he won’t be the Republican nominee or run in a third party, in spite of all those cross-over Democrats voting for him in the primaries that allow it.

    They know that if neither of those two thing happen, Obama will lose. Yes, Democrats are worried.
    John Galt recently posted..Ron Paul Is No Titan Saturn – No Third Party Run.My Profile

    • John Carey January 3, 2012 at 11:08 PM

      I think the movement away from Obama to Paul is very real John. And I do believe the Democrats are worried about Paul’s message resonating with a segment of their base. Obama already knows his base is not that energized this time around.
      John Carey recently posted..Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul? My Profile

  • Steve Dennis January 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

    I think that anti-war Democrats who are upset with Obama over his continuing the Bush war policies make up a big portion of Ron Paul’s supporters and that could play a big role tonight in Iowa and next week in New Hampshire. Independent voters are allowed to take a Republican ballot in the primaries in New Hampshire, while Democrats can unenroll and declare themselves Republicans and vote in the primary here and I think that is the case in Iowa as well. If this happens Romney will probably still win New Hampshire but Paul will do better than expected.
    I think there are portions of Paul’s message that appeals to conservatives, liberals, and libertarians and he could use this to his advantage.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..The Federal Government is rubber stamping visa requests despite legitimate conserns about some of the applicantsMy Profile

    • John Carey January 3, 2012 at 11:10 PM

      I really believe the GOP needs to fix this. I’m not big on independents voting in a Republican primary. It allows the Democrats to manipulate the process.
      John Carey recently posted..Are Democrats starting to worry about Ron Paul? My Profile

      • John Galt January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

        John C, I agree, we must fix the process of how to elect our presidents. I don’t want to imitate Europe in their economic and social policies. However, they manage to elect their leaders in a smoother and more rational way.

        Spain just changed its government on December 20. They called for an election 3 months ago. They allowed political campaigning for 4 weeks prior to the election on November 20. There was a day of rest (no campaigning allowed) on the day previous to the voting day. The winner took possession of the government on December 20. Their elected leaders will spend all of their four years in office (with the exemption of 4 weeks) governing instead of campaigning.

        A very similar process takes place in Great Britain.

        They are generally baffled by the reasons of why we have political campaigns lasting two years in order to govern for two years before our presidents start campaigning again. They are also baffled by the reason why we allow 120,000 caucuses voters decide who are the last 3 candidates that will be allowed to continue in their quest out of a country of 320 million.

        United States is the greatest country in the world with the worst election process in the world (not counting those that have fake elections, of course).
        John Galt recently posted..Ron Paul Is No Titan Saturn – No Third Party Run.My Profile

  • Harrison January 4, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    I don’t think Dems are worried about Paul at all. I think he would draw more votes away from the GOP (Independents mostly) and they are content to watch him battle it out with the Republican establishment.

    I would think once Paul crashes and burns a lot of his followers simply won’t vote or, if they do, will write in his name.

  • Harrison January 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM

    I think Obama has made fewer recess appointmets than the Republicns who came before him have…

    • John Carey January 5, 2012 at 9:01 PM

      The only difference is congress was not in recess and this clearly violates the constitution.
      John Carey recently posted..Judge Napolitano: No difference between Mitt Romney and President ObamaMy Profile

      • Harrison January 6, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        Perhaps but is the Senate really in session if someone shows up at 8am and opens then closes the session and goes home?
        Harrison recently posted..Michele Bachmann’s Buh ByeMy Profile

        • John Carey January 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

          It doesn’t matter if they show up to wash the windows, if they are not adjourned for recess then they are not in recess. Yes is a procedural rule, but procedural rules are the glue that holds the republic together. If you violate them, them the republic comes undone. It’s really that simple.
          John Carey recently posted..Judge Napolitano: No difference between Mitt Romney and President ObamaMy Profile

          • Harrison January 7, 2012 at 1:13 AM

            I get it but I wonder if George W. Bush was trying to appoint someone and Democrats were using a procedural trick to prevent it would Conservatives still be taking the side they are now?
            Harrison recently posted..Michele Bachmann’s Buh ByeMy Profile

          • John Carey January 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM

            I know I would because this is bigger than Democrat or Republican. This is about violating the procedural rules that congress is authorized to create and implement per Article I, section 5 of the constitution. If the President is allowed to simply bypass these procedural rules, then he is acting beyond the scope of his authority granted by the constitution. The Democrats used the same procedural rules when Bush was in office to prevent recess appointment and Bush had no choice but to honor it because he and his lawyers knew that it was legal and constitutional.

  • Harrison January 8, 2012 at 2:40 AM

    Ah but there is also this:

    David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, wrote Obama in June, arguing that the president could make recess appointments, because he has adjournment power. The Constitution says so, in Section 3 of Article 2:

    In other words, Arkush said, if the Democrat-controlled Senate wants to adjourn and the Republican-controlled House won’t permit it, the President can adjourn both houses of Congress.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/05/another-wrinkle-in-obamas-recess-appointments/?mod=google_news_blog
    Harrison recently posted..ObamaNation: Iowa Caucus EditionMy Profile

    • Harrison January 8, 2012 at 2:42 AM

      Sorry this part did not paste:

      [The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
      Harrison recently posted..ObamaNation: Iowa Caucus EditionMy Profile