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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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
2 - 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.
3 - 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.
4 - 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?
5 - 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.
6 - 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.
7 - Sam Marsh
No other receptive early primary states? Nevada, anyone?
8 - Silver Surfer
Can Ron Paul win in New Hampshire?
A: No.
9 - 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.
10 - 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
11 - 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.
12 - 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.
13 - 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.
14 - 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.
15 - Silver Surfer
Bollocks
16 - 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.
17 - 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.
18 - 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.
19 - 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.
20 - 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!
21 - 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.
22 - 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.
23 - 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?
24 - 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!
25 - 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.