What a load of crap. The Republicans can't ignore Ron Paul forever. He is the Only one with true grass roots support!

The Media is propaganda! Ron Paul 2012!

It would seem Mr. Wallace is trying to tell Iowans who not to vote for.

A victory by [Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum] would "discredit the Iowa caucuses"

fix't

a disgrace to all scots everywhere. hawd yer wheesht, fucking neocon israel shill.

Wallace gets it completely wrong, a win for Ron Paul would completely discredit Fox News.

Fox Host: Discredits Himself.

so people voting and choosing Paul would discredit them because no one would choose him?

lol. At this point FoxNews isn't even pretending to not be trying to determine who should and should not win the GOP nomination. Ailes and Rove: - a match made in control-freak heaven.

In many ways - Ron Paul best reflects the professed beliefs of the right, without contradicting himself.

I believe FOX "News" has once again "jumped the shark"

It would seem Mr. Wallace is trying to tell Iowans who not to vote for.

FOX has been given their marching orders by the RNC. Deal with it righties, Mitt and his Magic Underwear are your choice for 2012.

It's incredibly offensive for Wallace to tell voters they will be discrediting themselves by voting for their chosen candidate.

"In many ways - Ron Paul best reflects the professed beliefs of the right, without contradicting himself”

Unless of course you consider working in and collecting a government checks for 25 years while doing absolutely nothing but decrying government ---- as not a “contradiction” in itself.

What a piece of crap. Voting for who you believe in will never discredit a caucus. It might even shed a light on a viable third party candidate. I think he is batshit crazy on many things but I think he is dead on others. He would be tough medicine for the country but it may be what we need.

Not to overstate it, but it is easy how this type of comment could backfire against FoxNews as a whole. Many solid rightwingers support Ron Paul. They no doubt will be grossly offended by this type of comment. It can cause the network to lose some of it's luster in the eyes of the faithful viewer.

Chris Wallace is not exactly a chip off the old block.... more like a splinter, really.

The more support R Paul gets, in Iowa or elsewhere, the more he may be encouraged to make an Independent run.

That he is more than just a blip on the election screen this year is due more to the GOP primary voter's unease about Mitt's conservatism and their fear of Newt's antics than anything new about R Paul.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on alot of things. But he says what he means. IMO, he's the only major party candidate who has any personal integrity (including Obama). This is why useless partisan shitbirds hate him.

Chris Wallace discredits journalism.

The Republicans can't ignore Ron Paul forever

No, but they might be able to ignore him until he dies. It'd be a shame, but that's probably the strategy.

Unless of course you consider working in and collecting a government checks for 25 years while doing absolutely nothing but decrying government ---- as not a â€Å"contradiction” in itself.

#13 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2011-12-15 01:40 PM

Working in congress is the only way to change congress.

fair and balanced? more like fear and bullshit

The neocon war mongers at Fox News have done their best to keep Ron Paul off the air and marginalized. If RP wins in Iowa that means Fox News has lost influence as it should with Murdock and Ailes.

I disagree with much of what Ron Paul says but I still see him as the man that the USA needs in 2012 to shake up our absurd costly foreign policies and reverse the continual decline in our rights and liberties. Unlike most he has been consistent for decades not months.

Ron Paul has voted to oppose most of the major issues that I also opposed, such as the Patriot Act, Iraq Wars, etc.

I do oppose him on healthcare. I believe we need a national buy in to Medicare for those in their 20s that are younger and healthier who can buy in and recharge the system without major outflows. But we need to go after the fraud with zeal and eliminate the 30% overhead that insurance companies add to health care without adding value. A national health care plan would reduce off shoring.

I voted for Obama but have come to see him as a Wall St puppet who refuses to hold the crooks accountable and instead appoints them to czardom and future oligarch status, just as was done in Russia in the 1990s.

It seems that you have to be a certain type of rightie for Faux News to be on your side these days... This is funny stuff, you just can't make it up. Faux is picking your leaders, what could possibly go wrong?

A Paul win would discredit the Republican Party.

A Paul win would discredit the Republican Party.

Considering that it would be Republicans choosing him, I'm not sure I see your point.

As many have stated, I disagree with Paul on some big-ticket issues, but now that Feingold is out of the Senate, I would probably consider RP to be one of the most honest people in Washington.

There are some others coming up, too, I think, but they haven't quite gotten the headlines yet that Paul and Feingold did.

I would consider voting for RP in 2012. I've never voted for anyone but a democrat in the years I've been voting, not because I especially like the democrats, but because I especially disagree with the republicans and haven't really found a third party I can get behind.

It wouldn't be a foregone conclusion, though. I do think some of his ideas would do more harm than good in today's society. His honesty makes up for some of that hesitance on my part, though.

Restore it. He's saying what Bush won on in 2000, what Reagan was supposed to be, and what Barry Goldwater exemplified in 1964. The neocons of recent are not the Republican party of the past 100 years.

The criticism of Fox News is very well deserved in this case.

This is over the line.

Why does the Iowa caucus have much credit to begin with?
Why is so much weight attached to it?

Seriously...Iowa? New Hampshire?

Perry was shot down.
Bachman was shot down.
Cain was shot down.
Gingrich may well yet shoot himself down.

Nobody, rightwing or moderate Republican is enthusiastic about Romney.

RP may be the last Republican man standing.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

The criticism of Fox News is very well deserved in this case.

This is over the line.

They are simply maintaining the exact same MO they had in 2008.

Ignore, Manipulate, Discredit.

RP may be the last Republican man standing.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

Posted by moder8 at 2011-12-15 03:04 PM |

And now a special dedication from Huntsman to the GOP:

Elton John's "I'm Still Standing."

This just in, Huntsman's choice of an Elton John song conveyed to the GOP voters he is too gay for them to support.

So K, maybe you could write Rick Perry's, "I'm Still Stammering"....

ROFLMAO! Nice Corky.

It's incredibly offensive for Wallace to tell voters they will be discrediting themselves by voting for their chosen candidate.

Not unlike the anger directed at Ralph Nader supporters by Democrats.

In many ways - Ron Paul best reflects the professed beliefs of the right, without contradicting himself

Ron Paul is an anti-choice libertarian. If that isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is.

Ron Paul is an anti-choice libertarian. If that isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is.

I don't see that as a contradiction at all. If you believe life begins at conception, I can't imagine how you can be anything but pro-life. The question is really when life begins.

****Fox Host: Paul Win Would Discredit Iowa****

....would a Newt or Mitt win make Iowans look any smarter ?......

Fox Host: Paul Win Would Discredit Iowa

American Viewer: Appearing on Fox News Discredits Speaker

Ron Paul is an anti-choice libertarian. If that isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is.

#35 | Posted by dibblda at 2011-12-15 03:17 PM

And really, his stance is more about state's rights than "anti-choice."

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

And really, his stance is more about state's rights than "anti-choice."

Liberals are experts at nuance...until it comes time to honestly discuss Ron Paul and his positions.

I had the wrong idea and listened to Rush today.

He's talking about Romney and Gingrich.

But, what does he say about Ron Paul?

Let's see if I can get the statement right...

This is not a quote but... "Romney and Gingrich are attacking each other. The problem is by doing this, Ron Paul is gaining in the polls."

Rush basically was saying that it was a bad thing RP was gaining in the polls.

It's bad why?

Because, again, like Hannity, you really don't want Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate.

The two of them won't say who they want, but will support the R candidate.

I think we're going to see Hannity or Rush actually pick a candidate to back if RP gets closer to winning the nomination.

But he says what he means. IMO, he's the only major party candidate who has any personal integrity (including Obama).

Except when he doesn't. Paul stuffs pork into budget bills, makes sure there's enough votes to pass it, then votes against it.

I don't believe a word of it. Chris Wallace is a TV news host AND moderator of an upcoming Republican debate. There is no way he would possibly show partiality like that given either of those two positions he holds. Ridiculous that anyone would accuse a news show host OR a debate moderator of such partiality, much less a man who is both. CNN would never stand for it, and Wallace knows that well, so there's no way he would jeopardize his job like that. What's that? . . . Not CNN? . . . Chris Wallace works for Fox? . . . . . . Nevermind.

Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

That's where he stops being libertarian. He doesn't give a rats ass if sharia were approved at the state level. He wants to pretend there's no national interests in things like women's rights or drugs.

He doesn't give a rats ass if sharia were approved at the state level.

aaaahhh. just assign an extreme position to him if you don't get what you want from him.

STFU idiot. you are just pissed he doesn't cater to asswipes like you.

He wants to pretend there's no national interests in things like women's rights or drugs.

you are too biased to know what the fuck you are talking about. there are way too many people wrapped way too tight on abortion and unless he states he believes abortion is wrong from a religious perspective and makes it his mission to reverse Roe V wade based on that, then just STFU about abortion.

HAR~ HAR~

More stupid tools pinning away for a time they never saw or lived in that in realty only exists in the fantasies of old codgers like Paul.

If it were left to the states, we wouldn't have a highway system and every American would have to go thru customs on the border of every state (like that would be cost effective and good for business).

Ron Paul would do the same thing as president as he has done for the past 25 years working in government, nothing but cashing his government checks.

He wants to pretend there's no national interests in things like women's rights or drugs.

#44 | Posted by northguy3 at 2011-12-15 04:55 PM

lol, what a retard.

nothing but cashing his government checks, being one of the few voices against wars, against the MIC, against abuses on civil liberties, against the War on Drugs, and against raising the amount he receives in those checks.

#46 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2011-12-15 05:06 PM

Ron Paul is the only truthful one of the bunch. The Obama/Romney/Newt Ticket must be defeated if "The People" are to maintain control.

Except when he doesn't. Paul stuffs pork into budget bills, makes sure there's enough votes to pass it, then votes against it.

Earmarks are Constitutional as they are appropriated spending. He has a much bigger issue with blank spending checks to the executive.

his "extreme Sharia law like" stance on abortion and drugs.

lol, what a retard.

#47 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Umm, LOAD, maybe you should learn to read. I said he wouldn't care if a STATE installed sharia law. You think Ronpaul1776 would interfere with a state law on drugs?

Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults." Is that still your position?

A: Yeah. It's sort of like alcohol. Alcohol's a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else. And today the absurdity on this war on drugs has just been horrible. Now the federal government takes over and overrules states where state laws permit medicinal marijuana 1 for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That's where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.

Q: But you would decriminalize it?

A: I would, at the federal level. I don't have control over the states. And that's why the Constitution's there.

Earmarks are Constitutional as they are appropriated spending.

So are deficits. I thought you guys were all about out of control spending and pork. Or is Paulpork okay?
Pick a side and stick to it.

Considering that it would be Republicans choosing him, I'm not sure I see your point.

#25 | Posted by JOE

They will never choose him. He stands for everything they don't. I voted for Obama. I would actually consider voting for Ron Paul.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

#30 | Posted by moder8

And awesome. I would love to see a debate between Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

The moderator at the next FOX debate said what?!

Basically just told Iowa voters who to vote or more precisely not to vote for.

Wow, just wow.

Shamelessly unprofessional.

Hope Ron Paul wins freakin' Iowa now just to watch them try to spin it away.

He really is the closest thing the GOP has to a populist with grass roots appeal.

RON PAUL > Tebow.

Be Well.

Wallace gets it completely wrong, a win for Ron Paul would completely discredit Fox News.

You actually think they have any credibility left to lose?

Umm, LOAD, maybe you should learn to read. I said he wouldn't care if a STATE installed sharia law.

#51 | Posted by northguy3 at 2011-12-15 06:48 PM

I would actually consider voting for Ron Paul.

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2011-12-15 07:37 PM

Actually, I think a Ron Paul win would do more to discredit Fox than Iowa.

Ron Paul is the only one with even half a brain.. The rest are a bunch of religious control freaks.

Ron Paul is the only one with even half a brain.. The rest are a bunch of religious control freaks.

#60 | Posted by truthteller101

I agree.

I watched Romney damage himself by saying that he believes that marriage is between and man and a woman.

I couldn't vote for anyone who would support an Amendment to the Constitution that would say this.

It's a state issue and has no business at the Federal Level.

Same sex marriage is going to be allowed in all 50 states very soon.

Chris is incorrect when he says this.

Huckabee won Iowa last time and he went further when everyone else dropped out.

It didn't discredit Iowa one bit--Huckabee didn't win another state.

Paul may very well win Iowa--he's got the infrastructure--by all accounts.

And what would everyone say if Bachmann wins Iowa?

The thing with Ron Paul--and I like him in many ways--is that he only has half a brain.

He is seriously misguided on foreign policy and the 9/11 thing he blames the US.

"Ron Paul is the only one with even half a brain.. The rest are a bunch of religious control freaks."

Really? Other than Bachmann, who up there is wrapped in the trappings of religion? Romney? Not really. Huntsman? Not that I've seen. Gingrich? Not sure he has a soul, never mind any sort of faith.

He is seriously misguided on foreign policy and the 9/11 thing he blames the US.

#62 | Posted by MURPHY at 2011-12-16 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pointing out the reasons why half the world feels motivated to see the entire country rot in hell isn't putting the blame on the US. It's more or less examining why things could go so horribly wrong.

He is seriously misguided on foreign policy and the 9/11 thing he blames the US.

#62 | Posted by MURPHY

I agree with everything you said except this.

What he says about foreign policy and Bush (as it pertains to 9/11) and that 9/11 happened because of our foreign policy over the last four decades is very sound.

It's true and I agree with him 100%.

I think that we should begin to dismantle the American Empire before it collapses or a major war starts

Eddie, I've never seen you post such rational, non-inflammatory remarks. I don't come here often anymore -- do I have you mixed up with someone else, or are you just off your game?

I tease, of course. It's always nice to see a new side of someone.

"Other than Bachmann, who up there is wrapped in the trappings of religion?"

Santorum and Gingrich.

Eddie, I've never seen you post such rational, non-inflammatory remarks. I don't come here often anymore -- do I have you mixed up with someone else, or are you just off your game?

I tease, of course. It's always nice to see a new side of someone.

#66 | Posted by dylanfan

Yeah, I've cooled it. I was going through a phase.

Made a lot of enemies though.

A change of heart. You don't see that often around here. Congratulations -- I like the new you. Of course, I haven't had a chance to disagree with you yet. ;-)

Honestly, though, I have a lot more respect for the people here who are level-headed regardless of party affiliation.

Of course, are blogs like this really about respect?

That's rhetorical.