PDA

View Full Version : Elections Now that the country has gotten to know Ron Paul a little...


orange
08-30-2011, 08:39 PM
... they don't seem to like him so much after all.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-08-30-Blumenthal-GallupCNNGOPPreference.png

New CNN Poll: Perry sits atop GOP field
By: CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) A new national survey is further proof that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's entrance earlier this month into the race for the White House has dramatically altered the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll of Republicans and independent voters who lean towards the GOP, Perry now sits atop the list of Republican presidential candidates, with strong support from most demographic groups.

The survey, released Monday, indicates that 27 percent of Republicans nationwide support Perry for their party's nomination, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the White House, at 14 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin follows at ten percent, with Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at nine percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who's making his third bid for the presidency, at six percent. Every one else listed on the questionnaire registered in the low single digits.

read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/new-cnn-poll-perry-sits-atop-gop-field/


*n.b. Thread about Rick Perry, the Tea Party and the GOP officially ChiefsPlanetObsessionized

SNR
08-30-2011, 08:56 PM
I guarantee you they don't like him for the reasons why you might like him, orange: drugs and war.

orange
08-30-2011, 09:01 PM
The unkindest cut of all - it looks like Newt Gingrich gets to steal the "I don't get no respect" line this week, too.

SNR
08-30-2011, 09:03 PM
Also, let's see some more polls a month or two in the future before we kill off Ron Paul. There's no reason why he can't hang around in 3rd place going into primary season and perhaps win a few delegates here and there.

go bowe
08-30-2011, 09:09 PM
dayum...

what happened to ron paul?

i don't want him to drop out of the race altogether or drop so low in support that he may as well be out of the race altogether...

i think he forces the other candidates to at least address some of the issues he talks about...

it's good for people to think about long-held assumptions every now and then...

Direckshun
08-30-2011, 09:31 PM
I just cannot believe that Huntsman is faltering this badly.

Huntsman is a brilliant centrist candidate. Why that doesn't play AT ALL is baffling to me.

Bewbies
08-30-2011, 09:42 PM
I just cannot believe that Huntsman is faltering this badly.

Huntsman is a brilliant centrist candidate. Why that doesn't play AT ALL is baffling to me.

Seriously? A huge liberal doesn't understand why Republicans don't like the guy he does? :doh!:

Direckshun
08-30-2011, 09:45 PM
Seriously? A huge liberal doesn't understand why Republicans don't like the guy he does? :doh!:

I wouldn't vote for Huntsman, but I have the ability to objectively recognize a strong candidate when I see one.

I can understand why Huntsman might not win -- but his complete inability to gain traction is completely foreign to me.

SNR
08-30-2011, 10:32 PM
I wouldn't vote for Huntsman, but I have the ability to objectively recognize a strong candidate when I see one.

I can understand why Huntsman might not win -- but his complete inability to gain traction is completely foreign to me.The country votes center right. The early poll voters in the Republican party do not.

I know McCain was pretty much dead in the water at this point last time, too. But still.

If Huntsman has any sense about him, he'll start hammering away at his more innovative and broad-based platforms like flattening the tax rate. By choosing to take head on questions about evolution and climate change this early, he's pissing off a LOT of hardcore Republican voters.

SNR
08-30-2011, 10:34 PM
dayum...

what happened to ron paul?

i don't want him to drop out of the race altogether or drop so low in support that he may as well be out of the race altogether...

i think he forces the other candidates to at least address some of the issues he talks about...

it's good for people to think about long-held assumptions every now and then...He lost 7 measly percentage points in a new CNN poll. Let's see some others out there.

HonestChieffan
08-30-2011, 10:36 PM
I wouldn't vote for Huntsman, but I have the ability to objectively recognize a strong candidate when I see one.

I can understand why Huntsman might not win -- but his complete inability to gain traction is completely foreign to me.

So. Since Huntsman is not a strong candidate, who did you identify?

go bowe
08-30-2011, 11:14 PM
So. Since Huntsman is not a strong candidate, who did you identify?

that's the problem, there doesn't seem to be any strong candidates in the field as yet...

alnorth
08-30-2011, 11:15 PM
Seriously? A huge liberal doesn't understand why Republicans don't like the guy he does? :doh!:

Considering that Ronald Reagan, if he were a candidate today and not known as some grand GOP hero, would be mocked today as a RINO and blown out in all the polls, some confusion is warranted.

Bewbies
08-30-2011, 11:37 PM
Considering that Ronald Reagan, if he were a candidate today and not known as some grand GOP hero, would be mocked today as a RINO and blown out in all the polls, some confusion is warranted.

I was born in 1979, so I wasn't around at the time, but I thought Reagan was always thought of as 'too conservative' back in his day. Isn't that why he didn't win the nomination the first time around?

RINO is not a term I've heard used with Reagan, that's why I ask.

Taco John
08-30-2011, 11:40 PM
Meh, one poll after an impressive Gallup poll... An outlier.

wazu
08-30-2011, 11:42 PM
Considering that Ronald Reagan, if he were a candidate today and not known as some grand GOP hero, would be mocked today as a RINO and blown out in all the polls, some confusion is warranted.

Reagan was more conservative than most Republican candidates are these days. Although the key players in 2012 look like they are trying to give him a run for his money.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-30-2011, 11:44 PM
dayum...

what happened to ron paul?
.

Found it! New CNN Poll

orange
08-31-2011, 12:10 AM
Found it! New CNN Poll

You mean ... you found clicking my link challenging?

Now that you've read the complete poll for yourself - did CNN (in their summary) or HuffingtonPost (in their table) lie about Ron Paul's numbers? Maybe there is a dark conspiracy here.

http://vampyres-network.spruz.com/user/393185/groups/E07E5DB7-E1FB-42DE-AEEB-FCBF67DD63DE/big_group_img.jpg

alnorth
08-31-2011, 12:15 AM
I was born in 1979, so I wasn't around at the time, but I thought Reagan was always thought of as 'too conservative' back in his day. Isn't that why he didn't win the nomination the first time around?

RINO is not a term I've heard used with Reagan, that's why I ask.

Back then sure, but the party has shifted very far to his right in just the last few years. Republicans just kind of gloss over positions he took that would not fit party dogma today. RINO is a term that is thrown around VERY loosely now, and it would absolutely fit Reagan in today's GOP.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 12:16 AM
You mean ... you found clicking my link challenging?

Now that you've read the complete poll for yourself - did CNN (in their summary) or HuffingtonPost (in their table) lie about Ron Paul's numbers? Maybe there is a dark conspiracy here.

http://vampyres-network.spruz.com/user/393185/groups/E07E5DB7-E1FB-42DE-AEEB-FCBF67DD63DE/big_group_img.jpg

dark, dark, very dark...

alnorth
08-31-2011, 12:28 AM
Reagan was more conservative than most Republican candidates are these days. Although the key players in 2012 look like they are trying to give him a run for his money.

Let's see...

1) Amnesty

2) signed what was at that time the largest tax increase in CA history when he was governor.

But wait, Reagan the governor is irrelevant, only what he did as president counts!

OK, fine, ignore what he did as governor.

2b) signed two tax increases in 82, which gave back about a third of the tax cuts in 81.

3) Increased payroll taxes to "save" social security.

4) In 1986, imposed the largest corporate tax hike in history.

5) Wrote a NY Times Op-Ed in 1991 that supported the Brady bill.

But wait, we're only sticking with when he was president, rememb...

No, I'm leaving that one in. If you favor the Brady Bill, you are pretty much disqualified today, if not tarred and feathered.

This isn't meant as a hit piece on Reagan, he generally was right of center in today's world (and very conservative back in his day), but in today's GOP he is wildly out of step (and very wrong in my opinion) on at least two key litmus test issues (immigration, gun control), and he committed the cardinal sin of agreeing to tax increases to get other things he wanted while negotiating with democrats. As we know now, you don't negotiate on taxes, ever. If you even think about talking tax increases to get things done, you cant be nominated today.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 12:28 AM
Meh it's still early. Perry keeps copping Paul's lines too. Give him more time to get exposed.
Where was McCain at this time and even later? Dead we were told.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2011, 12:30 AM
Meh it's still early. Perry keeps copping Paul's lines too. Give him more time to get exposed.
Where was McCain at this time and even later? Dead we were told.

What would Perry have if he couldn't steal Paul's thoughts? Oh that's right Al Gore aka The Gorical.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2011, 12:31 AM
You mean ... you found clicking my link challenging?

Now that you've read the complete poll for yourself - did CNN (in their summary) or HuffingtonPost (in their table) lie about Ron Paul's numbers? Maybe there is a dark conspiracy here.

http://vampyres-network.spruz.com/user/393185/groups/E07E5DB7-E1FB-42DE-AEEB-FCBF67DD63DE/big_group_img.jpg

Lie, Cheat, Steal, Communize, Socialize, Propagandize....yes they are guilty.

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 12:55 AM
Huh thats strange according to Oranges heros he can win

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html

FD
08-31-2011, 01:34 AM
I just cannot believe that Huntsman is faltering this badly.

Huntsman is a brilliant centrist candidate. Why that doesn't play AT ALL is baffling to me.

Whats strange is that Huntsman was one of the most conservative governors in the country, and yet right now he is running as the moderate or left-of-Romney candidate in the primaries. The only issues he is "moderate" or "left" on are civil unions and climate change. His actual governance record is more conservative than either Perry or Bachmann and yet the media has made him out to be the liberal candidate.

orange
08-31-2011, 01:42 AM
Huh thats strange according to Oranges heros he can win

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html

My hero?!? Robin "Who?" Koerner? A guy I never heard of? Here I was expecting an inciteful article from Krugman or Tebow or the like, and I get a pie-in-the-sky fantasy from some lime-scented loon.

Two paragraphs in (just about as far as I got), I know that he's a Paulista. Let's check his other articles, shall we? A few:

From Welfare to Wellbeing?
Austrian Medicine for the MMT Patient
Inflation: Where Cronyism Meets Poverty
America's Not Faring Well on Welfare
A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Change Everything
Austrian Economics and Modern Monetary Theory
Sell Illusion, Purchase Reality: Currency as a Cultural Conceit
Ron Paul, Conservative Champion of Liberalism
Ron Paul and the Love Revolution of 2012
"First Do No Harm": Constitutional and Conservative Liberals

That's just from the first page of his HuffPo bio.

Paulista. With a capital Pea.

My only question is "how on earth did you (Bo's Pelini) ever conclude that he is "Orange's hero?"" ROFL

orange
08-31-2011, 01:47 AM
Huntsman ... The only issues he is "moderate" or "left" on are civil unions and climate change.

Don't forget Evolution.

evenfall
08-31-2011, 10:33 AM
This race is very easy to read. The nomination is Perry's to lose. And he may lose it yet. After the holiday there is a slew of debates coming up. But Perry is winning in Iowa with only 2 weeks in the race and not having campaigned there. He is close in New Hampshire which is Romney's backyard. Without even looking, I'd be he has a strong lead in South Carolina. Perry is the prohibitive favorite, especially since the people with Bachmann are probably with her in part because they don't want Romney. Perry would appeal to the same Romney objections.

We will have a few debates and primaries where the story is Perry or Romney, but after 3 or 4 states I bet the talk is more along the lines of if Romney would serve as VP or something.

I think Palin's camp sees this and that's might be why she has heretofore not jumped in. She can't beat him. She might have fancied her chances against Romney, but the game has changed.

I think Paul's support will be within a margin of error guess of 2008... If I had to guess.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 10:55 AM
I was born in 1979, so I wasn't around at the time, but I thought Reagan was always thought of as 'too conservative' back in his day. Isn't that why he didn't win the nomination the first time around?

RINO is not a term I've heard used with Reagan, that's why I ask.

I think alnorth is right to some extent. The way people use the term RINO has changed dramatically (and illogically) over the past few decades. It used to describe a guy who was technically a Republican, but who broke from the party to vote with the democrats with some regularity. Politicians like Lincoln Chafee (who eventually left the Republican party) and the Maine sisters (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) are good examples.

But today, we have quite a few political illiterates and extreme populists who think RINO applies to any Republican whose mainstream views aren't radical enough to satisfy their utopian visions of an immediate return to the small government, isolated nation of our founding fathers. Those people would call Reagan a RINO even though it doesn't make any sense to do so.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:01 AM
Back then sure, but the party has shifted very far to his right in just the last few years. Republicans just kind of gloss over positions he took that would not fit party dogma today. RINO is a term that is thrown around VERY loosely now, and it would absolutely fit Reagan in today's GOP.

I don't agree with the bolded part at all though. The party has shifted back to the right, but not farther right than the party of Reagan (which was really only a majority faction within the party in it's day). You're confusing the braying of a few vocal populists on the right with the party itself (and I wouldn't necessarily say many of them are that much farther to the right). The reason RINO has to be used so loosely today by those who throw it around is precisely because they are out of touch with the mainstream of the party.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:03 AM
It's the mainstream of the GOP is out of touch with the people...and they are underestimating how much the wars are an issues with the majority of the people.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:13 AM
Let's see...

1) Amnesty

Many of the people who are against amnesty now are against it because it didn't work when it was tried during the Reagan years. There's no reason to believe that Reagan wouldn't have come to the same conclusion if he were still alive.

2) signed what was at that time the largest tax increase in CA history when he was governor.

But wait, Reagan the governor is irrelevant, only what he did as president counts!

OK, fine, ignore what he did as governor.

2b) signed two tax increases in 82, which gave back about a third of the tax cuts in 81.

3) Increased payroll taxes to "save" social security.

4) In 1986, imposed the largest corporate tax hike in history.

Reagan shared power in Washington with democrats. He understood that compromise was the only way he was going to get anything done. While he signed on to some tax increases as you point out, he also managed to cut the top marginal tax rates from 70% down to 28%. That's monumental.

It's not true that Republicans of today would refuse to agree to a tax increase if the payoff on the compromise were compelling enough. There may be some political/economic illiterates in the rank and file that believe tax cuts always increase revenues or who believe that no tax increase is ever acceptable, but that's not the view of the Republican party and it wouldn't be the view of the majority of Republicans if the trade off were significant enough. What you're criticizing is the reluctance of today's Republicans to agree to tax increases as an initial salvo against the deficit or in return for too little in a grand compromise.

5) Wrote a NY Times Op-Ed in 1991 that supported the Brady bill.

But wait, we're only sticking with when he was president, rememb...

No, I'm leaving that one in. If you favor the Brady Bill, you are pretty much disqualified today, if not tarred and feathered.

Again, times have changed. In 1991, a 7 day waiting period to give time for a background check made some sense. Today, there's no reason the background check can't be done almost instantaneously so there would be no reason for Reagan to support a Brady Bill type law today.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:15 AM
It's the mainstream of the GOP is out of touch with the people...and they are underestimating how much the wars are an issues with the majority of the people.

LOL, the mainstream is out of touch!

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 11:16 AM
Patteeu defending liberal policy ROFL. Nothing to see here.

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 11:16 AM
LOL, the mainstream is out of touch!

They nominated John McCain.......

Chiefspants
08-31-2011, 11:17 AM
Many of the people who are against amnesty now are against it because it didn't work when it was tried during the Reagan years. There's no reason to believe that Reagan wouldn't have come to the same conclusion if he were still alive.



Reagan shared power in Washington with democrats. He understood that compromise was the only way he was going to get anything done. While he signed on to some tax increases as you point out, he also managed to cut the top marginal tax rates from 70% down to 28%. That's monumental.

It's not true that Republicans of today would refuse to agree to a tax increase if the payoff on the compromise were compelling enough. There may be some political/economic illiterates in the rank and file that believe tax cuts always increase revenues or who believe that no tax increase is ever acceptable, but that's not the view of the Republican party and it wouldn't be the view of the majority of Republicans if the trade off were significant enough. What you're criticizing is the reluctance of today's Republicans to agree to tax increases as an initial salvo against the deficit or in return for too little in a grand compromise.



Again, times have changed. In 1991, a 7 day waiting period to give time for a background check made some sense. Today, there's no reason the background check can't be done almost instantaneously so there would be no reason for Reagan to support a Brady Bill type law today.

Do you disagree with your boy Ron on any of the decisions he made as President? If not..how would you justify his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair?

boogblaster
08-31-2011, 11:17 AM
who cares .. greedy rich bastards ....

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:20 AM
Do you disagree with your boy Ron on any of the decisions he made as President? If not..how would you justify his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair?

How do you know he was involved? My reading tell me it was his VP Bush who was behind that. That sounds about right to me.
IIRC, RR didn't want to have armies all over Latin America either including Nicaragua. I'll have to try and find where I read that.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:23 AM
Patteeu defending liberal policy ROFL. Nothing to see here.

What liberal policy am I defending? Reagan's policies?

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 11:26 AM
What liberal policy am I defending? Reagan's policies?

Names do not matter political ideology does. Raising taxes and letting illegals break the law is a liberal policy.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:33 AM
Do you disagree with your boy Ron on any of the decisions he made as President? If not..how would you justify his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair?

I can certainly criticize some of the things he did in hindsight (and I'm sure he could have too), but the Iran-Contra affair isn't really one of them. I'm not sure he had any involvement in it, to begin with. But I think that the people who were involved in it were trying to do the right thing.

Congress shouldn't have cut off funding for our efforts in Nicaragua.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 11:33 AM
Names do not matter political ideology does. Raising taxes and letting illegals break the law is a liberal policy.

I guess you're one of the illiterates I was talking about.

Was Reagan a RINO?

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 11:44 AM
I guess you're one of the illiterates I was talking about.

Was Reagan a RINO?

I never use the term RINO. I will say he was a democrat turned neo-conservative and he does share this with Obama: A guy who's rhetoric did not match his actions as president.

evenfall
08-31-2011, 11:46 AM
I never use the term RINO. I will say he was a democrat turned neo-conservative and he does share this with Obama: A guy who's rhetoric did not match his actions as president.

Reagan = Obama

And you guys wonder why people think you are cranks

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 11:47 AM
Reagan = Obama

And you guys wonder why people think you are cranks

Where did I say Reagan governed like Obama at? Learn how to read.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:52 AM
I never use the term RINO. I will say he was a democrat turned neo-conservative and he does share this with Obama: A guy who's rhetoric did not match his actions as president.

Reagan was not a NeoConservative. He was a FP realist. He chided Israel behind closed-doors for bombing Iraq's nuclear plant, he pulled out of Beirut, he was against putting our armies all over Latin America. He pissed the NC wing off while he was in office a few times like when he pulled out of Beirut. He wasn't doing anything as aggressive as the Bush Doctrine which is from the NeoConservative persuasion. The Reagan Doctrine is more restrained than the Bush Doctrine.

Reagan was for free-trade but that's classical liberalism.

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 12:00 PM
You try to make Reagan sound like a dove. He was far from it.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 12:08 PM
You try to make Reagan sound like a dove. He was far from it.

No that's your extrapolation. Do you know what a Foreign Policy realist is? They will use force and some interventions—no where near what a NeoCon would use though. A FP realist won't needlessly intervene or remain occupied should it prove futile to our interests. Hence Reagan's pull out of Beirut.

NaptownChief
08-31-2011, 12:15 PM
Conservative talk show guy Mark Levin had a poll on his website of Romney vs Perry and Perry was getting 91% of the votes with around 8,000 votes cast. Obviously that is going to be largely a pretty conservative sample of voters but it's looking like Perry will smash Romney by a much bigger margin than this CNN poll would have you believe.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 12:28 PM
Conservative talk show guy Mark Levin had a poll on his website of Romney vs Perry and Perry was getting 91% of the votes with around 8,000 votes cast. Obviously that is going to be largely a pretty conservative sample of voters but it's looking like Perry will smash Romney by a much bigger margin than this CNN poll would have you believe.

Mark Levine's show is majorly NeoConservative. So I would not be surprised at this poll result. Perry will be another Bush despite the rift with that family.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 12:41 PM
I never use the term RINO. I will say he was a democrat turned neo-conservative and he does share this with Obama: A guy who's rhetoric did not match his actions as president.

OK. I don't disagree with you much here. The only thing I'd point out is that unlike Obama, Reagan had to work with an opposition party every day of his two terms to get anything done. I think that it would be unreasonable to expect him to be able to accomplish everything he advocated under those circumstances. He whiffed on at least one SCOTUS nomination though and it would have been nice to see him do better there.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 12:44 PM
OK. I don't disagree with you much here. The only thing I'd point out is that unlike Obama, Reagan had to work with an opposition party every day of his two terms to get anything done. I think that it would be unreasonable to expect him to be able to accomplish everything he advocated under those circumstances. He whiffed on at least one SCOTUS nomination though and it would have been nice to see him do better there.

Oh, and neither his immigration policy nor his tax policy were liberal.

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2011, 12:47 PM
Oh, and neither his immigration policy nor his tax policy were liberal.

He supported amnesty and raised taxes. He also said deficits didn't matter he certainly broke with the parties long time beliefs.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 01:00 PM
He supported amnesty and raised taxes. He also said deficits didn't matter he certainly broke with the parties long time beliefs.

He raised taxes approximately 65 times too. He barely deregulated as well.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 01:06 PM
He supported amnesty and raised taxes. He also said deficits didn't matter he certainly broke with the parties long time beliefs.

To the extent that he broke with the party's longtime beliefs, he broke in the opposite direction from what you think.

His tax achievements are why modern Republicans are so favorably disposed toward tax cuts. It's nonsensical to conclude that he favored higher taxes just because he accepted some tax increases at the same time he lowered top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 01:12 PM
He raised taxes approximately 65 times too. He barely deregulated as well.

The Presidency is not a dictatorship. How is Ron Paul going to impose his fringe ideas on the country after he makes the Presidency even less powerful than it already is as he says he will? Will you be content with a President who accomplishes nothing beyond setting the record for the number of vetoes issued and the number of vetoes overridden? Of course that probably wouldn't happen, because in the alternate universe where Ron Paul is elected, he'll govern through compromise too.