Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses?

Navigate:

POLITICO
Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses?

Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses?

Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, waits to speak during a town hall meeting at the Fisher Community Center, in Marshalltown, Iowa. | AP Photo

GOP elites in Iowa are worried about the ramifications of a Ron Paul victory there. | AP Photo

By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS | 12/20/11 4:30 AM EST

SIOUX CITY, IOWA –The alarms are sounding in Iowa.

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Allen on Paul’s Iowa chances

Latest on POLITICO

In spin rooms, bar rooms and online forums, the what-to-do-about-Paul conversation has become pervasive as polls show him at or near the top here just weeks before the January 3rd vote.

Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.

“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach, a longtime Iowa Republican who helped Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 here. “It would have a very damaging effect because I don’t think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn’t think he represents the will of voters.”

What especially worries Iowa Republican regulars is the possibility that Paul could win here on January 3rd with the help of Democrats and independents who change their registration to support the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman but then don’t support the GOP nominee next November.

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

The most troubling eventuality that Iowa Republicans are bracing for is that Paul wins the caucuses only to lose the nomination and run as a third-party candidate in November — all but ensuring President Obama is re-elected.

“If we empower somebody who turns around and elects Obama, then that’s a major problem for the caucuses,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

Leading Republicans, looking to put the best possible frame on a Paul victory, are already testing out a message for what they’ll say if the 76-year-old Texas congressman is triumphant.

The short version: Ignore him.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

The Paul rise comes at a moment when many Iowa GOP elites are already angst-ridden about their beloved quadrennial franchise. The fretting began four years ago when long-shot Mike Huckabee cruised to an easy caucus win, only to lose the nomination to John McCain, who finished fourth in Iowa after ignoring the state for much of 2007.

The concern has only grown in this election cycle. Romney has kept the state at arms-length for much of this year; Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll only to quickly recede to single-digits in state and national polls, raising questions about the future relevance of what is a fundraising bonanza for the state party.

Further, the decline in the number of candidate events here — and the prominent role debates and cable TV have played in this year’s election — have sparked difficult questions about whether Iowa’s retail-heavy traditions are a thing of the past.

Paul officials note that they’ve embraced the Iowa way. And even establishment Republicans like Branstad concede that the congressman has done it “the old-fashioned way” and enjoys the best organization of any of the candidates.

A New Grocery Store is opening up:

A New Grocery Store is opening up:

If you seek to cheat others, you end up cheating yourself!!!!!!
Enjoy. Take time to watch the very last sentence!! !!!!!! !!!!!!

A minute read........

Read this story, and
Follow the recommendation at
The end...

As I was walking
Down life's highway
Many years ago

I came upon a
Sign that read

Heavens Grocery Store..

When I got a
Little closer

The doors swung
Open wide

And when I came
To myself

I was standing
Inside..

I saw a host of
Angels.

They were
Standing everywhere

One handed me a
Basket

And said 'My
Child shop with care..'

Everything a
Human needed
Was in that
Grocery store

And what you
Could not carry
You could come
Back for more

First I got some
Patience.

Love was in that
Same row.

Further down was
Understanding,
You need that
Everywhere you go..

I got a box or
Two of Wisdom
And Faith a bag
Or two.

And Charity of
Course
I would need some
Of that too..

I couldn't miss
The Holy Ghost
It was all over
The place.

And then some
Strength
And Courage to
Help me run this race.

My basket was
Getting full
But I remembered
I needed Grace,

And then I chose
Salvation for
Salvation was for
Free

I tried to get
Enough of that to do
For you and me..

Then I started to
The counter
To pay my grocery
Bill,

For I thought I
Had everything
To do the Masters
Will.

As I went up the
Aisle
I saw Prayer and
Put that in,

For I knew when I
Stepped outside
I would run into
Sin.

Peace and Joy
Were plentiful,
The last things
On the shelf.

Song and Praise
Were hanging near
So I just helped
Myself.

Then I said to
The angel

'Now how much do
I owe?'

He smiled and
Said

'Just take them
Everywhere you go.'

Again I asked
'Really now,

How much do I
Owe?'

'My child' he
Said, 'God paid your bill
A long long time
Ago.'

This poem has
Been sent to you
With love and for
Blessings.

It originated in
The Netherlands
And has been
Around the world 9 times.

The blessing has now
Come to you and
You will receive
Showers of blessings in the mail

Within six days
Of receiving this letter

Providing you
Sent it out to someone else.
Do not send money
As this message
Has no price. Do
Not keep this letter

But send it on to
Someone who

Needs blessings.

Send 5 copies within 9
Minutes of

Reading this and see what
Happens !!!!!!!
Have A Great Day,

College Mate: Obama Was an “Ardent” “Marxist-Leninist”

| Print |

WRITTEN BY SELWYN DUKE

FRIDAY, 09 DECEMBER 2011 14:53

Barack Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, has certainly made waves. Well-received by the mainstream media, The Baltimore Sun wrote that the President has finally found “his voice” while the ever-dour Bill Press said that Obama was “channeling Teddy Roosevelt.” Yet if talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is correct, the President was channeling someone also long-dead but a lot more red. The radio giant asserts that Obama has “outed” himself, in that he has “announced to the world in no uncertain terms that he is a socialist, if not a Marxist.”

What did Obama say that brought cheers from the Left and jeers from the Right? Among other things, he stated that our relatively free enterprise system not only “doesn’t work” — “it has never worked.”

The first thing to note is the blindness and ingratitude evidenced by this statement. Our nation enjoys wealth unprecedented in man’s history, with its supermarkets stocked with thousands of products from the world over; and with how its “poor” people usually have cars, TVs, cellphones and other luxuries, as well as bellies that come out and greet you. So while “never worked” may describe Obama’s constituents, it can hardly be said about our system.

So our system shouldn’t be on trial here — Obama should be. But is it really fair to suggest he may be a Marxist? Or was there evidence for it all along?

Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?

Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.

In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”

Drew doesn’t believe the President has changed, either, and I agree. I explained why in a follow-upto Kengor’s piece, writing:

Some may say that a person can change markedly over a 30-year period. This is true.

… Yet a transition from flat-out "Marxist-Leninist" to someone who rejects the red menace is a pretty big change, don't you think? In fact, wouldn't such a personal evolution — some might say revolution — be a kind of conversion? I think so.

… There's an interesting thing, however, about conversions.

You hear about them.

You see, a conversion is a sea change, a rebirth, a turning point in your existence. You may become, as Christians say, a new creation, and you're at least a reformed old one. And you reflect your new state of being and often want to voice it.

And those around you will know about it.

As for this writer, everyone who knows me would say that my religious conversion was a seminal point in my life.

Now consider something. Barack Obama is one of the most famous, most discussed individuals on the planet.

But we have not heard about any soul-changing conversion in his life.

Not a whisper.

Nothing.

Nothing that could reconcile the flat-out Marxist-Leninist Obama was in his college days with the man he supposedly is today. There's no one who says, "Yeah, he was a radical guy in his youth, and I just couldn't believe how he became disenchanted with his old ideas."

Why, my friends, might this be?

Now, something else about conversions is that they often breed a person who hates what he has rejected as much as he once loved it. This is why ex-smokers can be the most ardent anti-smoking activists or why Christian converts can be the staunchest critics of secularism. But from Obama we see no visceral contempt for communism. What we do see, however, is a man who just a few years ago had an alliance with former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, who called himself a “small c communist” and was caught on tape saying that 25 million capitalists may have to be killed to advance the Marxist program. Even more damnably, Obama appointed communists to office upon taking power. One of these was Van Jones, another man who called himself a communist; and a second example is former communications director Anita Dunn, who said that Mao Tse-tung — who murdered 60 to 70 million people — was one of her two favorite philosophers.

Unfortunately, for some people, this still isn’t enough to see a red flag and menace with regard to Barack Obama. Yet it doesn’t take a behavioral scientist from the FBI to draw proper conclusions from his profile. We have in the President a man who:

1. Had communist Frank Marshall Davis as childhood mentor.

2. Was a flat-out Marxist-Leninist in college.

3. Has no known history of renouncing these views.

4. Later in life built an alliance with a “small c” communist and other assorted radicals.

5. Upon achieving high office, appointed avowed communists to his administration.

Given this profile, what is the radical position? That the man is a communist or at least a communist sympathizer? Or that he is just your everyday moderate politician?

Perhaps we don’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would stand up in a criminal proceeding for either of the above propositions. But asking for it is unreasonable and irresponsible. In the court of public opinion, there must be no higher burden than in a civil court: a preponderance of the evidence. And a preponderance of it in the President’s case points to a simple conclusion: Barack Obama is likely a communist or communist sympathizer.

Now, there are many reasons why people would deny what is plain about Obama. The most obvious is partisan loyalty, but there is another factor: The “it”-couldn’t-happen-here mentality.

We see this when people are shocked to learn that a neighbor is a serial killer or child molester and say that “he seemed so normal” or when there is a heinous crime in a neighborhood and residents just can’t believe that “it” could happen in their little Mayberry. In the example relevant here, an American President could never be a communist sympathizer. Sure, you read in history books about such leaders attaining power in places such as Cambodia, Russia, and North Korea. But the US of A? “It” is something that happens to the other guy’s nation.

Of course, this isn’t reality. Say what we will about American “exceptionalism,” the fact is that we receive no special dispensation from the laws governing man. There is no “it” that can’t happen here. And while we don’t vote for our next-door neighbor, we do choose our President. We’d be wise to make sure that, some years hence, we’re not witnessing disaster with our mouths agape and left saying, “But he seemed so normal.”

Follow-up article:

Did Obama Give Anti-Free Market Speech at Osawatomie for Communist Connection?

NESARA- REPUBLIC NOW - GALACTIC NEWS

Tuesday, December 20, 2011