Posted on 10/29/2007 11:31:08 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters
Maple Brown, USA Daily
Published 10/25/2007 - 11:34 a.m. EDT
Ron Paul’s inclusive message of peace, freedom, and prosperity may be attracting African American voters. According to this poll, Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents among black voters in general election contests.
In general election matches Paul loses among African American voters 60% to 33% against Hillary Clinton and loses 61% to 31% to Barack Obama.
In 2004 CNN exit polls show Bush receiving 11% of the African American vote in the general election against Kerry.
The averages of general election match up against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are for Paul, Romney, McCain or Giuliani are, Ron Paul - 32%, Mitt Romney - 23.5%, John McCain - 20%, Rudy Giuliani - 16%.
If the polls are accurate it could mean that Ron Paul’s message that ‘Freedom unites people’ is working. Paul’s uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights is making him a Civil Rights Leader in his own right. ("Ron Paul inspiring new Civil Rights movements")
The poll, if accurate, could also mean that Ron Paul’s message of ‘repealing the police state’ is resonating with African American voters.
Paul does appear to be a uniting political force attracting supporters at his events from all walks of life.
USA Daily does not encourage its readers to allow polls to influence their voting decisions in any way. They are too often inaccurate. This statement is not a comment on the poll in question just on polling in general. (Discuss the election on www.usadaily.net)
Don't forget Afghanistan, the Reagan policy that led to the toppling of the Trade Center.
You’re right but my quotes come from Paul’s 1988 book. Have you got any quotes from Paul on Afghanistan against Reagan?
I think your premise is sound, if Ron gets the backing of the general populace of Republican voters. I don’t see that happening. I agree with much of Paul’s views, it’s just the foreign policy issue that makes him look like a total lunatic in my eyes.
How could I vote for a guy who sees Iraq in the same light as Pelosi, Ried, Murtha, Sheehan and the rest of the pinko Congressional members?
I mentioned that I like a lot of what Ron stands for. Do you have any idea what the media would do to this guy in the fall of 2008? If the media can make others look like the moonbats of the planet, just wait until they sink their teeth into Ron. While that isn’t something I would like on the issues they’ll do it on, you just know it’s going to happen.
Ron isn’t going to get the nomination because of his outspoken opposition to destroying the terrorist networks in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wouldn’t win the election because many conservatives would simply ignore the top position on their ballots. I would join them in doing so. And last but not least, the media would have Ron looking like the biggest whackjob on the face of planet earth, including the subject of the war which they fully agree with him on.
Ron’s chances are a big fat goose egg IMO.
If Ron gets enough support and doesn’t get the nomination, guess what happens. He starts a third party. The idea that he has gotten a lot of the Black vote, makes this a very real possibility. It lays the foundation for it. And if Ron does this, guess who wins again, just like her husband did against Bush I.
The Bushs and the Clintons have ruled this nation since 1988. That run may continue if we’re not careful, but I won’t vote in a person who will not lift a finger if our nation is attacked.
Sorry to be so diametrically opposed to your view on this, but that’s what it comes down to.
Within a short period we pulled all our troops out of Lebanon. He may have provided a reason, but I don’t recall what it was.
Remember, the bombing of the embassy in Beirut happened the night before we invaded Grenada. We were fighting proxy wars against the Soviets on several fronts.
bttt
"With a noninterventionist foreign policy, citizens would never be forced to subsidize or die for any special interest. Taxes could be used only to secure peace and freedom for America."RP is less clear on this, but it looks like he is saying that the U.S. government should not be allowed to militarily aid allies in any circumstances, but private citizen should be allowed to militarily aid even our worst enemies."Under these conditions of nonintervention, of course, individuals would never be prohibited from volunteering and contributing their own monies to any foreign cause. Our government is the only legal dealer in weapons of war, usually at a high cost to American taxpayers, as well as danger to our security. Thus the wishes of citizens are violated with every transaction. Americans who want to privately help anti-communists in Cuba, Afghanistan, El Salvador, or Nicaragua should be free to do so, and yet they are not."
HE: And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?.RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…
HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?
RP: Well, I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine. [Indiscernible talking in background]You can’t isolate WWII and post-WWII without looking at the overall change of policy after WWI.
HE: I just want to make sure he is answering the specific question, which is things that we were talking about: NATO, 80-Degrees, You think that did not serve us well?
RP: I would say it has not served us well. I believe in the Constitution, we don’t have that authority. I believe the Founders were right, and I believe that Jefferson was absolutely right that by staying out of entangling alliances – which… no UN, no NATO -- which serve the interests of this country right now. We have no respect for our national sovereignty. This is why we don’t even defend our borders, because we’re moving onto a North American union. So I would say you have to have concern about our national sovereignty and not meld us into these NATO alliances and agreements, that…
If Paul moves up a bit more in the polls, which I assume he will, I wonder if Sanford would endorse Paul? VP would be a great choice.
I’ve been a fan of Sanford for years, I don’t know if ya’ll saw that story where he pissed off the GOP legislator when he brought pigs in and let them loose in the capitol building. lol, it was classic. CATO has rated him at or around the highest governor for years, love what he has done with education in SC. I was actually hoping he would run for president himself earlier this year.
Funny, after OP brought Sanford to my attention, a poll of the top 100 cons and dems was posted on FR. Sanford was included in the bottom 20. It mentioned that Rudy or Mitt may consider him as VP. Maybe just fodder by the writer.
“Winning 33% of the Black Vote would be huge. Absolutely stunning.”
What’s more stunning is you posting this pipe dream.
We need to retire some of the old bull elephants now and replace them with the able and combative younger guys.
Excellent point. Love to see ted retire too on the left side of the aisle. Get some guys that will actually work for more than two days a week considering the house has gone to a 4 day work week which translates to about 12 hour work week.
I cannot help but feel that speculation that puts Duncan Hunter as VP on a Paul ticket flatters the latter and slanders the former. Ron Paul in the 80s might have been worth considering. Ron Paul today is a shrunken shadow of the ideals of the Reagan Revolution.
I like Paul and Hunter. Why Hunter is low in the polls is beyond me. How the F is dead head fred, Mitt and Rudy ahead of Hunter?!!
If Lebanon was not ready to take on Syria, then it was a stumble to go in to start with. Either Reagan wasn’t advised well, or he made a decision and backed off on his own. I tend to think he wasn’t advised well, but that’s conjecture.
I do think Iraq was an evil empire in it’s own right. I believe it was part of a breeding ground of terrorism. I support what we have done there.
I agree that Dr. Paul will not get the nomination. There are too many single issue voters who don’t like his position on Iraq.
It’s funny that so many people will not vote for Dr. Paul because they disagree with him on one issue while he is rock solid on every other conservative issue. But they want conservatives to vote for Rudy who is against us on almost every issue except Iraq.
As for the media, just watch what they do to Rudy or Mitt or Huckabee if one of them gets the nomination. That will be really bloody.
I’d be happy with any one of the three conservatives getting the nomination and happily work and vote for any one of them. I’d jump for joy if Hunter, Tancredo or Paul got the nomination, and I’d go back to working for the campaign and maxing out my contribution to their campaign. (Something I haven’t done in quite a while.)
I’m sick of liberal Republicans getting nominated and voting for the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul has more than one supporter at McFredrepublic. We just don't see any point in arguing with a bunch of global interloper war mongering neo-cons who favor the IRS, UN and the Federal Reserve. The "noise" that you referred to is the sound of OP singlehandedly swatting flies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.