PDA

View Full Version : NYT: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-DEA, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul"


wazu
07-22-2007, 02:10 AM
Great read. Pretty balanced by New York Times standards. His life is an interesting tale. A few highlights:

1. Elected to congress as a non-incumbent 3 times, including once where George Junior and George Senior both endorsed the "flipped" incumbent Democrat who was running against him.

In the first days of 1995, just weeks after the Republican landslide, Paul traveled to Washington and, through DeLay, made contact with the Texas Republican delegation. He told them he could beat the Democratic incumbent Greg Laughlin in the reconfigured Gulf Coast district that now included his home. Republicans had their own ideas. In June 1995, Laughlin announced he would run in the next election as a Republican. Laughlin says he had discussed switching parties with Newt Gingrich, the next speaker, before the Republicans even took power. Paul suspects to this day that the Republicans wooed Laughlin to head off his candidacy. Whatever happened, it didn’t work. Paul challenged Laughlin in the primary. "At first, we kind of blew him off,” recalls the longtime Texas political consultant Royal Masset. “ ‘Oh, there’s Ron Paul!’ But very quickly, we realized he was getting far more money than anybody.” Much of it came from out of state, from the free-market network Paul built up while far from Congress.

His candidacy was a problem not just for Laughlin. It also threatened to halt the stream of prominent Democrats then switching parties — for what sane incumbent would switch if he couldn’t be assured the Republican nomination? The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin. Paul had only two prominent backers: the tax activist Steve Forbes and the pitcher Nolan Ryan, Paul’s constituent and old friend, who cut a number of ads for him. They were enough. Paul edged Laughlin in a runoff and won an equally narrow general election.

2. He recalls an appauling account of an abortion he witnessed as a young doctor where the baby was pulled from the womb crying and then dumped in a bucket.

3. Immediate reaction to 9/11 was, "now we're gonna get big government." (Wow.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html

Taco John
07-22-2007, 02:39 AM
I really hope that at some point Americans are going to wake up to what Ron Paul is about in a very big way, and realize that he's just the shake to the system that America needs.

Logical
07-22-2007, 03:34 AM
I really hope that at some point Americans are going to wake up to what Ron Paul is about in a very big way, and realize that he's just the shake to the system that America needs.

Though he scares the hell out of me I would vote for him in a nanosecond if he could get the nomination.

StcChief
07-22-2007, 11:35 AM
Agreed we need a shakeup badly.

Silock
07-22-2007, 01:30 PM
Though he scares the hell out of me I would vote for him in a nanosecond if he could get the nomination.

Make sure you vote in the primaries, then.

Valiant
07-22-2007, 02:18 PM
I really hope that at some point Americans are going to wake up to what Ron Paul is about in a very big way, and realize that he's just the shake to the system that America needs.


Well start telling all your friends, everybody I know is fed up with both parties and like what I tell them about Paul.. Maybe if there is enough networking of friends and through online sites like myspace/facebook there might be enough grassroots initiative for him to stand a chance...

Or if we can convince churches to notice the guy..

Taco John
07-22-2007, 02:41 PM
He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).



I love Paul's principle here. He walks the walk, that's for sure.

Logical
07-22-2007, 03:16 PM
Make sure you vote in the primaries, then.I am torn, I can vote against Hillary or I can vote for Ron Paul but not both. I kind of think it is more important to vote against Hillary.

Felch83
07-22-2007, 04:01 PM
"pretty balanaced by NYT's standards"

hahahaha that was funny

Silock
07-22-2007, 06:37 PM
I am torn, I can vote against Hillary or I can vote for Ron Paul but not both. I kind of think it is more important to vote against Hillary.

No way. Plenty of people to do that already.

Logical
07-22-2007, 06:53 PM
No way. Plenty of people to do that already.You have to remember I live in CA where Clintons are loved.

Silock
07-23-2007, 04:10 AM
You have to remember I live in CA where Clintons are loved.

All the more reason to vote for Paul, then, IMO. Voting against somebody almost never works as well as voting FOR somebody.

Logical
07-23-2007, 09:27 PM
All the more reason to vote for Paul, then, IMO. Voting against somebody almost never works as well as voting FOR somebody.Look I can waste my vote on Paul who won't be the Republican nominee no matter how much you wish for it. Or I can vote for another leading Democrat who has a chance to edge out Hillary, if my vote is wasted then it will be in an effort that has a chance.

Cochise
07-23-2007, 11:01 PM
He has some good ideas, no question about that. I think his philosophy on Iraq would be an error in the long term sense for us, but some of what he says sounds good.

I don't see where people think he can be a factor in this race though. He's at 2 or 3% in most of the polls I was just looking at, doesn't matter if they put in people like Newt or Thompson or what.

I think on the internet he's being propped up by a lot of people who won't end up voting for a Republican anyway and because he's appealing as the media-favored alternative, like McCain was in 2000.

Newt isn't even in the race and he's polling higher. Thompson isn't officially in the race yet and he's polling higher too. McCain's candidacy is only barely still on life support, and Romney isn't doing any better, but all those people are ahead of him. You don't usually see minor candidates bow out and their support strengthen other minor candidates.

I don't see how he can end up being in the race, for real.

banyon
07-23-2007, 11:09 PM
He has some good ideas, no question about that. I think his philosophy on Iraq would be an error in the long term sense for us, but some of what he says sounds good.

I don't see where people think he can be a factor in this race though. He's at 2 or 3% in most of the polls I was just looking at, doesn't matter if they put in people like Newt or Thompson or what.

I think on the internet he's being propped up by a lot of people who won't end up voting for a Republican anyway and because he's appealing as the media-favored alternative, like McCain was in 2000.

Newt isn't even in the race and he's polling higher. Thompson isn't officially in the race yet and he's polling higher too. McCain's candidacy is only barely still on life support, and Romney isn't doing any better, but all those people are ahead of him. You don't usually see minor candidates bow out and their support strengthen other minor candidates.

I don't see how he can end up being in the race, for real.

Pretty much my view is the opposite of this. I agree with him on Iraq and disagree on most other stuff. Probably some agreement on immigration too.

I just realized that what i just typed sounds like an StcChief post. Good Lord. Maybe I should not drink gin on a monday. :(

BucEyedPea
07-23-2007, 11:10 PM
I don't see where people think he can be a factor in this race though. He's at 2 or 3% in most of the polls I was just looking at, doesn't matter if they put in people like Newt or Thompson or what.

I think on the internet he's being propped up by a lot of people who won't end up voting for a Republican anyway and because he's appealing as the media-favored alternative, like McCain was in 2000.

Newt isn't even in the race and he's polling higher. Thompson isn't officially in the race yet and he's polling higher too. McCain's candidacy is only barely still on life support, and Romney isn't doing any better, but all those people are ahead of him. You don't usually see minor candidates bow out and their support strengthen other minor candidates.

I don't see how he can end up being in the race, for real.

You crack me up...just what are Huckabee polling numbers? Paul is 1 percentage point ahead of Hukabee.

BTW....

National polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates.

• In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).
• In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
• In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).
• In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).
• In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary).


Consider the following:
• Pollsters are selecting responses which only include loyal republicans and democrats who are likely to vote. But new voters are registering because of Paul's message. Young voters are also registering.
• Rasmussen isn’t tracking the second-tier candidates.Most pollsters are not polling 2nd tier candidates.
• Pollsters tend to poll those with landlines and are less likely to adopt to new technology. There is now a cellphone constituency not being measured.
• Paul has moved ahead 1 percentage point ahead of Huckabee.

I'd guess it's more like 10%. Still a long shot but higher than conventional polls indicate.


Ron Paul and Opinion Polling (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html)
Polling Methodology and Politics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk1.html)

Cochise
07-23-2007, 11:20 PM
You crack me up...just what are Huckabee polling numbers? Paul is 1 percentage point ahead of Hukabee.

I don't see what Huckabee has to do with anything.


Consider the following:
• Pollsters are selecting responses which only include loyal republicans and democrats who are likely to vote. But new voters are registering because of Paul's message. Young voters are also registering.
• Rasmussen isn’t tracking the second-tier candidates.Most pollsters are not polling 2nd tier candidates.
• Pollsters tend to poll those with landlines and are less likely to adopt to new technology. There is now a cellphone constituency not being measured.
• Paul has moved ahead 1 percentage point ahead of Huckabee.


So there are two examples in modern history of someone winning from where he is right now.

-New voters are registering? Is he going to register 50 million new voters?

-I was referencing Gallup, which does track them. I just looked it up 10 minutes ago, you can go out and find it if you like also.

-All we heard in 2004 was about all the cellphone voters who were going to put Dean, and then Kerry, over the top, because they couldn't be measured. It turned out if they weren't being measured they were falling out just like everyone else. The truth is that most cellphones in the United States are still duplicated by land lines.

-Who said either of those candidates were a factor?

I mean, thanks for the cut and pastes here, but it doesn't really say anything about him being a factor.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2007, 11:24 PM
I don't see what Huckabee has to do with anything.
You're talkin' about someone who has no chance because he's a non-factor yet you choose Huckabee in the other poll. LOL!

I mean, thanks for the cut and pastes here, but it doesn't really say anything about him being a factor.
Just saying I think he's higher than 1% and that it has happened before.
I'm not going to make any predictions.

Cochise
07-23-2007, 11:28 PM
You're talkin' about someone who has no chance because he's a non-factor yet you choose Huckabee in the other poll. LOL!


Just saying I think he's higher than 1% and that it has happened before.
I'm not going to make any predictions.

I've said in several places I'm not supporting anyone in particular at this point. I am positive on Huckabee but I'm not in anyone's camp right now.

I can't think of a good sig bet right now, or I would try to think of one to make on whether Ron Paul wins even one state primary.

Taco John
07-23-2007, 11:30 PM
The more people learn about Ron Paul, the higher his polling numbers go. Problem is, right now he's not so well known. That will change.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Logical
07-23-2007, 11:33 PM
My only prediction is Ron Paul won't be the Republican candidate, but might end up as an Independent candidate who will do a good job of siphoning off Republican conservative votes.

Cochise
07-23-2007, 11:33 PM
2. He recalls an appauling account of an abortion he witnessed as a young doctor where the baby was pulled from the womb crying and then dumped in a bucket.

Not really any different than PBA

banyon
07-23-2007, 11:41 PM
That's a good video Taco. I will say that of all the Republican candidates he is the one I probably respect the most.

He has a unique resemblance in my view to Dennis Kucinich. Both parties attempt to marginalize them, both are very principled in the unwavering stands that they take, and unfortunately, both are also more or less unphotogenic and shut out for very superficial reasons.

Really a shame for both men.

wazu
07-23-2007, 11:43 PM
Look I can waste my vote on Paul who won't be the Republican nominee no matter how much you wish for it. Or I can vote for another leading Democrat who has a chance to edge out Hillary, if my vote is wasted then it will be in an effort that has a chance.

Here's the flaw in the "I don't want to waste my vote" philosophy:

Unless the entire state of California comes down to a single vote, it really doesn't matter who you vote for. So you might as well vote for your favorite candidate everytime you go to the polls and simplify your life a little bit.

And besides, all that aside, you've got a better chance of being the "swing vote" for Ron Paul than you have of somehow preventing the state of California from nominating and sending all of their electoral votes in for Hillary.

Taco John
07-24-2007, 12:22 AM
Ron Paul in action:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A4kxTkhwR_Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Logical
07-24-2007, 01:16 AM
Here's the flaw in the "I don't want to waste my vote" philosophy:

Unless the entire state of California comes down to a single vote, it really doesn't matter who you vote for. So you might as well vote for your favorite candidate everytime you go to the polls and simplify your life a little bit.

And besides, all that aside, you've got a better chance of being the "swing vote" for Ron Paul than you have of somehow preventing the state of California from nominating and sending all of their electoral votes in for Hillary.

First I am not likely to be voting for any Republican or Democrat presently running in the Presidential race. Ron Paul comes close but I don't think I could vote for him based on his desires to eliminate the CIA, FAA and a few other IMO very valuable departments of the government, just too radical.

2nd though I doubt he can win I would like to see Obama win some key primaries so he is well positioned for a future run and I think he has a chance in California's primary.

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 08:48 AM
Ron Paul comes close but I don't think I could vote for him based on his desires to eliminate the CIA,...
I thought you came to the conclusion, in another thread where this was discussed, that Paul never really claimed to eliminate the CIA?