Drudge GOP Debate Poll -- 50,000 votes; Clear Winners are Romney, Giuliani, and RON PAUL

Drudge Report ^ | May 4, 2007 | Orthodox Presbyterian

[RockinRight]

LOL!

[George W. Bush]

Reagan was not afraid to use force to protect our interests overseas. Grenada, Panama

But not the Mideast. Reagan recognized and stated specifically that it was contrary to our national interests to be drawn into nation-building in that region. It is due to the totalitarian culture, a challenge as great as, say, rooting out Confucianism/Marxism from Chinese culture would be. That is why he pulled out after the attack on the Marines in Beirut.

Ron Paul is the Reagan candidate on the issue of internationalist/socialist/globalist nation-building in the Mideast. Or was Ronnie just an antiwar cut-and-run candidate too?

If left to people like you, American schoolchildren will end up pledging allegiance to the United Nations. FreeRepublic used to be the home of people who understood this instinctively.

Bush and McStain both supported Xlinton's nation-building exercise in Kosovo/Serbia, which led to the inevitable and predicted massacres of Orthodox Christians in the region by the local Wahabbist Muslims. The same kind of Wahabbist/Saudi-funded Muslims who crashed jets into WTC.

[varina davis]

“What are we defending that is American in Iraq?”

what we are defending is the continual rise and spread of terrorism in Iraq i.e. Al Quaida, whose only wish is to destroy America and American interests.

[Allegra]

And I took this statement by Allegra to be insulting to supporters of Ron Paul. I did not introduce the incivility.

But this (which drove my response, by the way) is OK, right? As long as one is not dissing Ron Paul. Good grief. Nothing like a double-standard.

"But go back to drinking your Bush "Amnesty-Brand" Kool-Aid, I'm sure that the US Borders don't really matter."

Rock on, KDD.

[MacArthur]

This is great news for Ron Paul fans.Many thanks! Regards,

[Irontank]

If Ron Paul had his way, Saddam would still be in power to rape and murder the inocent at will. No thanks

Are you advocating use of the American military (and American tax dollars) to defend Iraqis? If so, my advice to you would be to form a private militia brigade and go over there yourself...like the old Abraham Lincoln Brigades

Ron Paul was 100% correct in virtually all of his dire predictions back in 2002 and 2003 about the foolishness of invading Iraq...never before has America spent so much to accomplish so little...3000+ dead American boys and 20,000 more Americans maimed...to get rid of Saddam

No thanks

But [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own
--John Quincy Adams

[jrooney]

Actually you are quite wrong, he voted against it! Look it up. He wanted a declaration of war declared and when it was not, he votd agaisnt the bill authorizing force against Saddam. No way to spin it!!!

[jrooney]

I CAN EXPECT A RON PAUL SUPPORTER TO LIE ABOUT HIS WOT RECORD, especially when it comes to the fact he voted to leave Saddam in power to rape and murder the innocent. Here are the the republicans that voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#Republicans_2 -

The following Republican members of the House of Representatives "joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution."

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.)
Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.)
Rep. Amo Houghton (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)

What say you now, spreader of falsehoods?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Reagan was not afraid to use force to protect our interests overseas. Grenada, Panama

Reagan was not afraid of pulling out of the stupid, pointless, thankless job of trying to referee an Arabic Civil War 7,000 miles away from America. Lebanon.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Keep repeating your mantra.

[listenhillary]

What is funny is 99% of DemocratUndergrounders are in your corner and maybe 10% 20% of Freepers.

What does that tell you?

[Badeye]

Its not a mantra, its a valid political observation. He’ll never get the GOP’s full support, because he’s played games about being a Republican before. If you are in fact a Ron Paul supporter you know this. He likes to play at being a Libertarian when a GOP fundraiser isn’t in the offing, and because of it he doesn’t have the trust of the powers that be behind the scenes in the GOP.

You’ll note I haven’t said anything ‘negative’ about his position on various topics. Most of them I happen to agree with in general terms.

I’m just noting he has the same basic problem McCain does, his past tendencies of tweaking those he now needs to gain the candidacy. You can only do that so much before professional campaign types lose patience with you, and that does transfer to the ‘base’ viewpoint.

Its why McCain, who normally would benefit from coming in second in 2000, is having so much trouble these days. Congressman Paul has the same problem, except its compounded by the fact he’s relatively unknown compared to JM.

[jmc813]

No it is an Internet page that can be hoaxed. All you need to do is write a script that clears out your cookies and re-vote. I did it myself on this poll. You can test it by going to Internet Settings in your browser and clearing temp files and cookies. Then cast your vote again. The vote is fraudulent and you are waisting your time.

For what it's worth, on Intrade, an online futures market where real money is on the line, Paul was the only candidate other than Romney to have his stock go up. He definitely impressed some people.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I CAN EXPECT A RON PAUL SUPPORTER TO LIE ABOUT HIS WOT RECORD, especially when it comes to the fact he voted to leave Saddam in power to rape and murder the innocent. Here are the the republicans that voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#Republicans_2..... Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) What say you now, spreader of falsehoods?

Well, Spreader of Falsehoods (that would be you, jrooney), all that you have proved by your own post is that Ron Paul voted against the "Authorization for Military Force Resolution" -- NOT an Iraq WAR Resolution.

I expect you will now apologize to Polycarp, admit that he was right and you were wrong, and beg his forgiveness. That is, if you're even remotely honorable.

Because, as Polycarp correctly stated, Ron Paul in fact called for a CONSTITUTIONAL Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq.

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

As IronTank has previously pointed out, by shunting aside Ron Paul's call for a Congressional Declaration of War, Congress abdicated its Constitutional Responsibilities and left George W. Bush holding the bag if and when things went wrong. And Ron Paul has more fiercely criticized the Congress for its abdication of its Constitutional Warmaking Responsibility, than he has ever criticized George Bush in the execution of the "Authorized Military Force".

Ron Paul was Right... and Ron Paul is Right.

[jmc813]

You are an insult to Christians to call yourself one.

Liking Paul is unChristian?

[rlmorel]

Sorry, your post at #163 where you keep writing the same thing you have written in innumberable other posts makes no difference to the reality of the situation. We live in the real world, not some kind of make-believe simulation that some people are so fond of. We don’t have the luxury of sitting around drinking scotch and yapping about how WE would handle it. Our country has to deal with what we can deal with now, and take care of the rest when we can.

It is easy for people to say things like “let’s just reduce them to rubble and let the chips fall where they may” which sounds nice as a shallow talking point to the people who have a need to hear that, but isn’t going to help a real world problem.

I hope it doesn’t happen, but I suspect a lot of people are going to find out the hard way (like the guy in a post here who said he had himself removed from the voter registration because he is displeased with the political environment) that the real world is a string of compromises, some of them unpleasant.

President Reagan, a man whom I admired greatly, is dead and buried. We may see another like him, we may not. But it is time for people to give up the childish notion that he is going to somehow step out of the wings and make things right. It isn’t going to happen, and your candidate is no Ronald Reagan either. In the simple test of what is most important right now, Reagan would not be likely to advocate withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. His “Tear Down This Wall” sentiments are the progenitor of what President Bush is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And as an aside...your hero (as well as mine) understood that you have to deal with unpleasant and unsavory people to make positive things happen. I viewed what Reagan and his people did in Iran-Contra as a positive thing even though the short term was bad. HE knew that as well. And it is what we are dealing with in Iraq.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

He placed third with 16% in a crowded field, hardly a “big” finish. He will be an also ran very shortly.

[jmc813]

Trust the reliable polling services, not this on-line polling junk.

Please see my post 213. Paul is doing well on the Intrade futures market, which historically is a much better indicator of trends than polling, being that you have to gamble real money to participate.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What is funny is 99% of DemocratUndergrounders are in your corner and maybe 10% 20% of Freepers.

Wow... 10-20% now? You keep having to adjust your numbers up, as Ron Paul keeps polling higher amongst FReepers. Pardon me, McDonald's... but I'm LOVING it!

What does that tell you?

That if we Nominate Ron Paul, the Republican Nominee will enjoy significant cross-over support from Democrats -- the way Reagan did in 1980 and 1984?

Gosh, that would be just awful. After all, we lost those Elections badly... didn't we?

[Badeye]

“What is funny is 99% of DemocratUndergrounders are in your corner and maybe 10% 20% of Freepers.

What does that tell you?”

Yep. And in 2000, those same sites were approximately the same way with McCain.

Remember how they made a big deal about signing up with the GOP just to vote for McCain in the primaries?