Fred Thompson Wins Straw Poll (National Taxpayers Union)

OrthodoxPresbyterian wrote: “On Fiscal Conservatism, literally nobody has a better record than Paul.” Not so: “NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government.

The report you are citing is inaccurate due to the methodology of the NTU "VoteTally" Report:

All Members are charged with the spending passed by voice vote or unanimous consent even if the Member may have voiced a "no" vote.

Paul is often the lone "No" vote on 434-to-1 Voice Votes, including many on Spending issues. Under the VoteTally accounting, he is therefore "charged" with much Spending he actually voted against! A perfect example would be the recent Gun Control legislation, which approved $250 million per year in new Federal Spending on Gun Control Databases: Ron Paul voted NO, but because the Bill passed by Voice Vote, VoteTally still charges Ron with raising Spending by $250 Million as much as any other Member of Congress!

Now, it may be objected that Ron Paul could lower his so-called "spending total" to a more accurate number by requested a Recorded Vote. However, a Member who requests a Recorded Vote does not receive one unless he is supported by 25 total Members or one-fifth of a quorum (depending on the type of Vote). When Ron Paul is the only Member who's voting "No", he's not going to ever get 25 Members or one-fifth of a quorum to support his call for a Recorded Vote, so the attempt to get a Recorded Vote would never succeed in such cases and therefore be pointless anyway.

Thus, due to the methodology of the VoteTally system, Ron Paul is actually being (unfairly) "charged" with Spending for many Bills passed by Voice Vote on which he -- often alone -- voted NO!

By comparison, the NTU Overall Rating actually looks at each Member's individual Votes and assigns a "spending weight" to each individual Vote based on the dollar amount of the Bill, estimated future costs, etc. On THAT Rating, which actually measures each of Paul's individual Votes "Yea" or "Nay", Ron Paul scored an 84 in the last Congress -- the 3rd highest score in the entire House.

This was probably Reagan's single biggest mistake -- it encouraged further attacks on US forces and interests because it showed the Islamofascists that we had no stomach to actually fight them.

You hate Ron Paul so much, you'll stoop to slandering Ronald Reagan just to try and disparage Ron Paul??

Well, congratulations: you just earned an unhallowed spot on my FR Profile Page's "Ron Paul haters blame Ronald Reagan for 9/11" Wall of Shame. Enjoy the dishonor, buddy.... you earned it!!

I'm not slandering Reagan -- but the man was human, not a saint. It's a pretty commonly held view that, at least in hindsight, pulling out of Beirut was a mistake because it let the nutjobs think we could pushed around. (Hence later attacks like against the USS Cole, the two attacks on the WTC, etc.)

Now, Reagan certainly had what, at the time, seemed like good reasons -- he didn't want to get involved in a middle-east conflict while trying to win the cold war vs. the Soviet Union. Other long-term mistakes were made in that same vein -- such as supplying and supporting what eventually became the Taliban in Afghanistan, against the USSR.

Now, hindsight has the benefit of being 20/20, but if you want to use withdrawing from Lebanaon as an example of Paul's position, then be prepared to discuss the negative impacts such decisions made.

blame Ronald Reagan for 9/11

No, I blame the terrorists for 9/11. Ron Paul blames American policy for 9/11, which means he and his supporters are the ones blaming Reagan, since he was part and parcel of that policy.

I'm not slandering Reagan -- but the man was human, not a saint. It's a pretty commonly held view that, at least in hindsight, pulling out of Beirut was a mistake because it let the nutjobs think we could pushed around.

It's a pretty commonly held view that pulling out of Beirut was a wise and courageous move, because it saved the lives of many US soldiers who would otherwise have needlessly died during an unwise, unnecessary protracted involvement in Lebanon:

"If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

Since you merely assert that Ronald Reagan's pullout cost many lives and ultimately led to "the two attacks on the WTC, etc.", but you have no proof of your argument, then your argument IS nothing but a base, detestable SLANDER against Ronald Reagan.

Who am I gonna believe -- a bunch of bungling Neo-Cons who have gotten us mired in trying to referee an Islamic Civil War and supporting an Islamic-Theocratic Government in Iraq which is dominated by self-confessed, and even Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists... or a wise and courageous man like Ronald Reagan, whose "neutral position and neutrality" foreign policy towards the Middle East is what Ron Paul is advocating?

No, I blame the terrorists for 9/11.

No, you said Ronald Reagan's pulling out of Lebanon led to "later attacks like against the USS Cole, the two attacks on the WTC, etc." You are blaming Ronald Reagan for 9/11.

Ron Paul blames American policy for 9/11, which means he and his supporters are the ones blaming Reagan, since he was part and parcel of that policy.

On the contrary. Ron Paul blames the terrorists for 9/11 -- and he warns against the "blowback" from the foolish interventionism of those, like yourself, who reject Ronald Reagan's wise advocacy of "a neutral position and neutrality".

Me too. National security first.

And how many people were at this event to vote? I missed the number. Where there thousands or hundreds?

They all hopped into one car to have lunch at Taco Tico...you do the math.

I would put zero stock in this poll even though my candidate is at the top.

True. I too support FDT, but this poll is...useless.

The National Taxpayer's Union records a membership of 335,000.

That's actually a fairly good-sized membership for a Political action committee or organization. By way of comparison, the entire nationwide membership of the ACLU is only about 330,000.

So this Poll is actually pretty good news for both Fred Thompson and Ron Paul.
Make of that what you will.

No, I blame the terrorists for 9/11. Ron Paul blames American policy for 9/11,

Could you be more specific? Do you "blame" Reagan's policy (thus blaming the maker of this policy too) of pulling out the marines in any way for 9/11? Based on your other comments, it sure sounds like you do. Here is what you said at the beginning of your post:

It's a pretty commonly held view that, at least in hindsight, pulling out of Beirut was a mistake because it let the nutjobs think we could pushed around. (Hence later attacks like against the USS Cole, the two attacks on the WTC, etc.)

Based on what I see in these passages, you seem to want it both ways. Why not just let the chips fall where they may?

Ron Paul has been ‘declared’ and speaking to massive crowds of people since March 12, at least here in NH.