Ron Paul Polling at 5% in New Hampshire (Highest Yet in New Hampshire)

USA Election Polls ^ | September 12, 2007

[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.

[lormand]

"You may hate Ron Paul and every Freeper who supports him with a virulent and unending hate, but we're not the problem. We are a symptom. Conservative disaffection is real, and must be dealt with, for the good of the country."

Unless surrendering in Iraq is your # 1 issue, like so many other Paulistinians, then you are riding the wrong horse.

Most importantly, unless you have been living in a cave, the "Ron Paul" cult is being fueled by leftist kooks, not Conservative discontent.

Want proof?

Read the comments from my Conservative brothers on this very thread. Are you going to next tell me that they are not Conservatives?

[kabar]

Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He favors diplomacy, trade, and defense; he just doesn't favor the US being the world's self-appointed policeman. A lot of patriotic Americans share his point of view.

So is it Ron Paul's position that we should close down all of our military bases around the world? Should we get out of NATO? Should we abrogate mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea?

[lormand]

"LOL, I did no such thing tattletale."

Wow, your still here?

That was a close one eh?

:)

[Oberon]

Why did Ron Paul vote against Patriot Act?

I couldn't speak for him, but if I had to guess I would say that he wasn't willing to trade liberty for security, as Ben Franklin warned us about doing.

[jrooney]

Excellent photos on your FR page! ;) Two great patriots you are with.

[Oberon]

So is it Ron Paul's position that we should close down all of our military bases around the world? Should we get out of NATO? Should we abrogate mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea?

I don't know the answer to that, personally. Do you?

[TexasAg1996]

You don't think that helps?

Of course it helps. But that's the extent of Ron Paul's plan to combat terrorism. That, plus withdrawing our troops to help radical Muslims feel better about us.

Did Paul say he would do that?

Yes, he did. He's said he wants to withdraw troops from Japan and Korea, and he's mentioned withdrawing troops from Europe. And he said in an interview last month that defensive treaties with countries like Britain were not constitutional. Gotta love the way he'd treat our allies.

[CommerceComet]

It is a monumental waste of bandwidth to even have Ron Paul mentioned in a thread. This guy wrote the book on lunatic.

I disagree. These threads are some of the best entertainment in town.

[lormand]

"Two great patriots you are with."

Thanks, I only hang with the best. :)

[Oberon]

...then you are riding the wrong horse.

Look, at the end of the day we're on the same team, you and I. We're both Americans, both Freepers, we both believe in conservatism and having a healthy, strong, secure country.

I'm telling you straight, from where I sit in eastern North Carolina I know a lot of God-fearing conservative Republicans who are heartily sick of increased government spending, infringed civil liberties, utter inaction or even accomodation on illegal immigrants, and total lack of initiative on border security. Some of these folks aren't even too sure about this war we're in.

You can debate me, you can win at debating me, you can even have me run out of JimRob's excellent forum if you like, but in this post here and now I'm telling you the truth: Conservatives are unhappy with the Republican party, and not just a few, and not just a little bit.

You can defeat Ron Paul probably, but that doesn't solve your problem.

[CJ Wolf]

” ...isn’t it nice that Jimmy Hoffa was never found, Steve Fosset is still missing, and the girl in Aruba was never found?”

And all of those people you listed aren’t around making videos encouraging people to attack the US after mounting a horrific attack on us. Just a little bit different, don’t ya think?

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Get back to me when Texas gets rid of their sales taxes, motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws, etc.

Many conservatives in this country are arguing for the abolition of the IRS, and institution of a national sales tax. You will hear FEW conservatives argue for the abolotion of taxes altoghether.

Texas doesn’t have an income tax ... but, being significantly larger in size and population than New Hampshire, Texas does have legitimate governmental responsibilities to fund.

- Texas is 262,000 sq. miles ... New Hampshire is 9,300 sq. miles (i.e. TX is 28 times bigger than NH).
- Texas has a population of 21 million, New Hampshire has a population of 1.23 million. (there are more than 4 times that many people in the Houston Area alone).

Hell ... the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metropolitan Area is 9,249 sq. mi. (roughly the size of NH - and that doesn’t include Houston, San Antonio, Austin, or all the open land in between). We’ve probably got farms out here that are bigger than New Hampshire. As you might imagine, the costs of running a State that is larger than a central Texas farm is significant.

Taxation, itself, is not inherently liberal - the government has legitimate responsibilities which it must fund. And, seeing as Texas is larger than most countries - those costs require a sales tax.

As for your argument about motorcycle helmets and seatbelt laws ... yes, I am against those laws. But, I find it difficult to focus on such minor laws when the NH Statewide congressional delegation is Carol Shea Porter (D), and Paul Hodes (D), and the governor is John Lynch (D).

CAROL SHEA PORTER, from Wikipedia
“Shea-Porter is a strong supporter of a timetable for troop withdrawals. She also supports rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to pay for additional social spending, and supports increasing the minimum wage. Regarding healthcare, Shea-Porter supports a change in the new Medicare Part D drug benefit to allow the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs.”
(according to “ontheissues.org”)
- anti-school vouchers; is in favor of “Medicare for all”; voted to increase the minimum wage; voted to dis-allow employer interference in unions; accused Republicans of supporting the richest 1%; voted to withdraw troops from Iraq in 90-days.

PAUL HODES (according to “ontheissues.org”)
- Pro-abortion, pro-estate tax, pro-homosexual unions, supports affirmative action, pro-dividend tax, supports a “Manhattan Project” on Global Warming, supports “universal access to quality healthcare”, voted yes to increase minimum wage, voted yes on restriction of employer interference in unions,
- voted to withdraw troops from Iraq in 90-days, voted to withdraw NH National Guard from Iraq.

Texas, on the other hand ... has a Republican Governor, Republican State House and Senate (in fact, no Democrat has won a Statewide office in Texas since 1994). As for U.S. Congress ... Republicans hold 20 out of 32 seats, and both Senate Seats.

In Presidential elections ... in 2004, Texas supported George W. Bush ... New Hampshire supported John Kerry. In 1996, Texas supported Bob Dole ... New Hampshire supported Bill Clinton. In 1992, Texas supported George Bush, NH supported Bill Clinton.

Somehow, given the way NH has voted in statewide and national elections over the last 10 years ... and regardless of the absence of seatbelt laws in NH ... I have a hard time seeing a burgeoning pool of conservatism in New Hampshire.

H

[Oberon]

He's said he wants to withdraw troops from Japan and Korea, and he's mentioned withdrawing troops from Europe. And he said in an interview last month that defensive treaties with countries like Britain were not constitutional.

Well, wanting to withdraw troops is not the same as breaking treaties, as you well know.

Right now we have agreements with those countries that our troops should be there. Those agreements can be changed through diplomatic channels prior to bringing our forces back home. If a hypothetical President Paul thought them unconstitutional, then he should work to change them.

But the international repercussions of just yanking troops, in violation of treaty and without preamble, would be awful. It would be a profoundly Stupid Move...on that I think we can both agree.

But I also believe that Ron Paul probably knows that, understand that the ship of state takes a long time to get turned around, and wouldn't do something so profoundly stupid.

[TexasAg1996]

and wouldn't do something so profoundly stupid.

I'd call announcing to the world that the mutual defense treaties we have with countries like Britain are unconstitutional (and therefore wouldn't be supported by a Ron Paul presidency) is just as monumentally stupid.

[lormand]

Sure it is different, but do you think it is easy to find someone who doesn't want to be found, in an extremely remote part of the world, surrounded and harbored by 10s of thousands of supporters?

If he were "issued a letter of Marque" along with Bin Laden, would you declare the war on terror over?

[CJ Wolf]

If he were “issued a letter of Marque” along with Bin Laden, would you declare the war on terror over?

Of course not, the letter of Marque is just an additional tool in the war. It’s not over until they are dead or unconditionally surrender and then hung.

[kabar]

I couldn't speak for him, but if I had to guess I would say that he wasn't willing to trade liberty for security, as Ben Franklin warned us about doing.

I would say that it doesn't reflect very well on Ron Paul's judgment. Fortunately, he was in a distinct minority and the bill passed and was reauthorized so that our law enforcement and intelligence communities have the tools to protect us. I assume that you are also against the Patriot Act. What liberties are being compromised?

[kabar]

I don't know the answer to that, personally. Do you?

No, but you are a Paul supporter. You are the one who is telling us what Paul stands for. You stated,:

In the long run it's debatable whether it's worthwhile to put your troops in friendly countries (like South Korea and Japan) rather than staying on good terms with them and having them provide for their own security. Grown-up countries should defend themselves; it's one of the legitimate functions of a sovereign government, and it's reasonable for Japan and Korea to shoulder their share of the load."

"Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He favors diplomacy, trade, and defense; he just doesn't favor the US being the world's self-appointed policeman."

What does that mean in the real world? I hope you understand that Japan and South Korea are defraying much of our costs associated with our military presence there. I also hope that you know that South Korea and Japan have substantial military expenditures on their defense forces. Do you believe that Japan and Korea should develop their own nuclear deterrence given the fact that North Korea and China have nuclear weapons? What does "providing for their own security" mean specifically?

[Oberon]

What liberties are being compromised?

Considering that it was Representative Paul's opinion and vote which are in question here, I suggest that you ask Representative Paul.

[kabar]

LOL. Are YOU in favor of repealing the Patriot Act?