Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ah, "Paul Supporters"
I need to knock down a rumor: Ron Paul's campaign is not challenging any results from Ames. Jonah Goldberg links to an IHT story that reports:
The voting machine delay may have added fuel to the fire of some Ron Paul supporters who had sought to block voting at the event because of the machines. They filed a federal lawsuit on the constitutionality of the voting process this week and argued that the vote-counting machines had fundamental weaknesses.
The key phrase is "some Ron Paul supporters." Those supporters are members or affiliates of VoteFraud.org and Vote In Sunshine. Vote In Sunshine members typically voted for Paul and wore yellow t-shirts that looked a lot like the regular Paul shirts, but they had little to do with the campaign. Rep. Paul, whom I spoke to today, confirmed that the campaign is not worried about the vote count, asked "vote fraud" watchers to drop a pre-vote lawsuit, and has nothing to do with any post-hoc challenges.
Still, Goldberg:
Usually, candidates can tell their supporters to stop this sort of action, so I wouldn't surprised if Paul winked at the effort.
This clashes with the obvious irritation Paul and his staff displayed when I asked them about the vote lawsuits and it doesn't really make sense independently of that. What's the secret plan supposed to be? "If I can tie up my party in a pointless fight about a poll I definitely didn't win, I'll gain instant credibility!"
|8.11.07 @ 11:43PM|#
Wow, Goldberg is being an ass about this. He rushed to post a
flat-out false statement, ie, that "representatives of Ron Paul"
had filed the suit. Then he blasts the people who correct him for
being pissed about it, and doesn't change the original statement,
insinuating that "supporters" = "representatives".
I wonder if that's how he felt about the Swift Boat Vets...
S.A. Miller|8.11.07 @ 11:47PM|#
You have to admit it is a bit amusing. Supporters of the most
limited government candidate using the federal judiciary to stop a
private party vote?
I'm starting to wonder how many of Paul's supporters are really
fans of very limited gov't, or are just anti-war.
Dave Weigel|8.11.07 @ 11:49PM|#
You have to admit it is a bit amusing. Supporters of the
most limited government candidate using the federal judiciary to
stop a private party vote?
Yeah, that's ironic, but we don't want to attribute to campaigns
the actions of random supporters.
|8.11.07 @ 11:53PM|#
Holy shit, if the other campaigns got lambasted every time a few
supporters did something stupid, they'd all be in trouble.
I know Romney's campaign staffers (real on-the-payroll campaign
staffers, not merely supporters) were soliciting votes from
Democratic Party HQ's in Iowa. Let's see if that gets >0
coverage in the MSM....
|8.11.07 @ 11:54PM|#
I'm starting to wonder how many of Paul's supporters are
really fans of very limited gov't, or are just anti-war.
I think about 3
thoreau|8.12.07 @ 12:07AM|#
Ron Paul should find a way to very publicly repudiate his
wackiest supporters, without coming across as a kook himself. I
suggest slapping upside the head.
Not only would repudiating these idiots elevate his credibility in
the eyes of other voters, it would probably also give a visceral
satisfaction to more mainstream Ron Paul supporters (e.g. me) who
are tired of the wackos discrediting the only GOP candidate with
good ideas.
|8.12.07 @ 12:10AM|#
thoreau,
Should he pull a John Edwards and say "Listen, if you think the
federal govt blew up the WTC, don't vote for me!"
thoreau|8.12.07 @ 12:15AM|#
crimethink-
No, that's too formal. More like a "Hey, I can't stand these
paranoid idiots any more than the rest of you. In fact, I dragged
one of them away from World of Warcraft for the express purpose of
slapping him upside the head on camera, which I shall now do."
Ashish George|8.12.07 @ 12:38AM|#
All well and good, but who will slap Goldberg's half-baked book idea out of him?
Edward|8.12.07 @ 1:29AM|#
Never has this quote been more appropriate:
"It is a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
Edward|8.12.07 @ 1:41AM|#
tarran,
You silly troll feeder, I know what they were talking about. I'm
talking about Ron Paul.
|8.12.07 @ 2:13AM|#
Yeah, that's ironic, but we don't want to attribute to
campaigns the actions of random supporters.
Then it would be impossible to attribute any action to the
democrats.
|8.12.07 @ 2:20AM|#
just curious, who is everybody supporting(especially edward)?? I have never voted except in a local referendum. I kinda have the douche bag v. turd sandwich thing going on (southpark).
|8.12.07 @ 3:27AM|#
"Ron Paul should find a way to very publicly repudiate his
wackiest supporters, without coming across as a kook
himself.
CNN would be an excellent medium. Anything that isn't the
internet
|8.12.07 @ 8:22AM|#
I don't vote in primarys, but in general elections I always vote
for myself (write in) unless there is a libertarian.
Starting the next election I plan to vote against the incumbent
whoever that happens to be, and for the next most likely to
win.
|8.12.07 @ 8:39AM|#
I think Goldberg doesn't understand the idea of grass-root
support, it is mostly independent from the official Campaign, so
the Paul office has most time no control over them, unlike the paid
for staffs of the other candidates...
So, how do you control something, which you didn't construct in the
first place....
|8.12.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Okay, what's the reasoning behind, eg, massive technical
attempts to skew on-line polls? It's not like it's not easy to see
when a poll is being bot-attacked. But beyond that, when a formal
poll with a well-chosen sample shows Paul at < 1%, and an
unregulated on-line poll shows 40 percent, anyone with any hint of
an understanding of sample error knows something is
wrong.
Stil, it keeps happening, and I don't recall hearing Paul saying
"don't do that, it makes me look silly."
|8.12.07 @ 11:33AM|#
S, A, Miller wondered if Paul's fans are only anti-war, not for
limited government.
If that were the case, they would have already deserted the
Republicans completely.
|8.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
So does that mean liberals have a valid point when they say that racists represent the Republican party? I mean all Bush or whoever needs to do is say," Hey, stop being racist," and it'll stop.
|8.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
thoreau,
How about this: "My limited government (blah blah blah blah blah)
campaign has attracted support from folks all over the political
spectrum - and in some cases, from people off the political
spectrum."
Dave W.|8.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
You have to admit it is a bit amusing. Supporters of the
most limited government candidate using the federal judiciary to
stop a private party vote?
I'm starting to wonder how many of Paul's supporters are really
fans of very limited gov't, or are just anti-war.
In the last election there was a viable anti-war candidate. His
name was Howard Dean and he was running as a Democrat. Now some ppl
(like joe) might tell you different, but he was screwed by the
secret inner workings of the Democratic party.
So, yeah, if you are anti-war, and have been anti-war since at
least the last election cycle, then you know that this "private
party" stuff matters. This "private party" stuff can thwart
democratic will. That is not good for libertarians. That is not
good for anyone.
Another point: It is not just anti-war people who support Candidate
Paul. It is also anti military spending people. Anti military
spending, at least in the context of the modern US, is the
libertarian position, even though magazines like Reason
kinda try to sweep that under the rug.
Another point: some people seem to be confusing or purposely
conflating MIHOPpers, LIHOPpers and people who think vote fraud is
an important issue. That is kind of stupid.
|8.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
"So, yeah, if you are anti-war, and have been anti-war since at
least the last election cycle, then you know that this "private
party" stuff matters. This "private party" stuff can thwart
democratic will. That is not good for libertarians. That is not
good for anyone."
Dave W,
Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to admit that the reason for
governments forming in the first place is to wage wars.
Anyone fundamentally opposing war will always be ruthlessly
marginalized. The higher-ranking the politician, regardless of
party, the more ruthlessly will they squelch peace-leaners.
Dave W.|8.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Anyone fundamentally opposing war will always be ruthlessly
marginalized.
I didn't say that I fundamentally opposed war. Like the Catholic
Church, I only oppose the unjust ones.
What I said is that I oppose military spending at the margin at
which said spending is currently occurring in the US.
Ron Paul does too.
Reason and Dave Weigel should, but don't, at least not
really and not strongly enough (for people with supposed
libertarian leanings). Sometimes I like to speculate about why that
is, but at least for right now, Ron Paul gives us common cause.
Weigel does need to learn to be a bit more careful about
encouraging his impressionable readers to brand big swaths of the
population as kooks, though. That is no way to build a
coalition
|8.12.07 @ 1:07PM|#
"I didn't say that I fundamentally opposed war."
I didn't say you did, Dave W.
I rarely talk about the small fry. Mostly about the big fry when
I'm hitting and running here.
|8.12.07 @ 1:11PM|#
The elephant in the Ron Paul room is that he's kind of a kook
himself. He knows what goes on at LewRockwell.com and the Mises
Institute, yet he continues to associate with those wackos. He's
never had an effective response to those racist tracts that came
out of his office back in the day. He's the one who chooses to talk
about abolishing the Fed in his stump speech, and to associate with
9/11 Truthers (even if he doesn't share their views, any amateur
politician should know symbolism trumps substance, and that simply
appearing with those losers without unequivocally denouncing them
(and saying he "doesn't trust the official government account" of
9/11 to conspiracy theorists is not unequivocally denouncing
them)).
All in all, Paul is the most libertarian candidate in the race, and
he's the kookiest. Is that at all a surprise?
Note: Please don't respond that "the real kooks are the pro-war
candidates," or to tell me why the Fed ought to be abolished. I've
heard it all before.
|8.12.07 @ 1:37PM|#
What's wrong with the Mises Institute? I know Lew Rockwell is a
neoconfederate or something, and that's pretty fucked (I don't want
to hear any states-rights bullshit here-- if it hadn't been for the
slavery issue, I'd have totally supported the South. But that's
WAYYY to big an "if" ever to let slide).
But I've not heard anything kooky about Mises Inst., probably
because I'm relatively new to libertarianism. To what are you
referring?
|8.12.07 @ 1:40PM|#
26,000 people paid $35 for a ticket. 14,302 actually voted??? Hmm. The Story County Auditor who will take part in overseeing the voting on the questionable machines, Mary Mosiman, is part of a team dedicated to "help Governor Romney share his vision for America". Hmm. The judge threw out a lawsuit to have a fair count instead of using Diebold machines that have been decertified in many other states. Hmm. I don't see anything suspicious here, do you???
|8.12.07 @ 1:46PM|#
The mises institute is a free market think tank started by Lew
Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises' wife. It's mission
is to promote and teach Austrian Economics.
http://mises.org/
The mises institute focuses on economics and history while
lewrockwell.com publishes whatever Lew Rockwell finds interesting,
ranging from Gary North to Cindy Sheehan.
Incidentally, Lew Rockwell is not a neoconfederate. Read
his stuff.
|8.12.07 @ 1:52PM|#
A more telling question might be: Why is Ron Paul attracting these kind of supporters and others aren't?
|8.12.07 @ 1:53PM|#
I don't get how someone who calls himself a capitalist could favor an agrarian, aristocratic, and semi-feudal slave society over a industrializing, capitalist society based on free labor.
|8.12.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Paul supporters find internet polls for the Republican primary,
and then spread the word using internet lists about the existence
of the poll. They report on how Paul is doing and ask everyone to
vote. When I see such an email, I click the link and vote for
Paul.
Paul may only have 2% of likely Republican voters supporting him,
but that amounts to almost a million people.
If you look at the number of people voting in these internet polls,
it is usually a few thousand.
It doesn't require a very large share of overall Paul's support
base to dominate these polls.
Paul does have a very large group of volunteers who are connected
to the internet.
Other campaigns don't have this, and if they did, they might have
little interest in dominating internet polls.
Anyway, the "theory" that Paul's support is being driven by bots or
a few people voting multiple has been is discredited.
There is a lot of evidence that there are tens of thousands of Ron
Paul volunteers on the internet.
They don't just click links on the internet. Many will drive a good
distance to hold signs, shout, and vote in a straw poll.
For example, he received 9% in this Iowa straw
poll.
If there are 1300 in each state and half are on the net, that would
be 32500 people. That That would dominate nearly every internet
poll.
What the "complaints" about Paul and the internet must be some
notion that it is imoral to tell your friends about a poll you saw
and suggest they vote too.
Dave W.|8.12.07 @ 1:59PM|#
over a industrializing, capitalist society based on free
labor
I thought the folks here preferred Chinese labor.
|8.12.07 @ 2:01PM|#
I thought the folks here preferred Chinese labor.
If China went to war against South Korea, I wouldn't pronounce that
the Chinese are on the side of freedom.
Yogi|8.12.07 @ 2:39PM|#
26,000 people paid $35 for a ticket. 14,302 actually
voted??? Hmm. The Story County Auditor who will take part in
overseeing the voting on the questionable machines, Mary Mosiman,
is part of a team dedicated to "help Governor Romney share his
vision for America". Hmm. The judge threw out a lawsuit to have a
fair count instead of using Diebold machines that have been
decertified in many other states. Hmm. I don't see anything
suspicious here, do you???
No, I actually don't see anything suspicious. I was there. The
other candidate camps had us dominated. We were louder, but there
were many more passive supporters of the 4 who scored higher. Add
in the fact that many Paul supporters were from out of state and
couldn't vote, and I am not shocked by the outcome. Oh, a very
small minority of the 14,000 or so that voted actually paid for
their own ticket. The candidates and special interest groups, like
FairTax, who paid for my ticket, bought them all and gave them
away. Paul did this too, only to a lesser extent than the other
candidates. I think that the Adopt an Iowan and Paul camps even had
left over tickets, though I'm not sure on that because I left
early. Many of these groups and candidates had leftover tickets.
They consider it a donation to the Iowa GOP, because that's exactly
what it is.
The lawsuit that got thrown out? It had no merit whatsoever. It's a
private poll. Libertarians should be the last ones asking the
judiciary to step in.
And the connection to Romney's campaign? EVERYONE IN IOWA IS
CONNECTED TO A CAMPAIGN. That's how this state works. There were
representatives from every campaign watching the counting. They
don't have issues with it, so neither should we.
Dave W.|8.12.07 @ 2:40PM|#
If China went to war against South Korea, I wouldn't
pronounce that the Chinese are on the side of freedom.
My snarky point was that we prefer the relatively unfree labor of
China to the relatively free labor of Murika.
|8.12.07 @ 4:54PM|#
The better question is what ISN'T wrong with the Mises
Institute?
Just kidding. Hans Hoppe is a scholar's scholar, and is there a
more trusted authority on Lincoln than Tom DiLorenzo? And who
better to turn to on matters historical than Tom Woods?
And if there's one thing I love, it's the association of LVMI and
Lew Rockwell with those who cheer the deaths of soldiers in
Iraq.
Mises would be so proud to have his name associated with such
people.
|8.12.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Or really Mr "Mises Intitute" find me one article on
lewrockwell.com that "cheers the deaths"" of American
soldiers.
Just one.
If what you say is true, it shouldn't be too hard.
I'll check back in 24 hours to see your results.
|8.12.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Here's one where Mike Rogers "toasts" the defeat of the "evil
empire"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/006888.html
And here's another former LRC columnist, writing at a different
site, calling soldiers "slackjawed yokel/fresh-from-Chihuahua
tomato-picker/"urban" slum-dweller baby-killer[s]", and "future
homeless junkie serial-killer rapist petty thief semi-crippled
nutjobs":
http://www.anti-state.com/blog/?p=12&PHPSESSID=1176e56ae6d10e965b4faa93e1a8e5da
Here's the same guy, writing that he cheers when American soldiers
die:
http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=9662;start=20#msg197576
I could go on citing the insanity that just happens to consistently
come from the LRC crowd. Would you like more examples of kookery?
Maybe some from Gary North?
|8.12.07 @ 6:08PM|#
UH Huh, Mike Rogers praying for the souls of the dead hardly
counts as cheering for the dead.
As to the articles on anti-state.com, I did ask for articles on
lewrockwell.com. Is Lew Rockwell a proponent of Progressive
socialism because he published an article by Cindy Sheehan, who is
a progressive socialist? Is he a punk rockers/slacker because he
publishes Mike Rogers?
Again, go ahead and try to find an article on lewrockwell.com
cheering the deaths of American soldiers.
Take your time. Other people publishing stuff on sites that Lew
Rockwell does not control as evidence backing your case only makes
you look dumb.
|8.12.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Just got back. Drove for hours to be in Ames. We had few
numbers, but 10x the enthusiasm of all others put together. So
sad.
BTW I was the middle aged hippie that marched with a peace flag
around noon. Then after Paul spoke in the tent I was the tie-dyed
juggling guy.
|8.12.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Tarran,
My original comment was that the Mises Institute, and its
associates, are kooks. That includes Lewrockwell.com, and all of
that sites columnists and regular contributors. Jeremy Sapienza
clearly falls well into that category.
As to the Mike Rogers comment, how can you say that his "toasting"
to the defeat of the "evil empire"--a comment that was
intentionally placed beneath a picture of a destroyed tank--is
praying for the dead? That maniac was clearly cheering the deaths
of U.S. soldiers, you know, the ones who ride in those tanks whose
destruction he "toasts."
And that, my friend, was right there on the LRC blog.
Again, I could go on and on listing the racist, anti-Semitic,
homophobic, anti-American drivel that pours from LRC and its
associate sites and authors, but why bother? Kool-Aid drinking
maniacs like yourself will always be there, drooling over your
shredded copy of "For a New Liberty" or "Democracy: The God that
Failed," apologizing for the LVMI cult, twisting and contorting
otherwise straightforward (and evil) statements to make them appear
harmless.
Well, it isn't working.
|8.12.07 @ 6:49PM|#
If anyone wants to know why libertarians will never have a
political prayer, see Warren's comment:
"BTW I was the middle aged hippie that marched with a peace flag
around noon. Then after Paul spoke in the tent I was the tie-dyed
juggling guy."
I had to read that a few times before it really sank in. The
tie-dyed fucking juggling guy.
Where can I turn in my libertarian credentials? I don't want them
anymore.
|8.12.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Greg,
Out of personal curiosity, what is it that offends you so? The
tie-dye, or the juggling? I'll also add that I didn't break out the
tie-dye and start juggling till well after RON PAUL left the tent.
Most everybody had gone home by that point.
In any case, I'm sure you're making the right decision. What ever
you do, don't show up at a Libertarian Party event, those guys are
17 kinds of wacko.
|8.12.07 @ 7:17PM|#
I would never show up at an LP event.
Neither the juggling nor the tie-dye offends me; they're both just
clownish. If you want your candidate to look like a clown, and his
campaign a circus, please keep breaking out the tie-dye and juggle
your ass off. I'm sure the voters will flock to that act. Because
there's nothing the GOP base loves more than a hippie marching with
a peace flag...
Jerry|8.12.07 @ 7:38PM|#
@TMI
And fighting a war because Iraq failed to live up to a UN
resolution is in the "national interest" of the USA? There is as
much PC on the left as on the right: if you try to criticize the
war from the right, you get blasted as being unpatriotic,
especially on "anti-PC" Fox News.
|8.12.07 @ 8:23PM|#
Greg,
Didn't Huckabee have a bunch of sight-gag acts at his tent? Bush
impersonators and the like? It didn't appear to hurt him
much.
In any case, the GOP is better off with a candidate surrounded by
clowns whose campaign is a circus, than a president surrounded by
clowns in his White House whose foreign policy is a circus.
|8.12.07 @ 8:57PM|#
"crimethink",
Huckabee is already considered a legitimate candidate, so he can
afford "sight gag acts." Paul, on the other hand, is routinely
dismissed as a fringe candidate not to be taken seriously. As such,
he has to go above and beyond what other candidates do in terms of
looking serious and presidential (it's the same reason Cato makes
its employees wear coats and ties).
Tie-dye, juggling, and "aging hippies" with peace flags don't help
with Paul's image. He needs an image makeover, shedding the kooks
and the crazies, publicly distancing himself from the anti-American
folks, the 9/11 Truthers, and any other wack-job conspiracy
people.
Paul needs to surround himself with serious people who wear suits,
not tie-dye, and who carry cell phones and briefcases, not peace
flags and juggling balls.
As for who makes for a better GOP, even if you're right it won't
matter as long as the only electable people share the President's
foreign policy goals.
|8.12.07 @ 9:56PM|#
Greg N.,
You go to your campaign with the supporters you have, not the
supporters you wish you had. Unless it's a grass-roots campaign,
he's not going to have a campaign at all. Not every candidate
(Mitt!) can afford to loan his campaign $9M so as to get the pros
on the payroll.
|8.12.07 @ 10:30PM|#
There's a very simple solution for RP regarding his supporters'
appearance. Just put out the gentle request that if people have at
least business casual clothing, to please wear it at any campaign
appearance. But those of you who have only tie-dye and juggling
balls to wear, show up in what you've got.
There would still be a few freaks in the audience but the numbers
would probably be reduced. The hardcore Paul supporters would do
almost anything he asked so I can't imagine they would be offended.
My local Meetup already makes similar requests, especially for
events where we'll be mingling with more typical Republicans.
Concerned citizen|8.12.07 @ 10:44PM|#
"What's wrong with the Mises Institute? I know Lew Rockwell is a
neoconfederate or something,"
RC
Check this out:
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/War/War4.mp3
|8.12.07 @ 11:54PM|#
Greg is right. If you want to be prom queen you had better wear
the tiara properly.
Do you really think the Republican Party, the Party of the
Presidency, would simply say, "Here's the keys guys. Be careful
with her in the turns."?!! Geez, what a bunch of dreamers.
|8.13.07 @ 12:04AM|#
Seems to me that Ron Paul associates with the Mises Institute
and Lew Rockwell because they support freedom and the gold
standard. I don't think that he would endorse anything coming out
of there that seemed anti-American.
For all of this country's faults and flaws, America is (was?) the
closest thing to a truly moral, truly free society that has ever
existed on a large scale in human history. I don't think the LVMI
folks would disagree with that, but they also don't gloss over the
faults as some patriots would do.
If criticism helps us understand where we can improve, why wouldn't
we embrace it? I'm sure there are some "blame America first" types
in that crowd, but the vast majority of them (like Dr. Paul) are
simply dedicated to improving the government under which we
live.
|8.13.07 @ 8:42AM|#
Usually, candidates can tell their supporters to stop this
sort of action, so I wouldn't surprised if Paul winked at the
effort.
So Goldberg dismisses the excuse that the Willie Horton ad wasn't
run by the Bush campaign?
Eric Dondero|8.13.07 @ 9:45AM|#
If you're a staid, boring-ass, dark blue suit wearing typical
conservative Republican, like, I dunno, say DUNCAN HUNTER, than
gags, circus acts, skits, and guys with George Bush masks, help
enormously.
But if you start from the Kook base/contingent, that's the worst
campaign tactic to resort too. You want to completely opposite of
that. You want to move to the boring, respectable, calm and
collective side.
Huckabee blew everyone away on Saturday, cause EVERYBODY looked at
him as a Conservative Southern Baptist Preacher. And then he breaks
out the bass guitar and starts jamming to "Free Bird."
Imagine if Ron Paul had done the same, just in reverse? Imagine if
RP and his supporters had shown up in Ames, dressed in neat
business casual, and were all polite, respectful, and friendly with
their opponents.
Imagine what the media, and everybody in the Republican Party would
be talking about this Monday morning, along with Huckabee?
That Ron Paul did fantastically, and is now a real contender for
the nomination.
Instead, it's all a continuation of the same thing: Ron Paul and
his supporters are Kooks.
|8.13.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Eric D. has it exactly right. I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, I probably could have, but his was sufficient, so I won't bother.
|8.13.07 @ 11:00AM|#
"Paul supporters aren't exactly broadcasting confidence.
Voterfraud.org is suing to get the votes counted on something other
than (or in addition to) Diebold machines." - Dave Weigel about six
posts down from this one.
I think you can cut Jonah some slack when you made the exact same
mistake a couple of days ago.
|8.13.07 @ 11:14AM|#
So I occasionally encountered rumours to the effect that 25,000+
voters paid (or had paid on their behalf) $35 dollars to
participate in the Straw Poll and only 14,000+ actually cast votes.
So far, no mention of this in major media accounts I've read. Has
anyone else seen this and if so, can you point me to a trustworthy
account that contains information about how many tickets were sold
this year, vs. how many votes were cast?
I'm finding it hard to believe that so many people who ponied up
$35 to cast a vote failed to do so. Any debunking or corroboration
of this rumour would be welcome.
|8.13.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Peder,
Jonah deserves no slack. It's one thing to report the lawsuit.
Accusing the Paul campaign of being behind it based solely on your
own desire to discredit it, is entirely different.
JAM,
The candidates participating in the straw poll, especially Mitt,
bought many more tickets than they could find Iowans to cast
them.
|8.13.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Warren, read the quotes above. Jonah isn't saying that the Paul campaign of being behind it. He used the same construction Dave did 'Paul supporters'.
jimmy|8.14.07 @ 7:25PM|#
didn't bednarik go running to the govt, along w/ his commie friends in the green party, to force a recount in ohio in 2004...a recount that shaved only 300 votes off of bush's 120,000 vote margin? an event that caused me and probably some of you to quit the LP? looks like a pattern developing.
Diebold=Darkness|8.14.07 @ 9:45PM|#
>>And the connection to Romney's campaign? EVERYONE IN
IOWA IS CONNECTED TO A CAMPAIGN. That's how this state works. There
were representatives from every campaign watching the counting.
They don't have issues with it, so neither should we.>>
It's an old boys club....
http://voteinsunshine.blogspot.com/2007/08/comments-about-vote-fraud-during-1995.html
Nothing has changed...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245