I like Paul. I like his take on the gold standard. I like that he is anti-abortion. I really liked the Sanctity of Life Act that Paul re-introduced. I do not like Paul on foreign policy though. He is basically a non-interventionist, which is not a position I can get behind. I think there are things worth fighting for, even when US national security is not threatened. I also recognize that Paul has no shot at getting elected. Bachmann may be a long shot, but she could conceivably get the nomination and Obama could be unpopular enough on election night to lose. Paul's candidacy will not go any further this year than any of the other times he has run. He is the real Kucinich of the Republican Party. I would take either of them over Perry. I would take Perry over Romney. I would take Romney over Obama.
How is gold any different than the dollar. It is not a finite quantity. Why would you want to jack the price of any commodity?
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394630" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
wes, that is perfect, thank you. And sad. You have to love how the so-called liberal media and the so-called conservative media are lock-step on their treatment of Paul. I'm not saying I'm a Paul supporter, but good lord the media cycle is beyond awful now. Glad we cancelled our cable subscription.
In theory? Yes. In reality, where there is an opposition and a plethora of opposing viewpoints? No. It's not going to happen. And especially someone who's as radical an ideologue as Bachmann - I know perfectly well I would fight her theocratic agenda to the ends of the earth. I have never understood this line of thinking, and will never understand it.
I tend to agree and let me state I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I like some of his ideas but overall I think his policies would not be good for the country. What I do find about him though is if your primary issue is "liberty", as in a society that allows you to do what you want when want as long as it doesn't directly interfere with other people's ability to do the see same, then Ron Paul's positions are the most consistent with that idea.
Fair enough and I can see how that would be a major issue in determining a candidate to support. I find this position rather surprising as you are citing a political reason and not an ideological reason to not support Paul. You are saying that Paul is the least electable of the Republican candidates you name.
Not to excuse the idiots from Fox News skewing their coverage to support their favorites, but here's why Ron Paul's second place finish isn't really news: No, Ron Paul is not gettting screwed
I think I saw this scene on HBO's Treme, a black activist was saying since it was a forgone conclusion that the Republican Party was going to win the election (like is true in Texas) that the activists should join the Republican Party to at least influence which candidate would be nominated, if not promoting their agenda they could limit the damage to their agenda. So I may vote in the Republican primaries in Texas so I can vote for the least insane person in local offices and the most insane person for national offices. RON PAUL!
Salon's unspoken point is that the Ames Straw Poll is an event for the politically motivated, where organization matters as much as popularity. That's an important point, because the Iowa Caucuses are for the politically motivated, where organization matters as much as popularity. I'd bet that he ends up among the top two or three in Iowa. Whether his support fizzles after Iowa or not is the question. /Gary Johnson supporter
True the media is factoring that in but its still disgraceful of them to then decide not to report about Paul's performance. The CNN example that Jon Stewart showed was particularly disgraceful of basically the CNN anchor and reporter deciding that Paul's comments were not worthwhile in favor of Sarah Palin footage that they didn't have. While yes such editorial decisions are made all the time it was unprofessional of them to say so while broadcasting.
I may not agree with Paul on everything, and I think he's a little too ideological for the Oval Office, but we need more politicans like him that ask real questions instead of following party rhetoric. Like his outburst on Iran and the IMC.
I like what I know of Gary Johnson, which is very little. Do you have a preferred candidate among the current top three? And, if you don't mind saying, how would you vote in Perry/Obama, Romney/Obama and Bachmann/Obama races?
"Hey, Bob, who you gonna vote for?" "Dave! Dave! Whoa, whoa, whoa! Take it easy. So I was f******' my wife in her a**, right? And let me tell you, it was something else." "Yeah, yeah, but who are you gonna vote for?" "Dave! Dave, come on with the voting! I'm trying to tell you about f******* my wife in the a**, and you're asking me all these personal questions."
Maybe so, but seems to me he has more traction now than he did before, and the numbers in the straw back that up. Pretending he doesn't have anything to prove might make sense when he's trying to prove it to today's GOP base, but I think that the numbers this time around should have resulted in more attention than it did (fox's techniques ignored). The article acts like "Nothing to see here, same ole" but the results are not the same this time, and I think not giving him time is a result of people trying not to give him time rather than him just not being worthy of attention. The article itself seems to fit this, really. I'm not a Paul supporter per say. I like a lot of what he has to say, and the way he thinks, but I'm not convinced he's capable to lead the country. I'd like to see more attention given if for no other reason that to provide another option some spotlight.
Who are the top 3? I would probably vote 3rd party in all of those potential matchups, though I think Perry and Romney are both better executives than Obama, so I might be convinced to vote for them. I like some of Bachmann's stances that few other candidates support, but she's shown herself to be completely ineffective, both as a leader, and as a messenger. (Ron Paul is a mostly ineffective leader, but he's a good messenger.) I do think Perry is going to crash-and-burn quickly, though. He's this year's Fred Thompson. The myth is much bigger than the man. That's why his candidacy been met with excitement among the GOP establishment nationally, and mostly indifference in Texas. He's not very deep, and that'll be exposed quickly in the early northeastern primaries.
http://www.peoplesworld.org/a-few-facts-about-rick-perry-s-texas/ A few facts about Rick Perry’s Texas by: Ryan C. Ebersole August 16 2011 tags: Republicans, elections, health, economy, jobs, Texas Perhaps inevitability due to overall GOP discontent with their crop of presidential candidates, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has thrown his Stetson into the ring. Perry enjoys popularity among the American Right, who often cite his record as Texas governor as the way forward. However, a closer examination of Texas under Rick Perry ought to give any American a shudder. Perry and his supporters like to tout his record of job creation in Texas. Granted, 38% of American jobs created since 2009 have been in Texas, but that hardly tells the whole story. In fact, unemployment under Rick Perry has actually increased from 4.3 percent in 2007 to 8.3 percent in 2011. This is due to the fact that, while Texas has created some jobs, it has failed to keep up with its own population growth. It is behind 25 states in terms of unemployment. Additionally, a good chunk of the jobs that Perry touts are very low-paying jobs. In fact, 10 percent of all workers in the state are paid at or below the state's minimum wage. This statistic ties Texas with Mississippi as the states with the highest percentage of workers at the minimum wage level. The number of minimum wage jobs in Texas has jumped 150 percent since 2007. Texas also lags behind in wage increases. Between 2007 and 2011, the average wage per worker has increased 5 percent in the United States, 9.3 percent in California, and 2.5 percent in New York. In Texas, the average wage per worker increased a paltry .06 percent. Perry likes to use his condemnations of the federal government's debt and spending as applause lines. However his track record on Texas's debt tells a different story. Texas's public debt increased from $98 billion in 2001 to $216 billion in 2011, and the solidly Republican state's debt has actually increased faster than the U.S. national debt in the same period. Currently, Texas is looking at a $25 billion shortfall on its $95 billion two-year budget. Despite his claims that "Texas has the best health care in the country," a quarter of all Texans lack health insurance - well above the national average of 15.4 percent. In fact, 13 of Texas's congressional districts are in the nation's bottom 30 in regard to rates of insured citizens. Additionally, Texas has one of the nation's most restrictive Medicaid thresholds, including denying access to impoverished people who are childless. Education is another area where Rick Perry has nothing to brag about. Contrary to his claims that Texas has the highest SAT-taking rates in the nation, it ranks only 22 of the 50 states. Even less impressive: Texans have the fifth lowest SAT scores of all the 50 states, and the state is the third least literate. It also ranks 43rd and 50th respectively, in high school graduation rates and the percentage of residents 25 and older with a diploma or GED. Perhaps this may be due to Texas having the 47th lowest spending rate on education in the nation. Either way, these woes aren't likely to improve with Perry's $10 billion cut to education in his recent budget. Perry also rejected $830 million in federal aid to Texas schools. Why? Because after he used $3.2 billion in stimulus funds targeted at schools to instead plug up his budget (and his reputation), Democrats from Texas inserted special language to prevent Perry from doing so again. Not surprisingly, Perry clings to abstinence-only sexual education for Texas students. Despite evidence to the contrary, Perry claims that "abstinence works," citing his "personal life" as evidence. By 2009, over 94 percent of Texas school districts had adopted abstinence-only sexual education. This education included curriculum emphasizing that birth control is ineffective, contrary to the facts. These programs combine an overemphasis on sexually transmitted diseases and death with Christian views of morality. Many public school districts use handouts containing Bible verses as part of their sexual education. What are the results? Texas has the third highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. In fact, pregnancy rates under Perry have skyrocketed, and are now over 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more alarming: Texas has the highest teen repeat pregnancy rate as well as the third highest rate of youths with HIV. Perry, like many of his Republican colleagues, is an avid climate change denier and invokes the idea of a science conspiracy, claiming that is part of some "secular carbon cult." Perhaps this is due to the $11 million Perry has received in campaign contributions from the oil industry since 1998. Not surprisingly, the state of Texas is also the nation's largest polluter and is fighting against the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to curb its excessive culture of pollution. Perry is most upset about the EPA's rejection of his state's "flexible permit" policy which would cut costs to polluters at the expense of the environment. Rick Perry and his record are often touted by conservatives, who are likely filled with glee now that he has entered the presidential contest. However, based on his record as Texas governor, what could we expect from a Perry presidency besides: low paying jobs, higher teen pregnancy and STD rates, declining education standards, creationism in the curriculum, state-sponsored prayer, and more pollution?
gwb won partly on touting texas's abysmal education statistics. its one of the things that still boggles my mind about his election.
