BTW, Santorum ended up winning the Iowa caucus after all by a small handful of votes that were misplaced. You called it.

Why so many people are choosing not to endorse Ron Paul (from reddit)

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.

He defines life as starting at conception,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Lies to maintain FUD regarding Abortion by claiming he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die"...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Denies evolution, "At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter ... I don't accept it as a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q @ 2:45
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/12/22/ron-paul-backs-creationism-denies-evolution/

Does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-%E2%80%98why-not%E2%80%99-abolish-fema-since-helping-victims-of-disaster-is-compounding-our-problems/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YQYhk3GRE

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border,

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Disband NATO,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

End birthright citizenship,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign,

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-hate-group-chair-is-now-ron-pauls-iowa-state-director/politics/2011/12/29/32460

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys,

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's against gay marriage,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Will even legislate against gay marriage on a federal level and attempted to CRIMINALIZE efforts to overturn such a measure,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/274704/20111230/ron-paul-proposal-severely-curtail-supreme-court.htm

Has even made it a point to base his campaign on Religion and being against Gay Marriage,

http://imgur.com/11Q77

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal,

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment

Is against the popular vote,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Wants the estate tax repealed,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Keeps their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-denies-writing-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604122724/http://www.theseminal.com/2007/12/30/ron-paul-lets-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

But didn't bother to repeat his previous argument those times that such an act would be unconstitutional as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms

Is against Hate Crime laws,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ron-paul-collectivist-hate-crimes-bill-a-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/ron-pauls-position-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

He also believes The Civil Rights Act destroyed Privacy,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only one of four House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requesting earmarks for a total of $398mil.)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

Want more? Go here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/

How lame is this system? Popular vote with each voter picking the order of all candidates. Usually called Condorcet voting. Delegates, caucuses, super-delegates, all this stuff discourages people from voting.

When you get down to it, with how informal the caucus is, that really is a 3 way tie...5% margin of error at least! Gonna make the next one really interesting! I wonder how Perry votes will split between the remaining when he drops out, perhaps Paul being from Texas will net him a disproportional amount...or perhaps his politics is to far different and the other 2 will pick up more...fun times ahead. Still slightly confused about Santorum, then again, I don't watch much news, so I didn't know he was gaining ground for no reason. What's will all the Mormons, and why do they hate teh butt sex, stay tuned TV fans!

I bet you a promote Santorum comes in first or is nearly tied for first.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I bet you a promote he comes in 3rd. I think Ron Paul will come out ahead, because he is using the same playbook that allowed Obama to dominate the caucuses 4 years ago, even in states where he was behind in the polls.
I predict:
#1 Paul
#2 Romney
#3 Santorum
Although, the polling graph look like a modern art masterpiece, so I guess anything is possible.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll
s/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

I bet you a promote he comes in 3rd. I think Ron Paul will come out ahead, because he is using the same playbook that allowed Obama to dominate the caucuses 4 years ago, even in states where he was behind in the polls.

I predict:

#1 Paul
#2 Romney
#3 Santorum

Although, the polling graph look like a modern art masterpiece, so I guess anything is possible.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.


That sounds a bit like number-fudging If you only have one choice, you could argue an inherent strong correlation of candidate and outcome, so no real point in counting those.

Throwing out the unopposed candidates and going back to 1980, we have 5 of 7 correct picks on the democratic side and 2 of 5 correct picks on the republican side. So in sum 7 of 12 or about 58% where there was an actual choice.

So just from the numbers, I would argue that there isn't that strong of a connection between Iowa caucus winners and chosen candidates. The abrupt about-face of the media (as presented here) is strange though.

Edit: Speeling

^The Iowa caucus was not very important in 2008. McCain (the eventual Republican nominee) finished a distant 3rd.

28.3 Romney
28.1 Huckabee
11.9 McCain

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_2008_gop_iowa_caucus_4_years_ago.html

Ron Paul killed democracy, oops. When people want something, it is a mistake. People don't know what is good for them, big government and media should like whom is being placed in charge first, then the people can choose from that. There are plenty of REAL issues to take up with Ron Paul, but discrediting a caucus and pulling out the race card isn't one of them. I know a lot of people think RP would be bad for America in many ways (I don't agree), but a far worse thing for America would be that a man that doesn't have the backing of lobbiests and tons of money has 0 chance of wining an election; that the people have no way to choose their leaders that aren't already chosen for them.

Ron Paul can win the caucuses, the primary and the general election. RP supporters will rejoice and await for the de-corruption of Washington, as well as all the things he promised to do as President come January. Sound familiar? Standing for something during a campaign and actually doing something once elected are two very different somethings. If RP were ever to get elected, it would be yet four more years of nothing getting accomplished. If you think the Repugs were intractable jackasses the last three years, imagine RP getting no love from either party.

Heheh. He said caucus. Heh. "Caucus Maximus". Eerheheheh.

I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

Agree completely. Fox is saying that IF he wins Iowa then it's basically null and void because Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. They are NOT saying that in general the Iowa caucus is meaningless, which is what TYT implies.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Christ, I feel a little sick just typing this, but I think Fox might be right on this one.
/cleans puke off keyboard
I'm not saying they are morally correct, simply that their appraisal of the situation is probably accurate. I don't think anyone really believes Paul will get the nomination. He is simply too far from what most Republicans want (esp on drugs and foreign policy).
It's a shame he's such a nutjob, because some of his policies are interesting.
edit: Actually, I take it back. Having watched the outcome, Cenk makes some really good points.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.
As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!
On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.
Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"
I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...


1st: The tea-party comparison.
The tea-party was a bunch of blowhards who want to destroy government. They have seized well on misdirected rage. Destroying something is a hell of a lot easier than fixing something that is almost terminally broken. We can't expect results as quickly as those folks because we're constructive, not destructive.

2nd: The real issue. (money in politics)
I think you're missing my point. Why trash a movement that could very well be the beginning of a societal awakening? It took many years for most major causes to gain traction. (see: prohibition repeal, civil rights, suffrage, etc.) I never said don't vote and I never said don't take action. I do all of those AND actively back OWS. I haven't missed a caucus since I was 18. We're active; don't think otherwise. The OWS movement isn't perfect, but nothing we humans do is. It's a step in the right direction. Will this movement bring the all-encompassing triumph? Doubtful. Will the next? Increasingly less doubtful...


Why don't you come out here and help, or at the very least don't throw stones at those putting their neck on the line for you. When is the last time you personally got news coverage because you towed the party line? We need to get out of our armchairs. We need to make a difference!

@blankfist upvoted. I'm not at all pleased about it.

In terms of the "my party is better than yours" contest, here are the vote tallies:

Senate Nays by party: 19 Democrats (I'm including Bernie Sanders in there), 4 Republicans.
House Nays by party: 122 Democrats, 31 Republicans.

I'd love to grow those numbers on both sides of the aisle.

Some notable names in both lists:

Pelosi: Nay
Weiner: Nay
Kucinich: Nay
Franken: Nay
Leahy: Nay (and filibustered with Rand, not that the press or CFL mentions that)
Brown: Nay

I want more Democrats in Congress like them, and fewer like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Manchin (all voted Aye).

Oh, and this came up in one of my google searches in trying to find those roll call lists: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/28/tea-party-roll-call-may-2011-patriot-act/

Looks like the House Tea Party caucus voted overwhelmingly in favor of renewal.