Rep. Steve King, an influential Republican congressman from western Iowa, has not endorsed a presidential candidate. But in the final sprint toward Tuesday’s caucuses, he is urging conservatives to stay away from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
King is adamant that Paul’s “isolationist” views are a threat to the country.
“In these last few days, the public and especially the activists in Iowa need to understand what Ron Paul would do if he became commander-in-chief,” King says. ‘I don’t think some of the responsible caucus-goers, many of whom support him, understand what he means on [foreign policy] and what he would do as president, pulling us out of places around the world.”
As Iowans make their final decision, King worries that Paul’s popularity on fiscal issues could overshadow his “blind spot” on foreign policy. “Our presence around the globe has been paid for by a tremendous amount of blood and treasure,” he says. “We are the force for security around the globe. If we had a commander-in-chief who pulled back military operations and brought it all back to the United States, and took a position that we would not intervene in foreign conflicts and only if attacked on our shores, there would be a huge power vacuum.”
“That giant sucking sound would draw in the Chinese, the Russians, Hugo Chavez, and others up into our shores and into the Caribbean,” King says, speculating on a Paul administration. “To paint an image of what I think it looks like under a Ron Paul presidency, it would be Iranian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba and Katyusha rockets in Tijuana. Neither of those situations would bother Ron Paul and that’s a calamity, that’s catastrophic.”
In an interview with National Review Online on Friday, King also discussed a variety of caucus-related topics, from his latest meeting with Bachmann to Santorum’s likely finish.
Santorum’s surge: “I think Santorum has arrived in third place,” King says. “His ascension has been impressive. The question is whether he can win. I’m not as much of an optimist about that; I don’t see that happening. But his timing has been excellent. Another week wouldn’t help Rick Santorum. He’s already done everything he could do. In the end, I think he’ll get to third, and that will be a result of hard work, of pounding the ground.” In sparsely-populated western Iowa, Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, has found a way to connect with Midwestern conservatives, King says, making a national race very local, from visiting all of Iowa’s 99 counties to pheasant hunting with local pols. “He’s even a good shot,” King chuckles.
Romney’s rise: “Romney has solidified his position,” King says. “People are coming home to the idea of who can beat Obama. That question hangs out there and it’s helping Romney.” Indeed, as Gingrich slips, “the race, right now, has become Romney-Santorum,” he says. “And it’s a big help to Romney to have the social conservatives split like they are — Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and to some extent, Newt Gingrich.” Romney, he notes, performed ably in Iowa last cycle, placing second to Mike Huckabee. After months of quiet campaigning, “Romney is now making a serious play for Iowa, turning up his effort,” King says. “If he wins it, he’ll have earned it.”
Gingrich’s tumble: King attributes Gingrich’s slide in the Iowa polls to the barrage of negative spots on the state’s airwaves. But Gingrich’s problems, he says, are deeper than 30-second television ads. He cites Gingrich’s (lack of a) message as the real issue. Instead of offering a focused platform, King says the former speaker’s proposals and the accompanying rhetoric have been muddled. “In politics, they always say pick five things, or three things if possible, and drive those three things, make people identify you with a core message,” he says. “I don’t think Gingrich has created those kinds of points for his campaign.” And at this point, “the inertia has him going in the other direction and I don’t think he’ll climb back.”
The Sorenson switch: King huddled with Bachmann, his closest congressional ally, in Early, Iowa on Friday afternoon. He did not endorse his House colleague during a brief press conference but he did chat with her on her bus following the event. Behind closed doors, he offered her support as she deals with her latest campaign crisis: the departure of her Iowa chairman, state senator Kent Sorenson. Sorenson recently joined the Paul campaign and soon after, Bachmann accused him of switching for financial reasons, musing that Paul’s advisers offered money in exchange for his support. Sorenson, for his part, has repeatedly denied the charge.
Regardless of which party is right, King stands by Bachmann. “Kent Sorenson’s timing on this, and the act itself, was just wrong,” he says. “Even if he had the deepest of convictions that he needed to support to Ron Paul, he shouldn’t have done it. You don’t show up at a Bachmann campaign rally, in your hometown, and two hours later show up at a Ron Paul rally and endorse him. Even if you feel absolutely compelled to act this way, you should go underground for five days and keep your integrity intact. He didn’t do that. I tried to put myself in his shoes, to think about his potential rationale, but I couldn’t see it, nor do I see how money was not a part of his decision. In any case, it was a large mistake by Kent Sorenson. Any benefits that he gets will not offset the damage that he has done to himself.”
Bachmann’s struggle: “I don’t know if I can explain it,” King says, but he wonders whether her inability to generate wide support in Iowa is due to her gender. “There is that question among evangelicals about whether a woman should be president,” he says. “I don’t question it, and think both men and women should be considered,” but in Iowa, “that is a piece of the puzzle.” Beyond that, Bachmann, he says, never found a way to hold onto the momentum she gained, albeit briefly, after winning the Ames straw poll in August. “As each of the frontrunners broke for the top of the hill, especially Rick Perry, it became hard for her to break back into the middle of all of that, maybe impossible,” he says. “Now that people are down to settling this thing out, Santorum has earned a lot of the support that might otherwise have gone to Bachmann.”
Mr. King is Wrong.
In the past 12 years American troops have wounded over 1,000,000 and killed 250,000 people in the middle east!
We have not been making friends only enemies and can mister King explain how this is good for America!
Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth and do unto others as you would have done unto U!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought I have heard about everything negative about Ron Paul. from people trying to portray him as being a bigot and racist (which the super pac laid to rest with there most recent commercial)! To the ridiculous assumption by Newt we would be eating meat packing employee's in our sausage! But the Idea that Ron Paul would let Iran put missiles in Cuba is ridiculous! As Ron Paul has stated in the past, any threat to our national security would be took to Congress, and Congress would have the right to act militarily if needed! This is how our Constitution was intended to work, not by the sole authority of the president!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd they call Ron Paul a nut. This is more fear mongering to perpetuate the Military Industrial Complex, keeping us safe from the scary brown people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fully disagree with King's assessment on Dr. Paul's foreign policy: the world would be much safer in the absence of US interventions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. For instance, all of Europe would be controlled by Fascists. Everything would be very safe and stable and orderly...for those who were not exterminated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlight difference: Hitler was going around Europe invading everywhere like a madman. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over 300 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you even paying attention?
"Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, a Syrian who has been operating as an “al-Qaeda facilitator” in Iran “under an agreement between al-Qaeda and the Iranian government.”"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing more recent? That article is five months old.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yah. Funnily enough I just finished watching a documentary about how Iran may have been responsible for Lockerbie after all. And in another newspaper this morning, a report about how Iran might had a large part in planning 9/11.
I'd like to say something like "you can't make this crap up."
The only trouble is, you can. And they invariably do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Right. For instance, all of Europe would be controlled by Fascists. "
Fascists? Oh, perhaps you mean Germany's National Socialists. Yes, they were entirely different from the folks to whome we forfeited Europe after the war - Russia's Soviet Socialists
(who killed 15 million before Germany fired a shot).
I also suppose that you are a firm believer in the myth of "The Great Patriotic War" - the one that the Russians did not start with their allies, the Germans.
Here are the Soviet Socialists not celebrating the splitting of Poland after not starting WWII with their friend, Hitler.
External Link
Yes, that "stopping the fascists" worked out real well for the 100 million victims of communism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I should have said totalitarians. It took longer to deal with the Iron Curtain variety, no thanks to some Europeans and Americans who were prone to making excuses and pretending things like engineered famines and gulags did not really exist. But in the end we did it through skilled foreign policy, conviction and determination, not through covering our eyes and letting well enough alone.
Ask anyone who lived in Eastern Europe under communism if we should have minded our own business and not called an evil empire an evil empire while we made it clear the West would be defended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is it you think that we might not have been better off if Hitler HAD taken over Europe?
I mean he killed off almost all of the Jews anyway it wasn't like we really stopped that - there were only a few left so we didn't change much by invading. Hitler would have been too busy fending off Stalin to have tried to invade the America's and Stalin would have been busy with Hitler and Japan had we tried to negotiate with them a year before Pearl Harbor when they made serious efforts to settle the situation.
It was Roosevelt and Churchill's racism against Asians and the British desire to maintain their Asian empire that kept us from avoiding the war with Japan.
Had we made peace with Japan and let Hitler and Stalin wear each other out in Europe, we would have saved hundred's of thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars of military expenditures AND we wouldn't have the shame and condemnation of the world for nuking 2 cities full of civilians.
No involvement in the war, no connections to the Middle East, we use our own resources and energy, no connection to Saudi's, no Israel to cause trouble, no Muslims in America, no 911, and America is a peace with clean hands and a sense of self-sufficiency and a proper sense of minding our own business - not to mention the respect of people who aren't angry by our interference..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would we allow that when we did not allow the Russians with a gazillion nukes to do it?
Sensationalist neocon rants like this are good only for the loss of another couple dozen 50 year subscibers to NR.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKing Warns GOP: If Paul Wins, ‘Iranian Nuclear Missiles in Cuba’ ... Oh dear, that sounds like something Michelle Bachmann would say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are the force for security around the globe. If we had a commander-in-chief who pulled back military operations and brought it all back to the United States, and took a position that we would not intervene in foreign conflicts and only if attacked on our shores, there would be a huge power vacuum.”
To which I and others say-so what. We have spent trillions and the blood of our best to what end? And we're borrowing those trillions from many of the same countries King thinks are such threats. Paul might have a small blind spot on foreign policy. King and his ilk are simply blind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "hide our heads under the blankets" foreign policy in the 1930's worked very, very well indeed.
So well that by the time conflict came to our shores it took 4 years of total mobilization of our entire society, between 60 and 80 million deaths worldwide, and the dropping of not one but two nuclear bombs to cope with the megalomaniac regimes that could have had their aggression nipped in the bud had the US accepted the fact that "With great power comes great responsibility."
If children reading comic books can grasp that simple principle rational adults should be able to do likewise.
Our declared enemies, enemies who have believed that their god commanded them to conquer the world in his name since Mohammed first took up his sword against his neighbors and who have hated "the west" since Charlemagne first halted then reversed their expansion at the Pyrenees, are not going to settle down to an idyllic life of wine and song just because we're tired of fighting them and figure that we've got better things to spend our money on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said...
It is stunning to see some fail to grasp the lessons of 9-11. For 8 years, a naive apologist, appeasing foreign policy only enabled the threats which will always eventually come crashing down on Our shores.
It is even more amazing to see some forget the essential lessons of the successful Reagan Doctrine.
Ron Paul is expressing the exact same concepts and vision of Cindy Sheehan. It is utterly dysfunctional, completely mindless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd we will combat hateful Islam by...community organizing in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uganda, Libya, et al? COIN is a fraud, Petraeus a well-spoken(and liberal) con man. Because we aren't fighting a war any more. Ask any grunt; it's beyond a joke.Trying to turn these backward places into Western democrcies is a fool's errand.
We could stop these guys at the border by profiling and not issuing visas to ME countries.We would have the manpower to have real border secuirty if we had those servicemen here. Instead we all take off our shoes and trust Bruno Napolitano.
I lost a dear friend,several clients and neigbors on 9/11. I smelled that burning flesh for months. And we had every right to go and kill Osama; we should've done it way sooner. But to continue to justify this never-ending war with 9/11 is beyond embarrassiing. And you have nothing else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCharlemagne's grandfather.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy doesn't King just come right out and say what he and Bachmann are concerned about? It's not really about non-existent Iranian nuclear missiles, it's about the Iranian trained sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads. And speaking of sharks, King, Bachmann and the rest of the neo-cons have just jumped one. Prediction: Paul wins Iowa, Bachmann drops out, Newt cries, Santorum gives up and it's on to New Hampshire. Paul must be in the lead otherwise why would the neocons be putting their waterskis on?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse