The Glade 4.0

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/15/p ... ich-romney

A surprising new poll out of Bloomberg News on Tuesday morning found that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is not the only Republican to benefit from the seeming demise of other prior frontrunners.

Beating all the odds and the pundits’ expectations, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has emerged as one of the new frontrunners in the crucial Iowa primary for the GOP nomination to the presidency, topping even Gingrich and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney and virtually tying former businessman Herman Cain for the lead.

All surveys counted, Bloomberg News found that Paul has the support of 19 percent of the state’s GOP primary voters, versus Cain’s 20, Romney’s 18 and Gingrich’s 17.

It’s just the latest in a string of small victories for Paul, who won a Calif. straw poll in Sept., an Ohio straw poll in Oct. and an Illinois straw poll earlier this month. He also dominated a CBS News viewer survey this week, which asked who won the last GOP debate and who should win the nomination. Paul topped all the other candidates by tens of thousands of votes, even though he was only given 89 seconds during the entire debate to speak.

The four-way tie moving forward will present an interesting challenge to conservative media, which seems to have been content ignoring Paul as much as possible. Even in the instances where he’s won or placed highly in typically influential Republican polls, his victories have been swept under the rug as pundits continued to focus on candidates thought to be more favored by Republicans.

He’s since become regarded in much mainstream press as something of a “gadfly,” and not likely a serious contender. “If I were Romney and Perry, I would be thinking of a way to get Ron Paul off the stage because he is a distraction,” Bradley Blakeman, a Republican strategist and former Bush staffer, explained to Fox Business in Sept., articulating party insiders’ prevailing opinions of Paul.

Those opinions would now appear to be irrelevant, but it’s still unclear if the latest poll results will earn Paul any additional headway with members of the press.

A separate poll published Monday by survey group Public Policy Polling found Paul at just 5 percent support, with Gingrich leading the pack at 28 percent.

Earlier polling by Selzer & Co., which conducted Tuesday’s Bloomberg poll, found that Paul had solidly claimed third place by mid-Oct. with 12 percent support, trailing Romney at 22 and Cain at 23.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Go go Paul. Surprised to see Gingrich surging (well, if you can call a 20% support level a 'surge'). Maybe if Perry keeps imploding (oh so spectacularly!) it'll free up some more to lean toward Paul.

On second thought, a Perry supporter would probably lean toward Herman Cain, however. Similar kinds of crazy. Maybe once our long national delusion that Michelle Bachmann is a real candidate is over, the Tea Partiers who support her will wake up and throw their support behind Paul.

Nothing would delight me more than to see Ron Paul win some primaries.

I find the tone of that article interesting and the way they try to not talk about Cain not having the most. Yeah it's a more level field. I'm not surprised.

It's likey going to come down to Romney (Blargh) and whoever can be the anti-Romney.

Lex would it delight you enough to actually go vote for him?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Yes, if Ron Paul was chosen as the Republican candidate then I'd register to vote.

It's because the frontrunners are at 20%, 19%, 18%, and 17%, with a margin of error of +/- 4%. Statistically, they're virtually identical.

Edit: I should say that's from another article I read after I saw this one, investigating whether or not Cain had fallen in the polls. Not specifically stated here.

The Republicans should nominate Ron Paul, so Obama will get 4 more years to screw everything up.

If Romney is nominated I think there will be a resentment that he was pushed on us. How that resentment is expressed I have no idea. Might be low turnout, might be not voting for him and people just concentrating on local races/initiatives.

My early predictions-
Romney nominated- Obama win. They've tried pushing mitt forever.
Cain nominated- slim Cain win if the allegations are unfounded. Cain will chip away the black vote, eliminate the ever present race card, and permit an apples to apples comparison that will allow Obama to be judged on his actions.
Huntsman/Bachman nominated- wont waste the space.
Newt- he's a string pullernot a frontman. Good advisor but should never be in a front line role. If nominated, big Obama win.
Paul nominated- 50/50 shot. if the Republican party supports him and allows his message to get out 80% shot of winning depending if he can find a VP

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I get that, Mr Ghost. I'm just commenting on how the writer (and by extension others in the media) are claiming the allegations have ruined Cain's chances when the evidence of that being so is still flimsy. It's still too early for anyone.

Han, I don't know that I disagree with your idea. If the Romney is the man I think a lot of people (myself included) will bend over and vote for him unless a Perot alternative presents itself. The problem I see isnt 2012, it's what happens in 2014 if we haven't seriously begun to right the ship. If we get a mellow yellow like Romney, and we don't get stuff done, the movement is in big trouble.

Of course the same thing could happen if we get Paul and he spends the two years fighting with the Bluebloods and RINOs

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will bring me to the polls.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Margin of Error: 1.63 x 10^77

Mr. Near Ground: 0

_________________

Rynar, that's a bit short sighted. You can write in Ron Paul for President if you wish (I might even join you) . I don't know the status of your district, but I'm sure there are reps and Senators you can support. For me the Senate is the important race this year, followed by the house primary( if the party makes good on their threat to run someone against my rep) and the final house race.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Well, obviously, but this thread isn't about my local mayoral race. Ill come out and vote for local offices, I was speaking figuratively.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm not interested in local politics, so I will not be voting for anything involving that. And please, nobody tell me there is some kind of moral imperative to be interested in something.

I'd love to be able to support Paul. I love hearing him talk about wiping out a ton of bureaucracy and I find him very personable to boot.

Then the subject turns to foreign policy and the "unelectable" bat hits you in the forehead.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Yeah, the entire country is just nuts about our foreign policy and would love for us to continue spending money abroad.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

And creating more enemies of America for future generations to deal with.

However lets talk about his foreign policy Dash and why you disagree.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, according to Herman Cain, the President isn't supposed to know anything about foreign policy. So I guess you're in the clear to vote for him!

If you want to oversimplify beyond the point of sanity, sure.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Foreign issues are where I start to break ranks with Paul admittedly. I get the whole sending money we dont have overseas thing. However the big stick can be a good defensive tool too. Ideally if Israel or any other ally got nuked (I only pick Israel b/c they are the most likely) and he wanted to sit on his hands he could maybe be overridden right?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Nope. Only one commander-in-chief. Congress can fund and declare a war, but it takes a president to fight one.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Not sure if i want to get into a whole Ron Paul "thing" but while I'd agree there is a lot about our foreign policy that needs addressing, I'm far less comfortable with his positions on that than his proposed drastic economic changes.

"Let's try being nice to Iran" is not particularly compelling. The whole blaming Al Qaeda attacks on us thing. Lack of support for Israel. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting but those leap to mind.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Well how well is being mean to them working? They remember when we engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected government in 53 just so the UK could retain control of oil wells. We don't really remember that.

He didn't blame the Al Qaeda attack on us but he did say we need to examine our foreign policy to understand why they did it. The CIA call it blowback and the head of the Bin Laden unit (Michael Scheuer) agrees with Paul. Why is "no foreign aid for anyone" suddenly akin to "not supporting one specific nation" especially when not supporting the nations against it means that those nations lose twice as much as Israel does? Why is not pressuring Israel to make decisions we want not support them? I mean the job of the President of the United States of America is to think about what nation's health first and foremost?

It was firmness but with an open hand that we stood against the Soviet Union. Reagan dared to talk to them and the hawks called his approach "limp wristed" yet it worked and are now the same people praising him on a pedestal.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Our nuclear fleet is enough to deter nation-states from hostility. Non nation actors are not something more force is going to be able to solve. Never has been, never will be.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Depends what you mean by "working". They're confined to loudly denouncing all and sundry, and that's about it. Seems to be working quite well. They're trying to build nukes? Good. Once they get them, they'll be permanently backed into a corner since they won't ever be able to make the kinds of threats they make now without being considered to be threatening nuclear war.. and they have no chance whatsoever of being able to meaningfully deter the United States.

They remember when we engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected government in 53 just so the UK could retain control of oil wells. We don't really remember that.[/quote]

In case you hadn't noticed, 1953 was almost 60 years ago now. The Iranian revolution was 32 years ago. This tactic of using past American offenses, real or imagined, as an excuse for the behavior of the nations in question is a tiresome tactic of liberals everywhere; it's hilarious to see the libertarians jumping on the bandwagon.

I hate to break it to you, but it is not a matter of being "mean" or "nice". Iran is hostile now because it perceives value in hostility towards America. Excuses like "well in 1953..." are a political sop to their people, and to Europeans that think everything is America's fault.



That's all well and good, but while "looking at our foriegn policy to understand why they did it" is fine, that does not mean we should change our foreign policy to something that would make Al Quaeda stop.. because short of forcibly converting America to a Muslim nation it's not going to happen.



And you don't think getting other nations to make the decisions we want is thinking about the U.S.? What would be? Just saying "Do whatever the **** you want; we don't care what the implications for us are?"



Yes, and at the same time he spent enough on the military that they could not keep up. Talking would have gotten nowhere without the economic pressure of trying to maintain enough of a numerical advantage over NATO to counter the new generation of equipment appearing, both tactical and strategic.

This idea that we can "stop making enemies" is an utter farce. It:

A) assumes that other countries or people are enemies ONLY because of American action, and simple appeasement will win them to our friendship; it totally ignores anger with America for things we are unwilling to change such as our religious freedom, or using past American actions as an excuse for their present problems or to deflect attention from their own government
B) Assumes that avoiding having enemies is always more important than other considerations. In point of fact, some enemies are worth having. The cost of making friends of them is simply not worth it.
C) grants other nations a de facto veto over our policies. If the centerpiece of forieng policy is "not making enemies", any nation can pressure us just by acting more belligerent.

Ron Paul is living in a fantasy world. America is the third largest nation in terms of both population and physical dimensions, has 2 states and other posessions that are far more exposed than the contiguous 48 states, and because of its economic significance, requires trade and supplies of strategic minerals to maintain societal function and economic success. If it were just a matter of "let's stop nation-building and getting involved in every pissant local dispute" that would make sense, but the bottom line is that he;s not willing to go **** somebody up if it's in our best interests to **** them up.

Ron Paul does not need to be anywhere near anything remotely involving foreign policy. Some of his domestic ideas are great, but his whackaloon ideas about the rest of the world mean I'll never vote for him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."