|
The thing is, Kerry probably was the most electable out of the 2004 bunch. And remember, 80,000 people change their minds in Ohio, and he would have won. Woulda coulda shoulda and all that, but the idea that Kerry could beat Bush wasn’t exactly turned into a laughing stock idea by the final outcome. This really isn’t that bothersome to me (especially since Romney and Giuliani are fifteen times the candidate that Kerry was). |
| |
Written By:
Sean
URL:
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
|
"80,000 people change their minds in Ohio" Sean, not to pick on you, I keep seeing this statement but it is silly. Ohio wasn’t special. If Kerry had won more votes in other states he would also have won the election. There was nothing magic about Ohio voters. |
| |
Written By:
Grimshaw
URL:
http://
|
If we have to take Ron Paul seriously, then here it goes...
Ron Paul would be a toxic disaster on foreign policy. (to quote myself from another blog):
His so-called ’Isolationist’ policy is based off a low self-esteem approach to foreign policy. "Everything bad that happens to the US is the US’s fault and if we lock ourselves in our apartment and don’t go outside, we’ll be safe".
The motive behind Isolationism, of Paul’s kind or any other, in large part is to ensure our automony. You don’t have autonomy when you act like a shut-in and are afraid to step on anyone’s toes.
Smaller government is generally a cool notion, but the suicidal foreign policy trumps it. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
jpm100, is your claimed rationale for Paul’s foreign policy approach his stated rationale or are you just assuming that? I’m doubtful that his reasoning has anything to do with low-self esteem. How do you think Paul would have responded to 9/11? I don’t know, I’m asking.
|
| |
Written By:
Grimshaw
URL:
http://
|
And remember, 80,000 people change their minds in Ohio, and he would have won. Seeing as you want to play silly, if 118,599 (CNN numbers for Ohio) other people in Oregon (Kerry by 76,332: 7 Electoral votes), Wisconson (Kerry by 11,384:10 EVs) and New Hampshire (Kerry 9,274:4 EVs) changed their minds, Bush would have won an additional 21 electoral votes.
Irrespective of how pointless the "what if" game is, these facts are, of course, ignored for they dont fit the narrative. |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
Woulda coulda shoulda and all that, but the idea that Kerry could beat Bush wasn’t exactly turned into a laughing stock idea by the final outcome. Perhaps not, but I expect R v D presidential elections to break down nearly 50/50. Essentially, the "D" after Kerry’s name meant that 45% of voters were going to vote for him, pretty much no matter what.
Kerry was a piss poor candidate, chosen due to his activities as a junior officier some 30 years prior. "Jonh Kerry, reporting for duty!".
|
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Would Ron Paul be doing this well, were primaries restricted to Republicans? SOmehow, I doubt it.
And let’s remember, too, the originally stated goal was $10mUSD. And Paul’s camp is spinning less than half that amount as a victory?
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
"Anybody working for the Rudy-Fred-Mitt power trio has to wonder why the Republican base is so hungry for these other choices."
From David Weigel excerpt
I have to question both a premise based on the uptick in Ron Paul interest and including him in the surmise. Is it the result of hungry Republican interest? Sure, Paul is running as member of the Republican Party, but it’s a jump to say these are Republican’s supporting him. I did a quick, somewhat random, unscientific check of the latest Ron Paul donations roster. Of the 11 names from the A’s, 8 had never given before, 1 has given to an R before and 1 may have given to RNC/RTW PACS before, 1 is a certified Lib Party dedicatee, and one has also given $1k to both Edwards and Bernie Sanders. I’d be curious what more comprehensive look might show and even more curious to see the makeup from yesterday.
How many of these supporters would even vote R if Paul wasn’t the nominee? How many of Paul’s supporters do the Repubs really have a chance at if one were to presume the first time donaters leaned heavily Lib Party?
The bottom line is that we (and I) know very little about Paul’s monetary support base and whether it is much different than his vocal support base, so it’s a stretch to think this support might, or should, affect the thinking of the top eschalon R runners for the nomination until some demographics have been done. |
| |
Written By:
Dusty
URL:
http://
|
Are any other fiscal conservatives running?
In the general election, we get to choose the less bad of two candidates.
In the primary, ideas matter. My perfect candidate isn’t running - that would be me. I’m the only one with whom I am in total agreement on all subjects. The time to listen, for me, is before my state’s primary. By then, the herd will have been thinned a little more.
I don’t think Ron Paul will still be around, despite his fundraising success. If he is, I’ll weigh the good and the bad. For me now, he is irrelevant.
|
| |
Written By:
MarkD
URL:
http://
|
I question the tag of fiscal conservative being applied to Paul.
Sorry, it just doesn’t mesh with the facts, as James showed us recently.
IN any event, if he really WAS a fiscal conservative, does anyone really suppose he’d be getting such support from people who would otherwise be voting far left Dem? Sorry. I don’t buy it. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
IN any event, if he really WAS a fiscal conservative, does anyone really suppose he’d be getting such support from people who would otherwise be voting far left Dem? Mostly this support is a tactic to cause problems for R’s and possibly spin Ron off as a 3rd party candidate. As such his ideas are irrelevent; all that matters is that he might get some votes that would otherwise go for the mainstream R candidate. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
I have only recently learned of Ron Paul, but yesterday, for the first time, I donated to a political campaign.
I have voted Republican for the last two elections, but it took a conversation with my 84-year old grandfather this past weekend to really understand why Ron Paul is the only candidate who both understands conservatism and practices good politics.
Congressman Paul is now my candidate because his consistent application of small-state conservative principles is the only way to right this listing ship of state.
I don’t feel out-of-sorts when I read Powerline and RedState and The Corner and I feel their visceral dislike for Ron Paul. Though I don’t fully understand why they must demonize him, it’s of no consequence. Ron Paul is not buoyed by their support, nor capsized by their lack thereof.
His campaign is powered by many, many individuals who despaired that a true Republican would ever come back to lead this country, and now having found him, will do all within their power to bring him into the White House in 2008. |
| |
Written By:
Kerri Lunderson
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
His campaign is powered by many, many individuals who despaired that a true Republican would ever come back to lead this country, and now having found him, will do all within their power to bring him into the White House in 2008.
Like all those True Republicans that powered Pat Buchanan to victory too..oh wait. Look around you at the next Paulbot meeting and see how many Republicans are there versus how many an-caps’ hippies, and cranks...you might be surprised.
|
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
|
Niether "Buzz" nor money are votes...Ron Paul is a less vocal, more crazy Howard Dean. Paulbot’s if Uncle Ron gets any delegates I’ll eat my hat. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
[Written By: Kerri Lunderson]
My 90 year-old grandmother says your 84 year-old grandfather is nuts. |
| |
Written By:
Dusty
URL:
http://
|
And let’s remember, too, the originally stated goal was $10mUSD. And Paul’s camp is spinning less than half that amount as a victory? Different numbers, bithead. B. Pick’s first update on yesterdays thread: As of midnight Eastern time, Ron Paul had $7.1 million, making for about $4.3 million in 24 hours. We’ll see what he has at midnight Pacific time, especially since much of his support is in the west. Eventhough it does fall short of the aim, its still quite impressive. |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
jpm100, is your claimed rationale for Paul’s foreign policy approach his stated rationale or are you just assuming that? I’m doubtful that his reasoning has anything to do with low-self esteem. How do you think Paul would have responded to 9/11? I don’t know, I’m asking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
So JPM100, have you concluded that our perpetual intervention in the Middle East (and I’m not passing any judgment on it, just stating it as a fact) could not have been a factor in 9/11 or other terrorist actions against the US? Surely it has had something to do with it. While unknowable, one could argue that less intervention in the Middle East might have avoided 9/11, and I don’t think that’s a position of low self-esteem. Making that argument also doesn’t mean 9/11 was the fault of the US or that we were inviting it. It would be nice if the politicians could stop blustering about the Middle East, 9/11, and terrorism and just talk about it. I don’t think any of them have a completely solid grasp on the situation, but if they do, it’s hard to tell.
|
| |
Written By:
Grimshaw
URL:
http://
|
Firstly, not intervening into the Middle East would dramatically increased the likelihood of a USSR take over of a major share of the Middle East. With a share of the world’s oil reserves that couldn’t be ignored, they still might be economically viable as well has having had even greater political influence.
So because of the Cold War, which everyone plays amnesia on these days, we had to be there.
Is our record pristine, probably not. But take the BS about the Shah leading to the hostage crisis which Paul has said elsewhere. That might be meaningful if the transition from Monarchical dictatorship was to a Democracy and not a Theocratic dictatorship. So the takeover in Iran was far from a popular movement. Except if you think, "I don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of a bunch of fanatical lunatics.", as popular support.
It also might have been meaningful if it occurred immediately after the takeover and not prompted by Carter’s refusal to turn over the Shah. Because we didn’t obey and hand over an exile for them to brutalize, we were attacked. It had nothing to do with prior US policy. Paul connects events that aren’t strongly connected at all and lays the blame with the US and none on the blood thirst of an Islamofascist takeover. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
And Paul’s camp is spinning less than half that amount as a victory? Well what would you call it if you didn’t even organize it, didn’t approve it or top-down "authorize" it? I didn’t even detect "Paul’s camp" being aware of it until the lone Paul fan (y’know, PJs; at the kitchen table, & all) had four or five thousand subscribers.
It’s found money, man. Not a "victory?"
Well; the most interesting thing of it (disclosure: I kicked in $200; the only "voting" I permit myself) is that this was done completely independently by some guy who has a ’silly idea.’ I think that’s a first — in terms of the sheer amount raised — in the history of the world and only dummies don’t pay attention to it.
|
| |
Written By:
Richard Nikoley
URL:
http://www.honestylog.com
|
Well what would you call it if you didn’t even organize it, didn’t approve it or top-down "authorize" it? Contrived. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
So JPM100, have you concluded that our perpetual intervention in the Middle East (and I’m not passing any judgment on it, just stating it as a fact) could not have been a factor in 9/11 or other terrorist actions against the US? Perpetual?
It isn’t like we spent much time f***ing with the Ottoman Empire (except when Islamic pirates messed with US ships).
Most of our involvement in the ME was during the Cold War, but this involvement was necessary in part because of the weakness of ME nations.
Bin Laden’s key reason for hating the US was because the US (rather than bin Laden’s merry men) defended Saudia Arabia during the first Gulf War. Yep, he hates us for defending his homeland.
But the real, underlying reason for the hatered is the success of our decadent Western culture and the failure of the culture of the true believers. It’s envy at its core. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Contrived. Ah; so they "contrived" with a nobody to raise $10 mil, but only came up with $4.2. To claim it as a "victory" is "spin."
Yea, that make a lot of sense. That’s the problem with being stupid, and a bold-faced liar, when it comes to Paul. You’ve little choice but to say something even more stupid, and tell more lies.
Switching gears, if you were honest about this, you’d at the very least point out that Paul has given an answer to the "earmark" question when you post your standard BS link. You may not think his answer is adequate, but he’s not evading it, and he’s giving a direct answer within the context of his integrity being questioned.
You’re just a liar, Florack.
|
| |
Written By:
Richard Nikoley
URL:
http://www.honestylog.com
|
|
But how could this happen? He was endorsed by Stormfront! |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
Well, you know, timactual. Lots and lots of money behind those guys. Quite a ’contrivance.’
|
| |
Written By:
Richard Nikoley
URL:
http://www.honestylog.com
|
Paul has given an answer to the "earmark" question when you post your standard BS link. Yes, indeed he has. A totally unacceptable one.
You may not think his answer is adequate, but he’s not evading it,
You see that’s precisely why the answer was unacceptable; The answer he gave was totally evasive. Indeed, Hillary Clinton could learn a thing or two from the man. The implications on his integrity of the comparison, I will leave to you.
And, yes, he was endorsed by Stormfront. I wonder; how much of that money came from them? Funny how we never got the breakdown.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
" I wonder; how much of that money came from them? Funny how we never got the breakdown."
Oh, come on. Don’t start having paranoid fantasies. How much money could a bunch of semiliterate, uneducated, delusional morons spare? Doc Martens’ and beer are expensive. Not to mention bail money.
|
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
It’s not evasive at all. His answer is very clear. But everyone can judge for themselves: here, here here, here, and here.
|
| |
Written By:
Richard Nikoley
URL:
http://www.honestylog.com
|
Oh, come on. Don’t start having paranoid fantasies. How much money could a bunch of semiliterate, uneducated, delusional morons spare? Doc Martens’ and beer are expensive. Not to mention bail money.
LOL.
If we listen to the Democrats, it’s enough to keep wal-mart and Nascar in business...
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
What is amazing to me is how so many people discount Ron Paul completely based on nothing but issues. I didn’t like his positions the first time I heard them, and I still disagree with many of them.
I support Ron Paul because of his integrity. Why support a candidate who will say anything to get elected? Maybe just to be on the winning team? You elect Hillary or Rudy and you will get from their presidency whatever their big business sponsers want.
Looking at history it seems that large governments almost always get out of control. Every so often you have to hold people accountable. Hit the reset button. I don’t think there is any doubt what Ron Paul would do (or try to do) if elected. Supporting a good honest man is enough for me. |
| |
Written By:
Andrew
URL:
http://
|
