Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[giblets]

More important, President Obama doesn’t understand that our military’s role isn’t just fighting wars. It’s providing a strong strategic presence that will influence events in our favor — and away from that of adversaries and rivals. Even he admits these drastic cuts can only come through shrinking that presence world-wide, which means deep cuts in our forces in Europe and the Middle East, while expecting a shrinking navy (which could wind up with barely 230 ships by 2020) and air force to keep our interests safe in the Pacific region — where China is surging.

I love how the people who write for NRO assume they're much smarter than Obama (Writing "Obama doesn't understand..." when they disagree with him) and write about how we need to protect "our interests" without explaining what those "interests" are. If we're supposed to oppose China with the intention of preserving democracy in Taiwan then it's not "our interests", it's someone else's interests. But I'm guessing "our interests" is actually code for "other country's resources which we will bully them into sharing with us while scoffing at anyone who calls it an 'American empire'".

[Felch]

Except it wouldn't be a single bill to end social security, it'd be bill after bill after bill on all sorts of things, with a constant erosion of benefits plastered all over each one. The big ones would wait until the reps had some heavyweight leverage on something else. A simple majority in one house is enough to slow down a lot of things, but thats exactly what the GOP have done in the house since 2010. You taken a look at the house approval ratings recently?

Filibustering is very simple. I promise you, that it is perfectly accepted these days for the Senate to do nothing without a 60-40 majority. It's how the system has evolved.

5 years ago you'd have been right on the money, now you're wrong. When Paul Ryan can stand up and propose replacing Medicare with a voucher system, and have the GOP following him slavishly, then that third rail ain't working any more.

Reform isn't ripping apart. Medicare accounts for 13% of the federal budget, and it's growing. Ryan's plan was to shift it into something more akin to Obamacare, instead of the free giveaway it is today. His plan is a reasonable way to keep it going longer, not a plan to end it.

You mean the guy I quoted on this very page as saying he thought those programs were all unconstitutional?

He's absolutely right about it being unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for these entitlement programs. But that's academic. He has not come out with any plans to get rid of them. Also, even if he wanted to get rid of them, he wouldn't be able to.

Look, ken, you're full of retarded notions about America. We live here. Listen to us. We know what we're talking about. We know what's realistic and what's rhetoric.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it seems like Romney is taking the lead in South Carolina polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

The fat lady is about to sing, isn't she?

[giblets]

There are only two recent polls, so it's hard to tell. He only has a 68% chance of winning South Carolina according to Intrade.

[OzzyKP]

Well it seems like Romney is taking the lead in South Carolina polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

The fat lady is about to sing, isn't she?

Eh, I don't think it is over yet. There will be plenty more drama to come. No way does Romney get a clean sweep of states in the primary. But I never waived in thinking that Romney will ultimately get the nomination.

[notyoueither]

The main question with a Ron Paul presidency is what would he truly be able to accomplish? Which parts of his agenda would he be able to do, on his own as president, vs. what would he need legislation passed through congress.

Most of what progressives would find objectionable about Paul is his economic policy. Cuts to spending and such. Most of that would need to be approved through the House and Senate. As we have seen over the last year it is pretty hard for this stuff to pass. Even with all the sharp rhetoric about spending cuts, the cuts proposed by the 'radical' Republicans in the house were fairly modest compared to what Paul would actually like to do. No one seriously proposed cutting entire government agencies. And no one, certainly, was going to move us onto the gold standard. Doing so would be difficult to accomplish. So... vote Paul for president and vote for democrats for Senate and House.

While his domestic agenda might be stymied, Presidents (increasingly) have tremendous say over foreign policy. President Gingrich, President Santorum, President Obama, etc could easily bomb Iran without having to convince anyone else in the government. They can just go and do it. Ron Paul in the White House would make good on all his foreign policy promises, even if he is unable to achieve his domestic goals.

So if you like him purely or mostly for foreign policy, go for it.

How much impact would an administration with zero interest in pursuing the 'War on Drugs' have?

We'd have legalised (or decriminalised) pot in Canada right now if it were not for the effects on the border (that's my impression). The administration (and law makers) made very nasty noises about the effect on the border (and trade) the last time the issue was being considered.

[kentonio]

Reform isn't ripping apart. Medicare accounts for 13% of the federal budget, and it's growing. Ryan's plan was to shift it into something more akin to Obamacare, instead of the free giveaway it is today. His plan is a reasonable way to keep it going longer, not a plan to end it.

Replacing Medicare with a voucher system is not reform, its replacement. I.E. ripping apart the old system and putting something else in its place. It is nothing like Obamacare, and its certainly not reasonable. What are people who have serious conditions supposed to do when that $15,000 voucher is used up after the first couple of months?

He's absolutely right about it being unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for these entitlement programs. But that's academic. He has not come out with any plans to get ride of them. Also, even if he wanted to get rid of them, he wouldn't be able to.

As pointed out above, theres already a GOP plan to get rid of Medicare, something that you find 'reasonable'. If you vote in a president who is on record as calling them all 'unconstitutional' you really don't think he's going to act on that, and with the full backing of the GOP?

Look, ken, you're full of retarded notions about America. We live here. Listen to us. We know what we're talking about. We know what's realistic and what's rhetoric.

Really? So you predicted the Patriot Act? The NDAA? The GOP almost causing America to default on its loans? You seem to live in some happy bubble believing that really bad things cannot happen in America while really bad things continue to happen in America. Your Supreme Court just said that a corporation has the rights of a citizen for ****s sake, and you're supporting a guy who wants to return America to the age of the railroad barons.

[OzzyKP]

How much impact would an administration with zero interest in pursuing the 'War on Drugs' have?

We'd have legalised (or decriminalised) pot in Canada right now if it were not for the effects on the border (that's my impression). The administration (and law makers) made very nasty noises about the effect on the border (and trade) the last time the issue was being considered.

A big one.

Domestically the feds are suing and raiding in states that have allowed medical marijuana. While not stopping them, it is definitely hampering their efforts to legalize stuff in various states. Prez Paul would stop that. I imagine Colorado, California and a few other places would legalize it outright. Obama or Romney or others would make things difficult for states that did.

As you note, no pressure from the US would make things much easier for Canada. More importantly, without us pushing Mexico (and other latin american countries) to continue fighting drugs on the battlefield, they might finally consider legalizing it as well. Which would save them a lot of lives and a lot of money. Should make things safer here too and put more pressure on US states to legalize it themselves.

I doubt any major policy changes would pass through Congress regarding drugs, but by just having a hands off administration a lot of good change would happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh, I don't think it is over yet. There will be plenty more drama to come. No way does Romney get a clean sweep of states in the primary. But I never waived in thinking that Romney will ultimately get the nomination.

No one said "clean sweep" - but if Romney can win Iowa, New Hampshire, AND South Carolina its a really easy run for him for the nomination, as opposed to a more grueling one that results in more money being spent that he wants to spend.

[HalfLotus]

There are only two recent polls, so it's hard to tell. He only has a 68% chance of winning South Carolina according to Intrade.

Yeah it is hard to tell. Especially if SC gets Santorum'd like Iowa did. Perhaps the media will orchestrate the rise of a some as yet unknown superstar. Palin? Cain, again?

[MrFun]

I just cringe when I think of Ron Paul wanting to instigate a race war.

[Jon Miller]

He's a bigot, I haven't seen any suggestion that he wants to start a race war.

JM

[HalfLotus]

New ad exposing Santorum's terrible record:

[MOBIUS]

at this whole thread!

[Felch]

Replacing Medicare with a voucher system is not reform, its replacement. I.E. ripping apart the old system and putting something else in its place. It is nothing like Obamacare, and its certainly not reasonable. What are people who have serious conditions supposed to do when that $15,000 voucher is used up after the first couple of months? As pointed out above, theres already a GOP plan to get rid of Medicare, something that you find 'reasonable'. If you vote in a president who is on record as calling them all 'unconstitutional' you really don't think he's going to act on that, and with the full backing of the GOP?

Ken, to be clear, I would be thrilled if Medicare were eliminated. Thrilled. But I'm just trying not to get my hopes up. That's why I don't think it'll happen. There are too many powerful constituencies that support the status quo. As an observer of national politics, I think it is absurd to worry about the end of Medicare and SS. The AARP is too powerful to let that happen.

Really? So you predicted the Patriot Act? The NDAA? The GOP almost causing America to default on its loans? You seem to live in some happy bubble believing that really bad things cannot happen in America while really bad things continue to happen in America. Your Supreme Court just said that a corporation has the rights of a citizen for ****s sake, and you're supporting a guy who wants to return America to the age of the railroad barons.

I never claimed to predict the Patriot Act, the 2012 NDAA, or the latest round of budget brinksmanship. I certainly wasn't surprised by any of them though. And my candidate of choice opposed the Patriot Act, the 2012 NDAA, and the obscene spending that leads to debt problems. His name is Ron Paul.

As far as corporations having the rights of citizens, that's not true. A corporation can't vote. All the Citizens United said was that Congress can't infringe on a corporation or union's right to spend money on political activities. Which is absolutely, no bull****ting, true.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since a corporation is made up of people, it's absurd to believe that those people lose the right to express themselves politically simply because they are organized into a corporation.