PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Leads GOP Straw Poll



jetdawgg
05-28-07, 06:35 PM
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) leads a GOP straw poll presented by GOP Bloggers, a grassroots community "with the goal of keeping a Republican majority in Congress, and a Republican President in the White House."

According to email commentary left on several sites, the online GOP straw poll “is very important and is one of the polls that the [mainstream] media uses to analyze a candidate’s popularity."

The GOP Bloggers site and straw poll can be seen here:

http://www.gopstrawpolls.com

Up-to-date results may be seen here:

http://www.gopstrawpolls.com/pollresults.php

Ron Paul has been called an "Internet phenomenon." His campaign has claimed that his name is now one of the top web searches, along with Paris Hilton. Recent press conferences and media appearances, including such programs as Bill Maher's "Real Time" on HBO (Friday evening, May 25) are exposing his small government, free-market views to a widening audience.

The polling, as of late Friday, May 25, reads as follows:

10031 ballots cast

First Choice:

Paul 3240 (32.3%)
F. Thompson 2881 (28.7%)
Romney 1384 (13.8%)
Giuliani 688 (6.9%)
Gingrich 454 (4.5%)
Hunter 369 (3.7%)
Huckabee 261 (2.6%)
(none) 250 (2.5%)
Tancredo 225 (2.2%)
Brownback 163 (1.6%)
McCain 85 (0.8%)
T. Thompson 20 (0.2%)
Gilmore 11 (0.1%)


Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42139

DougRagan
05-29-07, 12:17 AM
:bunny: :bunny: :bunny:

Ron Paul wins online polls, but can't get higher than 3% in a phone poll. Gee, I wonder why.

By the way, the site LGF has shown that Ron Paul supporters use dial up internet accounts and proxy servers to falsify online polls. Online polls are only as honest as those who know how to use the internet. Ron Paul has about 20 supporters, all of whom know how to change their IP address.

jetdawgg
05-29-07, 10:59 AM
From what I have seen, read and heard from Ron Paul, he is the only republican candidate who is making sense

Sgt Leprechaun
05-30-07, 11:47 PM
Try Fred Thompson. Ron Paul ain't gonna do it. No real national base of support. Ask the Deaniacs about 'net' support and how it can mislead a candidate into thinking he's more than he is.

jetdawgg
05-31-07, 11:39 AM
The FOX Noise Channel won't push his agenda to the republicans....

Sgt Leprechaun
06-01-07, 09:57 AM
Ahhh. I see. Because, perhaps, he's another 'truther'? Read that to mean "Moonbat"?

I like the term "Push his agenda". Since we are taking that tack, does that mean that CBS/NBC/ABC, et al, "Push" the demo agenda?

I would think so.

jetdawgg
06-01-07, 11:58 AM
Ahhh. I see. Because, perhaps, he's another 'truther'? Read that to mean "Moonbat"?

I like the term "Push his agenda". Since we are taking that tack, does that mean that CBS/NBC/ABC, et al, "Push" the demo agenda?

I would think so.

To the contrary Marine. CBS just fired a former US General for speaking out against the war and the Bush admin. The MSM is just not as extreme as the FOX Noise Channel

OLE SARG
06-01-07, 02:14 PM
Yeh, and according to Moonbat Paul, 9/11 was an "inside job"!!!!!!!!!!! He is a typical leftwinger with all the screwy ideas for leading the U. S. into the perfect order.

SEMPER FI,

jetdawgg
06-02-07, 01:23 PM
I saw him in the republican debate

jetdawgg
06-02-07, 01:57 PM
he reaction to the showdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0) between Rep. Ron Paul (javascript:siteSearch('Ron Paul');) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (javascript:siteSearch('Rudy Giuliani');) has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."


Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.


The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.


What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.


This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).


Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.


But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan) demanded he be excluded from future debates.


Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.


This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.


But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.


If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.


It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.


Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306es.html) years before it happened. For example:


— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy (http://www.affbrainwash.com/genehealy/archives/005210.php): "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."


— Ted Galen Carpenter (http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-14-02.html), also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C274174%2C00.html#) in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."
Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:


— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."
— White House (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C274174%2C00.html#) economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any intervention would be very small."


— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C274174%2C00.html#) were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.


The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.


Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, [I]TheAgitator.com (http://www.theagitator.com/).

Respond to Writer (foxcolumn@gmail.com%3Cmailto:foxcolumn@gmail.com% 20%3E%20?cc%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 =views@foxnews.com)


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C274174%2C00.html
(foxcolumn@gmail.com%3Cmailto:foxcolumn@gmail.com% 20%3E%20?cc%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 =views@foxnews.com)

10thzodiac
06-02-07, 03:05 PM
If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I probably won't vote for the Democrat, Clinton, Obama or Gore at this point.

jetdawgg
06-02-07, 05:01 PM
If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I probably won't vote for the Democrat, Clinton, Obama or Gore at this point.

He certainly has my attention also. I have to hear him on some other things and really look into his record, but he is speaking truth about the failed war policies, foreign policy and 911

10thzodiac
06-02-07, 09:14 PM
I'm with you Sarge
:thumbup:

greensideout
06-02-07, 09:35 PM
Don't get too excited. If you're not a "player" you will never get the vote. The way it is. Ron Paul is interesting to take a look at however.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-03-07, 09:55 AM
Riiiiight. Ron Paul as the nominee? Not likely. His nutroots support is the only support he has at the moment.

He IS, I agree, greenside, interesting to read. But I equate him along the same lines I'd use for any other tin foil hat person believing the gray aliens really run the gummint, etc etc.

My money remains on FRED THOMPSON, who would be the only REAL republican in the race.

jetdawgg
06-03-07, 02:16 PM
SGT Lep, looks like we have an agreement here about Fred Thompson. With that being the case, the republicans look like winning this time will not happen.

Too many 'republicans' running and the vote is splintered.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-03-07, 02:30 PM
I don't believe so. If Fred gets the nom, the party will have a candidate that matches Reagan with his 'presence' as well as ideas. The party will get behind him for the most part.

He knows how to talk to the camera, he has a 'presence' as I said, but yet still can portray that 'folksy' bit without seeming like a buffoon or someone who is faking it.

jetdawgg
06-03-07, 02:35 PM
Can he do it in time though and with the war in Iraq?

Sgt Leprechaun
06-03-07, 02:38 PM
He's gotta win, first. And, I have come to the conclusion that the 'war' in Iraq will be very much like the Korean war; (the prez used a good analogy with that) we'll have troops there forever.

jetdawgg
06-03-07, 02:43 PM
In agree. The troops will be there a long time. Not in the current role though. Very much like Korea

jetdawgg
06-05-07, 07:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZgd9wxE98&mode=user&search=

OLE SARG
06-05-07, 09:25 AM
Submitted by ron paul!!!!! Isn't he one of the loons who believes 9/11 was an inside job??????

SEMPER FI,

jetdawgg
06-06-07, 03:50 AM
The real issue is why is the FOX Noise Channel and other republican outlets attempting to minimize his deliveries?:usmc: