Rep. Steve King says he may endorse Romney or Santorum to hurt Ron

[bluesc]

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted Ron Paul's foreign policy views Friday in an interview with The Hill and hinted that he might endorse someone else in order to try and stop Paul from winning the Iowa caucuses.

King, a conservative kingmaker in Iowa, said Paul's foreign policy views are dangerous and have not received enough scrutiny. He said Paul once told him he wants to bring home all American troops.

"What Ron Paul supporters need to think about if they think they can elect him as president, a commander in chief can order all of the armed forces back to the United States," he told The Hill. "That means no presence anywhere on the globe — our enemies can fill that vacuum with very little resources, and I am very troubled by that.

"I don't think that’s a worthwhile price to pay to get the good things Ron Paul talks about, like deficit reduction. I don't think that's worth sacrificing our national security."

King, who has not endorsed, said that Paul's strong position in the state might make him more likely to back another candidate. He spoke positively about both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

"I'm starting to see some shifts here that have caused me to take a look in such a way that maybe it becomes clearer to me of what my duty is," he said in the Thursday night conversation. "Things are breaking here and that may lead me to coming to a decision."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201777-steve-king-rips-ron-paul-hints-at-endorsement-to-stop-him

[wgadget]

The link. Break it?

[BLS]

F that guy.

[braane]

What he doesn't understand, or apparently any neocon, is that you can't reduce the debt burden without reducing the military burden. Oh well... How many people will care about an endorsement 3 days before the caucus anyways?

[sailingaway]

Whatever. His endorsing Romney is useless, his endorsement simply doesn't mean that much. And if he endorses Santorum he's going to have to explain it to MB, but I always thought he might. He is the kind of person who spends day and night scared, imho.

[MMXII]

Someone on here said it best: constitutional foreign policy.

Or to quote Doug Wead: "What's so dangerous about the constitution?"

[sailingaway]

What he doesn't understand, or apparently any neocon, is that you can't reduce the debt burden without reducing the military burden. Oh well... How many people will care about an endorsement 3 days before the caucus anyways?

It might help push the 'consolidation' of evangelicals. Dunno. Those who vote on that foreign policy position were never going to Ron.

[KCIndy]

Anyone running against King in the primary?

[mpdsapuser]

Yes, Steve King, it makes perfect sense for our national security to continue borrowing money from China to fund our adventures overseas and foreign welfare.

[wxflyguy]

Oh well... How many people will care about an endorsement 3 days before the caucus anyways?

Unfortunately, alot more than you think. Many evangelicals are waiting for the Steve Kings of Iowa to tell them who they should vote for. I don't say that to disparage evangelicals...it's just a fact if you look at what happened with Huckabee a few years ago. Personally, I think he's going to endorse Santorum b/c Romney is too centrist.

[sailingaway]

Anyone running against King in the primary?

I'm sure there will be if this goes through!

It is just a House seat. No problem.

[bluesc]

I'm sure there will be if this goes through!

Draft Sorenson.

[MMXII]

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201777-steve-king-rips-ron-paul-hints-at-endorsement-to-stop-him

This way of thinking seems to be right in line with the GOP establishment. What a surprise Steve.

[moderate libertarian]

That guy is a douche and neocon pimp, he is just looking for some attention. Just ignore him.

[Johnnybags]

Of course he is going to endorse Romney. His future as a political hack depends on backing a winner and Romney is a real Winner of the flip flop competition held at Lake Winnie.

[Bruno]

F that guy.

What he said

[liveandletlive]

one of the biggest Islamophobes here in NY

[Ronulus]

Say goodbye to your reelection Mr. King. What a jerk, these fools never have anyway of describing problems or what they don't like. They just say "Oh he would let Iran have a bomb" or "he would let our enemies fill the vaccums"

[jer4liberty]

one of the biggest Islamophobes here in NY

That's Peter King -_-

[Paulitics 2011]

Of course he is going to endorse Romney. His future as a political hack depends on backing a winner and Romney is a real Winner of the flip flop competition held at Lake Winnie.

Then let's show him that we will fund the election of his opponent if he does.

[Jack Bauer]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/1361064_700b.jpg

[Feeding the Abscess]

"He personally told me he'd bring all the troops home!"

You and billions around the world, you scum-sucking loser.

Also, parallels between him using the "he personally told me" and Bachmann using that line about Sorenson. Are we sure King and Bachmann aren't the same person?

[specsaregood]

Its a shame, as earlier on he said he wouldn't endorse between Bachmann and Paul. Turns out none of thes guys are anything but a bunch of power hungry wimps.

[Tax the Fed]

Maybe it be time to put the bigger hurt on Steve King !

[Agorism]

This is the IRA terrorist guy.

[sailingaway]

Of course he is going to endorse Romney. His future as a political hack depends on backing a winner and Romney is a real Winner of the flip flop competition held at Lake Winnie.

I hadn't thought of that. He might be using Ron as an 'excuse' to win favors from what he perceives as the winning team. Because his endorsement is NOT going to make evangelicals go to Romney. Santorum, maybe.

[jct74]

there was a segment on MSNBC today about how people are starting to coalesce around Romney because they don't want Ron Paul to win Iowa


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I

[braane]

Someone needs to compose a list of morons like this guy, so we can remember this summer who we need to campaign against.

[sailingaway]

Its a shame, as earlier on he said he wouldn't endorse between Bachmann and Paul. Turns out none of thes guys are anything but a bunch of power hungry wimps.

No, no! It is because Ron Paul's foreign policy CHANGED since then.... :rolleyes:

[LeJimster]

They say nice things about Paul when they don't see him as a threat, as soon as he has any chance of winning he's going to destroy America.. Whatever.. Idiots.

[sailingaway]

there was a segment today on MSNBC about how people are starting to coalesce around Romney because they don't want Ron Paul to win


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I

they are pretending that is the meme. The ESTABLISHMENT hacks, sure. The Gingrich guys who wanted an insider. But there is an insider/outsider race, and Ron is the only outsider with a ground game in 50 states.

[MMXII]

thanks msm. keep telling us HOW to think and WHO to vote for. Can't wait to hear what the good people of IA actually think.

[robert9712000]

These people have mental problems,they sound like the whole worlds out to get them.Isnt that a sign of paranoid schizophrenic.

[SDMF]

F that guy.

+1

[Corey]

1. Bachmann
2. King

I hope someone is keeping a list. I would donate just as much money as I did to the Ron Paul campaign, to make sure these two aren't re-elected, and that they know why they aren't re-elected.

[DRV45N05]

This is a good sign as to who people think is really ahead.

No one has been attacked as much or as viciously in the last two weeks as Ron Paul. It's because they view him as the front-runner. This will continue until caucus night, just as it did to Huckabee two years ago. And I don't think Iowans are going to fall for it this late in the game.

It's funny how they're trying to change the issues of focus from the economy/spending- which is THE issue realm that Iowans have stated time and again they care about this time around- to foreign policy.

[A. Havnes]

I wonder what the founders would say if they heard that kind of crap? The world was just find before we invaded it, and it will continue to thrive without our presence. By continuously making enemies throughout the world, our nation security is always going to be threatened. We are sewing the seeds of our own destruction because we keep starting wars, putting sanctions on others, and occupy sovereign lands in the name of providing quick fixes to our problems of today.

Sometimes, as I look at pictures of children whose parents just got killed by our troops due to a simple case of mistaken identity, their bodies covered in dirt and blood, and with crying faces so horrific it should make the stomach of any decent person churn, I think to myself, "Will those kids become the terrorists of tomorrow? Will they seek revenge for their parents and other lost loves?"

As Americans, we tend to forget about the humanity of others, especially if it's considered unpatriotic to do so. Yet, for those of us on these forums, we easily see that it's due to our interventions of yesterday that we suffer these problems of today. If we respond through more intervening, orphaning children, imposing sanctions on countries that have not proved to be a threat to our nation, and treating the world like a massive chess board, then the generations of tomorrow will find themselves in similar situations and will be forced to ask if they want to repeat our mistakes, or to correct them through adherence to the Constitution.

I, for one, would like to see an America with a strong national defense, a symbolic leader to look up to, and with a future that looks bright and clear, provided we haven't already nurtured a new generation of terrorists just waiting to grow a bit older. If you don't endorse Ron Paul for president, you're basically saying that you want your kids, or grandkids, to suffer more terrorist attacks, the likes of which can only be tempered through a full-blown police state.

America is on a dangerous path. Our foreign policy is directly tied to our economic prosperity, our freedom, and our future.

[enjerth]

there was a segment on MSNBC today about how people are starting to coalesce around Romney because they don't want Ron Paul to win Iowa


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I

Holy sh ---- are they saying that the race is between Paul and Not Paul? It's not about Romney or Not Romney any more.

The people are no longer buying the idea that he's unelectable. Now they're saying we don't want him elected. We have the upper hand.

Saweeet.

Will it soon be time to switch back to an "educational" campaign to convert those who say they don't want him elected?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

No Bachmann?

[Sola_Fide]

there was a segment on MSNBC today about how people are starting to coalesce around Romney because they don't want Ron Paul to win Iowa


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYEEe25t6I


They have no idea the blowback we have in store for them if this is their plan.

[moderate libertarian]

This is a good sign as to who people think is really ahead.

No one has been attacked as much or as viciously in the last two weeks as Ron Paul. It's because they view him as the front-runner. This will continue until caucus night, just as it did to Huckabee two years ago. And I don't think Iowans are going to fall for it this late in the game.

It's funny how they're trying to change the issues of focus from the economy/spending- which is THE issue realm that Iowans have stated time and again they care about this time around- to foreign policy.

Right on.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?343562-Neocon-panic-over-prospects-of-Ron-Paul-win-approaching-boiling-point&p=3920460&viewfull=1#post3920460

[LibertyEagle]

//

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

God, I hate these verbs used in articles. "Paul slams Romney, Steve King blasted Ron Paul."

[rich34]

Imo, the tone has even changed locally in newspapers across the country. It really has gone from ignore him to "he can't win" to (fight him) the newsletters and now what appears to be Paul may just win a couple primary's, but he's still not going to win the nomination. The dynamic is changing folks, now is the time to keep pushing and not become punch drunk. If Ron can wade through these punches and make it out by winning Iowa it'll be his turn to go on the offensive! They are giving Ron a lot of "free" media now and even though it might be negative they are still being forced to talk about him which is allowing more people to find out about him. Winning Iowa from what will appear to be out of no where due to them not talking about him will only cause many more to come his way. As long as he is funded to take his message to each state he's got a great shot at making a very strong run for the nomination. Winning Iowa is a game changer whether the MSM wants to admit it or not. That's the reason you have these Steve King/Chris Christie types coming out of the woodwork acting as if their endorsement means something trying to prevent Ron from winning. I'm sure Iowans appreciate being told what to do by some out of state fat man.

[Captain Shays]

So much for the Christian Just War Principles ehy Steve? Yes, I am Steve King and I am pro life and pro war and there is no contradiction. We the state are justified in glono copping, killing maiming and quite capable I might ad Anywhere in the world and we should at every opportunity. MORE WAR. MORE DEATH. SEND YOUR KID BUT NOT MINE

[muh_roads]

Unfortunately, alot more than you think. Many evangelicals are waiting for the Steve Kings of Iowa to tell them who they should vote for. I don't say that to disparage evangelicals...it's just a fact if you look at what happened with Huckabee a few years ago. Personally, I think he's going to endorse Santorum b/c Romney is too centrist.

Don't people have a mind of their own anymore? Good grief.

[Shellshock1918]

What he doesn't understand, or apparently any neocon, is that you can't reduce the debt burden without reducing the military burden. Oh well... How many people will care about an endorsement 3 days before the caucus anyways?

That right there shows they don't give a damn about spending. If they really thought $15 trillion dollars of debt was a problem then they would all be advocating reducing spending in all areas.

Do we REALLY need to be in Germany? In Japan? In Africa? In Korea? Where is the common sense? Why do we continue to fight the next war like the last? We put bases around the world to contain the Soviets. Fine. The Cold War is over however. Now we've got problems. We are broke and our presence in certain parts of the world is not wanted by a radical fringe of the populace. Time to close up shop. The British Empire did it. Why can't anyone in this country, save for a few, admit the obvious and accept reality?