Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Politics

Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll, Paul Second Followed By Pawlenty

Aug. 13, 2011 6:58pm Christopher Santarelli

The votes are in and officials have identified Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann as the victor in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, closely followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

According to the Wall Street Journal the tally for the top three candidates went Bachmann at 4,823 votes, Paul with a close 4,671, and Pawlenty at a distant third with 2,293.

The win validates the power and momentum of Bachmann’s campaign, and makes her the frontrunner in the Iowa caucuses set to be the first in the presidential balloting process to begin in February 2012.

At a close second, Rep. Paul and his followers were pleased with their showing in Iowa. Following the results, PBS’s David Chalian Tweeted that the Paul camp said “Today, Paul has emerged as a top teir candidate and is a serious contender to win the Republican nomination and the Presidency.”

Moments after the results were announced, Pawlenty’s campaign released in a statement:

“We made progress in moving from the back of the pack into a competitive position for the caucuses, but we have a lot more work to do,’ Mr. Pawlenty said. ‘This is a long process to restore America — we are just beginning and I’m looking forward to a great campaign.”

16, 892 voters came and cast votes in Ames on Saturday. That turnout easily exceeds the over-under number of 14,000 which some strategists guessed. Politico reports that the conventional wisdom has been that high turnout benefits Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann will be featured tomorrow on ABC’s “This Week,” Bloomberg’s “Political Capital,” CBS’s “Face the Nation,” CNN’s “State of the Union,” “Fox News Sunday” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will also drop by ABC, and Herman Cain is on CNN.

Bachmann’s victory comes as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still leads the pack of GOP 2012 hopefuls in most national polls, and the same day Texas Governor Rick Perry enters the race. Some have speculated that Perry’s entrance threatens Bachmann’s control of support from many social conservatives and evangelical members of the Republican Party.

Since first held in 1979, George W. Bush is the only candidate to have won the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa Caucus, GOP nomination, and presidency. Bob Dole is the only other Republican to have won both the Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus in the same election.

After the top three, CBS News reports that in fourth place was Rick Santorum with 1,657 votes, followed by Herman Cain with 1,456 votes. As a write-in candidate Rick Perry got 718 votes, good enough for sixth. Mitt Romney came in seventh with 567 votes, Newt Gingrich 385, Jon Huntsman with 68 votes and Thaddeus McCotter with 35 votes.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (529)

qpwillie
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:15pm
I would probably prefer Cain but I could vote for Bachmann with a big smile on my face.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lylejk
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:23pm
  I too prefer Cain, but I would be more then willing and happy to vote for Bachman too. Others such as Perry, I would have to pinch my nose with both hands and pull the lever with my elbow but BO’s gotta go and I’ll do whatever it takes to make sure of that outcome. :)
  
  Report this comment
Gypsy123
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:15pm
Good job Bachman and Paul keep going

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TomFerrari
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:15pm
your comment is disgusting, and has been reported.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
OnToppaThat
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:14pm
I always have to chuckle…it seems like half of Ron Paul’s supporters are only interested in having Pot legalized….but I like “Audit the Fed” for sure.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- S_Malc13
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:21pm
  Legalize pot to treat it as a health problem instead of throwing people in prison. That’s the idea. Not to get high. They are doing it illegally now, but you don’t even know it. There could be someone high, behind you in the grocery line.
  
  Report this comment
- affinnity
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:28pm
  Actually I see nothing wrong with legalizing a plant.
  
  Report this comment
- GIDEON612
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:48pm
  There is way too much money spent on enforcing marijuana laws. Arresting, holding, prosecuting and later feeding and housing offenders costs way too much.
  This needs to be addressed in a much most cost effective manner. Shoot anyone who is possessing marijuana dead on the spot.
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:51pm
  Throwing people in prison for pot? Guy behind me at the checkout counter might be high ???
  You can’t be for real.
  
  Report this comment
- eternalhostility
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:09pm
  I could care less about pot. The fact is Ron Paul is the real deal for liberty and small government. The Fed issue is a no brainer, all his domestic economic issues are no brainer. People take issue with some of his foreign policy issues – let me ask you this what should the USA do to Iran or any other loser Country that tries to get nuclear weapons? Should we fight them all? How do we win a war like that, I am not saying we will lose but how do you win. We will be in a constant state of war. I know its easy for NeoCons that don’t have family members fighting these wars to continual send kids into war but I think more and more people are starting to reject those ideas.
  
  Also eventually Russia and China are going to tell the USA that we can’t bomb Iran. Then what do you suggest? Fighting another world war. That is JUST what big government wants. Wake up people Ron Paul isn’t for Iran getting nukes he just isn’t all that worried about it. He understands that they eventually will or someone like them will. The US will deal with it when the time comes.
  
  Report this comment
- S_Malc13
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:13pm
  People are arrested for possession and repeat offenders are jailed. You want to regulate ethics, go ahead. You don’t know who’s doing what. People want to control other people’s lives and don’t know who surrounds them. Bet you’re paranoid huh?
  
  Spend less on institutionalizing people for petty drug possession crimes, and treat it as a health issue. It’s plan to save money and reform with offering liberty. It’s not one plan, it’s part of a larger plan of revisiting Constitutional core values. But, we cold enslave anyone who doesn’t agree with the hard right, so the rest can eat and sleep like kings and queens, and it wouldn’t look anything like what the hard left is doing.
  
  Report this comment
- GIDEON612
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:22pm
  My last post was to see if anyone would object,… didn’t see any.
  
  People that smoke pot do not know what is really going and that is partially what led to Clinton’s election too. The excuses for medical marijuana are asinine. People need to wake up and stay that way. Quit drinking, smoking pot, taking drugs and drinking kool-aid.
  I am so tired of people not taking accountability for their own actions.
  
  Have a health problem? Take it to the Great Physician!
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:46pm
  @S_Malc13. You made the mistake of retorting to my statement with uneducated rhetoric. Now I will set you straight. Alcohol is the heaviest and most problematic drug available to the masses right now.
  Closely followed behind are all the “medications” being prescribed by our Doctors and clinics. Look in one of these trash magazines in your local convenience stores, to see who has been incarcerated as of late. Most of the people strung out and addicted to drugs, are the one’s doing prescribed drugs. marijuana is probably the most mild of all drugs. you can not O.D. on pot. People can walk a straight line high, skateboard vertical terrain while stoned, and shoot the best 9 holes of your life while being toasted. How could someone play their career best golf while stoned ? Are you worried if a person is under the influence of alcohol while standing in line ? lol. Get out of here !!!!
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:01pm
  Anyone who makes negative judgments about pot have absolutely no education on the matter. It is the same as the liberals who come on here spewing the BS they heard about BECK on MSNBC. They have no real experience or knowledge of BECK. It is the same exact analogy. Cut and Dry !!! Class dismissed !!!
  
  Report this comment
- ghost-of-elvis
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:17pm
  I think shooting somebody dead on the spot is harsh and I assume you are joking. You are right about then ridiculous excuses for medical marjuana. Where I live in Michigan they made it so pretty much anybody can grow and sell with impunity. Legal drug dealing, thank you MI voters. I can’t wait to get the hell out of this state, even though I live in the woods now. Every single city of even mediocre size and pop. have turned into ghettos. I grew up in the mostly white european immigrant section of Detroit called Hamtramck and now it resembles the middle east of dearborn. My church has been broken into and vandalized, I have to carry every time I even wanna go to the suburbs. A sad state of affairs for sure.
  
  Report this comment
- S_Malc13
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:19pm
  Problem solver:
  
  I think you are mistaking my comment as a rant against Paul’s philosohpy of legalization. If I have misstated the Doc’s position then I will humbley receive correction for future purposes. I was being slightly sarcastic when I responded to the OP, but perhaps, you have had a little something to drink tonight yourself eh?
  
  I support Ron Paul’s position on legalization. It makes sense. I do not have to read a ‘paper’. I have lived the life, and I have an ear close enough to the street to know the real truth. Paul’s stance is on the disproportionate amount of people imprisoned for petty drug offenses. Where have I gotten that wrong?
  
  Report this comment
- USAFFELPMAN
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:28pm
  Treat it as a health problem? Bull Hockey. That means we’ll have to pay to treat them.
  
  Since we’ve been told that is not addictive, treat it as a personal choice and make the person responsible for the results of that choice would be more supportable position.
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:39pm
  Ok. You were being “slightly” Sarcastic. ( Is that considered a contradiction or oxymoron? ) That is why I asked if you were for real. I may have misinterpreted your second post, because I may have got High :p
  RON PAUL and LEGAL WEED !!!! 2012
  
  Report this comment
- S_Malc13
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:05pm
  USAFELPMAN,
  
  No one pays for it because Paul doesn’t endorse free healthcare. Paul speaks of Catholic charities and other non-profit orgs. The idea is that a free-market and unregulated services allows help orgs to thrive without the threat of taxes and regulation. Plus when you invest in community whether with capital or “genuine” community organizers and/or church groups, they make the effort to take care of their own. I’m not naive, I know communities are running amok with flash mobs and riddled with immorality, but I rather pay for health services to clean up someone’s act than indefinite incarceration if we did go that route. The idea of liberty has become too obscure and little people believe in it, except for maybe the pretty successful. I’m a 2t3 and a 2r1 and can’t find work. Thank God for the Post 9-11 GI Bill. I, unlike many vets I’ve come across, am in good shape and haven’t felt completely hopeless yet. The Constitution makes me feel like I can still do anything.
  
  Report this comment
- GIDEON612
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 11:11pm
  @ghost-of-elvis
  
  Know the area well you speak of. We affectionately know it as Dearbornistan. And yes, it has gone to pot. Just like those that support and use pot have gone downhill. Detroit was a thriving vibrant area that is no more. The influx of those from the muslim nation, that practice that cults dictates, have left nothing but wasteland in their wake no matter where they go. Just look at every single muslim following nation in the middle east and North Africa. It is wasteland filled with violence, poppy fields, death, suppression and sorrows.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 11:31pm
  Is it Governments job to tell us what we can or can not put in our body?
  
  My body, a temple of Jesus Christ, is God’s, not Governments. I do not partake in drugs, nor do I plan to. If I wanted I could regardless if Government says I can or can not. Criminalizing it was really only a tax which leads to incarnation after multiple offenses leading to expense of non users.
  
  Government limiting choice usually leads to rebellion of such causing greater activity in what is being limited.
  
  Drug abuse is an illness and should be treated as such. If more find God, less would be doing drugs.
  
  Report this comment
affinnity
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:13pm
I don’t agree with you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
olddog
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:12pm
I like R. Paul but his stand on letting Iran have Nukes is not ok with us.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tifosa
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:17pm
  Only 152 apart, relatively a dead heat.
  
  Report this comment
- SFsuper49er
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:17pm
  You can not vote for a man with that kind of stance on thr military It’s just nuts…. Something is just not right there
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:24pm
  Paulwon’t come close to te nomination. Everyone except the ronbots knows it. Pawlenty is running on a good machine but he sucks at creating any kind of excitement. Santorum beating out Cain may give him the edge in being the solid conservative alternative to Michele.
  
  But Perry is the real wild card here. Beating Romney as a write in says something.
  
  Report this comment
- DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:36pm
  Our job is not to spread “democracy” all over the world you neo-con. We are to be a haven for liberty. Preemptive strikes are saved for conquerors. We should stand, at home, steadfast. When you mess with us you get flattened. That threat is how we kept Russia’s nukes at bay and it’s how Reagan silenced Ghadafi. If you don’t understand this you don’t understand how progressivism has shaped GOP policy. That makes YOU nuts.
  
  Report this comment
- TheWholeTruth
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:48pm
  You guys are worrying about nothing! Do you think Iran could possibly get a nuke and use it on Israel? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL! Israel would wipe that plant off the map as they did with the little worm they sent into the computer system.
  
  The only thing Paul is saying is.. it’s none of our business what another country does or does not do and that includes Israel. Does he support them? Yes.. would he help them? yes .. how? by getting out of their way and quit telling them what they can or cannot do to protect their own country!
  
  For too long we’ve held a tight leash on Israel. “You do this and we aren’t going to let you buy more military equipment.” Same thing BO did when they wanted to go and bomb the nuke plant, remember? “You do and we won’t replace any equipment lost” Then set up a no fly zone to shoot down any Israeli aircraft in route to that destination.
  
  Israel is FAR from weak. If you turn her loose, as Ron suggests we need to do with every country, she will take care of herself! I mean, who died and made us GOD of the world?
  
  Ron was right as well. WE STARTED it with Iran in 1953, when the CIA went in with a coup and ousted a VERY popularly elected leader and stuck in the Shaw then trained their police how to torture people. The atrocities committed under his regime were enough for the blowback in 1979.
  
  Report this comment
- ILUVAMERICA
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:55pm
  @DTOM
  You are SOOOO CORRECT!
  Good to see some people still have a brain
  
  Report this comment
- ILUVAMERICA
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:57pm
  @TheWholeTruth
  HOORAY!!
  Another person with a brain
  Your statement was exactly how I understood it
  
  Report this comment
- This_Individual
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:00pm
  I wouldn’t worry about Iran so much, they’re just beating their chest. But you have to admit, Ron’s policies are not only free market friendly and fiscally responsible, but will insure the de-federalization of our respective states which seems to be what we are headed toward.
  
  Report this comment
- american1st
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:03pm
  and yet the active military sends him more money/support than the others combined, and more than obama gets??
  
  even if a total non-internationalist policy’s proved to not work or not to work as well as expected, we at the very least need to reset out foreign policy, and determine who’ s country’s we need to “interfere in” with our armed military (i still think we would get more peace by not doing so ), and we cant even begin to do that from where we are now, we are still fighting every war we have been in since ww2, it is time to rethink our policy of policing the world.. and the other candidates are not even willing to consider that idea….
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. Oshawott
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:08pm
  @DTOM Jericho (Creator Relevant) and TheWholeTruth
  
  Your comments are of very high intelligence! :-)
  
  Report this comment
- eternalhostility
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:11pm
  Then you should vote for another candidate and let them bankrupt the country through wars versus the liberal doing it through handouts. Get a clue.
  
  Report this comment
- margaret1977
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:19pm
  I think what Ron Paul meant is to leave Iran with no money coming in so they can have a nuke but cannot do anything with it! i think he did not explained this correctly he did not have the time ! but he did said as long as Iran cannot get any money from us, nothing they can do.
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:20pm
  I can not believe that people are questioning Paul’s Foriegn stance. People say “we can’t let Iran have nukes”. Who is WE ? And who the H#ll are you, or anyone else to tell a Sovereign nation what they can, or can not have? Our government is to provide for the common defense. NOT OFFENSE !!!!
  Do you know what a Neo-Con is?? Do you know what the Industrial Military Complex is ??? If not , I strongly suggest you educate yourself on these terms. It will explain why we are going broke. It will explain why we end up with the same result whether the democrats or republicans dominate the house, senate and oval office. It will explain why we are losing or Constitution and Our Country !!!!
  North Korea’s leader is 10x nuttier than Iran’s. He is the only golfer in history to score a hole in one on every hole. Do we dis-arm Korea ? Iran is surrounded by Countries that would nuke Iran, for using a nuke in their territory. Our Country was never designed to Police the World. The Founding Fathers would respect Iran’s Sovereignty, as crazy and dangerous as one might think they are, for they would expect Iran to respect America’s Sovereignty, no matter how crazy and dangerous they might think we are. Iran can get a nuke anyway, by simply purchasing one for a rouge nation, such as North Korea. Get real. Iraq happened not because of “freedom” fighting. It happened because that is how the Military machine makes it’s money. What a freakin’ mess that was. I rest my case.
  RON PAUL !!!
  
  Report this comment
- 101
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:11pm
  Iran already has nukes and it happened on BO’s watch…Russia/China even helped Iran
  
  So now you can vote RON PAUL and not worry RP “let them have” !
  
  Report this comment
- dejavu22
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:12pm
  You should look up a recent interview by a retired Col. Douglas MacGregor titled “Is the US empire too expensive?” on youtube.
  
  Although he initially supported Iraq and Afganistan and wrote a book (Breaking the Phalanx) that was widly circulated by those who planned the strategic efforts of the conflict he retired from the army and has since taken a policy that is almost a mirror to that of Paul’s. He argues that there should be 2.7 trillion cut from defense alone in the next 10 years.
  
  If Paul is so wrong can someone explain how Paul consistently gets more donations from the armed forces than all the other candidates combined.
  
  Report this comment
affinnity
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:12pm
I’m glad she won Iowa – good for Bachmann. I like Paul. I’m not a Pawlenty fan.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rose-ellen
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:48pm
  Iraq happened because we want a military base. We had one in saudi arabia whic offended the fundamentalists saudi people and was an impetus to alquada. iraq was not fundamentalist so we saw it as more amenable to us having a base there.Also they have oil. And afghanistan is close to the causcasus where they have natural gas and a pipeline into american occupied afghanistan could benefit us economically.Great hearing Ron Paul speaking trruth about foreign policy right there on fox media .And all america heard it .As long as he gets the truth out about foreeign policy.The world does not belong to us and neither do its’ people.
  
  Report this comment
OnToppaThat
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:11pm
I think most of them did well. Congrats Michelle…..(Gingrich can’t win but he’s still “the smartest man in the room”)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dustyluv
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:12pm
  Newt would be the smartest man in the room if the room was empty….geeeeeeeeeee, he ain’t that smart.
  
  Report this comment
- chickenbig
  Posted on August 15, 2011 at 5:04am
  You people that trust this two party sharade make me sick. You’re all too collectively stupid to see you are being given two choices to pick from, and both parties are controlled by the same job exporting globalist bastards. GAT-NAFTA-FTAA were supported by both parties, and won passage with votes from both parties. How many jobs have these @%$@#! help to export with these trade agreements. both parties are responsible for the mess we’re in kinda like two pilots taking turns flying a plane the wrong way then crashing it. These two gems together continue to hand us over to a world governing authority one little piece at a time. Examine the democrats and republicans as a pair in a symbiotic relationship propping eachother up in an adversarial sharade, all the time ruining our beloved country.Just examine thier track record over the decades…And what ? Now they’re gonna have some magic beans they pull out of their asses. These Republicans and Democrats working together, if not stopped , will destroy this country. I for one am not impressed with their combined handywork as the same two ******** take turns at the wheel while the titanic heads straight into an iceburg.
  
  Report this comment
olddog
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:11pm
Bachman is our favorite, Romney is from Mass. and I just can’t believe there are any conservatives in Mass…. I think we need Tea Party people to clean up the mess and we don’t mind cleaning up the liberal mess as long as they keep their mouthes shut!!!!!!!!!!! GO TP Bachman

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- S_Malc13
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:17pm
  I’m not a liberal, but I wouldn’t condone quieting someone’s right to speak. Frightening.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:37pm
  I thonk Olddog was ironicaly echoing what Obama was saying about Republican critics in early 2009.
  
  Report this comment
- fatjack
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:22pm
  Slide over olddog and let fatjack sit awhile and celebrate with you.
  
  Report this comment
Captain Crunch
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:10pm
I venture to say what she has between her legs is more than you do.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UBETHECHANGE
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:10pm
Whatever. Big fail.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mitt-bobby2012
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:09pm
was for mitt til he started speaking but now would love a bachmann cain ticket a true tea party ticket not a crazy old man who failed in the past

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wishkah
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:22pm
  you scared me at first… the first time i read your post, i thought it said McCain…lol… then i read it a second time… and yes.. that would be a good ticket
  
  Report this comment
- mitt-bobby2012
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:34pm
  lol hated to vote for him but bachmann cain is the true tea party ticket palin is so annoying
  
  Report this comment
Captain Crunch
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:07pm
Bachman wins this round. Yes!
Paul is willing to let Iran get nuclear weapons…outrageous!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OnToppaThat
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:16pm
  That is bizarre…he has his own ‘Kumbaya Vision”
  
  Report this comment
- affinnity
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:24pm
  Ron Paul is the greatest Libertarian of my lifetime and the Conservative Libertarians can help Traditional Conservatives fight the Liberal Progressives and RINO’s. He brings a lot of good ideas to the table. Every Conservative isn’t going to agree with every other Conservative.
  
  Report this comment
- Nauss
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:36pm
  So everyone in Iran is a bad person? Racism much?
  
  Report this comment
- Dr Truth
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:18pm
  @Nauss
  Racist? Your comment/accusation makes no sense. Iran is not a race. It is a country. Islam is a religion, not a race. Words mean stuff. Get informed.
  
  Report this comment
- Nauss
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:13pm
  Iran=Iraq. Just another reason for the military industrial complex to make more money and take away our freedom.
  
  And Bachmann s not a constitutionalist. She vote to extend the Patriot Act.
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:38pm
  thank you captain. i’m a libertarian and am lost to support paul’s foreign notions. he is good on the 10th amendement and individual rights but the rest he is off his rocker. beer not pot :0
  
  Report this comment
Secessionista
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:05pm
Bachmann CANNOT be the GOP nomination. It has to be Ron Paul or else this country is going to go down in flames. RON PAUL!

Michelle can’t beat Obama. ONLY RON PAUL CAN BEAT OBAMA.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:13pm
  funny……thanks for the laugh
  
  Report this comment
- Steverino
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:14pm
  I must say, I admire the Ron Paul supporters’ enthusiasm and belief.
  Sorry, but… ain’t gonna happen.
  
  Report this comment
- TomFerrari
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:19pm
  okay, okay, we get it.
  
  You are a die-hard Ron Paul follower.
  
  Okay, already.
  
  Now, the rest of us are going to work to nominate someone who stands a chance.
  
  Don’t get me wrong. Dr. Paul has a LOT of correct ideas.
  
  Sad, but true, Americans will NOT vote for him because of his mannerisms and his demeanor, regardless of how correct he IS on the facts!
  
  So, please stop ATTACKING others.
  It is petty and if you are sincerely that concerned about doing what is RIGHT, then you are likely a person who is ABOVE that sort of petty behavior.
  .
  .
  .
  
  Report this comment
- quicker
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:21pm
  Take from a guy that lives in his district .This guy is a loon.In 2008 he wouldn`t debate Chris Pedon in the republican primary.So not only is he a loon but a coward to.
  
  Report this comment
- Rational Man
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:45pm
  I don’t believe either one can beat Obama. Not that they aren’t better. The tick on my dog is better than Obama. If for no other reason, it’s less of a blood sucker than Obama.
  But in reality, IMO, I just don’t think Bachman can win just because she is a woman. DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!…..I have no problem with her at all. But I’m not everyone.
  If Paul could bring himself down from the clouds on a couple of issues like Iran and drug legalization, he could win…..BIG.
  But because of these problems, I don’t think either can be president.
  
  I almost hate to ask this but I wonder if Bachman would consider VP if it came to that?
  Don’t beat me up!…I’m just trying to be realistic and get the good people at least closer to the top.
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. Oshawott
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:56pm
  @Secessionista
  
  I agree with you dearly on that. Those 4,823 voters that went to Michele Bachmann were so captivated by her speeches they probably didn’t take time to find out the fact that she voted for the extension of the unconstitutional “Patriot” Act, the fact that she requested the government to send her “stimulus” money (despite her opposition towards the so-called “Stimulus” Bill), the fact that her family farm and her husband’s clinic is subsidized with taxpayer money, and the fact that she’s a former IRS agent. Unless Ron Paul wins the presidential race to challenge Barack Obama for the Presidency, we are doomed!
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:12pm
  Paul can’t win for two reasons. What he says makes him sound like a stubborn and blind ideologue. It’s great for a President to have pepople like that around to present a strong case for a clear position, but I think many people will think he doesn’t have the right temperament. Which brings me to the other reason: his appearance. He sounds and looks like an old kook. He doesn’t look vibrant, and people want a healthy and sharp man in the WH, and he sounds, rightly or wrongly, like he might start forgetting things soon. This may be juts an APPEARANCE, but appearances are critical in this race.
  
  I think Michelle has similar problems when it come to mher demeanor. She can sometimes come off canned, and a little stiff, like she isn’t relaxed. People will be more attracted to a candidate who is comfortable in his skin and doesn’t seem to be faking anything. Sometimes Michelle reminds me of somone pretending to be polite. Now she gets far more crap thrown at her than anyone, so I don’t blame her if she is on her guard, but it can be fatal to show it. It makes people sense weakness, whether it’s true or not.
  
  Report this comment
- TheWholeTruth
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:18pm
  @RATIONAL MAN Show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to decide what a person can do with their own body? I mean if a woman has the ‘right’ to abortion on the notion that it’s ‘her body’ she can do as she wishes with it, then why not drugs? I’m here to tell you that people would not go out and start doing heroin if it was legalized. In fact I would venture to say that drug use would decrease since it wouldn’t be ‘taboo’ anymore. just my opinion. Pot is not the big satan everyone makes it out to be. Studies NOT FUNDED by the US government show it to be relatively benign and even beneficial for a lot of people. No where in the Constitution does it give the Feds a right to make laws about such things.
  
  Either you WANT a constitutional government or you DON’T. You can’t have it both ways.
  
  Report this comment
- 101
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:21pm
  The Tea Party movement started with the Ron Paul supporters during his 2008 run, RP is the Tea Party!
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. Oshawott
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:47pm
  @IslesFordian
  
  I’m voting for Ron Paul based on his extensive knowledge of economic and foreign policy and his unchanging principles of liberty, not his appearance, so STOP BASING YOUR CRITICISM MERELY ON HIS LOOKS!!! THIS ISN’T A BEAUTY CONTEST!!
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 1:43am
  @Oshawott,
  
  Like it or not, image has been a crucial factor in the Presidential race since the advent of television. It got JFK into the White House (all the vote buyiing ans stealing couldn’t have worked if he wasn’t close enough). Name the bald, fat or short nominee to run. Now we live in extraordinary times and people might be ready to overlook frivolous things like that, which is why many would be excited by a Christie run, but being fat is different than looking old. The APPEARANCE of frailty is no small thing. A National campaign is about gaining the trust of the larger population that may not know the candidate well. You can’t let them be turned off before they take the time to pay attention to the issues.
  
  Everyone but you guys knows this in politics. Ron Paul may not be too old, but he’s starting to LOOK LIKE IT, and that would be a burden no national campaign could overcome in three short months.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 2:43am
  @Rational Man
  I don’t think Michelle can’t win because she is a woman. You are right that her sex is a handicap, but she could overcome that is she seemed like the RIGHT KIND of woman. There are two types of woman that many men (and women) will not vote for:
  
  1. The nag (Hilary). As Rush says, twice divorced man that he is, she sounds like everyone’s first wife. She sounds like a woman that you just don’t want to spend your life listening to. That may sound childish, but we are talking about the broad majority’s gut instinct here. Rational arguments aren’t as relevant. Fewer men are going to be happy pulling the lever for a woman that seems to hate men.
  
  2. A “nice” woman. Men may like to listen to her, and think she’s attractive, but if she appears to be too nice or delicate they won’t have confidence that she can stand up for them against the big boys. Look at Michelle. She is a petite woman. And she is very feminine. She has to exude double or triple charisma and testosterone to overcome that. Men, and women, want a MAN to lead. A woman is going to have to convince them that she can lead like a man.
  
  Take Margaret Thatcher. She was exactly the type of woman that normal conservative men could vote for and follow. She was strong, but not in an emasculating way. She just made many of the men around her seem as if they had no b*lls because she showed more masculine confidence than they did. She was powerful without being nagging. People RESPECTED her, even he
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. Oshawott
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 8:23am
  @IslesFordian
  
  All right, then, IslesFordian, let me ask you this: Just who do you prefer seeing as President, someone who is attractive but has a huge chance of breaking guarantees in the end, or someone who isn’t experienced in beauty contests but has a huge wealth of intelligence when it comes to preserving freedom? I bring this question up because with all due respect (and I REALLY MEAN WITH ALL DUE RESPECT) I find your statement to be utterly nonsensical, just like that of your preceding post.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 12:24pm
  Leadership involves gaining people’s trust. In a nation as large as ours with our political system the one on one personal contact that would allow most people to see the candidates’ characters is severely limited and people very often judge on first and often surface impressions. That is just a fact that you have to deal with. Whining about it or pretending that it doesn’t matter because it SHOULDN’T is not a solution. The solution is for the parties to pick someone who is both good on the issues and can win in the general among the wider populace that doesn’t think about them as deeply as those who vote in the Primraries do. That is why there is always talk about a candidate’s ability “to win”, meaning to win the general election where superficial qualitie become more important. A candidate has to look presidential because most peoiple won’t take thet time, and may not have the means to see beyond the surface. They go by their gut, and their guts go by what they see.
  
  Like it or not that’s the way it is.
  
  Don’t give me this false dichotomy of a double dealing rock star politician versus an uncharismatic true blue candidate. the field is broad enough that we don’t have to make that choice.
  
  Besides, I’m not making prescriptions. I’m just making predictions. I don’t think michelle has the gravity that will make the nation trust her with the Presidency. And i think many primarry voters will think the same and base their support in the primarries accordlin
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 12:32pm
  And, as others have pointed out, Ron Paul appears older and frailer now that he did four years ago, and people are not going to vote for a candidate that looks like he might die in office. I don’t care how good he is. They kept FDR’s illness a secret during the election because they knew people wouldn’t vote for him. they kept JFK’s illness out of the papers for the same reason. If Paul seems to tremble or stammer people are going to be turned off in the general. Why would the party nominate a guy who is almost guaranteed to lose because he looks old? You may not like the facts, but that doesn’t change them.
  
  Obama was elected not because of his experience or what he really knew. People looked at him and thought that he COULD be present. He looked the part. If you don’t look the part your credentials don’t matter, you won’t even get the interview. Just ask anyone who went for a job interview at a bank with tatoos on his neck.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 12:55pm
  And just to remind you, Reagan was 69 when he became president and was 77 when he left. He’s still the oldest man ever to be hold that office. McCain was 72 when he ran. Ron Paul will be 77 in 2012, older on his first day than Reagan’s first first 7 1/2 years. That’s something to think about, and i know many people will be thinking about it.
  
  Report this comment
- American Soldier (Separated)
  Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:19am
  @TOMFERRARI Stand a chance at what? Continue to destroy our nation and trample on the constitution? You’re absolutely correct with that.
  
  Insanity, doing the same thing again and again expecting different results. Good job American.
  
  Report this comment
Ronko
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:04pm
She’s good but isn’t Ronald Reagan. I hope somebody beats Obama whether it’s her, Perry or somebody else not named Rommey.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Taldren
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:04pm
1) Michele Bachmann (4,823) – 28.55%
2) Ron Paul (4,671) – 27.65%
3) Tim Pawlenty (2,293) – 13.57%

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tifosa
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:15pm
  Mitt was 500 something yet in the end he’ll be the candidate. Go figure…
  
  Report this comment
- HankScram
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:43pm
  Romney? Meh . . . we’re going true conservative this time. Look what McCain got us. Romney’s more of the same.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:46pm
  I don’t think Mit will get the nimination. He won the straw poll last time. That he came in 7th today and Perry beat him with a write in shows how fragile his frontrunner status is. People are looking for someone else to replace him at the lead. It may be Perry. It may be Bachmann. I doubt it will be Pawlenty. I’m hoping Santorum picks up steam.
  
  Report this comment
- Look4DBigPicture
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:54pm
  This poll supported the candidates who showed up, gave some speeches, shook a lot of hands, signed a lot of photos, and gave away a lot of stuff. Those at the bottom of the poll either weren’t in Iowa or had too small of a budget to make a big showing.
  
  I don’t mean to sound cynical, because I enjoyed hearing the candidates’ messages. But let’s face it … a no show in Iowa is a low vote in the poll.
  
  Report this comment
- 101
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:45pm
  The elitist (not the people) want Romney running against BO…so they still have the power!
  
  Report this comment
DagneyT
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:04pm
So we know the 1st 3, where did Cain, Santorum, et al come in? No one is reporting on it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- momprayn
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:10pm
  Think he was Fourth…..
  
  Report this comment
- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:10pm
  On the contrary, you are not looking in the right place.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61315.html
  
  I’m not sure if it matters, though… the numbers for those candidates are very low.
  
  Report this comment
- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:13pm
  On the contrary, you must not be looking in the right place…
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61315.html
  
  I’m not sure it matters, though… those candidate’s numbers are really low.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:19pm
  Santorum came in 4th with 1,657 votes,9.8%. Cain was 5th with 1,456 votes, 8.6%.
  
  Rick Perry beat out Romney as a write in, 718 to 567. Newt had 385, Hunstman 69 and Mccotter 35.
  
  Report this comment
- dumboldcontractor
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:20pm
  Santorum 4th Cain 5th
  
  Report this comment
- mydogtippy
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:24pm
  Cain was #4 or #5, I think thats what I saw on fox.I like cain and think he would make.to a good Vice Pres if he can not #1 he is a good for business. He know how get them going and make a profit and he know how the federal reserve works
  
  Report this comment
- Look4DBigPicture
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:29pm
  Santorum came in 4th, but I think he made some headway today. This morning, I wasn’t all that impressed with him until I listened to his Iowa speech. I now understand why Glenn Beck favors him. He knows American history, is a strong conservative, and understands foreign affairs. I’m motivated to view him more seriously than before. (Hopefully he won’t back out after today, like Romney did when I was starting to notice him in 2008.)
  
  I’m still vacillating on my favorite, because we’ve been blessed with many strong Republican candidates. The smug Dems brag that no one candidate has beat Obama in the polls, but the truth is, any of these candidates can beat him in the election. I can’t wait to hear BO’s concession speech … I wonder if he’ll use the “shellack” word again.
  
  Report this comment
UBETHECHANGE
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:04pm
Pawlenty? Come on people Santorum needs to be ahead of this guy. Pawlenty seems fake and a RINO to me. Congrats Michelle! Ron Paul second! Maybe he can be our U.S. Treasury Secretary in 2012! I will be voting for ABO in 2012. Anybody but Obama!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Ronko
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:05pm
  I’d rather have Paul replace Bernanke and clean out the Fed.
  
  Report this comment
- Stuck_in_CA
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:06pm
  Way to go! A Godly woman wins. Love it!
  
  Report this comment
- SFsuper49er
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:14pm
  That is fantastic for Bachmann. We need a strong patriotic woman to clean this mess up in DC. DC won’t corrupt her!
  
  Report this comment
- affinnity
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:18pm
  We need our Conservative Senator to stay in the Senate and help us reverse the Obama mess.
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:29pm
  What conservative senator? There isn’t one running. Santorum isn’t in the senate anymore.
  
  Report this comment
- ProbIemSoIver
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:15pm
  Anyone who would vote to extend the Patriot act is no TEA PARTY patriot !!!!!
  Bachmann is a NEO-CON !!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Islesfordian
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 10:55am
  People who think opposition to the Patriot Act is a bedrock feature of the Tea Party make me laugh. That never came up at any meeting I attended. I understand that there are concerns with it and the danger it can pose, but I never talked to anyone who felt that it had ACTUALLY harmed them and violated their rights. The bailout, Tarp, Stumulus, QE1 and 2, Cash For Clunkers, Obama Care; these are all things that have actively harmed us NOW, in concrete ways that can be identified. How has anyone actually suffered from what the Patriot Act did?
  
  Report this comment
YepImaConservative
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:03pm
Good job Michele! I guess the Ronulans didn’t quite bus enough folks in, lol.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lylejk
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:02pm
Congrats to you Michelle. You are definitely on my short list and I would 100 times rather have you then Romney or Perry. Still like Cain, but don’t think he is going to have a chance. Again, kudos to you. :)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- grandma7
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:14pm
  LyleJK I agree completely. Love Michelle, Love Cain.
  Paul lost me with the Iranian Nukes.
  No Mitt.
  
  Report this comment
- burned at edges
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:19pm
  On my short list too. Congrats Michelle!
  
  Report this comment
jim
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:02pm
Gooood.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AR_OR_AK
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:01pm
BACHMANN for PRES and PAUL for VP… I can live with that…..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Christian Kalgaard
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:00pm
Paul for prez

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
grandma7
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:00pm
Way to go Michele!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
teapartyconservatism
Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:00pm
Congressman Ron Paul, MD, Lt Col, USAF, Ret., finished a second by a mere 152 votes or less than 1 percentage point, to Michele Bachmann, who gave out thousands of $30 tickets to her backers wishing to participate in the Iowa straw poll. America should listen to Congressman Paul very carefully because he’s correct.

Except for Dr. Paul, politicians avoid the real cause of our economic problems, which is not the debt ceiling but the Federal Reserve. It’s caused a century of turmoil including the great depression and a 95% devaluation of our once ‘good as gold’ dollar, now replaced by fiat Federal Reserve notes.[1]

As Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, Dr. Paul is more knowledgeable about monetary policy than any other member of Congress. He is absolutely correct about how to solve the economic problems threatening our jobs, our children’s future and the very survival of America as a free nation!

We don’t want to waste years with a detailed audit of the Federal Reserve that accomplishes nothing. We want to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to constitutional economic sanity!

1. E. Griffin, “The creature from Jekyll Island: a second look at the Federal Reserve”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auQEXTWomA

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Steverino
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:08pm
  I like Ron Paul. I like him plenty.
  BUT… He appeared to be old and unheathy in the debate – shaky hands concern me. Maybe nerves? That’s concerning as well.
  I also believe he is DEAD wrong about Iran. They will burn Israel and us to the ground, if allowed, which I believe he would.
  Congrats, Michele.
  ROCK ON!
  
  Report this comment
- UBETHECHANGE
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:09pm
  I agree with Ron Paul on most everything and he is right about the root cause of all America’s problems. However I’m not a big fan of his foreign policy, his explanation of the root cause yes, but i don’t think he realizes how big of a threat Islam, the Middle East, and Iran are to us. He’s too Dennis Kucinich for me in the defense dept.
  
  Report this comment
- Steverino
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:10pm
  …I would love to see Dr. Paul as Secretary of the Treasury, however.
  
  Report this comment
- DagneyT
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:18pm
  UBETHECHANGE, I could not agree more! He has no clue about the death cult that is the type of muslim religion that Ahmadinajad and others of his ilk subscribe to, and when they say they want to destroy Israel, everyone needs to listen to them!!! They mean it!
  
  Report this comment
- BCNU
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 7:42pm
  History IS being repeated……..in regards to The Federal Resrve.
  
  Please learn the Great Myths of the Great Depression
  http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/GreatDepression.pdf
  
  Public Law 95-435, which was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, requires a balanced budget. It is already federal law that the federal budget be balanced.
  PL 95-435: “Sec. 7. Beginning in fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts”.
  
  Report this comment
- Tyr
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:13pm
  Anybody want to bet there is not one bar of gold in Fort Knox? I think it has been gone and sold off decades ago.
  
  Report this comment
- cous1933
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:34pm
  @ ubethechange
  “However I’m not a big fan of his foreign policy, his explanation of the root cause yes, but i don’t think he realizes how big of a threat Islam, the Middle East, and Iran are to us. He’s too Dennis Kucinich for me in the defense dept.”
  
  Honestly I believe that Ron Pauls estimation on the threat to us is probably much more accurate than yours and most others who are in favor of our presence in the middle east. The government has used fear propaganda to enable the military industrial complex for decades, and we have fallen for it because we want the government to keep us safe.
  How is it that you, an ordinary citizen can assume to have more inside knowledge on foreign affairs than a longtime US Congressman? How can you be so sure that you are right and he is wrong? Knowing how the government uses fear to get what it wants causes me to believe that your assessment is based on fear and Ron Pauls is based on reality. I don’t mean that as a personal attack against you, I just think that Ron Paul is the one politician whose information always turns out to be the truth, because he has no other agenda than liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- IntransigentMind
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:40pm
  At least Mrs. Bachmann isn’t one of these RINOs:
  
  http://markamerica.com/2011/08/13/fiscal-conservative-social-moderate/
  
  Report this comment
- cous1933
  Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:59pm
  Ubethechange,
  I forgot to add that Ron Paul is very strong in the defense dept., it’s the “offense” dept. that he wants to get rid of.
  
  Report this comment
- teddie888
  Posted on August 14, 2011 at 12:48am
  UR correct, but the people themselves aren’t ready for the truth he tells about Iran. Everything that people complain about Paul has been against for 50 yrs consistently but the people think he’s a little off when in fact it’s the people that can’t handle the truth.
  
  Bachman is a poor man’s Palin. She started cementing herself to Palin early on for her own use. Bachman hasn’t really accomplished anything she’s only a comgresswoman and BO was just a senator. She talks a big game but so did BO. Neither have any accomplishments on running anything
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.