Today on Blogcritics
Home » Can Ron Paul Win New Hampshire?

Can Ron Paul Win New Hampshire?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A lot of folks are pinning their hopes for a great renewal in American politics on Ron Paul and his ‘revolution.’ Pollsters and pundits don’t give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination, despite the unquenchable enthusiasm of his supporters. Their optimism tells them that all the polls and predictions are wrong and that Paul will surprise the world and come from nowhere and win primary after primary and seize the nomination by storm, and then be unbeatable with bipartisan support in the general election. Sure it’s mostly pure fantasy, but it’s a seductively appealing fantasy.

There’s no question that the Paul campaign has offered some surprises. Their fundraising accomplishments are impressive, with a record setting one-day total for their ‘Tea Party’ event on December 16th, and their overall fundraising has been surprisingly strong — not on the level of the top three contenders, but far beyond the other 2nd tier candidates. With momentum building they might have as much to spend in the first quarter of the new year as most of the top candidates, having already almost reached a fundraising target for this quarter of $20 million. They’ve also got a very nice blimp.

Nonetheless, whether they have the manpower or financial resources to pull off a shocking primary coup seems doubtful, with one possible exception. I wouldn’t hold out much hope for the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, though some polls have Paul at a surprisingly respectable 10%. If Paul is going to pull off a surprise in any of the key early primaries, I think it might be possible in New Hampshire less than a week later on the 8th.

The Iowa Caucus is tightly controlled by the party and crossover Democrats and independents won’t get a chance to vote unless they planned for it in advance. Since they form a lot of Paul’s base, his chances of doing better than 4th in Iowa are pretty slim. In contrast, New Hampshire is holding a real primary, and their voters are probably more receptive to Paul’s libertarian message than voters in any other state in the union.

Particularly significant is that New Hampshire has been the target of the Free State Project which has been recuiting libertarians to move to the state and stage a gradual political takeover. Their goal is to build up a critical mass of libertarian voters and get candidates elected to local, state and national offices. They have over 8000 members right now, though only a fraction have actually moved to New Hampshire. They form a nucleus of voters and activists who are overwhelmingly likely to support Paul. Of course, the reason they’re moving there is even more significant. They picked New hampshire because it’s a state which already has a very strongly libertarian-leaning population and because of the political prominence it gains from its early primary date.

Libertarians usually do well in New Hampshire elections. There are currently 9 elected Libertarian Party members in the state, and in the past there have been a lot more, including 4 state representatives. Perhaps more significantly, libertarian leaning Republicans do very well there, holding a number of seats in the state house, and led by US Senator John Sununu who regularly scores as one of the 10 most libertarian-leaning national legislators and actually scored even higher than Ron Paul in 2004 on the Liberty Index of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Senator Judd Gregg also scores well as a libertarian Republican. Paul ought to fit right in.

Paul’s supporters tend to dismiss the polls, but they are the one thing whcih seems to be going against him. Despite the clear potential for success in New Hampshire, most of the polls don’t show him doing terribly well there. Recent polls have him somewhere between 4% and 9%, behind Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee who just barely edges him out. His numbers have been rising steadily, but so have Huckabee’s and Romney’s. Polls don’t mean everything and they have sometimes been dramatically wrong, but with the primary just over a week away, it would be nice if there were some sign of a Paul surge.

With the combination of money, momentum, enthusiastic support and the right audience in the right state, Ron Paul stands a real chance to stage an upset in New Hampshire. I think it’s possible for him to win, though it’s still a longshot. If his $20 million suddenly turned into a really clever one-week advertising campaign that absolutely saturates the state, then a miracle could happen and he could win.

Even if he doesn’t blow his whole warchest in New Hampshire, Paul really ought to be able to mobilize more votes than the polls are suggesting. I don’t think it would be at all surprising to see him beat Huckabee and Giuliani who are only a few points ahead of him. A third place showing based mostly on grassroots support and little spending would be respectable, but it’s really not sufficient.

As a ‘dark horse’ candidate, Paul really needs to pull off a surprise win in New Hampshire and it’s the one state in the early primary process where he can potentially do it. He ought to spend every cent he has and turn out every supporter he can to win the state. Never mind that it will leave his warchest empty. If he wins New Hampshire there will be plenty of new money flooding into his campaign from all over the nation as those who have been reluctant to take him seriously come on board and start to contribute.

If Ron Paul wins anything at all, it’s going to start with New Hampshire. There’s no more fertile ground for his libertarian message. Conversely, if he doesn’t win New Hampshire he’s certainly not going to win anywhere else either, and that’s the real peril.

Anything less than 2nd place in New Hampshire won’t be startling enough to promote him to the status of top contender, and even getting second might not be enough. The way the primaries are structured there aren’t really any other good opportunities for Paul to pull off that kind of surprise win, and none of the other early primary states except for maybe South Carolina are particularly friendly to Paul’s message. If Paul doesn’t make the top three in New Hampshire then it might be time to drop out, or mend fences and start campaigning for Vice President.

A win in New Hampshire might lead to an endorsement from libertarian-leaning South Carolina governor Mark Sanford which could add more momentum and result in a second primary win in South Carolina. Two early primary wins would give Paul enough legitimacy to also win other liberal or libertarian oriented states like California, Texas and Arizona. If he wins those three states then he actually is a real contender and would enter the convention with at least a quarter of the delegates, and no one would be laughing at him, that’s for sure. It would certainly make for one hell of a Republican convention if nothing else.

So yes, I do think there’s a small but real chance of Ron Paul winning the Republican primary in New Hampshire. If that does happen, then all bets are off and it could lead almost anywhere, even to the White House. I may be crossing my fingers and hoping, but I won’t be holding my breath. It’s still a long shot.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://theglenblog.blogspot.com Glen Boyd

    I predict a 3rd Party Ron Paul candidacy in the fall. Theweirdest thing about that prospect is that he will probably siphon just as many Democratic votes as he does Republican.

    -Glen

  • Andrew

    Lets leave it at this (ya, not likely). We Ron Paul supporters have been working very hard to get the word out on our candidate. They peg their opinions on polls conducted by smart people that make a lot of money commenting on the system. We peg our views on the platform and the reaction we see to it on the ground. Who knows who is right at this point. We have a lot to gain; they have a lot to lose.

    Hopefully in a few days we will find out where we all stand.

  • Johnny

    You forgot to mention last poll I saw of independents had him at 26% with them, and he surely has almost all the libertarians. The minute men in Iowa are now backing him after Tancredo left…..keep the faith, restore the republic.

  • Lamar

    Your analysis seems plausible, but then you say the time would come to mend fences and start running for vice president, and it makes me think you don’t really understand the candidate or the movement behind him. If he has enough motivated people to turn out, do the pundits begin seeing the picture, or is it possible for a candidate to win completely outside the old media? The punditocracy seems unable to grasp the Ron Paul R3volution. Does it matter?

  • Gene

    “Pollsters and pundits don’t give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination”

    Feel free to notify your readers when you’ve come across a prediction by pollster and pundits that turned out to be accurate.

  • Scott

    We tend to dismiss the poll because they tend to be so inaccurate especially in todays polling environment where many polling groups are acting like attourneys trying to pick a favorable jury to affect the outcome. Another thing that most media and journalists are ignoring are the results of straw polls and after debate polls which have in the past tended to be more accurate. So my prediction is that Ron Paul gets 3rd in Iowa (closer to 2nd than 4th) and takes NH by a landslide. If you like to laugh at Fox news occassionally like I do, then watch the spin go full blown after the NH primary. They’ll have to medicate Hannity and he’ll still be out of control.

  • http://www.myspace.com/screwthebastards Sam Marsh

    No other receptive early primary states? Nevada, anyone?

  • Silver Surfer

    Can Ron Paul win in New Hampshire?

    A: No.

  • Gordon

    What’s with all the Hillary pictures on this web page?
    No one can stop Ron Paul from winning even though the secret government already has their plans laid out.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I predict a 3rd Party Ron Paul candidacy in the fall. Theweirdest thing about that prospect is that he will probably siphon just as many Democratic votes as he does Republican.

    I would hope that he would not get a single Republican vote under that circumstance as it would be a fundamental betrayal and makr him as a blatant liar and hypocrite, having said specifically that he would not run as an independent.

    They peg their opinions on polls conducted by smart people that make a lot of money commenting on the system.

    No, the pollsters peg their ‘opinions’ on asking actual voters how they are going to vote.

    Dave

  • Steve R

    On another blog someone aptly compared Ron Paul’s leadership position as being akin to that of Winston Churchill, albeit in a different time place and circumstance.

    Churchill was marginalized and disdained by the rest of the British political establishment because for years he steadily and unwaveringly pointed out what nobody else in the UK wanted to believe.

    They ignored him and scoffed at him right up to the day that he proved to have been correct about the situation all along, at which point they made him their Prime Minister and successfully led Great Britain through the greatest challenge of her history. Just in the nick of time, at the very eleventh hour.

  • Silver Surfer

    Favourably comparing Ron Paul to Winston Churchill – what a disgrace to Churchill’s memory. I’m sure Paul would be flattered by the comparison, if not slighty taken aback

    While Churchill was certainly marginalised to a certain extent by an elderley, well-meaning “liberal-ish” establishment desperate to avoind a reocurrence of the million British and empire dead of the Great War, he also believed Britain should wake up to the fact that Germany was on the move and be on its guard. By the time he got into power, it was almost too late as the British maintained a very small professional army, and a Royal Air Force that was only just being brought up to readiness by two quirks of fate: the development of two of the best monoplane fighters of the day and radar.

    It’s ony real protection at that point against sabre-rattling Nazi/Prussian expanionism was the Royal Navy.

    Churchill was proved right: as he knew she would, Nazi Germany lit the fuse of the bloodiest, most horrific conflict the world has seen. That, and Chamerlain’s downfall (I’d see Paul more as a Neville Chamerlain-type figure: “Peace in Our Time” – oops) were the real reasons for his rise to power. People suddenly understood after the invasion of Czechoslovakia that Churchill had been right all along. That’s oversimplified, of course, but it’s pretty close to how it was.

    Churchill also spent much of his time enlisting American help and aid for the first three years of the war before America’s entry by forming a great friendship with FDR. Both men knew the inevitability of their cause. Indeed, Churchill’s force of will and FDR’s support turned Britain into the fortress of democracy from which Nazi filfth was ultimately to be booted from the continent of europe and dumped into the garbage bin of history, where it belonged.

    Paul, meanwhile, advocates the opposite tack – wants the US to stick its head in the sand like a dopey ostrich and further isloate America.

    To compare such a great man to Ron Paul, who I’m sure is a decent fellow, is, really, an absolute travesty.

    Not to mention a delusion and a mistake of epic proportions.

  • Liberty Belle

    The spam-proof AOL poll shows Dr. Paul winning in all but four of the fifty states. His chances are much better than people think, because his supporters are motivated enough to vote in the primaries, no matter what.

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    Many rant that Ron Paul is not a Republican and should run as a Third Party candidate. It appears that Ron Paul is far closer to the traditional Republican Party then the leftist neo-con who call themselves republicans.

    This is an excerpt from the 1952 Republican Party Platform…who does it sound like?

    “We maintain that man was not born to be ruled, but that he consented to be governed; and that the reasons that moved him thereto are few and simple. He has voluntarily submitted to government because, only by the establishment of just laws, and the power to enforce those laws, can an orderly life be maintained, full and equal opportunity for all be established, and the blessings of liberty be perpetuated.

    We hold that government, and those entrusted with government, should set a high example of honesty, of justice, and unselfish devotion to the public good; that they should labor to maintain tranquility at home and peace and friendship with all the nations of the earth.”

    Now, despite the irrational, and usually baseless rants from the detractors of Ron Paul, his knowledge and experience is broad. Particularly when it comes to domestic monetary policy and foreign policy. We should never confuse the ability to get legislation passed in Congress with effectiveness; if you have ever been to Congress or followed its proceedings then you will recognize that the ability to get legislation passed tends to fall on your ability to sell this country to the highest bidder and its is usually not in the best interests of this country or its people.

    Concerning the actual support that Ron Paul has garnered, consider this fact. It is estimated the 1 out of 100 supporters will actually donate to a candidates campaign. In the last quarter alone Ron Paul had over 125,000 individual donations; according to those calculations that translates into over 12 million supporters. Now add the other individual donors from the last two quarters and you are look at upwards of 30 million vocal supporters. Consider this fact as well, the “scientific polls” poll a miniscule number of likely voters, actually between 0.01% and 0.02%. That is an extremely small cross-section to retrieve reliable data on which to bank on in an election. Recently, AOL touted a spam-proof straw poll with over 200,000 people participating and over 30% voted for Ron Paul. Ron Paul support is expressing itself through the medium of the internet however, what is overlooked is that the internet is now in 80% of American Households and that is proving a substantial base.

    Now consider “turn-out” at any given live straw poll event, Ron Paul’s supporter turn-out is 50% whereas, for instance Mike Huckabee’s is 1% turn-out and the other candidates fall somewhere between. “Turn-out” may pose a major factor in every single primary and if there is a continued consistency as in every other poll format based on a larger cross-section than the scientific polls, the results will probably surprise everyone, including Ron Paul. Now if you take the live straw polls and use the same average equations used by the scientific polls there is a translation into a nationwide percentage of 33.02% support for Ron Paul.

    Another factor that I have been following is Republican Voter Registration, the Ron Paul campaign has strongly pushed the voter registration issue it is up, in some cases it is up substantially. In my state Republican Registration is up by 40% over the election of 2004.

    As someone who has lived through the administrations of 11 presidents, I have numerous friends in both parties and one of the things that has impressed me is how many of my Democratic friends who have switched party affiliation even though they have sworn for decades that they would never vote for a Republican, but next year they are voting for a Republican and that Republican is Ron Paul!

    You can discount the campaign for Ron Paul if you like, but in all my years I have seen elections results that took the pundits by surprise and put men in the White House who were considered losers by everyone but the voters.

  • Silver Surfer

    Bollocks

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    Silver Surfer…..
    Considering the limitations of interventionism, I think that Ron Paul clearly states that we need to seriously consider the possible repercussions of such interventions. In fact, it is easy to see, if we are look beyond the propaganda of the state, that our interventions have caused us a great deal of trouble over the years. The problem with covert activities is that you never know what auxiliary problems and issues they create due to the fact that, by the very nature, they are covert and for decades we have blindly placed our faith in the Intel community to do everything in our own best interest when that might not be the case.

    If anyone considers the actions we have taken over the past 50 years have promoted peace then they should take a second look at the results of those actions. I don’t think Ron Paul has stated that we should limit our foreign relations because extremists hate us, just the opposite; they hate us because of our foreign relations and policies. Between the various factions we support on all sides of a conflict and the types of various interventions, there must be some accountability and yet there has been none. Ron Paul has stated that we have created many of our own problems, by the way so has many of the various intelligence agencies and military strategist. Just look at the world we have created for ourselves, it didn’t just happen this way there are very definite causes and effects.

    For instance, a particular type of intervention, which still haunts us today, used by the CIA, was pushing an extremely radicalized Islamic ideology among the population of Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s. This was not only used with the adult population, but the CIA also insured that generations to come would be radicalized through providing Islamic schools with textbooks which brought extremist ideology to children in the region, it worked. Between 1984 and 1994, the University of Nebraska, funded by United States Agency for International Development [USAID], produced some of the most disturbing textbooks for radicalizing Afghan children. Of course, millions of these textbooks not only found their way into the hands of Afghan children, but also were exported into Pakistan and other areas in the region; they are still being used today to indoctrinate students with extremists’ ideology that consist of hatred of non-Muslims, and Islamic liberation through terrorism.

    Between 1985 and 1989, Osama bin Laden’s MAK opened branches in over 30 U.S. Cities with the assistance of his mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. Azzam made several trips to the U.S. and other countries to organize the MAK branches. With the knowledge of the U.S. Government and support from the CIA, the MAK branches raised millions of dollars from Muslim-Americans. Bin Laden assumes power over the MAK after Azzam is assassinated in car bombing. MAK, through bin Laden’s guidance is transformed into al-Qaeda and the branch offices continue to funnel money into the network right under the nose of the U.S. Government. ?? At the same time, the CIA, MI6 and the ISI launch guerrilla attack into the Soviet territories of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Targets include civilian factories, storage warehouses, and military installations. The CIA supplies the ISI with extremist Islamic literature and Korans to import into the Soviet territories to foment Islamic uprisings and destabilize the region. ?? Between 1986 and 1992, William Casey backed a plan to recruit Islamic extremists from around the world to fight in the Mujahideen Jihad and over 100,000 Islamic militant terrorists are trained in camps under the direct oversight of the CIA and MI6. The MAK [al-Qaeda] terrorists and future Taliban fighters are trained by British Special Forces units and become experts in bomb making, weapons, and guerrilla tactics. The leaders of the groups receive special training at a CIA camp in Virginia.

    Between 1986 and 1992, William Casey backed a plan to recruit Islamic extremists from around the world to fight in the Mujahideen Jihad and over 100,000 Islamic militant terrorists are trained in camps under the direct oversight of the CIA and MI6. The MAK [al-Qaeda] terrorists and future Taliban fighters are trained by British Special Forces units and become experts in bomb making, weapons, and guerrilla tactics. The leaders of the groups receive special training at a CIA camp in Virginia. While the operation was originally intended to defeat the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, it was continued for several years after the Soviet withdrawal. Jane’s Defense Weekly stated that not only did ISI operatives work directly with al-Qaeda, but also got direct assistance from “American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various U.S. training establishments.” Jane’s also reports that “with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda: (the Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries, but meantime Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.”

    Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State under the Reagan Administration, later said with regret: “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were gone, [the U.S. funded and trained terrorists] were looking around for other targets, and Osama bin Laden has settled on the United States as a source of all evil. Irony? Irony is all over the place.” President George H.W. Bush was told by the future deposed President of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto: “ You are creating a Frankenstein!” Indeed, we did just that and as one diplomat notes, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.”

    Now tell me that any of that makes sense when we are trying to protect ourselves from a potential enemy? I am sure that “Statist apologists” will say that we were fighting the Soviet Union and anything was permissible, but in the CIA’s on estimation the Soviet Union was little more than a paper tiger and the threat was more political expediency then actual. The “state” will always manufacture a threat if one doesn’t actually exist; if we don’t realize that then we are only fooling ourselves.

    From what I have read of Ron Paul he calls for a rational foreign policy while maintaining a strong, but practical defense. Currently, we have military bases in over 150 countries and the fact is that we simply can no longer afford to be the world’s police. That fact is becoming self-evident as this fading empire approaches the end of its ability to press the world into compliance with its wishes.

    We are looking at the result of decades of haphazard policies, rashly ill conceived and poorly executed military adventures which have done more harm than good and in the process they have endangered this nation and its people. As I have stated before on this forum: Peace is the Enemy of the State. Without war the State cannot procure its desired control and social maintenance of the population. The Warfare State is a wasteful ideology that stifles Liberty, restricts the Rights of the Citizen and drains the nation of it potential. Such ideologies have always failed in the past and usually at the expense of the general welfare of the Citizens of a nation. We are only hastening the day when disaster strikes again.

    During the entire period of this so-called “War on Terror” we have remained basically undefended with open borders, porous ports and policies and procedures that border on the ridiculous. Had this been a serious issue of national security there would be rational policies that were directed more toward actually securing this nation against attack instead of merely complicating the process of defense into an untenable monstrosity of bureaucratic incompetence.

    When we consider that the measures of the Patriot Act were written long before the attacks of 9/11, should it not make anyone wonder about the pretext of the attack? Indeed, the Taliban’s fate was sealed long before 9/11 when they reneged on the UNOCAL pipeline deal with the U.S. Oil Barons. Is it any wonders why we have not captured Osama in the remotest parts of Pakistan… imagine a six foot-seven inch Arab who must have kidney dialysis on a regular basis just to remain alive…and we can’t find him, perhaps the government really doesn’t want to find him.

    As a footnote to the events of 9/11, it is important to understand what the government desires were prior to 9/11. This desire can be easily seen in the writings of Brezinski: He states Eurasia is vital to the strategic interest of the U.S. and Central Asia is the key to dominating that region, particularly with its large oil reserves. He also gives a picture of the motive behind everything that points to 9/11: that in order for the U.S. to maintain its global supremacy, it must prevent, at any cost, a possible adversary from controlling that region. He gives an almost chilling prophecy of the future when he states: “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” He goes on to predict that such an ambitious strategy in Central Asia cannot be implemented “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” Of course, that has happened!

    Perhaps, since our policies have been a dismal failure for decades that it is time to change not only the way we think, but also the way we act. From what I have read, Ron Paul has extensive knowledge of the foreign policy issues we face and the potential danger posed by such policies. He is far from being an Isolationist and would provide, finally, a logical and rational approach to not only our foreign policy, but social and economic policies as well.

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    In terms of the “war on terror”, there seems to be a failure of understanding this enemy, understanding his reasonings, his motivations. There are several informative books, difficult to get, but well worth the hunt if you are lucky to find them. One was written by Abdallah Azzam, founder of Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK-which would come to be known as al Qaeda), the book is indispensable in understanding this enemy: “The Main Obligation of Muslims is to Defend the Land of Islam”. Osama bin Laden was extremely influenced by Azzam and his book, however, it appears that it has rarely been read by many Westerners, especially those who are attempting to wage this “war on terror”. If they had read it then they would know several things about this enemy, the first is that “he” is driven by a devout, one could say fanatical connection with Islamic territory and Islamic “holy places”.

    The second is that they view many of the current regimes in the region as de facto supporters of U.S. policies in the region because they have allowed the U.S. to establish bases on what they consider holy ground.
    Of course, it did not help the entire situation that the U.S. government allowed over 30 MAK branches to operate under their noses for years, collecting millions of dollars in donations from the American Muslim community during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

    Now, if we actually look at a time-line of when the ultra-radicalization and indeed the beginning of attacks against U.S. targets, we will find that there is a very direct correlation between our introduction of troops stationed in and around the Arabian peninsula and those attacks. Yes, there were sporadic attacks prior to this period, but primarily by those who had Palestinian connections. If you recall, the majority of the Arab world was pleased that we intervened in the case of Kuwait however, it was that intervention that opened the door for the U.S. to pursue a very different policy in the region. That policy, perhaps all along, was to establish a strong presence in the region and in Central Asia.

    Whatever the reasons behind the implementation of that policy it consolidated several factions of Islamic fundamentalists who had felt completely powerless against everyone from the Soviets in Afghanistan, to Israel, to the U.S., into a force with a common goal, a common focus and a common enemy. That enemy was none other then the most conspicuous threat to Islam that they saw: The United States of America.

    The U.S. policy that engaged the establishment of those bases in the region not only provided a focal point for decades of rage, but it became the collective focus of Islamic hatred. While there was a definite push toward radicalization due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was the establishment of U.S. military bases that actually provided the radicals with the impetus to form and execute their radical ideals in the region and then around the world. At one time, the Mujahidin movement was relatively restricted to Afghanistan, but soon, with the new focus of perceived U.S. aggression in the region, that movement spread to Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and now, thanks to our poorly executed invasion: Iraq. It continues to spread because the perceived threat remains.

    Many seem to fail to understand that the core message of the Islamic extremists is that Islam is threatened by the presence and actions of the United States. It probably would surprise many, but according to several Intel reports, and reports from former al Qaeda members, new green recruits are not indoctrinated in the Koran, but their indoctrination involves what they call the Sixth Pillar of Islam, which states that when Islam is threatened and attacked that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to rise to its defense. The destruction of al’Qaeda’s base of operation in Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban only served to fan the flames of the extremist and expand their recruitment methods and reach. We would have done much better to have quietly and surgically taken bin Laden and his cohorts out then to have actually invaded. That would have cut off the head of the snake and then it would have been much easier to contain the radicalization of Islamist in the region.

    Our current Islamophobia blinds us to a very important reality about why they despise the U.S. and why they will continue to attack us. One of the truly amazing things about our current “war on terror” and U.S. intervention is the fact that it is so unfocused and poorly executed. In particular our early actions in Afghanistan proved far less effective then our government publicized and propagandized to the American public.
    Americans do not have the taste or the stomach for extended warfare, we never have. Nor do we tend to have the philosophical or political fortitude to engage an enemy, particularly this enemy, over an extremely prolonged period.

    On the other hand, the enemy we are now engaging is well aware of the requirements of patience and the advantages of playing their agenda over the long haul. Theirs is a philosophy that requires endurance in the face of their enemies and in their patience they strategize accordingly. We falsely assume, thanks to the Bush Administration’s insistence, that since this country has not been attacked since 9/11 that our government’s defense methods are working however, that assumption is based upon highly irrational assessments and miscalculations. Remember, this enemy is very, very patient and chooses his actions based upon a very determined course of action, not, as some portray, emotionalism.

    While the Bush Administration made a point to publicize the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the routing of al Qaeda as a victory, the truth points to a far less decisive outcome. Long before the attacks of 9/11, al Qaeda proceeded to remove all but skeleton encampments from the region, by the time we attacked the country most of the Taliban and al Qaeda had disappeared into the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan and other Central Asian countries. We were told that bin Laden was surely in a tunnel in Tora Bora, unfortunately for the Administration, bin Ladin had, in my opinion, left Afghanistan long before the invasion, probably through Karachi and probably on a private jet belonging to one of the Royal Saudi princes.

    The battles of Tora Bora and Shahi Kowt did nothing but allow the remaining skeleton encampments to slip over the border into Pakistan…our ally in this extremely poorly planned and executed “war on terror”. Such intervention obviously serves a political purpose because it is definitely not serving a military purpose. It is not producing the results that this government claims even though they are outspoken in those claims. In the end, we will see that the results in both Iraq and Afghanistan will not only fail to produce the stated results this government has espoused, but will fail to add any security to this nation and its people.

    Our leadership in this country has one of the most myopic mentalities that I haven’t witnessed since the Johnson Administrations. It appears to be oblivious to the potential results of its actions, both here at home and abroad. Bush lead this country to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, based upon very dubious assumptions and it shows.

    Our actions, based upon those dubious assumptions will eventually cause the complete failure of the Bush goals in both countries. That failure is already becoming very evident in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will, in the end, lose both efforts to the Bush/Cheney myopia. The Bush Administration either dismissed or failed to listen to experienced counsel on the possible effects of not only the invasions, but also occupations of those countries and there was plenty of experienced voices warning that there was a distinct probability of eventual failure. Our intelligence community had almost a decade of direct experience in Afghanistan from running one of the largest covert actions in our country’s history while combating the Soviets, yet the Bush Administration blatantly ignored those with that extensive experience. We are, in essence, making the same mistakes that the Soviets made in Afghanistan, and the same mistakes that the British made in Iraq.

    We have “installed” Westernized and backed governments in both countries and in a very real way we have attempted to install a Westernized culture on both countries in hopes that it would eventually pacify the Muslim populations. It is however, counterintuitive to attempt such actions without understanding the culture itself and this Administration simply continues on the same path that it ignorantly assumes will work.
    Our leaders, who have both misjudged and miscalculated, not only our enemy, but also the effects of our policies around the world and especially in the Middle East and Central Asian countries.

    Many see this “war” as a chess game, with strategic moves and counter-moves. The issue and the problem, for 109 years, has been that this country has played its foreign policy just like a chess game. Unfortunately, in a chess game there is a definite “known”, given moves and strategies designed specifically for those moves; that is not true in international relations or successful foreign policies intent on providing this country with adequate and appropriate security. This country has made what its “wise” leaders consider strategic moves, just like in chess, but those moves have been, for the most part, based upon isolated actions and reactions while not taking into account that such moves always have consequences that can potentially nullify the move or make the move lose its potential value or in a worse case scenario: cost far more than if the move had never been made in the first place.

    This government has been involved in a type of piece-meal strategy based upon an almost purely military arrogance that has prevailed in this country for decades and that strategy is not only severely outdated, but stagnant, extremely conventional and based on assumptions that can no longer be relied upon. At one time our military might was enough to keep, at least in the strange mental world of our government leaders, the rest of the world “in line” with what they considered U.S. interests, but that is no longer the case. First, there is no real definition of our national interests, only a very indistinct and broad definition that inherently creates a large degree of obscuration. On top of all of that, there is a conglomeration of mismatched analysis combined with the pressure of political and special interests that has, particularly in the last 7 years, produced far less reliable information than is required. In many cases, the information has been either willfully ignored or dismissed without proper consideration by those who are the “decision makers” in this government.

    This may sound odd, but in numerous cases this governments preconceptions have, because of certain internal ideologies, colored the policies and actions taken by this government without consideration of the consequences of those actions. In many ways, judged by the decisions of this government, it has deliberately shelved proper policy and action for that which they consider much more suitable for their ideological point of view. This has proved, time and again, disastrous and it is still going on in this government.

    Ron Paul is not advocating a policy that ignores potential threats, but he has stated that it is time that this government put away the shortsighted policies that make this nation a target for any enemy or potential enemy. He has also advocated that this government take a far wiser approach to both foreign policy and our interventions, both covert and overt. He has advocated the necessity of understanding our enemies, their motives and therefore their potential actions based upon those motives. From my reading of Ron Paul, he takes a very sober viewpoint and advocates that this country do the same because if it ignores the provocation of its policies then it will continue to suffer the consequences of those provocations.

    History is filled with polices that we now mimic and unfortunately, the outcome of those historic polices either proved to be militarily disastrous or financially disastrous or both. Most countries that pursued almost identical polices as we now pursue eventually collapsed from external conquest or internal economic and political collapse that lead to external conquest. If we are so arrogant to believe that we are different then the great empires, the great civilization of the past then we are in for a very rude and very hard reality.

    Our leaders have poorly defined its foreign policy and haphazardly pursued a foreign policy that is not based upon actual defense of this country, but upon a view of broadly and extended interests. Until we limit our foreign policy and its actions to a purely defensive base then we can expect even more attacks, more threats and more terrorism.

    It is interesting that we rarely hear that the Jihad proposed by bin Laden is considered defensive in nature, by the tenants of Islam. We have been induced into believing that they are just attacking us because of a non-descript reason relating to our way of life or our freedom, etc. That suggestion is not only based upon a politically induced and propagated fantasy by this Administration, but on the assumption that the American public will wholly accept and swallow such a ridiculous, and I might add, baseless proposition. Until we can face the reality behind the attacks and threats of this “war on terrorism”, then we will continue down the path that has brought more failures over the last 45 or 50 years than successes. It is time to defend, really defend this country for a change.

    Ron Paul has not only been absolutely correct in his assessments about the foreign policy foibles of this government, but has predicted most of the resulting blowback of such policies over the years.

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    I think it is amazing that many people continue to place faith in a foreign policy that has not given us any protection, but has only served to enflame and radicalize the Islamic world against us. This policy follows the same feckless path it has for 109 years and has not produced security, but insecurity.

    This “war on terror”, as it is now executed, extends throughout the Middle East, into Central Asia, Africa and into the Pacific regions. It is without focus and is only serving to prove that it cannot enforce its stated purpose and will end with even less security for this country and its people.

    The claim that we are “fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here” is not only extremely naive, but borders on utter foolishness and neglects the nature of the entire situation that we have, in a very real sense, created by our own actions within the regions of the Middle East and around the world. We cannot defeat the tactic of terror without understanding the reasons behind its use against this country. We have and, it appears, continue to occupy their lands, some of which is considered extremely holy by the adherents of Islam. We are viewed as a real and deadly threat, plain and simply, to their way of life, their resources and their holy places; until we recognize that is the reason for their attacks then we will blindly continue to pursue a policy that will only contribute to our insecurity.

    More and more Muslims are beginning to view our aggression as a war against Islam, not terror and this will only facilitate the extension of the use of terror against this country in the future. Probably 70% of the population of Saudi Arabia now holds the acts of bin Laden in high esteem because they now see him as the only force standing between them and what they see as the aggressive power of the United States. No matter what we seek to do militarily in the region the results will be the same: a continuation and acceleration of attacks against this country and its interests around the world. No good will come of this policy and the interventions it promotes.

    Our military is stretched thin as it is; our economy is on the brink of a major and potentially disastrous dislocation in the very near future. Our current tactics will prove fruitless in the face of this threat as long as we continue to pursue the same interventionist policies in the region. Until the people of that region feel safe and secure in their own land, we will not feel safe and secure in ours. Until they no longer view us as an aggressive threat to them then they will continue to wage an increasingly aggressive war of terror against this country and its people.

    The idea that we can “fight them over there so we won’t have to here” overlooks the most basic and rational foundation of the causes of this conflict and until we regain a sense of ourselves, a sense of what this country means then we will continue to pursue the same path that other failed empires have followed. If we continue with our current policy we can be assured of one thing: we will remain the biggest target in the world and we will see horrendous attacks in our cities and against our people despite all the efforts this government is currently employing.

  • Clavos

    It’s not that I think Ron Paul is a loser; in fact, I agree with many of his Libertarian ideas, but there’s no way I can vote for a man who advocates withdrawing our defense to our own borders. In today’s world, borders are meaningless (as we know from all the “illegals” residing in our country, and as we know from the experience of 9/11); to withdraw to our “borders” and ignore the rest of the world is, IMO, nothing short of national suicide.

    I’m also extremely uncomfortable with Paul’s religious bent (as I am with Huckabee’s). We DO NOT need “god” to run our country.

    And, I don’t see too many Democrats (despite Republicae’s personal anecdotal “evidence”) voting for Paul, either. Most Democrats I know personally, haven’t even heard of him.

  • mccelt

    Louisiana has not been discussed in the runup to Super Tuesday. Louisiana will be holding Republican caucuses on January 22 which will determine how Louisiana’s delegates to the national convention are selected. We have a REAL chance of sweeping in Louisiana. Imagine the momentum! Go tigers! Go Ron Paul!

  • Lumpy

    I’m with SS in summarizing most of these comments as ‘bollocks’. And it’s the same wishful thinking we see from the Paulites over and over.

    And all this talk of Nevada and Louisiana and other primaries is ridiculous. Even New Hampshire may be too late. Paul needs to get at least third in Iowa first and I just don’t see it happening.

  • http://www.landofbile.com/blog Antonio

    1. The fundraising target for the 4th quarter is $12 million, not $20 million.
    2. Kelo vs City of New London was in Connecticut, not NH.

  • RicknHouston

    C’mon Nalle! You know, I know and the world knows that the only way a telephone poll can be even closely regarded as “scientific” is if it were done with a “representative cross section” of voting aged respondents. This ain’t your first rodeo! Everybody knows that it ain’t done that way! Political telephone polls are taken straight off the voter records of the previous election provided by the Voter Registrars of the individual countys. If you didn’t vote then, you’re not get called now! If your a “crossover” vote, for anyone of 50 reasons, you’re not gonna get called now, if you weren’t old enough to vote in the last election, you’re not gonna get called now, if you’ve been suffering from “voter apathy” for the last 16 – 20 years, you’re not gonna get caled now, if your chosen method of communication is by any medium other than “landbased home telephone”, which by the way are at all time low levels, you’re not gonna get called, if you live in a managed care facility, you’re not gonna get called. Have I left anything out? Wake Up Nalle and Wake the Hell up America and quit swallowing this “soylent green” crap that msm is trying to feed you.

    Oh yeah! and since when does “99.9%” of anything leave no room for anything else?

  • RicknHouston

    #19 — December 30, 2007 @ 12:11PM — Clavos
    It’s not that I think Ron Paul is a loser; in fact, I agree with many of his Libertarian ideas, but there’s no way I can vote for a man who advocates withdrawing our defense to our own borders. In today’s world, borders are meaningless (as we know from all the “illegals” residing in our country, and as we know from the experience of 9/11); to withdraw to our “borders” and ignore the rest of the world is, IMO, nothing short of national suicide.

    I’m also extremely uncomfortable with Paul’s religious bent (as I am with Huckabee’s). We DO NOT need “god” to run our country.

    And, I don’t see too many Democrats (despite Republicae’s personal anecdotal “evidence”) voting for Paul, either. Most Democrats I know personally, haven’t even heard of him.

    ************

    Well now you know one! I’m 60 years old and have voted dem all of my life and after Ron Paul gets elected President I’ll still be one. But until then I have put away my colors. For now I am an American and I urge all others, regardless of your party, to just stop! Look around you! American and European financial & economical experts are already declaring our country as banqrupt with our nat’l debt amounting to $167,500.00 for every single man, woman and child in this country, with inflation already near 24% and predictions that our dollar will continue to fall by half or even 2/3 of what of todays level. China and the other foreign countries that we are in debt to will own the United States within the next 10 years if we don’t put a stop to it now!

  • http://RonPaul2008.com Louis Nardozi

    The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
    The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.

    This is what’s happening to YOUR house. All the ‘money’ and ‘equity’ you though you had saved – eliminated! The equtiy through falling house prices – and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you’re reading about gets created by printing money and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less – where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He’s the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.

  • Clavos

    RnH,

    You need to get a pair of glasses, or renew the ones you have, as apparently you’re adding digits when you say US inflation is currently nearing 24%.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national inflation rate from November 2006 to November 2007 is 4.6%

  • http://www.patriotscorner.com Dave

    Why Polls Don’t Apply to Ron Paul:

    1) Who Gets Polled In the Big-Name Polls?
    When GOP polls are taken by Zogby, Rasmussen and others, they only poll those GOP voters who either caucused or voted in the last GOP POTUS primary. But GW Bush ran unopposed in 2004, and only 6% of all GOP voters participated.

    And let’s face it, those that would actually go to a primary to vote for someone running unopposed are the hardcore GW Bush supporters who had to make sure the guy won the primaries. These are not people who would be likely to vote for Ron Paul, but they’re a teeensy tiny percentage of total GOP voters. But when these polls are taken, these are the people that get the phone calls. The fact that as many as 10% of them in Iowa support Ron Paul is amazing.

    2) Ron Paul and Disillusioned Republicans
    I’m one of them, and so are many others. GW Bush ran on Ron Paul’s foreign policy platform back in 1999, which is the year I voted for Bush.

    After watching Bush and his cartel do precisely the opposite of what he said he’d do, then after 911, and the Iraq invasion, I joined the Constitution Party before the last election in 2003 and that’s how I voted.

    The press say that 25% of GOP voters are now against GW Bush’s policies. The press always underreports though. I think the number is much much higher. All the other candidates are touting following the current policies of the Bush administration (with a few minor exceptions). Based on the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with Republicans who are voting for Paul, I believe that more GOP voters support Paul than the media lets on, and those GOP voters aren’t the ones being polled.

    3) Ron Paul and Independents
    They’re switching more and more each day. So many in this country are so sick of the Dems and GOP that they’re declaring their independence. Paul is attracting them in huge numbers because he is so different. But they aren’t polled.

    4) Ron Paul and Disenfranchised Democrats
    I am shocked at how many Democrats I’ve met that have become Paul supporters. They have “held their noses” and reregistered as Republicans just so they can vote for Paul. But they aren’t polled.

    5) Ron Paul and Libertarians
    Recently, the LP asked Paul if he’d run on their ticket and he refused. Why? Because LP candidates don’t participate in debates and get even less attention than Paul gets now. Paul must stay in the mainstream party at least until after February 5th or he’ll really get ignored. But is that going to stop LP voters from voting for him? NO WAY! They’re registering GOP in the states that require declaring fo primaries. And they too, are not polled.

    6) Ron Paul and the Constitution Party
    The CP is now the third-largest party in the United States. Some in it’s own leadership are supporting Ron Paul, the most notable being Chuck Baldwin. The argument rages across the Internet: Should CP members support a candidate that isn’t running on their ticket or should they cut off their noses to spite their faces? The concensus seesm to be: How many chances like this will we ever get? CP Party members seem to agree there won’t be many. As I am a CP member, I am on many forums where I see this daily. And they don’t get polled either.

    7) Ron Paul and Leftist Liberals
    Yes, even MoveOn.org members and others support Paul, though on one issue alone. That of course is his foreign policy platform of non-interventionism. But the fact that even these liberals would support Paul speaks volumes about his cross-party support. Think these liberals get polled? NOT!

    8 International Support:
    Paul has more meetup groups, organizations and supporters in other countries than any other candidate. For years, the rest of the world has been dismayed at an ever increasing imperialism of the United States around the world. Paul wants to stop that. Do these supporters have influence? You bet they do! There are millions of new voters in the United States in the form of new naturalized citizens. Those new citizens, proud of their newly-gained status, almost always vote. But they aren’t polled.

    9) Military Support:
    Paul gets the most money from our military than any other candidate in either party. But guess what? They aren’t polled!

    10) How Are the Big-Name Polls Conducted?
    While this may be a minor point (and therefore deserves last place), it IS a factor. All the national and state big name polls are conducted using land line phones. Folks who use only cellular phones aren’t getting polled, even if they did vote in the GOP primary in 2003.

    When you combine all these factors together, it becomes clear that poll numbers mean nothing when it comes to predicting Ron Paul’s viability.

    If your only reason for not supporting Ron Paul is you don’t see him doing well in these polls, I suggest you rethink your position.

  • Haigh

    Republicae,
    Your informative piece is much appreciated. I regret that Ron Paul does not seem to have a cadre of full time foreign policy professionals giving credibility to his proposals. I fear it may be his undoing. He should be able to point to individuals who can speak to the political realities of withdrawing troops from Korean, Japan, and Europe.

    You can call it naive but one thing I have wondered is that if withdrawing our bases and influence from the Middle East is so well aligned with the goals of radical Islam, why doesn’t radical Islam encourage this with their videos and publicity?

  • Clavos

    “And let’s face it, those that would actually go to a primary to vote for someone running unopposed are the hardcore GW Bush supporters who had to make sure the guy won the primaries. These are not people who would be likely to vote for Ron Paul, but they’re a teeensy tiny percentage of total GOP voters. (emphasis added)

    Oh really? Did GWB not get 50% of ALL the votes in the last General Election??

    “Teensy, tiny” indeed.

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    Haigh….I understand your hesitation, however perhaps you should consider a few facts about the issue.

    So, based on your comment, you want the same “experts” that have been giving this government advice for years to give Ron Paul advice….just how good would that advice be?

    Now something else to consider is how strange it is that this government never learns the most valuable lessons that it’s failed interventions produce. This government’s interventions produce the need for more intervention until the whole policy becomes absolutely absurd. Does anyone know just how long we have intervened just into the affairs of Iraq? Over 87 years and what has it produced?

    Look at the rest of the Middle East, follow the oil and look at the results of our intervention. We have had our hands in the pie and it has done nothing to stabilize the region, create security for this country or, in the long run, provide economic benefits.

    Ron Paul only sounds “crazy” to those who either don’t know our history of intervention or ignore that history because of other agendas. Ron Paul has stated that we have been making the same mistake all these years in Pakistan by supporting another “Shah” as we did in Iran. Once again, since “our man” began to falter in his leadership and power, the CIA once again attempted to diffuse the situation by the reintroduction of Bhutto into the equation and once again, now they are scrambling to find another plan.

    The problem with our intervention is that there are no real goals, or at least none that would seem rational in terms of actual nation security for this nation. We can continue with this feckless policy, one that has not produced any real benefits for this country, or we can take a very hard and very sober look at our actions to determine if they are truly to our benefit or just that of Big Oil, Big Business, Big Military and Big Government.

    In the end, our actions will once again fail. We will see not only a continuation of chaos in the region, but we will witness the fall of the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and eventually Pakistan. Security, don’t hedge your bets on the policy of foreign intervention if you want real security in our country; expect more and more attacks against us because of our actions in that region.

    Ron Paul now has the endorsements of well over a hundred members and former members of the military, including special forces personnel. In addition, he has the endorsements of well over 50 academics in the fields of economics, foreign relations and just about any other field. I personally know of two former members of the Council of Foreign Relations that are backing Ron Paul.

    However, tell me why anyone would continue to place their faith, and the security of this nation, their lives and the lives of their families into the hands of the same people that have created this mess that now confronts us?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave, I bookmarked that USA Daily ‘fantasy’ article you linked to so that I can refer back to it after the dust settles*. Either you or Mr Fester (great name, BTW – wonder if he’s an uncle?) are going to look like a complete tit. I won’t predict which one now, but either way we at BC look forward to a good few yuks at the loser’s expense.

    * On second thoughts, I’d better save it to my hard drive. If Mr Fester is horrendously wrong, I’ve no doubt the article will be hastily and quietly removed.

  • J2

    People (on the internet mostly) ARE predicting Paul will get 2nd… maybe even first in NH. They say 3rd in Iowa.

    “Oh really? Did GWB not get 50% of ALL the votes in the last General Election?? ”

    Well all know things are different know… Bush has little to no support.

  • J2

    *now

    (oops)

  • Adam

    “Oh really? Did GWB not get 50% of ALL the votes in the last General Election??”

    Discussion was focused on the primaries and caucases. This statement is irrelevent.

  • Lumpy

    ” The fundraising target for the 4th quarter is $12 million, not $20 million.”

    According to the Paul emails I got today they’re at $19.8 million having massively exceeded their goal.

  • Clavos

    “Discussion was focused on the primaries and caucases. This statement is irrelevent.”

    Irrelevant.

    Primaries and caucuses don’t win elections, and the GOP voters obviously voted for GWB, even those who didn’t vote in the primary.

  • http://currentcaveats.blogspot.com Athreya

    “Pollsters and pundits don’t give Paul much of a chance when it comes to winning the Republican nomination”

    Pollsters and pundits backed Dean in 04. Look where he turned up …

  • L.Step

    I really know nothing about the accuracy of polling, but I imagine it is not very high. In any case, my own unscientific (is there a “scientific”?) poll has seen a steep rise in Paul Support — my wife, sister-in-law, one of my sons (the other is awaiting conversion) and three of my friends. None of these had ever heard of Paul and had no interest in voting for any of the self-abusing gang being presented on TV/newspapers. Well, I won’t contest Zogby, etc. as only time will tell (not the NYT).

  • BA

    Yes, Ron Paul can win in New Hampshire…I hope he does if it ends up worse for Republicans in the long run.
    Have we had enough of Republicans yet?

    They’re good for each other(the rich) I know. But who else?
    Another 4 years of Republicans can only mean continued no show of middle americans and many more working poor. But, let’s give the top 1% of the U.S. population one more shot, huh?

  • Haigh

    Republicae,

    >I understand your hesitation

    We have a couple of misunderstandings to clear up. I have no hesitation with regard to Ron Paul and his foreign policy. I’ve been reading, arguing and voting libertarian since the mid 70’s and have no doubt about the strength of his position.

    > you want the same “experts” that have
    > been giving this government advice

    Definitely not, but I do think that foreign policy experts well aligned with his foreign policy are really needed to give his position credibility. We need experts with humor who can defend the assertion that our current strategy in the Middle East is insane.

    > Does anyone know just how long we have intervened just into the
    >affairs of Iraq? Over 87 years and what has it produced?

    Maybe one person in 100,000, best case; which is why having a team of talking heads promoting RPR foreign policy is a critical success factor.

    >>Ron Paul now has the endorsements of well over a hundred members and former members of the military, including special forces personnel. In addition, he has the endorsements of well over 50 academics in the fields of economics, foreign relations and just about any other field. I personally know of two former members of the Council of Foreign Relations that are backing Ron Paul.< <

    This is great, but they all need to get a lot more vocal if he is going to have any chance at all.

    >>However, tell me why anyone would continue to place their faith, and the security of this nation, their lives and the lives of their families into the hands of the same people that have created this mess that now confronts us?<<

    Because, for the average American, the devil they know is much preferred to the devil they don’t. One hundred years of failures spun as successes and propaganda promoting ‘making the world safe for democracy’ can’t be exposed and replaced by one man in one election. Nevertheless, it sure is worthy of the best fight we can muster.

    I’ll put a sharper point on my earlier question, what if Osama Bin Laden released a statement that Ron Paul understands the rationale for his attacks and he (Bin Laden) will agree to stop attacking if the US withdraws all troops and stops all foreign aid to the Middle East. If our meddling is truly his issue, why hasn’t something like this happened?

  • http://www.myspace.com/xtrabiggg xtrabiggg

    ‘overall fundraising has been surprisingly strong — not on the level of the top three contenders, but far beyond the other 2nd tier candidates.’ Huh? Is that so…

    Ron Paul has outraised ALL contenders in the Republican field, and that’s without paid professional ‘bundlers’ and huge infusions of corporate, union or Political Action Comittee slush-fund cash. Get your facts straight before putting your foot in your mouth. In addition, all of those contributions have come from small, first-time contributors- meaning there is a large untapped potential for more cash- unlike the other candidates, who have maxed out on the $2300 limit from most of their supporters, and now must get ‘creative’ in fund-raising (God help us!)

    You also seem to put too much stock in ‘telephone poll’ numbers, and inaccurately (and without evidence) attribute Ron Paul’s support to ‘independents and libertarians. Here in my home precinct in Michigan, I’ve gone door-to-door to over 400 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS, and I’ve found about 90% approval for Ron Paul, much of that enthusiastic! I know that’s merely anecdotal evidence, but I’ve talked to many, many supporters around the country who are experiencing similar results.

    Furthermore, in Campaign fundraising- Paul Leads… Individual donors- Paul leads… Grassroots organization and number of volunteers- Paul leads… Attendance at rallies and campaign appearances- Paul Leads… Number of Yard Signs- Paul leads… amount of support from INDIVIDUALS on Myspace, Facebook and other Social Networking sites- Paul Leads… Number of searches on GOOGLE for the last year, six months, month, week and day- Paul Leads… Number of website hits- Paul Leads… Number ov individuals with pro-candidate websites- Paul leads… Text message, On-line, any polls OTHER than Major Media Corporation PHONE polls- Paul leads…

    If ANY of the other candidates had half of the support listed above, they would be hailed as the next coming of George Washington! But since Ron Paul opposes much of what the OWNERS of the mainstream media outlets MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM, he is ignored, slandered and lied about. His real support is minimized and discounted, since publicizing it would show how much the American Public is dusillusioned and disgusted with ‘business as usual’ in Washington D.C.

    Could it be that in this election we can throw ‘conventional wisdom’ and the opinions of the bought-and-paid-for ‘punditocracy’ out the window? I mean, even in the past 20 years, opinion polls and pundit’s opinions have been proven wrong more than right. Ron Paul is in the same position Ronald Reagan was in before the 1980 Primaries, and similarly Jimmy Carter in 1976. Those two ‘outsiders’ and long-shots’ ended up winning by landslides… So much for the accuracy of opinion polls and commentator projections.

    xtrabiggg
    +++++++++++++++++++++

  • BA

    And anyone who say “less Taxes……” as the reason for voting for Republicans, you’d be right “if” the price of beliving that wasn’t more than the price of believing that and than voting for Republicans to reduce those taxes. The important word there is “if”. How big is the word “if”? Anyone?

  • Jacob

    Haigh —

    “I’ll put a sharper point on my earlier question, what if Osama Bin Laden released a statement that Ron Paul understands the rationale for his attacks and he (Bin Laden) will agree to stop attacking if the US withdraws all troops and stops all foreign aid to the Middle East. If our meddling is truly his issue, why hasn’t something like this happened?”

    It has.

    “perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it.”

    — OBL May. 23, 2006

  • http://RonPaul2008.com Louis Nardozi

    Pardon me, but everyone seems to be disregarding the REAL why – because we can’t afford it! How refreshing it would be if each candidate had to tell HOW his pipe-dreams would be FINANCED. That’s the why of Pakistan foreign policy – WE NEED THE MONEY! I’m TIRED of paying THOUSANDS of dollars every year to boss around foreigners and imprison drug users! I don’t OWE those people anything. You wanna use drugs – FINE! That just means there will be more technical jobs open for ME. I’m TIRED of paying for welfare! I know a guy who’s a quadriplegic and HE has a job! Just give me the government I NEED and I’LL decide who gets charity from me.

  • Doc W

    All this arguing about the opinion polls is starting to wear thin, because the actual caucuses and primaries will start to clarify things soon. But I don’t believe Paul supporters are going to bolt just because he doesn’t score big in Iowa or New Hampshire. Who on the Repub side would they bolt to? Many are being attracted to politics for the first time because of his unique (among the Rep & Dem contenders) message. The longer he goes, the more people will hear the message and the more supporters he will get. Even if he doesn’t win the nomination, all those people may form a base of support for the next person (and there will be more) who runs on a similar platform. The Paul phenomenon isn’t about Paul personally–it’s the message, as Paul himself has emphasized.

    Questions about a third party run put Paul in an awkward position (and are designed to, of course). If he says hell no, cross my heart and hope to die, then he really does burn that bridge. But if he says maybe, then he’s undercutting his own bid for the Republican nomination. So he gives the” 99.9% no” line, and I don’t blame him a bit.

    I should think it depends on who the Dems finally nominate. If it’s Clinton versus any of the likely Repubs, especially McCain, then you really, really have tweedledum vs tweedledee. In that case a Paul run would probably draw from both, and anyway we will get virtually the same interventionism abroad, assaults on individual liberty at home anyway. But if Obama got the Dem nod, there would be a significant difference on foreign policy, and I suspect Paul would stay out to avoid muddying the waters.

  • STM

    Dear Louis,

    The cost will be much higher if you don’t :)

    This is now a world largely of America’s making, and to withdraw from it and go back into splendid isolation would set the scene for plenty more American bloodshed. These people aren’t going away any time soon.

    So is that what you really want? Please, think all this stuff through …

    It’s not just about America, it really isn’t.

    Isolate, withdraw to America’s borders, and they’ll all see that as one more American weakness to be exploited.

    They don’t think like us.

  • Bob C

    Ron Paul will win New Hampshire…do you know why? People in New Hampshire are smart. Stupid people won’t vote for Ron Paul, smart people will.
    There you have it. On to the inaugeration!

  • Haigh

    Thanks Jacob,

    I found your reference here in the mainstream media.

    Equally startling, considering the source, is this sentence from the same tape:

    “Among these reasons is that it is necessary to create justifications for the massive spending of hundreds of billions on the Defense Department and other agencies in their war against the Mujahideen. ”

    So Osama Bin Laden raises the same warning as Dwight Eisenhower with regard to the military industrial complex(MIC)?! Which leads to a proposition: The opponents of Ron Paul’s Middle East strategy are apologists for the MIC or may be suffering from a severe case of brainwashing.

    “If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you…”

  • Louise

    Dave — you said…
    “I would hope that he would not get a single Republican vote under that circumstance as it would be a fundamental betrayal and makr him as a blatant liar and hypocrite, having said specifically that he would not run as an independent.”

    With the present crop of GOP choices, if RP doesn’t get the nod, this will be the first time in 27 years I won’t vote R.

  • Clavos

    “Haigh —

    “I’ll put a sharper point on my earlier question, what if Osama Bin Laden released a statement that Ron Paul understands the rationale for his attacks and he (Bin Laden) will agree to stop attacking if the US withdraws all troops and stops all foreign aid to the Middle East. If our meddling is truly his issue, why hasn’t something like this happened?”

    It has.

    “perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it.”

    — OBL May. 23, 2006″

    Aside from the fact that the above quote from OBL makes no firm commitment to anything, why would you trust the word of a man who has attacked innocent American civilians?

    I can’t believe anyone would take the words of a thug like Bin Laden at face value, and worse yet, bet the future of our entire country on that trust.

    That is naive in the extreme.

  • Carole

    Silver Surfer said:

    “they hate us because of our foreign relations and policies.”

    This is EXACTLY what Dr. Paul IS saying. Have you not listened to him?

    The simple and obvious fact is that we are more isolated now than ever in our history because of our terrible foreign policy. We are disliked or hated throughout the world because of our empirical behavior. Countries no longer will support us and will not even accept our dollars.

    Our empire is about to bring us down. When the dollar goes, when our monetary system fails us, we are DONE. PERIOD!

    Only an idiot could support the idea that we can continue to fund endless wars around the world with money we print out of thin air or borrow from China. Only an embicile could fail to see we are near the end of our reign and that our economy is going to collapse. Band aids applied by Bernanke and his predecessor Greenspan have hastened this demise and we are now in a recession. Soon we will be in a depression.

    Dr. Paul seeks to ease the fall of America and set it back on a path toward recovery.

    There are now nearly a dozen (or more) states who have been holding secession conventions or discussing secession. These people see the sinking ship and want to get off. I applaud their good sense.

    One cannot cure inflation with more inflation. One cannot force democracy upon countries around the world, it must come from the bottom up. One cannot continue outlandish spending and then print more fiat paper money without seriously devalueing the nations currency. All these things are destructive selfish behavior and demand the natural consequences of that behavior. It WILL happen if any of these pseudo-candidates/sacrificial candidates are elected.

    Only Dr. Paul has proferred a sane platform to restore this republic to its constitutional and manageable, rightful duties.

    Think about it and think about the lives your children will inherit if you do not take this election seriously.

    Thank you for reading this.

  • Jacob

    In Lebanon, on October 23, 1983 two truck bombs killed hundreds of U.S. Marines. Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the bombing. Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran also claimed responsibility.

    Did Reagan hang around to save face?

    No.

    What did Reagan do?

    Reagan withdrew the Marines.

    Did the bombers follow the Marines back to the US?

    No.

    Q.E.D.

  • Carole

    Silver Surfer:

    Excuse me, I misread your statement. :)

    I just re-read and see that you did get it.

    All the other stuff I wrote is still valid for anyone else though who does NOT get it.

  • http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us The Presidential Candidates

    You make some really strong points. I think I agree that the Paul campaign really needs to pull out all of the stops to win NH.

  • Jacob

    “The opponents of Ron Paul’s Middle East strategy are apologists for the MIC or may be suffering from a severe case of brainwashing.”

    It’s primarily brainwashing.

    They believe what the MSM tells them.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Looks like Andrew Cline at the Wall Street Journal is thinking along the same lines I was when I wrote this article. He also thinks a surprisingly strong showing for Paul in New Hampshire is possible.

    Dave

  • Jacob

    Mr. Cline has seen the light…

    Halleluja!

  • STM

    Why is everyone freaking out about the falling dollar (which has stabilised).

    Here’s what happens: the Euro is worth more, but in most of Europe, you get paid a lot less of ‘em so it all comes out in the wash.

    The Australian dollar is approaching (near) parity now with the $US, which means Australians are seeing American cars on the road FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1960s. A falling dollar is GREAT for US exports, which is how America got rich in the first place.

    The dollar was at an artificially high level.

    It is not falling, it is a slight correction …. and is still one of the world’s strongest currencies.

    For heaven’s sake, acquaint yourselves with the facts on this one issue.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Did the bombers follow the Marines back to the US?

    No.

    Yep, there sure haven’t been any terrorist attacks on US targets since Reagan was in office, no siree.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    A poll for who you’d vote for as President is being run on BCs Forum page. To add your voice click here

  • voter 1981

    ron paul or bust forget the stupid talking points we all know thats it is time for a true change

  • Haigh

    Clavos said:

    “I can’t believe anyone would take the words of a thug like Bin Laden at face value, and worse yet, bet the future of our entire country on that trust.

    That is naive in the extreme.”

    You call me naive. I call you brainwashed. Sounds like the start of a good conversation. :)

    We share the same goal, but we are worlds apart on our threat assessment. Check out wikipedia for a list of the defense spending by country. The US is projected to spend $623B. It dwarfs the spending of every other country. The evidence that our 700 military bases in 130 countries contributes to our defense is scant. I don’t see how “Islamofacism” represents a threat to the entire future of the country. These stateless, cave dwellers will never be able to do more than occasionally target small groups. I am much more concerned about China owning substantial percentages of US assets because of the welfare/warfare deficit spending of the Clinton/McCain status quo.

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    SMT….

    On the FOREX, the dollar falling is not the issue or the problem, in and of itself, the problem is the foundation on which the dollar (Federal Reserve Note) is based. It is completely based and backed by debt creation. Every dollar in circulation, whether digital or physical, is borrowed into existence and collateralized by the debt that creates it.

    On top of that collateralization there is an interest obligation. So, in essence, every single Federal Reserve Note is a legal notification that there is a debt associated with its issue; in other words each one represents an IOU, nothing more!

    As the debt is proportional to the circulation increases with the circulation, the economy can only expand as the circulation expands, the circulation can only expand as the debt is expanded. Eventually, the debt [periodic principle and periodic interest] is irreversible in a fiat system and cannot be paid down or paid off or the entire economy will contract. The problem arises when debt begins to require much more servicing then the economy can produce, siphoning off all viability.

    Every fiat monetary system in history follows the same pattern of failure, we will be no different. Everything we have built our society on revolves around a monetary system that has almost reached its maximum possible lifespan. What do you think will happen when the system collapses under the weight of its own debt creation?

    Vote Ron Paul…Vote Prosperity…Vote For Our Future

  • http://1776solution.blogspot.com Republicae

    Even the McCain Campaign is now worried about Ron Paul winning, or at least trumping him in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

  • Jacob

    “Yep, there sure haven’t been any terrorist attacks on US targets since Reagan was in office, no siree.”

    — Dave Nalle

    Is Nalle in a time warp?

    Did the bombers follow the Marines back to the US after Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon in 1983.

    No.

    They didn’t follow the Marines back to the US.

    The only target in the US since then was hit by al Qaeda which didn’t exist in 1983.

    Unfortunately, we put US troops back into the Middle East — hence the al Qaeda attacks.

    Shoulda followed Reagan’s example.

    Q.E.D.

  • Clavos

    “Q.E.D.”????

    What, if anything have you “demonstrated,” Jake?

    That the bombers didn’t follow the Marines?

    That only proves that like all good military strategists, the Muslim extremists, including OBL, pick their battles and their battlegrounds, as well as their timing.

  • Jim

    The biased electioneers spinning half-truths in the media have convinced many that their vote should be cast based on some simple, Republican premise.

    If you’re a christian, vote for Huckabee. If you’re a businessman, for Romney. If you’re a patriot, vote Giulani, or old, for Thompson.

    All of these men have advocated a war that was established unconstitutionally. Only one man did not.

    So keeping it simple,

    I’m an American, and I’m voting for Ron Paul.

  • BA

    Current usage – Currently, it has become so symbolic of irrefutable logic that “Q.E.D.” is occasionally used in non-mathematical contexts as well to intensify assertions; in this context it has little connection with rigorous deduction, however, and is more tongue-in-cheek.

    lol, it also depends on the person using it. Anyone can type Q.E.D. at the end of their political agenda.

    As for integrity, Jacob, you sound like an al-qaeda sympathizer.

    Al-Qaeda – has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General, the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union, the United States Department of State, the Australian Government, Public Safety Canada, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan’s Diplomatic Bluebook, South Korean Foreign Ministry, the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service, the United Kingdom Home Office, Russia, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the Swiss Government.

  • Jacob

    Clavos — “the Muslim extremists, including OBL, pick their battles and their battlegrounds, as well as their timing.”

    Are you also in a time warp?

    As recently as 1989, OBL was our ally.

    It was US troops in Saudi Arabia after that which tipped him over and led to the 9-11 attack.

    Shoulda followed Reagan’s example.

    Capiscsi?

  • Frater Titus

    As much as I love Ron Paul, I’m very annoyed with his relationship with Disinfo Nutter Alex Jones. Alex Jones has this Borat type parody of a 911 truther complete with phoney exposes of satanic owl cults and reptilian aliens. O Jeez, Ron can you choose better friends.

  • http://WildBlue.net Jean Bailey

    How about the 74% uncomitted votes. Which way will they commit. Could it be Ron Paul.

  • Baronius

    People have commented about the accuracy of polls. It’s true that 2004 polling data showed Dean in the lead in Iowa, and that different types of polling data vary in accuracy. But the big thing to look at is the change in polls as the primaries get closer. McCain and Huckabee, Obama and Edwards are surging as the primaries get closer and people commit to a candidate. Clinton and Giuliani (the presumed frontrunners) are taking the hit.

    A success in Iowa or New Hampshire can reinvigorate a campaign. But there’s nothing in the current SC polling to indicate a Paul surge. Huckabee is increasing in strength in SC and Florida. And nationally, Paul is running sixth, with less than half the support of the fifth place Thompson.

  • http://www.freedomsphoenix.com Fascist Nation

    I agree that if Ron Paul is to be a Dark Horse candidate (like Carter, Clinton) he must win New Hampshire.

    If he doesn’t that is OK. He never ran to win. He ran to get his ideas opposing the war, our foreign meddling, our loss of civil liberties and most importantly the tax theft and drunken credit charging CONgressional spending of our rapidly collapsing economy a stage. In that he has succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

    If he wins that is icing on the cake. But he has already won in mobilizing the remnant. Now win or lose we get to see if the remnant outlives the campaign. If it does, there are some fun times ahead.

  • Jacob

    The polls are missing Ron Paul’s momentum.

    Do the polls really address a random sample of those who will vote?

  • Clavos

    “It was US troops in Saudi Arabia after that which tipped him over and led to the 9-11 attack.”

    You have only his word for that; and, as I said before, his word is worthless (or should be) to America.

    Read Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower. He (OBL) was plotting (along with others, including Al-Zawahiri, his mentor) against the West (read America), long before 1989.

    See also Ruvy’s posts about the Wahabbi.

  • Jacob

    Most of those OBL recruited for 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia.

    Add that to the dots.

  • Clavos

    Of course they were, jake.

    The Wahabbi are Saudis, as is OBL himself.

    What does that prove? Certainly not that 9/11 was retaliation for US troops on Saudi soil, who are there at the invitation of the Saud family, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

    So why hasn’t OBL recruited Saudis to fly into Saud family palaces? US troops would not be there without their complicity.

    OBL is pulling the wool over the eyes of the gringos; and at least in your case, apparently succeeding.

  • Clavos

    Of course they were, Jake.

    The Wahabbi are Saudis, as is OBL himself.

    What does that prove? Certainly not that 9/11 was retaliation for US troops on Saudi soil, who are there at the invitation of the Saud family, the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

    So why hasn’t OBL recruited Saudis to fly into Saud family palaces? US troops would not be there without their complicity.

    OBL is pulling the wool over the eyes of the gringos; and at least in your case, apparently succeeding.

  • Jacob

    The CIA theory is BLOWBACK was the cause of 911.

    The attack on 9/11, was a response to foreign occupation. In his 2005 book Dying to Win, political scientist Robert Pape examined a series of modern suicide campaigns and concluded that they are driven not by religious zeal but by foreign occupations.

    In WWII the Kamikaze were driven by fear of foreign occupation as the US got close to their homeland.

  • troll

    Clavos – for your consideration

    granted there aren’t many palaces bombed

  • Clavos

    troll,

    Thanks for the link. I don’t see a discernible pattern in the attacks, but it’s obvious Al-qaeda is quite active in Saudi, as they are pretty much throughout the ME.

    As you point out, no attacks on palaces, and I didn’t see any references to attacks on Al-Sauds, whether greater or lesser family members.

    There are also far fewer attacks on American installations or citizens than one would expect if Al-Qaeda’s primary beef is US presence there.

    Overall, the series of incidents, while numerous, appear to be pretty random to me.

  • Jacob

    Clavos —

    LOL!

  • Clavos

    Jacob,

    The CIA’s track record on anything, and especially their “theories,” is much less than stellar.

    Given the intelligence community’s ignominious lack of success in the ME (especially in regards to 9/11), I give the CIA’s take on any issue in that region very little credibility.

  • troll

    an awful lot of foreigners on the target list…something of a pattern

  • Clavos

    True, caballero.

    But would you logically conclude from that pattern that the attacks are evidence of Al-Qaeda’s (and OBL’s) resentment of specifically, US troops in Saudi, which was the original point in contention in this part of the thread?

  • Jacob

    “One school of thought holds that Saudi Arabia is incapable of quelling the massive groundswell of anger and hatred towards the West engendered by the US-led invasion of Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict that triggers such attacks.”

    — BBC News, 6 December, 2004

  • STM

    Dear Republicae, I live in a country where five years ago our dollar was down to about 70-80 cents against the US dollar.

    Hence the proliferation of locally made Australian and or Japanese/Korean cars on the road – and virtually no American ones since the ’60s. Now, American cars are making a return. I spotted about 50 of them on the road this morning on my way to work. Might not seem like a lot, but the US manufacturers are making a marketing charge and sales are increasing.

    This is a very prosperous country, however, and the only problem came when our currency was valued lower was when you wanted to buy goods from overseas and only then from countries whose currency was valued higher than ours.

    Now that our dollar has risen against the greenback, as has the Euro and the pound sterling etc, the only difference is that there are now more US-produced products on the shelves, for example in the fruit and vegetables sections of supermarkets during the off season.

    Currency rates are only really an issue on the international currency exchange markets. In the case of the US, they were set at very artificially high levels.

    I don’t notice any difference to our prosperity now that our dollar is worth near a US dollar. And as for the euro and the pound sterling, all I know is that most Europeans and Brits get a lot less of them in their pay packets than I do, and all things considered, my standard of living overall is better.

    Unless, of course, I want to go on vacation to Europe – that’s when I lose. But if I want to go to the US, it’s good for me.

    And surely, you want more tourists coming to the US and spending their money there instead of somewhere else.

    It’s a multi-billion dollar industry after all, and that’s one of the ways you win with a corrected greenback.

    One of America’s problems of late is that people haven’t been buying its products. A fall in the greenback is one way to remedy that.

  • Jacob

    Clavos says — “I give the CIA’s take on any issue in that region very little credibility.”

    Clavos has a better source?

  • STM

    Does Jake wear camouflage pants and live up in the hills of Vermont?

  • STM

    Happy New Year BTW Jacob, Clav, Troll, everyone … it’s already 2008 here (almost 2pm Jan 1).

  • STM

    So this is a message from the future ….

  • STM

    I have had to go to work today. Everyone in the office is massively hungover and the everyone’s breath stinks of stale piss (grog).

    Our hangovers are yours – tomorrow …

  • Clavos

    “Clavos says — “I give the CIA’s take on any issue in that region very little credibility.”

    Clavos has a better source?”

    No.

    Do I have to have a better one in order to disbelieve that one?

    Intelligence is not a zero-sum equation.

  • STM

    How some us (not me, I wish) celebrated the New Year

  • bliffle

    I wouldn’t drive car on new years eve on a bet. But my foster-daughter would, being a beautiful 30 yr. old, which is why I went downtown and renewed her lapsed cell phone bill saturday so that she can communicate with her no-fault foster-parents if necessary.

  • Clavos

    Hi Stan,

    Happy New Year to you, too, mate!

    The Missus and I are spending this one quietly at home; actually not so quietly: the neighborhood kids have already started with the fireworks (it’s 22:15).

    The fireworks actually aren’t so bad; we have a much more dangerous custom in this city: at midnight, quite a few people shoot firearms into the air. Nearly every New Years, someone dies (often a child, even one indoors sometimes) from being hit by a falling round.

  • STM

    Thanks Clav. You too buddy, and your missus. Hope 2008 is a better year.

    Bliff: been there too … my 20-year-old son waits ’till he gets two bills and the threat of disconnection, then hands ‘em to me to pay by phone banking.

    The he gives me in cash a percentage of what I’ve paid so that he can say later: “Didn’t I give you that money for the phone bills?”

    The last one, though, he went up to the post office and paid it himself.

    Today, however, it being near 2.30pm New Year’s day, I can’t raise him.

    I just called and some sleepy voiced girl answered the phone. When I asked for him, she said: “He’s kind of asleep at the moment”.

    Right, yep, gotcha …

  • STM

    Clav: amazing that no one thinks about falling rounds when they shoot into the air.

    You know, Sir Isaac Newton’s law of gravity – what goes up, must come down.

    Having lived in Baghdad, I’m familiar with the custom. People were always letting off shots into the air.

    Wasn’t too bad though, unless it was a tank, which actually did happen at one point. And not just one tank either.

  • Clavos

    The sad thing is Stan, that I don’t think it’s so much a case of not thinking that the round must come down, so much as it’s a “don’t give a damn” attitude.

    I hope I’m wrong, but…

    Tank rounds??? Now that’s really hairy!! (And effing STUPID)

    BTW, are you finding the site slow to refresh and preview/publish tonight? Or is it my ISP AGAIN?

  • STM

    Yes, struggling here with it. Must be a) the holidays, and b) lots of internet traffic??

  • STM

    Mate, one afternoon after school – 1967 I think – I was standing on the balcony of our place in the Alwiyah district, which was the Christian neighbourhood and right on the opposite bank of the Tigris to the Presidential Palace. The view from a fifth floor apartment was spectacular and I always liked to just stand there and drink in the scene.

    Then I heard the roar of jets and half a dozen Mig 17s flashed past and began attacking the palace. I could hear the thump of AA fire, and bombs, rockets and what I presume was cannon fire both from the ground and the aircraft. Then they just flew off.

    That night, there were tanks and soldiers in the streets, heaps and heaps of of small-arms fire, rifles, machine guns etc, some of which hit our balcony, and a curfew. Going to school the next day, we had to pass a number of checkpoints where the Iraqi Army had set up these dirty great roadblocks with these huge British Centurion battle tanks at the side of the road, with their barrels pointing directly at oncoming traffic.

    Pretty freaky.

    My father was pretty nonchalant about it all.

    “Just an attempted coup,” he said. Attempted being the magic word.

    We discovered later that one of the air force generals had made a bid for power against the pro-west leaning government, which had been destabilised earlier by a “mysterious” helicopter crash (his was the only one if a flight of four to crash while returning from Basra) that had killed the president.

    The air force general failed. I think he paid the ultimate price too. Not much changes there.

    The next year, Saddam Hussein’s Baathists seized power.

  • Clavos

    You know, I’ve seen more than once on these threads that you and Dave and Ruvy often don’t agree with each other on a number of issues,, but all three of you have direct, long term experience actually living in the ME.

    And, I find one common thread that runs through all of you guys’ posts on the ME, (even if you don’t always agree on the details) is that you all take the issue of the threat to the West from Muslim radicals very seriously.

    That common thread is very striking, especially in light of the experiences and backgrounds of all three of you.

  • STM

    Oh, it’s real all right. It’s not always muslim extremists either. Before that, it was pan-Arab nationalism (Nasser-style) or Baathism.

    That is the common thread. The desire to be fighting all the time over power, influence and wealth. It’s post-colonial stuff, really, dating back to the Ottoman empire (which is only 100 years gone, remember). Then it was the British and French, now the Americans and British who are targeted.

    I know Ruvy thinks the Saudis are a drama, but I think they’ve actually been a force for stability.

    Except that some of them with more extreme religious views are prone to join causes like that of OBL.

  • Clavos

    Happy New Year; the US east coast finally joined the Land of Oz in 2008.

    I just got off the phone with my sister, who lives in Ruvy’s old stomping grounds of Minneapolis, and blew my eight year old niece’s mind telling her that she was living a year behind me.

    Poor kid couldn’t deal with the concept and turned the phone back to Mom, who wanted to know what I had done to her child…

    I love being an uncle; all the fun and none of the hassle or responsibilty, plus I get to spoil ‘em.

    Happy New Year to all my virtual friends and sparring partners on BC!

    May you all have a safe, healthy, happy and prosperous New Year!

  • Jacob

    Happy year all you bums.

    May you all be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you’re dead.

  • STM

    There’s yer Irish comin’ out Jake (that was one of my mum’s favourites, or something very similar, and she was from Cork originally). Happy New Year.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And, I find one common thread that runs through all of you guys’ posts on the ME, (even if you don’t always agree on the details) is that you all take the issue of the threat to the West from Muslim radicals very seriously.

    I hesitate to speak for anyone but myself, but I have to stress that while radical Islam poses a threat to the west, it is still quite far from the point where it is a direct, military threat or a threat of conquest in any normal sense, much though some might wish that it were.

    The main real threats now for the US are from terrorism and other attacks on our economic and other interests overseas. I still rank domestic terrorism as a more serious threat inside the US than islamic terrorism. But in Europe the situation is much different. Their muslim minorities are larger and much less satisfied with their lot in life. They’re less well integrated into society and feel more isolated. Muslims here find it easy to move into the middle class and find most Americans pretty accepting. In Europe they’re poorer and angrier and feel exploited and left out. I think the problem can be controlled there, but it has the potential to become truly explosive.

    Dave

  • http://inflationtax.blogspot.com Amapola

    Saying Ron Paul isn’t showing up in the polls is such a distortion. Ron Paul hasn’t even been mentioned (an option) in the polls they site.

    He’s won all of the text polls on the Fox debates, and you can only vote once because it uses caller ID.

    He’s one the online polls for just about every major network and then they take the poll down when he wins. If that isn’t crooked, I don’t know what is.

  • troll

    Clavos – re #85 *But would you logically conclude from that pattern that the attacks are evidence of Al-Qaeda’s (and OBL’s) resentment of specifically, US troops in Saudi, which was the original point in contention in this part of the thread?*

    I think the ‘data’ suggests a broader resentment than one against US troops only…

    the impression I get is that the problem is any occupation by infidels – economic or military

  • Clavos

    “the impression I get is that the problem is any occupation by infidels – economic or military”

    At least. The impression I get (from reports of statements by various Muslim radicals) is that the existence of infidels (anywhere, not just in their territories) is problematic for them.

  • http://www.bobjohnsonforcongress.com Robert Edward Johnson

    Why Ron Paul will win Iowa and New Hampshire, or at least place in the top three in both.

  • Jacob

    “The impression I get (from reports of statements by various Muslim radicals) is that the existence of infidels (anywhere, not just in their territories) is problematic for them.”

    — Clavos

    In this context, “problematic” is problematic.

    Many religious and nationalistic groups have radicals who resent any presence of foreigners with different religions or skin colors.

    It should be obvious that most Muslims see non-Muslims in different ways.

    The primary problem they see is the existence of military forces on their land. Economic issues are a different matter.

    Economic presence is viewed depending on its economic impact.

    The existence of US Marines in Lebanon was resisted primarily for nationalistic reasons.

    The existence of hundreds of thousands of US Troops in Saudi Arabia was considered blasphemous. There you had a combination of nationalism and religious fanaticism which led to a violent result on 9-11.

    So what did we do?

    We withdrew the US troops from Saudi Arabia. (How did this gem of intelligence creep into Bush‘s brain?)

    But he also put hundreds of thousands of US troops back into the Middle East by invading Iraq.

    That’s like throwing gasoline on a fire.

    And Bush now says putting out the fire belongs to the next guy.

  • Clavos

    Bush is a bad president, I agree; and for a lot more reasons than simply the war.

    But neither Bush nor any other american president gave the radical Muslims the idea that ALL infidels must either convert or be eliminated, which is part of what I’m talking about.

    For that, you have to go back centuries; even before the usa existed.

    And ron paul neither acknowledges that, nor does he want to do anything about it.

    Which is (partly) why he won’t get my vote.

  • Jacob

    “And ron paul neither acknowledges that, nor does he want to do anything about it.”

    He’s too smart.

  • Jacob

    “ALL infidels must either convert or be eliminated… For that, you have to go back centuries; even before the usa existed.”

    — Clavos

    If you want to go back centuries… go.

    But if you do, you will have to re-create the environment which you postulate.

    There may be a small number of radicals now, but that is a basic fault of man. The Bell Curve shows that some of us always come close to dropping off the edge.

    We have to learn to avoid them. We cannot make everyone see things our way. The best thing we can do is show our way by good example.

    Bush-wacking them with 500# bombs doesn’t do it.

  • Clavos

    OK, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  • Tom

    I’m a Dem and I’m considering Paul. I think he appeals to a wide range of people. And contrary to a comment someone made above Paul is a stout believer in the separation of church and state.

  • Clavos

    Stan,

    Re my #96 above:

    It DID happen again this New Years!

    An 11 year old boy living in an apartment lost his life, because his idiot neighbor fired his weapon at midnight.

    Almost every year!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    That happens here too. As in Miami, there’s a large Hispanic population, and the New Year tends to be greeted by some of them with overmuch enthusiasm. If you’re outside at or just after 12, sure enough, you’ll hear the crack-crack-crack of gunfire in the distance*.

    The police, though, are starting to figure out exactly which households are trigger-happy, so they park around the corner and can be found swinging on the offenders’ doorbells within moments of the first shots.

    * Hopefully.

  • STM

    Clav, that’s really bizarre stuff. My daughter was terrified when some idiots in my street let off railway-gang warning detinators, which are really loud.

    I thought they had illegal fireworks, but no: they were those things railway gangs put on train tracks, which go off with a loud bang – a very, very loud bang – if a train goes over them, just in case all the other safety systems fail.

    They get stolen every year. She thought they were gunshots.

    At least I was able to tell her that gunshots aren’t that loud, so not to worry and go back to sleep.

    I’m sure up in the country though a few rounds get fired off every year. Hopefully, only the odd ‘roo gets hit.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Saying Ron Paul isn’t showing up in the polls is such a distortion. Ron Paul hasn’t even been mentioned (an option) in the polls they site.

    Actually, now that he’s doing over 5% regularly he’s showing up in pretty much all the polls. They were never singling him out. If someone has a complaint, talk to Alan Keyes. He’s running and they didn’t even invite him to the debates, much less put him in the polls.

    He’s won all of the text polls on the Fox debates, and you can only vote once because it uses caller ID.

    I have access to maybe 7 or 8 phone lines. People who work at large businesses can access even more.

    He’s one the online polls for just about every major network and then they take the poll down when he wins. If that isn’t crooked, I don’t know what is.

    Online polls measure nothing but enthusiasm and are worthless otherwise.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Alan Keyes is running again?!?

  • http://www.veteransabroad.com Jim Peterson

    In a vacuum I am an avid war hawk and I did vote for Bush in 2004. I crawled over broken glass to vote for him.

    But now I understand that we have worse enemies in Congress. John McCain, for instance, wants to regulate the Internet so we are all background checked just to be able to comment anywhere.

    Romney and Julie Annie want to regulate men. Julie Annie wants to make it illegal for American men to sleep with foreign women in their countries. Romney say of the Duke fake rape case and men being falsely accused of violence against women “That’s tough”…meaning he is in bed with the feminists.

    Huckabee’s campaign manager is a feminist.

    So, despite disagreeing with Ron Paul in his lack of Churchillian views on foreign policy, the takeover of our Congress by worse enemies than Islamofascists puts me in Ron Paul’s camp.

    Ron Paul says no to all special interests.

  • http://www.veteransabroad.com Jim Peterson

    That said, I don’t believe the nonsense that the pollsters are only calling 2004 primary voters. They are mostly calling people at random (on landlines, yes) and asking “Will you vote”. That sounds like a reasonable method of polling if the pollsters are honest (and some of them must be if only to preserve their reputations). I am greatly concerned that Ron Paul will get no more than 10% in both early states (and lose to Romney and come in 2nd in Wyoming on the 5th).

    This is because Ron Paul is making the mistake of stressing the anti-war part of the platform where the only way to crush McCain in NH is to stress McCain’s Internet Regulation penchant.

  • Clavos

    “John McCain, for instance, wants to regulate the Internet so we are all background checked just to be able to comment anywhere.

    Romney and Julie Annie want to regulate men. Julie Annie wants to make it illegal for American men to sleep with foreign women in their countries. Romney say of the Duke fake rape case and men being falsely accused of violence against women “That’s tough”…meaning he is in bed with the feminists.”

    Do you have a citation (with links) to a credible website (i.e. their own) for each of those outrageous statements?

    Otherwise, I call bullshit.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    You’re too nice, Clav.

    I call stark stonking nutcase.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Alan Keyes is running again?!?

    You may get a shock when you see your ballot, Dr. D. There are about 30 candidates running in the primaries in various states who you’ve probably never heard of. Some may not qualify for the ballot, but the requirements in a primary in a lot of states are quite low, so a lot of them have. I’ve thought about doing an article on some of their interesting platforms if I have time.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “You may get a shock when you see your ballot, Dr. D.”

    Not only he, but I too. Doc’s a Brit.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I have no idea whether Paul’s web-zealot support will translate into votes. But I did shock myself by watching his entire interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and actually finding the man fairly sensible and interesting.

    Until he said some unfortunate things regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then about Abraham Lincoln’s ‘error’ in trying to preserve the union through Civil War, that is. Then my Nutcase Radar started beeping rather loudly.

    And he squirmed like a real pol when Russert pointed out inconsistencies in his statements.

    I’m not always a fan of Russert, but his series of quite tough interviews with candidates should be watched by everyone who cares about this election. They can all be readily watched online.

  • Jacob

    “And he squirmed like a real pol when Russert pointed out inconsistencies in his statements.”

    — handyguy

    What inconsistencies?

    Of course, being on GE’s NBC payroll, Russert had to play gotcha games by bringing up ‘what if’ issues that can be debated endlessly, but have no relevance to Ron Paul’s positions to get the country back to economic reality.

  • Baronius

    Doc, please tell me all about the word “stonking”!

    Handy, I watch Russert occasionally. His people actually do their research before an interview, and he asks pointed questions. The funny thing is, he doesn’t even listen to the answers. He just moves on to another quote and question. So all the research goes to waste.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Russert plays ‘gotcha games’ with nearly all his interviewees. It’s called journalism. If you choose to define him by who owns the network he broadcasts on, you’re just demonstrating the smallness of your mind, not ‘proving’ anything.

    The inconsistencies were mostly, but not entirely, about statements Paul made as a Libertarian candidate years ago: abolishing public schools, for example. And he pressed him on the practicality of abolishing the income tax. And he brought up those, um, embarrassing opinions about the Civil Rights Act and Abraham Lincoln, which I doubt you share, do you, Jacob?

    Feel free to watch the interview yourself, and draw conclusions based on the actual tape and not your paranoid conjecture about it.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doc, please tell me all about the word “stonking”!

    It means “very big” or “a lot”, and also manifests as a noun. The British aid charity Comic Relief christened one of their bi-annual telethons “The Stonker” a few years ago to advertise that they intended it to be bigger, better, funnier and raise more money than ever before.

    I used it as more of a qualifier, as in “not just any kind of nutcase, but an extra-special one”.

    Of course, to enlarge on Clavos’s original observation, you could also argue that “stonk” is the sound of bullshit hitting the ground.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Baronius, all due respect, but Russert certainly does listen, and respond, and follow up. That’s his whole method, rather relentless. I find your observation just mystifying.

    As I say, I’m not always a fan [I think he can be unimaginative and gives the Establishment opinion the benefit of the doubt too often], but let’s criticize him on the basis of reality, not false perceptions.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    #127: I just checked Alan Keyes’s website and you’re right, Dave, he is indeed running again.

    So, not content with having his ass handed to him once by Barack Obama…

  • Baronius

    Handy, I just went onto YouTube and watched a clip of Russert questioning Paul. The clip was about 3:30. Russert asks a budget question that lasts 1:40. Paul answers it (not that well) until 2:30. Over the next minute, Russert says “well, let me ask you this” maybe half a dozen times, trying to move on to the next topic. Paul keeps talking about the budget, and Russert keeps joining in, trying to summarize Paul’s position as inconsistent, then move to the next topic – in this case, term limits. Russert is always more interested in the next trap. Doesn’t it seem that way to you?

  • Jacob

    “Russert plays ‘gotcha games’ with nearly all his interviewees. It’s called journalism.”

    — handyguy

    The better term is superficial.

    If you choose to accept Russert knowing that he is a pimp for GE and the MIC that’s your problem.

    I don’t know what Ron Paul said almost 20 years ago and I don’t care. If he did change his mind so what? Abraham Lincoln changed his mind in much shorter time periods but no one thinks it is relevant.

    If Russert was to interview Lincoln today would he say, “Well, Mr. Lincoln, when the war started, didn’t you say it wasn’t about slavery?

    What Ron Paul said about slavery being abolished without civil war in other countries such as in the British Empire has validity.

    And Ron Paul wants public schools to be locally controlled and wants to abolish the Department of Education just as Reagan and other Republican candidates have said in the past. So why did Russert focus on that?

    Russert brought up abolishing the income tax. But he didn’t let Ron Paul answer it.

    Go back and watch the interview again and see if you can view it without exhibiting a menopausal reaction.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Time limitations may give all TV interviewers shorter attention spans than one would prefer. But the entire Paul interview is about 25 minutes, and I’d say in the longer form you get more of an idea of Tim Russert’s ability with a follow-up.

    And Jacob, if you read my original comment, I said I was surprised how reasonable the good doctor was. Until that pesky Civil Rights Act came up. He said he would still vote against it, today, right now [not 20 years ago], because it trampled on private property rights.

    I don’t want anyone who could say that in the White House.

    Scuse me, time for my estrogen.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Russert was if anything harder on Giuliani and Romney than on Paul. Does this fit into Jacob’s dumb conspiracy theories?

    GE is not likely to be a left-wing organization, even if they did control what their reporters say. Which is a ridiculous notion anyhow. Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews? I don’t think anyone tells them what to say, and I don’t think they ‘pimp’ for corporate America either.

    And what’s the MIC anyway? Google just comes back with it as an abbreviation for microphone.

  • Jacob

    Russert was if anything harder on Giuliani and Romney than on Paul. Does this fit into Jacob’s dumb conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy?

    Russert is in a different position than Olbermann or Matthews. The reputation of Meet the Press and its ability to form public opinion is unlike the other NBC shows.

    And what’s the MIC anyway? It’s been the same as when Eisenhower tagged it as the Military Industrial Complex.

    Glad to hear you’re taking your estrogen. You’re less cranky now.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Well, Giuliani and Romney would likely be candidates that the Military-Industrial Complex would welcome. So Tim’s bosses musta been sore at him for giving Rudy and Mitt the third degree [and making them look quite ridiculous, at least to my utterly non-objective eyes].

  • Jacob

    There’s not much Russert could do to keep Giuliani and Romney from looking ridiculous.

    Anybody could have done that.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    But since he’s pimpin’ for the big defense contractor that owns his studio, wouldn’t he be trying to make the militarist Republicans look good? If, as you claim, that’s the reason he was trying to make poor defenseless Dr. Paul look bad. Or were you just kiddin’?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I haven’t watched the Romney interview yet, but Giuliani certainly didn’t look ridiculous. He faced the toughest questions any of them have been hit with that I’ve seen and dealt with the head on and with a refreshing honesty.

    Dave

  • Jacob

    The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.

    It should be obvious.

  • Clavos

    “The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.

    It should be obvious.”

    Good tactic, Jake.

    Keep repeating that periodically; make sure everyone sees it.

    You’re gonna need the excuse…

  • Jacob

    O.K.

    The MSM is against Paul. That includes NBC.

    It should be obvious

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    This is not my own line, it’s from the Newsweek commentator who appears often on the Chris Matthews show:

    Giuliani’s fake, forced grin during Russert’s tough prosecutorial grilling about security guards for his girlfriend, shadowy business dealings, etc., was held in place so long he began to resemble Jack Nicholson as The Joker in Batman.

    Of course, Dave has already practically decided to vote for Rudy, and I think Rudy would be one of the worst presidents ever, especially following the current one [meaning he’s a despicable bully who would make the current bad situation even worse, both domestically and internationally]. So it’s not surprising we look at the same interview tape and perceive it so differently.

  • Jacob

    The country will be the loser if Giuliani doesn’t make it to the White House.

    The country will lose its last chance to get Bernie Kerik in as head of Homeland Security.

  • Clavos

    The reports from Iowa are in.

    Must have been the MSM’s fault, including NBC.

    It’s obvious.

  • Clavos

    “Ron Paul says no to all special interests.”

    Apparently, the favor got returned.

    The people (of Iowa) spoke.

    Loud and clear.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Paul was never looked at as a strong candidate in Iowa [was he?]. If he has a chance anywhere early on, it’s New Hampshire.

    The big news tonight is that Romney and Clinton lost, and that Obama and Huckabee won. That news may only last 5 days. NH happens on Tuesday.

  • http://www.myspace/phillidor Gary

    -it was almost a three way tie for 3rd
    (pretty good for a lack of media coverage for Paul)

    -perhaps it was really a four way tie for 3rd. (Giuliani was surprisingly low)
    – Assuming Thompson, McCain, Paul, & Giuliani each had roughly 10%
    Then it is conceivable that 6% of Giuliani’s supports split to support Thompson and McCain to boost their numbers up to around 13%

    Now,

    The negative attack adds between the leaders can tear each other down leaving Paul unmolested.

    Wyoming on 01/05/2008 may be a good showing for Rep. Ron Paul (although probably little media coverage)
    New Hampshire, with it’s libertarian leanings, may be really big for Paul.
    Also, I suspect that Nevada on the 19th will be good for Paul especially if N.H. is big on the 8th.

    Let’s hope that the money raised by Rep. Paul can be put to good use in the lead up to the 5th of February.

    Lastly,
    Paul’s fund raising has been increasing at an exponential rate and far surpasses Huckabee.
    Slow and steady wins the race, and if Paul is picking up speed then all the better.
    I still remain optimistic for the Paul candidacy.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Well, none of you will admit it yet…but on Feb 6, Paul is either a 3rd party candidate, or he’s history. His campaign has little or nothing to do with the Republican Party anyway.

  • http://www.myspace/phillidor Gary

    Note: I meant to say that Giuliani’s supports who may have made up his other 6% (60% of his support if we assume 10%) split to support McCain and Thompson.

  • Kris

    Well–

    Now you know that the polls can be accurate. Ron Paul placed fifth in the Iowa Caucus.

    We capitalists should apply a free-market analysis to this election. The Ron Paul brand failed miserably in Iowa. He had a chance to place third, and he placed fifth.

    Only a radical re-tooling of the Ron Paul message will result in victory. He has the money to get out the message, but that message needs serious tweeking, starting tomorrow.

    All three leading Democrats in their Iowa post-caucus speeches emphasized health care. Edwards and Obama used specific heart-wrenching stories about the hard-luck cases. Huckabee talks with heart-felt authenticity about the middle class.

    Notice that the big winners Obama and Huckabee both emphasized bringing the country together. At least in Iowa, that was the winning message.

    In New Hampshire, Paul needs to go after Thompson and McCain– that’s where a lot of the potential Paul votes are going.

    If Paul doesn’t finish at least third in New Hampshire, what’s the game plan after that?

    Yours in liberty,

    Kris

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    How the hell could Paul retool his message? It’s not the kind of message that can change to fit the whims of the audience. It’s take it or leave it.

    And his 10% in Iowa wasn’t bad considering what his message is and what a terrible environmnet a caucus was for his kind of campaign. Caucuses favor insiders and Paul is about as far from that as you can get.

    Dave

  • http://www.barethoughts.com/blog Tam

    His Iowa finsih was horrible… and he should have gotten at least 20% if the campaing and supports actually understood what matters to Iowans instead of buying into the stereo-type.

    He supports/is against a lot of things that matter to us, it was just never talked about.

  • http://www.barethoughts.com/blog Tam

    Oh – crossovers from the Dems and Independants, didn’t need to “plain in advance”. In Iowa, you can register (or switch affiliation) at the door.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Yes, but the ones who were from out of state and fanatically moved to Iowa – as some apparently did – needed plenty of advance planning.

    Paul was hardly counting on Iowa, and even while focusing most of his attention elsewhere he did pick up 2 delegates, which is better than a whole bunch of pretty well established candidates, including Giuliani.

    Dave

  • http://www.barethoughts.com/blog Tam

    If they even tried to understand Iowans, and actually appealed to them instead of the stereo type, they wouldnt have need a bunch of out of staters.. and out of staters did not help his cause

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Caucuses favor insiders and Paul is about as far from that as you can get.

    Neither Obama nor Huckabee is an “insider.” The Establishment candidates in Iowa were Clinton and Romney, and they both fell short.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, Obama and Huckabee are far more ‘insiders’ than Paul is. Both of them are working with party leaders and established power groups within their parties and have the nod of approval for their candidacies. Paul is running an entirely independent campaign inside the GOP.

    Dave