Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER’S BLOG: Ron Paul could surprise us
December 13th, 2011
04:11 PM ET

BLITZER’S BLOG: Ron Paul could surprise us

By Wolf Blitzer, CNN

(CNN) - Three weeks until the Iowa caucuses and anything is still possible, including an upset win by Rep. Ron Paul.

As you know, he has lots of devoted supporters. He has an excellent organization in Iowa. He could surprise a lot of people and actually win the caucuses, to the dismay of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Neither of the front-runners has great operations in Iowa. And in Iowa, organization counts.

People don’t just go into a booth for a minute or two and vote and then go home. They have to make a major commitment to show up at a civic center or school and participate in a lengthy meeting. They have to listen to speeches. The process can drag on for an hour or two or three.

It may be cold outside but it could get hot inside those rooms.

Over the years, the key to success in Iowa is to persuade your supporters to show up. That means helping them drive to the meetings if necessary.

Paul has that kind of team in place. From what I hear from well-placed sources in Iowa, neither Gingrich nor Romney has it in place yet. Maybe they can do it over the course of three weeks, but it won’t be easy.

By the way, keep your eyes on Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. They have spent lots of time in the state and have some strong followers. Let’s see how they do.

Bottom line: Iowa, in my opinion, is very much in play. Before you know it, we will be on to New Hampshire.

Follow Wolf Blitzer on Twitter: @WolfBlitzerCNN

Watch "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" tomorrow 4-6 p.m. for Wolf Blitzer's interview with Rep. Ron Paul

Post by:
Filed under: 2012 election • Ron Paul • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (654 Responses)
  1. t3chsupport

    Ron Paul for VP.
    Huntsman's VP.

    Ron Paul has some good ideas, but the problem is that his ideas are not realistic, they're idealistic. They all sounds great on the campaign trail, but they will not work in reality. Why? Because the president is not the king. Just because he wants things a certain way does not mean he will be able to make them so. He still has to be able to play nice with the rest of the class, because the real power has always been in Congress. Talking is easy. Anyone can talk. See how much of his talking gets paid attention to in Congress though, and you will see that it is directly relational to how people would respond to him as president. Don't believe me? See what happens when our current president wants to do so much as wipe his nose, and all of the bureaucratic tripe that goes into even the most trivial of matters. Also, he's nuts. For each of his fantastic ideas, he's got another that would put us back to the bronze age.

    Huntsman is cool and calculating, and actually knows a thing or two, and does not appear to be a raving lunatic (which is why no one is paying attention, why listen to the boring guy in the suit when there's a circus right over there??). Let him lead, and let Paul have VP so he can promote his good ideas well enough to get some of them rolling, without giving him the power to absolutely destroy us.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • Tannim

      The difference between idealistic and realistic is that the former hasn't been implemented yet.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  2. The all potent one

    The media has done everything possible to bury Ron Paul because he's the one that can't be bought. Media is owned by big business and politicians are chosen by two things, the amount of air time they get and the amount big business contributes to thier campaign. Same on both sides. Rommney is a flipper, Newt has to many skeletons and his tax plan is a joke.
    RP 2012

    December 13, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  3. Jay

    Ron Paul is a kook and his followers are like a cult, they like him, but no one else is even close to voting for him. Voters have decided that all politicians are scumbags and egomaniacs. Unless you come up with new dirt on Newt, he has brushed off the old dirt for the majority of folks. He's a scumbag, but he's our scumbag.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • Ryan


      Great logic to voting for Newt. Really that makes sense. Now care to explain why Paul is crazy?

      December 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Jason

      There can't really be any Newt supporters can there be? They must just be Obama supporters who know Newt is easy to beat

      December 14, 2011 at 2:30 am |
    • Tannim

      That so-called "cult" is far better-informed than you can ever hope to be.

      As for Newt, he has more baggage than a Samsonite factory at minimal staffing, and is more crooked than Lombard Street in San Francisco.

      You support him WHY?

      December 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  4. rep

    Nice guy. Some nice ideas. But I agree, kinda nuts and not presidential material. I had to really think how to articulate why I get that impression from him. And it's mainly his implementation plans....or lack thereof. His explanations of "how" and "what next" always seem to be accompanied by meandering, hand-waving statements that imply that "everything will take care of itself" or something to that effect. As if slamming on the brakes while speeding down an icy slope in a car filled with explosives is the best and only thing to do....and then "everything will take care of itself." No talk of slowing, no talk of phased implementations or back-up strategies, etc.

    There's an awful lot of history, thought, work, progress, and success behind many of the things he'd like to get rid of or drastically change, so he has to present a MUCH clearer vision for how things would go with out them. But he seems incapable of doing that. Instead, basically everything he says just smacks of someone who's clearly not thought things through very well. No thanks.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • Petri

      I've come to the opinion that he is typically interrupted before has an opportunity to discuss details. In this day and age, Presidential material is less about integrity and more about 'Hollywood material'. It all boils down to the best-looking candidate. Paul has been ten years ahead of everyone on forecasting the direction of the US due to bad economic, domestic and foreign policies.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • matt

      I trust Ron Paul that is enough for me.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • ummm

      please give us an example of a politician that has what you are talking about....we are all confused with your analogies--not very well thought out.... I had to really think how to articulate why I get that impression from you. And it's mainly your implementation plan....or lack thereof. your explanations of "how" and "what next" always seem to be accompanied by meandering--good try though 🙂

      December 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
    • Tannim

      Like others, you are uninformed. He has presented solutions many times–in his economic plan, in his bestselling books, and in his many speeches. If you cannot read or pay attention, then you are truly lost.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
  5. 1iberty4all

    Ron Paul woudl be an excellent President. He would be a great leader. Just look what he has done since he started running for President in 2008. He could barely get into most debates in the 2007 election cycle, but yet inspired the Tea Party movement. Since then he has really driven the narritive on the Federal Reserve and now people talk routinely about auditing the Fed. Through all the "kook" metaphors thrown at him by the MSM, he inspires a massive following.

    If he can generate this much inspiration in Americans when shunned by mainstream media, he could inspire a true American revolution as President.

    American needs this type of leader.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  6. B-Rad

    Ron Paul only cares about one thing, the freedom of the United States. And he has his entire career. He stands proud in his beliefs, and some of them may offend others. But, he doesn't fluff it up or curtail it to get the their support. The man is 100% genuine, and that alone is worth every Americans vote. How many of these "good looking" candidates are we going to have to suffer through till we realize that honesty is the best concept for a President of the United States to offer?

    December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  7. Scott

    As an Independent, I very much respect Ron Paul for being a straight shooter and having a lot of good ideas. However, I don't agree with his pro-life stance, his ideas about letting the market regulate itself and his non-belief in evolution, the latter of which is bewildering to me, coming from such an intelligent man. I want to vote for him, but it'll be tough.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • Ryan

      Markets are the best regulation. If you screw up, you go bankrupt. Of course because we have crony-capitalism (aka government intervention in the markets), this does not happen. Government regulation will always have unintended consequences. I work for a company reviews government regulations. Dodd-Frank for example: There are so many compliance issues that it requires a huge team of lawyers. This is expensive and only the biggest banks will be able to do so. The red tape is enormous. The result will be over a trillion dollars in cost to the banking industry (which will be passed on to consumers) and smaller banks will be forced out of business thus making the bigger banks even bigger! That is precisely what we dont want! Dont forget that most regulations are written with the help of lobbyists.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Tannim

      His pro-life stance comes from his medical practice, not religion. His economic stance is based in sound econimics, which haven't been seen lately in America. His evolution stance is based in recognizing the beauty of God in all things.

      If those things are making it tough for you to vote for him, then rexamine the priorities. Abortion and evolution are so low on the national priority list that they are inconsequential.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  8. it is sad

    I already posted this last week... it is not going to be a surprise at all. Because of a system that does not allow a true vote, Iowa just goes in the books as showing who has the best organization, and not the most popular candidate. No wonder they very rarely pick the winner.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  9. Justin Botwin

    There's not one clown who crawls out of that tiny little GOP circus car who could beat Obama, or any other incumbent president. Their field of candidates is too weak, and they've had too many debates destroying each other. The GOP has become the party of either whack jobs or billionaires (or both, as in Trump's case) and neither group relates to the American people.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  10. james

    I dont want the GOP in again..thats why I fear Ron Paul.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • Tannim

      You fear the GOP why? And how does that translate to Dr. Paul, who is well-known as an outlier to the GOP statist leadership you fear?

      And how are the statist Demcorats under Obama and Pelosi any better?

      December 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  11. jo

    I vote Ron Paul!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  12. gmags

    Ron Paul is polling right behind Newt! This is great news because Newt has a pseudo-support around the nation that will only falter significantly once people realize the true hypocritical politician in him. It's only a matter of time before the truth prevails.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  13. JT

    Sorry, I can't accept Ron Paul wanting to eliminate the EPA. Coal-fired plants throw out tons of harmful chemicals, especially mercury. We had no protections from big industry during the first 60 years of the 20th century. Rivers and the atmosphere around big cities and steel mills was terrible. We can't throw away 50 years of progress. Big business can't run amok. Perhaps Paul is just posturing.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • Jason

      You don't understand his position, please search on Ron Paul property rights and environmental protection

      December 14, 2011 at 2:33 am |
  14. Jeremy

    Ron Paul winning would not surprise... The media giving him respect and honest and fair coverage? Now, that would be a major surprise! I am not holding my breath on that one.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  15. Ben

    Ron Paul, 2012! He can do it!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  16. David

    He's the only repubican I would vote for.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  17. Junior

    Why a surprise? There is no real substitute for boots on the ground in Iowa. I do not like Ron Paul at all, but more power to him and to the people that support his cause. He has no chance in most other places. Go Newt/Rubio 2012.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Tannim

      No chance in other places based on what information? What makes you think he doesn't have similar ground games going in other states?

      And why support a pair of crooks in Newt and Rubio?

      December 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
  18. dave

    Thanks for the typical liberal CNN stir the pot, serve the kool-aid, push the agenda blog.

    Ron Paul cannot win. What he can do, with the help of the liberal press, is convince people that he can, just like they did with Ross Perot . Remember him? Anyone not paying attention to history is doomed to repeat it.

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Splitting the vote between Republicans & Independants is a sure way to guarantee a Democrat win in 2012. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Kelli

      A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama? Really? That logic is a mess. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. Telling people that their vote for the candidate that they believe in won't count makes you one of the sheep. What's really awesome is that all you neighsayers telling us he can't win? YOU ARE WRONG. He CAN. And I have a feeling that he will. Watch Ron Paul become president without the media in his pocket. Watch him win because the PEOPLE believe in HIM!

      December 14, 2011 at 11:04 am |
    • Tannim

      Perot lost because he self-killed him own momentum when he dropped in mid-campaign in '92 and then re-entered way too late. No parallel to Paul 2012 at all. Try again with something factual.

      December 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
  19. R. Hott

    Ron paul is the man to belive in!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  20. William

    I've always voted Democrat but Dr. Paul has me excited. He has my vote. Ron Paul 2012!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  21. musicdorian

    The biggest surprise, about Ron Paul, that I have seen was displayed on the last ABC network debate. With the exception of Ron Paul, each of the debaters, in their last statements, found virture in another person on that stage. Each of the debaters was asked to express something positive about one of his competators. With the exception of Ron Paul, each one of the candidates found an admirable thing to express and basically thanked them. What did egotist Ron Paul do? He thanked two other candidates for LEARNING FROM him !! Ego's run large in Texas, and sometimes so does stupidity. That's it Ron, shoot yourself in the foot, by showing that you are narrow minded enough to not see any virtue in your competators. Ron Paul win ? Not hardly.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Jason

      What virtue can you find in the other candidates? Asking that question to Ron Paul is sort of a trick question. It's like saying, give me a reason why you think satan is good.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:38 am |
  22. DC

    Gingrich is too evangelical/ultra right wing to get moderate votes. Look at the polls. They say Gingrich is MOST LIKELY to win the republican nomination, but if you look at each of the GOP candidates polled vs. Obama, Romney is by far the best bet. Meaning, while Gingrich might attract more of the GOP, he's not going to attract enough elsewhere.

    In that way, it'd be wise for the Republicans to choose Romney or Paul, who have a MUCH better chance against Obama. Certainly the ultra right is still going to vote for Romney/Paul over Obama. I can see a few throwing a hissy fit and abstaining, but with a utilitarian goal, most will still vote.

    As a Republican, I hope the party members understand this. Newt Gingrich cannot carry the election for us.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Tannim

      Romney has no chance against Obama, especially after he shot himself in the foot twice this week: 1. the $10K bet fiasco, and 2. the NH gay marriage fiasco. That type of activitiy (in both cases) sinks him on Main Street. That nad he's in NY getting more billionaire campaign funds today. Romney is not the best candidate for Main Street–only K Street and Wall Street, just like Obama.

      December 14, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  23. Sam

    I will vote for Dr. Paul over any Rep or Dem. He is honest, he tells the truth and he doesn't change position according to the flavor or topic of the day. Ron Paul is America's final hope!!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  24. Susan

    It's about time that Ron Paul got his due. I often wonder what life would be like today if Ross Perot won the election back in the early 90s. He warned us that today's economy would arrive, and wanted to take care of it then. But no one wanted to hear it. Regardless of who wins the next election, there's going to be a lot of pain with all the cut backs, troops coming home etc. The recession is over, because the depression has just begun.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  25. kwexpatgirl

    Ron Paul all the way! If the media would not ignore him them he would have already been the clear front runner! Thanks for finally paying attention to him!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  26. Free Thinker

    I voted for Ron Paul in the last election, as a Libertarian. It has become clear over the last couple of years that Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian (e.g., his pro life stance is a good example). This disapoints me. However, he is still the best choice of any candidate that has even a remote chance of becoming president. I wish him luck.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  27. Moron

    I like Romney and Huntsman

    December 13, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  28. Webster

    I find it peculiar that people think Ron Paul is nuts. Only in a world that has gone nuts would someone preaching no war, sound money and rule of law sound nuts or be labeled nuts by the media and their opposition. I have a degree in math and science, and my wife is a physician. Neither of us are religious. We are not just highly educated professionals, we also live very full lives. Both of us have read the constitution. Neither of us vote for candidates based on putting money in our pockets but instead we both vote on which candidate is truthful and not a hypocrite. Last I checked Obama reneged on Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act and more things than I can name. He is commander in chief so arguments that he cant end these things are disingenuous. He could close Guantanamo just by ordering prisoners moved. In addition, the man who said diplomacy is tantamount bombed Libya first chance he received and is expanding the Patriot act and NDAA. Obama is a joke just like most of the republican candidates. Ron Paul is real and if you fear him it is just because you have carved out entitlements and money in our society that you do not deserve. You know Mr. Paul will take them away which is why you trash is reputation. This goes for the uber rich parasites and the abusers of entitlements. Ron Paul 2012

    December 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  29. Brian

    Only smart Americans support Ron Paul. That's why he's usually polling at 8-12%. Most Americans aren't too bright.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  30. tonyl

    GOP needs to split in four parties. 1) Extremist religious fanatics(Gingrich, Santorum, Palin, Perry) 2) Moderates fiscal conservatives(Romney, huntsman, Pawlenty) 3) constitutionalists party (Ron Paul), 4) Crazy nuts party (All the other nuts like Trump, Herman godfather Cain, Giuliani the crook, etc.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  31. Dan

    The GOP has it's best chance if Paul is nominated. Gingrich only appeals to the far right conservative base and will bring in few independents or Democrats. Though, the GOP and Murdoch are still trying to hide Paul's success. There isn't a mention of Ron Paul on the Fox News home page.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  32. Romesh

    It has required a crisis in American for many to now deeply question the status quo and take a much deeper look at who they plan to vote for. Because of Ron Paul, even folks who normally have little to do with politics are learning about the Constitution, the Federal Reserve, America's deployment of troops in 150 countries, why the drug war is failing and how it can be won, specific ways to reduce the deficit and save our future. This is an exciting time and, whether you like him or not, the growing discussions will good for America and rest of the world. God Bless Ron Paul and hope that he stays healthy and fit for the road ahead.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  33. Bob Brewer

    I'm glad to see that someone is finally acknowledging the strength of Ron Paul. I believe he's the most underestimated member of the field. Dr. Paul, being from Texas, has long experience with the caucus process. I'll be voting for him in the Texas Caucus.

    My greatest hope for this election, would be a choice between the visions of the role of government, of Paul and O'Bama.

    Ron Paul is a brilliant man. You always ask him if he'll run as an independent. The answer will always be no. Dr. Paul knows that since the debates fell from the hands of the League of Women Voters, to The Commission on Presidential Debates (The corporation, owned by the democrat and republican parties, created to keep third party candidates from the national debates.) He would never get the chance to debate. A third party run for Dr. Paul will never be in his plan.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  34. Pimpson

    It doesn't matter what he does in a caucus. On a ballot he's gonna get slaughtered.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  35. Argie57

    May surprise you and the rest of the media who kept him out because he doesn't fit your narrative.

    Well, he fits ours.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  36. Cynthia Lapher

    This is nice to hear. But really, given Dr. Paul's numbers in Iowa, I am a little sick of these folks in the media trying to pretend that this is a surprise....Why? Because in spite of your best efforts to limit Dr. Paul in the debates, in spite of your efforts to keep Ron Paul out of the media discussion at ever turn, in spite of your efforts to talk down to him when the media does include him, in spite of the fact that he has been ridiculed to his face too many times to count, in spite of the fact that when he is interviewed he is used as a commentator on the other candidates rather than as a resource to discuss his own positions.... In spite of EVERYTHING the media has done to hide him, his message has gotten out. It's no surprise to those of us who have heard his message because once you hear it, you've heard the truth and you can not unring the bell. So, his supporters are not blindly following him. Or reacting to repetitive name recognition. They support him because they know and they understand the issues and they know that a vote for any other Republican candidate may as well be a vote for Obama because they are all the same and work for the same corporations that Obama does. In spite of the media's best efforts, the people are waking up. That must be hard for all of the corporate owned media talking heads. How are they going to explain that to their corporate bosses??? 😀

    December 13, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  37. 27Reasons

    Ron Paul wins EVERY poll that real Americans actually get to vote in, and he does it by landslide victory each time. The truth will prevail. Most Americans are not as stupid as MSM believes them to be. RON PAUL in 2012!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  38. exodus84

    He might be crazy but crazy like a fox! This is the only "mainstream" candidate I would consider voting for. The rest are flipflopping lying sacks of garbage the prey on most Americans who have extremely short memories and attention spans. While everyone wants to blame one person for this economical mess whether it be Obama or Bush or whoever Ron Paul has been talking about it at the root cause of the problem for YEARS! I hope he wins and gains some momentum.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Jason

      RON PAUL 2012 !

      December 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • C. Glasl

      You are right on the money. Ron Paul is the only one that I actually believe to be a public servant, rather than a greedy politician. He is honest, hardworking, and not afraid to buck the system to do what he believes is right. And his supporters are gaining momentum. We are ready for Ron Paul in 2012!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • John Tarver

      It is so unfortunate Ron Paul's supporters have such a negative reaction to not getting their way. When War was Declared in 1812 the Federalists held up in Connectecut and plotted secession.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • rb

      I agree...Too many good people out there rely on 30 second tv ads. I implore you to just do a little research into the top three or four candidates and you will find none more honest thatn Ron Paul. 30 years and has never voted against the constitution. These other "Candidates" have all flip flopped and will say whatever to get your vote. When voting don't think of it as Democrat vs Republican...think of the issues and what makes sense...above all please use CRITICAL thinking skills.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
  39. Greg

    I'm not a smart man allthough some people say I am. I don't understand the questions the media ask, many times, of the politicians and certainly don't understand the answers. I get angry with the politicians not answering the question. I understand exacatly what Ron Paul says. Why does the media give time to people who won't answer the question. I'm very alert to the lack of attention to Ron Paul. Ron Pauls message is truth and it's compelling.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Howard

      If Ron Paul is such hot stuff and the apostle of "truth," how come he's never been elected to statewide office in Texas? Because he knew he never had a prayer in heck. If the people in your own state won't embrace you, why should anyone else?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • michael o.

      I'm just loving watching the "serious news people" call this one. CNN is trying to stay relevant, but they aren't and they know it. The real news is online and that is what scares the pants off of the major networks! The 4th estate has failed. they have LOST their bearings. they are more interested in being "friends" with the "powers that be" than reporting the news as it is. they are unwilling to say it like it is for fear that they won't get to go to the right party's and such.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
    • Heather

      Amen to that! Ron Paul is blatantly ignored by the media. My only guess why is that the powers that be consider him a true threat to the way things are run now. I am pleasantly surprised to see Wolf write about him in his blog. I think he does have the support to take Iowa, and if that happens, surely the media won't be able to continue ignoring him for long.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • voter

      For some reason the media pays very little or no attention to Ron Paul, I think it may have something to do with his honesty. I'm starting to think they will only endorse liars and flipfloppers...

      December 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • ddblah

      Yes, just like Messiah.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
  40. mnolan

    Finally some decent news, Ron Paul is the only candidate for 2012!!! Check out the new PPP poll out today. As much as the main stream media wants to annoint the nominee for the Repubs, in this new era of information that power is being shifted back to the people!!!!! The high majority of Americans from all political spectrums would flock to RonPaul if they were allowed to hear what he has to say about liberty and freedom. And that may well be happening, due to the persistence and passion of RP and his massive following, and the internet!!!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  41. sthomps

    If you have ever read any of his books, you would know that Ron Paul can (and will) set this Country back on the right track again. He's honest, intelligent and understands what needs to be done and cannot be bought off by the special interests. If you want to avoid seeing this Country go bankrupt, put him in office. Just be prepared to tighten your belts for a lean eight years and support him.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • WhereIsPalin

      I read End The Fed. Paul is a total whack job.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
  42. Pelle

    I'd gladly vote for Paul if he wasn't so rabidly anti-choice. If he's for small government, that includes women's rights. He's not a true libertarian or small government believer if he thinks the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. So no, I won't be voting for such a selective hypocrite.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Maltheus

      So you'll be voting for one of the full on hypocrites then?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • Pelle

        Not sure who I am voting for. I am just tired of everyone saying how wonderful Paul is when he is just as hypocritical as any other candidate.

        December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • Jon

        Ron Paul is personally pro-life (anti-choice), but believes the argument/decision should be made at the state level and not by the federal government. I am strongly pro-choice and see no better candidate than Ron Paul on this issue (or in general). What's amazing is that Ron Paul's position actually unifies pro-life and pro-choice advocates, something I've not seen from other mainstream politicians.

        December 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • 27Reasons

      Ron Paul would leave this to the states. Live where you feel comfortable; case closed. Ron Paul is the only honest candidate.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • DisemboweledFetuses

      Ron Paul is pro-life but his belief doesn't matter....he would still let the states decide.


      "At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

      December 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Jim

      He's not anti-choice. He's against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT making laws it has no business making and letting the states decide. On a personal level he is against abortion, but that does not mean he would (or could) outlaw it. It means he would let the states decide whats best for the states....

      December 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
    • Cynthia Lapher

      Then perhaps you should take the time to check out Ron Paul's position on that since you are so rabidly pro abortion to the point where you care of nothing else. His position on abortion is that the Federal Government should stay out of it and send the issue back to the states where in his opinion, it belongs... now that we have that cleared up for you....How do you feel about killing thousands of innocent people in the Middle East that have already been born? You ok with that? How do you feel about the rights of women (and men, and children) being wiped out last week in the Senate when they voted to do away with due process for American Citizens? You can deal with that can you? Still absolutely have to have your "rights" To abortion protected by the FEDERAL government? The state won't do? Considering the fact that Ron Paul is the Champion of the constitution, it is not likely that he will be doing anything that would involve an executive order on this abortion issue anyway – so your indignant argument Dr. Paul using this one issue just seems ridiculous given all the other issues.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • Sam

      I believe he is in fact pro-choice, but is a strong proponent of it being a state-decided matter and not a matter of the federal government.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Mr E

      Perhaps you should try learning things for yourself and not rely on what you thought you heard or what someone told you. Ron Paul is very much against abortion, as a moral issue, however he has said numerous times that the federal government has no business in the abortion debate, for or against it. But, instead, is a state by state issue and the states should be allowed to exercise their constitutional power to regulate abortions as they see fit. That seems to be the very epitome of choice.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • David

      While he is personally anti-choice, he believes that its not the federal governments job to say what you can and cannot do with your body. He is the embodiment of a true conservative republican who doesn't let crap like this distract the rednecks from the real issue, the economy. Ron Paul 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Webster

      Pelle, I understand your concern with Mr. Paul but there is a larger issue even libertarians like myself struggle with and it concerns rule of law. The problem with "pro life" and "pro choice" is that both sides often advance unsound legal arguments. Until our higest court, hopefully using best available science says exactly when life starts then arguments that abortion should be legal or illegal are unsound arguments. You see, if a fetus is a human at some point then it deserves due process under law. The idea and rhetoric that abortions are "choices" are as flawed as calling many other things a "choice". There are many choices in life that remain illegal. I'm not religious but I always advance consistent legal arguments. Mr. Paul is pro-life for many reasons, but if you take the time to listen to him it isnt solely because of his personal religious beliefs. He, like many other libertarians (and some libertarians who have no problem with abortion) do not agree with Roe v. Wade because it was very bad law. It was bad law because it never addressed when life starts and without answering that question you have not given due process to the fetus. Now some people will draw a line in the sand and say "so what" but if you want to be truly free you have to be consistent in the application of law. If the standards applied in the R v W decision were applied to other things we would have dire consequences. Mr. Paul is consistent which is more than we can say for Obama and the other republicans.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • Josh

      Have you even done a bit of research? Or are you just parroting the media? True, Paul believes in pro-life. But what he says is that the federal gov't has no right to intervene in the matter. It should be left up to the states. In that case, some states will be pro-life and some will be pro-choice. RESEARCH makes you smarter. Try it.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • Bob Brewer

      I think you'll find that Dr. Paul is against Roe v. Wade in that the federal government has no constitutional right in the case. It falls to the states to regulate. Though he does state his personal view as pro-life, Paul always decides law by it's legality under the constitution. (personally I'm for choice.)

      December 13, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • Dave B

      The constitution was written to limit federal government power over the people. His stance on this is to leave the decision of legality regarding abortion to the states as it states nowhere in the constitution that abortion should be legal or illegal. However, the constitution does explicitly state that those issues not covered in the constitution will be left to the the states as it's written in the articles and in the 10th amendment.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Imo

      Not sure where you got this info, but read his books, review his voting record, and stop reading innacurrate blogs. He's all about choice. He's not about the govt telling anybody what they can and cant do. He's been on eof the strongest supporters of choice throughout his career.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Dr Dave

      If you actually followed Ron Paul and all of the candidates then you would know that Ron Paul is against the government dictating "choice". He wants to get rid of all federal mandates and allow each state to decide for itself. He might be against abortion himself but he's not against the rights of anybody else to choose to have an abortion.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • DC

      I don't agree with his stance on women's rights, but I do agree that it should be up to states to decide about reproductive health and not the federal government. So while I disagree on his stance, I agree with his argument of who should make the final decision. GO RON GO!

      December 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • Heather

      True RP is very pro-life, but more than that he is PRO states-rights. Under him he would say each state can make their own decision about abortion, much like they do the death penatly. I'm pro-choice too, but knowing this is his platform doesn't sway me from voting for him.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • EG

      Just to clarify, he will religate this to a states rights issue, meaning that states will have the choice. There are plenty of liberal states that will allow abortions under a Ron Paul presidency. Localizing laws allows the laws to vary and more accurately reflect the people's wishes, as people have much more influence over local/state government than federal government. This is the design of the constitution and it is quite an elegant solution. Turning away from this design has turned people against each other, with each side at each others throats. The state solution allows everyone to have what they want.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Chris

      Actually I think while it might be his belief that he is pro life his policy is to let each individual state to decide on what it should do, as the constitution says and not make it a federal law. So I dont see why that one issue should be stopping you from voting for someone you agree with on all the other issues

      December 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • Justin

      Paul is for state's rights. The most he'll do is try to make it so states aren't forced to keep abortion legal. What this means is that if you live in a liberal state then his pro-life stance won't affect you at all. I'm okay with risking the rights of women in red states if it means we can fix our economy and end wars. Every 4 years we get to choose what is most important. We can never have it all.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • nickel

      You misunderstand Ron Pauls stand on this. He is in no way hypocritical on this issue. He is personally very pro-life in his own right. Being an OB/GYN for decades has led him to this decision. However, he does not propose to force his own personal beliefs on everyone else. He simply states that the federal government has no business sticking its nose into this issue. The constitution does not give them the power. Therefore, he is entirely consistent with his small federal government principles. I have no idea how you can state otherwise. He would leave it up to the individual states to decide. We are a very diverse nation and Ron Paul does not believe in the federal government legislating morality onto the entire population. He believes that if the people of California want to have legalized abortions, that is their right. If the people of North Dakota want to make it illegal, that is their right. Either way, the people of that state have a much greater chance of having their voices heard and being a part of the political process than if it is decided in Washington, DC, where special interests and big money control the debate. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people cannot seem to understand this concept and everyone wants to force their own morality on the rest of the country– on BOTH sides of this debate. People like Santorum and Bachmann, while I admire their own personal convictions, are intent on forcing those convictions on the rest of the nation. People on the pro-choice side are also intent on forcing their beliefs on everyone else. Let the states decide!! Get the federal government completely out of the issue. I hope that you can now see that there is no hypocrisy on Ron Pauls part!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • think

      The cornerstone of libertarianism is the principle that everyone can exercise their freedom without boundaries – until it effects someone else. You may not use your freedom to harm another. That's my problem with abortion. A fetus has unique DNA, it's own heart, it's own brain. If you do not interfere, it becomes a viable living human. So it seems to me that abortion violates the principle that you should not harm another person.

      Also – Ron Paul's position would be that Roe v Wade should be repealed because it's not the job of the federal government to rule on such things. He'd let states decide that – just like he would for gay marriage.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
      • Tannim

        Just because all the parts are in the garage doesn't mean one has a car.

        One can also argue that by providing the womb and feeding for the fetus, that the woman is interfering with its development by supplanting natural development. Of course, that's ludicrous, but so is the idea that at conception a new human being is created, when it is not true–lotta things have to happen before that condition is met.

        December 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Emilyjbug

      I think Paul clearly states in his book "Liberty Defined" that women's rights, specifically on abortion should be up to the states, not the federal government. Constitutionally the government has no place to police what I do with my body (pro choice or anti choice). Perhaps in his personal opinion he does not condone abortion but he recognizes that this choice is not going to be the same for everyone. But if you're arguing that states should have no say then....

      December 13, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • B Le F

      The reason he's pro-life is because he's a doctor and knows that taking a life is wrong, no matter what age the person is.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Jason

      Why do you equate small government to anti-womens rights? How can you say he is anti-choice? He is saying is that people should have more choice, and the government should stay out of it.
      Why do you prefer the socialistic approach where the government gets to decide for you?

      December 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • C. Glasl

      Although he is personally against a womans right to choose, he is a Strong backer of states rights, and doesn't believe that it is the Federal Governments job to make laws on issues like that. I am also Pro-choice, but this one issue will not make me vote against the only Honest Politician running. At least with Ron, you get no surprises, not say this to get elected, then do that instead. I will fight tooth and nail to protect a womans right to choose, and Ron Paul is still my guy.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:27 pm |

      Ron Paul believes in personal liberty. Although he will not legislate social issues, he will leave decisions up to you.

      It is not the Federal Governments mandate to legislate morals.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Victoria

      What are you talking about??? Ron Paul wants the Fed Gov out of our personal lives completely! Any of the issues you are concerned about will be up to the states to deal with... move to a state where you like their choices. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can save this nation!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • indie-voice

      He wants abortion out of Federal jurisdiction, and in the jurisdiction of the states.

      Want an abortion? Move to a state that allows them.

      To me, that sounds like a choice.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Florence Cline

      Pelle, I hope you will bear with me as I try to explain to you Dr. Paul's position on abortion and the legal issues involved. First of all, his political opinion is that the legal decisions concerning abortion should be determined by the states, not by the federal government because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to determine such a thing, as well as many other things. His personal and professional view, as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, is that all life is precious and that life does indeed begin at conception, as he believes there is ample medical evidence to verify. His story of how he came to that conclusion is very compelling though I warn you that it is difficult to read about – he tells it in two of his books, Liberty Defined and The Revolution. The woman who is "Jane Roe" in Roe vs Wade is a strong Ron Paul supporter and pro-life activist. You can find the story of her change of heart in Wikipedia. He is completely correct in stating that as a doctor, he could be sued for injuring a baby moments after it is born, but be held completely harmless and even be paid for the act, if he aborts it moments before it is born. This kind of inconsistency makes no sense and is hard to rectify, no matter how much you wish that abortion be legal. This is a difficult and complex subject that requires a great deal of careful thinking and soul searching. I encourage you to continue to carefully explore the ideas and concerns surrounding this issue.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Jason

      You've got to be kidding me. Which corrupt moral ethics did you have to ignore to convince yourself that any other candidate is a viable option?

      December 13, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • Java McPhearson

      Just the opposite, Paul's position is that as a single entity, the federal government, should not have the right to impose a choice on all people. For our own safety, the states should decide individually, so that there is the opportunity for pockets of people, who share the same values, to coexist. A centralized decision of values across all people sets the stage for malicious control of all people, and the protection against government tyranny above all is to defuse that central control.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Ryan

      Yes Pelle... you will be voting for one of the full hypocrites? By the way, Paul suggests that states should take the issue. It wont really matter if abortion is legal in the federal level or not if the country continues to head toward insolvency.

      Ron Paul 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Mark

      Paul does not see an unborn baby as part of your body. If you and your unborn baby were injured in a car wreck, the person who caused the wreck could be held liable for the baby. At some point that baby becomes a separate entity with legal rights and protections.

      Paul would work to remove federal jurisdiction and return the issue to the states. Roe v. Wade was a mistake (not the Supreme Court's first). The federal government should not be weighing in on this issue at all. It is too personal and too high stakes to be decided by a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Tyren

      Hes anti-choice, but doesn't think the government should be saying whether or not that's okay. Hes also against the drug war, but doesn't endorse the use of drugs. Following the pattern? It's a constitutional thang.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • rar76

      The right to "kill" unborn children should not be given to anyone. However, with Paul, this decision goes down to the states.
      I am a rabid pro-lifer, but I accept Paul's position. The Federal government in Washington should not tell people in Utah or California what to do about abortion, marriage, pot, or which customers to serve... These should be all judged by the voters in each state, and if I don't like my state... I'll vote with my feet.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Justin Buell

      I'm pro-choice, and I'm voting for Ron Paul. Even if he went 8 years as president he wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. He's said repeatedly it's not on the top of his list.

      Put it this way, if 6 straight years of Evangelical Republican rule in Washington under George W. Bush didn't lead to a prohibition on abortion... Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending it.

      On the other hand: He will bring the troops home, he will re-engage the world in diplomacy rather than warfare, he will respect the rule of law, he will restore our civil liberties, he will stop the reign of corporate control over our government, he will start to reverse our national debt, and he will be the first honest man in the White House since JFK.

      I honestly don't see where your argument gets off the ground, man.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Traci

      Pelle – Ron Paul is not anti-choice. His stance is that it is your body and you should be able to do what you want with it. You will have more rights under a Paul presidency and not less.

      Ron Paul wants the federal government to stay out of all of our lives.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Craig C

      That's not true actually. He personally is pro-life but he does not bring that view to office.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • Really?

      I'm wondering if you lie about other things too. Try actually learning something about him. Or are you scared like a little 4 year girl that the truth might hurt you?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • msadr

      I'm with you on that subject for sure. But I decided that one issue, which the President doesn't control anyway, can't disqualify a candidate who has everything else right. The law has already decided in favor of women. It would take extreme effort from many people to overturn that law. The President does not have the power to do that. The only thing a President can do is nominate an anti-choice judge, but Congress still must approve the nomination. In short, his stance on Choice has little to do with the Presidency.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • MarileeBob

      There will never be a candidate that I agree with 100% on all issues, but I agree with Ron Paul about the majority of the issues, the ones I consider to be very important. Women's right to choice is something that is brought up a lot with him, and I am pro-choice, but I realize there isn't much he can do to change the current laws as long as people stand up for those rights. This isn't a deal breaker for me because I know there are more pressing issues he can help with, and it isn't easy to take away our rights as women.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • Ken

      Ron Paul only asserts that the federal government has no right telling the states what to do outside of the constitution – otherwise why even have states? It's easy to nitpick Ron Paul on our personal issues. I personally like having a large national defense, but the country is BANKRUPT and I'm willing to see cuts in order to save my children's future . Ron Paul won't outlaw abortions, but he'll give states the right to do so. I'm pro-choice, and I don't see an issue with that.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • Matthew Gaitan

      Pelle, you have your facts wrong. Ron Paul makes it extremely clear that on a PERSONAL level he is pro-life, – HOWEVER, he also believes the president of the U.S nor the federal government should EVER dictate what anyone should do with their body. The issue of abortion is something he believes should be decided at a STATE level, meaning it may very well be possible that we have states where abortion is legal, and others where it is illegal. Those decisions need to be made by people like you and me within the governance of our state. That is the kind of country we will be living in when Paul becomes president.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Kev


      The abortion issue is a red herring. It doesn't matter if a candidate is pro-choice or pro-life or even pro-accountability. Until someone can definitively prove Roe v Wade harms a person, and we will NEVER be able to do that, the law will never be over-turned. No reasonable person should use abortion as a decision behind backing a politician.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Ryan

      He is not "rabidly" anti-choice. In fact, he believes the Federal government should stay out of it and leave it up to the states thus preserving women's rights. Hope that clears that up.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Freedom Fighter

      Actually, he would not outlaw abortion. He has adamantly stated that it should be decided by the states. He is following the 10th amendment, which is what true small govenrment consitutionalists do, and he is one. So please actually do some research on his beliefs before you make a claim about someone. He would allow the states to decide, and consitutionally that is the right thing to do.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • todd

      He's is not proposing that your rights be infringed upon, instead he is protecting the fetus's right to life. I'm not sure how that contradicts libertarian beliefs

      December 13, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • T

      Wow...Amazing that eyes could be so blinded as to throw away a good vote for the sake of abortion...ABORTION! Unbelievable... you know what– you'll get what you vote for and I tell you what it's a pack of lying, thieving, power hungry, war mongering, corporatists- left AND right... Wake up!

      December 13, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Tyler K.

      Pelle, Ron Paul does not believe in abortion, But he doesnt believe that should be up to the federal government to decide what you can do to your body. Your opinion is ignorant and moot. I suggest you do more research and post a better response. Thank you.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • L. KIrsanow

      I'm pro-choice myself and I don't think R.P. is hypocritical at all. He's personally anti-choice and didn't offer abortions in his medical practice. As it is his choice to do, but he's not saying woman can't have a choice. He doesn't think the federal government has any place to make that choice. He feels that is a state issue. At least he's consistent with his views and not hypocritical like the other candidates have proven themselves to be on most issues.

      You know exactly where he stands.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Jeff

      Ron Paul is strongly pro-life in his personal beliefs, but he does not think that the Federal government has jurisdiction in this area. He is a strong advocate for states rights, and advocates the repeal of the Federal government dictating to the rest of the states on this issue. However, the President does not have the authority under the Constitution to write any laws. Therefore, not much is going to change under a Ron Paul administration, just like not much changed regarding abortion when "pro-life" GWH Bush I and GW Bush II served as president for a total of 12 years. Nevertheless, Ron Paul's suggestion that the decisions be made as locally as possible would serve most people on this divisive issue. There is no question that "liberal" states such as California, New York, and Massachusetts will always have state laws which permit abortion to be safe and legal since the majority of voters in those states support the pro-choice position. There is one thing that Ron Paul has the power to do, and that is to bring the troops home, end the foreign wars and bombings, and introduce a budget that will reduce the overspending of the Federal government by $1 TRILLION in the first year.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • correction

      Do some research. Ron Paul does not agree with abortion, but he realizes it is an inevitable truth. Women will either hitch a ride to Mexico or force miscarriages in the most cruel and unhealthy manner, so it's best to leave it legal and not be an infringement on one's personal liberty. He states that he would not force laws incriminating abortion, but government has no responsibility to pay for a woman's right to kill her future children through Medicaid. So please close your legs if your scared of having children and can't afford an abortion or to take care of the child. You should be trying to straighten your life out anyway without relying on a wealthy 'sugar-daddy'.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
  43. Meece

    Ron Paul 2012

    December 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  44. Scott Lord

    "Ron Paul: Simple. Honest. Nuts."

    Nuts: Schooling us on debt before we cared, schooling us on Iraq ebfore we cared, schooling us on The Fed before we cared, schooling us on nutty politicians before we cared.... not nuts, just pulling the peanuts out of politics.

    I wouldn't say simple either - because in order to agree with Paul you have to read some books to understand. Every other politician wants to make us mope and vote, instead of learn and prosper.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Shawn Irwin

      Some people in the forum call Ron Paul nuts . . . . well . . . . if he is nuts, than the people we have in Washington are stupid and nuts . . . . It was not Ron Paul that voted for all the stupid wars that are draining the US economy and destroying the image of America abroad. It was not Ron Paul that has been pushing the whole world toward complete militarization to the point that the only outcome, if we keep at it will be nuclear annilation . . . . so before you start hacking on Ron Paul, take a good look at what we have in Washington now.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
      • dave

        Ron Paul cannot win. What he can do, with the help of the liberal press, is convince people that he can, just like they did with Ross Perot . Remember him? Anyone not paying attention to history is doomed to repeat it.

        A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Splitting the vote between Republicans & Independants is a sure way to guarantee a Democrat win in 2012. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

        December 13, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Daniel Walker

        Shawn if you re-read the post you replied to I think you'll find that he was being sarcastic.

        December 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Lexi

      The only candidate I like personally is Ron Paul. It's too bad he's a joke candidate. He does appear to be quite pleasant, but a little bit too weak.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
      • Tannim

        Advocating peace, prosperity, and limited government is "weak" and a "joke"? What reality are you not in?

        December 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • C. Glasl

      I think what you are saying is that Ron Paul is the right kind of nuts. I agree with you. It is just crazy enough to work. 🙂

      December 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  45. Phyllis

    Anybody but Gingrich. He is a big government, wife-cheating fossil.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Victoria

      He is much worse than that! He wants to "end" the Constitution. He is a traitor.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Jason

      Anybody but gingrich is a start, but keep going until you develop an even more finely tuned preference. When we vote for anybody but, it can be and often is as bad as the person you didn't want. So the clear choice of course is going to be Ron Paul, yes.. Ron Paul was the correct answer 🙂

      December 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  46. robrt m. simon

    I hope he does more than win Iowa.A Mitt or Newt nomination means an Obama re-election.....Contrary to the poppycock peddled by the professional pols...

    December 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Conservative4life

      Sorry, not true, most of us will vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination even if it is not our first choice. All of us want to see Obama ousted.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
      • Tannim

        That's scary.

        So if Paul doesn't get teh nomination you'll zombie vote in a GOP big-government statist over a DP big government statist.

        How does THAT solve any of America's problems?

        December 14, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  47. Scott Lord

    Considering the 15% of Democrats that would vote for Paul in the general election, and that Iowa voters poll that Paul has the best chance to beat Obama in the general, it would be no surprise at all if Paul actually gets somewhere.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  48. donald stokes

    i am a born and bred democrate but ron paul has all the right ideas, i really hope he does better/////// i will cross lines and vote for him

    December 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • Taylor

      Don't vote for a democratic or republican president, VOTE FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT! RON PAUL 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • C. Glasl

      Thank you for standing with your priciples, rather than the party line. That is how politics should be. We should vote for the best person, not just the one with an R or a D. Ron Paul 2012! A man of the people, for the people.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • Victoria

      That's awesome! Just make sure you're registered Republican (if your state requires it) so you can vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  49. Willow

    I think that people might start looking at Ron Paul, but I wish they would look at Huntsman, he is stable and sane.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • robrt m. simon

      You mean insane ....He worked for Obama.Ron Paul is the sanest of the bunch.And that includes Obama too...

      December 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
      • MTthinker

        No, Huntsman is an adult. You may not like our current president, yet if he calls on someone with a specific skill set to take on a very important task like being the ambassador to China the adults gather their panties and go to work. The majority of the spoiled, it should all be about me, politicians don't get that – leaving us in the whole we are in now.

        December 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
    • Man inNh

      I don't trust huntsman because he is a Trained Diplomat. Trained to lie. I'm tired of the Game Show Hosts we have had for POTUS. I want a President who will tell us the truth whether we want to hear it or not. We need to know the truth to make reasonable choices in our lives. The Government Bureaucracy does not have a resolution of one size fits all because that is the Hippocracy. The world needs us to stop the corruption in our Government that bleeds the world through the Federal (as Federal as Federal Express) Reserve and it's closed door policies concerning the World Wealth and function.
      Only Ron Paul can do this as he can not be bought.

      Ron Paul 2012
      Restore America Now!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • Jason

      Jon Huntsman would make an excellent VP to Ron Paul.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
      • Tannim

        He'd make a better SecState...

        December 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  50. Bill

    Ron Paul tells it like it is, and has for 30 years.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  51. gary c

    WOW! A story that not only mentions Ron Paul, but actually uses his name in the HEADLINE and shows a photo! What is happening to this race? Next thing you know, Buddy Roemer will be invited to a debate. The hunt for the elusive Not-Mitt continues......

    December 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Matt

      Good invite Buddy to a debate. I would vote for him.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  52. Jeff

    If he wins, it won't be a suprise at all to a lot of us.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  53. Phil in KC

    It's a scary proposition, but I think you're right, Wolf. I have seen pictures of the campaign headquarters for Romney and Gingrich – no one there and no equipment to speak of. Ron Paul's, by contrast, was alive and jumping. If you don't have people showing up and speaking on behalf of your candidate, you can't expect to do well. Remember, to get a delegate to go on to the next level, your candidate has to be viable. If they do not have enough people to be deemed viable, those people will go to another candidate. Of course, that's one of the things I like about the Iowa caucuses. If your guy (or woman) isn't one of the leaders, you get a chance to vote for your 2nd choice. So, yeah, Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann could surprise us. I don't know much about Perry's ground game there, except he's been making appearances. I really don't think Santorum will do that well, though. He has just never been one of the leaders and doesn't seem to be catching much of a spark. It's like he's the 2nd or 3rd choice for too many people.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • robrt m. simon

      It's a scary propisition that Mitt or Newt could get the nomination...

      December 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • 27Reasons

      This is the truth that the media would NEVER have you see on television!

      December 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  54. Jim

    Organizational skills are important for a president. The GOP has shown a very consistent pattern this cycle: fight their way into the media, enjoy front runner status, shoot themselves with idiotic statements. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, now Gingrich is next. Dr Paul will get his 15 minutes, and scrutiny of his record will be enlightening to Americans.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Ryan

      What will the scrutiny of his record show? That he has voted with the Constitution every time? Please explain why that is wrong?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
  55. JamesFromLakeGenevaWI

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who has been consistently for small government and is not a flip-flopper. He is the only one who realizes the value of our men and women in uniform and will not send them around the globe to be the world's police force. He is the one person who can ask the people of our nation to live with less government because he is the one candidate does not make many off of government or by being part of businesses and organizations that do. NONE of the other candidates will do anything to change that status quo – if ANY of them had any courage or leadership they could submit their own version of a balanced budget instead of kicking the can down the road. Ron Paul if the only hope this nation has of not becoming a bankrupt disaster.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • Pelle

      How is being rabidly anti-choice for small government? I guess it doesn't matter to you, James, being a dude & all, but it does to some of us gals. When the government tells you what you can do with your body, that's the scariest big government of all. But perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on Dr. Paul – after all, he's 76 years old & probably doesn't know women can actually vote.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • MarileeBob

      Ron Paul 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
  56. FlopFlipper

    I don't think Ron Paul's bus drivers can make that much of a difference on a statewide election. Its one thing to bus 6 or 8 thousands fans to a conference, its another to organize millions of residents and motivate them to vote for you.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • 27Reasons

      Paul's support is nationwide. There are plenty of online polls to prove it. Too bad MSM never mentions them.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • Chromedome

      So, it's okay for Obama to win by mobilizing a bunch of fools and telling them he will save them with hope and change? Why do you think some Democrats are moving to Ron Paul? Because they realize that we must have someone who will stick to his principles and tell the American people the truth about everything. The groundswell for Ron Paul is building.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  57. Bad Dog

    Ron Paul: Simple. Honest. Nuts.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • EG

      Frankly I think getting off the gold standard in 1971 so we can continue living beyond our means and funding wars/programs we cannot afford until the system inevitably crashes is what is nuts. I believe this event is what compelled Ron Paul into politics. We are reaping now what has been sown because we have not been listening.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • nickel

      I guess if you are not intelligent enough to win a debate on the issues, resulting to insults is the way to go. You can throw insults all you want, because I'm sure you cant win an intellectual debate with most Paul supporters. I have met the most active, inspired, and intelligent citizens in the Paul supporters. They are all well versed in economics, foreign policy, and political philosophy. Someone like you can probably only regurgitate media talking points and have no idea how to research issues and form your own opinion based on reason and logic. On election day, please do your country a favor, stay at home and watch a sporting event or American Idol. Your country will be better for it!!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • indie-voice

      That means our troops are nuts, as they support Paul more than all other candidates combined.

      That means our founding fathers were nuts, because they wrote the constitution.

      I suggest you move to another country with a different rule of law and a more obedient military. Russia?

      December 13, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  58. glyder

    one of the few in government that give a damn about the constitution.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • MarileeBob

      Exactly, and it is so very refreshing.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
  59. Michael Bindner, Alexandria, VA

    Ron Paul may win Iowa, but Romney already has a network, so he may be operating under the radar screen.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Tannim

      Wall Street billionaires do not a network make.

      December 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  60. bill hill

    Cerebral effort is required to vote for Ron Paul;also some concern for posterity. I truely hope Iowa has it in them.."git er done"

    December 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • nickel

      Sadly, you are right. All of the Paul supporters I know didnt start out as Paul supporters. When they heard him speak, they actually did some research and found out he is right and is a modern-day statesman. Then they developed an interest in the issues, and are now some of the most intelligent and well-versed of all the political activists. Unfortunately, some people are just too busy and dont have the time, and others are just too lazy– so all they get are the media sound bites and talking points. But our numbers are growing– FAST!!!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  61. closetiguana

    Ron Paul's gain in the polls isn't a testament to his skills as a campaigner as much as it is how poorly the other candidates have done at impressing voters.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Loyal Yank

      Ron Paul's supporters wouldn't be organised if they weren't motivated. They wouldn't be motivated if they weren't excited. They wouldn't be excited if they didn't have something to be excited about. And they are excited about a wholly non-beltway approach to politics, and some tough, but necessary changes, both foreign and domestic. All of the other candidates are status quo. Iowa is going to Ron Paul. After that, who knows, but America needs REAL change. RON PAUL 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • chuck

      Ron Paul is different because he's genuine. He's not trying to sell a programmed message that was paid for by big pocket supporters like most politicians. That's why his appeal transcends the "political skills" you mentioned.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Ryan

      Perhaps his message resonates with people?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
  62. Griff

    "Obama as no democrate opponents? I think you mean he has no democrates. Only and idiot thinks like he does. 'I Am that I am' and nlobody else is better than me!"

    December 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  63. Reason&Truth

    Ron Paul 2012 – Freedom, Liberty and Peace...

    Ron Paul is the most honest and trustworthy candidate!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  64. TimC

    Unless you've been marginalizing a candidate, unless you've been biased in the reporting and air time you've given them, unless you've been taking statistically-questionable polls to support your organization's preferences, how would you call a win in the first state be an upset? The VOTERS should decide the candidates, not the media, not the polls, and not the parties.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • indie-voice

      It's an upset to them. They just want to pick a winner so they can gloat on their blogs. Doesn't matter who gets elected to them, as the money will keep rolling in, along with the marching orders.

      Oh, unless that guy is Paul. So it's a media balancing act between serving their bosses and trying not to look like total buffoons as they ignore a revolution.

      It's a Catch 22 for them, as if they ignore Ron Paul, they lose credibility and thus the ability to influence the common American. If they pay too much attention, they know Paul's message will catch fire and they'll be forced to become self-relient and accountable – two concepts the media hasn't understood in the last 50 years.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  65. Low Key in AZ

    In my opinion, Paul is the only one who has the ability to take down Obama. The rest of the conservative candidates only attract what they are. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, not only will he obviously get virtually all of the conservative voters (who will vote for ANYONE that isn't Obama) like the rest of the GOP field, but Paul has an astounding turnout in the youth demographic, as well as appealing politics to some moderates and most libertarians.

    If anyone but Paul gets the GOP nomination, Obama's got himself another four years. However, if Paul surprises the GOP and ends up winning the nomination...we may have President Paul.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • Val Rankov

      Totally agree. Ron Paul will get 100% of the republicans (no way they would vote for Obama), 30% from the former Obama suporters (myself), and maybe 80% of the independents. This will be a landslide of Biblical proportions.

      I would recommend him appointing Huntsman for VP. He is young, smart, and will learn a lot form the "Old dog".

      December 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  66. Erisian

    Half genius, half insane.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • The all potent one

      Which is a 50% improvement over the other candidates and our current leader

      December 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • nickel

      No offense, but I bet if you did some more research on the issues that you think his stance is insane, you would find that he is not insane on them– you were just uninformed or misguided.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Jacob

      Advanced thinking of the genius usually appears "crazy" to those still stuck in the old paradigms. Part of learning is experiencing dissonance, which may be your hang-up. Eventually, with increased understanding, you'll find that Ron Paul is one of the few "sane" politicians we have working for us. This is a rare opportunity we have to select this man as our leader. Hopefully enough of us will come this realization in time to make it happen.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
  67. lefty avenger

    Ron Paul is going nowhere close to the White House. Ron Paul is for ending the foreign middle eastern oil baron wars and the pointless drug war. To Republicans War is their bread butter and jam. The more wars there are, the more the republicans are happy. War is money and there is no profit in peace. War benefits the war profiteers and the oil barons. Without strife and a constant need to steal other countries oil, these top americans would earn nothing. Freedom will not come to america ever.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Joshy

      just have faith and vote for him even if its write in

      December 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Enigma-X

      Then lefty avenger why would you not vote for him? Register as a republican and vote if he stands for what you want. And stop being a naysayer.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
    • nickel

      It is so sad that you can only see things through you Republican-hating tunnel vision. Yes, the Rupubs want war– but so do the Dems. It wasnt Bush that was bombing Yemen and Libya. So much for that great anti-war candidate Obama! BTW, refresh my memory, is Gitmo closed yet? Obama has continued and EXPANDED Bushs policies– and he has grabbed even more power for himself than Bush had! Where are all you lefties complaining about the president having too much power and grabbing more? Oh, thats right, the current president now has a (D) behind his name, so you are silent. You are all setting yourselves up for a big fall, when Obama does to you what Dubya did to the Repubs!

      Why dont you quit voting based on (R) and (D), and instead vote for a statesman. There is only one true anti-war candidate on either side. Ron Paul 2012!!!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  68. Mike


    Given his unpredictability, what could possibly be surprising?

    December 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • The all potent one

      Seriously? He's had the same position for decades. He's the only one that is truely consistent

      December 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Ryan

      I would say Ron Paul is the most predictable person in office. If you know how a position stands relative to the Constitution, its pretty easy to determine how Ron Paul will vote.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
  69. Janet

    Better Ron Paul than Newt or Romney!

    December 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  70. Patriot Awesome

    I hope Ron Paul gets the republican nomination. I'm still going to vote for Obama, but at least Ron Paul isn't a dirt bag like the rest of the republican hopefuls. If the republicans had any respect for the American people they would nominate either Ron Paul or Huntsman.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • MarileeBob

      If he gets the nomination, I'll be voting republican for the first time ever. Change can be good!

      December 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
    • hoping

      Your are perfect evidence for why Ron Paul has a broader appeal than the other candidates. Although.. why would you vote for Obama again.. he doesn't support individual freedom. He is too afraid to stand up to oppression as his noble ancestors did.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
  71. Steve

    Ron Paul will take Iowa in a landslide, no question.

    His revolution movement is inspiring millions, not just in America, but all over the world.

    Dig deeper, Wolf, you'll discover what I say is true

    December 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
  72. democrat in Indiana

    So assume he wins the caucus. Big deal. Iowa does not represent the US. Its a bunch of isolated farmers. Clueless. He is a mid 70s Libertarian. There is a reason Libertarianism, like Marxism is a dogma that sounds nice on a college campus but when you grow up and get out in the real world, things change and you realize what a bunch of fluff it is. Ron and his ignorant followers may be loud but they're never going to win anything.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Loyal Yank

      In 1997 Indiana ranked ninth in sales of all crops, but fourth in sales of soybeans and fifth in sales of corn. Iowa's agriculture is only 3.5% of its GDP. Indiana, with its massive 6 million people, is a real testing ground for what America thinks? And what have you got against farmers any way? Are you anti-food, or something? Say something useful if you're going to bother in the first place. RON PAUL 2012

      December 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • max

      i dont think 4 or 8 years of a strict constitutional presidency would hurt us. we need the balance. big program, big spending dems and repubs have been driving the bus for too long.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Java McPhearson

      I respect that you are a Democrat as your name implies. If Obama represents the fulfillment of your ideals it is fortunate that you have that choice to support him. As far as characterizing Paul as a mid 70's viewpoint, I would suggest that his policies are nothing like those in control of the country in the mid 70s. Lets go back to the Truman era 20 years prior to which Paul would also object to. Should we adopt that notion that the US is the police of the world. Remember when another imperialist government's policy was "to make the world England"? Paul would suggest that we should have a federal government that protects the rights of states to exist and control their own destiny. To give a singular power over all people is to set the stage for tyrannical control. Paul, unlike any democrat or republican, is suggesting that centralized control of all people is not in their best collective interest. I agree with that.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • hoping

      Believing in real values such as freedom is fluff to you? If you look at the issues discussed the only one not talking fluff is Ron Paul. He actually explains the problem and then offers solutions. The others have no where near the extensive reasons for their answers as does Ron Paul. He actually has real answers instead of fluff.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • riverrat

      feel better now?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • riverrat

      scared aren't you?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
  73. Ron Paul will win it all

    i meant end "overseas" occupation of course..

    Either way VOTE RON PAUL..

    December 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Tannim

      Some of us wouldn't mind the end of federal occupation of the United States, too! 😀

      December 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  74. mondeo

    I hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. He is the ONLY Republican who can challenge and win against Obama. He is a true AMERICAN not one of the Israel ass-kissers who committ treason by succumbing to pressure and taking money from a foreign government.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  75. Jarrod

    I hope Mr. Paul gets the opportunity to stand opposite President Obama and debate the issues this coming Summer and Fall. It would give voters the chance (hopefully by a faithful electoral college) to give a definitive statement on what they think the role of government should be in maintaining the social contract.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • C. Glasl

      Yes! I can't wait to see Ron Paul debate Obama. I think that will be wonderful to see. Let's make sure it happens! Everyone, get out and vote... if you are in a Caucus state, make sure that you attend, and bring all your friends. Ron Paul needs America, and America needs Ron Paul!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  76. billion

    Mr. Blitzer is completely correct. Dr. Paul is climbing in New Hampshire too.

    Public Policy Polling in Iowa:

    Newt Gingrich 22%
    Ron Paul 21%
    Mitt Romney 16%
    Michele Bachmann 11%
    Rick Perry 9%
    Rick Santorum 8%
    Jon Huntsman 5%
    Gary Johnson 1%

    December 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  77. sllim

    Ron Paul is the only man in the presidential hunt that can save America.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • dave

      He may be, but so was Ross Perot. How'd that work out?

      December 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  78. Ron Paul will win it all

    This country needs Ron Paul.. his ability to unite both sides of the political spectrum is unlike any other candidate in many years..

    Restore Liberty and Freedom and sound money.. end oversees occupation.. EVERYONE VOTE RON PAUL.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  79. Dan Still

    I hope Ron Paul will be our next president. I will never vote for any republican or a demoract unless and until Ron Paul like figures are in our politics. He understand what ordinary americans want. He is someone i connect with, only person who can feel what an ordinary citizen of this country is going through.

    December 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  80. sir_ken_g

    Paul can help the GOP lose. Nothing more. A few rabid supporters pushing a crank.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  81. Lane

    If, and when, Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucas, I hope he at least gets the credit he deserves.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  82. the_dude

    Ron Paul is America's only hope. A vote for Obama or Gingrich is a vote for Bush.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  83. Mike N

    And in New Hampshire, be ready for Jon Huntsman.
    Maybe that would be a great team – Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. If people are concerned with Ron Paul's age, having Jon Huntsman in the VP spot would provide a great backup, plus a great candidate for 2016.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • nickel

      Not exactly sure where Huntsman stands on a few things like monetary policy. If he could align himself with Paul on some of that stuff, I could live with that ticket. Huntsman is very intelligent and not a war-monger. And I think it goes without saying that he would wipe the floor with Biden in the VP debate!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Tannim

      People concerned about Dr. Paul's age are clueless. He's in better health than most of the obese pigs in DC (as evidenced by Newt!). Perhaps the only candidate in better health is Obama, but he's also 30 years younger, too!

      December 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  84. Texana

    I do not plan to vote for Obama again, but could never bring myself to vote for Ron Paul. He would be a disaster for this country–for domestic and foreign policy.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Ryan

      I voted for Obama but was planning to vote for Paul. Could you please explain why he would be a disaster? I hear this alot but nobody has taken the time to actually state the reason why.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
      • Canuck

        I don't think he can without taking quotes from some pundit on TV.

        December 13, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
  85. MAVVV

    Ron Paul is the MAN.......he can do it if SHEEPLE will vote the right way. Nobody else is telling the truth like he is doing. Run Paul Run..............

    December 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  86. Tom Datsford

    Why would it be an upset win if Dr. Ron Paul won? Would it "upset" the mainstream media who has pushed fake conservatives down our throat? It sure wouldn't upset me because I'm hoping to bring back freedom, liberty and true conservatism back into American politics by voting for Dr. Paul.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  87. Matt

    The media is preparing for an upset. It wont take long for them to marginalize it, though. Either way, Ron Paul will do far better in Iowa than he did in the last election.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  88. Qamar

    I have always voted for Democrats, but will vote for Ron Paul if he is nominated. He is the only sane person in Republican nomination circus.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  89. Chris

    PPP just put Paul in a tie for first place in Iowa. And Paul is starting to close the gap in NH. Think it may be time to take him serious. If he wins Iowa and Places at least 2nd in NH, we're on our way to a brokered convention we will have to consider Paul as a potential nominee.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  90. max

    a positive story about Ron Paul. OMG, I think I went to the wrong website. Is this CNN?

    December 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  91. open400

    This guy's politics were discredited by 1941(America's entry into the Second World War) both domestically and internationally. Only the uneducated take this guy seriously.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Zavijava

      Really? It would seem that we were well positioned to respond precisely because the US had been largely observing his ideals prior. Perhaps, if we would stop operating as if the war had been continuing ever since and again store up our wealth and high opinion, we would be in a position save the world if called on again.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Tannim

      Dude, you need to study some history. Your claim is not only inaccurate (noninterventionism was never "discredited", just abandoned by fools) but temporally incorrect (see also Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, as well as FDR).

      December 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  92. Maltheus

    Good luck building up an organization over the holidays! And keep in mind that after getting the shaft non-stop for five years, most Ron Paulers aren't going to vote Romney or Gingrich if RP doesn't win the nomination. We also like Gary Johnson almost as well, and now that he's likely to run as a Libertarian, everyone will have a common, well-liked candidate to defect to (unlike in 2008 where Barr and Baldwin only had lukewarm support). This is already a Paul-Obama race. The GOPs only chance is to recognize that before Iowa.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  93. Anonymous

    If Ron Paul could win the nomination, he could definitely win the general elections. The only question is whether Republicans want to win the general elections.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • dave

      What he can do, with the help of the liberal press, is convince people that he can, just like they did with Ross Perot . Remember him? Anyone not paying attention to history is doomed to repeat it.

      A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Splitting the vote between Republicans & Independants is a sure way to guarantee a Democrat win in 2012. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm |

    Thank you Mr. Blitzer for one of the few fair pieces out of the MSM, and for referring to us as supporters, not fans.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  95. Brett

    Ron Paul is a man you can truly believe in. End the wars, end the fed, sound money!

    December 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • dave

      Merry Christmas! I see you still believe in Santa Clause. Remember Ross Perot? Split the party. Democrat won...

      December 13, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  96. Dani

    So what if he wins Iowa? Then what? Even if Paul won the GOP nomination, he'd never win a general election. When the American public finds out that ths guy would rather see them die from sickness/injury if they have no health insurance, there is no way in hell they will vote for this guy. He's as nutty as the rest of the GOP field (with the exception of John Huntsman).

    December 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • mnolan

      That is a complete misrepresentation and over simplification of the ideas of RON PAUL.. He thinks the Federal government does not have the authority to command the states, that is a state responsibility. Thank about it – local food – local government– the way to go

      December 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • 27Reasons

      You're quite misled my friend.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • dave

      That's what Wolf and his lefties are counting on! Ron Paul cannot win. What he can do, with the help of the liberal press, is convince people that he can, just like they did with Ross Perot . Remember him? Anyone not paying attention to history is doomed to repeat it.

      A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! Splitting the vote between Republicans & Independants is a sure way to guarantee a Democrat win in 2012. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

      December 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • EG

      I bet I could lead you off of a cliff if the TV repeatedly said it was safe.

      I hope you understand what I'm trying to tell you – that the Media has gone out of their way to misrepresent Paul and you're buying it. Make no mistake, he understands why people aren't insured: because medical care is so expensive – THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM. While he explains why this has happened and how he intends to slowly reverse this, and all you are shown is that he doesn't want people to have insurance and wants them to die. Seriously? It's time you take a closer look at this...

      December 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • chuck

      It's funny you say he would rather see people get sick and die. You're talking about someone who worked for a pittance as a doctor at charity hospitals. Can you or I say we've done that much? The federal government isn't the only way to get things done. In fact, I've observed that it's often the worst way.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • Tannim

      Funny, when asked that question, it was the corwd that said yes, but Paul said he'd treat the guy, and that he has treaetd people in the past for free. You really ought to get your facts straight instead of spouting nonsense.

      December 14, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  97. Griff

    "I also believe Paul will create enough conflict in the GOP, for who is really in the Ronning! I said so a couple of weeks back, after a debate, but not for any such special reason. It was a movie I watched about the overthrow of government in the USA, and he so resembled the actor. I think movies create all kinds of magic, because they're so fiction!"
    "I love fictional-conflict! It's what keeps the blood on this planet flowing!"

    December 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  98. andrew z

    it is good to see someone in the media aknowledge Ron Paul. In the past debate in Iowa he's the only one who didn't have to sell himself. He knows what REAL change is and how to go about it. All of the other canidates are arrogant especially newt and Rommeny both talk out of the sides of there mouths. Change will be painfull but these politicans have brought the system down for decades. Lets get Honest, if they know what that is. I'm 29 from Detroit have always followed poiliitcs and these two are just more of the same, REAL CHANGE starts with Ron Paul!!

    December 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  99. Angelo

    No Wolfman, Ron Paul is going to crush Iowa... and New Hampshire... S. Carolina.... get ready buddy.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • msadr

      The independents are voting for him here in Georgia too.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
  100. Joe C.

    Thank you for acknowledging Ron Paul's success in Iowa Wolf, personally I think the rest of your colleagues besides jack totally ignore him which is simply unprofessional journalism.

    Also, don't be surprised if Ron Paul puts up a tough fight in other states. People are beginning to listen to his message. His Facebook page gets just over 2,000 likes per day according to a Facebook statistics website, which is more than any other candidate.

    This will be very interesting to watch. The race should come down to Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. There's not just skeletons in Newt's closet, there's a whole graveyard. People will learn about his past eventually.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • 27Reasons

      This has been a two man race between Ron Paul and a 'status-quo' candidate from the start. They just can't agree on the other guy and its a sad competition. Ron Paul will get the bid despite the greatest attempts of this country's elite class.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
1 2 3

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.