Comparing Ron Paul to the "Serious" Candidates
 

A while back, I did a thread here about the career and political views of Huey P. Long. No one responded. History says that Roosevelt was the prime populist mover of the 30's. The SSA.gov history pages say otherwise.

What is it that makes a politician "mainstream"? What is it that makes people view themselves as "centrists", middle of the road? Is it necessary for a "serious" candidate for US president to have been right, on major issues on his resume, much of the time, once in a while, or doesn't matter?

Could it be that the majority of likely US voters are actaully of "unhinged", and incoherent sentiments? I'm suspecting it's so.

My question is whether the major part of the US electorate is so "glued to the center", that the 2008 presidential candidates who are widely viewed as the "serious" ones, are actually the unglued "nut cases" bought off by corporate interests, and the candidates who have a more reliable view and, in hindsight, track record, are viewed as the extremists?

Are we where we are....divided right down the middle, federal finances shattered, freedoms under threat, and involved in endless, bankrupting and grinding war, because of the electorate's support of the "centrist" candidates, and those who have been elected in the past, were and are people who are not centrists, at all? Could it be that the centrist electorate and the media, all of the opinion that they perceive "reason" and measured solutions, are not at all reasonable...that they actually promote and push nutcases to the top?

So wait, what is your discussion point again? I've read your whole post twice and I can't determine what comparison you're making. You don't actually mention Ron Paul except in your title and your second article fragment.

Would obsessing about, or shilling with "September 11th", be grounds to disqualify a presidential candidate?

<h3>Can anyone post the name of a "leading" 2008 presidential candidate who is not a lunatic, a blatant hypocrite, or "bought off" by corporate donors, or "in bed" with religious fundamentalists?</h3>

I touched on Clinton's shortcomings in the OP opinion piece, Obama can be accused of excessive corporate sponsorship and a shady residential real estate purchase, Rudy seems to be tainted by his sponsorship of Kerik and his 9/11 obsession, and his neocon advisory council, and the rest who receive press coverage have some of the deficiencies described above.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and even with his much maligned haricut, John Edwards, all seem to be the candidates not "on the fringe".

I believe John Edwards might fit that characterization, if "leading" includes the top three or four of each party.

I think the problem rests with the press choosing our "mainstream" candidates by the amount of coverage they alot to the field. Who are they to decide a candidate's "electability" and then rave about Rudy and mock Ron Paul? To answer my own question, "they" are owned by corporations that profit from war.

Is that not a function of a free press?

Whoa...I guess I need to know what you think a "free" press means, because the US press is owned by those who have a big stake in who gets elected.

I would hope that Canada still has a free press.

Don't forget controlled by the Jews, thats the next line in that kind of reasoning.

I would suspect that that is a different question, whether the press is "free" or not.

Regardless of that, is it not the media's job to examine and explore the candidates? To both report their activities as objectively as possible as well as editorialize with opinions?

It seems to me this is the function of the press in thriving democracy. To complain about the media without first recognizing this can be problematic. I would argue that media consolidation and a shift in general from "hard news" to "entertaining news" has resulted in a general drop in quality of the coverage on offer.

That said, another part of the equation in a thriving democracy is an active citizenry. If the media is not doing their job satisfactorily there are other sources of information. The Internet offers an abundance of choice and diversity. It follows that if citizens are to remain engaged and informed that they need to seek this information out and in this day and age, it is getting more and more complicated.

I think relying on the "media" as the problem is a bit of a crutch.

As for the OP, I would argue that any candidate who ignores the reality of the threat of terrorism is an idiot who should not be elected. Conversely, anyone who appears to use that same threat as a one issue is showing their limitations as a candidate that can see the big picture.

Any candidate needs to be able to fully address a plethora of issues.

host......Paul and Kucinich are absolutely "on the fringe" and not simply as a result of lack of funding or media exposure.

Their positions on many issues, other than the Iraq war and bringing the troops home asap, are out of the mainstream.

Unlike Paul, most Americans do not want to end Social Security and Medicare. Nor do they want a Medicare-type program for all citizens to replace their employer-based health care program like Kucinich.

Most Americans do not want an end to many (most?) federal programs like Paul or an expansion of such programs like Kucinich....examples, most Americans do not want to eliminate federal aid for college education (Paul), but they also dont want a program to provide free full-day, full-calendar year prekindergarten education for every 3-5 year old in the country (Kucinich). Most Americans dont want an end to unemployment compensation (Paul) nor do they want a guaranteed government job for all able-bodied unemployed (Kucinich).

Most Americans dont support shutting down the EPA and leaving environmental protection to industry self-regulation (Paul) nor do they support the concept of clean and safe water as a "right" that takes federal regulation far beyond the current level (Kucinich).

Most Americans may want to restore America's image around the world, but dont believe the US can end wars and civil conflict around the world through a Department of Peace (Kucinich) nor do they want the US to remove itself from participation as a partner in the international community (Paul).

Consider most Americans like Goldilocks.......the Ron Paul bed is too hard for most Americans (the federal government is too big and intrusive and acting unconstitutionally).....the Dennis Kucinich bed is too soft (an expanded federal government is the solution to all social and economic ills in the country). ....the current bed is just right for most...they just want new clean sheets (a more efficient and less wasteful and corrupt federal government that is more responsive to the people and less responsive to special interests).

host...where I agree with you is in regard to the obscene level of special interest funding of campaigns of the other candidates....2008 will be the first $billion election. That issue needs to be addressed through serious campaign reform, Congressional ethics reform and a greater emphasis on government accountability, but dont confuse that with the extreme positions of Paul and Kucinich.

This is exactly my point in that we are not getting objective reporting of the political candidates. As you said yourself, our news has become commercialized and is no longer provided for the public good but with corporate interests in mind. Please tell me what is "free" of outside influence about that?

Ustwo, do you have a point of some kind?

Elphaba, the press is still free to write what they wish, there is no censorship per se. That said, I can agree that with media consolidation there has been a lessening of the diversity of voice in the "mainstream" media.

However, I think it is safe to say that the media was never "objective" as such. The news sections were (and to a large extent still are) relatively objective in their reporting (the bias has always come through in what they choose to write about). The editorial sections have always been biased, that's their raison d'etre.

The big difference is that with increasing media consolidation, you end up with fewer points of view. With the shift from the written word to the moving image, we have gone from indepth coverage to surface reading.

All of that said, the onus is still on the citizen to do their legwork. To spend time researching their candidates. This means finding more than one source of information. And in this day and age, even with media consolidation, there are many, many alternative sources of information. There is no excuse, other than a lack of interest, for not doing your research.

The onus is on the citizen.

I was very impressed with Kucinich in the last debate, especially his comment about voting on the Patriot Act. For me, Paul and Kucinich are the only serious candidates.

I agree that both Paul and Kucinich are right on the Patriot Act.

But I am confused that you consider Kucinich a serious candidate when most of his domestic proposals and agenda are built around an expansive role of the federal government that you consider unconstitutional.

Care to explain the contradiction in your thinking?

Although I disagree with many of Kucinich's positions, I sense his genuine concern for the country. He puts his money where his mouth is. One of the few Democrats running who voted against the war and patriot act and is pushing through impeachment despite oposition from his own party. I can respect that despite his solutions to problems, which is where I support Paul over him.

Besides, Paul and Kucinich, all I can see are bought and paid for lie to your face politicians. I'd rather have a candidate who at least has a concern for me and is doing everything in their power to help me even if I don't agree with how they are going about it. Even though he'd implement socialist polices, the country would be way better off since he'd get us out of Iraq and foreign entaglemens, and repeal the post 9/11 anti-terror laws.

Next to Paul, I don't see any other candidate running who'd I'd rather see as President (maybe Gravel in their too, is he even running still?)

So after Paul, you would rather see someone as president who you strongly believe would be acting illegally based on your reading of the Constitution rather than someone you think is "bought and paid for".

Sorry, but IMO, that says alot about your commitment to your interpretation of the Constitution.

please... I actually acknowledge that I like a liberal for president, and you slam me that he doesn't support my view of the constitution. I mean honestly, I would much rather have Paul, but which other constitution hating, anti-american, fake anti-war liberal would you rather me support?

I guess I could support someone who is bought and paid for and follow an illegal view of the constitution, or I can vote for someone who isn't bought and paid for and is at least trying to act in the best intrest of the constitution and the American people.

hey...i think its cool that you could support (or vote for) a liberal/progressive (socialist to some) who would violate your core constitutional values. And its great that you believe that Kucinich is "trying to act in the best interest of the Constitution and the American people" with proposals like free year-round day care for all 3-5 yr olds in the country and a government job for all unemployed adults. :thumbsup:

I guess thats the difference between us...I could never support or vote for someone like Ron Paul because of his misguided interpretation of the Constitution and his core beliefs that are so counter to mine.

I also dont consider politicians anti-American simply because I dont share their political views or their interpretation of the Constitution or because they make use of the legal campaign financing structure that I happen to disagree with.

Now I'm curious.....which of the Democratic candidates are "anti-American"?

I don't see where we are in any disagreement except perhaps the extent to which it appears that you are blaming the voter. Better minds than ours have insisted that a well informed citizenry is critical to a thriving democracy. I ask you to what extent is it reasonable for the average citizen to cull through the tsunami of information (good and bad) that currently exists, and somehow come up with an informed decision? Very few people are willing to make that investment in time and we are fortunate to find a few of them in this forum. In contrast, we also have a lack of interest in anything that intrudes upon one's worldview.

I am far more critical of our electorate than you might think. It is not only lack of interest in educating oneself in important issues, but a profound laziness of thought that is fed by our current entertainment based media. Which brings us back into agreement, once again. :)

Any of them that don't support ending the Iraq war and the post 9/11 security bills (through funding or direct withdrawl), namely anyone besides Kucinich, Paul, and Gravel.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are most certainly fringe candidates. I've voiced my complaints about Paul in the thread about him a few weeks ago, and to select a few issues I have with Kucinich, I'll go with his ultra-restrictive and unconstitutional gun control views, and his support of slavery reparations.
Edwards supports gay rights right up to the point that they want to get married. It doesn't matter if you allow civil unions with the same rights as marriage, refusing to allow gay marriage is relegating them to a lower class and saying that they aren't good enough to deserve the same label as straight people.

Edwards claims to be in favor of lowering greenhouse gas emissions but is opposed to further development of nuclear power, the only safe and viable technology that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in energy production to zero.

Edwards claims to support the constitution while supporting a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban, a law that blatantly violates the constitution and did nothing to prevent violent crime or gun crime.

He fails my test for hypocrisy.

You and I view Edwards' positions from different perspectives.

Edwards has publically stated in the gay issues debate that he would not impose his beliefs regarding gay marriage on others. He is honest in his personal belief without imposing that belief on others. Where is the hypocrisy?

We have a poor record in nuclear energy development and we have yet to solve the nuclear waste issue. That is a huge downside among our choices of alternative energy, and I find no hypocrisy in weighing the pros and cons of each.

Reasonable people can agree that the Constitution says nothing about private citizens owning assault weapons. The debate about what the right to "bear arms" means in today's environment, provides more heat than light. Ultimately, it will not matter what I or anyone else thinks about the matter because only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. I don't see the contradiction in Edwards' position that you perceive.

You once again prove my point that Ron Paul supporters are single-issue voters.

I have to wonder if the news media is worse today than it has been in the past or if today's "worse" is just this era's particular flavour of media.

An informed citizenry is key. A free press is key.

Legally we in the West have a free press. I would argue that spin, bias, etc. have always been a factor and that any instances we see of it today are either a) due to there just being more of it (i.e. more choice of information = more chance for spin) or b) our citizenry is increasingly media savvy and therefore better able to spot the spin or counter-spin.

As for informed citizenry. I think we agree that people are disengaged. Do we know that people were ever engaged? I can well imagine that in the early days of democracy in the West, or the early days of America, when the populations were much lower that being engaged was an easier thing. But the fact is, people are busy dealing with life. They don't necessarily like or care who does what as long as they have a relatively "good life".

Being informed or even well-informed takes a lot of effort. Effort that many are not willing to make OR do not have the time to make.

Would it be an overly broad generalization to point out that Ron Paul opponents love to make overly broad generalizations about Ron Paul supporters?

Charlatan, there once was a time when the "most trusted man in America" was a television network nightly news caster:
Imagine trying to fill Cronkite's shoes? Just as it was tough for Cronkite to fill Murrow's role, it was even a more difficult challenge when it was Dan Rather's turn. All the while, CBS evolved to put ratings, profits, and stock price before news gathering and reporting:

There was once a time when Rosanne Bar was the most watched show in America. Walter was a liberal who looked conservative and respectable with a good voice. If he were to start again today he would just be another liberal pundit. Congratulations, to him for helping fuel a retreat which cost a lot of good Vietnamese their lives and subjected them to totalitarianism. Without looking I'm sure he wants the same in Iraq. Hes predictable in his liberalism.

When any president trusts a news caster for his opinion, we got issues on many levels, and thats any president, past or future.

Very clever marketing.

Was Cronkite good at what he did? Yes. Was Murrow good at what he did? Yes.

I don't know that just because the marketing folks at CBS tell me that someone is "the most trusted man in America" I should believe them. I think this goes right back to what I was saying about our public becoming increasingly media literate. In the past things could be take much more at face value. Today, viewers are more likely to ask questions.

Ustwo, "the record"...I am exposing you to the opinions of the US Secretary of Defense from the earliest, "post US advisors only", period of US military involvement in Vietnam, to past the time of Cronkite's Feb. 27, 1968 opinion dominated telecast, and to the US military commander, Gen. Westmoreland's opinion, and to the opinion of Daniel Ellsberg. Notice that Macnamara shared the opinion in Ellsberg's circa 1967 Pentagon Papers, as early as in 1965. You can't miss it, it's displayed in the boldest type....<h3>does not match your opinion about Cronkite, or about the Vietnam war.</h3>

I don't think you appreciate how your POV of "liberal influence" on the outcome of the Vietnam war affects your overall perception of recent American history and of today's political dynamic.

Would you mind sharing sources with us that have shaped your "liberals did it" opinion of the outcome of US military involvement in Vietnam? It would help if you have sources of similar stature and responsibility for what went on there, as Macnamara and Westmoreland offer.

There is not a sentence you posted here that would stand up to scrutiny, but of course you refuse to provide any links that support your claims, being too busy or whatever.

Ustwo, just once back up your bull with facts. Not even McNamera agrees with the nonsense you posted here.

I don't see how you can say that Ustwo's post doesn't stand up to scrutiny? What support should an opinion require?

Roaeanne was the most watched woman in TV at one time.
Cronkite was at his peak in a radically different time. He was on the air when there were really only three souces of television newsmedia and audiences were in the tens of millions. In today's mediascape he would be just another voice among many and he would be under a lot more scrutiny as these many voices have given us more and varied points of view.

As for Vietnam. I think it's a very safe thing to say that America left Vietnam to totalitarian rule whether or not more or less lives were saved by the US leaving when they did is open for debate. I don't think it's all that cut and dry.

The real question on Vietnam (and Iraq) has to do with why war was needed in the first place and again, this is still a matter of opinion and hindsight. Make no mistake, lessons were learned from Vietnam, they just might not be the lesson you think.

Can you suggest what support Ustwo should supply to support his opinions?

C'mon Charlatan, it's obvious that Elphaba was reacting to this:
14 months ago, I presented my usual...a thoroughly supported argument that made the case that it was not "liberals" who were responsible for the decision to withdraw the US military from Vietnam, or for the effectiveness of it's strategy:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108864">Vietnam:Reagan's "Noble War", The Left forced the US to fight with one hand tied,Or? </a>

Here is Ustwo's entire response to my argument and it's supporting articles/opinions, in that thread:

....and now, he comes back with the same ole shit. It's wearing, boring, propagandist, and Elphaba called him on it. Cronkite was a journalist, not an anti war movement leader. President Johnson knew that. Cronkite played no part in any US "retreat". It wasz five full years after Cronkite's Feb. 27, 1968 telecast, that the US graound forces ceased an active "on the ground" role in Vietnam, in Jan. 1973. US combat air support continued even after that.

WWII was fought and wrapped up in 45 months...Dec., 1941, to Aug., 1945

Ustwo refuses to accept that the US government lied to the American people about it's own conclusion of prospects for a military solution in Vietnam, and he refuses to debate it, but he keeps coming back, posting shit like this, all the same.

Oh pot how I have missed thee with your negro sheen.
Of pristine language never quite obscene.
With posts so deep and with cites
Who contain quite a pungent bite
Truth they show me for such a sham
They never contain needless spam
And while I sit here in my chair
Agents of shadow scuttle everywhere
While I pacify the simple folk
Who shall never be shaken from our yolk.
So you can rant and you can rave
Shadow men like me shall never cave
But when the revolution draws near
Black helicopter swiftly shall appear
And our plan shall be fulfilled
A flat tax and people who pay their bills
Now this kettles plan is laid bare
Normal men need not despair

TFP should be fun
Not a bully pulpit for anyone
So I leave you with this rhyme
Not set in any time
You have your views, I have mine
I hope you feel good, I feel fine.

Ustwo....you're a better poet that policy analyst!

But thats just my opinion. To blame the media for what the principal architect of the Vietnam war (McNamara) admitted was a failed policy from the start, is certainly a stretch, to say the least.

I wonder if multiple threadjacks and thinly veiled mockery could also be considered "spam?"

I did not place sole blame for the failure on Vietnam on the press, they played their part, but you are correct in that it was a poor policy to start with.

When the left does the same to Iraq, it won't be the result of any one man, but the culmination of many.

You could use some fun in your life I think.

Some day I'll figure out how left brained people seem to relax and have more fun than right brained people. Really this truly baffles me as based on how they self describe I figure it should be the other way.

You see this is where you fall off for me. You are correct in the resulting failure of Iraq will not be the fault of just one person. However, that fault lies in the absence of a sound plan for solving the issue of Iraq in the first place.

The invasion should never have occurred in the manner in which it did. The Bush administration entered Iraq without a Gulf War 1 coalition. There was arguably a good reason to take out Saddam and doing this was going to be easy. It was what comes after Saddam that they need support to pull off.

Regardless of the reasons for going in (anything from oil to building a stable democracy in the middle east) Iraq has been one giant fuck up of monumental proportion whether or not the so-called left decides to pull out or not.

So you're blaming the liberal press in part for doing their job of reporting on the day-to-day cost of american lives in vietnam in pursuit of what you agree was a failed policy. What would you have preferred the press to do? How many more names would you have liked to see on the Wall in pursuit of a policy that had little likelihood of success?

The same applies to press coverage in Iraq. Would you prefer the press to ignore the virtual ethnic cleansing in many neighborhoods in Baghdad? The fleeing of millions of the Iraqi middle class to avoid the sectarian violence? The killing of civiilans by US troops and private security forces? The lack of basic resources like water and electricity for much of the country? The corruption of the new Iraqi government? The role of the Shiite militias in that government? The total lack of any progress in political reconciliation?

Should the role of the press in war time be restricted to supporting the policy of its government....right or wrong?

What would be a sound plan? I'd say the mistake was going in as liberators rather than conqueror's but hindsight and all.

It would have been great to have more help, but they were too busy writing contracts with Saddam.

How many nations have been invaded and fundamentally transformed without issue and so LITTLE loss of life. I think you fail to see the big picture here in that sure there have been a LOT of mistakes in Iraq, but its not as colossal a fuck up as you imply here. It can be saved and won, in fact I expect as soon as a democrat gets elected president we will start to see 'good things' stories from Iraq. New schools, new hope, blah blah. Really the way to make this a monumental fuck up is to throw up our hands and 'honorable redeploy' like so many on this board think is a good idea.

We've got a nation of 27 million people under our direct and indirect control, we need to make good on our promises. Not keeping them would be a true monumental fuck up.

Not a colossal fuck up? Only if you ignore the ethnic cleansing, the 2+ million refugees, the killing of tens of thousands in sectarian violence as well as the killing of civilians by US troops and private security forces, the rising disease among children as a result of lack of basic resources, the corruption of the new Iraqi government, the influence of the extremist Shiite militias in the new Iraqi police and military ...oh wait, you did ignore all that.

How can it be saved and won by a continued US occupation? (leaving aside the bullshit blah blah about what liberals would say about it if a democrat wins the WH). We made good on our promise....we got rid of Saddam.. Now its up to the Iraqis and its hard to be optimistic.

How does our further presence bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation? How much progress have they made in the last year on the 18 political/economic benchmarks?

Another threadjack and more mockery? You have an odd sense of what is "fun" that I don't share.

You might be right. If the US had gone in to Iraq with many more soldiers and replaced Saddam's iron rule with America's iron rule, there would have been less of a problem post invasion.

The way I see it, Iraq is just like the Balkans, where Tito = Saddam. Remove the iron fist that keeps the disparate factions from killing each other and you have chaos.

Had the US made the unpleasant decision to be the dictator that Iraq needed, the problems in Iraq would be less than they are today (maybe).

That said, it begs the question... Is that how the US sees itself? Is the US ready to be a colonial power, in an honest straightforward manner?

If the goal is to topple one despotic regime, is there any point if we are only replacing it with another? What example does this set for the other despots in the region other than, if you don't do as the US says, we will crush you?

You are partially correct here but it doesn't change the fact that the incredible lack of diplomacy on display by Bush and his administration in the lead up to the invasion directly resulted in traditional allies such as Germany, France and Canada, saying they would not join the coalition (it should be noted that each of them did take part in Gulf War 1).

The US could always have taken out Saddam. They proved they could do this. It was the aftermath that was always going to take a long time and be costly in any number of ways. Had the Bush Administration made their case for invasion in a better manner )and this includes supporting initiatives like Kyoto that have nothing to do directly with Iraq but everything to do with building coalitions), they might have started off from a stronger position.

I don't dispute that lives would have been lost. I simply feel that the US was never prepared for the long haul -- financially and emotionally. I am not even addressing the corruption, etc. that Dc_Dux lists above.

Not only did Bush need to build a better coalition, he needed to tell the US public the truth that any invasion was not just going to be a quick thing followed by a grateful Iraqi public showering the liberators in flowers. The truth is that it was going to necessarily be a long term commitment to successfully bring about change for the better.

Instead, they chose WMDs and fear of the Terrorism. Great for short term motivation but it has come to bite them in the ass in the long run.

Well if we went in as a conqueror I'm sure the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't go in as liberators, that they were ready to be free of Saddam and we used a heavy hand of oppression.

I think where I differ though is that we didn't have to be a colonial power. Germany and Japan we entered as conqueror's and left as liberators.

We did a poor job of securing Iraq, allowing to many malcontents to be let free and too many weapon caches left unguarded.


Again, Germany and Japan.


Our traditional allies were deeply involved, and while Canada was a great ally in WWII this isn't the same Canada today. Canada today is like inviting Poland, and I don't say that to be condescending, they just don't have the money, nor do I think the will. They pretty much were at their limit with Afghanistan. We really need not go into the France/Germany thing again, but 'allies' is a loose term.

I'll support your bad costly policy if you support mine eh? No, had the US supported Koyto, I don't think we would have had any more help. Honestly I don't think there is anything we could have done to make France or Germany actively help, both those countries internal Muslim issues and external money issues with Iraq would pretty much supersede anything. Plus I think you overvalue their importance for anything beyond show. We would still be footing most of the bill, we would still be doing most of the dying, it would just have a much better 'vibe'.

Dux's points are overblown and show a lack of historical reference. Refugees after a major invasion? Civil unrest? Young men with guns far from home doing bad things? Thats what the down side of war is, was, and always shall be. I think we have limited those better than most have in the past.

As for emotionally ready, well thats a double edged sword to draw here. I'm not sure what Bush could have done, in fact most of the administration as I recall said it wouldn't be easy, it was more the pundits and the 'vibe' that it would be. Its easy in hindsight to say what should have been done.

The double edge comes from those on the left who from day one were attempting to undermine the will of the American people for political gains. They were waiting with baited breath for the time that American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq were greater than the terror attacks in New York. They tell us its unwinable and we have the speaker of the house of representatives speak of a retreat while our men are still deployed. You tell me what that does to 'emotions'. We have things like the Iraqi death estimator where they claim well over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed due to the invasion (thats 1 in 27, and its quite insane), it even got published in a respected journal and later it was torn apart as very poorly set up but that too was done to demoralize the war effort.

The PR could have been done better, but would it have changed anything that mattered? Undoubtedly the Bush admin underestimated the insurgent side and while Rumsfield was right on how many men it would take to beat the army, he was wrong on how many men it would take to secure peacefully after.

Everyone was talking WMD's (see my sig) and fear of terrorism. Nothing wrong with that, and the threat still isn't over (can't wait for a nuclear armed Iran can you?).

But while we have talked about where the Bush admin screwed up, and some places very badly, there is blame to go around. We had two major allies with under the table deals, thwarting any UN action against Saddam, we have a segment of the country doing their best to undermine any military action from day one and they continue to do so. I really can't stress that enough.

If you were an insurgent in Iraq, and you heard the leader of the US house of representatives talk about a retreat in so many words, and you knew that most like a member of her party would be president soon, what would you be thinking?

overblown?

Since you like to make comparisons to Germany and Japan.

How many US military deaths by insurgents were there in Germany and Japan after the cessation of the war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation of those countries?

Did Germany and/or Japan experience a 10% loss of population, mostly the middle class, as a result of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing after the cessation of war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation?

But more importantly, you ignored the critical fact that success in Iraq is dependent on political reconciliation. Can you point to any progress made in the last year on the political front?

In fact, recent US policy shifts are making that less likely..like cutting deals and arming Sunni tribal leaders in western provinces to fight al queda (do you think these armed tribal leaders will be beholding to a national unity government or more likely building their own fiefdoms?) or like trying to force the Iraqi government to accept the American (Cheney) puppet, Chalabi, who has no support or credibility among Iraqis, into a greater leadership role.

Bush and Petraeus also claim great success in training Iraqi police and military. After three years of training (begun under Petraeus in mid-2004), why is it not time to turn the security of the country over to those "well trained" forces (with a very small US support role that shouldnt take 140,000+ US troops)....unless its not at the level that Bush/Petraeus claim (another lie?)

The question for me is not.."if I were an insurgent"..., but rather "if i were a member of the Iraqi government and I heard that leader of the US House of Representatives talked about redeploying the US troops to border security and targeting specific terrorist threats rather than serving as the police force for the country, and a member of her party might be president soon, my thinking would be...I guess we cant suck off the US tit much longer and we, as the Iraqi government better put our sectarian differences aside and get our shit together in a manner that begins to bring shiites, sunnis and kurds together for the good of the country.

But there is no evdience of that happening.... Iraqi leadership rift widens

What makes you think a continued US presence, at or near the current level, will lead to political progress?

.
.
Really? Can you prove these claims? Did you obtain statistics from somewhere?
.
A definition of "partner in the international community" would be very enlightening here.

I see what you are getting at here and I generally agree with you. The way I see it is the US was seen as a liberator for about two or three weeks. Then they shifted to becoming an occupier in the eyes of Iraqis.

This is part of the mismanagement that I've mentioned earlier. I don't think the US had a plan beyond getting Saddam out of power.

As I suggested elsewhere, nobody really knew before the invasion if Iraq was going to be Germany or Yugoslavia. It turned out that Iraq was more like Yugoslavia, a nation of disparate parts that was only held together by Saddam's iron fist. These parts were more interested in settling old grudges than moving forward with a new vision for a united Iraq.

It didn't help that the US administrators immediately forbid any former Baathist members from the new Iraqi admin (created problems in the transfer of power) and messed with Shite's desire to have a majority rule because of the fear of Iranian Shite influence, etc. They took a very shaky situation and shook it.



I used Kyoto as an example but ultimately the Bush admin's "you are either with us or you are against us" declaration did more to rankle public opinion against them than anything. While it certainly played well at home, it was poorly received abroad. This is not the way to build a coalition.

The Bush Admin's diplomacy was deplorable and the US is paying the price in that the financial burden of the Iraq invasion must be almost entirely shouldered by the US. As I see it, the cost of the invasion most certainly would have been borne by the US. But the occupation, which was inevitable, could have been shared by many more.

My observations re, social security and the environment were based on polls. Most Americans do not want to end Social Security as it is presently structured nor do they want to shut down the EPA - both Ron Paul extreme positions.

While there havent been recent polls on Social Security, at the time Bush was proposing to "fix" Social Security by allowing workers to invest all or part of their current and future SS tax contribution in private investments instead (same as Ron Paul position), the polls at the time (2005) were clear:

Approve or disapprove of Bush plan:
- Associated Press/Ipsos poll: approve - 35%, disapprove - 60%
- CNN/Gallup poll: approve - 29%, disapprove - 62%
(many other polls have similar results on this question)

Or this, from a CBS/NY Times poll:
- On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly
-- should - 80%, should not - 16%

- Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea?"
-- good idea - 45%, bad idea - 50%

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:
- In general, do you think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market?
- good idea - 36%, bad idea - 56%

Social Security polls

I think its pretty clear that Americans dont want the Social Security system "fixed" that way.

Now as to the environment/EPA:
A recent Harris poll:

Do you think there is too much, too little, or about the right amount of government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection?"
-- too much - 21%, too little - 53%, about right - 21%

Other polls show the low perecentage of people who believe business can be trusted to protect the environment.

Environment polls

Do you see support here for Ron Paul's declaration that we dont need the EPA and we can rely on business to self-regulate.

And finally, a "partner in the international community" doesnt mean an interventionist foreign policy (asserting our "will" on the world like Bush), but it does mean participating in international efforts in promoting peace in places like the Middle East, engaging as part of an international response in worse case scenarios like the past genocide in the Balkans and presently in Sudan, and providing foreign aid (economic assistance) in areas facing severe economic deprivation and widespread death.

While Ron Paul may not be an "isolationist", he is a "non-interventionist" and opposed to all foreign aid and US participation in international response efforts, both military and economic.

More:
This response from a "supporter" attending a recent Ron Paul gathering in NH sums up RP's problem...:
...as people look beyond the surface talking points of "end the war", "shut down the IRS" and "return to (his concept of) the constitutional role of the federal government" and begin to understand what that means.....I suspect more and more are saying "really"?

Today, the 30th, is a Ron Paul money bomb day. So, if you care/can afford it please donate.

Btw, he is on track to have the largest amount of money donated for a GOP candidate in the critical fourth quarter. Time to take him 'seriously' I think.

Its such a shame that the notion is so ingrained in our society now, that only the federal government can bestow such privileges upon people. We have city and state governments too... the whole idea of reducing the role of the *federal* government, is to allow the states the ability to do more.

As a direct result, the individual will have *much* more influence over what happens in their communities and states. Where does your voice count more? When its one out of 250-300 million people, or when its 1 out of the population of your state? You want a Pel grant like program for your state? State wide government provided health care? Work with through your state government to make it happen...

He has a "serious" hold on fifth place now among the Repub candidates with around 5% of the likely primary voters, having finally broken away from Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. :thumbsup:

Why do you think it is that Mike Huckabee, with very little money, has surged so far ahead of Ron Paul?

Individuals should absolutely exert more influence over what happens in their communities and states.

But you fail to recognize the inequities in financial resources among the states. Do you really believe a low income student in a poor state like Mississippi has the same access to college grants and loans as a low income student in a wealthy state like Connecticut?

And how would the environment be protected under your (and Ron Paul's - " we dont need the EPA") scenario, if one state has stricter air and water quality regulations than a neighboring state, rather than uniform regulations promulgated and enforced at the federal level?

How would states regulate the securities industry better than the SEC or manage air traffic better than the FAA? Ron Paul has voted consistently to defund these regulatory agencies, among many others.

There are roles for the states and there is a role for the federal government to ensure that environmental quality of life, access to higher education, health care, etc are equalized to the extent possible for all citizens.

Its obviously the Chuck Norris commercial, duh.... :no:

Well perhaps our educational system will improve for everyone if he could manage to get rid of the DOE, like he hopes.

Environmental issues would be handled through the courts. If a company pollutes a towns water source, they are liable for the damages. Anytime someone causes damage to another property, including environmental damage, they can be taken to court and held accountable.

Also, just FYI, Ron Paul has stated that trying to dissolve the EPA is extremely low on his agenda list, anyhow. If its that big of a concern to you, and by some miracle he is elected, you can rest easy that he will probably never be able to get around to actually attempting to do it.

FYI.....if by some miracle beyond all miracles, Ron Paul is elected, none of his government reform agenda will actually happen, because none have support in Congress.

Ron Paul's solution of defunding nearly every federal government agency is beyond extreme.

I realize that as well. But man, it would be great to have someone like Ron Paul in the oval office with veto power.

I find the hysteria around Ron Paul by socialists greatly amusing.

If he were just a kook why all the vitriol? Its not like we are doing the same to Kucinich.

So is it a fear that he could get elected, and the response is belittling him as 'unimportant'?

If he is such a long shot and has so little support, why even bother?

I have to wonder if voting for what I think would be a mistake in Iraq and the like would be worth just seeing the horror in the nanny state types.

I'm starting to think it would be.

Why do you even bother with many of your inane posts (particularly your oft-posted commentaries through pics)?

I guess we're both easily amused :)

I suspect nearly every veto would be overridden...so what would be accomplished?

I am all for reforming and downsizing the federal government. One of the few positive things to come out of Reagan's domestic agenda was the program of "new federalism" and "devolving" numerous federal categorical grant programs (mostly social programs) to block grants to the states, with less federal regulation and more state flexibility and control. Clinton's "reinventing government" and cutting numerous federal regulations also made sense.

For those who truly want to see government reform, I would suggest it will be far more likely to come about as a result of someone in the WH who would take a practical approach and expand the Reagan "new federalism/devolution" to more grant programs and the Clinton "reinventing government" with more regulatory reform rather than the Ron Paul approach of trashing the entire federal government infrastructure (through the misrepresentation to the American people that most federal programs are unconstitutional).

I dont know... it would be interesting to see what the republican party does if he got elected... would they fight with him or work with him?

Do you really think Republican members of Congress in the heartland red states (Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc) would support his position to end federal agricultural subsidies? or Republican members of Congress in Texas and Alabama (with huge space industry facilities that employ thousands) to end funding for NASA? or any red state with large middle class populations that support the pell grant program and numerous other programs that directly benefit their constituents?

Not to mention that the Repubs would have to end their mantra that "terrorism is the number one threat to the nation and thats why we need the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping".

How about Ron Paul's position to abolish medicare.....there goes Florida.

To be honest, the only reason Huckabee is gaining support is because the right wing talk shows are totally freaking out at the support Ron Paul is getting. They are scrambling to talk about anyone other than Ron Paul. Their constituents have all but given up on Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson as real conservatives other than their 'not-hillary' appeal.

Did you watch the youtube debates? Ron Paul got asked the most loaded questions possible and Guiliani and Romney had twice the amount of time to speak as him despite his likely outraising them in the fourth quarter. He had time similar to Hunter and Tancredo who have become non contenders.

The two problems Ron Paul faces is name recognition, and the unfair shake/defamation he recieves in the media.

I agree that Ron Paul has probably not gotten a fair shake in the media. But that is hardly the only reason for his low poll numbers and Mike Huckabee's rising poll numbers.

The greatest problem facing Ron Paul is not name recognition or treatment by the media but the fact that most Americans and even most Republicans do not share his vision of returning to a 18th century model of the federal government.

Ron Paul is not absurd, at least when he's compared to Rudy:

What does all of the following mean? Ron Paul supporters have great lung power, some in Atlanta do not know that Ron is a republican. <h3>Either Rudy is just about done</h3> as a candidate...his successful push to get Bush to name Kerik as DHS chief should have been enough....notice that Georgian repubs don't care about Rudy's ties to criminals, his own corrupt activities, or even about his adultery....<h3>or Rudy will stay in the race....more evidence that the GOP is a party with no standards or scruples. Convicted bribe taker Bob Asher, was permitted to waltz out of his federal prison cell and back into his place as high ranking Penn. state GOP official, a place he holds to this day!</h3>


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/13733.html
November 27, 2007
Giuliani cozies up to convicted moneyman
Posted November 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Way back in June, Time’s David Von Drehle <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/out-of-spotligh.html">asked</a> an interesting question: “How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?” The question, of course, was in reference to Rudy Giuliani, after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, came on the heels of revelations about Giuliani’s connections with Bernard Kerik.

But Von Drehle posed the question far too early — the number of alleged criminals with close ties to Giuliani has gone up considerably since then. ABC News has <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/out-of-spotligh.html">the latest</a>.

A Pennsylvania man convicted in a notorious corruption case played host to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser last night, despite the Giuliani campaign’s public efforts to distance itself from the man.

Bob Asher, a major Pennsylvania Republican player as a national party committeeman, was one of four hosts for the $2,300-a-person event. Asher was convicted in 1986 on charges stemming from a bribery scheme intended to win a $300,000 state government contract. The case gained national attention when his co-defendant in the case, Pennsylvania state treasurer R. Budd Dwyer, committed suicide at a televised news conference. Asher was sentenced to serve one year in prison.

At that time, Giuliani was a federal prosecutor in New York, building a reputation by locking up criminals for similar corruption-related misdeeds.

Giuliani came and went from last night’s fundraiser without comment, ducking down in his car as ABC News cameras attempted to photograph him arriving.

Given recent events, does it not occur to Giuliani to perhaps put some distance between himself and convicted felons?

For that matter, for all the attention the Norman Hsu controversy received, Hillary Clinton didn’t even know the guy. <h3>In contrast, Giuliani and Asher carpooled to the fundraiser together.

Regular readers know what this means: it’s time to update the big board of Giuliani’s dubious associates.</h3>

* Giuliani inexplicably backed Bernie Kerik, and made him the city’s police commissioner, after he’d been briefed on Kerik’s organized crime connections.

* Alan Placa was accused by a grand jury report of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Giuliani then put Placa, his life-long friend, on the payroll of Giuliani Partners. (Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, “I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.”)

* Kenneth Caruso, a close Giuliani friend and business partner, has been accused of conspiring to steal $10 million invested through a Caribbean bank.

* Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges.

* Arthur Ravenel, the replacement chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, has characterized the NAACP as the “National Association for Retarded People,” and has an unusual fondness for the Confederate battle flag.

* Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the family-values conservative caught up in a prostitution scandal, was not only Giuliani’s top Senate backer, he was also the regional chairman of Giuliani’s campaign.

* Giuliani hired Russell Harding to run NYC’s Housing Development Corp, despite the fact that Harding had no college degree or background in housing and finance. (He was, however, the son of a prominent political backer whose support Giuliani sought to reward.) Harding later pled guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges, admitting to stealing more than $400,000 from the housing agency he once headed. (He was also caught possessing a disc filled with pornographic images of children.)

* And now, we can add Bob Asher, a convicted felon involved in a bribery scheme to win a state government contract.

Two weeks ago, former Solicitor General Ted Olson praised Giuliani as a man who has shown “the wisdom and humility to surround himself with talented, dedicated and energetic people.”

Hilarious.[/quote]

Now Huckabee comes off as a clueless (disinterested?) asshat, so who remains, besides Ron Paul, pursuing the republican nomination, who isn't a joke?

Surely, it's not this man:
Is Romney's response to this determination, reasonable or proportional:
<h3>WTF is Romeny talking about ?</h3> Is he advocating "military action" if the US necons cannot convince Iran to restart it's nuclear weapons development so neocons in government will have an excuse to attack Iran?

What dream world do you live in? Ron Paul consistently gets 4-8% in polls. Ron Paul has no chance at all. It would be nice if he were nominated though, he'd be a cinch to beat in the election.

I will admit, however, that out of all the Republican candidates, he is the least insane. He's still nutso though.

The phone polls are pretty biased against him to be honest. In blind polls (where the names of the candidates aren't listed, but their issues are) he wins, in internet polls he wins, in post debate polls he wins, in straw polls he wins. Why is there such a difference in the phone polls?

Here's an example of a phone poll: http://bhday.files.wordpress.com/200...l-polling2.wav Does that sound fair to you?

In that poll too, the caller hit #6, for other. The system then registered it as a #7 and took him off the list, presumably so they dont have those pesky "other" voters messing up their polls. Of course it could just be stupidity or error on their part, but given the treatment Paul gets in the media, you can understand the conspiracy theories.

The phone poll you posted (IMC polling, whoever they are) is not at all representative of most phone polls. I really dont know where you get your information.

In all the national media polls (abc/wash post, nbc/wall street journal, cnn, fox, usa today/gallup, pew/ap, etc) Ron Paul is included by name.

The reason there is such a difference between these polls and the internet polls and straw polls is simple.

The former are prepared and administered to be statistically valid to represent likely voters (which is why they are all within a few points of each other for each of the candidates) whereas internet and straw polls are pseudo polls and have no statistical validity.

The latest aggregates of the national polls from Pollster.com

http://www.pollster.com/USTopReps600.png

Good luck on your next money bomb..perhaps Paul will creep up another point or two!

Absolutely. Ron Paul supporters are only interested in the Constitution...now, from that many issues emanate, but sure, from a simplified position, you are right!

Ron Paul supporters remind me of evangelical Christians. They believe that Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation just as evangelicals believe their interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one.

Fortunately for the country, the Supreme Court has invalidated much of Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution, particularly as it applies to the legitimate role of the federal government. He and his supporters just wont accept that fact.

Could you explain how your interpretation of the Bible differs from the "evangelical's", please?

LOL...the Supreme Court is as political as the Congress. Their "interpretation" is no more credible than some political hack on CNN...

Yes, the Supreme Court also said blacks weren't people, luckily some of the states came to the rescue and decided to not enforce that. The supreme court is not the final say of anything. The congress and states still have checks and balances on the supreme court.

I dont take all of the Bible literally.

Whether the Supreme Court is political or not and whether you and Ron Paul like it or not, its interpretation of the Constitution becomes the law of the land. Why is that so hard for Paul supporters to understand?

samcol.....Please lets not have the "general welfare" clause argument again. You were wrong when you said it was a "preamble" and you were wrong when you said that FDR packed the court to get his "interpretation".

Absolutely....Congress can pass a Constitutional amendment (and the States can ratify) that would significantly narrow the "general welfare" programs of the federal government. But Ron Paul cant just declare such programs unconstitutional based on his own interpretation. :shakehead:

You're the one that brought up the Supreme Court issue again.

Why is it so hard to believe that the Supreme Court could be wrong? They were wrong in the Dred Scott case. Just because the currently held rulings happen to be in favor of your personal views doesn't mean the court is never wrong with no means to change outside of the courts.

I guess in 1856 you would of been a big fan of that ruling. I mean they are the supreme and god like rulers of our lives. Why couldn't you just accept that fact? It's not worth trying to treat slaves as citizens.

I never said that the Supreme Court could not be wrong. I disagree with many Supreme Court rulings, historically and in my lifetime.

BUt that doesnt change the fact the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is law, whether you or I like it or not, until such time as a future Court overturns or Congress and the States act to amend.

A citizen, even a Congressman, can not impose his own interpretation of the Constitution on the country if it is counter to the Court's.....period :)

And since thats the case, he, and the his supporters should just sit back and do nothing until the courts are benevolent enough to give us our rights back? We get it... you don't agree on his constitutional views. How do you think you can actually bring a state, or congress to the table to amend? By convincing others its the right thing to do, perhaps?

Sure....convince others that a smaller, less intrusive federal government is the right thing to do...and I would agree with you to some extent.

But do it honestly and not by lying or misrepresenting current laws or federal social programs (among others) by saying they are unconstitutional...because at present, they are not.

If Ron Paul wants to make these programs unconstitutional, then that should be his message.

I'll even offer some suggested remarks to Ron Paul :) :

"While I personally believe programs like social security and medicare are unconstitutional, as are federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, FDA, FCC, SEC...according to my understanding of he original intent of the framers, the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and we must respect that....so I therefore call for all Americans to support a constitutional amendment to bar the federal government from providing these services."

Here's a good place to start...Ron Paul's position on medicare:

Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.

The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.

Good luck on convincing seniors and the first wave of baby-boomers (soon to be seniors) that medicare is unconstitutional and should be abolished.:thumbsup:

The same applies to so many other federal programs where millions of citizens are the beneficiaries.

Well, I believe Paul usually prefaces his statements about such things with "I believe"... its quite clear in my mind that its his opinion.

Yea, that would be an impossible sell... but I have never heard him advocate actually cutting off current beneficiaries of social programs that people have paid into with their tax dollars. Unfortunately, his positions are such that its easy for opponents to mischaracterize them, in that way. But I've never seen where he actually proposed to cut people off from the social programs like medicare and social security.

Have I mischaracterized his position on medicare? Its right from the Republican Liberty Caucus position statement adopted in 2000 that Ron Paul endorsed.

It also calls for abolishing the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, he National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.....all on Constitutional grounds, yet all are presently Constitutional.

Or why not share the more recent (2004) Republican Liberty Caucus policy statement as the centerpiece of his campaign, along with the war issue, if he believes in it.

Republican Liberty Caucus- see "RLC Position Statement" (word doc)

...perhaps because it is so draconian, it would freak many (most?) people out if it were more widely known?

It might be a tough sell for baby boomers, but for younger people like me who have seen how poorly these welfare programs are run it's a much easier decision. I like how people receiving money and services are called 'beneficiaries' as if the government is giving them something that they wouldn't of already had without the rediculous welfare taxes.

Make no mistake, by abolish he means 'phasing out'. He wouldn't simply steal all the money hard working people have put into these welfare programs over the years. He's been very clear on that. So, to think seniors will be ripped off by abolishing welfare programs is wrong.

That explains why Ron Paul cant win....its a numbers game.

Registered voters 18-24 yr old - 14+ million
Registered voters 25-34 yr old - 21+ million

These age groups represent the core RP supporters.

Then you have the baby boomers and seniors:

Registered voters 45-54 yr old - 29+ million
Registered voters 55 and over - 48+ million

And these groups vote at a higher percentage.

source: Census report (pdf), Voting and Registration in the Election of 2004 (see table B)

Thx info.

Jump all over that 'he can't win' bandwagon. God know the media sure loves it. It doesn't phase his supporters anyway, they just donate more money and get more active. Go hate on Giuliani and Romney for awhile will you?

I dont hate Ron Paul....I just think his solutions are radical and I will continue to express my opinion, particularly when I see bogus information posted about the Constitution or the credibility of straw polls/internet polls :)

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.

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.

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)

Good luck with the phallic blimp! :thumbsup:

Is this more important than standard phone polling?

Or is this just another case of the Paulbot spammers?

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

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.

This reminds me of the Deaniacs.

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

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>

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

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.

"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>

edit

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 :confused:

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.

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.

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.

:shakehead:

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? :confused:

http://www.pollster.com/USTopReps600.png

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.

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.

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.