Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > The Trouble With Forced Integration - Ron

> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

> This is worthless. It states RP's asserted belief that the civil

> rights act violates property rights, and it alleges (without the least

> attempt at support) that the civil rights act was counterproductive

> and actually worsened race relations. That's it. End of story.

I agree the article doesn't support his position with any evidence,

but within the context in which it was produced -- it's his brief

comment on the house floor, you can't expect much depth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I agree the article doesn't support his position with any evidence,

> but within the context in which it was produced -- it's his brief

> comment on the house floor, you can't expect much depth.

I might expect at least some kind of representative example or

statistic -- SOMETHING to indicate that there's some sort of factual

(or pseudo-factual) or arguable basis for his argument -- but I can

also see your point. Whatever the justification (or lack thereof) for

its evidentiary uselessness might be, though, is beside the point,

because I was addressing its usefulness as posted here.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Whether a position indicates someone is heartless or is heartless

> itself is an almost meaningless distinction, but my point is that

> while *some* types of positions might indicate whether someone is

> heartless, political positions don't. In my example, where you stand

> on a single-payer health plan has little if anything to do with

> whether you have compassion for people who don't have the medical care

> they need or struggle to pay for it.

I think you overstated your position here. While I'd agree that some

political positions don't indicate the presence or absence of

compassion on the part of their holders, others surely do, unless you

restrict the definition of a political position drastically and IMO

unrealistically. HW Bush's stated position that atheists

shouldn't even be considered citizens, for example, strikes me as

being an explicitly political position -- and also one grotesquely

devoid of compassion. Huckabee's assertion that he'd round up all

illegal aliens in the first 100 days (I think that was the number) is

obviously political, and yet I think that regardless of where you fall

on the many questions of immigration, it's blatantly heartless and

cruel.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > > Probably, but it's also instructive to examine Ron 's record and

> > > observe where he's attempted to amend the constitution and where

> > he's

> > > instead attempted to amend the law and actual practice.

> >

> > > For example, one of his root beliefs (expressed on Meet the Press,

> > in

> > > fact) is that the president should not have the power to enter the

> > > country into war, and that instead going to war should require an

> > act

> > > of Congress. Yes, this is declared in the constitution, but if he

> > > believed that the president SHOULD be able to declare war (as

> > > presidents effectively have of late) then he'd be pushing for a

> > > constitutional amendment rather than opposing the practice on

> > principle.

> > I've read your post three times in a row and I'm still not sure what

> > you are trying to say.

> My point is that saying that Ron supports amending the

> constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it is

> not a meaningful response to an assertion about his beliefs.

I agree with you that we should analyze his beliefs in addition to his

constitutionalism, but the latter *is* part of his beliefs. It is one

of them, that the constitution is the law, and the law should be

obeyed. It seems like sometimes you deemphasize this, or believe that

it is simply a front for his " actual " beliefs.

> He

> clearly has a set of root beliefs about how society should work and

> how government should be constituted; he doesn't merely have a blind

> allegiance to the constitution regardless of what its contents happen

> to be at any given moment.

Yes he does! That is precisely what he believes.

> Perhaps, though, I should have used his

> stance on gay marriage as an example instead of his position on war.

You should have, because it illustrates his alleigance to the

constitution more clearly.

> Ron 's supporters often say he's not opposed to gay marriage and

> he believes that while the federal government has no place regulating

> marriage, states should feel free to define marriage however they

> like. Technically speaking, this is not factually incorrect, but it's

> deceptive (or mistaken) by omission. Ron is actually personally

> opposed to gay marriage, and he believes (and has stated) that the

> states should be free (of interference from the federal government) to

> prohibit gay marriage and to refuse to recognize gay marriages

> recognized by and performed in other states. His actual agenda is not

> merely strict constructionism.

Ron has stated that the ideal situation would be if the

government stood out of marriage entirely:

=============

JS: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

RP: Sure.

JS: If the state says " we believe in this " ?

RP: Sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they

want just as long as they don't impose their relationship on somebody

else. They can't make *me personally* accept what they do, but they

can, gay couples can do whatever they want. As a matter of fact, I'd

like to see *all governments* out of the marriage question. I don't

think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function. And

there was a time when only churches dealt with marriage and they

determined what it was, but 100 years ago or so for " health reasons "

they claimed that the state would protect us if they knew more about

our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to

get married, and I don't agree with that

=========

On a more general note, he adds:

==========

JS: Prostitution.

RP: I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and

you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So

if they do things that you don't like and you might find morally

repugnant, I as an individual, I don't make that judgment, so I don't

believe government can legislate virtue.

==========

However, Ron 's position is that the ninth and tenth ammendment of

the constitution give states the right to regulate this issue. So

although *he* would like to see governments get out of the issue

entirely, it isn't up to him as a congressman and it wouldn't be up to

him as president to dictate to states how to regulate marriage.

Therefore, he has opposed legislation that would take this right away

from states, and supported legislation that would bar federal courts

from taking this right away from states.

Yet, it is also true that Ron has a fundamental belief that this

arrangement under the constitution is appropriate. Thus, he has

opposed the federal marriage ammendment on this grounds:

=============

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as

something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not

believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way

to defend marriage.

I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the

individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted,

is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power

between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of

the American political system. Altering that balance endangers

self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges

wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the

marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for

me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

=========

> This sort of constructionist argument (which itself is often seriously

> flawed anyway) is much like the theory of nullification, which was

> gussied up as a defense of the rights of oppressed minorities but was

> in fact aimed at defending and preserving slavery.

I'm not sure what you mean, but perhaps you could rework the statement

considering the above light shed on Ron 's position.

If it is helpful, here is how I would summarize it:

a) Marriage is a religious function, not a state function, and ideally

would be completely devolved to the private sector (i.e. to churches,

private individuals, etc, calling it what they want, and government

merely enforcing the voluntary contract).

Ron , as a Christian, personally believes that marriage is a

union between a man and a woman for specific purposes prescribed by

his faith.

c) The constitution gives states the right to regulate marriage. Were

he a member of a state legislature, he would oppose defining marriage

in a way contrary to his personal beliefs, but would also oppose

defining marriage in a way consonant to his beliefs by supporting the

devolution of marriage to the private sector (churches, individuals,

etc).

d) As a congressman and potential president, opposes federal

regulation of marriage, because it is unconstitutional. He therefore

supports or opposes marriage legislation based on whether it preserves

the right of the state legislatures to define marriage.

e) believes that this arrangement within the constitution is

good, and opposes changing it.

> I wasn't disagreeing with any of this. I was merely trying to

> illustrate that Ron 's beliefs about war are not merely value-

> neutral constructionism which would change if the constitution

> changed, but actually come from a genuine opposition to the sorts of

> wars we've been entering into lately; similarly, I believe it's clear

> that his opposition to a number of other laws, ideals and regulations

> are not merely value-neutral constructionism, but are motivated by his

> core moral philosophy.

I agree.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > Ron says he opposes a consumption-based tax system, which would

> > be very punishing to the poor and middle class:

> He says this, but he's also said he'd fund the government (albeit a

> cut-down version of it) with the sales tax, as he'd banish the income

> tax and, IIRC, the capital gains tax. I don't remember what his

> positions are on the various user fees that the government also

> assesses, but they're trivial compared to the other taxes.

Where does he say he'd support a sales tax? He has repeatedly said

that he'd abolish the income tax and not replace it with ANYTHING.

According to his figures, this would require the government's budget

to shrink to the size it was in the year 2000.

> > By the way, I'm not positive exactly what 's stance on this is,

> > but in an interview he said he wasn't necessarily a gold standard man

> > per se but he supports a commodity-backed currency.

> He's introduced bills to return us to the gold standard multiple

> times, I believe.

What he said in the interview seemed like his position was somewhat

more nuanced than other supporters of the gold standard; however, I

don't doubt that he would have introduced those bills, as he is a

supporter of commodity backed currency and gold is a principal

commodity that is used to back money.

He's also for abolishing the Federal Reserve entirely and restoring

the function of producing currency to the public sphere. The Fed, as

you probably know, is a private consortium of anonymous international

bankers.

What exactly is your objection to the gold standard?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > Did you miss my other post? He proposed this ammendment to highlight

> > the unconstitutionality of the process by which Congress was already

> > trying to ban flag-burning, and then gave a speech against his own

> > proposed amendment -- just like he did when he introduced a bill to

> > wage war against Iraq and spoke out against his own bill, saying that

> > he opposed the war, but if Congress supported it they should at least

> > do it constitutionally.

> I guess I did. That's a rather bizarre tactic, but OK.

I don't see what is bizarre about it. It draws attention to the

issue, allows debate time for it, etc.

> > I meant from a strategic point of view, which seemed most relevant

> > since you are taking the cynical point of view about his beliefs and

> > motivations.

> Cynical?

Well, you were suggesting he is a closet racist, essentially, so I was

saying, assuming this, strategically he would do x. I don't remember

my entire line of thought since this is from a while ago, but that is

the gist.

> > I don't doubt it, but if somehow you totally screwed it up and 25

> > years later someone was claiming you believed x and you had 36,000

> > posts on groups that could be searched by keyword and everything

> > that turned up on the issue after the incident indicated you didn't

> > believed the opposite I'd be more inclined to take your viewpoint from

> > what I knew you wrote than what someone else wrote in your name 25

> > years prior even if you mishandled it with total ineptitude.

> It would be a little more difficult, though, if it were difficult to

> find anything I actually had said which meaningfully contradicted the

> fraudulent or misattributed quotes, though.

He's repeatedly condemned racism publicly, and his line of thought

opposing racism and individualism seems logically consistent and

consonant with his general ideology.

[snip]

> > Well, whether a market is " free " is sort of a semantic issue that you

> > could go either way on. It's like debating whether we have a " free "

> > will. Clearly we aren't all free to participate in widget market if

> > some of us have widgets to sell and some of us don't.

> That's another irrelevant objection.

It's not an objection, but a dismissal. I went on to point out that

the issue, from the libertarian perspective, has nothing to do with

whether the market is free or not. I respect your position that the

" market " is freer under these circumstances, in that resources would

be allocated with greater economic efficiency, but you're position is

clearly utilitarian whereas 's is ethical (if that's the right

word).

[snip]

> > The point is

> > more about private property, and whether you have the right to [use]

> > your property as you wish providing you are not physically

> > intruding on someone else's person or property (the libertarian

> > position) or whether you have any variety of other limits placed on

> > what you can do with your property for various other reasons (the

> > non-libertarian position).

> Not exactly. What you describe as the libertarian position is that

> the government shouldn't be allowed to require that I be allowed to

> buy or sell widgets, but that other people should be allowed to stop me.

You have to qualify " other people. " The libertarian position is that

people who own widgets shoudl be allowed to use them as they wish, and

that people with money should be allowed to use it as they wish. So

yes, someone who owns widgets but does not want to sell them can

" stop " someone from buying them by not selling them, and someone who

owns money can " stop " someone from selling widgets by not selling

them. But this is essentially an abuse of terminology, because owning

money does not allow someone to stop *other* people from buying

widgets with their money, and owning widgets does not allow someone to

stop *other* people from selling their own widgets.

You don't agree with the libertarian position because you don't agree

with it's premises, but surely you can see how the position is

internally consistent?

-- Everyone owns their own body.

-- Everyone owns the previously unowned property with which they

mingle their labor and thus lay claim upon.

-- Violating person or property constitutes force or violence.

-- No one may justly *initiate* force against anyone else.

-- The use of force may justly be used to prevent an unjust act of

force currently being committed from being completed or to punish an

unjust act of force once completed.

Under this system, the libertarian position on the widget market is

clearly consistent with its own premises.

> > No, I think in the vast realm of what Ron has done, THIS is what

> > you are choosing to focus on.

> Yes and no. Obviously if I'm opposing his candidacy I'm not going to

> focus on the areas in which I agree with him.

You are completely justified in focusing on what you believe is important.

However, you suggested that he was focusing on defending the right to

discriminate at the expense of other libertarian positions, when that

is clearly not true. There is no emphasis on this particular matter

among his work in congress.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> > Whether a position indicates someone is heartless or is heartless

> > itself is an almost meaningless distinction, but my point is that

> > while *some* types of positions might indicate whether someone is

> > heartless, political positions don't. In my example, where you stand

> > on a single-payer health plan has little if anything to do with

> > whether you have compassion for people who don't have the medical care

> > they need or struggle to pay for it.

> I think you overstated your position here. While I'd agree that some

> political positions don't indicate the presence or absence of

> compassion on the part of their holders, others surely do, unless you

> restrict the definition of a political position drastically and IMO

> unrealistically. HW Bush's stated position that atheists

> shouldn't even be considered citizens, for example, strikes me as

> being an explicitly political position -- and also one grotesquely

> devoid of compassion. Huckabee's assertion that he'd round up all

> illegal aliens in the first 100 days (I think that was the number) is

> obviously political, and yet I think that regardless of where you fall

> on the many questions of immigration, it's blatantly heartless and

> cruel.

I agree with you here, but this is an exception to the general rule,

because it concerns citizenship. My reason for stating that political

positions did not follow suit here was that the polity is not the

totality of the spheres of society capable of fulfilling various

functions. But it is the only sphere capable of bestowing the rights

of citizenship. There might be a few exceptions I'm not thinking of

off the top of my head, and I admit I did not think of that one until

you posted it, but I think my statement, while slightly overstated, is

generally correct.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ron and Barak Obama won the Myspace primary:

http://news./s/afp/20080103/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008_080103140705;_ylt=Aqw\

BSSbGgy_8Q9iIW9ShDEBB5494

Ron answered how the poor and disadvantage are cared for in a

libertarian society on Larry King Live (taped yesterday but never

aired):

===========

LK: How are the less fortunate through no fault of their own then protected?

RP: Well there would be a lot less of them. Today what we're moving

toward is a lot more people that are unfortunate and nobody's going to

take care of them. Today, if we continue to do what we're doing, the

Social Security recipients aren't going to have anything. And now

today we're closing down hospitals because we can't afford the care

because we have corporate care. But we look back to what happened

before 1965 before government got into medical care. I used to work

in a charity hospital. I made $3 an hour, nobody was ever turned

away. The churches ran the hospitals. Even yet today there are

hospitals, there's a hospital in my district which is a Burn hospital,

and people can still get free care. There would be so much

prosperity, there would be so fewer poor people, that people would be

taken care of. It's something that, once you use coercion and force

and the ideas of socialism, you end up getting more poverty and more

people suffering and more people in need. We just lost our faith and

confidence in understanding how a free market works and that's what we

have to renew.

==============

Chris

[Guest guest]

I have not been following all of your debate, but a couple facts merit

clarification:

American feminism began with Abigail letters to her husband, as the

constitution was being written. She famously begged him not to forget

the women. The feminist movement was also highly organized in the

nineteenth century. Henry Clay's daughter Clay was a prominent

mid-nineteenth century feminist, years before others you may not remember

because they were absent from your history books. Mcleod Bethune?

So no, American women did not make progress before feminism. That

progress was a direct result of first-wave feminism, a very refined

political movement by the time that it made any 'progress' whatsoever.

And as far as I know, there were an elite very few African American

intellectuals and professionals prior to the Harlem Renaissance, and more

during the Harlem Renaissance in the early twentieth century, but not

nearly so many as now. There were always great Black minds, but most

were pillars in their own communities, like Zora Neale Hurston, with only

a few exceptions, such as Booker T. and W.E.B. Whereas now there are

African American pillars in the broader community, post civil rights

legislation and affirmative action, and they are a larger percentage of

their own population than were the previous elite, even with increased

incarceration rates of the black population for crimes both non-violent

and violent, versus their own populations in the early twentieth century

and white populations now and then. Plus, now there are not lynchings,

at least not with ropes and trees, and a rich black man can buy justice

just like a rich white man, now that we have attempted, if unsucessfully,

to legislate equality.

Additionally, a great deal of my understanding of the crisis of

homelessness in this country is that it came about as a result of the

Regan era. . . . he changed the rules regarding institutionalization of

the insane, and we went from about 100,000 homeless to 1,000,000 in 8

years. Yes, we freed them from regulation, to misery. I live right

downtown near a homeless colony in my small city, and the twitch of the

completely insane and lost is different than a postmodern boxcar willie.

If we had any decency at all we must find ways to house more of these

people. . . . Constitutional corporate property rights seem like such

blah, blah when we are letting people freeze to death in our country,

surrounded by empty, abandoned but usable buildings. Absurd.

Desh

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

> " slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> >He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and

> >the FTC.

>

> So doesn't Bush support abolishing the FDA.

Not on this planet.

> Tell me who then is going to be

> responsible when a pharmaceutical that tested so in trials bleeds someone

> internally to death or causes them to take their own life?

Who is responsible now? And how is such responsibility adjudicated?

> The Congressional

> fund for those oops, like now?

I have no idea what you are referencing.

> Who is responsible then for any unethical,

> undisclosed, possibly fraudulent corporate practices and what consumer

> rights haven't been legislated away to corporate interest?

I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say but

I'm think you are saying who is responsible if a corporation harms a

consumer. If so, the same people who are responsible now. Perhaps what

you are really asking is what sort of redress would someone have if

they were harmed. I think they would have the same redress they

currently do. The existence or lack of existence of the FDA wouldn't

change that.

> More lawyers like

> or more insurance? My car insurance presently is being sued by

> State Attorney General for overcharging. Ask anyone in New Orleans if they

> were paid for the insurance coverage they bought on the spot or it was

> twisted to a non covered incident. Rather than personal liability insurance

> an insurance against humans that put themself in a position to play god,

> fail miserably and hurt the many would be my kind of insurance.

I fail to understand how this applies to what I am saying.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

,

> It's not so much that Ron is creating an illusion as that many

> people are ignoring the full truth about him.

And how did you come to such an assessment? My interaction with a lot

of folks here in Washington leads me to believe quite the opposite.

People are very aware generally of the totalility of his views (at

least the most polarizing issues), and yet are choosing to vote for

him anyway. The support around here from people whom I would have

never dreamed would vote for Dr. is pretty amazing. It is one

reason why I am re-considering voting in a national election. I have

voted nationally only once before, when I first became eligible to

vote, but may do so again.

Nonetheless I drew my conclusion about the transparency of Ron

from what I have **read** from many sources of people who are voting

for him, despite disagreeing with him on some major points.

> You share, as I

> understand matters, many of his far-right attitudes, though my point

> here is not to get into a debate about your politics.

LOL! Here is a snippet from an interchange you and I had back on July

27-28, 2005:

[] - Hitler was monstrous. Mussolini was monstrous. Idi Amin

was monstrous. Lenin was monstrous. Lincoln....no I better not say

that. But Limbaugh? He is a radio jock for crying out loud! Do words

mean anything anymore? I'm starting to feel Christie's pain when she

complained about the woman who labeled Kerry a fascist, LOL!

[] - And Lincoln? Gimme a break. The man had his flaws, but this is

absurd. And don't give me some crap about how you didn't want to discuss

Lincoln, because if that were true you would have deleted the whole sentence.

So in recognition of your point back then, I'm going to assume that

yes you did want to bring it up, or you would have never included it

in the first place.

By the way, the above thread in its entirety is for some reason

missing from the archives on the website of Native Nutrition. There is

a gap in the month of July where this thread should be, but for those

of you who are interested in seeing the rather lively debate (and see

Gene's very funny comment about tobacco as a hallucinogen), you can

access it here:

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/72859.html

Now as for my " far right-attitudes " I'm feeling a little like the late

Murray Rothbard at the moment, when he said oh so many years ago:

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

While I can't claim to have held my political position for two decades

- I grew up a hard core liberal, briefly flirted with that political

wasteland known as conservatism, and finally embraced classical

liberalism (now known as libertarianism) - I have held my basic

position for well over a decade. Anyone who is interested in my

intellectual journey can read about it here:

The Legacy of Two Jewish Men

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/miles3.html

and here:

Anarchy: A Judeo-Christian Legacy

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=377

What is interesting about Rothbard's quote is that today I favor

immediate withdrawal from Iraq, denounce U.S. imperialism, still

advocate Black Power and if there was a Peace and Freedom Party, I

would be one of the first to sign up! And yet here is our venerable

list-owner referring to my " far-right attitudes. "

Lord have mercy, you can't win for losing. I will just leave it for

those who read the list to draw their own conclusions.

> Most people,

> however, don't, but even though the bulk of his positions would

> horrify many of his supporters if they became aware of them, they're

> so excited by his anti-war anti-big-brother positions (which, after

> all, get the overwhelming majority of his press coverage) that they

> don't notice or pay attention to the rest.

The majority of the press coverage I have seen nearly *always*

mentions one of his potentially polarizing views, doing what Gene did

in another post when we were talking about the FDA and the FTC, where

he drops out of nowhere his lack of support for the " voting rights

act, " which was clearly an attempt to tar him with the wacky brush, as

if no sane person on earth would ever even *think* of doing such a

thing.

You might be right about the majority of his current support, but I'm

not sure on what basis you are drawing that conclusion.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

My comments (see link to follow the in-text links that won't show up

in this message -- also, note that Ron came in *first* among

independents, which should be a clear wake-up call to Republicans that

he might be the most *electable* candidate):

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Ron--Health-Freedom.html#iowa

The results of the Iowa Caucuses prove once again that Ron is

competitive on the national scene. Consider the following:

-- Rudolph Giuliani is the number one candidate according to national

polls. Ron got almost three times as many votes as Giuliani in

the Iowa Caucuses.

-- Ron was polling at 7.3% in the Iowa Caucuses, but pulled in

9.99% as of January 4 with 96% of precincts reporting. This means he

performed 36% better than expected.

-- By contrast, McCain performed only 11% better than expected;

Fred performed only 14% better expected; Mike Huckabee

performed only 15% better than expected; Mitt Romney performed 5%

worse than expected; and Giuliani, the leading frontrunner in the

national polls, performed a whopping 43% worse than expected. No one

is outperforming their poll numbers like Ron .

-- Although Dr. came in fifth, he came in only three percentage

points behind the coveted third place spot, which McCain and

virtually tied for.

-- Among independents, Ron came in *first place,* garnering 29%

of the vote.

Dr. 's organization is much stronger in New Hampshire, and his

momentum is steadily growing. The New Hampshire primary is

traditionally driven by the independent vote -- which means Ron

could win.

His greatest obstacle is the fact that the media pay little attention

to his campaign, or in the case of Fox News deliberately try to white

him out of the public eye. The fact is, as more people learn about the

campaign, his support steadily grows. By Super-Tuesday on

February 5, due to the hard work of volunteers on the ground, many

more people will be familiar with the campaign and his poll

numbers and primary results are likely to be very, very surprising to

the skeptics.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> My comments (see link to follow the in-text links that won't show up

> in this message -- also, note that Ron came in *first* among

> independents, which should be a clear wake-up call to Republicans that

> he might be the most *electable* candidate):

Don't you mean he came in first among independents in the

_Republican_ caucus? Far more Democrats voted than Republicans, and

though I don't have detailed breakdowns at hand, I'd guess Obama did

dramatically better.

> -- Rudolph Giuliani is the number one candidate according to national

> polls. Ron got almost three times as many votes as Giuliani in

> the Iowa Caucuses.

Giuliani hasn't been number one for awhile now. At best he's in a

tie, but more to the point, he didn't campaign in Iowa, so his abysmal

performance there has little real relevance except as a canary in the

coalmine for his national numbers, which continue to plummet in the

face of scandal after scandal after scandal. Furthermore, now that

Huckabee (and Romney) have utterly clobbered Giuliani, I expect

Giuliani's national numbers to decline even more quickly.

> -- Ron was polling at 7.3% in the Iowa Caucuses, but pulled in

> 9.99% as of January 4 with 96% of precincts reporting. This means he

> performed 36% better than expected.

>

> -- By contrast, McCain performed only 11% better than expected;

> Fred performed only 14% better expected; Mike Huckabee

> performed only 15% better than expected; Mitt Romney performed 5%

> worse than expected; and Giuliani, the leading frontrunner in the

> national polls, performed a whopping 43% worse than expected. No one

> is outperforming their poll numbers like Ron .

His greater relative improvement is in large measure a function of his

small numbers and the small absolute change needed for someone with

his support to achieve a grand-sounding relative increase. For

Huckabee, for example, to have achieved the same relative improvement,

he'd have had to pull of an absolute gain of over 10%!

> Dr. 's organization is much stronger in New Hampshire, and his

> momentum is steadily growing. The New Hampshire primary is

> traditionally driven by the independent vote -- which means Ron

> could win.

Do you really think he has any chance of winning a primary that's only

four days away when his most recent poll numbers there have him at 8%?

> His greatest obstacle is the fact that the media pay little attention

> to his campaign, or in the case of Fox News deliberately try to white

> him out of the public eye.

That's true; as an anti-establishment candidate, he has much the same

problem does in terms of media coverage, only for him

it's even worse since his numbers are lower. (Though

unfortunately may fade fast after Iowa.) Fox News should be drawn and

quartered for shutting RP out of the debate; at least ABC isn't doing

that.

> By Super-Tuesday on

> February 5, due to the hard work of volunteers on the ground, many

> more people will be familiar with the campaign and his poll

> numbers and primary results are likely to be very, very surprising to

> the skeptics.

I doubt it. The days of drawn-out primary contests in which many

different candidates win many different states are, I think, gone.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > My comments (see link to follow the in-text links that won't show up

> > in this message -- also, note that Ron came in *first* among

> > independents, which should be a clear wake-up call to Republicans that

> > he might be the most *electable* candidate):

> Don't you mean he came in first among independents in the

> _Republican_ caucus? Far more Democrats voted than Republicans, and

> though I don't have detailed breakdowns at hand, I'd guess Obama did

> dramatically better.

Yes, though that seems implicit. Republicans and Democrats do not

compete against one another.

> > -- Rudolph Giuliani is the number one candidate according to national

> > polls. Ron got almost three times as many votes as Giuliani in

> > the Iowa Caucuses.

> Giuliani hasn't been number one for awhile now.

I was looking here, which has the averages for the last two weeks of December:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidentia\

l_nomination-192.html#charts

>At best he's in a

> tie, but more to the point, he didn't campaign in Iowa, so his abysmal

> performance there has little real relevance except as a canary in the

> coalmine for his national numbers, which continue to plummet in the

> face of scandal after scandal after scandal.

He made more visits to Iowa than did, so it is comparable.

> Furthermore, now that

> Huckabee (and Romney) have utterly clobbered Giuliani, I expect

> Giuliani's national numbers to decline even more quickly.

Probably, but he's still been considered a frontrunner for the vast

majority fo the race, while Ron has been treated as a complete

longshot and largely ignored until his last quarter record-breaking

fundraising success, and is still more or less being treated as a

longshot, for example being cut out of the Fox News roundtable

discussion tomorrow with Wallace while Giuliani is being left

in. The only other one cut out of this show is Hunter, who did even

worse than Giuliani. did three times better -- so obviously he's

doing much better than Fox News is treating him as doing. Though

Grett van Sustren tossed him this last night:

==========

" Ten per cent is not insignificant - that's a huge number. Here you

have a candidate that 10 per cent of the people caucused in his party

really want him and it's not like he's an insignificant player. He

didn't just drop in yesterday to the process, he has been running for

president for a long time, and certainly many of the issues he's

raised are rather provocative and certainly stimulate the debate;

that's not a bad thing. "

==========

> > -- Ron was polling at 7.3% in the Iowa Caucuses, but pulled in

> > 9.99% as of January 4 with 96% of precincts reporting. This means he

> > performed 36% better than expected.

> > -- By contrast, McCain performed only 11% better than expected;

> > Fred performed only 14% better expected; Mike Huckabee

> > performed only 15% better than expected; Mitt Romney performed 5%

> > worse than expected; and Giuliani, the leading frontrunner in the

> > national polls, performed a whopping 43% worse than expected. No one

> > is outperforming their poll numbers like Ron .

> His greater relative improvement is in large measure a function of his

> small numbers and the small absolute change needed for someone with

> his support to achieve a grand-sounding relative increase. For

> Huckabee, for example, to have achieved the same relative improvement,

> he'd have had to pull of an absolute gain of over 10%!

Yes, which is much easier to do when you have a larger number of

supporters. Support grows exponentially, not linearly. If you have

100 people working for you who can each get five people on board in

one week, you get 600 people at the end of the week. If you have

1,000 people doing the same, you get 6,000 people at the end of the

week. And of course if you continue to the next week, and the next

week, the person with the higher amount of support has a much higher

rate of absolute increase.

> > Dr. 's organization is much stronger in New Hampshire, and his

> > momentum is steadily growing. The New Hampshire primary is

> > traditionally driven by the independent vote -- which means Ron

> > could win.

> Do you really think he has any chance of winning a primary that's only

> four days away when his most recent poll numbers there have him at 8%?

I think it's unlikely but possible. I didn't say " which means Ron

will probably win. " The polls are probably less predictable in

NH, which is driven by the independent vote supposedly, and no one

really knows which way they are going. According to media folks,

side-of-the-road counts in NH indicate that there are two or three

times as many signs for Ron as for all other candidates combined.

> > His greatest obstacle is the fact that the media pay little attention

> > to his campaign, or in the case of Fox News deliberately try to white

> > him out of the public eye.

> That's true; as an anti-establishment candidate, he has much the same

> problem does in terms of media coverage, only for him

> it's even worse since his numbers are lower. (Though

> unfortunately may fade fast after Iowa.) Fox News should be drawn and

> quartered for shutting RP out of the debate; at least ABC isn't doing

> that.

Yep. Their stock is way down, though the chart I saw only showed the

last few days so the effect is probably very exaggerated.

> > By Super-Tuesday on

> > February 5, due to the hard work of volunteers on the ground, many

> > more people will be familiar with the campaign and his poll

> > numbers and primary results are likely to be very, very surprising to

> > the skeptics.

> I doubt it. The days of drawn-out primary contests in which many

> different candidates win many different states are, I think, gone.

There's still hope. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Yes, though that seems implicit. Republicans and Democrats do not

> compete against one another.

In the caucuses, no, but since you were extrapolating to his general

election electability, I think it's important to consider the question

of how candidates from both parties did in pulling in independents,

and I'm guessing that Obama, and Hillary all pulled in more

than Ron since their total numbers were so much higher.

> > Giuliani hasn't been number one for awhile now.

>

> I was looking here, which has the averages for the last two weeks of

> December:

>

>

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidentia\

l_nomination-192.html#charts

I checked that before responding too, but if you look at the most

recent poll, McCain is in the lead. Granted, that's just one poll,

but it covers 11 more days than the next-most-recent poll, and thus

accounts for much more of the damage being done to Giuliani's

candidacy by all the recently-revealed scandals. And even before

that, there's been some significant variability, and Giuliani had

definitely lost his lead.

> He made more visits to Iowa than did, so it is comparable.

Maybe in the past, but he's written off Iowa and (until now) New

Hampshire in favor of his deranged " late state strategy " .

> longshot, for example being cut out of the Fox News roundtable

> discussion tomorrow with Wallace while Giuliani is being left

> in.

Fox News is evil and has an agenda that is definitely contrary to Ron

's, but while Giuliani is in free fall and his candidacy is

effectively over, his national numbers are still much, much higher

than Ron 's, so even if his platform wasn't pretty much the Fox

News wishlist, which in many ways it is, they'd have a heck of a time

justifying shutting him out.

Again, just to be clear, I think it's outrageous that he's being shut

out of the debate; his support clearly merits inclusion.

> Yes, which is much easier to do when you have a larger number of

> supporters. Support grows exponentially, not linearly. If you have

> 100 people working for you who can each get five people on board in

> one week, you get 600 people at the end of the week. If you have

> 1,000 people doing the same, you get 6,000 people at the end of the

> week. And of course if you continue to the next week, and the next

> week, the person with the higher amount of support has a much higher

> rate of absolute increase.

This is only true on the low end. On the high end, you run into

voters already committed to other candidates. In the Iowa field, I

assure you, Huckabee would have had a much harder time gathering an

additional 10+% (without some sort of sudden scandal afflicting some

other substantial candidate, like Romney) than Ron would have had

garnering another 1%.

> I think it's unlikely but possible. I didn't say " which means Ron

> will probably win. " The polls are probably less predictable in

> NH, which is driven by the independent vote supposedly, and no one

> really knows which way they are going. According to media folks,

> side-of-the-road counts in NH indicate that there are two or three

> times as many signs for Ron as for all other candidates combined.

While NH polling is tough, I think Iowa polling is tougher because of

the far-greater time commitment required of caucus-goers than of

primary voters.

Still, who knows -- Ron may substantially beat 8%. I just don't

think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

> There's still hope. :-)

Well, like I always say, hope springs infernal. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Fox News should be drawn and quartered for shutting RP out of the

> debate; at least ABC isn't doing that.

, I see you favor traditional punishment

to go along with traditional food ;-)

I wonder what RP would like to do with Fox?

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn wrote:

> > There's still hope. :-)

>

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Well, like I always say, hope springs infernal. <g>

LOL! I think and are like yin and yang on politics

I think you bested Gene on this one .

Since believes in miracles, I think he's gonna need one here.

If Ron is elected president, I might just have to reconsider my

religious disbeliefs ;-)

[Guest guest]

-

> LOL! I think and are like yin and yang on politics

I doubt it. Though he's more of a small-government libertarian than I

am, he's specifically said he's not a propertarian, and I think we're

both quite socially libertarian, so in practice our politics are

probably more in alignment than you think. That said, I think he's

grievously mistaken in believing that a Ron presidency would be a

net positive, though it would undoubtedly have certain positive effects.

Someone who's my political opposite would have to be a very right-wing

authoritarian, though with certain lefty exceptions, I guess, to

mirror my opposition to heavy-duty gun control and hate speech laws

and the like. And come to think of it, right-wing and authoritarian

describes just about the whole field of candidates this year,

including Ron , with the exception of Kucinich and Mike Gravel, so

while I don't think is it, there's unfortunately no shortage of

yins to my yang. <g>

> I think you bested Gene on this one .

Thanks, but I'm not sure how. I haven't had time to actually address

the article he posted in any kind of meaningful way.

> Since believes in miracles, I think he's gonna need one here.

> If Ron is elected president, I might just have to reconsider my

> religious disbeliefs ;-)

Heh, I'm with you there. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > --- Masterjohn wrote:

>>>> >>> There's still hope. :-)

>>> >>

>> > --- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>>> >> Well, like I always say, hope springs infernal. <g>

>> >

>> > LOL! I think and are like yin and yang on politics

>> >

>> > I think you bested Gene on this one .

>

> My endurance training has flagged since Thanksgiving.

>

>> >

>> > Since believes in miracles, I think he's gonna need one here.

>

> If he really believed in miracles, would he need to cite polls?

>

>> > If Ron is elected president, I might just have to reconsider my

>> > religious disbeliefs ;-)

>

> Well, or reaffirm your belief in the stupidity of the American people.

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

-

> I wonder what RP would like to do with Fox?

If he's not a hypocrite, he should salute their right to do as they

please.

-

[Guest guest]

--- wrote:

> > I wonder what RP would like to do with Fox?

>

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> If he's not a hypocrite, he should salute their right to do as they

> please.

, I was thinking more like crucification

But I think you're right as to what he would actually say.

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > Yes, though that seems implicit. Republicans and Democrats do not

> > compete against one another.

> In the caucuses, no, but since you were extrapolating to his general

> election electability, I think it's important to consider the question

> of how candidates from both parties did in pulling in independents,

> and I'm guessing that Obama, and Hillary all pulled in more

> than Ron since their total numbers were so much higher.

I was making a comparison between the electability of the Republicans,

so this isn't pertinent. The most electable person from either party

is the one that can appeal to a highly energized base (regardless of

whether it is the party's traditional base) and can reach out to a

broad faction of independents as well as get the support of the party

(which comes more or less automatically to whoever gets the

nomination).

> I checked that before responding too, but if you look at the most

> recent poll, McCain is in the lead. Granted, that's just one poll,

> but it covers 11 more days than the next-most-recent poll, and thus

> accounts for much more of the damage being done to Giuliani's

> candidacy by all the recently-revealed scandals.

The next most recent poll listed is only a day before the most recent

poll. And the four most recent polls listed are each by different

polling companies, which doubtless use different methodologies and so

on. The most reasonable conclusion, on second thought, is that

Giuliani and McCain are essentially tied. I think it makes little

sense to go by one poll alone, since it can't establish any trend.

> And even before

> that, there's been some significant variability, and Giuliani had

> definitely lost his lead.

The entire chart shows Giuliani winning almost every one of dozens of polls.

> > He made more visits to Iowa than did, so it is comparable.

> Maybe in the past, but he's written off Iowa and (until now) New

> Hampshire in favor of his deranged " late state strategy " .

McCain, from what I understand, didn't really campaign in Iowa either,

and he slaughtered Giuliani and beat . If you start out with

massive name recognition and some likeability, you can ride on it. I

agree with you that Giuliani would have done better if he campaigned

there, but I don't agree that there is no signfiicance to 's

complete whopping him. I think that is a major positioning of as

much more competitive than he was expected to be, and that the overall

trend of his campaign is positive and optimistic.

> > longshot, for example being cut out of the Fox News roundtable

> > discussion tomorrow with Wallace while Giuliani is being left

> > in.

> Fox News is evil and has an agenda that is definitely contrary to Ron

> 's, but while Giuliani is in free fall and his candidacy is

> effectively over, his national numbers are still much, much higher

> than Ron 's, so even if his platform wasn't pretty much the Fox

> News wishlist, which in many ways it is, they'd have a heck of a time

> justifying shutting him out.

My point wasn't to complain about them allowing Giuliani in, but to

point out that, so far, is massively performing him, and he's

still a major frontrunner in the national polls.

> Again, just to be clear, I think it's outrageous that he's being shut

> out of the debate; his support clearly merits inclusion.

I agree.

> > Yes, which is much easier to do when you have a larger number of

> > supporters. Support grows exponentially, not linearly. If you have

> > 100 people working for you who can each get five people on board in

> > one week, you get 600 people at the end of the week. If you have

> > 1,000 people doing the same, you get 6,000 people at the end of the

> > week. And of course if you continue to the next week, and the next

> > week, the person with the higher amount of support has a much higher

> > rate of absolute increase.

> This is only true on the low end. On the high end, you run into

> voters already committed to other candidates. In the Iowa field, I

> assure you, Huckabee would have had a much harder time gathering an

> additional 10+% (without some sort of sudden scandal afflicting some

> other substantial candidate, like Romney) than Ron would have had

> garnering another 1%.

The comparison would be more like getting another 3%, but I see

your point and you're correct. So it is a valid dismissal of the

comparison to Huckabee, but not so much to McCain and , who

just barely squeezed past . (And of coruse has no

significance in NH and probably none in the rest of the election.)

> While NH polling is tough, I think Iowa polling is tougher because of

> the far-greater time commitment required of caucus-goers than of

> primary voters.

That makes sense but we'll see. You're supported by the turnout being

traditionally like five times higher in NH. But NH is *much* more

fertile ground for ideologically, I think, and there is

apparently quite booming support for there if you go by what you

actually see there (e.g. sign counts).

> Still, who knows -- Ron may substantially beat 8%. I just don't

> think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

I think his chance is small, but his prospects look far greater than

they did at the beginning, so it is far too early to dismiss it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> My endurance training has flagged since Thanksgiving.

Gene, don't forget that Tabata training you told me about. You'll

need extra stamina and endurance to spar with and

> If he really believed in miracles, would he need to cite polls?

has told us that he doesn't think it will take a miracle.

But I do admire his optimism

> Well, or reaffirm your belief in the stupidity of the American

> people.

Yes, I have to admit my confidence in U.S.A. intelligence reached a

new low after Bush was re-elected. Must be all the drugs, vaccines,

and fast food that we love so much.

BTW, I was recently reminded that the U.S.A isn't the only country in

America, there are quite a few others, both in North and South

America. We're just the only country that pretends to own all of the

Americas by calling ourselves Americans, to the exclusion of all the

others

South of the border they call us Norte Americanos,

among other things

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > I wonder what RP would like to do with Fox?

> If he's not a hypocrite, he should salute their right to do as they

> please.

He may believe in their legal right to have whomever on the air they

wish, but it is a bit silly to conflate legal rights with ethics and

behavior in general. Supporting their legal right to interview whom

they wish does not preclude criticizing their action, pressuring them

to change their mind, or eliciting the support of others in such

pressure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > If he really believed in miracles, would he need to cite polls?

> has told us that he doesn't think it will take a miracle.

> But I do admire his optimism

That isn't what I said at all. What I said was you were rushing to

make a judgment you had no basis to make, and referring to the need

for a miraculous finish when the race had not even begun. That is,

there was no way to tell at the moment whether he'd need a miraculous

finish.

What I said regarding belief in miracles was that you'd have to define

" miracle. "

Chris