Ron Paul touts California straw poll, claims momentum

[edjr 5,567]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-touts-california-straw-poll-claims-momentum-174228082.html

Texas Rep. Ron Paul is gaining new reasons to tout his continuing underdog campaign for president: a win in California's Republican party straw poll this weekend. Paul's victory comes on the heels of several independent polls of the GOP field placing him in the top tier of presidential hopefuls.

 

Paul placed first with 44.9 percent of the vote at Saturday's California straw poll of state party members, associate members and registered guests. That total placed him far above second-place finisher Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who received 29.3 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney--who, like Paul, ran for president in 2008--came in third with 8.8 percent.

 

"This win is just the latest indication of our campaign's growing momentum," Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said in a statement.

 

Paul is notorious for winning straw polls, since he has an extremely motivated corps of followers who turn out en masse for voting contests based on limited participation. However, such victories have yet to translate into broader backing among GOP voters; in 2008, he failed to place first in any GOP primary or caucus contest. But Paul's campaign says that dynamic has shifted in the 2012 cycle--and can point to additional polling numbers to make their case.

 

Several recent independent national polls measuring the appeal of GOP candidates suggest Paul has been inching up. A CNN/ORC International poll released last week showed Paul in fourth place behind Perry, Romney and Sarah Palin. But since the former Alaska governor hasn't yet entered the 2012 race, that makes Paul the de facto third-place candidate in the CNN survey.

 

Paul also placed third in a Gallup poll released Aug. 24 when Palin was not included.

 

Both polls suggest that Paul's gain has been Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's loss. As Bachmann has dipped in the polls, Paul has risen.

 

Meanwhile, apart from questions surrounding his national standing, Paul continues to capitalize on his ability to quickly raise giant sums online. His campaign announced that it had raised more than $1 million Saturday during a Constitution Day one-day "moneybomb" fundraiser--held the same day as California's straw poll.

 

Paul, like the other current GOP contenders, benefits from the absence of Republican excitement over the party's presidential field. Many national polls show President Obama losing to a generic Republican but narrowly besting most of the current GOP contenders.

 

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ® recently revealed that he is also dismayed over the GOP's present range of presidential choices and has attempted to recruit three or four other candidates to join the 2012 race.

 

Go on, keep ignoring him faux news and liberal news channels.

[Frank M 181]

Doesn't really matter. He won't be getting your vote, since you don't vote.

[edjr 5,567]

Doesn't really matter. He has no chance of winning Massachusetts anyway

 

[BLS 313]

[MedStudent 56]

Ron Paul followers need a reality check. These straw polls are useless!

 

This is how the California straw poll played out. they had a little state republican convention over the weekend in Los Angeles. The people that went there got to vote in the straw poll. Ron Paul spoke at the Saturday morning breakfast so his California supporters were there in big numbers. The straw poll opened at 9 am Saturday morning. Romney and Perry did not attend. Ron Paul got a whopping 374 votes.

[stick 2]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-09-19/republican-poll-gop-perry-romney/50467944/1

 

Ron Paul surging with 13%...Bachmann in 4th with 5%...

[SUXBNME 1,337]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-09-19/republican-poll-gop-perry-romney/50467944/1

 

Ron Paul surging with 13%...Bachmann in 4th with 5%...

"Surging" with 13% ? Surging ?????

[SUXBNME 1,337]

He was at 2% in 2007 at this point. McCain was at 9% in 2007 at this point. Shutup retard.

Well, pardon me. I didn't realize how good he was doing with his 13% SURGE !@#

[gocolts 300]

"Surging" with 13% ? Surging ?????

Just think if he exploded. He might have received 15%.

[SUXBNME 1,337]

Just think if he exploded. He might have received 15%.

 

 

Seriously..It's too bad that he is so focking crazy with his foriegn policy views.

I'll give him credit, tho..At least he has the balls to give his opinions and doesn't waver from them.

 

Hopefully when Obama gets run out of town, our new POTUS will find his / her / it's way to offer Dr. Paul a position of power in the cabinet. Somehow I doubt he'd accept it tho.

[BLS 313]

 

 

Seriously..It's too bad that he is so focking crazy with his foriegn policy views.

I'll give him credit, tho..At least he has the balls to give his opinions and doesn't waver from them.

 

Hopefully when Obama gets run out of town, our new POTUS will find his / her / it's way to offer Dr. Paul a position of power in the cabinet. Somehow I doubt he'd accept it tho.

 

 

 

 

Read a book Moberg. Here, I'll point you in the right direction.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Fuse-Explosion-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0226645606

 

 

Or you could try this one.

About this author:

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952^[1]) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

 

Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States' assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism")^[2] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are "struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism."^[2][3] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed "the reasons for your losing the war against us".^[4][5]

 

In February 2009, Scheuer was terminated from his position as a senior fellow of The Jamestown Foundation. Scheuer has written that he was fired by the organization for stating that "the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security."^[6]

 

http://www.amazon.com/THROUGH-OUR-ENEMIES-EYES-M/dp/1597971626/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316492458&sr=1-1

 

 

 

"[scheuer]'s examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group." - CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post "A masterful job at... interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears." - Studies in Conflict and Terrorism "Among the 'war on terrorism cognoscenti' in and around Washington, D.C., mere word-of-mouth established [Through Our Enemies Eyes] as required reading for anyone seeking to understand bin Laden, the movement that he cofounded and led, and the profound threat that it posed (and continues to pose) to the United States and to international peace. Accordingly, the book's reputation spread as a thoroughly reliable, trenchant, and commendably clear exegesis of al Qaeda's ideology, goals, and alarming ambitions.... The key to success in warfare, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote, is to 'know your enemy and you will know yourself.' In Through Our Enemies Eyes, Scheuer answers the first part of that irrefutable formulation." - From the foreword by Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow, Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, and author of Inside Terrorism "[scheuer's] examination of al Qaeda is a bracing corrective to much that has passed as analysis about the group." - CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen in the Washington Post "A highly informative analysis." - The Washington Times "A masterful job at... interpreting what bin Laden is trying to tell America but that has fallen on deaf ears." - Studies in Conflict and Terrorism "A sobering portrait of Osama bin Laden." - The Christian Science Monitor "This is a book that all professional soldiers should read since it represents, in significant detail, the views and motivation of one of our primary adversaries, while clearly defining the severity of the ongoing threat." - Armor"

 

 

 

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

 

 

Seriously..It's too bad that he is so focking crazy with his foriegn policy views.

I'll give him credit, tho..At least he has the balls to give his opinions and doesn't waver from them.

 

Hopefully when Obama gets run out of town, our new POTUS will find his / her / it's way to offer Dr. Paul a position of power in the cabinet. Somehow I doubt he'd accept it tho.

Bull. His views aren't the mainstream, but mainstream is bleeding us dry.

[edjr 5,567]

Jon Stewart just can't stop talking about Ron Paul, apparently. There’s a long interview with "The Daily Show” host in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine, and in it Mr. Stewart holds up the libertarian GOP presidential aspirant as an example of something that’s unusual in US politics: consistency.

 

The subject comes up when Stewart is describing how much fun it is to pore through old tape looking for instances in which politicians have contradicted themselves. Airing that kind of thing is a “Daily Show” staple.

 

“You know a guy you’d have a hard time doing that do? Ron Paul, because he’s been consistent over the years,” says Stewart. “You may disagree with him, but at least you can respect that the guy has a belief system he’s engaged in and will defend.”

 

Later in the interview, Stewart makes his now-familiar point that Representative Paul has been ignored by much of the media despite a strong showing in the Ames, Iowa, Republican straw poll and in some other early polls.

 

“Ron Paul has a constituency – like it or not, it’s there. How can you just ignore it? It makes no sense,” Stewart says.

 

Of course, since Stewart first voiced this opinion on his show last month, some reporters have taken the criticism to heart. Paul has indeed begun to attract a bit more coverage – for his willingness to mix it up with front-runner Rick Perry, if nothing else. This isn’t mentioned in the Rolling Stone interview, maybe because it occurred before that trend began. Magazines have such long lead times.

 

The lead-time problem could also account for the fact that Stewart does not address the instance from last week’s CNN/tea party debate, where Paul implied that charities should take care of Americans with health problems but no health insurance.

[DanXIII 8]

"You know a guy you'd have a hard time doing that do? Ron Paul, because he's been consistent over the years," says Stewart. "You may disagree with him, but at least you can respect that the guy has a belief system he's engaged in and will defend."

 

Later in the interview, Stewart makes his now-familiar point that Representative Paul has been ignored by much of the media despite a strong showing in the Ames, Iowa, Republican straw poll and in some other early polls.

 

 

This is a good point. Paul has been consistent. He consistently rails against pork while consistently loading appropriations bills for his home district with millions in pork. He then consistently votes "no" on appropriations bills so that he looks like he's actually against all the federal dollars which pour into his district.

[SUXBNME 1,337]

Bull. His views aren't the mainstream, but mainstream is bleeding us dry.

I can't argue with this, because I don't know all the facts.

What goes on behind the scenes, us common dolts aren't privy to, obviously.

A couple of questions, tho...

 

Q: Why is gitmo not closed down yet?

A: Because once our commander in chief was sat down after he won, he was privy to knowledge that he didn't have before and realized that there was a good reason for keeping it open.

 

Q: Why haven't all the troops came home yet (as promised) ?

A: See above

 

Q: What am I eating for dinner?

A: PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA