Posted on 09/12/2007 9:00:07 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
New Hampshire is the state we expect Ron Paul to shine, not Iowa. They are largely anti-war -- the last Iraq war poll had approval ratings as low as 14% suggesting a large majority of Republicans are disenfranchised with the war. Indpendents can vote for candidates in either party at the New Hampshire primary. So no pollster is going to be able to correctly quantify which candidate will get a boost but if the Independents are anti-war, I think it is safe to say that Ron Paul would be the candidate to benefit.
(Excerpt) Read more at usaelectionpolls.com ...
That's a very good question, and I can't provide the level of detail you ask for. Still, it's disingenuous in the extreme to assume therefore that there are no answers, or that the answers are farcical.
LOL. Yes, absolutely and without delay.
We fought terrorism without it, and we can do so again.
I suggest you read the sworn testimony of FBI Director Mueller who profoundly disagrees with you.
"Good morning Mr. Chairman. Senator Leahy and Members of the Committee. Iam pleased to be here today with the Attorney General to talk with you about the ways in which the USA Patriot Act has assisted the FBI with its efforts in the war on terror. For almost three and a half years, the USA Patriot Act has changed the way the FBI operates. Many of our counterterrorism successes are the direct result of the provisions of the Act. As you know, several of these provisions are scheduled to "sunset" at the end of this year. I firmly believe that it is crucial to our national security to renew these provisions. Without them, the FBI might well be forced into pre- September Ilth practices, requiring us -agents, analysts and our partners -to fight the war on terror with one hand tied behind our backs."
I will rely on the informed judgment of Director Mueller than on your uninformed opinion. Ron Paul is a dangerous fool.
Yes? Then let me point out to you that Director Mueller would find his job much easier if there were no Fifth Amendment, no search warrants, no Posse Comitatus, no habeas corpus, no jury trials, and no due process.
The fact that they would make his job easier is not sufficient reason to dispense with those things.
Keep giving us pro-war, big government liberal RINOS and stupid people end up voting for Democrats. NH learned this lesson the hard way and thank God the GOP here is waking up.
The point is that nut cases like Ron Paul can make these sweeping, empty generalizations, but when you start looking at the implications and details, it is obvious that implementation of these "policies" is another matter. There are answers but they don't fit Paul's outlandish statements. The US is a global power with national interests. We are not trying to be the "world's policeman," but we do have global responsibilities and global interests. The ability to project power and a global presence are part of the means of protecting our vital national interests.
A red herring. Read the Patriot Act. There are protections and safeguards for civil liberties. Many of the provisions of the Act were already available to fight drug and crime lords, just not terrorists. We are at war.
The fact that they would make his job easier is not sufficient reason to dispense with those things.
LOL. That was not the rationale or reason for the Patriot Act. It is not a question of making his job "easier", but rather making our efforts against the terrorists more effective. We are trying to prevent another 9/11 or something far worse. There really are people out there who are trying to kill us on a mass scale.
True...but that rationale, in the absence of any moderating influence, could be used to justify troops in every country, if we had them.
What prevents your construction of 'vital national interests' from leading us straight to some dystopic future in a century or so?
My point is that your list of vital national interests is too short. It doesn't include things like privacy rights, limited taxation, federalism, and any number of due-process rights that help ensure that this government of the people remains both by the people and for the people.
Given the choice to live in an absolutely secure country where I am a subject rather than a citizen, I decline. No thank you. I'd rather take some danger with my freedom, thanks, and help fight the good fight against terrorism as a free man.
>> Keep giving us pro-war, big government liberal RINOS and stupid people end up voting for Democrats. NH learned this lesson the hard way and thank God the GOP here is waking up.
A couple of questions ...
(1) “Pro-war” is not liberal ... and if it is, why are ALL liberals (including such “conservative” luminaries as Hillary Clinton, Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, Al Franken, Al Gore and Medea Benjamin) invariably anti-war?
Conservatives are, generally speaking, in favor of a strong national defense (as Ronald Reagan stated ... “Peace through Strength) ... including international intervention where necessary. We believe the Constitution governs in this matter, and that a Declaration of War is required. But, given that Congressional authorization was given for the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we believe the Constutitonal limitations have been met (i.e. the “Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force” IS a “Declaration of War”).
Ron Paul may be a conservative on domestic and fiscal issues ... but on national defense and foreign affairs, he is no more a conservative than Hillary Clinton is.
(2) If NH is longing for an ‘anti-war small-government’ Republican ... why is Ron Paul in SIXTH place among Republicans, at a measly 5%? It seems to me the pro-war Republicans are getting 95% of the Republican vote (divided among several candidates) ... and the anti-war Republicans a measly 5%. Hell - the pro-war Republican vote is heavily split between Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee - yet Paul is barely beating Sam Brownback.
(3) I still don’t see how voting for John Kerry over GWB, Bill Clinton twice (over both Dole and Bush), and electing a wacko liberal governor, a Democratic State House and Senate, and a liberal congressional delegation convinces you that New Hampshire is conservative.
It looks to me like New Hampshire might be slightly more conservative than most of New England ... but if you put NH in the South, it’d look VERY liberal.
H
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
I hate to answer questions with a question, but why does Ron Paul place 1st, by massive margins, in every straw poll in NH? Why does he draw as many supporters to rallies at half the crowd of all other candidates combined? Why did half the audience cheer (while granted 1/3 booed) at his comments at the NH debate last week?
My answer is simply, I don't know why he's only polling at 5%. I've never been polled nor do I know anyone here who has. I am only going to say, I don't know, and I am holding out until our primary.
And when you are free to take a handgun into a bar, get back to me on the whole conservative thing. Your arguments about population and voting trends don't sway me. I enjoy a higher amount of personal and economic freedom here in NH than you do in TX.
Silly statement. We don't need or want troops in every country.
What prevents your construction of 'vital national interests' from leading us straight to some dystopic future in a century or so?
We are a democratic republic. The public will will determine our national course thru our political institutions and representative government. The US is a force for good in this world and I don't see that changing any time soon.
My point is that your list of vital national interests is too short. It doesn't include things like privacy rights, limited taxation, federalism, and any number of due-process rights that help ensure that this government of the people remains both by the people and for the people.
I am using vital national interests in the conventional sense, i.e., as it applies to our foreign policy.
Given the choice to live in an absolutely secure country where I am a subject rather than a citizen, I decline. No thank you. I'd rather take some danger with my freedom, thanks, and help fight the good fight against terrorism as a free man.<
Phony strawman. We aren't choosing between absolute security and absolute freedom. Again, life is painted in shades of grays not black and white. You are accepting limitations on your freedom now starting with the concept of government. Without government, you would be in a state of nature where life would be "nasty, brutish, and short." I want our officials to have the tools they need to protect this nation from a very real, existential threat. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. And frankly, the Patriot Act has little or no impact on the vast majority of our ciitzens.
????????
>> I hate to answer questions with a question, but why does Ron Paul place 1st, by massive margins, in every straw poll in NH?
Because straw polls can be dominated by relatively few, but rabid, supporters. Also - let it be known that Ron Paul recently lost a straw poll in his home State.
>> Why does he draw as many supporters to rallies at half the crowd of all other candidates combined?
Again - a few rabid supporters with WAY too much time on their hands. This is the same reason anti-war protests drew 100,000 people in 2003 ... but polls showed a VAST majority supported the war. Protests - and poltical events generally - tend to highlight the enthusiasm of the few over the actual popularity of the candidate or issue. Events and protests are a POOR way to gauge a candidate’s popularity.
>> Why did half the audience cheer (while granted 1/3 booed) at his comments at the NH debate last week?
I saw that debate, and would dispute those figures. It sounded to me like the boos FAR outweighed the cheers (especially when considering that “booing” is inherently quieter than cheering).
All-in-all - its a smokescreen. Ron Paul is dominating unscientific polls - including text-message polls, internet polls, straw polls, etc - but when any scientific measure is added to polling, Ron Paul gets skunked.
Paul’s supporters are an enthusiastic micro-minority, who generally spam online poll questions to make their candidate look more popular than he actually is. They’re loud and vociferous ... but, ultimately, there are so few of them that Paul will never be able to make any headway against leading candidates.
Thompson and Giuliani supporters are generally less enthusiastic (though I have seen some enthusiasm for Thompson), and spend less time worrying about online polls or rallys or whatever ... but - as evidenced by EVERY scientific poll in NH and nationally - when the time comes to vote, they’ll be there, and they’ll dwarf Paul’s support.
H
It's a quote.
From whom?
George Orwell.
I see. So it's better if we throw Constitutional principles out the window and just back the establishment candidate who can "win" and who'll continue the same quasi-socialist status-quo.
Sorry, my vote goes to Paul in the primaries.
I was in the audience of the debate, so I’d dispute your claim. Meanwhile I’m still waiting to see any serious grassroots effort by Rudy, Mitt, or especially Fred.
Have a good one, I’ve got campaigning to do!
>> And when you are free to take a handgun into a bar, get back to me on the whole conservative thing. Your arguments about population and voting trends don’t sway me. I enjoy a higher amount of personal and economic freedom here in NH than you do in TX.
You’re arguments about “handguns in bars”, “motorcycle helmets”, and “seatbelt laws” have failed to sway me. Why don’t you try this argument again when your congressmen aren’t ALL tax-and-spend liberals?
Like most Paul supporters, you’ve lost the forest for the trees here. You might enjoy the freedom to bring a gun to a bar on a motorcycle with no helmet or seatbelt ... but Texas (via its representatives in Austin and Washington D.C.) is doing far more to defend the personal and economic freedom of Americans nationwide than NH.
I certainly appreciate, however, NH preserving its right to ride without a seatbelt - while simultaneously sending a couple of socialist representatives to Washington to try to raise MY taxes here in the great State of Texas.
As a Texan, I’d prefer it if New Hampshire kept its liberals to itself.
H
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.