5 votes

Why Santorum's surge is a GOOD thing for us.

After thinking about it- Rick Santorum's alleged surge in Iowa could be a good thing for Ron Paul long term....

Even if Santorum wins and Dr. Paul comes in second, it could end up proving helpful... Remember the straw poll? How it was actually somewhat better that Ron Paul came in a close second? Look at what happened to Bachmann after the straw poll....

We all know Ron Paul isn't going to drop out- we're going to keep supporting him and funding the campaign, and we have the caucus strategy ahead of us. However, even with all of our successes and gains, the fact of the matter is, the majority of the Republican party is still not with us completely- they're still stuck in the status-quo on foreign policy especially. We're actually lucky that there are so many candidates in the race- the longer there are more candidates, and the stronger they are- the more the status-quo vote will be split, improving our chances of coming out on top, or raising the possibility of a brokered convention.

If Santorum did poorly (as he deserves to do), he'd probably drop out of the race- if he does come out in the top three in Iowa though, it will keep him alive through the other early states, helping to prevent a consensus-anti-Romney from rising behind the likes of either Perry, Gingrich, or Bachmann.

I honestly don't know who I'd predict to win tomorrow- too many factors considering the newest polls... it's a three-way dead heat. We'll see how well organized the Paul campaign is, whether or not we can count on the young college, independent, and democrat votes, and who knows what other sorts of shenanigans we can expect from the party establishment and groups like the Occupy protestors. Of course I'm still hoping for a Ron Paul 1st place victory- but just keep in mind if it doesn't happen tomorrow, it's not the end of the world, and who knows, it might be for the best.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Definitely agree

as now santorum is on the chopping block and he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of staying there when the light shines directly on him.

To really think about winning this i think Paul needs to go on the attack against Romney at this point....get some of his negative dirt out in the open this week before New Hampshire....perfect time to put a dent in his campaign.

I agree

Though it would have been better if we split the neocons and we actually come out ahead... but I'll take what we can get.

The statement on the RP 2012 Official Site is pretty great...

Check it out. Three tickets out of Iowa and our guy got one. One of the tickets is a dead end. You know who got that one.

I may be sounding like a broken record but...

...the majority of the Republican party is still not with us completely- they're still stuck in the status-quo on foreign policy especially.

I can't say I am all that surprised by what happened in the Iowa caucus. In my mind, the Ron Paul Campaign needs to make very aggressive use of Veterans For Ron Paul to challenge the Neo-con sentiment that “We have to nuke Iran before they nuke us!” Yes, I am exaggerating… but not by much. The over 65 set is killing us, and only a direct argument from a veteran may change them.

Actually, I guess I should ask first. How persuasive did Iowa’s over 65 find Ron Paul Veterans? Please Reply after this comment so I can see how you thought it went.

Ron Paul would insist on a declaration of war before taking military action. The Neo-cons, and their sympathizers, seem to object, and take offense, to the suggestion that the President needs to even ask Congress’s consent. Why does the Media presume that Ron Paul has the burden to argue in favor of declarations of war before committing young American lives to combat?

At every speaking opportunity, I would suggest Ron Paul say; “I get more campaign financial help from enlisted and retired servicemen, than all the other candidates combined. If they want me as their commander-in-chief, why would you presume the Neo-cons are right, and American’s servicemen are wrong?” The second suggestion; “I am willing to fight after a formal Congressional declaration of War, and not before. Why do the Neo-cons object? Is it because, if the military-industrial-congressional complex had to get a declaration of War first, there might be a lot less wars?”

Is there any way we can bring up the Christian mil’lennialist’s unexpressed wish to see the Middle East explode so that Christ will return and rule the world for a thousand years. Yeah, I know. I don’t like to bring this subject up, and I can’t imagine any way Ron Paul supporters could successfully challenge the sentiment that it would be a Godly thing for the world to burn if it would hasten the day that Jesus came back. I mean… who can argue with logic like that.

It could be important to acknowledge this aspect of Middle East politics, as a way to explain many Americans absolute attachment to Israel, especially when it is detrimental to all other American interests, to offer that support.

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

As an Evangelical, I don't

As an Evangelical, I don't understand why many or most of my fellow believers are possessed with all this fear over Iran. If they really believe in the same God, where in the Bible does it say that Iran (Persia) "wipes Isreal permanantly off the map"? Or, what is it that the USA can do to defend Isreal that God can't? Why is it better to die by a 1000 cuts economically and financially then by an Iranian Nuke? These are the questions I'd like answered and it frustrates me that no one asks them? Instead, they'd rather be manipulated into destroying their own freedom in a vain effort to be Isreal's substitute Messiah.

Instead, they'd rather be

Instead, they'd rather be manipulated into destroying their own freedom in a vain effort to be Isreal's substitute Messiah. while missing the obvious:

1/2) that for the individual to retain his earnings, he has earnings to do what he wants with, INCLUDING giving them to someone (anywhere)
2/2) that the individual can fight for someone, that he can pick up his weapon(s) to go fight, instead of using a third party to fight for him, a destructive and utmost unGodly way to be. Which is why I say, shame such a "Christian." Life isn't for the stupid, Kevin. It's high time your so-called Christian brothers and sisters t-h-i-n-k.

Is there not discussion in the Bible about rampant confusion on God's word in the "end times," wherein many Christians would be unGodly (because they don't understand thinking, that is to say, themselves)? Those people, the ones whose behavior perplex you, Kevin, are those unGodly people, the lost people, the destroyers.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I wish everyone would think,

I wish everyone would think, especially those claiming an adherence to Christian faith. And though I'm no expert on "End Times" eschatology, I do find a tremendous amount of references in the Bible admonishing people not to be afraid.

I too am no expert on the end

I too am no expert on the end times and I'm no expert on the Bible. I can quote no scripture from the Bible, but what I do know is what I was taught, which was broad: God loves his children and he gave each one free will, so it's right to use a component of that will, namely, thinking, to do good. And, no one is perfect or will achieve perfection but to strive for it is right to do, which is to say, do what you can do.

I'm sorry for speaking harshly in my reply above, Kevin. I didn't intend to hurt your feelings or cause connsternation in you toward Christians because consternation can lead to behaving spitefully to someone. But I do get tired about hearing religious people, especially Christians, behave dully. Why do I point out Christians? Simple, they're persons I hear about and from most often making comments that oppose sense, that is, rationality and logic.

Thanks for your reply, Kevin. All you, I or whoever can do is continue to educate people, whether it be one person at a time or, if the environment lends, more than one person at time always voluntarily. Let's keep on keeping on.

RP, 2012

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

There are no answers because you're searching for truth

In a 3000 year old book.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

From The Bret Baier Interview With Romney (On Attacking Iran)

BB: Would you be prepared to do it unilaterally if need be?
MR: Of course.

And there you have it: Both question and answer presume the president can act without Congress. The Constitution is summarily disregarded.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

It's about winning delegates

Think about the campaign's strengths. We will compete well in the caucus states and in the two biggest states - California and Texas. Add all those up - I'm optimistic.

The good thing about Santorum's success is that he was competing for the same group as Perry. If he has successfully knocked out Perry then that helps Ron Paul in his home state.


Now that the results from Iowa are in, I'm a little less optimistic.

Obviously coming in 1st place would have been nice... I blame the loss on the last-minute rise of Santorum and the multiple attacks from all the candidates and the media. Back in December when Santorum started to hit 10% I had a terrible feeling something like this would happen- and two weeks ago, when everyone started to attack Dr. Paul, my gut feeling was that Santorum could end up winning. Even though I argued that it doesn't kill our chances, I still hate that Santorum of all people won- he's literally the worst candidate- he was a loser Senator, is mocked in popular culture, wants to start a nuclear war with Iran, and outlaw homosexuals/put them in prison. He has no chance of winning the nomination, and if he does, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama. Additionally, under no circumstances would I ever vote for him... even though I am diametrically opposed to Obama, if a gun was put to my head to choose between Obama and Santorum, I would pick Obama over Santorum, even though I disagree with Obama on literally everything, and know that he would doom the country- however I will not support someone who openly supports a nuclear holocaust- and I think the man himself, to use his words in regards to Ron Paul, is disgusting.

That said... coming in 3rd is disappointing... when I originally made this post it was more under the assumption that we'd at least get 2nd place and beat out Romney, hopefully giving him some damage going into New Hampshire. Tonight I feel like we got results that were less than we anticipated, and having both Romney and Santorum ahead, with someone like Santorum winning- the man who is essentially the exact opposite of Ron Paul and has given us the sharpest and cruelest attacks in the foreign policy debate- it enrages me that he would win. On top of that, we have Newt Gingrich on national tv harassing us in his speech, just to rub salt into the wound.

I don't anticipate Santorum will get very far- at least not in New Hampshire. Whether he can raise the money and continue on into South Carolina remains to be seen. But as Perry and Bachmann drop out, their supporters will probably go to Santorum- we now run the risk of him rising as the "conservative alternative" to Romney... hopefully he'll get the same treatment that Gingrich did. The fact that Romney did so well is also unsettling....

To put it simply- we are running out of time. I don't know that there is enough time for us to bring Romney down enough in New Hampshire for us to win. Without a boost from 1st place in Iowa, or at least 2nd, I don't think we'll have enough momentum to win in New Hampshire. The longer we're kept from coming in first in a state, the quicker the potential for a momentum-boost slips through our fingers.

As for the caucus strategy... it worked for Obama not only because he was organized and able to win the delegates, but he came in first in those states, giving him the appearance that he was winning the popularity race as well. Sure, we could go on to the caucuses and continue to place 3rd or grab an occasional 2nd, amount a significant chunk of delegates- maybe 300-500... but unless we start winning races, I don't think we're going to win the nomination.

I care about that because I want Dr. Paul to be the president- influencing the party and the platform is great, teaching the public is great, setting the stage for Rand Paul in 2016 is great- but I honestly don't know what good any of that does if we have to wait 4 more years. I'm tired of waiting, I'm tired of losing, and I'm tired of watching our country deteriorate, our freedoms evaporate, our money disintegrate, and people die in senseless wars. I honestly don't know if we have 4 more years left in this country.

I'm certainly not blaming the campaign- they've been doing their best and have been doing a pretty good job...

But with Perry and probably Bachmann leaving the race, the split status-quo vote is going to start uniting behind Romney and Santorum, making it harder for Ron Paul to place. Sure, we're in 3rd place now, but if we're still in 3rd place when there are only three candidates left, then we're also in last place.

Unless we can pull off a close race in New Hampshire or a win, Romney will win, he'll go on to South Carolina, finish Santorum, and wrap things up in Florida... sure, Ron Paul will have a presence at the convention, but not enough to garner the nomination, and even with our experience from 2008, I can't imagine the GOP letting us voice our support at the convention anyways.

So where does that leave us? An independent run? Whoop-dee-doo... we'd lose overall, at best get 20-25%, and then Obama stays in office. What do we accomplish, other than hoping we get the message out to a few more people while simultaneously destroying any chance for Rand to pick up the pieces and carry on in 2016.

I want Ron Paul to win, but tonight has made me very pessimistic.... from my perspective, we bet a good chunk of our chips on Iowa, and now were down to a few pennies- more and more, it'd take a miracle for us to win.

It can be disheartening

I looked at Ron's third place finish and thought, all things considered, he did well. Then I looked at the 79% of caucus goers who voted for a neo-con of one stripe or another, and I got a little blue.

But finally, I remembered where the Revolution was 4 years ago and how far we have come in such a short time. This campaign is only partially about Ron Paul (hell, ya, I want him to win) but the rest is about forming that 5% of irate and determined Revolutionaries who will agitate to change the direction of the country.


intersting assement

Rick santorms win doesnt suprise me at all and shouldnt bother us at all he is finished just like Huck was after Iowa. The concern is Romney This race is between them for now.


I think the poster meant that Dr. Paul isn't dropping out

not "not going anywhere" in the sense of winning.


I can see it form that perspective now. Jeez I was pissed off when I misread it.

Colchester, New London County, Connecticut


helpful opinion.ty

You lost me at

We all know Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. No good argument can come from that.

Colchester, New London County, Connecticut

Santorum will do worse later

when his record comes to light. His fake surge is perfectly timed. He might skate out of Iowa before people find out more about him. The silver lining is that Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich will pretty much be done. NH will be a 3-man race. Dr. Paul will be able to really distinguish himself from Romney and Santorum.