With $20 milliion to spend New Hampshire could be the key to the rest of the election for Ron Paul.
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - 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%
27 - 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.
28 - 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?
29 - 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.
30 - 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?
31 - 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.
32 - 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.
33 - J2
*now
(oops)
34 - 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.
35 - 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.
36 - 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.
37 - 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 ...
38 - 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).
39 - 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?
40 - 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?
41 - 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
+++++++++++++++++++++
42 - 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?
43 - 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
44 - 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.
45 - 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.
46 - 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.
47 - 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!
48 - 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..."
49 - 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.
50 - 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.
51 - 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.
52 - 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.
53 - 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.
54 - 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.
55 - 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.
56 - 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
57 - Jacob
Mr. Cline has seen the light...
Halleluja!
58 - 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.
59 - 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
60 - 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
61 - voter 1981
ron paul or bust forget the stupid talking points we all know thats it is time for a true change
62 - 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.
63 - 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
64 - Republicae
Even the McCain Campaign is now worried about Ron Paul winning, or at least trumping him in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
65 - 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.
66 - 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.
67 - 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.
68 - 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.
69 - 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?
70 - 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.
71 - Jean Bailey
How about the 74% uncomitted votes. Which way will they commit. Could it be Ron Paul.
72 - 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.
73 - 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.
74 - Jacob
The polls are missing Ron Paul's momentum.
Do the polls really address a random sample of those who will vote?
75 - 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.