suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Do Paul supporters think he can siphon off the "middle independants"?

Those who oppose the wars and hate the Far Right social stances, but are extremely conservative when it comes to fiscal ones?

I think so.

It really is interesting that a 10 minute conversation with people about Paul gets them intruiged. Anecdotally, I know of 3 President Obama voters from 2008 who are in full support of Paul in 2012.

I think he has the best chance of any candidate in the R field

I am curious how big of a bloc the Ron Paul voters really is in the Republican party or whether they are just part of the party because Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He seems to have a pretty big cult of personality (not meant as an insult) in that his voters really would only vote for him so if they put Romney up his voters would stay home or vote 3rd party and I don't know if that would necessarily spark a civil war or any more of a civil war than the Tea Party/Far Right vs the Establishment is having right now. If Paul wins early it will kill the Tea Party at least for this primary cycle because pretty much every not-Romney is relying on a win in Iowa to have a shot.

I will sit at home. I think the current President has been a failure, but would not vote for any of the other losers against him. I simply can't vote for him considering what he has done, and what he hasn't done, and really what he has come to represent.

I have no interest in the GOP at this point. With that said, I have even less interest in the Democratic Party

---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 11:50 AM ----------

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-will-take-gloves-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa/264111

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value.

If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like "Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa"). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.

Click link for rest

[ncr2h]

I am curious how big of a bloc the Ron Paul voters really is in the Republican party or whether they are just part of the party because Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He seems to have a pretty big cult of personality (not meant as an insult) in that his voters really would only vote for him so if they put Romney up his voters would stay home or vote 3rd party and I don't know if that would necessarily spark a civil war or any more of a civil war than the Tea Party/Far Right vs the Establishment is having right now. If Paul wins early it will kill the Tea Party at least for this primary cycle because pretty much every not-Romney is relying on a win in Iowa to have a shot.

I don't get what you mean "kill the tea party". A Ron Paul win is a win for the Tea Party, period. Tea Party is a diverse group, but some things I think they can all agree on:

- suspicion of Washington insiders, lobbyists, and crony capitalism bankrupting our country

- we need to cut spending, balance the budget

These 2 points manifest themselves in a nearly universal opposition to Obamacare and TARP. While every single republican candidate agrees that Obamacare needs to go, every single republican candidate besides Ron Paul supported TARP. When the **** hit the fan, they ALL gave into the propaganda and fear-mongering...except Paul. Furthermore, Paul is as anti-establishment as it comes. Paul, IMO, most closely embodies the ideals that supposedly brought the Tea Party together. I have no idea why tea partiers are apparently supporting Gingrich, Romney, etc. when these two guys are huge crony capitalists and their plans won't balance the budget for an entire decade whereas Paul's balances it in year 3.

[jpyaks3]

I don't get what you mean "kill the tea party". A Ron Paul win is a win for the Tea Party, period. Tea Party is a diverse group, but some things I think they can all agree on:

- suspicion of Washington insiders, lobbyists, and crony capitalism bankrupting our country

- we need to cut spending, balance the budget

These 2 points manifest themselves in a nearly universal opposition to Obamacare and TARP. While every single republican candidate agrees that Obamacare needs to go, every single republican candidate besides Ron Paul supported TARP. When the **** hit the fan, they ALL gave into the propaganda and fear-mongering...except Paul. Furthermore, Paul is as anti-establishment as it comes. Paul, IMO, most closely embodies the ideals that supposedly brought the Tea Party together. I have no idea why tea partiers are apparently supporting Gingrich, Romney, etc. when these two guys are huge crony capitalists and their plans won't balance the budget for an entire decade whereas Paul's balances it in year 3.

If you think the Tea Party is the same one that Ron Paul was a part of in 2007/2008 then you missed the last 3 years. The Tea Party is the far right/extremist part of the Republican Party right now. That is why they support Gingrich and all those other people that have nothing to do with the original message of the Tea Party. I am referring to the far right current form of the Tea Party not the libertarian minded one which will probably get a boost if Ron Paul starts winning some primaries.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I don't get what you mean "kill the tea party". A Ron Paul win is a win for the Tea Party, period. Tea Party is a diverse group, but some things I think they can all agree on:

- suspicion of Washington insiders, lobbyists, and crony capitalism bankrupting our country

- we need to cut spending, balance the budget

These 2 points manifest themselves in a nearly universal opposition to Obamacare and TARP. While every single republican candidate agrees that Obamacare needs to go, every single republican candidate besides Ron Paul supported TARP. When the **** hit the fan, they ALL gave into the propaganda and fear-mongering...except Paul. Furthermore, Paul is as anti-establishment as it comes. Paul, IMO, most closely embodies the ideals that supposedly brought the Tea Party together. I have no idea why tea partiers are apparently supporting Gingrich, Romney, etc. when these two guys are huge crony capitalists and their plans won't balance the budget for an entire decade whereas Paul's balances it in year 3.

The tea party of Feb 2009 was copted and turned into the neocon/socon tea party by the end of 2009

[Dan T.]

Do Paul supporters think he can siphon off the "middle independants"?

Those who oppose the wars and hate the Far Right social stances, but are extremely conservative when it comes to fiscal ones?

I heard about a poll of Republicans who backed specific candidates, asking who their second choice would be. The percentages for Ron Paul as a second choice were way down, showing that he has a lot of work to do to garner support beyond his core backers.

I'll see if I can find it and post.

[SnyderShrugged]

I just find it interesting that people will handwave away a decades worth of racist newspapers written in his name, which he defended in 1996 (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749), only later backing away from, and the fact that he continues to make comments like the one I quoted simply because he wants to end the war on drugs and his policies may benefit some minority communities (although a lot of his other policies will harm them greatly). I mean he also opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act which undeniably would have hurt minorities. Now I have no idea if he is a racist or not but I don't think its as easy to dismiss as some are doing by saying it was a long time ago or he says he didn't write them.

again, just show me one racist action that he committed with evidence.

[jpyaks3]

again, just show me one racist action that he committed with evidence.

Can you define a racist action, I mean what would you say would constitute a racist action?

Once again he may not be racist but you are handwaving away a decade of racist newsletters (which he defended or at the least refused to back away from in 1996) and a quote from the past Presidential campaign.

For the record I have no idea if he is racist but he seems to have said at least a few racist things and he published and profited from a newsletter in his name that made some very racist comments.

[SnyderShrugged]

Can you define a racist action, I mean what would you say would constitute a racist action?

Once again he may not be racist but you are handwaving away a decade of racist newsletters (which he defended or at the least refused to back away from in 1996) and a quote from the past Presidential campaign.

Nope, not handwaving away at all, I just have never seen a single act of racism and numerous statements from minorities on his relationships with them and knowing his thoughts on individualism, I know for a fact that he isnt racist.

[sjinhan]

Well when you combine that with comments like this from last election cycle you have to wonder.....

http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/

well lets actually show a larger portion of the article by salon.com

In the Speaker’s Lobby, Paul describes the federal airline security system as an extra-constitutional affront to civil liberties, and thinks security should be handled by the private sector. Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”

This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Under a section headlined “Terrorist Update,” the following sentence ran, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

These quotations became an issue during Paul’s 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. “They just weren’t my words,” he tells me. “They got in because I wasn’t always there. I didn’t have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn’t have been.”

If you actually hear what Ron Paul has to say in all of his interviews on the topic of racism or equality... how can one be convinced that Ron Paul is a racist?

[Predicto]

If you actually hear what Ron Paul has to say in all of his interviews on the topic of racism or equality... how can one be convinced that Ron Paul is a racist?

Ron Paul is not a racist.

What you are seeing is the evolution of the libertarian movement. Libertarianism is now mainstream, and your typical stereotype libertarian now is a young successful internet geek.

20 years ago, this was not the case. Back then, libertarianism was a fringe movement, and it attracted (almost) exclusively fringe-y people. Survivalists, militia gun nuts, sovereign citizens, Confederacy apologists, anti-immigrant groups, black helicopter Alex Jones types - these were the core of the libertarian movement in 1992. Those were the people Ron Paul had to appeal to, to get money from, if he wanted to get his ideas heard, and they are ideas which he genuinely believed in. So he did what he had to do with that newsletter and his other outreach to fringe groups back then.

Now that his message has gone mainstream, he understandably wants to leave those people behind. I don't know if he will be able to do so.

[twa]

Is a internet geek a improvement?

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul is not a racist.

What you are seeing is the evolution of the libertarian movement. Libertarianism is now mainstream, and your typical stereotype libertarian now is a young successful internet geek.

20 years ago, this was not the case. Back then, libertarianism was a fringe movement, and it attracted (almost) exclusively fringe-y people. Survivalists, militia gun nuts, sovereign citizens, Confederacy apologists, anti-immigrant groups, black helicopter Alex Jones types - these were the core of the libertarian movement in 1992. Those were the people Ron Paul had to appeal to, to get money from, if he wanted to get his ideas heard, and they are ideas which he genuinely believed in. So he did what he had to do with that newsletter and his other outreach to fringe groups back then.

Now that his message has gone mainstream, he understandably wants to leave those people behind. I don't know if he will be able to do so.

very well thought out post! I agree!

---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 04:24 PM ----------

Can you define a racist action, I mean what would you say would constitute a racist action?

Once again he may not be racist but you are handwaving away a decade of racist newsletters (which he defended or at the least refused to back away from in 1996) and a quote from the past Presidential campaign.

For the record I have no idea if he is racist but he seems to have said at least a few racist things and he published and profited from a newsletter in his name that made some very racist comments.

A racist action to me, would be an action that is performed with the sole intent to harm or demean members of a particular race simply because of their race.

Paul has never shown evidence of doing this in a very long history of public life. He has said this (or some form of this) multiple times over the years.

" “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. … n a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

[PokerPacker]

Is a internet geek a improvement?

You tell me, Mr. Thousands-of-posts-on-an-internet-message-board

[grhqofb5]

Damn, this **** make me wonder whether George H. Bush is still lucid enough to run.

[SnyderShrugged]

Damn, this **** make me wonder whether George H. Bush is still lucid enough to run.

LOL, why?

[twa]

You tell me, Mr. Thousands-of-posts-on-an-internet-message-board

I was just wondering if I was moving up in the world from my fringe-y people. Survivalists, militia gun nuts, sovereign citizens, Confederacy apologists, anti-immigrant groups days

Or is it just a lateral move?

[Jumbo]

I was just wondering if I was moving up in the world from my fringe-y people. Survivalists, militia gun nuts, sovereign citizens, Confederacy apologists, anti-immigrant groups days. Or is it just a lateral move?I

I think as long as you're up with Texas, it's all a subterranean move.

[grhqofb5]

LOL, why?

In general, as a middle of the road conservative, I'm having a difficult time getting behind any republican candidate.

[twa]

Isn't your ice floe missing you?

---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 04:35 PM ----------

In general, as a middle of the road conservative, I'm having a difficult time getting behind any republican candidate.

Huntsman is similar to W

[Jumbo]

Isn't your ice floe missing you?

I called her Flo. She'd just melt in my arms. But, in the end, she just drifted away.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Ron Paul is not a racist.

What you are seeing is the evolution of the libertarian movement. Libertarianism is now mainstream, and your typical stereotype libertarian now is a young successful internet geek.

20 years ago, this was not the case. Back then, libertarianism was a fringe movement, and it attracted (almost) exclusively fringe-y people. Survivalists, militia gun nuts, sovereign citizens, Confederacy apologists, anti-immigrant groups, black helicopter Alex Jones types - these were the core of the libertarian movement in 1992. Those were the people Ron Paul had to appeal to, to get money from, if he wanted to get his ideas heard, and they are ideas which he genuinely believed in. So he did what he had to do with that newsletter and his other outreach to fringe groups back then.

Now that his message has gone mainstream, he understandably wants to leave those people behind. I don't know if he will be able to do so.

As much as I love Ron Paul, this is an excuse, and a bad one at that. Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell made a conscious political decision in the 80s and 90s to race-bait, and appeal to the bigotry and ignorance of the "Angry White Man" in an effort to find a constituency for their movement (this is a decade and a half after Rothbard was pitching his message to the ****ing SDS during Vietnam btw, while writing effusive praise for the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panthers). Rothbard is a great economist but he's also a ****ing slimeball who has probably done more to hurt the libertarian movement than to help it (and this is keeping in mind he founded both the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute!) by trying to co-opt every mass movement he came across and looking like a fool in the process. They had a support base among the kind of people you see who favor libertarianism today - young, geeky, college educated, techno-savvy, etc. But Rothbard and co consciously decided that social AND economic liberalism was a losing strategy (which was another bad bet by Murray - social conservatism is pretty much dead in 2011- a majority of young evangelical Christians support gay marriage).

Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell have become Ron Paul's Jeremiah Wright , and Ron Paul will have to answer for it.

[twa]

You have a link to a poll on the young evangelicals bit?

another poll out with Paul leading IA

http://iowacaucus.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-new-frontrunner-in-remarkably-fluid-iowa-caucus-race-isugazettekcrg-poll/

[visionary]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-testy-during-interview/

Ron Paul gets testy during interview

I wonder how Paul will hold up under the scrutiny of the national spotlight now.

He hasn't really been pressed on a lot of stuff yet because he was mostly ignored, and it will be very interesting to see how he reacts to some tougher questions.

[CurseReversed]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-testy-during-interview/

I wonder how Paul will hold up under the scrutiny of the national spotlight now.

He hasn't really been pressed on a lot of stuff yet because he was mostly ignored, and it will be very interesting to see how he reacts to some tougher questions.

All he does is get pressed. They twist his views to the worst possible hypothetical scenario and present this as his position, over and over again, in almost every interview, this is the game plan.

The problem is, there is really not that much to press him on. It almost always turns against the interviewer when he explains in a million different ways why they are incorrect and he is not.

But they still get their soundbites and by phrasing their questions in that way, they are able to manipulate the opinions of the vast majority of people who really arent paying that close of attention.

Watch this interview. This is how they do it.

[visionary]

At some point Ron Paul supporters will have to learn to not get upset every time he gets questioned and live with the same kind of scrutiny the other candidates get.

This stuff is no worse than any of the others have gotten. The press from both sides tore up Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and the rest as well.