Comparing Ron Paul to the "Serious" Candidates - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

samcol · 12-08-2007, 07:28 PM

There has been another spontaneous grassroots success story for the Ron Paul campaign. Individuals have managed to raise over $200,000 for a huge phallic symbol of freedom: The Ron Paul blimp. Another $200,000 and it will fly through the New Hampshire primaries.

With the blimp and the money bomb, this will be a huge week for the Ron Paul campaign.

dc_dux · 12-08-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Thanks for the info DC. Although it is simplistic, it is an interesting table. I wonder out of the posted numbers, how many actually vote too. I would love to see a comprehensive spreadsheet complete with breakout with a ton of cool voting info like, region, race, income, gender, political leanings etc. Nice find DC. Do they have any more recent info too?

Quick question: how do you know what the age group is for Ron Paul supporters? Do you know what it is for the other candidates? I think it would be interesting to see the comparisons.

Sure, its simplistic, as well as anecdotal with respect to my assumptions re, the age groups that are Ron Paul supporters.

But it is no more simplistic than the claim that his poll numbers are in single digits because of media bias, his name not being included in polls, misrepresentation of his positions, etc. His low poll numbers just might be attributable to the fact that many Americans just dont share his vision.

I'm not aware of any other age-related data, but the FEC (and OpenSecrets.org)has gender data on contributors. Ron Paul has the lowest percentage contribution from women (18.8%). In fact, all of the Republican candidates have lower percentage contributions from women then most of the Democratic candidates.

From OpenSecrets.org (only includes contributors over $200 and not counting the 4th quarter)

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

There has been another spontaneous grassroots success story for the Ron Paul campaign. Individuals have managed to raise over $200,000 for a huge phallic symbol of freedom: The Ron Paul blimp. Another $200,000 and it will fly through the New Hampshire primaries.

With the blimp and the money bomb, this will be a huge week for the Ron Paul campaign.

Good luck with the phallic blimp!

samcol · 12-12-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

December 7th National Caucus Results
Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses

On December 7, 2007 across the country, Democrat, Republican and Open Caucus groups formed independently and Caucused on National Caucus Day. The First National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in.

Results were tallied from 19 Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).

Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and "Undecided" each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively.

Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%).

Some caucuses used multiple voting rounds with minimum vote thresholds to give citizens a chance to change their minds and switch candidate preferences, but all meetings were built on a first round of issue discussion and deliberation. Multiple rounds of voting were not prohibited and each group was encouraged to create the most engaging caucus format possible. However, threshold voting eliminates all but the top vote-getters. While that may have been the intention for some groups, the NPC feels obligated to recognize the efforts and opinions of all caucus goers.

Issue results reflected opposition to Iraq involvement, foreign intervention in general, and health care, immigration and erosion of civil liberties rounding out the top concerns of all Caucus goers.

Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. The NPC feels that the results at each caucus is of greatest importance and relevance to those in that caucus room and to that local community where those ideas were exchanged, relationships were created, passions were shared. We believe this is social capital formation at its finest.

Is this more important than standard phone polling?

Or is this just another case of the Paulbot spammers?

dksuddeth · 12-12-2007, 01:58 PM

Pauls numbers would have been higher, but my spambot crashed.

dc_dux · 12-12-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Is this more important than standard phone polling?

Or is this just another case of the Paulbot spammers?

If the New Jersey caucus is representative, it sounds like a fun party.....a happy hour followed by a straw poll.

Are these caucuses an interesting exercise in grass roots democracy involving the most committed of likely voters in a handful of communities.....sure.

Are they statistically representative of all likely primary voters.....nope, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I dont doubt that Ron Paul supporters are probably more committed than most and were probably more aware of these caucuses (through their active online community) than others, thus their greater level of participation in such events.

Phone polling by reputable and professional pollsters have proven statistical credibility. The staw polls at these so-called caucus events are more like SLOP surveys, so no, they are not more important:

A good poll story begins with a good poll. At the heart of a good poll is a randomly selected representative sample of the target population. Unfortunately, bad polls and bad samples are everywhere, and stories based on those flawed polls find their way on air or into print with dismaying frequency. One reason is that it’s hard and sometimes prohibitively expensive to collect a random or representative sample. Instead, some researchers use convenience samples.

One common type of convenience sample produces surveys that researchers call self-selected opinion polls, or SLOP surveys. As the name suggests, the sample in a SLOP survey is not selected randomly. Instead, individuals choose whether to participate. Margin of sampling error cannot be estimated for a SLOP poll, no matter how large...

...Researchers have learned, often to their great embarrassment, that these types of samples often produce flawed results. Respondents who volunteer to participate in such surveys tend to be more extreme or otherwise very different in their views than those who do not. In no way can they be said to be representative of the population, so the survey results cannot be used to say anything useful about a target population.
http://www.aapor.org/badandworsesamples

Thankfully, the only polls that count begin in 3 weeks and by mid-Feb, we'll know the two major party candidates.

jorgelito · 12-12-2007, 06:07 PM

This reminds me of the Deaniacs.

At the end of the day though, it still seems to early to tell.

sprocket · 12-14-2007, 08:57 PM

What a great video... glowing endorsement for Ron Paul here.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

samcol · 12-15-2007, 12:06 PM

Money bomb tomorrow. Should be a huge week for the campaign.

samcol · 12-16-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Message from Ron
What an amazing mission you and I are on. What great ideas we uphold -- the legacy of the most important thinkers of liberty in our country’s history, and the most important doers of liberty in America. At the top of that list are the donors and volunteers of this campaign.

I could spend all my time thanking personally you and everyone who has done so much for our country’s future, and not scratch the surface of what justice demands. But I want you to know how much I owe you, and everyone dedicated to the real America.

You and I know our real country -- the America of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, of economic, civil, and personal liberty, of strong families and communities, of great businesses and professions, of strong peace and low taxes and sound money -- all of which are under assault by the politicians who occupy our nation’s capital.

With your help -- and I can’t do anything without your help (donate here) -- I want to change all that. Together, we can restore our constitutional republic, and oust the mountebanks who violate the ideals of the Founders with income taxes, Federal Reserve inflation, deficit spending, preemptive wars, torture, secret prisons, and abolition of habeas corpus.

How thrilling too are all the great Independent efforts in this cause, involving so many tens of thousands of patriots. Of course, since they are Independent, the election laws to do not allow me to coordinate with them in any way. But I will mention that this Sunday, I am really going to enjoy my tea at a party!

We are making real progress. And goodness knows we need to. Help (donate here) me keep our revolution going and growing. For freedom, peace, and prosperity, for the real America, all our generosity and hard work are justified.

Sincerely,

Ron

Here is a graph that shows how much money the campaign is raising an hour and compares it to the November 5th money bomb. It's looking like another 4-6 million in one day if the trend continues.

host · 12-16-2007, 02:55 PM

"STAY THE COURSE", <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW8lDlgtuqI">Sen. Joe Lieberman</a> endorses:<br><p>

<img src="http://bloggernista.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/bush-mccain-hug.jpg"></center><br><p>

....<a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=47654cd9af2c3d1c&ei=SqplR-XVI4ayyQSYsvCuAQ&url=http%3A//blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/lieberman_to_cross_aisle_for_m.html&cid=0">for president in 2008</a>

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060918-15.html">MRS. BUSH: Well, I say exactly what the President says, that we need to stay the course;</a>

ottopilot · 12-16-2007, 04:01 PM

host · 12-16-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

OK, so what's your point? I mean, I am thankful that you didn't paste 20 useless articles. Can't we have a discussion here without sarcasm and innuendo?

I authored the thread. The point of the thread is that there is a consensus, a majority view, that Ron Paul is a "fringe" candidate. My reaction to that is the crux of the thread...OH YEAH??? SEZ WHO?

All republican party candidates and some democrats are "on the fringe", IMO. Paul is actually the most reasonable of the bunch, IMO. My previous post is a "look at the rest of them", message.

The republican party and the vast majority of it's members are "on the fringe", and exhibit unparalleled and unsurpassed hypocrisy and insincerity. The candidates and elected from the party, say and do things that support my accusations.

Is that clearer now?

sprocket · 12-16-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I authored the thread. The point of the thread is that there is a consensus, a majority view, that Ron Paul is a "fringe" candidate. My reaction to that is the crux of the thread...OH YEAH??? SEZ WHO?

All republican party candidates and some democrats are "on the fringe", IMO. Paul is actually the most reasonable of the bunch, IMO. My previous post is a "look at the rest of them", message.

The republican party and the vast majority of it's members are "on the fringe", and exhibit unparalleled and unsurpassed hypocrisy and insincerity. The candidates and elected from the party, say and do things that support my accusations.

Is that clearer now?

Boy do I agree. Honestly, it is so crazy to me that the candidates are so out of touch... I mean they are trying to win on a pro-war platform, when its clear as ever the vast majority of american people are not with them on that issue. And its one of the issues they are trying to use as a major selling point

dc_dux · 12-16-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Boy do I agree. Honestly, it is so crazy to me that the candidates are so out of touch... I mean they are trying to win on a pro-war platform, when its clear as ever the vast majority of american people are not with them on that issue. And its one of the issues they are trying to use as a major selling point

I honestly dont understand the confusion in why Paul's poll numbers are so low and why he is not resonatng with Republican primary voters, even with all the money raised.

Most republican voters support "stay the course" on the war....Ron Paul doesnt

Among the general electorate who may vote in Republican primaries (ie Independents), many may agree with him on the war, but

- the majority are pro-choice, Paul is not
- the majority support a social safety net role for the federal government (Soc Security/Medicare), Paul does not
- the majority support federal R&D in alternative energy, medicine, science and technology, etc.....Paul does not
- the majority support a federal role in regulating the environment, consumer products, food/drugs, etc.....Paul does not
- generally benefit from federal programs that Paul wants to eliminate.
- probably dont know or care much about the Federal Reserve and Paul's obsession to abolish it

The 5-7% poll numbers for Paul dont surprise me at all.

Perhaps its Paul and his supporters who are out of touch with the majority of American voters.

samcol · 12-16-2007, 08:39 PM

Pretty sure the campaign just broke the all time single day contribution in a primary or general election. Started the day at 11.5 million, and he's now at 17.8 million with a about 20 mintues left.

dc_dux · 12-16-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Pretty sure the campaign just broke the all time single day contribution in a primary or general election. Started the day at 11.5 million, and he's now at 17.8 million with a about 20 mintues left.

I think thats the other obsession with Paul supporters.....the single-minded focus on the amount of money raised, rather than focusing on how to translate that money into votes.

samcol · 12-16-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think thats the other obsession with Paul supporters.....the single-minded focus on the amount of money raised, rather than focusing on how to translate that money into votes.

Don't you get it? This is translating into votes. There were 25,000 new donors today.

The amount of money he raised today is almost insignificant to the tons of free media coverage and buzz that will come about.

dc_dux · 12-16-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Don't you get it? This is translating into votes. There were 25,000 new donors today.

The amount of money he raised today is almost insignificant to the tons of free media coverage and buzz that will come about.

Follow the red line for the last few weeks. Can you explain why his numbers have flattened out, after a small rise, since the first money bomb?

So he got 25,000 donors today and 25,000+ in the first money bomb. Do you really believe 50,000+ votes nationally is significant....assuming all donors can vote in Republican primaries.

Why would "mainstream" (Bush types) pro-war, pro-wiretapping/eavesdropping Republicans vote for him? Why would Independents whose beliefs are opposite his on many other issues vote for him?

His problem is that he has not demonstrated any capacity to attract either group (Bush republicans or more centrist independents) in significant numbers. The added publicity is likely to make that even more evident.

jorgelito · 12-16-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I authored the thread. The point of the thread is that there is a consensus, a majority view, that Ron Paul is a "fringe" candidate. My reaction to that is the crux of the thread...OH YEAH??? SEZ WHO?

All republican party candidates and some democrats are "on the fringe", IMO. Paul is actually the most reasonable of the bunch, IMO. My previous post is a "look at the rest of them", message.

The republican party and the vast majority of it's members are "on the fringe", and exhibit unparalleled and unsurpassed hypocrisy and insincerity. The candidates and elected from the party, say and do things that support my accusations.

Is that clearer now?

Great post host! Much better and way clearer. Which candidate, if any, are not on the fringe or at least closer to the mainstream in your opinion? And why do you think that is? Do you see it as a problem of all the candidates being way out of touch with the voters or do you think a plurality is the best we can hope for.

It seems to me, no one candidate fits the mold of what I would like. Maybe if I could make a composite of all the candidates I liked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The 5-7% poll numbers for Paul dont surprise me at all.

Perhaps its Paul and his supporters who are out of touch with the majority of American voters.

Maybe, maybe not. host could be onto something that all the candidates are on the fringe. Huckabee was sitting at 3% I think for quite some time before spiking recently. It's quite possible that Ron Paul could as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think thats the other obsession with Paul supporters.....the single-minded focus on the amount of money raised, rather than focusing on how to translate that money into votes.

I don't think you can paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush as obsessed money-raisers.

Howard Dean and his Deaniacs had this problem too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Follow the red line for the last few weeks. Can you explain why his numbers have flattened out, after a small rise, since the first money bomb?

So he got 25,000 donors today and 25,000+ in the first money bomb. Do you really believe 50,000+ votes nationally is significant....assuming all donors can vote in Republican primaries.

Why would "mainstream" (Bush types) pro-war, pro-wiretapping/eavesdropping Republicans vote for him? Why would Independents whose beliefs are opposite his on many other issues vote for him?

His problem is that he has not demonstrated any capacity to attract either group (Bush republicans or more centrist independents) in significant numbers. The added publicity is likely to make that even more evident.

Awesome chart DC, please keep them coming. Do you have a larger one or maybe a link? My eyes aren't that great; the detail is a bit fuzzy.

host · 12-17-2007, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

... Which candidate, if any, are not on the fringe or at least closer to the mainstream in your opinion? And why do you think that is? Do you see it as a problem of all the candidates being way out of touch with the voters or do you think a plurality is the best we can hope for.

It seems to me, no one candidate fits the mold of what I would like. Maybe if I could make a composite of all the candidates I liked.

Maybe, maybe not. host could be onto something that all the candidates are on the fringe. Huckabee was sitting at 3% I think for quite some time before spiking recently. It's quite possible that Ron Paul could as well.

I don't think you can paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush as obsessed money-raisers.

Howard Dean and his Deaniacs had this problem too.

Awesome chart DC, please keep them coming. Do you have a larger one or maybe a link? My eyes aren't that great; the detail is a bit fuzzy.

jorgelito, since you asked.... I thought the following opinions of David Sirota explained what might be happening with Huckabee's increasing popularity, and I already knew his take on Edwards.

Edwards is flawed in that his reputation is maligned because of his background as an "ambulance chasing" "trial lawyer", a vain, out of touch consumer of $400 haircuts, and a hypocrite because of his newly constructed $6 million, 28,000 square feet home and out buildings. The people who are put off by those things weren't planning to vote for him, anyway. In addition to his populist concerns, Edwards is against the war, apologized for voting for the Oct., 2002 authorization that gave Bush the authority to do what he thought was best, militarily, in Iraq, and he described the "War on terror" as a "bumper sticker" slogan. Edwards is not against women's right to choose, he isn't influenced by christian evangelicals, and he grew up in a southern middle middle class home. He's lost a teenage son to sudden accidental death.

No other candidate in either party brings all of that and also even has the slightest chance of winning their party's nomination. Huckabee is too tied to evangelical beliefs and politics and has political views that come with those ties. He has the problem of the convict he helped free from jail who subsequently killed again, and he inaccurately dodged responsibility for his role in that controversy. He would, unlike Ron Paul, continue to waste US soldiers and assets on the Bush war on terror, as would Hillary Clinton.

If Huckabee's populism could be combined with Ron Paul's military and foreign policy ideas, republicans would have a stronger candidate. If one can only vote for a republican, I guess Huckabee would be the choice because he has a chance to win the nomination, and Ron Paul would be the principled choice, if one can accept his criminalization of abortion and dis mantling of government regulatory oversight and enforcement, and his tax and "free market" capitalism that gives advantage to those already most advantaged.

Quote:

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/200...ad-of-broders/
posted 12/6/2006 by David Sirota

Note to Dems: Put Voters Ahead of Broders

In most political circles today, it is assumed that there are three tiers of people that a candidate must satisfy in descending order: 1) Media and financial elites 2) grassroots organizations and 3) the public at large. The key point here is the descending order - very often Democrats have their eyes first and foremost on media and financial elites, to the exclusion of grassroots organizations and the public at large....

.....While no one can blame Democrats for meeting with Bush, you can bet this signals the White House’s effort to find "common ground" on Money Party issues (trade, deregulation, corporate accountability, etc.) that continue the war on the middle class - and you can bet when this happens, the David Broders will hail the new day of "bipartisanship" and "comity," praising heaven that the Guardians of the Flame of the Vital Center still dominate what they see as the Dirty Hippies (aka. the vast majority of the country).

This is all carrying into the presidential election, as well. <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2006/12/05/"> U.S. News and World Report is fretting</a> about the possibility of John Edwards running successfully as a - horror! - economic populist. Reporter James Pethokoukis recounts a conversation he had with my old boss, John Podesta, where Podesta "wondered aloud if there would be any ‘full-throated Sherrod Brown types’ running for the Democratic nomination" and then says on economic issues, "the big question is where Edwards comes out." Indeed - it is a big question for all of the candidates: will they run campaigns aimed at making columnists and Wall Street executives happy, or will they run campaigns designed to actually attract votes? Put another way - will they run as shills for the Money Party or representatives of the People Party?

The hope is the latter and more generally that Democrats are finally learning what Republican operatives like Karl Rove learned a long time ago: that the David Broders, Joe Kleins, Tom Friedmans and Bob Rubins who make up the national opinionmaking and financial elite actually represent nobody, command dwindling audiences/power, have positions wholly out of touch with ordinary Americans - and that it doesn’t matter if you make these Serious People happy and get lots of nice columns and editorials in newspapers most Americans don’t read - if you are not making actual voters happy, you are going to be thrown out of power faster than you can say "permanent minority."

The GOP has never cared what the op-ed pages say - and while they lost this last election, few would argue that their ascension to dominance and lock on power was impressive. The same can be said of more Democrats these days. You will notice that many of the people in listed <a href="http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/12/03/the-people-party-vs-the-money-party-here-are-the-players/">as People Party leaders in this article</a> are those who are interested less in speaking to the chattering classes with soothing talk of nebulous "bipartisanship" and "centrism" and more interested in speaking directly to real people in blunt terms (Most of the Money Party, however, still aims their comments right at the elite, and not at actual voters)....

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...r_b_71934.html

David Sirota

Edwards, Huckabee & The Rise of Iowa's Huey Longs

Posted November 9, 2007 | 12:17 PM (EST)

There's something happening in Iowa - something that the media has not yet fully caught onto. Ever so quietly, economic populism may be trumping the importance of campaign bank accounts and celebrity in both parties. Ever so quietly, two candidates emulating the best of Huey Long's legacy are emerging as strong contenders in the quest for the presidential nomination, as my new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today details. And that is a good thing not just for those contenders - but for class-unifying progressive politics in general.

This story, which centers around former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D), is only now starting to seep out.

On the Democratic side, this dynamic is probably the most intense. Reuters just today publishes a story headlined <a href="http://www.sherwoodgazette.com/us_world_news/story.php?story_id=N07520256">"Iowa Voters Take Democrats to Task Over Jobs,"</a> noting that trade and globalization are becoming more and more prevalent on the campaign trail. This is likely to be fueled by the fact that Sens. <a href="http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/breaking_clinton_announces_support_nafta_expansion">Hillary Clinton (D)</a> and <a href="http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2007/10/breaking_obama_says_he_will_vo.html">Barack Obama (D)</a> have both come out for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the controversial bill that expands the NAFTA trade model. It is also likely to be fueled by Clinton surrounding herself with <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/rubin-to-back-clinton/">more and more Wall Street titans</a>.

This is truly a battle between what I have called the Money Party and People Party - and it is happening right within the Democratic Party. As the New York Times reports this morning, those inside the Democratic Party pushing this NAFTA-style trade policy are "getting sizable campaign contributions from the sectors that are benefiting the most from the global economy" including "financial services firms, computer chip makers and other high-tech manufacturers." Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is the architect of this deal, basically admitted as much, <a href="http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/rangel_nafta_expansion_if_youre_hurting_then_its_bad_deal">telling CNN after the vote</a> that if you are a worker who is struggling right now, "if you're hurting, then [the Peru agreement] is a bad deal."

Of course, Rangel should be thanked for his candor - at least he's being honest. The same can't be said for the <a href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/the-invisible-culture-of-corruption.html">invisible culture of corruption</a> that I wrote about a few weeks ago and that continues to plague Democrats - the one where former Clinton administration officials who are now corporate lobbyists preen around (with significant media assistance) as supposedly disinterested statesmen as they push trade deals that benefit their business clients.....

sprocket · 12-17-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So he got 25,000 donors today and 25,000+ in the first money bomb. Do you really believe 50,000+ votes nationally is significant....assuming all donors can vote in Republican primaries.

No, but it certainly says something, when he has more individual contributers, than any other candidate. But I'm sure its just because every single one of his few, but fanatical supporters donated

Quote:

Why would "mainstream" (Bush types) pro-war, pro-wiretapping/eavesdropping Republicans vote for him? Why would Independents whose beliefs are opposite his on many other issues vote for him?

I don't think there as many of these as you think. Looked at Bush's and Congresses approval ratings lately? If it looks like republicans overwhelmingly support Bush, its because they drove many out of the party all together. The party as a whole, shrank, and it is mostly the fringe remained. For the record, I am one of those independents. I will be registering republican to vote for RP in the primaries, here in NC.

Quote:

His problem is that he has not demonstrated any capacity to attract either group (Bush republicans or more centrist independents) in significant numbers. The added publicity is likely to make that even more evident.

I don't think his ability to attract "mainstream" voters has been put to the test yet. No one has heard of him (outside of internet news junkie land), largely due to lack of media exposure. Now he's got the budget to blow some money and we'll get to see what effect that has.

I keep thinking of the old time story... Tortoise and the Hare.

PS. Actually, he should have 25,001 new contributers... I missed the money bomb by 10 minutes

. First time ever in my life, donating to a political campaign.

dc_dux · 12-17-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

No, but it certainly says something, when he has more contributions from individual contributers, than any other candidate. But I'm sure its just because every single one of his few, but fanatical supporters donated

I don't think there as many of these as you think. Looked at Bush's and Congresses approval ratings lately? If it looks like republicans overwhelmingly support Bush, its because they drove many out of the party all together. The party as a whole, shrank, and it is mostly the fringe remained. For the record, I am one of those independents. I will be registering republican to vote for RP in the primaries, here in NC.

I don't think his ability to attract "mainstream" voters has been put to the test yet. No one has heard of him (outside of internet news junkie land), largely due to lack of media exposure (aside from the internet). Now he's got the budget to blow some money and we'll get to see what effect that has.

I keep thinking of the old time story... Tortoise and the Hare.

Actually, Barack Obama has the most contributions from individual contributors.

I agree that BUsh drove many out of the republican party, not through his war record, but rather through his spending record.

The fact remains that Paul needs Republican voters to win the Republican primaries and the majority of Republicans who have not abandoned the party and/or Bush are pro "stay the course" and pro Patriot Act (national security/terrorism) as their most important issue. These will not be Ron Paul voters.

Now that he has money, he needs to attract Independents. You believe he can with his positions, I dont agree, as I stated earlier...while majority of Independents agree with his Iraq war/no Patriot Act positions, they disagree with Paul on other issues that are important to them (abortion rights, social services, government regulatory role, etc)

The tortuise better hurry up....time is running out. The primaries start in less then three weeks and will effectively be over by mid-Feb (after Cali, NY, FL).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Maybe, maybe not. host could be onto something that all the candidates are on the fringe. Huckabee was sitting at 3% I think for quite some time before spiking recently. It's quite possible that Ron Paul could as well.

I don't think you can paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush as obsessed money-raisers.

Howard Dean and his Deaniacs had this problem too.

Awesome chart DC, please keep them coming. Do you have a larger one or maybe a link? My eyes aren't that great; the detail is a bit fuzzy.

Jorgelito, the chart is from Pollster.com and represent aggregates of the major national polls (click the table to enlarge). You can also find polls for the state primaries.

I think the Huckabee surge can be directly attributed to the tanking of Fred Thompson. Thompson was presumed to be the social conservative candidate, but his campaign has been lazy and ineffective... Follow the blue and green lines..as Thomspson dropped, Huckabee went up..as the new hope of social conservatives

And, I think the Paul "army" is similar to the Deaniacs in another way that spells doom for the campaign...and that is relying on an army of young "outsiders" to spread the gospel of their candidate.

Put yourself in the place of a middle age undecided religious conservate couple in Iowa (the steretypical profile). Who is likely to influence your vote more...a neighbor who attends your church, shares your values and is trying to convince you that Huckabee is the best candidate or a young stranger from Chicago (or Kansas City or even Des Moines) who was bused in to promote the Paul candidacy?

The same applies in NH. Paul campaign is busing in hundreds of volunteers, but do you think NH voters want to be told how to vote by young guns from NYC or Boston?

And whats with the blimp? A nice gimmick, but IMO, not a very effective campaign tool.

Campaigns are won and lost on personal connections, either directly between candidate and voter or through surrogates with whom voters can relate...not money bombs, buses of young outsiders or blimps.

samcol · 12-17-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Actually, Barack Obama has the most contributions from individual contributors.

I agree that BUsh drove many out of the republican party, not through his war record, but rather through his spending record.

The fact remains that Paul needs Republican voters to win the Republican primaries and the majority of Republicans who have not abandoned the party and/or Bush are pro "stay the course" and pro Patriot Act (national security/terrorism) as their most important issue. These will not be Ron Paul voters.

Now that he has money, he needs to attract Independents. You believe he can with his positions, I dont agree, as I stated earlier...while majority of Independents agree with his Iraq war/no Patriot Act positions, they disagree with Paul on other issues that are important to them (abortion rights, social services, government regulatory role, etc)

The tortuise better hurry up....time is running out. The primaries start in less then three weeks and will effectively be over by mid-Feb (after Cali, NY, FL).

Jorgelito, the chart is from Pollster.com and represent aggregates of the major national polls (click the table to enlarge). You can also find polls for the state primaries.

I think the Huckabee surge can be directly attributed to the tanking of Fred Thompson. Thompson was presumed to be the social conservative candidate, but his campaign has been lazy and ineffective... Follow the blue and green lines..as Thomspson dropped, Huckabee went up..as the new hope of social conservatives

And, I think the Paul "army" is similar to the Deaniacs in another way that spells doom for the campaign...and that is relying on an army of young "outsiders" to spread the gospel of their candidate.

Put yourself in the place of a middle age undecided religious conservate couple in Iowa (the steretypical profile). Who is likely to influence your vote more...a neighbor who attends your church, shares your values and is trying to convince you that Huckabee is the best candidate or a young stranger from Chicago (or Kansas City or even Des Moines) who was bused in to promote the Paul candidacy?

The same applies in NH. Paul campaign is busing in hundreds of volunteers, but do you think NH voters want to be told how to vote by young guns from NYC or Boston?

And whats with the blimp? A nice gimmick, but IMO, not a very effective campaign tool.

Campaigns are won and lost on personal connections, either directly between candidate and voter or through surrogates with whom voters can relate...not money bombs, buses of young outsiders or blimps.

I don't understand what you're wanting us to do. Do you think we should just stop going to meetup groups stop taking polls, stop raising money? I'm sure that's what you would like.

Should we just wait around for the media to give us a fair shake or continue emailing and calling media outlets like crazy? We don't get free reign at the media like other candidates. McCain just got endorsed by Lieberman, is that really a bigger story than raising 6.3 million in one day? You wouldn think so from the headlines and pundits.

This campaign has taken a huge internet following and converted it into a real presence in the streets with signs and rallys, not to mention huge amounts of money raised.

Oh, and the blimp it's not even a campaign tool. It has nothing to do with the campaign. It was a total grassroots effort raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a huge Ron Paul ad in the air.

dc_dux · 12-17-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I don't understand what you're wanting us to do. Do you think we should just stop going to meetup groups stop taking polls, stop raising money? I'm sure that's what you would like.

Hey....this has nothing to do with what "I want you to do".

The question in the OP was about "serious" or "mainstream" candidates and whether Ron Paul fits that description. I have simply been offering my opinion on the topic and correcting what I believe are misrepresentations about polls v SLOP surveys or misrepresentations of poilitical positions as I see them. I would do the same on a thread about other specific candidates.

I hope you continue in your quest because I want to see more people engaged in the political process

I also hope you do so with an open mind when Paul does not win. Dont cop out and blame it all on media bias, sabotage by the republican party establishment, etc.

IMO and from my understanding of the current attitudes/positions of the American electorate, he is likely to stay in the single digits (percentage) when the votes are cast because he is not "mainstream" and most Americans dont share his views.

It seems to me that you guys dont want to discuss the issues I raised in post #94.

- the majority are pro-choice, Paul is not
- the majority support a social safety net role for the federal government (Soc Security/Medicare), Paul does not
- the majority support federal R&D in alternative energy, medicine, science and technology, etc.....Paul does not
- the majority support a federal role in regulating the environment, consumer products, food/drugs, etc.....Paul does not
- many benefit from federal programs that Paul wants to eliminate.
- many probably dont know or care much about the Federal Reserve and Paul's obsession to abolish it

What makes you think I am mischaracterzing these postions/issues?

Public attitudes may change in time, but there is no evidence that it has or will for the 2008 election.

sprocket · 12-17-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It seems to me that you guys dont want to discuss the issues I raised in post #94.

- the majority are pro-choice, Paul is not

Its very dismaying that people actually still vote for presidential candidates based on their stance over abortion. The president simply doesnt have any power to do a damn thing about it, except to attempt to stack the courts, and hope they get an opportunity to overturn roe v wade. Then theres still a chance they wont actually will overturn it, given the opportunity. That being said, if his message on states rights on the issue can be properly explained and sold, I think its a compromise many would be willing to make. While it abortion is a show stopper issue for many voters on either side of the isle, its just not that important to a hell of a lot of people, myself included.

Quote:

- the majority support a social safety net role for the federal government (Soc Security/Medicare), Paul does not
- the majority support federal R&D in alternative energy, medicine, science and technology, etc.....Paul does not
- the majority support a federal role in regulating the environment, consumer products, food/drugs, etc.....Paul does not
- many benefit from federal programs that Paul wants to eliminate.
- many probably dont know or care much about the Federal Reserve and Paul's obsession to abolish it

Again, Paul has never advocated stripping people of entitlements and benefits they currently receive. He doesnt want to take medicare from seniors. Thats where his stance always seems to get mischaracterized the most. I admit, its easy to demonize him on these points, because fear of losing entitlements can bring out the vote like nothing else. Its going to be a hard sell, even though he doesnt want to strip entitlements from anyone.

He's also always expressed a willingness to work and even compromise with congress. Yes, he is in favor of removing the fed all together, but from what I gather, would settle for more oversight, if congress wasnt willing to go all the way and remove it.

Quote:

What makes you think I am mischaracterzing these postions/issues?

Public attitudes may change in time, but there is no evidence that it has or will for the 2008 election.

Because you keep postulating these black and white, all or nothing scenarios about his policies.

dc_dux · 12-17-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Because you keep postulating these black and white, all or nothing scenarios about his policies.

Because his record and his votes in Congress has always been black and white.

He never demonstrated a willngness to compromise in Congress and I have heard no such talk of compromise in any of his appearances I have seen on tv or youtube.

I dont think I mischaracterized anything.

Its absolutely a FACT that he want to end Medicare and Social Security, not for current recipients, but for future recipients like you and me. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

Its absolutely a FACT that he wants to end federal regulatory role and replace it with states rights or industry self-regulation. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

Its absolutely a FACT that he wants the federal government out of all R&D and left to the free market. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

jorgelito · 12-17-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

jorgelito, since you asked.... I thought the following opinions of David Sirota explained what might be happening with Huckabee's increasing popularity, and I already knew his take on Edwards.

Edwards is flawed in that his reputation is maligned because of his background as an "ambulance chasing" "trial lawyer", a vain, out of touch consumer of $400 haircuts, and a hypocrite because of his newly constructed $6 million, 28,000 square feet home and out buildings. The people who are put off by those things weren't planning to vote for him, anyway. In addition to his populist concerns, Edwards is against the war, apologized for voting for the Oct., 2002 authorization that gave Bush the authority to do what he thought was best, militarily, in Iraq, and he described the "War on terror" as a "bumper sticker" slogan. Edwards is not against women's right to choose, he isn't influenced by christian evangelicals, and he grew up in a southern middle middle class home. He's lost a teenage son to sudden accidental death.

No other candidate in either party brings all of that and also even has the slightest chance of winning their party's nomination. Huckabee is too tied to evangelical beliefs and politics and has political views that come with those ties. He has the problem of the convict he helped free from jail who subsequently killed again, and he inaccurately dodged responsibility for his role in that controversy. He would, unlike Ron Paul, continue to waste US soldiers and assets on the Bush war on terror, as would Hillary Clinton.

If Huckabee's populism could be combined with Ron Paul's military and foreign policy ideas, republicans would have a stronger candidate. If one can only vote for a republican, I guess Huckabee would be the choice because he has a chance to win the nomination, and Ron Paul would be the principled choice, if one can accept his criminalization of abortion and dis mantling of government regulatory oversight and enforcement, and his tax and "free market" capitalism that gives advantage to those already most advantaged.

Host, thanks for your reply and responding to my questions. I enjoyed your analysis and look forward to future ones. I do not have anything to add at the moment as I am thinking and processing but I appreciated your post.

DC et al, we will find out soon enough in the next few months.

samcol · 12-18-2007, 05:19 PM

Just listened to the Glen Beck interview of Ron Paul and I was pleasently suprised. It was a much fairer interview than I was expecting. This is the kind of media coverage that the Ron Paul movement has earned/deserved and has not gotten.

Beck did ask a few loaded questions like implying Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and that his followers threaten Beck, but Ron was allowed enough time to respond. (Granted there are probably extremists who have threatend Beck, but I'm sure that comes with the territory and is not uncommon to mainstream political pundits and politicians. Even Paul admitted he has received such threats and insinuations.)

sprocket · 12-18-2007, 09:03 PM

Here are the glenn beck clips if anyone is interested.

1:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 1 12/18/2007

2:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 2 12/18/2007

3:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 3 12/18/2007

4:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 4 12/18/2007

5:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 5 12/18/2007

6:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 6 12/18/2007

7:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 7 12/18/2007

8:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Part 8 12/18/2007

telekinetic · 12-19-2007, 11:10 AM

From the end of clip #5 and beginning of #6, just transcribed by me, a great commentary on his views about pulling out of iraq quickly and completely:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

You have to put it in perspective, you're talking about several hundred people, maybe now thousands, since we've been over there, Al Qaeda's been recruiting, but they don't have an Army....we stood down the Soviets, they had 40,000 nuclear weapons, we had Khruschev pounding on the desk saying "We will bury you!"-he was capable of doing it! The Al Qaeda does not have an army, they don't have a Navy, they don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles, they don't have weapons of mass destruction, they don't have a country--they're very very weak people in that sense. But they have determination, and the determination comes from being provoked, and they have to have some reason to galvenize enough hatred to come here and do what they have done, so no, if I bring the troops home over night, it's not going to eliminate what has been going on for quite a few decades, but I'll tell you what--it's going to be a lot better, and if we think they just come here because we are free and prosperous, we will never solve this problem....

Willravel · 12-19-2007, 11:17 AM

While I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I was glad to see that this interview was very complete and respectful. While nothing new was discussed, at least he wasn't marginalized.

When can Kucinich have such an interview?

dc_dux · 12-20-2007, 05:19 AM

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll provides some interesting demographic breakdowns - gender, region, age, income....:

Quote:

Two weeks before the Iowa caucus, the race for president, while tightening among Democrats, is wide open on the Republican side, highlighting the unusual fluidity of the first campaign for the White House in over a half-century that doesn't include an incumbent president or vice president.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1198..._us_whats_news
See the interactive demographic charts.

host · 12-21-2007, 11:27 AM

I documented Huckabee's "shortcomings" in a post on the "afraid of the candidates thread". Rudy's exposure as a corrupt "two-timin'" whack job has sent his polling numbers into freefall. Now, Romney comes apart as drunk on his own pandering, rhetoric. Iowa is Jan. 3, and New Hampshire's primary is on Jan. 8. Paul is now clearly the least "fringe" republican offering, but he seems unelectable. Is this a crisis for the home team, in 2008?

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...on_king_march/
By Michael Levenson
Globe Staff / December 21, 2007

Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month, and historical evidence shows that Michigan's Governor George Romney and the civil rights leader never did march together.

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King's agenda.

Susan Englander, assistant edi tor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era, told the Globe yesterday: "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King."

She said that when he was governor of Michigan, George Romney issued a proclamation in June 1963 in support of King's march in Detroit, but declined to attend, saying he did not participate in political events on Sundays. A New York Times story from the time confirms Englander's account.

A few days after that march, George Romney joined a civil rights march through the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe, but King did not attend, Englander said. A report in the New York Times confirms Englander's account of that second march, mentioning George Romney's attendance but making no mention of King.

Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church's ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, "My father marched with Martin Luther King."

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: <h3>"My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," </h3>he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe....

Quote:

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste...I drove a tank, held a General's rank....pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name!......"<br>- Rolling Stones

Halx · 12-23-2007, 10:01 PM

Watched his interview on Meet The Press. Was impressed with his views, but he doesn't seem electable. By that I mean he is going to get short-changed by his very blunt take on things. He doesn't dress it up, and people don't appreciate nudity.

dc_dux · 12-23-2007, 10:07 PM

It was a good interview as far as it went...but I would like to have seen Russert ask Paul to explain his position supporting industry as self-regulators as opposed to federal government regulation...or why he is opposed to any federal R&D in the areas of medicine, science and technology

The telling point for me was that he couldnt explain how ANY goverment services would be provided outside of defense and entitlements (social security, medicare for current seniors) once he eliminates the IRS and the income tax, particularly because he doesnt want to replace it with a flat tax or any type consumption or sales tax.

IMO, that explains why he is not electable.

The video is here:

msnbc.com Video Player

host · 12-24-2007, 06:39 PM

The choice is clear....or is it???

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122302071.html
By Peter Wehner
Monday, December 24, 2007; Page A15

Some of us -- in my case, a political conservative and evangelical Christian -- are getting a queasy feeling when it comes to the presidential campaign of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and much of it has to do with his use of faith in this political campaign.

Many who don't know Huckabee were initially impressed with him, me included. He comes across as authentic and likable, humorous and self-deprecating. He is an excellent debater and a first-rate speaker. But if you look closely, a disturbing pattern emerges.

In Iowa, Huckabee advertised himself as a "Christian leader." A few months ago, when speaking to a large gathering of social conservatives in Washington, he told them, "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language." When asked to explain his surge in the polls, he answered, "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."...

.....This is a man who, in 1998, when explaining to a Baptist pastors conference why he got involved in politics, answered, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. . . . I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Now isn't that odd -- a former pastor who leaves his ministry so he can get involved in politics because he "knew government didn't have the real answers.",,,,

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd

......MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.....

Did Ron Paul have any of the history of the start of the American Civil War close to what actually happened? Can you tell Huckabee apart from the Iranian president? Iowa is on Jan. 3, and New Hampshire's primary is on Jan. 8. Is Paul more squared away than Huckabee?

loquitur · 12-28-2007, 10:03 AM

Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.

sprocket · 12-30-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.

Wow, thats pretty shocking, to be honest.

As a doctor, who should be obviously well versed in science, he should understand what a "theory" is... that video makes it look like he doesnt have the faintest clue.

joshbaumgartner · 01-02-2008, 12:56 PM

Another Ron Paul note...

I was in the car today and caught some of his interview with Ed Schultz. Ed asked him about Fox keeping Paul out of the debate, and Ron stated that there was a 99% chance that it was because Fox was unwilling to air his views, in particular, those on the war.

After essentially painting Fox as a pro-war shill, Ed followed up by questioning his view on media consolidation. Republicans have been rather mum on this one, so I was interested to hear his response, and a bit blown away.

Ron Paul stated that he was unhappy with media consolidation and the like. He blamed it however, on the fact that the public owns the airwaves leading to government interference. His solution was to privatize the airwaves themselves, allowing companies to buy up the frequencies themselves!

Ed followed up by pointing out that there was no way anyone but the rich could own them, and Ron Paul dismissed this by saying that didn't matter since they could just use the internet instead.

Wow.

Ustwo · 01-02-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.

I like Ron Paul in a sort of observer sort of way.

He contains so many good ideas along with some of the lefts and rights wacky ideas.

I get the feeling he trying to be a character more than a candidate.

12-08-2007, 07:28 PM	#81 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	There has been another spontaneous grassroots success story for the Ron Paul campaign. Individuals have managed to raise over $200,000 for a huge phallic symbol of freedom: The Ron Paul blimp. Another $200,000 and it will fly through the New Hampshire primaries. With the blimp and the money bomb, this will be a huge week for the Ron Paul campaign. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

12-12-2007, 01:58 PM	#84 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Pauls numbers would have been higher, but my spambot crashed. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-14-2007, 08:57 PM	#87 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	What a great video... glowing endorsement for Ron Paul here. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are. Last edited by sprocket; 12-14-2007 at 09:01 PM..

12-15-2007, 12:06 PM	#88 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Money bomb tomorrow. Should be a huge week for the campaign. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

12-16-2007, 04:01 PM	#91 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:03 PM..

12-12-2007, 06:07 PM	#86 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	This reminds me of the Deaniacs. At the end of the day though, it still seems to early to tell.

12-16-2007, 02:55 PM	#90 (permalink)
host Banned	"STAY THE COURSE", <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW8lDlgtuqI">Sen. Joe Lieberman</a> endorses:<br><p> <img src="http://bloggernista.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/bush-mccain-hug.jpg"></center><br><p> ....<a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=47654cd9af2c3d1c&ei=SqplR-XVI4ayyQSYsvCuAQ&url=http%3A//blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/lieberman_to_cross_aisle_for_m.html&cid=0">for president in 2008</a> <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060918-15.html">MRS. BUSH: Well, I say exactly what the President says, that we need to stay the course;</a>

12-16-2007, 08:39 PM	#95 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Pretty sure the campaign just broke the all time single day contribution in a primary or general election. Started the day at 11.5 million, and he's now at 17.8 million with a about 20 mintues left. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

12-18-2007, 05:19 PM	#108 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Just listened to the Glen Beck interview of Ron Paul and I was pleasently suprised. It was a much fairer interview than I was expecting. This is the kind of media coverage that the Ron Paul movement has earned/deserved and has not gotten. Beck did ask a few loaded questions like implying Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and that his followers threaten Beck, but Ron was allowed enough time to respond. (Granted there are probably extremists who have threatend Beck, but I'm sure that comes with the territory and is not uncommon to mainstream political pundits and politicians. Even Paul admitted he has received such threats and insinuations.) __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

12-19-2007, 11:17 AM	#111 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	While I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I was glad to see that this interview was very complete and respectful. While nothing new was discussed, at least he wasn't marginalized. When can Kucinich have such an interview?

12-23-2007, 10:01 PM	#114 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Watched his interview on Meet The Press. Was impressed with his views, but he doesn't seem electable. By that I mean he is going to get short-changed by his very blunt take on things. He doesn't dress it up, and people don't appreciate nudity. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

12-28-2007, 10:03 AM	#117 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.

01-02-2008, 12:56 PM	#119 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Ron Paul on media consolidation Another Ron Paul note... I was in the car today and caught some of his interview with Ed Schultz. Ed asked him about Fox keeping Paul out of the debate, and Ron stated that there was a 99% chance that it was because Fox was unwilling to air his views, in particular, those on the war. After essentially painting Fox as a pro-war shill, Ed followed up by questioning his view on media consolidation. Republicans have been rather mum on this one, so I was interested to hear his response, and a bit blown away. Ron Paul stated that he was unhappy with media consolidation and the like. He blamed it however, on the fact that the public owns the airwaves leading to government interference. His solution was to privatize the airwaves themselves, allowing companies to buy up the frequencies themselves! Ed followed up by pointing out that there was no way anyone but the rich could own them, and Ron Paul dismissed this by saying that didn't matter since they could just use the internet instead. Wow.