Klein: Ron Paul is surging because he opposes another neocon war for Israel

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 73 Comments
Joe Klein
Joe Klein

Joe Klein is great. Full stop. He hated the Vietnam war and then he hated the Iraq war and had more courage than any other journalist in the mainstream, to nail it back in ’03 as a war for Israel’s security. He says it again here. And Klein is a liberal Zionist! He understands the importance of Ron Paul, who NPR says is at the top of the latest Iowa polls. Why? Because he’s antiwar!

Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don’t meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.

Notice that he pins the tail on the ideology, neoconservatism. This is why David Brooks thought Paul had a “bad debate,” because he is trying to tell Americans about a dangerous ideology, neoconservatism. Oh and look how much air the NYT gives Ron Paul in its Iowa wrapup this morning. About one paragraph.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

73 Responses

  1. W.Jones
    December 19, 2011, 4:27 pm

    Ron Paul is an underdog. I’m glad to see he is doing better than the MSM gives attention to because of his position on foreign wars. I guess few candidates are perfect, particularly Republican ones. Perhaps he could change his views on social programs for poor people.

  2. Dan Crowther
    December 19, 2011, 4:27 pm

    Wow, this is some pretty big cajones from Joey Klein! Good for him…..

    “it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.”

    And that is exactly what the average american thinks when they see Bill Kristol or one of these clowns on TV – “this guy just wants a bunch of Iowa Farm Boy Gentiles to fight on behalf of him and his cause.” And….. people don’t like it.

    • Exiled At Home
      December 19, 2011, 5:41 pm

      And that is exactly what the average american thinks…

      That would first require the average American to be informed enough on these matters. No, sadly, I think the most your average American “knows” is that Israel represents a strategic asset for the United States, in which case, defending Israeli national security means defending American national security. Meaning, send our boys to war! They’d have to be able to demarcate American and Israeli interests for your theory to prove correct. I think few are able to do so.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 19, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Maybe the message to the evengelical Christian zionists shoud be:
        “Yeah, I support unconditionally Israel ,and I will gladly send /sacrifice all my kids to all wars that are started by Israel/USA.
        They should say it out loud, on daily bases, in front of the mirrow or the family picture, and maybe this would ,miraculously, make them think a tiny bit.
        Doubt it though.

      • MHughes976
        December 19, 2011, 6:21 pm

        But the thought might send them into raptures.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 10:49 am

        One of the aspects of fundies is that, while many today distrust our government as much as anyone, they never get that our government actually used the BIG LIE to get us into Iran, and the same pattern is repeating itself as to war on Iran–they buy the notions that “It’s better we (and/or Israel) fight over there, than over here.” And that we are nearly surrounded by enemies who hate us for who we are, not for our foreign policy–exactly contrary to what Ron Paul tells them. They think we have “to get there fustest with the mostest” to stop the tide of Muslim, Arab, Iranian terrorists before they murder us, our way of life, etc. They’ve bought the Fear Kool-Aid Goering said would work in any country, including any democratic one. In their eyes Israel is surrounded by those who want to kill it, and so is US. So don’t be saps and leave “the terrorists” alone so they can better prepare to do us in.

        Seems the Zionist philosophy is now deeply embedded in USA mentality. Everyday is fear of “appeasement” and belittling our “exceptionalism” in front of the world filled with haters of the “judeo-christian” way of life and values. We can never have enough military bases and hardware, we need to be able to nab the terrorist-sympathizers in our midst. Obama, they think, has made us a pussy before the hard world. And so on.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 19, 2011, 6:36 pm

        I dont know Exiled – most of the people I talk to about this issue ( this of course in hyper politically aware massachusetts) know whats going on – they just dont want to draw the ire of the Zio’s – or they think that everyone else is in the tank for Israel. Support for Israel isn’t even skin deep, in my experience. But again, Im in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

      • justicewillprevail
        December 20, 2011, 6:46 am

        Yes, I don’t think they have to know the fine details to intuit the truth. Nobody understood the financial malpractices of banks, but there was a sea change in the perception of them and their fraudulent rip-off practices. There are only so many times you can lie to people and assume they will accept it. Iraq was a watershed, there is no stomach for the same thing all over again with Iran, however much the disgraceful propaganda puppets keep spewing the same old garbage. Washington might as well be in Tel Aviv for all the relevance or connection it has to the US heartlands, not to mention it would save us all the pretence of who is pulling the strings. There is a tipping point which has been reached, where regular people don’t like being taken for fools by crazed segregationist warmongers who worship the apartheid Israel fantasy.

      • Theo
        December 20, 2011, 7:59 am

        Dan C

        You print an entirely different picture of MA than I remember good 50 years ago.
        Saturday at midnight Beantown turned the lights out, rolled up the sidewalks and got ready to go to church on Sunday.
        If you are correct, then I certainly welcome the change, because according to my experience the citizens of MA were real conservatives, if you discount the students at the many universities.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 8:37 am


        To be sure “Sully Nation” is still in full effect, here in MA. Sully nation, as I define it, is east of 495, and both north and south of boston on 93. This area is rather conservative — I would say a less aggressive white nationalist– but you get the point. Yes, the towns where Hockey rules, and Howie Carr is on every radio, it’s still that way – but even among sully nation adherents, there is a perception that our domestic and foreign policies have been hijacked. Anyone able to make a good case as to the “who” will get a listen.

        Im a western MA guy, from northampton, “where the only thing stronger than the coffee….is the women!” Western Mass/Eastern Mass are two different worlds, Ive been in Boston a long while, and it still shocks me sometimes…..

      • teta mother me
        December 23, 2011, 9:27 pm

        this was disheartening — John Dear, SJ, is a Catholic priest/activist who has been set upon by Catholics on numerous occasions, was fired by his bishop when parishioners complained about Dear’s anti-war stance, etc.

      • pabelmont
        December 19, 2011, 6:42 pm

        If Ron Paul is getting popular on an anti-war platform, then I suppose (I don’t know) that he is saying the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were unnecessary and did not contribute (maybe were not even supposed to contribute) to the USA’s national interest or merely to its “national security”. That would be pretty independent of any consideration of Israel and its interests.

        If that’s not what he’s preaching, the I suppose he’s merely saying that no war with Iran could be in the USA’s “national interest”, again, quite a step away from the normal single-imperial-party line in the USA.

        If the voters are enthusiastic about this message, then there is a “sea change”, a wave, that Hawai’ian Obama too could ride, if only he would. BUT HE ALREADY TALKED THE TALK BUT STUMBLED THE WALK after he met the kindly folks from BIG-OIL, BIG-ARMS, and (of course) BIG-ZION — who taught him that voters are dispensable.

      • teta mother me
        December 23, 2011, 9:32 pm


        I hope Ron Paul goes big just because it would make heads explode on the orange blog.

      • ritzl
        December 19, 2011, 6:42 pm

        Middle America doesn’t have to “demarcate” between national interests. They/we just have to be tired of war. Sadly most of us are (sadly, because very few towns are untouched by two, decade-long wars), so we only know our own interests, and they resonate with Paul’s message.

        The prospect of another vastly more consequential and long-term war, whether it be “for-Israel” or not is really the only concern. On that, in my experience, middle-America (or the people who and who’s kids, husbands, wives, etc. do the fighting and dying in these things) is wholly up to speed.

        Whether a possible war with Iran is perceived as a “war for Israel” or not is largely irrelevant as a primary concern here in flyover country. But to the extent it is perceived as such, it would be educational at the voter level, about the national interests involved that you describe, perhaps to instill some subsequent rationality at the governmental or FP level.

        6500 dead and another 50,000 wounded say the mood is shifting, is all.

      • yourstruly
        December 19, 2011, 9:00 pm

        wadayamean our boys? do you check out the weekly defense department list of americans killed in these wars? seems martyrdom’s falling upon mostly inner city and small town youth. may partly explain the general level of apathy/ignorance among the populace. unfortunately for the peace movement, this take care of number one society means that concern for those in combat is almost nonexistent, except, of course, for their family & friends.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 10:56 am

        yourstruly, I read the lists of soldiers killed and always look where they came from–it’s mostly rural and small town white boys, followed by more inner city black and latinos, which there might be more of except so many never even finish high school; there is nobody else fighting our wars when it comes to combat exposure especially. The girls listed come from the same background as the boys.

        You are right, in short. It’s nice to have what amounts to a Hessian army.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 6:07 am

        Exiled At Home, you are correct about the average American. I wrote a comment greatly embellishing about just how ignorant Dick and Jane are as to politics, especially foreign affairs, and the reality of neocons, PNAC, PEPs, neo-liberals, etc but I forgot to log in, and I lost that comment & I’m not awake enough to redo it now.

      • lobewyper
        December 20, 2011, 8:59 am

        I agree with Exiled at Home and Citizen about the average American. I was one of those American sheeple myself for decades. Stayed that way for so long by only reading /watching the local MSM. The internet was pretty much the factor that awoke me from my thousand years’ slumber–so the net could potentially be helpful to our cause…

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 10:08 am

        citizen – wanted to make sure you know i responded to you on that last “ron paul” thread



    • Kathleen
      December 20, 2011, 11:52 am

      So many more Jews willing to come out the last few years and speak the truth about the I/P conflict and about the who, what, why, where, when having to do with the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing push for a military confrontation with Iran. Movement movement. And Ron Paul is and has been the only candidate in any race to speak the truth about these conflicts and the reasons for them

  3. split
    December 19, 2011, 5:00 pm

    This makes my day – Keep pounding Mr. Paul ,…

    • American
      December 19, 2011, 5:51 pm

      Mine too.
      The best thing that could happen in this Presidential race is for Paul become the Republican candidate if for no other reason than Paul vr Obama or whoever would bring out every issue in the debates, those issues that neither the dems nor libs ever let out into the daylight most of the time.

      • split
        December 19, 2011, 7:24 pm

        This would provide more ammo for Obama to press Israelis to get serious
        at the negotiating table with Palis and an ‘incentives’ to ‘love’ him having Ron Paul as a second choice and losing handouts ,…

      • kalithea
        December 19, 2011, 9:11 pm

        Oh for God’s sakes! Forget Obama. He’s been shilling for the Lobby since he won the nomination.

        If a miracle happened and Ron Paul became the nominee, then Ron Paul could embarrass the hell out of Obama, cause Ron Paul’s honest and consistent and Obama’s all political interest and the “which way is the wind blowing” candidate.

      • split
        December 20, 2011, 1:09 am

        ‘Oh for God’s sakes! Forget Obama. He’s been shilling for the Lobby since he won the nomination” – I’m talking about reality not of wishful thinking. If RP proves that he can gain more opposing AIPAC and warmongers Obama and others will follow ,…

  4. lysias
    December 19, 2011, 5:03 pm

    New poll puts Ron Paul three points ahead in Iowa: Paul Leads in Iowa:

    Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

    • yourstruly
      December 19, 2011, 9:12 pm

      soon to appear, campaign ads that say “republicans, it is clear that ron paul’s antiwar message appeals to some of you, but since he can’t win, why waste your vote? will it work? most likely, but never can tell. perhaps the paul campaigners could preempt such tomfoolery by themselves putting out ads which anticipate forthcoming campaign chicanery by the other candidates.

    • Citizen
      December 20, 2011, 6:11 am

      It’s really funny how Fox news is still dismissing Ron Paul although he’s got 23%; they just won’t talk about his policies, which are so different than all the others. They slight him while being forced to mention he’s ahead.

  5. Exiled At Home
    December 19, 2011, 5:18 pm

    I have had my qualms with -and often times downright contempt for- Joe Klein over at Swampland for years. I’ve argued with him repeatedly, and he’s been more than generous in obliging me in some very lively discussions. His tone is often pompous and bombastic, and his dangerous fidelity to centrism is an intellectually bankrupt dismissal of liberal/conservative philosophy, always harping on about middle-ground compromise. He’s the epitome of the Washington insider, who rubs elbows with all the elites, and too frequently blabbers on about the answers lying in the middle, as if compromise between two poles will always bring about sensible, fair policies. No, at times wholly liberal ideas are needed, at other times a conservative approach is needed.

    However, he’s been, at times, reasonable on Israel/Palestine, often willing to throw caution to the wind in his thorough denunciations of Likudnik-style Israeli policies. He has also, though, fell-back on his grade-school conceptualization of fairness in demanding tit-for-tat reciprocity. He’s a big proponent of Palestinian “gestures” in return for Israeli adherence to law. With this, I vehemently disagree. Joe Klein is the type of intellectual who will bloviate about the illegality of housing expansion in East Jerusalem, or the illegality of settlements in the West Bank in one blog post, and then mere days later, pontificate about the need for Palestinian “gestures” when Netanyahu agrees to 90-day moratoriums on illegal expansions. This is intellectual fraud, and pandering at its worst. If Joe Klein recognizes settlements and East Jerusalem expansions for what they are, illegal contraventions of international law and obstacles to peace, then he should not feel that Palestinians owe anything when Israeli administrations put temporary halts on such practices. Joe Klein, for all his charming admonitions of Israeli intransigence, is still too much of a coward to ever fully take the side of Palestinians from issue to issue. All must be fair, all must be equal. My message to you, Joe Klein, is this: there is no parity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; hit me back when you grow a pair and mature enough to join us in that depressingly grey area we call reality.

    • kalithea
      December 19, 2011, 10:02 pm

      Impressive comment.

    • Citizen
      December 20, 2011, 6:49 am

      Klein said he never meant to imply we attacked Iraq in behalf Israel. http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/19/clarification-israels-national-security/?iid=sl-article-latest

      He blames that war on Chaney convincing Shrub we needed to attack Iraq because merely going into Afghanistan was not enough to show our enemies we were strong against terrorism. This, although he also admits when he interviewed neocons back then some of them had mentioned Israel’s security too. He does not want to look to closely, I’d say at the motivations of the neocons who, together, got us into invading Iraq, which may be the biggest blunder in US foreign policy history. ( I think we will repeat it with Iran)

  6. Annie Robbins
    December 19, 2011, 5:28 pm

    Ron Paul gains ground because he opposes another neocon war for Israel

    i knew that! me too! now, can i get a job writing for time magazine? just kidding. kudos to klein for being front and center in telling the amercian people what we already know but the msm hasn’t said. at least this breaking news came out before the primaries.

    go klein

  7. eGuard
    December 19, 2011, 5:40 pm

    Weiss: And Klein is a liberal Zionist!

    Even better: this way some Zionism is saved! Can’t leave that to Ron Paul, can we? Where would we be without liberal Zionism.

  8. Bandolero
    December 19, 2011, 5:53 pm

    Thank you, Philip, for sticking to the Ron Paul campaign.

    As far as I see it, Ron Paul is the candidate this year to contest the global war machine.

    Of course, he’s not picking out Americas zionist wars as something special, but just opposes senseless and costly wars whereever the US is fighting them. But in nowadays realpolitik fighting senseless wars has a lot to do with zionism. And such senseless wars, aggression and violence is exactly why I oppose zionism. I think there are very many other people who don’t care about ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism or whatever, but just want the stupid war machine to stop.

    So please, Philip, keep reporting on the Ron Paul campaign and what this means to the zionist driven war machine and politics of aggression.

  9. seafoid
    December 19, 2011, 6:15 pm

    Surging is an unfortunate choice or word given the topic.
    I was watching that summary clip of Paul’s
    points from 15.12 and Bachmann reminded me of Ms Cupid Stunt.

  10. MHughes976
    December 19, 2011, 6:20 pm

    I can’t really believe that RP will be the candidate but even a few good performances by him will make a huge contribution by showing the political class that war with Iran would, despite the barrage of propaganda, be very unpopular. I think that they know that already but need to be reminded.

    • Chaos4700
      December 19, 2011, 7:30 pm

      Oh it doesn’t matter who wins the primaries vis-a-vis the official Republican candidate, the Republican Party is going to throw out the results if they have to and appoint a different favored, “approved” candidate. This matters because it lends legitimacy to an American voter base that, increasingly, HATES both Republican and Democratic Party elites.

      Hell, Ron Paul winning primaries and not being given the actual Republican nomination might actually be a huge boon for him among the voting base, theoretically.

      • john h
        December 20, 2011, 12:01 am

        He touched on that on Jay Leno.

        He wasn’t specific, but gave the distinct impression he is open to running as an independent if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 6:26 am

        Right, john h, Paul said on Leno Show that it was way too premature to think about running as an Independent.

    • MRW
      December 19, 2011, 8:28 pm

      You’re right on the money, MHughes976. It’s also the issue of jobs and how the Republicans don’t have the urgency to get it fixed, because they’re intent on defeating Obama. That payroll tax cut could put 8% into everybody’s pockets; instead, they’re playing politics and acting like Hoover. When FDR tried to cut spending in late 1937 in reaction to alarmist calls, unemployment jumped 6% back up to 20%, within nine months. Don’t these people read history?

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 6:33 am

        Note that the payroll tax cut would be offset somewhat by attaching a fee to FHA home buyers and re-mortgagers via Freddie/Fannie. Also, not cutting Medicare income for its doctors, and the Canadian pipeline green light. But we won’t surcharge the rich. Cannot penalize Americans for their inheritance starting base–don’t want to upset the American Way Of Royalty. Everybody’s got a shot, same as Trump!

  11. DICKERSON3870
    December 19, 2011, 6:46 pm

    If anyone has been considering making a contribution to the Ron Paul campaign, now is the time to do so. He needs to make a good showing next month in Iowa and New Hampshire (and make a decent showing in South Carolina and Florida) so that he can carry forward the antiwar message.
    Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website – http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

  12. MRW
    December 19, 2011, 8:12 pm

    Joe Klein is reading the country correctly (I loved it when he came out swinging against the Iraq War in 2003). And think of the influence of all the vets returning right now and in January. They will have a lot of say in their churches, mosques, and synagogues about going into another dumb war.

    What’s congress’ approval rating right now? 9%?

    • Citizen
      December 20, 2011, 6:34 am

      Vets and military families mostly support Ron Paul.

      • Kathleen
        December 20, 2011, 12:31 pm

        And they know the reality on the ground the bloody and deadly consequences

  13. Duscany
    December 19, 2011, 9:25 pm

    Ron Paul is right about something else. The countries that hate us do so because, in part, we are blowing up weddings and funerals (not to mention legitimate bad guys) with high tech drones. That is a policy that is going to come home to roost faster than anyone imagines.

    In recent years I’ve been to a couple of Saturday afternoon remote control model plane fly-abouts in the San Fernando valley. Some of these guys fly three or four feet long jet-engined powered model planes that must hit 120 mph. It’s true these are only high tech remote control models but they are fast maneuverable ones and a lot bigger, not to mention faster, than the balsa toys I grew up with. One of these days a home-grown terrorist with experience in remote control planes is going to buy one of these things off the shelf at a some suburban model shop, drive to Washington DC, park half a mile from the White House and let her rip.

    I know the White House has all kinds of defenses, but I don’t know how you stop something this small, this fast, flying this low, launched with ease from virtually any street, alley, flat roof or bike path and whose flying time is only perhaps 20 seconds.

    It’s no doubt true such a model wouldn’t do any real damage to the White House or anyone inside–even if the plane had a small payload on board (the plane would probably just crumple harmlessly against the bulletproof glass of the Oval Office). But the headlines would be so dramatic–“terror drone hits White House; first family miraculously unharmed”–it would publicly embarrass the military/homeland security types in the same way the Dolittle Raid embarrassed the Imperial Japanese military. (And the result in that case was their navy’s launching a hasty attack on Midway from which they never recovered.)

    After a drone attack on the White House the folks who already want us to attack Iran would be blogging that the terrorist suspect had “ties” to Iran. Those charges would be picked up by congress and the more-warlike Republican candidates, which is to say nearly all of them, if Obama didn’t promptly launch a preemptive strike he’d be ridiculed as a president so unmanly he wouldn’t even protect his own family. Many of Obama’s advisers have been pushing for years for a war with Iran. The last think they need now is a way to challenge Obama’s manhood on the issue.

    Moral of the story. We need to bring our troops home and all our drones too.

    • piotr
      December 21, 2011, 12:25 am

      Actually, a combination of know-how that a “modest” intelligence agency may have and technology of model airplanes can be extremely damaging. One could attack refineries and perhaps chemical factories which even on a good day may explode with no terrorist intervention. A few pound of plastic explosives dropped on a tank with petrochemicals or simply, say, butane, can go a long way. And if you knock down several refineries out of commission …

  14. mudder
    December 20, 2011, 6:11 am

    Joe Klein issued a clarification after prompting from Jeff Goldberg. So Klein’s not so great. He defends himself by boasting of his support for Operation Cast Lead.

  15. Kathleen
    December 20, 2011, 12:12 pm

    Rep Paul’s surge has never made it above the fold at the Huffington Post. Demonstrates they line up with the so called liberal MSM.

    No movement on Huffington Post

    Although again movement on the Rachel Maddow show. She led with a story about Ron Paul and his push for civil negotiations with Iran

  16. Kathleen
    December 20, 2011, 12:30 pm

    ok last night Dec 19th) Ed on MSNBC Ed’s show actually poked at some of the Republican candidates who talk crazy about Iran “several said they are ready to bomb Iran”

    In the clip over at Ed’s site under “3am phone call, 2012 version” at 53 seconds.

    Then Ed goes even further in this clip calling out the Iran “fear mongering”..

    Later 3:32 Ed”during several recent GOP debates there was a lot of I guess you can say fearmongering is what I call it about Iran getting nuclear weapons” They then show clips of Michelle Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney all repeating inflammatory claims about Iran. Now Cincirone (who always protects Israel no matter what they do) did not just come out and say that there are no substantiated evidence that Iran is doing what the warmongers keep repeating but Ed and his program moved on Iran. THEY ARE MOVING.

    Now when will any of the the MSNBC host have Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on their program? Professor Juan Cole, former weapons inspector Robert Kelly? Keep pushing him. Have been able to get on his program several times and keep pushing him towards the Leveretts. He has a radio program on every day. Contact the show if you please

  17. Kathleen
    December 20, 2011, 2:38 pm

    Over at Race for Iran. Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt tell the truth about the situation in Iraq.


    “The Iraq war was a bloody intellectual experiment for the neoconservative world view, in which millions of Iraqis were caught up without any possibility of giving anything approaching “informed consent” regarding their participation. The suffering imposed on these innocent victims—including those killed, wounded, and displaced—is an indelible stain on the ethical balance sheet of American foreign policy.

    And the results of this neoconservative thought experiment are, to say the least, not as advertised by the policy hucksters who pushed it. Americans were promised that overthrowing Saddam Husayn would lead to a secular, democratic political order in Iraq that would be, by definition, pro-American. Iraq’s transformation would, in turn, pave the way for the creation of similarly pro-American secular democracies across the region that would naturally choose to align with the United States. “

    • Citizen
      December 20, 2011, 4:52 pm

      Kathleen, yes indeed! Further, they said “the war would pay for itself,” Wolfowitz a main culprit here–they figured they have the whole thing played out and paid for in a month or so–with Iraqi oil!

  18. Justice Please
    December 20, 2011, 3:31 pm

    Kudos to Klein.

    And it’s a shame that the NYT evidently is not interested in peace, or she would put Ron Paul on the front cover and endorse him for the Republican primaries.

    • lysias
      December 20, 2011, 4:26 pm

      Nater Silver’s New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight is very optimistic about Ron Paul’s chances. He even gives him a fighting chance to win in New Hampshire. Paul Moves Into Lead in Iowa Forecast.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 5:31 pm

        The first comment under Silver’s NYT article is important to some of us:

        pknew york
        To all those who think Ron Paul lacks compassion, I urge you to think realistically about what you consider compassion. Are you referring to a consistent anti-war policy over an entire lifetime of political activism? Are you referring to a position opposed to a social safety net that pays for the problems of today by stealing from tomorrow’s neediest via inflation?

        People laugh at Ron Paul’s economic platform, but in reality, it is the only one that gives the poorest people a chance at escaping poverty. Even a 2-3% rate of inflation erodes today’s dollar by 33-55% in 20 years. That negative far outweighs any short-term positives we achieve for today’s poor through social programs.

        There will come a time in the future, perhaps sooner than we think, where we will all look back at the “uncompassionate” policies of Ron Paul, and we will realize that his was the only real, sustainable means of compassion.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 5:36 pm

        Ron Paul got 3.7 million from his money bomb so far, to keep his campaign up to the challenge in the next to weeks. I want to see his ideas get more MSM airing; if you do to, go here: https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?sr=28-sb2

      • yourstruly
        December 20, 2011, 6:23 pm

        there was no safety net until the 20th century, and what happened to those who needed one? the same thing that happens today to those not protected by the safety net, such as individuals/families without health insurance, which is that 45,000 of them die annually who would have lived if they had had health insurance. yes, ron paul is good on foreign policies, but based on what paul said in one of those republican debates when given the hypothetical example of a comatose man who opted not to have health insurance, his answer “the government shouldn’t do nothin cause it was the man’s choice” – wow – that was about as cold and callous a response as possibly could be. his faith in a market based economy that had to be bailed out with trillions of dollars, compliments of the american people suggests he suffers from selective amnesia? ideology before the needs of human beings? no thanks! yes, paul’s position on militarization and war is right on, but otherwise? once again, no thanks!

      • lysias
        December 20, 2011, 6:49 pm

        Those wars that Paul would stop and prevent from happening in the future kill lots of people.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 8:05 pm


        im with you, but this prob isn’t the place – im not sure if there is one.

      • kma
        December 20, 2011, 8:43 pm

        in case you hadn’t noticed, Obama’s healthcare legislation does EXACTLY this: if you opt out of insurance, you get fined. you do NOT get medicare. you do NOT get medicaid. you get BIG BILLS or you DIE. people are living this way already, and Americans think it’s NORMAL.

        (I know I said I wouldn’t read comments! okay, okay, I lied)

        yes, Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but I would MUCH rather have him as commander-in-chief and only have to fight for abortion rights and other things alongside my fellow Americans than have the lousy Dems and Repubs in charge and be fighting for EVERYTHING at ONCE. I love that Paul is debating in the primaries and making them look like schmucks and idiots that they are instead of running third party as he usually does.

      • unVet
        December 20, 2011, 10:17 pm

        Yourstruly, please consider the following information that I found at http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/death_by_medicine.html:


        Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . .Deaths. . . . Cost. . . . . . .Author
        Adverse Drug Reactions. . .106,000. . . $12 billion. . .Lazarou, Suh
        Medical error. . . . . . . . . . .98,000. . . .$2 billion. . .IOM
        Bedsores. . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,000. . .$55 billion. . . Xakellis, Barczak
        Infection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88,000. . . $5 billion. . .Weinstein, MMWR
        Malnutrition. . . . . . . . . . . .108,800. . . . ——–. . .Nurses Coalition
        Outpatients. . . . . . . . . . . .199,000. . .$77 billion. .Starfield, Weingart
        Unnecessary Procedures. . . .37,136. . $122 billion. .HCUP
        Surgery-Related. . . . . . . . . .32,000. . . .$9 billion. .AHRQ

        TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783,936. . .$282 billion

        I don’t know about the accuracy of this information anymore than I know about the accuracy of the 45,000 that you have Ron Paul sentencing to death. It appears that some number of those 45,000 would die even if they had received medical treatment just due to the conditions listed above, and some number of the 783,936 probably would have survived if they had received no medical treatment.

        You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of matters in much of what you wrote at 6:23pm. You understanding of Ron Paul’s position is somewhat lacking. I guess I could check, but I am quite certain you misrepresented what he said in response to the “would you let a man die” debate gotcha question. As a libertarian, Dr. Paul rejects the notion that force is an appropriate means for achieving objectives outside of self-defense. By definition, anything the government does is done by force. When you get ready to take an honest look at matters, I believe you will find there is a lot more than just ideology involved. There is plenty on the downside to having the government perform function that we as a society should and could perform without being forced to.


      • yourstruly
        December 20, 2011, 11:16 pm

        how many progressives ever said that obamacare was worth fighting for? single-payer, that’s another story. right now my wife & i are arguing as to whether to back ron paul if there is no candidate that has it right on both domestic and foreign issues, with me leaning towards half-right paul, my wife towards a democratic candidate she mistakingly believes has a good take on domestic issues (mistakingly because perpetual war will thwart efforts to put a serious dent in unemployment, health coverage, etc. etc.). the sum of it all is that it’s stupid to put one’s trust in any candidate, cause no individual, whatever his/her intentions, can bring about change (mr change/yes we can has proven that), being that it’s the system that has to be changed. soooo, looking towards individuals to bring about change is a trap, trap, trap, trap. as for me, gonna put more time/energy into the occupy movement.

      • yourstruly
        December 20, 2011, 11:51 pm

        oh come on now, more of the if you don’t make it, it’s your fault, you just didn’t have what it takes. as for “anything the government does is done by force”, does that include the 75-100 thousand a year that the government spends per hemodialysis patient per year? only single digit percentage of these more than 300,000 individuals can afford their treatment, so is it “force” to tax the general population so that these individuals may live? that’s not to deny that there are serious problems with present-day delivery of medical care, but tearing up the safety net? dump 5l million medicaid patients where? dump how many million medicare patients where, keep down 50 million people already without any health coverage? suggest you take an honest look at what being without adequate health care coverage does to an individual and her/his family. as for the 783 thousand persons who suffered physically/economically from medical intervention (how many died) certainly these numbers must & can be decreased. but not at the price of tearing up the safety net for tens of millions of americans, cause the cost/benefit from such ideological madness would include millions of lives either lost or short-changed.

      • yourstruly
        December 21, 2011, 12:21 am

        and that’s without mentioning health care for children. who’s going to pay for that? parents, if they have coverage, but what if they don’t. how’s laissez-faire medicine going to take care of them without some assistance from the public. can’t be done because it involves force? i can see a markeplace ideologue telling that to sick child’s parents – “sorry, but it’s not the government’s business. have you tried the local charity? oh, you have but they’re out of money? try praying.”

      • Citizen
        December 21, 2011, 5:25 am

        I agree we need a safety net, and we’d have a lot more money to maintain one without so much of our tax dollars going towards feeding our wars, wars that have a negative impact at least comparable to if we had pure unbridled capitalism–we spend more than nearly the rest of the world’s nations combined on our military–but, where would you draw the line on a Nanny State? Those who here have been dissing Ron Paul’s domestic policy, I’d like your opinion on this single instance of our current state of affairs at home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCKkOkQcHY

      • kma
        December 21, 2011, 1:23 pm

        my opinion on TV is that it is a waste of time and money, but I don’t think that’s what you mean.
        where I draw the line on the “Nanny State” is between need and greed: I live in the wealthiest nation in the world and pay a LOT in taxes, so I know that there is enough money that there should NOT be homeless people in my city (including children!) and there is PLENTY for basic needs. however, my government prefers to finance wars and illegal operations at a profit for the banks, fossil fuel industry, weapons & nukes, insurance companies, prison industry, etc etc.
        the US is a Nanny State for the corporations that can’t even meet a tiny need to feed the poorest of its people. we also have created a “culture of one” where we fence our homes off and fill them with every little perceived need so that we never talk to our neighbors and can’t even fathom the community structure – even within our own families – that allowed us to evolve as a species in the first place. a symptom of that is people like you who fear that the US is a “Nanny State” because someone might get their teeth pulled for free. this is not who humans used to be, and certainly not in other countries! if your own grandmother was out on the street, would you take her in for free? someone else’s grandmother? if not, would you pay a tiny tax for a public service so that they don’t come live with you?

        back to Ron Paul – the republicans all want to dismantle social spending, but one candidate wants to radically FIX foreign policy and the MIC. is there any better choice between all those clowns and Ron Paul? Paul is it, head and shoulders. then, what do you do if you have to choose between Ron Paul and the democrats? for starters, you ENJOY the debates!!!

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 12:04 am

        kma, why didn’t you use the video I linked, instead of grandmother? And, do you think the Democrats are less of a war party than the Republicans? Check out our US history.

      • kma
        December 23, 2011, 9:04 pm

        I think the democrats love war just like the republicans do! and there is far less than a dime’s worth of difference. they are bought by the same people.

        I don’t understand what difference it makes whether you talk about public social services for a TV portrayal of a black man or your own grandma. I don’t know what you’re asking. Ron Paul is against all of it, and I am not against any of it. but I would rather be in the streets fighting for that ONLY which we are already doing….!

Leave a Reply