Ron Paul has to be happy about this coup. Michele Bachmann’s Iowa chairman (now former), State Senator Kent Sorensen (R-Indianola) has decided to switch his support from Bachmann to Congressman Paul, saying “Ron Paul has established himself as the clear choice.” In a switch that was as amicable as could be, Sen. Sorensen stated he maintains immense respect for Rep. Bachmann, but noted:
“The fact is, there is a clear top tier in the race for the Republican nomination for President, both here in Iowa and nationally. Ron Paul is easily the most conservative of this group. … If you are as frustrated as I am with what’s been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me in supporting Dr. Paul. We can send the national big government political establishment a message they will never forget by voting for Ron Paul for President in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses.”
December 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Yes!
December 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
1 vote at a time, we will get there. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
December 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
This loser should be the exact reason why Iowa should lose their 1rst in the nation caucus privilege. So you back away from a conservative at the time she needs your help the most to back a loony. The rest of the country is laughing or I should say crying.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Hard to understand the kind of mental gymnastics that would make one go from supporting Bachmann to supporting Paul. Seriously.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“If you are as frustrated as I am with what’s been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me . . .”
Oh boy. I’m so not joining you. A Republican grousing about the “Ruling Class”?! I’m so not into Iowa Republican politics. What is going on out there?
The country elected Obama. Then they elected a majority Republican House. Those folks are accountable to us, and we are nobody’s victim. Good Charlie Brown grief!
December 28th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Sen. Sorenson is smart enough to read the writing on the wall. If this had happened a month ago, I’d speculate that the Congresswoman would drop out. But with only 6 days left I’d guess that Bachmann stays in long enough to get annihilated in Iowa, and then drops out.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Thus ends the “Bachmann is Romney’s stalking horse” conspiracy of the day.
Hopefully.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Didn’t some super Pac also switch from Bachmann to Romney today, too? Looks like she may be the next withdrawal… then Huntsman, unless he does very well in NH.
I wonder what her run has done to her House re-election chances? Probably not hurt, but she’s looking for a slot in the Romney admin, preferably on the ticket (though I would not support that).
December 28th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
3. Oh, there it is. Bachmann is loony, and so is Paul.
I guess if you’re into crazy one’s as good as the other.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Why is Iowa the first GOP primary?
December 28th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Bachmann is saying Sorenson told her yesterday the Paul campaign had offered more money.
Political whores!
December 28th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
#9 What makes Bachmann a loony?? U sound like a liberal. I’ll admit shes not so polished but she never stabbed conservatives in the back. He could of changed his support to Santorum or Perry not head in the sand Paul.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
if bachmann comes in lower then what?? 3rd place?? does she drop out next tuesday night?
December 28th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I do agree with #3 though; this is pure unadulterated butt-kissing by State Sen. Sorenson. It’s far more respectful, at least in my view, to stick with your candidate even in the face of defeat than to ditch them for the newest rising star.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
just saw dick morris on fox..his new book should be entitled “Idiot! The Dick Morris Story”
December 28th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
12. Bachmann is a loon. I am not a liberal. She is also the biggest back stabber in the Republican party, so this move by Sorenson is just a little instant Karma in my book.
Couldn’t happen to a better candidate.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
I hope Dick didn’t pick Romney to win. He is (I think literally) never right.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
16 – You should see the Bachmann response. They are claiming Sorenson was paid off.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
According to Bachmann, Sorenson told her yesterday: ‘everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn’t I?
December 28th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
I will bet everyone ten thousand dollars that Bachmann is lying through her teeth.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Bachmann support could move to Santorum and give him Iowa. Is that possible?
December 28th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble but Paul is going to be even funner than Gingrich for the media to vet, as in several times more.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Morris always appears to be a Newt supporter. He keeps making excuses for everything he does on his twitter posts. He calls Newt the only true Conservative.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Ron Paul is a Libertarian – and a radical one at that. He is not a Conservative. And as long as Libertarians of the Paul-breed continue to preach isolationism, drug legalization, an end to state-recognized marriage, and a host of other things, there will continue to be irreconcilable differences between the two.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Bachmann is now saying that Sorensen told her yesterday, “I’m an evil, two-faced backstabber. I hate liberty and America and apple pie and I want Barack Obama to win.”
/sarcasm
December 28th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
And Bachmann’s PAC just paid for a huge ad buy in Iowa for……ROMNEY. Good thing there’s a sane choice still left.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
#25:
Bachmann’s a looney toon, no doubt about it, but Sorenson should’ve picked up on that when he first met her. Heck I’ve only seen the Congresswoman on TV and I could’ve told him that. Now he’s making her look like the wounded party and him the blatant opportunist (which he is btw).
December 28th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
who knows when is out insider and ARG iowa POLL?
December 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Bachmann Turn-her Over-to-Paul
December 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
23 newt being the only true conservative was laughable
December 28th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I wouldn’t say Ron Paul is conservative. I’m not sure whether to say that he’s far-right, far-left, neither, or both. His economic views are far-right, his foreign policy views are far left, and his social views are a mixed bag. He’s no moderate; far-left plus far-right don’t make a moderate, they just make something weird.
I have a hypothesis that the far-left and far-right are so far-out that they sort of circle back around and meet in the middle, like a ring.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Teledude,
What do you make of Peter Schiff’s support for Ron Paul?
December 28th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
@31 – you mean like how far apart are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, really? I have the same thought.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
yet her superpac is pouring cash into… ROMNEY.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
31. There is no right or left.
There is only freedom or tyranny.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
34. I rest my case . #STALKING HORSE
December 28th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
31
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Disregarding fp, it is eco freedom vs social freedom
December 28th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
32. Perfectly understandable. He was Paul’s main economic adviser in 2008.
He also predicted the housing and banking crash while being ridiculed mercilessly at the time. Six months later everyone conceded he had been right.
If Paul wasn’t so …extreme in his foreign policy views I could support him easily. Love libertarian economics (the whole von Mises, Rothbard, Austrian school of thought)
December 28th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
31: His economic views are far-right and his foreign policy is far-right. For the 20th century being a conservative meant keeping us out of foreign entanglements. Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, and Barry Goldwater were all non-interventionists. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are the few old school conservatives left.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
“Disregarding fp, it is eco freedom vs social freedom”
…economic freedom can only last so long when your social fabric goes to hell. If people aren’t having kids, or if kids aren’t being brought up in stable homes, or if people aren’t putting the time and effort into bettering themselves and society over short-term gratification, you’re eventually going to have economic collapse.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
40. Not if we could wean ourselves off the welfare state. Eventually social Darwinism would kick in and people would have to pay the consequences of their poor moral choices. We could clean it all up in one generation.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
“For the 20th century being a conservative meant keeping us out of foreign entanglements.”
…which didn’t work. If you’re really that much a believer in isolationism, then you need to explain to us which political/national philosophy we defeated that you think should have been allowed to continue to spread: your options are European Imperialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“40. Not if we could wean ourselves off the welfare state. Eventually social Darwinism would kick in and people would have to pay the consequences of their poor moral choices. We could clean it all up in one generation.”
Ah yes…let as many as necessary die to maintain loyalty to the viewpoint that says Government shouldn’t tell anyone anything that they can’t or must do.
Social Darwinism is morally and politically repulsive.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
43 – You’ve just partially discredited yourself. I’m not defending social darwinism, far from it. I defend personal responsibility. If someone makes a horrible economic decision, we all agree that they should be held responsible. Why are you critical of the same exact position on social issues.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
42,
First off…we didn’t defeat communism. It still exists. Communism defeated itself though…because it’s long term progress is unsustainable. Look at china. What have we done to end communism? Nothing. And yet China is becoming more capitalistic because it works. Nixon was a diplomat when he dealt with China…and that’s worked out more in our favor so far. you need to learn how blowback works….because if you don’t know ALL of history, you can’t just make up what you want to believe in. Iran hates us because we overthrew their democratically elected leader in 1953 and installed a dictator that killed citizens. We armed Bin Laden and Hussein. How in the hell did that NOT come back to bite us in the ass?
December 28th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
43,
I just figured it out. You aren’t a conservative. You are a liberal.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
She is getting pressure from religious leaders to drop out:
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/fearing-split-pastors-urge-gop-candidates-quit-231159105.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
This amazes me. And people worry about Romney’s religious leaders telling him what to do.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
“I just figured it out. You aren’t a conservative. You are a liberal.”
So, how many people do you propose to let kill themselves to make your point? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands?
December 28th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I’m out for the night.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
48,
If people want to kill themselves…they have to take that up with God. I don’t want anyone to kill themselves…but it’s not something you can stop by the rule of law. People kill themselves with alcohol all the time…but i don’t see many people wanting to ban alcohol.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
38—understood. Thanks.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
39: It doesn’t matter exactly what positions “conservatives” held years ago. For one thing, being conservative and pro-business used to mean that you support high tariffs and protectionism. Today, conservatives support free trade. Same with foreign policy. And Barry Goldwater wasn’t a noninterventionist, he was a hawk.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Where’s Smacks? Waiting for SC & FL??
December 28th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Matthew is neither liberal or conservative. He’s a Romney fanboy teenager supporting every Romney ever changing position. It’s mind boggling.
It’s Rombotism.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
“Social Darwinism is morally and politically repulsive.”
I agree with MK here.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
55. It’s the worst…except for all others
December 28th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Let me modify that a little. The best is voluntary social coordination where everyone is an angel and lifts up their fellow man through charitable love when their neighbors make mistakes. When the government assumes that role it is communism. When government assumes power and “drops the ball” it’s sort of fascist. When society drops the ball it’s social Darwinism. Currently our government sometimes does positive things for the poor, in other ways it is in bed with the wealthy. If you diminish government, you’d likely have a mix of social darwinism and social cooperation where people are voluntarily taken care and other people slip through the cracks. Ideally, and theoretically, the incentive structure that exists with less government would lead society to be less on the Darwin side than when government is involved. That is all.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
57
Religion used to play that role very nicely long ago, to wit. It’s sad the decline of religion has been so rapid. Something needs to help fill that gap.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
And not government.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:42 am
I don’t see anything in the foreseeable future filling that gap except pure human instinct and culture. Remember, many irreligious are bleeding heart liberals that mean well, and at least a few of the anti-religion crowd do so because they claim that religion leads to increased problems in the world, so their hearts are probably in the right place. “New atheists” are as annoying as hell, but the old intellectual atheism offers quite a bit of thought on the subject.
I can imagine Humean philosophy merging with the “live life to the happiest” into a pretty good substitute. Where the case is made that while morality may be merely the product of some culture or evolution and is just encoded passions and not some universal law, people are slaves to those passions and emotions and if you want to live happy lives you ought to follow them. Further, if evolution can somehow make the case (recent research is leading towards we evolved with the earth and the micro-organisms inside of us and not just as a species) that humanity evolves as a species and not as competition within the species, that our survival depends on discovering ways to help each other out, because a post-nuclear world is too dangerous with violent factions, then maybe that could fill the gap.
Another hope, in the long run, is that social Darwinism leads to social cooperation because the people that really succeed are those that work together. I think religion is a concept that is a little larger than the major monotheistic religions we’re familiar with. I think a religion can be something without divinity or supernatural miracles. I think the faith people put in science to be close to religious fanaticism, so that can fill the gap, too.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:23 am
For some people supporting one campaign that fails isn’t enough – right?
I know somebody here agrees with me.
December 29th, 2011 at 6:13 am
Bachmann’s support will go to Romney.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:28 am
42. the US defeated european imperialism? …funny i have no memory of reading about the US army taking out Belgian divisions in the Congo…and in SE asia we actually picked up where the French left off…
December 29th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Sen. Sorensen says,
“We can send the national big government political establishment a message they will never forget by voting for Ron Paul for President in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses.”
It seems obvious that he doesn’t expect Ron Paul to win (correct expectation), but only to be a messenger.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:39 am
“If Paul wasn’t so …extreme in his foreign policy views I could support him easily. Love libertarian economics (the whole von Mises, Rothbard, Austrian school of thought)”
I don’t understand….he was right about economics of this country long before Romney and the rest of the Keynesians had to admit they were failing…it stands to reason that maybe he’s right on foreign policy too.
Here’s a fact: NO ONE on this site has enough information in the world of foreign policy to know who is right and who is “loony”. My guess is that NO ONE on this site saw the housing bubble coming before it came, and it looks like RP is right on foreign policy too. Either way, for you chickenhawks, the polls show that the people are closer to RP’s foreign policy not Mitt Romney’s…..so, it’s game over for war supporting saber-rattling GOP Prez candidates. We can’t win with the message of more war, bellicosity, and hubris.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:45 am
65 – yes
December 29th, 2011 at 10:20 am
14. ” It’s far more respectful, at least in my view, to stick with your candidate even in the face of defeat than to ditch them for the newest rising star.”
Craig for FOTM, are you listening?