U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 02, 2012 11:19 PM UTC

GOP Establishment Horrified By Possible Ron Paul Iowa Victory

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Conservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen rages today:

Rep. Ron Paul is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney for first place in the Iowa caucuses. If he does pull out a win on Tuesday, Iowa Republicans will have chosen as their commander in chief a man who says it was wrong to kill Osama bin Laden…

Paul has clearly tapped into a growing sentiment among some conservatives to bring our troops home. But do Iowa Republicans really believe that we should not have killed Osama bin Laden? Or that that the United States does not have the authority under international law to take out al-Qaeda leaders planning attacks on our country? If so, then, by all means, they should vote for Ron Paul.

But that’s not all. In the CNN/Tea Party debate that took place one day after the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Paul said he believes that the United States brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself…

These are not conservative positions. They are not libertarian positions. They are nutty positions. It would bring discredit on the state of Iowa [Pols emphasis] if Hawkeye Republicans make their choice for president of the United States a man who opposes the killing of bin Laden, blames the United States for 9/11 and says we should not even spy on Iran…

Comments

29 thoughts on “GOP Establishment Horrified By Possible Ron Paul Iowa Victory

  1. In Iowa, Democrats can join the GOP caucus on the same day. Unless a viable candidate wins, the Iowa caucus isn’t like to prove much except the weakness of their system.

    Colorado caucuses should go better, unless all of you Colorado Pols junkies took their suggestion and switched parties before the deadline.

      1. if they’ve already given A-BOT his talking points.

        I hope something, anything happens to make Iowa irrelevant at last – not just to most Americans as it already is, but to the political candidates, too.

    1. you were the one who suggested the registration as a potential. Of course GOP folks could do that also, right up until this coming Friday.

      I think we Dems will let you nominate the freaks you desire.

    2. Let’s count after.  Im predicting the Iowa D’s will mostly sit this one out….as will most of the Iowa R’s.

      No one ever cares who wins in IA ….unless it’s their guy.

      The real question should be whether  Flopney or Newt will cry before New Hampshire.  

      PS – Romney isn’t going to win in South Carolina either.  When do these things start to matter ?

  2. Paul is one of the original anti-government wingnuts and hates helping fellow Americans even more than Arapajoke if that is possible.

    I read another article recently where the real transgression as far as conservatives are concerned is that he want to bomb Iran to protect Israel.  Who knew that protecting Israel was the United States number one foreign policy objective?

    1. He also thinks Iran has every right to close the Hormuz if we bother them in any way.  He doesn’t think we should have killed Bin laden. He thinks 9/11 was our own fault and has no interest in supporting Israel, not to mention not supporting anyone with aid or military support. In other words where every single foreign policy issue is concerned he’s everything the GOP loves to accuse (and no, ArapG , the accusations don’t make it true) Dems of being: A weak, wimpy, anti-Israel blame America first appeaser.

      And he also wants everyone to have access to whatever recreational drugs they choose. Does all this sound like someone who should even be in the GOP much less in a position to win one of their caucuses?

      How low info can an Iowa Republican Paul supporter be and still be a sentient being? That’s the question.  

      1. I’d argue that in order to support Paul, it’s necessary to be NO info, where “info” comprises verifiable (by more than one person) facts, and “sentient beings” form conclusions based on the totality of known info, rather than having a set of visceral reactions and then looking for what appears to be a “factoid” to give to the gut feeling the false appearance of rationality.

        And it’s not just Paulistas … It’s the entire Tea Party movement, the entire Republican base. It’s demonstrated on this blog site frequently. A single speech by “moderate” Mittens provides plenty of examples, if you can stand to listen to it even half way through!

  3. 1. Marc Thiessen may be horrified by Paul, but since when does he speak for “the GOP establishment? Which leads to:

    2. What GOP establishment? Would that be Boehner? Is he in some way “in charge” of GOP reps? FMI,  who precisely comprises the GOP establishment, in your view?

    3. Iowa? Is that like the Republican caucus of, say, Weld county? There’s a good reason that Iowans will do anything, whatever it takes, to have the first caucuses. Without that distinction, no one would care what Iowa Republicans thought about anything, anything at all! Same goes for the next two, New Hampshire and South Carolina … paid attention once every four years, then … nothing.

    The GOP is the voice of corporate managers/majority shareholders/interlocking directors, and they aren’t going to nominate Ron Paul. Iowa is at best an episode of a poorly produced amateur talent show featuring clowns jerked off the stage into giant vats of hog manure, which Iowa produces in huge quantities.

    I can see no evidence of anyone at Goldman Sachs etc. even bothering to tune into the latest from Des Moines.

    1. Bake sales? There’s been a ton of money spent on ads in Iowa (and lots in other places too). The Republican establishment consists of the people who inherited all their money and now donate big chunks of it to Republican candidates.

      1. 1. Besides Romney, who in Iowa is benefitting significantly from SuperPACs?

        2. Perry? Evidence that corporatist America is not unanimous in its support of Romney.

        3. Anyone else?  I’m not under the impression that any other candidate is the beneficiary of large sums spent by anyone, but I can’t quote specifics. Part of the point in spending $$$ in Iowa is to knock out everyone else early on, to save $$$ for the general election. It’s possible to envision some Big Money imagining that The Countin’ (not!) Cowboy could be sold outside Texas, but not the others, including Gingrich. I doubt that anyone with $$$ to invest is overly worried that anyone besides Mittens will be The Man come summer. The rest is mere theatrics, helping keep alive the Myth of Democracy in ‘Murica.

        OK, three points. Oops.

        1. And you’re numbering them, which certainly excites me, but they don’t seem equally worth numbering, which confuses me.

          I agree that the big money dudes are probably not worried that Romney won’t be the nominee (if they are, they’re pretty fucking dumb). However, they have a shitload of money that they don’t know what to do with, so they’re spending it on a SuperPAC, because it’s better than leaving it for their deadbeat drug-using porn-recording drunk-driving kids in their wills. Because why not?

          So I guess we’re in agreement. Good to see you back.

          1. 1. Gratifying to see I’m not the only 1 who likes to see numbers where words often serve as a cloak hiding ignorance of the Facts, such as “millions” or “tonnes” in lieu of “$1,234,567.94.”

            2. I suspect that Citizens United will prove 2 be a turning point in American democracy (so called). Whereas campaign contributions previously had to be routed through a campaign attached to a candidate’s name, now those who wish to buy the dialogue can do so anonymously. As a foretaste, I don’t know how many anti-Gingrich ads were bought by Citizens United groups wishing to preserve the Republican nomination for Mittens. Might you have a lead on this DATA?

            3. Seems like a worthwhile venture to try to track SuperPAC spending for each candidate — the actual $$$s, rinimbi, or whatever…as opposed to ads ending with the disclaimer “I’m Moe of the 3 Stooges and I approved this ad.” A central site where accredited volunteers could collect and post data specific to their market would be a valuable contribution in combatting the over-sized influence of cashola. Sorry that I don’t have the time to start and promote such a venture, which might be a good way to participate in the Occupy movement from indoors. Or maybe such a site already exists… any clues?

            All 4 now.

  4. but probably won’t because the blue bloods will hold sonny boy Rand hostage.

    He could win the Internet nomination against Trump or Bloomberg but they would cut Rands nuts off if he did.  This is Paul’s greatest moment of an otherwise Tom Tancredo like career.

  5. also has an impressive following among hard core progressives on the very far left (not me — I just know some) for his anti-war views. He has picked up some of the young angry, independent males who voted for Obama in ’08, and were disgusted with the renewal of the Patriot Act and Obama being soft on torture (their view, not mine).

    There is no way the Republican military-industrial-complex string-pullers will let Ron Paul become the nominee if he wins in Iowa. He is playing with fire just be getting this far. They have no conscience.

  6. The GOP’s goal all along has been to stretch this primary out as much as possible in an attempt to recreate the 2008 Democratic primary fight. Barack Obama was able to use the prolonged primary battle to build an unstoppable organization of loyal and passionate supporters. If Paul wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire and Perry wins South Carolina then they will have their fight. The following states will likely split North v. South between Romney and Perry.  

      1. My predictions of who would win were a little off (just replace Perry with Santorum in SC), but the RNC changed their rules about awarding delegates from winner-takes-all to proportionally distributing them. The primary schedule is also set up so that the bulk of delegates are awarded in the Spring, not at the beginning so that if more than one candidate stays competitive through the first few states the primary will likely last through May or June. This is what the RNC is hoping for.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

72 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!