John McCain & Ron Paul about to go One on One...

[Taco John]

Let’s Go One-On-One

by James Ostrowski

I'm not shy about expressing my opinion (have you noticed?) or making predictions. My big mouth got me into a few scrapes as a kid in South Buffalo (but being 6-2 helped in that department).

Anyway, most of my predictions or observations about politics for whatever reason turn out to be correct. Non-beginner’s luck I guess.

One of those that so far has not proven true is my dismissal of Huckabee as a serious player. I am still blind when it comes to the Huckabee phenomenon. I still don’t see how anyone could take this man seriously. Stand-up comic yes; president, no.

I also thought that it would help Ron Paul to split the neocon, warmonger, big-government conservative vote into many different pieces. Although it's still very early, it didn’t work out that way in the first two states where 90 percent voted to continue the welfare-warfare state and our decadent, Chinese-funded global military empire.

One of my favorite quotes is Emerson’s "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." He meant that you should choose truth over ego when new facts challenge your beliefs.

I'm now getting the feeling that the Revolution would be better off going one-on-one with whomever is chosen by the party of big-government conservatism.

Right now, the smart money is on McCain. Why McCain? We were hashing that out Friday after a Ron Paul event in Buffalo. My theory: all the opponents of Ron Paul are deeply flawed candidates either for political or personal reasons. Whoever is the focus of attention at any moment disappoints. The "last man standing" notion has been floated and I think it’s true. It’s McCain’s turn to be the "last" man standing. That's because when the spotlight was shown on Thompson, he bombed. The same happened with Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee. After rejecting all those, people took a second look at McCain forgetting that long ago, when the spotlight was on him, they didn’t like him either. So call it the "Brit Hume memory loss/last man standing theory."

So, if McCain wins in Michigan, the occasionally correct pundits tell us, there will be pressure to quickly coronate him as the nominee. The media and party establishments will coalesce to declare the game over. Huckabee may be bought off with VP or a sitcom.

Since Ron Paul can’t be bought, he would remain in the race with plenty of cash and a huge army of volunteers and a campaign that learned important lessons in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Why is this one-on-one scenario a good thing?

First, there’s too much "noise" now for people to focus on Ron Paul’s message. Too many distractions for busy people to really concentrate.

Second, those who vaguely oppose Ron Paul because the media has trashed him or smeared him or because they were assured he couldn’t win, have not thus far had to make a real choice other than Ron Paul. It’s been Ron Paul, who they know little about anyway against some abstract notion of "the perfect candidate." Now, they will have to make a real, concrete, warts and all choice. If voting against Ron Paul means voting for John McCain, then all those who dislike John McCain will have to think long and hard about that choice. I applied the same logic to my pre-Ron Paul prediction that Hillary would be the next president. If the choice is, should Hillary be president, she loses. But up against another flawed human being, actually McCain in my scenario, she wins.

Third, as we saw in the debate the other night, when Ron Paul has time to speak, he demolishes his opponents. Remember the second last debate when he discussed health care and monetary policy and when he stopped, there was an embarrassed silence when his opponents were rendered speechless, then Fred said something really stupid? McCain showed the other night that he flunked economics 101. With sufficient time, the public would come to see who is the professor and who is the C-student on economics, civil liberties and foreign policy. Don’t be surprised if McCain explodes out of sheer frustration! Ron Paul, on the other hand, is unflappable. To use a favored metaphor, it would be "three yards and a cloud of dust," as Ron Paul runs the ball up the middle and McCain’s modest intellectual defenses gradually weaken and then collapse late in the third quarter.

Fourth, Ron Paul conveniently disappeared from the coverage about three days before New Hampshire and Iowa, just when most people started focusing on the election. It would be much more difficult to pull that stunt with only two candidates in the race and Ron Paul running a highly visible advertising campaign.

Fifth, the strongest practical argument for Ron Paul is that he can beat Hillary and the other Republicans cannot. That’s a much easier argument to make if it’s one-on-one. McCain is the quintessential candidate who cannot beat Hillary. He was the example I used when I first floated that theory a year ago.

Finally, the establishment has taken the gloves off against Ron Paul. Everything is on the table now. John McCain is the first one to admit that he’s a deeply flawed man. In a one-on-one race with this much at stake, he provides a large target if, as we are now being told, sainthood is the new standard for presidential candidates. So be it.

So, I now say, as to the prospects for going one-on-one with John McCain: bring it on!

January 14, 2008

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski88.html

[HonestChieffan]

Like MCain has a worry about the guy who just got 3% of the republican vote in Fla?

This madness needs to end.

[Taco John]

Like MCain has a worry about the guy who just got 3% of the republican vote in Fla?

This madness needs to end.



John McCain has a lot of weaknesses, and Ron Paul has a lot of money to exploit those weaknesses.

Peeling off conservatives isn't really going to be all that difficult.

[BucEyedPea]

He's right. The GOP cannot win with McCain because of his pro-war position. It flies in the face of the change Americans are seeking if anyone wants to confront reality.

[Cochise]

He's right. The GOP cannot win with McCain because of his pro-war position. It flies in the face of the change Americans are seeking if anyone wants to confront reality.

LMAO

I think the biggest problem the Paul 'movement' has is that you guys really believe this kind of stuff.

[cookster50]

LMAO

I think the biggest problem the Paul 'movement' has is that you guys really believe this kind of stuff.
Oops, I thought she was joking........seriously.

[Silock]

LMAO

I think the biggest problem the Paul 'movement' has is that you guys really believe this kind of stuff.

So, you believe a pro-war GOP candidate will win the presidency?

[BucEyedPea]

So, you believe a pro-war GOP candidate will win the presidency?

Yup! They do. It amazes me how much these guys project the inadequacies of their candidates or position onto others. As the saying goes: it takes one to know one.

[patteeu]

So, you believe a pro-war GOP candidate will win the presidency?

Both John McCain and Mitt Romney have a heck of a lot better chance of winning it than Ron Paul. Isn't that obvious yet?

[patteeu]

How can a candidate who inspires less than 10% of his party's voters despite the fact that his positions put him in stark contrast with a slew of other candidates (who would presumably canibalize the vote of those who disagree with him) hope to win in the general election?

[Taco John]

How can a candidate who inspires less than 10% of his party's voters despite the fact that his positions put him in stark contrast with a slew of other candidates (who would presumably canibalize the vote of those who disagree with him) hope to win in the general election?



How can a pro war candidate in a nation where 70% of the electorate is anti-war hope to win in the general election?

I've been telling people this for a long time: get used to the idea of Ron Paul being in this race until September at the very least. He's got money and more is on the way. He'll challenge McCain with that money and continue to attract a following.

[Cochise]

So, you believe a pro-war GOP candidate will win the presidency?

I don't know if one will, or not. One certainly could. The war is not going to be the primary issue in this campaign. It may not even be in the top 3. People seem to be more worried about the economy and the supposed health care crisis, those are just two examples.

And as Paul has proven, the number of GOP voters who can stomach a retreat platform is about 5%, so there certainly was never going to be a problem nominating one, and that's half the electorate already.

[patteeu]

How can a pro war candidate in a nation where 70% of the electorate is anti-war hope to win in the general election?

I've been telling people this for a long time: get used to the idea of Ron Paul being in this race until September at the very least. He's got money and more is on the way. He'll challenge McCain with that money and continue to attract a following.

Your 70% number was extremely soft even when it was fresh. Now, after months of continuing improvement in Iraq, both in terms of military results and political reconciliation, it's not even real.

[Radar Chief]

So, you believe a pro-war GOP candidate will win the presidency?

Particularly since the success of the “surge”, the majority don’t want immediate withdrawal either. An “anti-war” candidate probably stands about as much chance as your giving a “pro-war” candidate.

[Cochise]

Your 70% number was extremely soft even when it was fresh. Now, after months of continuing improvement in Iraq, both in terms of military results and political reconciliation, it's not even real.

I want to see numbers from today, the last week, whatever, asking a real question, like "do you favor the strategy of completely retreating immediately."

[BucEyedPea]

Bill Schneider reported on CNN a few weeks ago that the so called "success" of the surge did not change statistics among Democrats, Moderates or Independents. It only helped within the GOP ranks and then only somewhat.

BTW Schneider is also a member of super-hawk think-tank AEI.

[HonestChieffan]

There are a lot of people who are Pro strong Defense. The paulies cannot accept the fact that no one "likes war", but even those who dislike it understand that wars are a fact of the world we live in and that we have to be willing to have a stong defense.

[Taco John]

Rasmussen: 59% Want Troops Home from Iraq Within Year


Tuesday, January 29, 2008


A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That's up slightly from a week ago, but down four points from two weeks ago. Over the last sixteen weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.

Twenty-five percent (25%) now want the troops brought home immediately. That’s two points lower than it was a week ago and is equal to results from two weeks ago.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 35% want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That is three points lower than the percentage from last week. The number wanting the troops to remain and finish the mission had ranged from 32% to 39%.

More women than men would like to see troops brought home within the year. While 68% of women want troops brought home, 50% of men feel the same. Forty-six percent (46%) of men want to see troops stay in Iraq until the mission is complete; only 26% of women agree.

There are also stark differences between party affiliations. An overwhelming number of Democrats would like to see the troops home within a year. While 38% of Republicans would like to see troop withdrawal within a year, 80% of Democrats feel the same way. On the other side, 58% of Republicans would like to see troops stay until the mission is complete, while only 15% of Democrats agree. Of those not affiliated with either party, 56% would like to see troops come home within a year and 35% would like to see troops finish the mission.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal

[BucEyedPea]

There are a lot of people who are Pro strong Defense. The paulies cannot accept the fact that no one "likes war", but even those who dislike it understand that wars are a fact of the world we live in and that we have to be willing to have a stong defense.
What does this cliche prove? Nothing.

Even a Paul supporter agrees with a strong Defense and that we may have to go to war. When it's for our freedom we must fight. When it's for a bunch of smoke n' mirrors to remove all tyranny from the world then it's needless nonsense akin to Napoleon, Japan and Soviet Russia who all of whom thought they were saving the world via pre-emptive wars of choice. That's what we don't want.

[Otter]

I like this guy, he must be a Chiefs fan: "three yards and a cloud of dust"

I'll leave the political arguments to you guys and depart this thread saying - It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

[Cochise]

There you go, Paul's national ceiling is probably 25%, the number who want immediate retreat.

And that's if he can take most of those people away from Hillary or Obama or Edwards, who they are currently supporting.

[patteeu]

What does this cliche prove? Nothing.

Even a Paul supporter agrees with a strong Defense and that we may have to go to war. When it's for our freedom we must fight. When it's for a bunch of smoke n' mirrors to remove all tyranny from the world then it's needless nonsense akin to Napoleon, Japan and Soviet Russia who all of whom thought they were saving the world via pre-emptive wars of choice. That's what we don't want.

I'd acknowledge that Paul supporters want a strong defense, but unfortunately, most of you don't know what a strong defense looks like.

[Cochise]

I'd acknowledge that Paul supporters want a strong defense, but unfortunately, most of you don't know what a strong defense looks like.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/shelters/images/11.jpg

[Donger]

Rasmussen: 59% Want Troops Home from Iraq Within Year

In other news...

64% of the Americans say that aliens have contacted humans.

80% of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

[patteeu]

There you go, Paul's national ceiling is probably 25%, the number who want immediate retreat.

Yep. When it comes to the war issue, anti-war candidates like Paul have to build from a committed base of 25% while a finish-the-job candidate like McCain would start with a 38% base according to Taco's own source.

And just how soft is the 58% leave-within-a-year number? Pretty damn soft if you consider that at one point almost a year ago, the number was 70% and Taco's article says it's been as high as 64% within the past few months. If those people really meant what they said in a solid sort of way, the leave-immediately group would have grown substantially over the past year as the leave-within-a-year people reached the limits of their patience. But that's not what's happening. Instead, the people who give this middle-of-the-road answer have proven to be pretty flexible. They're the people who, in general, think it would be good to bring our troops home at some point, but they're willing to string things along depending on the circumstances at any given moment. It's not likely to be the kind of thing they base their entire presidential vote on.

[HonestChieffan]

Lets see....If Im polled and they ask am I pro war or anti war, Ill always say anti war. So...that makes me one of this mysterious 70% I guess.

Do I support bring all the troops home right now...No.

Do I support a timetable? NO

Do I believe we need to have defined goals? Yes

Do I believe we will ever Not have a military presence in the mid east...NO.

We are there, we have good reason to be there, we need to finish this thing, I do believe the surge is working, I do believe Rumsfeld was a twit and never should have been there, and I believe we need to support the military so they can do their job.

I have zero faith in Hillary to direct the military as Commander in Chief. I have less faith in Obama to do it. And Ron Pauls stand is what makes him a first level kook.

[Cochise]

Yep. When it comes to the war issue, anti-war candidates like Paul have to build from a committed base of 25% while a finish-the-job candidate like McCain would start with a 38% base according to Taco's own source.

And just how soft is the 58% leave-within-a-year number? Pretty damn soft if you consider that at one point almost a year ago, the number was 70% and Taco's article says it's been as high as 64% within the past few months. If those people really meant what they said in a solid sort of way, the leave-immediately group would have grown substantially over the past year as the leave-within-a-year people reached the limits of their patience. But that's not what's happening. Instead, the people who give this middle-of-the-road answer have proven to be pretty flexible. They're the people who, in general, think it would be good to bring our troops home at some point, but they're willing to string things along depending on the circumstances at any given moment. It's not likely to be the kind of thing they base their entire presidential vote on.

Yes. My read on the issue is that there are 25% who want us to leave yesterday, no matter what, and they are probably the same people who always felt that way. The remainder are people who are either totally committed to the mission or are reasonably committed, as long as they feel we can win.

What is going on in this thread IMO is really not very honest. I think those guys know that the majority of the public does not want us leaving immediately but are deliberately casting it as such anyway.

[Taco John]

Yep. When it comes to the war issue, anti-war candidates like Paul have to build from a committed base of 25% while a finish-the-job candidate like McCain would start with a 38% base according to Taco's own source.

And just how soft is the 58% leave-within-a-year number? Pretty damn soft if you consider that at one point almost a year ago, the number was 70% and Taco's article says it's been as high as 64% within the past few months. If those people really meant what they said in a solid sort of way, the leave-immediately group would have grown substantially over the past year as the leave-within-a-year people reached the limits of their patience. But that's not what's happening. Instead, the people who give this middle-of-the-road answer have proven to be pretty flexible. They're the people who, in general, think it would be good to bring our troops home at some point, but they're willing to string things along depending on the circumstances at any given moment. It's not likely to be the kind of thing they base their entire presidential vote on.


Spin it however you want to spin it. The figures are what they are.

[Taco John]

What is going on in this thread IMO is really not very honest.


You can say that again! Did you read that horribly dishonest spin you just wrote!? LMAO

Good grief!

[Taco John]

This is some of the most hilarious dishonest spin I've ever encountered...

Yes. My read on the issue is that there are 25% who want us to leave yesterday, no matter what, and they are probably the same people who always felt that way. The remainder are people who are either totally committed to the mission or are reasonably committed, as long as they feel we can win.


You can't say anything to anyone this dishonest. You've just got to let them suck their thumbs and let them convince themselves that they're right.

[BucEyedPea]

Lets see....If Im polled and they ask am I pro war or anti war, Ill always say anti war. So...that makes me one of this mysterious 70% I guess.

Do I support bring all the troops home right now...No.

Do I support a timetable? NO

Do I believe we need to have defined goals? Yes

Do I believe we will ever Not have a military presence in the mid east...NO.


Apparently you can't read... the poll was regarding how long troops should stay in Iraq.

[patteeu]

Spin it however you want to spin it. The figures are what they are.

Right, the figures are what they are. That's what my post was about.

[BucEyedPea]

I see pat is spinning this a la Bill Clinton-style.

[Taco John]

Right, the figures are what they are. That's what my post was about.



No it wasn't. You post was about wishing the figures were something other than what they are. Cochise's post was about completely butt raping the figures to mean what he wants them to mean.

You felt up the figures... He completely violated them.

[BucEyedPea]

And here, I thought Cochise respected Rasmussen.

[Cochise]

This is some of the most hilarious dishonest spin I've ever encountered...




You can't say anything to anyone this dishonest. You've just got to let them suck their thumbs and let them convince themselves that they're right.

Actually, I got a little distracted while writing that. There's a segment of people who are in favor of a timetable or phased withdrawal, of course, but I neglected to include them.

So it's probably more like

25% - were always against the war, want immediate surrender, supporting either Paul or Clinton/Obama

35% - favor binding, public timetable, want us out ASAFP but don't want the country descending into anarchy. Clinton/Obama

40% or so - want us there until objectives are complete. Probably lean toward McCain, Romney, other republicans.

The point in any case is that Paul's view on the war is mostly incompatible with about 75% of the electorate from the get-go.

[Taco John]

Again, just to make it clear:

59% Want Troops Home from Iraq Within Year


This means that with all of this so-called "surge success," only 10% of the electorate has changed their minds from last year when 70% wanted out of Iraq. And in the last 16 weeks, the number of people who want troops home has been as high at 64%.

A pro-war candidate stands no chance to win this election.

[Taco John]

Actually, I got a little distracted while writing that. There's a segment of people who are in favor of a timetable or phased withdrawal, of course, but I neglected to include them.

So it's probably more like

25% - were always against the war, want immediate surrender, supporting either Paul or Clinton/Obama

35% - favor binding, public timetable, want us out ASAFP but don't want the country descending into anarchy. Clinton/Obama

40% or so - want us there until objectives are complete. Probably lean toward McCain, Romney, other republicans.

The point in any case is that Paul's view on the war is mostly incompatible with about 75% of the electorate from the get-go.


More lies... It's not even an accident. You're purposefully lying.

[Cochise]

That isn't lying. By what I said there, 60% or so either want us out now, or favor a timetable. The poll you are posting says that 59% want us out within a year. So what that I said there is false?

I'm interested about the phraseology here, as well. Did they say "Do you want us to be gone in a year?" Who wouldn't agree to that? Did it say "Do you favor pulling all troops out within 1 year, regardless of any events that may take place between now and then?"

[BucEyedPea]

It's called denial. Or delusional.

[Cochise]

It's called denial. Or delusional.

In your opinion. In my opinion you guys are certifiable, but that doesn't make it empirical truth.

Lying means I said something that was false and knew it to be false. Lying is a purposeful attempt to deceive, apart from any mistake or confusion. I'm not sure who I was trying to deceive or what I am saying that is false, that's what I asked.

[patteeu]

Again, just to make it clear:

59% Want Troops Home from Iraq Within Year


This means that with all of this so-called "surge success," only 10% of the electorate has changed their minds from last year when 70% wanted out of Iraq. And in the last 16 weeks, the number of people who want troops home has been as high at 64%.

A pro-war candidate stands no chance to win this election.

Have these people (the 59%) been in some kind of time warp for the past year? If not, how do you account for the fact that they now seem to be willing to give the troops a 2nd year to get out? How many of them will be up for a 3rd year 12 months from now?

Your numbers are as soft as a butterfly's kiss.

[Taco John]

Have these people (the 59%) been in some kind of time warp for the past year? If not, how do you account for the fact that they now seem to be willing to give the troops a 2nd year to get out? How many of them will be up for a 3rd year 12 months from now?

Your numbers are as soft as a butterfly's kiss.


No more soft than the number of people who want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

[Donger]

A pro-war candidate stands no chance to win this election.

Really?

Poll Alert: Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll
Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll, conducted Jan. 25th-27th, 2008

John McCain 48%
Hillary Clinton 40%

John McCain 47%
Barack Obama 41%

[Cochise]

That's the other point, for better or for worse, McCain I think beats either of the possible opposing candidates.

[Radar Chief]

Really?

Poll Alert: Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll
Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll, conducted Jan. 25th-27th, 2008

John McCain 48%
Hillary Clinton 40%

John McCain 47%
Barack Obama 41%

Watch Rasmussen suddenly become a “republican shill”. ;)

[patteeu]

No more soft than the number of people who want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I never claimed that there is a large percentage of people who want that nor have I said that a candidate who opposes that can't get elected.

FWIW, if there is a poll on the subject, I suspect that the number of people who say they are willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely is pretty solid although it's probably also pretty small.

[BucEyedPea]

It's more obvious that McCain or Romney can win the general?

Derbyshire Bashes McCain and Romney, Donates to Paul
Posted by Nick Bradley at January 30, 2008 09:05 AM

A great post by NRO's John Derbyshire, this morning:

Oh, stop whining. So what if the likely GOP nominee believes in restraints on free speech, higher taxation, bigger government, open borders, and 100-year U.S. armies of occupation everywhere from Albania to Zimbabwe? Romney believes in those things too — at least, he does when he's in a room full of people that want him to.

You already have a genuinely conservative candidate on offer. He's just not slick enough for you. What, he has positions you don't agree with? More than the other guys? Actually, I have heard very little complaining about Paul's positions. What I have mostly heard is (a) He's funny looking, (b) He can't win, and (c) He has a lot of icky supporters.

The answer to (a) is to put aside the New York Times "Style" section for five minutes and think. The answer to (b) is, that if conservatism is going to lose big in 2008 anyway (newsflash: it is), it should at least make a stand, to inspire future generations. The answer to (c) is, get in there and swell the ranks of non-icky Paul supporters — there are plenty of us — to drown out the nutsos.

While you guys are crying into your light-blended crème frappuccinos, I'll be making a campaign donation to help Ron & Carol celebrate their 51st wedding anniversary Friday.

Once Romney drops out, the Ostrowski prediction will come true, and Paul will be the only conservative alternative to McCain -- the neoconservative, tax-hiking, free speech-killing, immigration-subsidizing, global warming nutjob who has spit in the eye of the GOP base one too many times.

Note: Although McCain claims that he's an "outsider", he's been part of the establishment for more of his life than any candidate in US history: Born on a naval base as the son of an admiral (and grandson of an admiral), lived on a military base his entire childhood, went off to the Naval Academy, served a full military career, immediately ran for congress in '82 after retiring from active duty, moved on to the Senate in '86, and has been there ever since. So McCain has been a paid employee of the US Gov't for 54 years and grew up in an elite military family before that. You can't get any more 'establishment' than John McCain.

[Radar Chief]

I never claimed that there is a large percentage of people who want that nor have I said that a candidate who opposes that can't get elected.

FWIW, if there is a poll on the subject, I suspect that the number of people who say they are willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely is pretty solid although it's probably also pretty small.


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[mikey23545]

In your opinion. In my opinion you guys are certifiable, but that doesn't make it empirical truth.

Lying means I said something that was false and knew it to be false. Lying is a purposeful attempt to deceive, apart from any mistake or confusion. I'm not sure who I was trying to deceive or what I am saying that is false, that's what I asked.

Cochise lied
People died.

[Silock]

I don't know if one will, or not. One certainly could. The war is not going to be the primary issue in this campaign. It may not even be in the top 3. People seem to be more worried about the economy and the supposed health care crisis, those are just two examples.

And as Paul has proven, the number of GOP voters who can stomach a retreat platform is about 5%, so there certainly was never going to be a problem nominating one, and that's half the electorate already.

In a January 3rd poll, it was still by FAR the #1 issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103534/What-Voters-Want.aspx

[BucEyedPea]

Paul is still best on the economy and taxes too.

[Silock]

I'd acknowledge that Paul supporters want a strong defense, but unfortunately, most of you don't know what a strong defense looks like.

Ah, I knew that the ad hominems would start flying soon enough.

[Silock]

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I don't see a single place on there where a Democrat isn't ahead of a Republican or Bush in those polls.

[patteeu]

Ah, I knew that the ad hominems would start flying soon enough.

You're misusing that term.

[Radar Chief]

I don't see a single place on there where a Democrat isn't ahead of a Republican or Bush in those polls.

:spock: Maybe that’s because it’s polling about Iraq, not the presidential election. :shrug:

But here, Donger posted this earlier, since it appears to be what you’re looking for.

Really?

Poll Alert: Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll
Rasmussen 2008 General Election Poll, conducted Jan. 25th-27th, 2008

John McCain 48%
Hillary Clinton 40%

John McCain 47%
Barack Obama 41%

[Silock]

You're misusing that term.

Saying that Paul supporters don't know what defense is isn't an ad hominem? Okay. The dictionary disagrees with you.

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."

Seems like you conducted a pretty solid ad hominem argument to me.

Now, had you said "Ron Paul supporters' idea of defense isn't what I consider defense because of X, Y, and Z," that would have been different.

[Silock]

:spock: Maybe that’s because it’s polling about Iraq, not the presidential election. :shrug:

But here, Donger posted this earlier, since it appears to be what you’re looking for.

Well, then it seems there are conflicting polls. One is saying McCain would beat those, then you have another set that say Iraq is the most important issue, and Democrats would do better than Republicans on that issue.

[Donger]

Just so we are clear, Ron Paul supporters say that McCain isn't electable against an anti-war candidate, and post a Rassmussen poll that shows that a majority of Americans want our troops to come home from Iraq within a year as evidence of that?

I then post a poll by the same outfit, which shows that not only does McCain "stand a chance" of beating either Democrat candidate, but he's actually ahead.

Things suddenly became rather quiet.

Why?

Paul supporters seem to have an amazing ability to ignore facts that don't lend support to their claims and/or hopes. I've noticed it a few times now. Part of me is actually envious; there's obviously a lot of passion among them.

[Silock]

Just so we are clear, Ron Paul supporters say that McCain isn't electable against an anti-war candidate, and post a Rassmussen poll that shows that a majority of Americans want our troops to come home from Iraq within a year as evidence of that?

I then post a poll by the same outfit, which shows that not only does McCain "stand a chance" of beating either Democrat candidate, but he's actually ahead.

Things suddenly became rather quiet.

Why?

Well, we'll see. Like I said in my post above, the polls seem to be conflicting.

[Radar Chief]

Well, then it seems there are conflicting polls.

OMG! And that’s, like, never happened before. :eek:

[Donger]

Well, we'll see. Like I said in my post above, the polls seem to be conflicting.

Well, as I think Cochise said, if I was asked a very general question like, "Would you like to have our troops home from Iraq within one year," I too would have answered in the affirmative. I'd like world peace and a ride in the shuttle, too.

[Silock]

OMG! And that’s, like, never happened before. :eek:

All I'm saying is that because there are multiple polls saying different things, it seems a little silly to declare an absolute either way.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, as I think Cochise said, if I was asked a very general question like, "Would you like to have our troops home from Iraq within one year," I too would have answered in the affirmative. I'd like world peace and a ride in the shuttle, too.


What part of the word "general" do you not understand?
That was quite specific.

[Donger]

What part of the word "general" do you not understand?
That was quite specific.

Wow.

[Silock]

Well, as I think Cochise said, if I was asked a very general question like, "Would you like to have our troops home from Iraq within one year," I too would have answered in the affirmative. I'd like world peace and a ride in the shuttle, too.

Without knowing exactly how the question is worded, you can't really say how you would have answered that particular poll. Therein lies the beauty of polls.

[Radar Chief]

All I'm saying is that because there are multiple polls saying different things, it seems a little silly to declare an absolute either way.

Didn’t you imply the impossibility of a “pro-war candidate” winning then post a link to a poll showing Iraq as the number 1 voter issue as proof?
That’s a rather “absolute” opinion based on polling, wouldn’t you agree?

[BucEyedPea]

Wow.
Yeah, wow!

[Silock]

Didn’t you imply the impossibility of a “pro-war candidate” winning then post a link to a poll showing Iraq as the number 1 voter issue as proof?
That’s a rather “absolute” opinion based on polling, wouldn’t you agree?

It's my opinion and should not be taken as a statement of fact.

BTW, the link to the poll I posted was simply to show that people do consider Iraq the #1 issue (according to that poll). It was to show a different perspective than Cochise's assertion that the war was no longer the dominant issue.

[Iowanian]

McCain and every other legitimate canidate shouldn't waste any time worrying about a lightweight like ronpaul.

[patteeu]

Saying that Paul supporters don't know what defense is isn't an ad hominem? Okay. The dictionary disagrees with you.

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."

Seems like you conducted a pretty solid ad hominem argument to me.

Now, had you said "Ron Paul supporters' idea of defense isn't what I consider defense because of X, Y, and Z," that would have been different.

No, the dictionary doesn't disagree with me. You're misapplying the definition. Think about the following question:

What case is my supposedly ad hominem argument failing to support?

There is essentially no difference between what I said and the bolded part of the example in your last paragraph. I haven't bothered to supply arguments X, Y, and Z (each of which could be valid arguments or fallacious ones), but that doesn't make what remains an ad hominem argument. You are confusing the statement of the case with an argument for it. What I've done is made an unsupported assertion not a fallacious argument.

[irishjayhawk]

Lets see....If Im polled and they ask am I pro war or anti war, Ill always say anti war. So...that makes me one of this mysterious 70% I guess.

Do I support bring all the troops home right now...No.

Do I support a timetable? NO

Do I believe we need to have defined goals? Yes

Do I believe we will ever Not have a military presence in the mid east...NO.

We are there, we have good reason to be there, we need to finish this thing, I do believe the surge is working, I do believe Rumsfeld was a twit and never should have been there, and I believe we need to support the military so they can do their job.

I have zero faith in Hillary to direct the military as Commander in Chief. I have less faith in Obama to do it. And Ron Pauls stand is what makes him a first level kook.

And you would be what's wrong with America. We don't have good reason to be there. Oil? We have reserves, we have our own rigs, and if there's a lack of oil there will be pressure to create new alternatives.

What is the job of the military?:
Nation building? Why are we nation building? Spreading democracy? If so, how is that any different than Russia trying to spread Communism?

Protection? If so, what are they protecting against? Are we protecting our freedoms? If so, how exactly?

Do you understand what blowback is? Do you understand that having a presence in the middle east is exactly what causes it? Israel included. Do you understand that if the Middle East had a presence in the US we'd freak against them too? It's called empathy. It's called understanding.

You know why you have no faith in any of the candidates to be Commander in Chief? Because GWB killed that for everyone. He lied. People died. ;) And the fact that no one has said what they like. Too much pandering for sides, instead of a steadfast devotion to a particular view. But that's to be expected.

[Radar Chief]

It's my opinion and should not be taken as a statement of fact.

Pretty sure most everyone else was speaking their opinion also. But whatever, not like it matters much to me.
Just :Poke: at’cha. ;)

BTW, the link to the poll I posted was simply to show that people do consider Iraq the #1 issue (according to that poll). It was to show a different perspective than Cochise's assertion that the war was no longer the dominant issue.

That depends on the survey also.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/early-exit-polls-top-qualities-sought-by-new-hampshire-voters/

January 8, 2008
Early exit polls: Top issues
Posted: 05:19 PM ET
New Hampshire Democratic primary voters:
1. The economy
2. The war in Iraq
3. Health care
New Hampshire Republican primary voters:
1. The economy
2. The war in Iraq
3. Terrorism
4. Illegal immigration
Source: CNN Exit Poll preliminary results
Filed under: Exit Polls • New Hampshire

[irishjayhawk]

No, the dictionary doesn't disagree with me. You're misapplying the definition. Think about the following question:

What case is my supposedly ad hominem argument failing to support?

There is essentially no difference between what I said and the bolded part of the example in your last paragraph. I haven't bothered to supply arguments X, Y, and Z (each of which could be valid arguments or fallacious ones), but that doesn't make what remains an ad hominem argument. You are confusing the statement of the case with an argument for it. What I've done is made an unsupported assertion not a fallacious argument.

Correct. However, you've used ad hominems en mass against RP before. And it's something I took issue with. I do recall, if correctly, that you dodged being pinned as using an ad hominem, but unsatisfactorily.

My point is that you've used ad hominems before, just not in this case.

[patteeu]

Correct. However, you've used ad hominems en mass against RP before. And it's something I took issue with. I do recall, if correctly, that you dodged being pinned as using an ad hominem, but unsatisfactorily.

My point is that you've used ad hominems before, just not in this case.

That's not what Silock and I were discussing. I don't think I've ever denied using an ad hominem argument in a case where I was actually doing so. If you'd like to discuss a specific situation, I'd be more than willing to respond to it.

[BucEyedPea]

Correct. However, you've used ad hominems en mass against RP before.
Such as racist and a gay-basher.

[patteeu]

Such as racist and a gay-basher.

I think you're wrong about that.

[irishjayhawk]

That's not what Silock and I were discussing. I don't think I've ever denied using an ad hominem argument in a case where I was actually doing so. If you'd like to discuss a specific situation, I'd be more than willing to respond to it.

You don't have to be consciously aware of using one. You have a knack of calling people kooks who follow RP. That's an ad hominem.

[patteeu]

You don't have to be consciously aware of using one. You have a knack of calling people kooks who follow RP. That's an ad hominem.

I didn't say that I've never done it, I said that I don't remember ever denying it when I was doing so. There are a lot of kooks who support Ron Paul.

[Silock]

No, the dictionary doesn't disagree with me. You're misapplying the definition. Think about the following question:

What case is my supposedly ad hominem argument failing to support?

There is essentially no difference between what I said and the bolded part of the example in your last paragraph. I haven't bothered to supply arguments X, Y, and Z (each of which could be valid arguments or fallacious ones), but that doesn't make what remains an ad hominem argument. You are confusing the statement of the case with an argument for it. What I've done is made an unsupported assertion not a fallacious argument.

It's not that your argument fails to support something. It's that you are attacking the other person instead of their argument. So, when a Paul supporter says "We support strong defense" and you counter with "You don't know what defense is," that's an ad hominem. Your main focus was on the Paul supporter, not the defense.

How is it not a fallacious argument to say that Paul supporters don't know what defense is?? You're right, though, that it's also an unsupported assertion.

EDIT:

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary (Paul's supporters don't know what defense is) rather than on the merits of the case (What is defense?)."

If you can't see it, then okay. It's really just semantics, but if you can't see that you're attacking the supporter instead of the argument there, then I don't know how to make you see it. Maybe you weren't trying to do that, but it certainly seemed that way, and perhaps that's why we're now having an argument about whether it's an ad hominem or not.

[patteeu]

It's not that your argument fails to support something. It's that you are attacking the other person instead of their argument. So, when a Paul supporter says "We support strong defense" and you counter with "You don't know what defense is," that's an ad hominem. Your main focus was on the Paul supporter, not the defense.

How is it not a fallacious argument to say that Paul supporters don't know what defense is?? You're right, though, that it's also an unsupported assertion.

EDIT:

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary (Paul's supporters don't know what defense is) rather than on the merits of the case (What is defense?)."

If you can't see it, then okay. It's really just semantics, but if you can't see that you're attacking the supporter instead of the argument there, then I don't know how to make you see it.

I wasn't arguing against BEP's contention that Paul supporters want a strong defense. In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that they do. Then I made an assertion of my own. It's a dispute about definitions.

It's not a fallacious argument because it's not an argument in support of anything. You may call it an ad hominem attack if you want, but it's not a fallacious argument. There's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks other than, perhaps, a lack of civility. The problem with ad hominem arguments, beyond the civility issue, is that they don't provide logical support for the case that is being made.

Having said that, now that I look back on what you originally said, you didn't call it an argument so I'm going to say that you were right to begin with based on your literal accusation. But your subsequent posts seem to indicate that you were in fact suggesting that I'd used an ad hominem argument even if you didn't say so initially.

However, I'd also point out that the ad hominems actually started flying well before my post. You're apparently selective in your criticism.

[Silock]

You're apparently selective in your criticism.

Well, I'm certainly not the only one.

[patteeu]

Well, I'm certainly not the only one.

Maybe I should have said something like "I knew a guy would come along and start being selectively critical" as if you were.