Paul’s Campaign Chair, Jesse Benton, then proceeded to issue the following statement (You had better sit down for this one.):
Ron Paul tonight scored an historic second-place victory in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary. Below please find comments from National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton:
“Ron Paul tonight had an incredibly strong second-place finish in New Hampshire and has stunned the national media and political establishment.
“When added to Paul’s top-tier showing in Iowa, it’s clear he is the sole Republican candidate who can take on and defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
“The race is becoming more clearly a two-man race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the candidate of authentic change. That means there is only one true conservative choice.
“Ron Paul has won more votes in Iowa and New Hampshire than any candidate but Mitt Romney.
“Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have been shown in national polls to be the only two candidates who can defeat Barack Obama.
“And Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two candidates who can run a full, national campaign, competing in state after state over the coming weeks and months. Ron Paul’s fundraising numbers — over $13 million this quarter — also prove he will be able to compete with Mitt Romney. No other candidate can do all of these things.
“Ron Paul is clearly the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney as the campaign goes forward.
“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.
“Ron Paul has the boldest plan to cut spending, a dedication to protecting life, and a lifelong dedication to the Constitution and limited government. He also has the necessary support to campaign nationwide against Mitt Romney.
“Our campaign is already planning ahead for South Carolina, Florida, and beyond. Soon Ron Paul will head to South Carolina to begin a feverish round of campaigning.
“Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul. And he is ready to fight.
“See you on the campaign trail.”
Cheeky, huh? You don’t know the half of it.
“But…but…” the Paulnuts interject, “he embraces the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers!”
Even if he does… it does not take our enemies years to travel the ocean to attack us anymore. He lived through 9/11/01. Is his memory that short?
Per Michael Filozof at americanthinker.com:
It’s often believed that if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons capability, they’d nuke Israel. I’m not so sure of that. An Iran-Israel nuclear war would be a textbook example of Mutual Assured Destruction. The doctrine of MAD requires a credible second-strike capability by the target country, and Israel would be certain to retaliate.
But the Iranians would have many options to maximize their leverage without resorting to an all-out nuclear exchange. The greater concern should be that the Iranians would use nuclear blackmail to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and embargo 40% of the world’s oil supply. Oil could spike to $400 or $500 per barrel overnight, crippling the global economy and turning the West into scene from a Mad Max movie.
If the Iranians were to create a nuclear blockade by threatening to use nuclear arms against any American vessel attempting to transit the Strait, would the threat of American nuclear retaliation be credible? Of course not. The U.S. did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Numerous presidents have publicly stated the desire for nuclear disarmament and ultimately a nuclear-free world. President Obama even declassified the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. now possesses. If the Iranians can be 100% certain of anything, it is that the U.S. will not use its nuclear arsenal against them, especially if they threaten to detonate, but do not actually detonate, a nuclear weapon in the Strait. Since deterrence theory requires a credible threat of retaliation, and U.S. threats are hollow, deterrence will not work, and the Iranians will have a free hand to strangle the world’s oil supply.
The other problem with Paul’s foreign policy is his assumption that we oughtn’t “interfere” around the globe, especially without congressional declarations of war. But we’ve been doing exactly that to protect American interests since the country was founded. President Jefferson, the paradigmatic states’-rights, small-government, libertarian president, prosecuted the First Barbary War against — no surprise – Islamic pirates in the Mediterranean, and did so without a formal declaration of war by Congress. (According to Paul’s theory of foreign policy, maybe American ships shouldn’t have been sailing in the Mediterranean in the first place.)
Paul is a libertarian who believes in the power of free markets. But he must be naïve to think that a nuclear Iran would want a global free market for oil. If the Iranians had nuclear weapons, they’d surely succeed in cornering the global market by closing the Strait. So, oddly enough, a preemptive intervention to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb would enhance free-market libertarian principles, not violate them.
Now, I could write a novel about what an absolute whackjob this septuagenarian, perennial also-ran is, or I could offer this mini-rant I published recently, as my reply to all of the obnoxious Paulnuts out there in genera,l and last night’s official statement from the Paul Campaign, specifically, which strains credulity:
Reality Check: Ron Paul is a old man, who has run for President several times. He is this generation’s Pat Paulsen (look him up). He is anti-semitic, pro-Iranian, and is a cranky, old isolationist nutjob, whom one would expect to find in a corner somewhere, with his underwear on top of his head, babbling , “I like cheese!” If he was the genius you idiots claim that he is, he would have won the presidency by now.
Loosen up your tin foil hat, Dr. Paul. It’s shaping your head into a point.