Checking on Paul's Chances

I really can't wait to get to New Hampshire, because I can't get a handle otherwise on Ron Paul's level of support. Lots of reporters are on the story now: The Iowa Independent thinks Paul can come in third in the caucuses; Ken Herman walks among Paul's flock in Iowa:

"Do I expect him to be president? I think so," said John Zambenini, a 22-year-old Dayton, Ohio, native who became the campaign's Iowa spokesman in October, a month after he first heard the name Ron Paul. "I think the more Americans know about Ron Paul, they will realize we cannot afford not to have him as president."

Paul's Iowa campaign claims more than 300 volunteers from 39 states and four foreign countries. Most are bivouacked at seven camps across the state and driven into towns for door-to-door campaigning.

Drew Cline, the incredibly on-the-ball Union Leader reporter, feels like Paul could do even better in New Hampshire.

The buzz surrounding the Paul campaign is reminiscent of the grassroots campaign Democrat Carol Shea-Porter waged against Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley last year. Polls showed Mrs. Shea-Porter trailing by 19 points in October. With almost no money and no support from the Democratic establishment, she came from behind and beat the congressman 51% to 49%.

Many are wondering if the polls are similarly missing Mr. Paul's momentum. Mrs. Shea-Porter and Mr. Paul have very different ideas about how to use the power of government, but both strongly oppose the war in Iraq. And Mrs. Shea-Porter ran last year as a fiscal conservative, so it's possible Mr. Paul could win over many Republicans who voted for her last year.

The difference, though, is that Paul's developed a Brad Pitt-at-Cannes following, pied-pipering in people from out of state who want to hear his speeches and then… can't vote in the primary.

Keith Murphy, a former Democratic campaign worker from Maryland who owns Murphy's Taproom in Manchester, has held several Paul rallies at his restaurant, which has become a regular hangout for the Paul crowd. When the candidate shows up, about 75% of the activists at an event are from out of state, he said, but on other nights it's about 50-50.

That's still not good, although since the summer I've seen more and more people showing up at Paul events who actually live in the states where they're being held: Virginia voters coming to a speech in Virginia, DC voters showing up to a DC Tea Party. Not like the Iowa straw poll, when the crowd was swelled by non-voting Nebraskans and Minnesotans and Texans.

Comments

[KipEsquire]

The problem Paul will face (apart from the pesky fact that he, like New Hampshire, is not really libertarian) is that the New Hampshire independents are, I predict, far more likely to vote in the Democratic primary -- where their vote could actually matter in a close Clinton-Obama contest.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Paul needs to win New Hampshire for a shot at the presidency, but a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire could atleast slow down and maybe halt the neocon/evangelical frieght train and demonstrate that there is a significant libertarian/paleocon coalition that must be appeased for any sort of victory over the democrats to be achieved. I was dissappointed at McCain for his cheap shot at Paul earlier, since they both have (had?) some small government instincts that could have united them and I think McCain is the least bad republican that could win aside from Paul. I really hope that McCain comes back to our side and apologizes for his war drum pandering, atleast to the point where we can talk to him, because while I avidly support Paul, I think in the end we'll have to bridge the gap with the war hawks and give them Iraq if we can get actions to reduce the overall US presence around the world.

I know, promises were meant to be broken, but McCain is not compassionate conservative Bush and he's not promising to be a uniter, so maybe there's some hope that his promises will be met by his sense of honor.

Sorry Paul supporters, I know its a cardinal sin to admit he might not win, but I think the longer term strategy that he's building up is more important.

[Guy Montag]

Dave,

I really can't wait to get to New Hampshire, because I can't get a handle otherwise on Ron Paul's level of support.

You went to the wrong radio show during this 24 hr. period. You should have been on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell to get the 'result' you seek 🙂

[Elemenope]

...maybe there's some hope that his promises will be met by his sense of honor.

His sense of honor seems to be deeply bound up in a martial ethic, and the only issue on which he has taken a really honorable position is against torture (which extends directly from his military experience); warriors in the oval scare are nearly as scary as prosecutors, especially if they (unlike Eisenhower) have not lost their taste for war.

I think in the end we'll have to bridge the gap with the war hawks and give them Iraq if we can get actions to reduce the overall US presence around the world.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but...You. Can't. Be. Serious. Can you?

[VM]

Kip - thanks for the 12/23 heads up on RP and his "not in the original Constitution" comment!

[iowan]

Went to a caucus preparation meeting on Saturday night. They ran out of room and had to bring extra chairs in. I was more than a little surprised by the number of people in attendance.

A quick show of hands indicated that far less than half of the attendees had ever been to a caucus before. Of those that had, about 50% had previously attended a democratic party caucus.

It's always dangerous to extrapolate from such a small sample, but I'm beginning to really feel that there will be a lot of shocked people on Friday morning.

[jimmydageek]

More on the RP phenomenon around Florida:

Leesburg has caught the bug. As has Ocala. RP signs everywhere - the only deviation was a tattered Romney sign in Ocala. It looked as if the sign had been kicked down by someone and then restored by someone else.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Elemenope,

The libertarian/paleocon coalition isn't big enough. We need more subgroups we can offer something to. Either there will have to be a huge realignment of parties so that the peacable liberals come over to give up some government largesse for protection of civil liberties or we talk to the war hawks about reduction of their expansive plans in some sort of compromise. I doubt we'll ever get all we want, but I think a show of strength could broker a compromise (maybe not this election) with those interventionists that will soon have to live with democratic rule. THey'll either embrace it and leave the republican fold or have to give something back in order to get an anti-democrat coalition back together.

[Guy Montag]

LIT,

You can try relying on that 'youth vote', that'll get you some traction on MTV and CNN.

[Eric Dondero]

I am going to CRUSH Ron Paul in the U.S. House race.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Fake Eric Dondero,

Try harder.

[Elemenope]

Lost_in_Translation:

I think that the ways of calculating which groups need to be courted are seriously out of date. This is a country where huge swaths of the population do not vote at all, even though many are registered to. Many of those people do not fit the molds of 'paleo-' 'neo-' 'libertarian-' and 'Jesus Juice-', and are clearly not induced or attracted by any of those narratives.

I think both parties have ground themselves into vaguely bland statism in pursuit or triangulation of whichever hyphenated constituency has been identified as 'critical'.

I personally could not stomach the notion of a truce with the militant/imperialist wings of either party, nor vote for any candidate who is willing to compromise the notion of drawing down the enormously wasteful and enormously expensive US military apparatus. I doubt many of Paul's supporters could support it either, and it would be a tactical mistake to do so.

Either way, if I don't miss my guess many war hawks are in it for their constituents (money for military contracts, military bases, etc.) and so could not be enticed by any sort of deal which would cut into those assets and largesse.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Elemenope,

We shall see won't we.

I just like archair quarterbacking..nobody's ever tackled a guy in a barcalounger, 🙂

[stanzx]

You could just continue the same Nazi State we have with a Dictator supporting Dictators!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3687275197363805545&q=ralph+nader&total=556&start=430&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

[Elemenope]

I just like armchair quarterbacking..nobody's ever tackled a guy in a barca lounger, 🙂

LOL, yeah, me too. I personally think this race is going to get so screwy anything might happen. Who knows, maybe McCain and Lieberman will peel off from their respective parties to form the Unity War Party '08 ticket, the Republicans were form up behind Huckabee, Paul will go rogue third-party, and the Dems put up Obama/Richardson (that seems to me that most sensible duo for the Dems; puts the SW in play and shores up foreign experience questions).

I can dream, can't I? 🙂

[yoshi]

"Do I expect him to be president? I think so," said John Zambenini, a 22-year-old Dayton, Ohio, native

Spoken like a 22 year old who has never voted for president before. Ahhh... idealism - i remember that...

[Lost_In_Translation]

The media wouldn't even begin to understand who to pay attention to and who to ignore. Maybe Rupert Murdoch's head would explode?

After the lackluster last two elections, I could do for some excitement.

Though if Paul somehow did capture the republican nomination, I could almost guarantee a fracturing off of the war hawk segment to run as a third party (War United maybe?)

[Ali]

Good video stnzx!

[Ali]

Spoken like a 22 year old who has never voted for president before. Ahhh... idealism - i remember that...

Spoken like a 22 70 year old who has never always voted for president before. Ahhh... idealism pessimism mixed with dullism and a sad sense of resignation - i don't want to remember that...

Keep your old ways to yourself, while the 22 year olds of every generation will keep trying.

[Ali]

LIT,

Though if Paul somehow did capture the republican nomination, I could almost guarantee a fracturing off of the war hawk segment to run as a third party (War United maybe?)

I really do believe that this is bound to happen.

Another scenario for this happening is that if the dems win the presidency and they have full control of government, the dems will certainly disappoint their constituents (esp. the majority) antiwar arm and that, too, will almost certainly lead to things like the Unity Ticket 08 movement.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

I hope Bloomberg runs on the Unity ticket and takes NY, CA, and MA away from Hillary.

[Ali]

I hope Bloomberg runs on the Unity ticket and takes NY, CA, and MA away from Hillary.

Yep.

RP running as independent would almost certainly shred the GOP a little as well. Horay! A 4 party system!

[Derrick]

Spoken like a 22 year old who has never voted for president before. Ahhh... idealism - i remember that...

Such idealism is a necessary and positive thing. If we didn't have movements powered by starry-eyed twentysomethings, nothing would ever change.

You wanna talk about idealistic and overly optimistic... I was active on the ground in Ron Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party campaign. I was like 17 or 18, and convinced that his campaign could catch fire and he could be the next president. I worked my tail off passing out fliers and talking to people. Then, when he only got like 0.5% of the vote, I become jaded and bitter. Which is pretty much how I remain.

[Derrick]

s/become/became

[TLB]

You'd think that someone associated with a marginalized candidate and a marginalized ideology would realize that almost all of those covering these events aren't really reporters at all. I guess Weigel is just trying to be liked.

[R C Dean]

A 4 party system!

This may be more likely and more stable than a three party system. The third party, in our electoral system, will always be on the outside looking in. If there are four parties, with the third and fourth parties each cannibalizing one of the current "major" parties, then the major parties may be sufficiently weakened that the new parties will have some viability. Hmmm.

[Ali]

R C Dean,

Yea, look at Canada and how the NDP and even smaller regional parties (like the ADQ and the PQ) can influence the overall outcomes of elections. The NDP was the reason why the liberals lost control over the government and how that resulted in the conservatives winning the elections.

I agree 3, won't do the thing.

[Bingo]

Oh gosh, I hope a United War Party is formed with the "compassionate conservative" types. Nothing would marginalize that movement as effectively as them splitting off from any mainstream party.

[Butler T Reynolds]

Sadly, Paul supporters are going to be depressed very soon when the huge letdown arrives. We Paul supporters have tunnel vision. We camp out online and wave signs with our meetup groups. It's that whole "perception is reality" thing.

I'm somewhere in between the 22 year old idealist and the 70 year old pessimist. Ron Paul won't win, but, hopefully, it won't be for nothing. It is very nice that there has been a libertarian voice out there that allows me to distinguish myself from the bible-toting bomb-chunking welfare-statists in the Republican Party.

BTR

[John]

The internet will play an X factor in New Hampshire. The question is how big. Statistics show that Ron Paul's You Tube views out of NH are in the hundreds of thousands (far beyond any other candidate) and he is receiving a disproportionately high amount of money per capita there as well. Very high viewership and money stats tell me there could be a surprising upside on Jan 8.

[Joe S.]

I think there's considerable room for optimism.

In the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul got only 9.5% of the vote, but that was at a time when he was polling only 2% in the state. Now he's bumping ten percent in the polls. And Romney and Huckster can't buy off votes in the caucuses as easily as they did at Ames. And this time, honest folks will be counting the ballots. So if you multiply his current poll numbers by the 'Ames Correction Factor,' the math is very, very encouraging.

Also, given that half of Iowa's GOP voters are against the war, and that there is only one anti-war candidate in the GOP race, it really wouldn't make sense if Ron Paul doesn't take away a huge share of the vote. I don't want to use the 'W' word for fear of jinxing his chances, but everything but the 'scientific' polls points in his favor, and I don't mean just Place or Show.

[Ali]

John,

Not only that. One has to realize that in "polls", not only do they employ land lines (which all the younger people have stopped using like eons ago), the pollsters go to the people. Those polled, as far as we know, did not approach the pollsters. They did not rise from their couches and actually do anything. II wonder how many of those polled would actually go to vote. Whereas Paul supporters are active and are willing to do anything for their candidate. That is why I believe Zogby when he says that Paul will do much better than polls claim.

[Ali]

sorry for the bold font.

[Sam Grove]

I'm not holding my breath, but I am taking action.

I ignore the skeptics, but I also resist the assumptions of unwarranted optimism.
I don't know what's going to happen.
More to the point, no one does.

The 'powers the be' have been faking depth and extent of their support for so long that THEY don't know what's going to happen either.

If you want Ron Paul to at least do very well, then you have to hold to the possibility of a win.

If you are a skeptic, you're not likely to do anything to change the odds, so please keep it to yourself for a while.

If you are Dondero or Montag, go away, you're annoying at best.

Dondero, bless his jock-like simplicity, is like the martial arts student who learns the techniques but doesn't get the philosophy.

[James A.]

"I'm somewhere in between the 22 year old idealist and the 70 year old pessimist. Ron Paul won't win, but, hopefully, it won't be for nothing. It is very nice that there has been a libertarian voice out there"

You know, THIS is exactly why the "libertarians" in my meetup group failed to persuade me to join. You people are pathetic. It almost seems like you belong to the party just because it isn't mainstream and doesn't win. I have NEVER seen a group of people so vehemently opposed to winning. The minute one of your guys do, you start chopping off his legs.

For the idiot that would even COMPARE Ron Paul's run in 1988 to today... I say WTF? Too much weed is a bad thing.

Tel me when he had 19 million in the bank in 1988? Tell me when he was even on the radar in 1988? To think he could have won being in a party with such an aversion to winning is mental retardation, not youthful enthusiasm.

Thank GOD he left your party. And thank God the libertarians in my group have learned to reject the party, as well.

What have you done for Dr. Paul? Really? But, I am betting that when he does win, the Libertarians are all going to cry victory, aren't they? Right before they start impeachment proceedings (can't have a libertarian actually win..)

Ron Paul is not one of you, and I will NEVER be one of you. I had seriously considered it, but your party is nothing like Dr. Paul.

[From The Keystrokes of John Q.]

To Mr. David Weigel:

Your article reminds me of a scene from the Movie 300. I picture you like King Leonidas, gazing up at the night sky. The narrator noting that you are harboring a fools up in the face of all odds. You are not alone...

"We need more subgroups we can offer something to."

I agree with the premise completely Lost in Translation.I respectfully disagree with your recommendation. I think Elemenope is correct on the issue of a great compromise between the NeoCons and the Libertarians/Paleocons.

Don't get me wrong, say what you will about Alexander Hamilton, he had one thing right. Backroom deals and compromises are how government accomplishes things. However he never mentioned this reality in regard to constituents. Now you can call them Constituents, special interests etc etc. In my view what it all comes down to is Patronage.

Now we're not all gonna go to an aristocrats entree way everyday because we are their patron(Gotta love the Romans). The idea is simple. As you say, what can you do for me? I think a compromise between the factions is missing the point entirely. I point to FDR. The New Deal is essentially a massive patronage system. Despite all it's shortcomings people liked it because they saw results individually. Here in lies the road to how we are marginalized...

I wasn't born into a libertarian tradition. I only found it as I stumbled from one party to another, essentially disenchanted by both parties. Left to the distractions of history,philosophy, economics, music etc etc.
So while Ron Paul gives a speech on inflation, while we point to history, while lawyers talk about civil liberties, we are own stumbling block. We're fighting the national attention deficit. There is rarely an argument of who is winning the debate intellectually.

Try saying... Hey... You're biggest concern is paying your bills and feeding your family? Did you know if we got rid of the federal income tax, the government would have the same revenue it did in 2000?!

You're a white woman/soccer mom who thinks education and social problems are the most important? Well how about this analogy for school vouchers: the government has a voucher system to feed the poor: Food stamps. So who does the gov give that voucher to? The grocery stores or the people buying the food? In education, they're giving it to the grocery stores- the producers. Instead of to the people who need the food- the consumers. The government should be promoting schooling... not buildings,teachers unions.

You're an evangelical Christian with raging nationalism and moral streaks? We're gonna transfer military assets and troops from all around the world back to american soul. Your dollar is gonna go up in value and be worth something again. We're gonna make sure you have more money to wage your war on abortions, gays, and buy more books about the end times. By the way, you're not gonna be able to be prosecuted for hate speech for any of it either! (Make that into a boogeyman!Christians are being prosecuted! You need civil liberties!)

You're under 30? two words for you: Social Security!

Repeat it over and over again until the masses develop tinnitus from the speakers. Until the not so pretty parrots repeat it even in their sleep. Compromise for the constituents! Making millions of patrons among the masses.

[From The Keystrokes of John Q.]

soul=soil Haha

[prolefeed]

James A. -- may I respectfully suggest tapering off on the afternoon coffee? 😉

I hear you, I've had my share of clueless Libertarian Party experiences, but if ineffective and/or dysfunctional people vote for the same candidate you favor, cheer them on. Whackjob votes count the same as everyone else's.

[Guy Montag]

SG,

I have $10 on Eric kicking your butt 😉

[R C Dean]

Did you know if we got rid of the federal income tax, the government would have the same revenue it did in 2000?!

I'd love to believe this is true, but I need some of that sweet, sweet linkin' first.

[Guy Montag]

RCD,

Dr. Paul made that assertion a few places, to include the "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC I believe. It was the one when he got into a discussion of how Lincoln going to war with the Confederacy was a mistake.

He might have missed a few details during the peppering he got. Like when he said that the USA was the only country to eliminate slavery through a war. Perhaps Etheopia is considered an exception to that "rule" of no war needed to end slavery? Then again, his inquisitors seemed to think that the only issue at hand for the US Civil War was slavery.

[Guy Montag]

RCD,

Also, something to think about. Even though I would LOVE to eliminate all income taxes and not replace them with anything else, the notion (wait, you probably know this, it is for others) that removing that tax and expecting all of the other activity to remain the same is just silly.

IIRC, the notion that Dr. Paul had was that revenues have increased by X since 2000 and federal income tax reciepts equal X, therefore eliminating the income tax would reduce revenues to the level of 2000.

I suspect that lots of other activity would get turned into "income" if that "color of money" were no longer taxed, especially in businesses where some compensation is in areas that get the capital gaines tax now, etc.

[From The Keystrokes of John Q.]

*flips something out of the frying pan* Some of that sweet linkage:

A list of the federal budgets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Link listing income taxes and even separates income taxes from corporate taxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

A link with pie charts discrediting the proposal while deceitfully including the corporate tax in the elimination:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

And then some crazy ron paul supporter(why not love his enthusaism):

http://www.governmentdirt.com/ron_paul_on_taxes_getting_rid_of_income_taxes_dont_sound_so_irresponsible_after_you_read_this

[Franklin]

The McCain campaign knows.

[Scott]

Damn Butler T. you are one breath of depression...
"I'm somewhere in between the 22 year old idealist and the 70 year old pessimist. Ron Paul won't win, but, hopefully, it won't be for nothing. It is very nice that there has been a libertarian voice out there that allows me to distinguish myself from the bible-toting bomb-chunking welfare-statists in the Republican Party."
This movement is much bigger than you think, much bigger. In a week you're going to see the man behind the curtain ( the vote tally) and realize that you have a heart. I was in the same state as you until I saw the movement everywhere. People are waking up so stop watching tv and losing heart. 3rd in Iowa and 1st in NH.

[Sam Grove]

I have $10 on Eric kicking your butt 😉

Yawn.

[Wayne Fazio]

As long as we fund Ron Paul, he can keep running. The truth can't be stopped unless we quit. When Ron Paul presents, people are sold. The lies look like what they are in the light of the truth. Keep on keeping on. Optimist in Columbus.

[libertynow]

I like Joe's math! 2% in "the" polls and 10% in the straw poll in Ames...... hmmmmmm....
10% in "the" polls so 50%?
Now that would be running up the score.
we probably only need 30%

[Republicae]

Hey Guy Montag....

I can't find the exact quote, but Dr. Paul stated that if the fa?ade was scrapped off the interplay between the fiat monetary system and the tax system, the reality of taxation would surprise everyone. The truth of the matter was detailed by our very own Federal Reserve Bank itself in several of its publications.

One of the best explainations of the reasons behind taxation under a fiat monetary system was given by a FED Chairman Breadsley Ruml back in 1946. While we have all been made to assume that taxation is an absolute necessity to maintain our government operations, according to Ruml that is not the case.

In one publication of the Federal Reserve, this statement was made: "Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar."

It goes further to state that taxes are no longer necessary for the operations of the government since the system is no longer dependent on a gold-backed and restricted monetary system:

"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.??

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

In other words, there are only three reasons to impose income taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes on the American Citizen. Those reasons are to maintain social-economic controls over the population, to redistribute the wealth and to enforce the use of the fiat money. Those are the only reasons given by the Federal Reserve for taxation, that's it, nothing what-so-ever more!

So, we are living under a very complex and very deceitful ruse. Ron Paul wants to erase the ruse completely, but I think he realizes that few people could wrap their minds around just how completely their government has deceived its own people for decades.

[Doug D]

Don't worry about Ron Paul's level of support in New Hampshire. If you look on RonPaulGraphs.com, New Hampshire has more Ron Paul donors per capita BY FAR than any other state.

[TrueHawk]

I'm a Huckabee fan but I think it is a major rip off if the networks do not let Paul participate in the debates. He is player and deserves respect. I am writing Huckabee to stand up for Paul's rights.

[dph]

Tu Ne Cede Malis

22 or 70, live your life by these words as von Mises did and change will come.

Tu Ne Cede Malis (Do Not Give in to Evil)
http://www.mises.org/

[David Monk]

WoW! I didn't know people from that many states came just to Iowa to help the campaign. By stating that I assume you mean to imply that his support is broad.

" Not like the Iowa straw poll, when the crowd was swelled by non-voting Nebraskans and Minnesotans and Texans"
and
"Paul's Iowa campaign claims more than 300 volunteers from 39 states and four foreign countries."

It also good to know that Iowa voters are anti-war and fiscal conservatives. Iowa may yet be good for Dr. Ron Paul. Has a supporter I have never thought Iowa would do much for Dr. Paul. Hopefully and seemingly, I am wrong on that.

[rhys]

Ron Paul is like the Blair Witch Project in a field of Snakes on Planes. The other candidates are so triangulated that they lose all real emotional support and consequently all independent inititave.

A cursury look at the US would seem to indicate that McDonald's is the best burger joint in town. But we all know, that when it comes to quality, there is a special local burger joint we take our friends and relatives to. Paul is that local phenomenon. He is the candidate that we know isn't high in the polls, but we have convinced our famiy and close friends to support because we know that it's better. There are very few Paul supporters who are going to miss supporting Paul in this nomination battle.