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
Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton
Over at the USA Election Polls site, analyzing what they say is raw Rasmussen data from a 1,200 voter poll conducted in mid-October, they find that what some Ron Paul supporters have crowed seems to be true: Ron Paul can beat Hillary where Fred Thompson, at least, can't. Or at least "beat" in terms of "not get trounced quite as badly."
Sure, overall she is seen beating Ron Paul 48-38--but beating Thompson even more, by 52-37. And in both the 30-39 and 40-49 year old age groups, this poll shows Paul getting higher vote percentages in a one-on-one against Hillary than even Rudy Giuliani.
|10.25.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Funny how Rasmussen Reports is too biased to actually report
this kind of finding. Instead, they report things like this:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/comedian_colbert_reaches_double_digits_as_third_party_candidate
Episiarch|10.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
So this means the Republican leadership is going to throw its
support behind Paul because he can actually win, right?
Right?
HAHAHAHAHA, I crack myself up. What am I thinking? They don't want
to win. They want things to be 2003.
|10.25.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the
Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are
corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal
policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political
dissent.
Ron Paul has clean hands on all of these issues, and has actually
either fought back against them, or has been victimized by his
fellow Republicans (remember when Rudy Guiliani was being crowned
the King of Foxsylvania for going after Paul at the first
debate?)
|10.25.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?
Jay D|10.25.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Plus Paul has lots of room to grow. Everyone knows Hillary and pretty much knows if they would vote for her.
ed|10.25.07 @ 10:39AM|#
I think it's important once in a while to step back and take a breather. Ask not whether America is ready to elect Hillary, but whether America is ready for a woman president. Contemporary polls be damned; when it comes time to pull the lever or punch the hole or touch the screen, America will not elect Hillary. We'll chicken out, thankfully. Not that her vanquisher will necessarily be any better. But after the election we'll all wonder how we possibly could have thought that the ex-president's wife could have been president.
x,y|10.25.07 @ 10:42AM|#
I firmly believe, like joe, that the war has absolutely devastated the Republicans and that, of the R candidates, only Paul has clean hands. The rest I'm less sure people care about. If you polled 1,000+ people or likely voters and asked them to name the 2-3 things they dislike about Bush and the Republicans, the war would almost certainly be the top answer. Other issues would probably pop-up here and there, but not with the same consistency.
|10.25.07 @ 10:42AM|#
One further point - contrary to all early indications, Ron Paul
has proven to be a very effective campaigner, and not at all the
sort of person who would spent 3 hours talking about UN/Gold
Standard/Feminist conspiracies, to, I don't know, kill babies and
make us all spead Esperanto.
He doesn't come across as a kook - at all. If anything, his bearing
and thoughtfulness serve to round off the rough edges of some of
his more marginal positions.
|10.25.07 @ 10:45AM|#
He doesn't come across as a kook - at all. If anything, his
bearing and thoughtfulness serve to round off the rough edges of
some of his more marginal positions.
In more recent TV interviews I've noticed that he's calmed down a
bit, which I think will help people to take him more seriously.
He's not afraid to focus on his message, and hopefully, before
long, the general public will notice that he's the only rep
candidate who actually has a message.
|10.25.07 @ 10:48AM|#
x,y,
I agree that few people would answer "the expansion of executive
power" but there are a whole lotta people who might refer to
torture, Gitmo, rendition, the USA PATRIOT ACT, or some other
specific issues that go to the expansion of executive power.
Tom W|10.25.07 @ 10:50AM|#
In contrast, Thompson has not been an effective campaigner so
far. At the Presidency IV this weekend, he was one of the four who
paid 100K to the state GOP to get rally time and a card table. Fred
spoke for about two minutes and left the stage to shake hands,
whereas Ghouliani, McCain and Flip used all the twenty minutes a
hundred grand could buy.
I am still hoping Sex Pistol Johnny Rotten will endorse Ron Paul on
the Tonight Show on the 30th, although Jesse Benton was saying that
might not help with the blue-haired granny vote.
|10.25.07 @ 10:51AM|#
He's definitely gotten steadily better as the campaign has worn
on, Reinmoose.
In a sense, the lack of early media coverage helped him, as few
voters formed their impression of him during those early, painfully
frantic, Gravel-esque weeks.
|10.25.07 @ 10:52AM|#
hopefully, before long, the general public will notice that
he's the only rep candidate who actually has a message.
...who has a message that isn't "HealthCare! 9/11! HealthCare!
9/11! The Children! 9/11!"
|10.25.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the
money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since
yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?
No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind of a
cheesy move, but not really scummy. They just want to improve their
numbers.
Edward|10.25.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Libertarian definition
WIN
INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To not get trounced as badly as one might. 2.
To achieve failure, but not overwhelming, crushing failure, at
least not in your own mind: Ron Paul struggled to overcome the
handicap and finally lost, but felt pretty good about it.
|10.25.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Re Hillary vs Paul, this is just a name recognition thing. When
more people get to know Paul and his antiwar position, the numbers
are going to swing his way.
The next POTUS will be the one who is most opposed to the war.
That's Paul hands down. If Paul isn't on the ballot, Hillary will
be able to sell herself as being more antiwar than the
Republican.
Jay D|10.25.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Reinmoose
Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?
Minion of URKOBOLD|10.25.07 @ 10:59AM|#
URKOBOLD's DEFINITION:
WIN
ANY PART OF SPEECH DESIRED. 1. FEASTING ON THE BEER-BATTERED TAINT
OF THE VANQUISHED 2. SAYING "YES DEAR" (THE LAST WORDS) IN A
DISPUTE WITH THE WEIBSKOBOLD. 3. A TYPE OF HORSE
"THE WIN WAS AT THE FINISH LINE"
"I WIN: YES DEAR"
"THAT CERTAINLY WAS A WIN SITUATION"
"LOOK AT EDDIE. A WIN."
T\'Mershi Duween|10.25.07 @ 11:01AM|#
From RonPaulGraphs.com's blog:
I was contacted by the campaign and told this was going to happen.
They have added in all the "off-line" donations ($432,000) into the
online counter. Awesome! This is yet another ground breaking
event.. This campaign is 90% of the way to complete, real-time
campaign finance transparency. Other than the obvious spikes in all
the graphs, everything around here should continue as usual... all
the calculations will do their thing... Obviously, these are
donations that were collected over time and not all on a single day
like the spike seems to indicate.. there is not much that can be
done about this.. I am not going to attempt to uniformly fold these
numbers back into the historic data or anything... unless the
campaign wants to supply me with more accurate historic data, of
course ;)
|10.25.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Whoa, what happened there?
Warren, I disagree. People want to be able to check the "out of
Iraq" box, not measure the purity of their anti-war politics to the
sixth decimal place.
It's about clearing the bar, not setting the record. Look at Nixon
in '68. Or welfare-reformin' Bill Clinton in '92.
Fluffy|10.25.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Joe, just because you want Hillary to be your girlfriend doesn't mean that the election will be about "clearing the bar".
|10.25.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Pathetic, Fluffy. You don't have an argument, so you use the
word "girlfriend."
For the record, I don't every write this horseshit about some of
the fanboi comments on Ron Paul threads. It doesn't add anything to
the conversation. It's just an attempt to shut down thought and
discussion.
I mean, who wants to stick their neck out and be accused of sittin'
in a tree with Hillary Clinton?
|10.25.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Reinmoose: "Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me
how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since
yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?"
They just input all of the offline donations at once.
VM|10.25.07 @ 11:15AM|#
I mean, who wants to stick their neck out and be accused of
sittin' in a tree with Hillary Clinton?
joe - him
|10.25.07 @ 11:16AM|#
All US citizens who want the US out of Iraq should have a war on all the citizens who want to stay and "win."
|10.25.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Warren, I disagree. People want to be able to check the "out
of Iraq" box, not measure the purity of their anti-war politics to
the sixth decimal place.
Quite possibly. I mean, I know the difference between Ron
Paul's out of Iraq and HRC's out of Iraq, but it's unreasonable to
assume that most people do. Ron's going to need at least a couple
more boxes for people to check in his favor that are popular among
republican and independent voters. His strong Christian faith is
one of them, and quite possibly his continuing to assure people
that we don't want to "put people out on the street," in ending
entitlement programs - in otherwords, it won't happen
overnight.
|10.25.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the
Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are
corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal
policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political
dissent.
Joe, you and I don't agree on a whole lot, but this is a very nice,
concise summary of what is ailing the GOP right now.
My sense, however, is that among Republicans, the war is lower down
the list of morale killers than the administration's spendthrift
ways and domestic thuggishness. Among independents, I would guess
that the war is a much bigger issue, and obviously they will decide
the election.
Since Hillary seems unwilling to go very far in committing to bring
the troops home, I wonder how a Hillary vs. Rudy contest would play
out among the independents. It would probably come down to domestic
issues and "personality."
As to Ron Paul, I'd like to believe he's gaining ground (and he
clearly has done a bit of that), but he's going to need a "shock"
win or 2nd place in an early primary state in order to have even a
remote chance.
Fluffy|10.25.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Yeah Joe, I was just teasing you.
It's obvious from your defensiveness about Hillary's antiwar
credentials in other threads that you're thinking about supporting
her. The way you made sure to dot the i in this thread with your
"clearing the bar" statement made it look like you're concerned
that Hillary may be criticized for not being antiwar enough, and
you want people to think that there's a threshold of opposition
which is good enough.
I just don't think it's 1968. It can't be 1968 again, because "I
have a secret plan to end the war" can only work once. Talking
about withdrawal one day and talking about keeping "necessary"
troops in place the next day won't work because she's got to keep
those balls in the air for another year, and in the internet age
that's gonna be hard to do.
|10.25.07 @ 11:26AM|#
For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy"
warning, VM?
Reinmoose,
Something like 70% of the public now opposes the Iraq War. I
seriously doubt that all 70%, even if they were completely
knowledgeable about the nuances of the candidates' positions, would
favor the Paul-Kucinich-Gravel variety of Out-of-Iraq politics over
something in the Clinton-Obama-Edwards zone.
Not to mention, "entitlement programs" means "Social Security and
Medicaire." I hardly think a more thorough understanding of Paul's
stance on those programs would help him among independent voters in
a race vs. HRC.
Episiarch, I know he was goading me. I was just waiting for the
opportunity to smack down the lazy "You love Hillary" smear, since
it seems to constitute the majority of "rebuttals" to points I make
about the presidential race. And I'm not even voting for her!
Fluffy|10.25.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Joe, you're awfully sensitive about criticism of her position for someone who isn't going to vote for her.
VM|10.25.07 @ 11:29AM|#
hay, joe. it's "the Todd". (sorry)
but it's a good call...
are you a Richardson supporter? As you can guess, the Obama/HRC
battle hier in Illinois is gonna be interesting.
And that was one helluva smackdown last night. Four smackdown games
in a row. Clearly the best team in beizbol is peaking at the right
time!
|10.25.07 @ 11:30AM|#
People want to be able to check the "out of Iraq" box, not
measure the purity of their anti-war politics to the sixth decimal
place.
OK, but Paul is the only major party candidate who can check that
box. If it comes down to Hillary and some other Republican, Hillary
will be able to market herself as "Staying in Iraq not quite as
long"
|10.25.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Fluffy,
I rate Hillary dead last among candidates I might vote for in the
primaries. Maybe you should concentrate on reading my arguments
instead of my mind.
Right now, the hawks' strategy to stave of electoral disaster is to
try to blur their own positions with those of their opponents, and
they are concentrating on Hillary Clinton as the target of their
efforts.
One bit of advice as you try to suss out candidates' real positions
on the war: follow the money. If they want to keep an army in Iraq,
then expect them to support spending money on the construction of
permanent bases to house them. If they oppose keeping an army in
Iraq, then they'll be opposing the money for those bases.
|10.25.07 @ 11:38AM|#
VM,
Right now, I'm torn between Dodd and Richardson, with Obama a close
second. Or third. I never understood how that worked.
Warren,
I think you're viewing the mainstream of American political
discourse from such a great distance that your perspective is lost.
If you seriously can't tell the difference between John McCain's
position on Iraq and Bill Richardson's, I don't know what to tell
you.
|10.25.07 @ 11:41AM|#
joe -
I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied with
the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both parties. This
is why I hate the concept of a "Unity '08" ticket, and all that
blabbering about "working with people the other side of the aisle"
and "bi-partisan cooperation." It essentially means that both
parties get what they want: socially conservative, government
havey, military central, economically statist laws.
This being said, I agree that *most* independents can't be counted
on to vote for anyone as liberal as Dr. Paul as things currently
stand. However - for those who are anti-war (a lot of independents)
a lot of the feeding of Social Security and Medicare are done out
of guilt and sense of duty to our "aging Americans." I think that,
if they can get out of a system that is portrayed as doomed to
fail, it would help Paul for more independents to know about Paul's
guilt-free get out of Iraq-Social Security-Medicare policies in a
race against HRC.
Fluffy|10.25.07 @ 11:41AM|#
OK, I see:
Your reading of the claims out there that Hillary is objectively
pro-war is that this meme is being backed by hawks who want to blur
the distinction between, say, Lieberman and Clinton.
I have to tell you: that's nuts.
The claim that Hillary can't be trusted to end the war is coming
from people who are truly anti-war. These people are almost
certainly correct in their criticism. Hillary's hedging on the war
and attempt to finesse a position is designed to allow her wiggle
room to not end the war once she is in office. You may think I'm
trying to read her mind, but I think it's just too easy to foresee
Inauguration Day Plus One: "We want to give our new diplomatic
approach time to work...we want to try to engage the UN, which had
been unnecessarily antagonizes by the last administration...we want
my husband's comprehensive Mideast peace talks to have time to
work...wait, we need six months to devise our withdrawal plan...oh
wait, we need six more months for unforeseen circumstance
X..."
Admit it, you know that's how it would be.
|10.25.07 @ 11:42AM|#
For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy"
warning, VM?
Yeah! I aws expecting, would even have bet on, a humorous pic of
Bill.
Link review - I laughed, I criec, I lost my lunch.
VM|10.25.07 @ 11:42AM|#
as long as they all get trophies for participation :)
BTW: EDWARD
(Comment by him, above) has been getting around.
hier are details.
Jsub - hay. it's THE TODD!!!!!
|10.25.07 @ 11:44AM|#
I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the
Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are
corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal
policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political
dissent.
I think its much more the corruption, irresponsibility, and
abandonment of principle than anything else.
I have no idea what peopel are talking about when they speak of a
"thuggish stance on political dissent." From where I sit, the place
where you are most likely to be abused for your political views is
a college campus, and the "thuggish stance" there is decidedly not
from the right-wing.
Really, what have Republicans done to thug up their political
opponents that is outside the realm of political discourse? I'm
mystified here.
Edward|10.25.07 @ 11:47AM|#
This must be the only place on the planet outside neo-nazi circles where Ron Paul is taken seriously. I've never thought of wishful thinking as an actual mental disease, but maybe it is.
|10.25.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Why do polls matter? Are polls really news worthy. I understand why they are a good tool fo the pundits but people that have no understanding of polling, statistics, or uncertainty have no need to know the numbers -- it just confuses their weak minds to the possibilities.
|10.25.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Reinmoose,
I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied
with the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both
parties.
You're making the same mistake as the people who proclaimed Barry
Goldwater a racist and a segregationist when he opposed the Civil
Rights Act.
Your opponents' political beliefs are NOT defined as the polar
inversion of your own. I know, to you, "statism" and the size of
government is the overwhelming, defining, fundamental principle
driving your political beliefs. For most people - as in, 90+% of
the electorate - it is not.
Other people's political beliefs have their own logic, principles,
conerns, and interests, that are defined in their own terms, not in
opposition to yours. If you want to genuinely understand politics,
you have to make the effort understand where other people are
coming from, and not just define everyone who disagrees with you as
Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee.
VM|10.25.07 @ 11:51AM|#
But Edward - you state that quite eloquently over at
URKOBOLD!
That was well spake, I would dare say!
"as Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee"
super awesome reference! and image.
|10.25.07 @ 11:53AM|#
For example, Reinmoose, "economically statist laws" is a completely meaningless phrase. It tells us nothing at all about the programs and positions you're talking about - except that they aren't libertarian.
MATTDAMON|10.25.07 @ 11:56AM|#
IT TELLS US DEMAND KURV!!!!!!!!!! NOT MEANINGLESS. NO. HAS MEANING. DEMAND. KURV.
|10.25.07 @ 11:59AM|#
I think you're viewing the mainstream of American political
discourse from such a great distance that your perspective is lost.
If you seriously can't tell the difference between John McCain's
position on Iraq and Bill Richardson's, I don't know what to tell
you.
Bill Richardwho? I've been telling you for the past four years.
There is no power in heaven or on earth that can prevent HRC from
being the Democrat candidate for president in 2008.
So the next POTUS will be HRC or ???. If RON PAUL is on the ballot
he wins, if not she wins.
|10.25.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Fluffy,
I've seen plenty of genuinely anti-war - not just anti-Iraq War,
but principled anti-war activists - who say that Clinton is not one
of them.
However, those people don't pretend there's no difference between
her and John McCain. Theirs is a distinctly different take on
things than that offered by ass-covering hawks from the Republican
Party. I've read quite a bit of that viewpoint on lefty sits, and
the prevailing opinion is that Hillary Clinton is impure, not
really one of them, and will only do a half-assed job getting us
out of Iraq.
As with most of the spin put out by profession political
operatives, this one draws on a core of truth - Hillary Clinton is
not Dennis Kucinich. No, she's not. She's also not Dick Cheney.
|10.25.07 @ 11:59AM|#
joe -
I'm glad you felt the need to provide an example of what you were
talking about.
"economically statist laws" is not completely meaningless because
you apparently found meaning in it as describing them as "they
aren't libertarian."
I'm sorry that you think that there is no meaning in qualifying
statements like "I see a lot of" and "most." I'm very careful to
use words like these to soften my positions and allow for levels of
exception. Would it have made any difference if I'd written "that
I've met" somewhere in there, or that I am a registered
"independent?"
|10.25.07 @ 12:00PM|#
No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind
of a cheesy move, but not really scummy.
I'm not sure how cheesy it is. Their announced goal is $12 million
for the quarter, period, not $12 million raised online for the
quarter. Granted, though, it would look better if they lumped in
the offline contributions at the end of each month, or the end of
the quarter.
|10.25.07 @ 12:01PM|#
RC Dean,
Seriously, you don't believe the war has hurt the Republicans' in
the political arena?
Seriously, you're going with that?
|10.25.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Seriously, RC, you look back over the political landscape since
the Iraq War was conceived, and you don't see its proponents acting
in a thuggish manner?
I don't know, maybe we longtime defenders and supporters of Saddam
Hussein, who are so racist that we don't want Arabs to have
democracy, and who are so un-American that we want to see mushroom
clouds over our cities, and who are so effeminate and cowardly that
we don't realize force is sometimes necessary, and who celebrate
when American troops die, and who want to surrender to terrorists,
and who give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime with our
words, are just terribly over-sensitive.
|10.25.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Reinmoose,
Neither your political affiliation, nor the use of softening
language, changes that fact that you are dividing the world into
the meaningless categories "libertarian" and "everyone else."
General Zod|10.25.07 @ 12:09PM|#
The next POTUS will be the one who is most opposed to the war.
Zod, hears you, Warren. And he promises this: When Zod becomes
president, he will do that
fly-around-the-earth-to-make-it-spin-backwards trick, go back in
time, and prevent the Iraq war from ever happening. No candidate
can offer more.
|10.25.07 @ 12:15PM|#
joe,
When "libertarian" means respect for individual freedom, and
"everyone else" is for varying degrees of slavery, how is that
dichotomy meaningless?
|10.25.07 @ 12:16PM|#
No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind
of a cheesy move, but not really scummy.
Hey, if anyone from the Ron Paul campaign is reading this thread,
here's an idea. Post two separate icons tracking donations for the
month: one for online donations (i.e., the Statue of Liberty that
you've got now) and one for offline donations, maybe the Liberty
Bell. That way you're keeping us all informed on funding while
allowing us to see the break-down between online and offline
fund-raising. That would prevent folks agreeing with Warren that
the current method of lumping them together is cheesy.
|10.25.07 @ 12:18PM|#
joe -
Neither your political affiliation, nor the use of softening
language, changes that fact that you are dividing the world into
the meaningless categories "libertarian" and "everyone
else."
I'm afraid I still don't see what you're talking about.
Was I not talking about independents?
quoting myself:
I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied
with the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both
parties
I'm pretty sure that right there I at least differentiated between
"independents" and "both parties," which includes the groups "The
Democratic Party" and "The Republican Party." See? Right there you
have 3 different
|10.25.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Reinmoose,
I get what joe's saying - libertarians tend to look at politics
through the libertarian lens. Whether it's an increased budget to
prosecute drug offenders or an increased budget to subsidize
low-income housing, we see both as bad. People who think subsidized
housing is good will see one as good and one as bad. People who
like the war on drugs will see one as good and one as bad.
Libertarianism is awesome because it cuts through a lot of bullshit
and questions the motivations of any power/money grab by the
government. However, most people don't see the world this way.
|10.25.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I have no idea what peopel are talking about when they speak
of a "thuggish stance on political dissent."
Exhibit A:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VpY9KD8RfQs
|10.25.07 @ 12:27PM|#
And, like many others, I don't see "libertarian" and "everyone
else" as a false dichotomy.
Like Randolph Carter said, it's a difference in how you look at
things. For one, means aren't justified by their potential and
intended ends, and for the others, they are. There's little getting
around that.
|10.25.07 @ 12:28PM|#
but, that's not what I said. We were talking political strategy and then suddenly "BOOM!," personal attack.
JBinMO|10.25.07 @ 12:40PM|#
This would be so funny. The anti-war candidate would be a republican, and the pro-war would be a democrat.
Israel|10.25.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Clinton has been censoring Ron Paul. See this awesome YouTube
video. Very funny!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcgbStBJzJ4
Jerry|10.25.07 @ 12:44PM|#
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=529c2929-cfc6-408a-987c-3e7978f6acc9
Karol|10.25.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Just as soon as we starting having national elections, these polls will actually matter.
|10.25.07 @ 12:59PM|#
jj,
When "libertarian" means respect for individual freedom, and
"everyone else" is for varying degrees of slavery...then you
should wake me up, because I'd like to see that. Careful, dude, you
can tear a rotator cuff patting yourself on the back that long.
Then again, maybe I should be more respectful towards the only
person in the world who isn't a slaver. *rolls eyes*
Reinmoose,
You acknowledged the existence of self-defined, distincted
political groups - and then, as the gist of your post, explained
that they're all really the same. They're all just "statists" who
want things like "statist economic policy."
The problem is not noting that there are libertarians and
non-libertarians. The problem is thinking that "non-libertarian" or
"statist" provides a meaningful description of someone's political
philosophy, which can be helpful in understanding political events
that involve a population that is 90+% "non-libertarian."
We were talking political strategy and then suddenly "BOOM!,"
personal attack.
What personal attack? Where? Could you quote it? I criticized your
ideas.
|10.25.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Are you sure that you're not just assuming that I think they're
all really the same?
Oh, I see where we're getting mixed up (I think).
Let me rephrase this: It essentially means that both parties
get what they want: socially conservative, government havey,
military central, economically statist laws.
What I meant to say is that a UNITY ticket, or bipartisan
cooperation would result in socially conservative, government
heavy, military central, economically statist (aka. regulated by
the state) laws. I'm guessing you read it to mean that I thought
that all 3 distinct political groups wanted all 4 of those
things.
|10.25.07 @ 1:09PM|#
I'd classify this as a personal attack:
Other people's political beliefs have their own logic,
principles, conerns, and interests, that are defined in their own
terms, not in opposition to yours. If you want to genuinely
understand politics, you have to make the effort understand where
other people are coming from, and not just define everyone who
disagrees with you as Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee.
It's horribly condescending and ends with an assumptive statement
about how I view others.
|10.25.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Seriously, RC, you look back over the political landscape
since the Iraq War was conceived, and you don't see its proponents
acting in a thuggish manner?
Compared to who? Seriously, what do you mean by thuggish, and how
are the tactics of the pro-war folks any worse than the usual
political discourse in this country? I honestly don't get it.
If by thuggish, you mean violent, I think you are completely out to
lunch, and invite links to stories of war supporters going medieval
on anti-war types.
If you mean uncivil, well, don't use words like "thuggish", and
explain to me how the conversation over the war is any worse than
the conversation over smoking, education, health care "for the
children", or any of the other topics where the libertarian is
likely to be condemned as greedy, hateful, or just stupid.
|10.25.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Seriously, you don't believe the war has hurt the
Republicans' in the political arena?
There's always lots of moving parts in trying to assess a given
political situation, but so far, I would say that the politics
around the war don't really help either party all that much. If the
anti-war side was such a stone cold winner, then why can't the Dems
do anything real in Congress, and why is the one institution
controlled by the nominally anti-war Dems the only one with a lower
rating than the one controlled by the pro-war Republicans.
I think voters are sick of a whole lot of things, and the
Republicans are providing the worst examples of what voters are
sick of right now. The war may be a marginal drag on Republicans
overall, but the Dems anti-war rhetoric sure doesn't seem to be
helping them.
highnumber|10.25.07 @ 1:40PM|#
This must be the only place on the planet outside neo-nazi
circles where Ron Paul is taken seriously.
For now, Paul is a blip on New Hampshire's radar; in a recent poll, he stood at 5 percent among independents. But that could change. He's banked more than $5 million, recently raised more in the state than most other candidates, has a huge Web presence and just bought $1.1 million in New Hampshire TV ads.
T\'Mershi Duween|10.25.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Not to look past the primaries, but I think this meme alone
would result in Hill taking a run at Walter Mondale's standing
record for election night futility:
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...
Clinton? Say "no more"
Ron Paul 2008
|10.25.07 @ 2:00PM|#
In looking around for thuggish behavior, I think this may
qualify:
Then there is the Fairness Doctrine that liberal activists have
been demanding be restored ever since Reagan ended it in 1987.
There followed the flowering of talk radio's Rush Limbaugh and
other popular conservative bloviators. Now, Rep. Maurice Hinchey,
D-N.Y., is reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine legislation he says
is needed "to ensure fairness and accuracy in journalism." Hinchey
also wants a return of government controls on media ownership. But
Democrat PR operative and political appointee Bill Ruder put the
lie to that argument long ago when he admitted that the
Democrats' pre-Reagan strategy was "to use the Fairness Doctrine to
challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the
challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited
and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Using the regulatory state to harass and drive out political
opponents I think qualifies as thuggish. Granted, the Fairness
Doctrine hasn't been revived yet, but the desire to be genuinely
thuggish is certainly there.
|10.25.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Okay, here's the Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton scorecard for next
November, when they are roughly equal in name recognition (instead
of one candidate having a 3:1 advantage):
The Iraq war:
Paul: against from the beginning, get out
Clinton: against, sort of, except for the 50,000 troops she would
leave there
Voters: want out
Taxes:
Paul: cut significantly
Clinton: raise a little (or more), for some
Voters: don't raise MY taxes
Spending:
Paul: cut significantly
Clinton: increase a little (or a lot)
Voters: don't cut MY programs
Immigration:
Paul: no amnesty, no welfare inducements
Clinton: secure the border, sort of
Voters: keep them out of MY neighborhood
Executive power:
Paul: restore the Constitutional balance
Clinton: yeah, baby
Voters: want a strong leader
Civil liberties:
Paul: respect the Bill of Rights
Clinton: trust me
Voters: what are civil liberties?
Honesty, Integrity, and Consistency
Paul: unquestioned honesty, integrity, and consistency
Clinton: trust me
Voters: Is Ron Paul really a politician?
|10.25.07 @ 2:09PM|#
A few reasons to take Ron Paul seriously:
1. He's rising in the polls, hitting 7% in New Hampshire for the
first time, and up to 4% in California (from 1% the month
before.)
2. He's raising money. $5 million in the third quarter, and another
$2 million already in October.
3. He's on the majority side of the biggest issues -- Iraq,
spending, taxes, immigration -- in a way no other candidate
is.
4. His integrity and consistency are unmatched, and almost unheard
of in a politician.
5. His grassroots support dwarfs that of the other candidates --
60,000 volunteers and counting in over 1,000 Meetup groups
nationwide.
|10.25.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Edward is such a tool.
Keep your eyes glued to your propaganda machine buddy and your
wishes may just come true ;)
|10.25.07 @ 2:16PM|#
I see edward is keeping good with his threat to not post here
anymore.
Gosh, I was going to miss his pedantic pukery, too.
iowan|10.25.07 @ 2:32PM|#
I have never voted for a democrat or repbulican presidential
candidate. I have voted libertarian every election from 1980 on. My
own way of saying "none of the above".
I have never registered as a democrat or a republican before, but
here in my sweaty little hands is an Iowa Voter Registration form.
Soon, it will have my personal information and little check mark
for 'republican' so I can go to the caucus and vote for Ron
Paul.
I'm sure there will be a life-time of junk mail that I will have to
deal with, but it seems worth the cost.
|10.25.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Quite possibly. I mean, I know the difference between Ron
Paul's out of Iraq and HRC's out of Iraq
Perhaps your take on this is different than mine, Reinmoose:
Ron Paul's out of Iraq = Get all troops out of Iraq, and most other
foreign countries, too.
HRC's out of Iraq = Pull some brigades out of Iraq and send them to
get shot at in a civil war in some autocratic African hellhole so
she can pander to the African-American vote
|10.25.07 @ 2:56PM|#
prolefeed:
no, that's pretty much about it. I wasn't near that specific in my
own mind about what Hilary would do with the troops, but it sure as
hell isn't "coming home."
Fluffy|10.25.07 @ 2:58PM|#
I have to agree with Reinmoose.
And I also agree with Joe.
It is precisely because of the fact that - as Joe says - the
average Independent doesn't see politics as a series of choices
between statism and liberty that a Unity candidate who appealed to
those voters would be a statist.
When you don't have a rigid framework in which to analyze policy
choices, the bias in your choices will invariably tend to statist
tinkering, because "do something" sounds like a policy worth
trying, and "do nothing" only makes sense in the context of a
broader ideology.
It's the same reason that so-called objective reporting tends to
trend the left as well. If you're only examining a single issue,
and have no wider world view to fit a particular policy choice
into, the narrative will be biased in favor of, "Well, we have
identified a problem. Shouldn't we do something about this problem?
Mr. Government Official, please describe your policy to fix this
problem right away." It's a statist framing and statist narrative
right off the bat.
|10.25.07 @ 3:03PM|#
From the Newsweek article Highnumber linked to at 1:40
the primary is more mysterious now because a record 44 percent
of voters have registered "undeclared."
There can be only one reason for that. Paul isn't just going to win
NH, he's going to DOMINATE it.
Alex|10.25.07 @ 3:19PM|#
On November 5th there will be a Money bomb on the official Ron Paul website ( www.ronpaul2008.com ). They're trying to get 100,000 people to pledge $100 on 11/05/07. The official Ron Paul Money Bomb Pledge site is http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ if your interested sign the pledge and bomb away on 11/05/07. Theyre is also another website which is for those who cant afford to donate $100 and that site is http://d212389.dn24.directnichosting.com/ Lastly, here is a link to an article for the money bomb http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50673 OH yeah almost forgot, Ron Paul will be a guest on Jay Leno's Tonight Show on October 30, 2007 check it out! Pass this on to your friends! Go President Paul!!!!
Westmiller|10.25.07 @ 3:55PM|#
An interesting footnote in the Rasmussen survey: "Paul is viewed
favorably by just 26% of all voters, unfavorably by 32%. In April,
only 14% had a favorable opinion of him."
In other words, 42% of voters have no opinion, but when they
"discover" Paul, his favorability rating nearly doubles, but the
unfavorable only goes up a few points.
That indicates that Paul's "favorables" have nowhere to go but up
and Hillary's unfavorable ratings have been static for more than a
year.
|10.25.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"This would be so funny. The anti-war candidate would be a
republican, and the pro-war would be a democrat."
Like in the old days.
|10.25.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"In other words, 42% of voters have no opinion, but when they
"discover" Paul, his favorability rating nearly doubles, but the
unfavorable only goes up a few points.
That indicates that Paul's "favorables" have nowhere to go but up
and Hillary's unfavorable ratings have been static for more than a
year."
A new Zogby poll shows that 47% of likely voters will not vote for
Paul under any circumstances, but 50% would not vote for Hillary
under any circumstances.
|10.25.07 @ 4:53PM|#
RC,
Seriously, what do you mean by thuggish, and how are the
tactics of the pro-war folks any worse than the usual political
discourse in this country? I honestly don't get it. Try
reading some 19-year-old kid's obituary in the local paper, than
having some asshole tell you you're happy he's dead. Then multiply
that by 1000X and five years.
But, hey, wanting the media to provide forums for more than one
point of view - that's pretty much the same as telling people that
they want Uday Hussein to rape young girls.
It's no surprise you're so defensive about this - you've been one
of the worse offenders on this site for as long as I can remember.
Want me to start posting your old comments, or are you ready to
drop it?
If the anti-war side was such a stone cold winner, then why
can't the Dems do anything real in Congress Because the Senate
has the fillibuster, and the President has the veto.
|10.25.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Craig pulled the 50,000 number out of his ass.
Follow the money. Hillary Clinton has not only voted for, but
sponsored, legislation forbidding the construction of permanent
military bases in Iraq for American troops.
Here's a question for the Ron Paul supporters: has he pledged that
the Marines will not guard the embassy in Baghdad, as they guard
every other embassy on the planet?
Why, no he has not. Ergo, he wants to "keep troops in Iraq." If you
think this disqualifies him from being described as "getting our of
Iraq," I don't know what to tell you.
There is daylight between Clinton and Paul on our future policy in
Iraq. There's a plausible debate about who's plan is better. I
don't like either one's, and am probably closer to Paul.
Nonetheless, they are both plainly on the same side of the big
issue - whether we're going to stay the course, or leave.
|10.25.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Nice catch at 3:03, Warren.
If Give Peace a Chance Democrats and left-leaning independents in
New Hampshire vote in the GOP primary instead of the Democratic
primary, what will that mean for the Democrats?
|10.25.07 @ 5:05PM|#
I was planning to leave the country next year to have children
overseas away from this government. Guess I'll buy a house and stay
if Ron Paul wins, maybe that will help the economy also. I think
Ron Paul is the Savior of America, his message is the greatest
message in the history of America. It is the same message since the
beggining of our independence and we have strayed so far, time for
a realignment.
RON PAUL REVOLUTION 2008!!!
|10.25.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Well this is only among GOP don't forget. He beats Fred in NH on
that too.
When you factor in all the L's I's and D's, well whooeee. We can
beat Hillary
PS - if you think 'overseas' is better than here, you're nuts.
|10.25.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Joe said:
"Here's a question for the Ron Paul supporters: has he pledged that
the Marines will not guard the embassy in Baghdad, as they guard
every other embassy on the planet?
"Why, no he has not. Ergo, he wants to "keep troops in Iraq." If
you think this disqualifies him from being described as "getting
our of Iraq," I don't know what to tell you."
Nice try, but that doesn't work. US Embassies are US soil by both
treaty and custom, not foreign soil, and keeping Marines at US
Embassies to guard them is not keeping troops in a foreign
country.
Joe also said:
"Nonetheless, they are both plainly on the same side of the big
issue - whether we're going to stay the course, or leave."
Not even close. Dr. Paul wants to bring them home ASAP. Hillary has
said that she wouldn't even consider it until 2013. That's "Stay
the course".
The elephant in the room on this one is actually Korea, of all
things. If North and South Koreas actually hammer out a peace
treaty 55 years after the cease-fire, then all of a sudden we have
38,000 troops that can be redeployed somewhere else (like maybe the
Iraq/Iran border!). Amazing nobody has picked up on that little
detail yet.
|10.25.07 @ 6:51PM|#
I'm that person - I'd vote for him over her, but otherwise either stay home or vote for her if it's, say, her vs. Guiliani. And I'd probably vote for the dem if it were anyone else but her, even against RP.
|10.25.07 @ 6:56PM|#
Tannim,
Most of the argument I read about why every-but-Ron-Paul won't
"really" get out of Iraq rely on that level of hairsplitting. Well,
technically...whatever.
Hillary has said that she wouldn't even consider it until
2013. No, she has not. She has stated that she can't guarantee
that the withdrawal will be complete by 2013. She has said that it
would begin as soon as she takes office.
|10.25.07 @ 7:22PM|#
Let's do a little game theory.
Imagine you're Rudy McRomneyson, or a writer at one of the neo-con
magazines. The central theme of your foreign policy vision is to
keep an American army in Iraq to prop up the client-state
government, even at the cost of putting down a decades-long
insurgency, so that Iraq can act as the launching pad for your "On
to Damascus!" and "On to Tehran!" strategy.
The polling shows a candidate with your position getting 41-45% of
the vote and losing to an anti-Iraq War candidate.
You look at the anti-war majority, and see that there are some
different kinds of folks there. Some of them are basically on board
with a Clintonite, Forward Engagement foreign and military policy.
The want to get out of Iraq, but not to completely reorient our
foreign policy towards a Homeland Defense Non-Interventionism. This
group makes up about 40% of the electorate.
There is also a combination of pacifist lefties and isolationist
righties (I know, gross simplifications, but I'm just building a
model here) who do want such a radical change in foreign policy.
They are about 15-20% of the electorate, and are expected to hold
their nose and vote for the Democrat.
You have no chance of winning by running with your Iraq stance, but
you need to win in order to get into office and carry out your
glorious vision of continuing and expanding Operaton Iraqi Freedom
into four more countries and 50 more years. And there is no chance
of converting any of the war opponents, either group, to your
side.
Oh, btw, eight years ago, George Bush was able to take office after
coming in second place, when Ralph Nader's campaign drew off enough
Gore votes to tip a few states to Bush.
What do you do? What is your strategy to win the presidential
election?
You try to keep as many of the hard-core anti-war voters from
voting from the Democrat as you possibly can, and get them to
either stay home or vote for a third party, that's what. You try to
blur the differences between your position and the Democrats' as
much as you can, by fudging your own position (we all want our
troops home, it's just a question of under what circumstances) as
well as theirs, to make them look closer together than they really
are.
Sound familiar?
I know there are substantive differences in the foreign policy
views of Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. I know that they would
handle the withdrawal from Iraq differently.
I also know that Republican political strategists aren't idiots,
and are just as capable of figuring out where they stand and
reasoning their way through the scenario I just described as you
and me.
|10.25.07 @ 7:33PM|#
I noticed recently that at least one self-styled "conservative"
site, RedState.com, has declared an outright ban on even MENTIONING
Ron Paul on its site among newbie posters, and has called for Dr.
Paul to be removed from future GOP candidate debates, claiming that
he doesn't represent Republican values. It looks like the
self-appointed standardbearers of the right are running scared of
one of the own. I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic.
It's not that Ron Paul doesn't represent traditional conservative
Republican values. He does. Small government, lower taxes,
non-interventionism where vital American interests aren't at stake,
a balanced budget, secure borders, no amnesty for illegal
immigrants, etc., are as Republican as you can get. No, the problem
is that the current crop of so-called Republicans have themselves
abandoned GOP core values in favor of military adventurism, a
quasi-monarchical executive, wholesale infringements of
Constitutional rights, sops to religious zealots who care more for
expanding their influence than protecting universal liberty and
freedom... To paraphrase a quote whose author I can't recall, it's
not that Paul has moved away from the GOP, it's that the GOP has
moved away from him.
After watching the recent Fox-sponsored debate in Florida, I fully
expect to see even more calls for Paul's withdrawal from the race
and a ban on his inclusion in future forums. The reason is not Paul
himself, but rather the unhinged negative reactions he elicits from
the "mainstream" GOP audiences at these debates. When Paul
courageously voiced his opposition to the war and stated
(correctly) that 70% of Americans also oppose it, the catcalls and
jeers from the audience were a jarring note. That kind of derisive
reaction is an open invitation for non-affiliated voters watching
at home to recall the presumed equation that Republican = Pro-war.
It may not be that big a deal among the party faithful, but to that
aforementioned 70%, many of them independents, who want us out of
Iraq ASAP, that kind of vivid reinforcement is damning. Seeing the
rank and file of the GOP continue to actively cheerlead for this
war could easily be a deciding factor among independent voters come
next November. Being associated with the pro-war meme will be one
hell of a hurdle for the Republicans to overcome as it is,
regardless of which candidate winds up running against the Dem. And
so, whenever Paul starts voicing the mainstream line, speaking out
against the war and riling GOP audiences into trying to shout him
down on live TV, that's a very harmful image to the party.
Can Paul win? His chances are frankly nonexistent IMO. He does hew
more closely to traditional conservative Republicanism than any
other GOP candidate today, to be sure. But ironically, the longer
he stays in the race, the more damage he inflicts on this gang of
neocons/theocrats who shamelessly try to pass themselves off as the
modern-day heirs of Reagan and Goldwater. In their eyes, for the
sake of the party, he has to be silenced and marginalized. Now.
|10.25.07 @ 7:55PM|#
I noticed recently that at least one self-styled
"conservative" site, RedState.com, has declared an outright ban on
even MENTIONING Ron Paul on its site among newbie posters, and has
called for Dr. Paul to be removed from future GOP candidate
debates, claiming that he doesn't represent Republican values. It
looks like the self-appointed standardbearers of the right are
running scared of one of the own. I'd laugh if it weren't so
tragic.
He's obviously getting some traction, then. Frankly, he's got
enough money and supporters now that it would be considerably more
difficult for the debate sponsors to keep him off the podium than
it would have six months ago. He's much more than a curiosity now,
even if his chances are still slim.
Of course, I think the GOP is overdoing it with the number of
debates, anyway. It speaks to how badly the perceived frontrunners
are doing that they still feel the need to expose themselves to
potshots and potential gaffes.
|10.25.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Paul isn't just going to win NH, he's going to DOMINATE
it.
Would like to see it.
Will believe it when I see it.
But ironically, the longer he stays in the race, the more
damage he inflicts on this gang of neocons/theocrats who
shamelessly try to pass themselves off as the modern-day heirs of
Reagan and Goldwater. In their eyes, for the sake of the party, he
has to be silenced and marginalized. Now.
Only the thundering masses can protect him now, with Urkabold
running his own candidate for president.
And for those who haven't heard yet, my position is simple. I will
vote for Ron Paul as far as he gets. If he doesn't get the
nomination then I'm voting for VM's Noam Chomsky blow up doll and
that's all there is to it. Dammit.
|10.25.07 @ 10:21PM|#
For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy"
warning, VM?
Any link posted by VM by definition carries a flashing, bright neon
"naked guy / chick / coprophilia" warning -- RTFM!
|10.26.07 @ 2:58PM|#
ChrisO:
"My sense, however, is that among Republicans, the war is lower
down the list of morale killers than the administration's
spendthrift ways and domestic thuggishness."
I believe you're right. Domestic thuggishness is what has destroyed
the RP. I was a Republican voter from Goldwater to Dubya. I sat it
out in 2006.
I will not vote for any Republican other than Ron Paul in
2008.
The big issues with me?
The Occupation, Patriot Act, Medical Marijuana and the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Act. The Theocon thugs who are now running the
party are a greater threat to my liberty than the
terrorists...IMHO
|10.26.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Joe:
Hillary has admittedly softened her previous hawkishness
ever-so-slightly and even now supports legislation to
"de-authorize" (f you Bush, pose for the camera) the war. Let the
flip-flop name-calling begin. But at least she's learning, if only
because its easy to learn when you're looking at a poll that shows
70% of people are against the war now. Nonetheless, her rhetoric
regarding sanctions against Iran (I'm really looking forward to
$4/gallon gas by next year), labeling their military a terrorist
group, and her maniacal allegiance to Israel is cause for
concern:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
These are a few of the reasons I support Ron Paul's foreign policy
and think Hillary Clinton's is essentially "more of the same" (i.e.
permanent military bases, war-posturing against middle-eastern
regimes, unflinching support for Israel, etc.)
David M. Brown|10.26.07 @ 9:49PM|#
Per Reinmoose, Rasmussen Reports is "too biased to actually
report" on its recent survey of Ron Paul's match-ups with
Democrats. Perhaps he should have checked the site? It's
here:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_paul_vs_clinton_and_obama
Stories on Fred Thompson match-ups are also posted to the site.
|10.27.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Nicholas,
For the most part, I agree with you, but there is one very
important correction I need to make:
Hillary Clinton not only voted against funding the construction of
permanent bases in Iraq, but sponsored legislation herself that
would forbid the use of tax dollars on their construction.
It is that fact, far more than her campaign speeches, that makes me
optimistic about her intentions. Funding bases is really where the
rubber meets the road in terms of whether a politician wants to
maintain a permanent presence there, or is opposed to one.
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