AMES: Romney WIns; Huckabee In Second

Gov Mitt Romney won the 2007 Ames straw poll, receiving 4516 votes, or 31%.

In a surprise, Gov. Mike Huckabee finished second with 2587 votes at 18.1%

11. John Cox with 41 votes.
10. John McCain with 101 votes.
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes.
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes.
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes.
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%.
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes and 15.3%

Iowa state auditor David Vaudt unofficially certified the results.

14,203 ballots were cast.

Comments

Maybe you should post them in this order:

3.
4.
...
11.

That seems like it would be fairer, no?

Posted by other direction please | August 11, 2007 9:16 PM

FRAUD, predicted and executed!

Posted by FRAUD | August 11, 2007 9:17 PM

No one will believe these results, thanks to the Iowa GOP FUBARing the entire thing.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:17 PM

This is PROOF that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo are UNDOUBTEDLY REPTILIAN HUMANOIDS! HOW ELSE COULD THEY HAVE DEFEATED THE AMAZING WONDERFUL RON PAUL!

Posted by Joseph | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Romney's a winner, Huckabee's a winner. Unfortunately for all the rest, they are losers.

Posted by J Baustian | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Not bad for Ron Paul at all! Maybe he will get more talking time now..?

Posted by Ron | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Will Sam Brownback now go home?

And is it me or is Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich? Has anyone seen them in the same room together, hmm....

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Showing from Dr. Paul was about expect. They were saying 1500-3000, but that was obviously expecting a bigger crowd.

I'm betting if non-Iowans there could have voted, Ron Paul would have had a fairly good chance to win. That, of course, would have defeated the point of the poll (which is to measure popularity in Iowa).

Good showing by Huckabee. I'm a Paul supporter, but Huckabee seems like a pretty good guy compared to the "top 3" (Guiliani, Romney, McCain).

Good to see Romney have to sweat a little bit. After all the time and money he put into Iowa to have a "second tier" from Arkansas give him a run for his money...gotta be a little bit embarrassing for the Romney folks.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

um.. so ron paul got more votes then tommy thompson? lol time to drop out tommy.

(he also got more then mccain/thompson/giuliani combined...)

Posted by Chris from Maine | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Romney wants to continue to borrow money from china to fund our illegal war. He wants to borrow your children to fight it.

Posted by Frank Hortingander | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

So, Huckabee will get the biggest boost from this, but my question is: who won't be able to go on?

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

WOW, Huckabee! He didn't have 1 bus, and Romney had over 100 buses... very impressive showing.

Posted by Jonathan | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

Wait, what happened? I was supposed to get 40,000 votes. just like i did the ABC.com poll. i don't understand.

I demand a recount!

Posted by Ron Paul | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

With Diebold involved the results will always be under a cloud of suspicion. Was the fix in? We'll never know for sure, but one thing was learned tonight. Any county board that certifies Diebold machines for their elections should be run out of town on a rail.

Posted by Dan | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

And Romney spent $4 million on this.

D'oh!

Posted by Alex2 | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

Could you have picked a more confusing numbering system?

Anyway, those results look about right.

Posted by Bob the blob | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

Now it is time for Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to get OUT of the races and allow the pro-life/traditional Catholics to rally behind a GOP candidate that will support life, defend our borders and STOP THE NEO-CONS!

Posted by Albert Hodges | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

Will Sam Brownback now go home?

Hell, will Giuliani and McCain?

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

Huckabee seems like a decent fella--but Romney--oh boy.

But seriously, has anyone seen Paul and Kucinich in the same room? I think we have a conspiracy!!!

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

I disagree with this:

"Good to see Romney have to sweat a little bit. After all the time and money he put into Iowa to have a "second tier" from Arkansas give him a run for his money...gotta be a little bit embarrassing for the Romney folks."

Romney got 13% more than the 2nd place candidate. That's not really sweating it out.

Posted by Stephen | August 11, 2007 9:22 PM

If there were only 14,203 ballots cast, how do the votes add up to an even 14,300?

Posted by Skeptic | August 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Thats what millions of dollars get you.

Its interesting to see how low Rudy and McCain got. If you don't participate in the poll, if you don't buy 10,000 tickets, if you don't spend millions, you don't win. RIGGED.

Ron Paul's FIRST WEEK IN IOWA! 10%

Posted by okok | August 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Much more enthusiasm among Republicans than on the Democrats side.

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

Posted by Derrick | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

Romney spent around 6 million on this actually. So this is what paying ~$1,300 per vote gets you.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

As a diehard Paul supporter, I'm not necessarily screaming fraud. The greater issue at hand is not, "Did they?" but "Would they?". I dont think the answer could be anything but "yes." The Ron Paul message must be communicated to more and more people, and we will see the Constitution triumph in '08! Freedom! Ron Paul!!

Posted by Matthew Robinson | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

I'm a Ron Paul guy, but I'd vote for Huckabee in a "lesser of 2 evils" scenario vs. any Democrat.

I can't say the same for Romney, McCain, or (especially) Giuliani.

Posted by Chris in NJ | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM

Nobody cares. This has as much relevance as today's odds for the next Super Bowl.

Posted by Michael Vick | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM

Well, we know which "second-tier" candidate will play with the big-boys. Congrats to Huckabee. I'm sure Tancrado & Ron Paul will stick around- but the real fight will be Giulian vs. either Romney-F.Thompsor-Huckabee survivor.

Posted by Mark | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

So how many people went to this event and didn't vote?

Posted by Dave | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

Paul and Kucinich are both like Don Quixote--chasing the Iowa windmills--dreaming of the big chair.

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

Ron Paul said Mitt spent $2200 per vote and Paul spent $200 per vote.

Posted by RonPaulwillwin | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

If Romney had a really good message, for all the money he spent on Iowa, and with three of the top four in scientific polling not there, he would have gotten 50%. He bought 31% of the vote. To me, all things considered, that's a little embarrassing.

I'd love to see a dollar/vote breakdown of each candidate. It'd have to be pretty hilarious to see how much more Romney spent compared to the more sane candidate.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Regarding:

"Romney spent around 6 million on this actually. So this is what paying ~$1,300 per vote gets you."

A lot of the money he has been spending is also useful for the real caucuses in January, so this isn't really an accurate statement even if the $6 million figure is correct (which I doubt).

Posted by not romneys ghost | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that traditional Catholics can support!

These so-called conservative Catholics who get their political ideas from Bill OReilly, Sean Hannity and Deal Hudson need to turn off their tv's and pick up St. Thomas, St. Pius X, and G.K. Chesterton!

Posted by Albert Hodges | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Paul did not do too badly. It's important to remember that he has not campaigned that hard in Iowa until last week. He needs to spend more time there in the next four months. And if there was a straw poll in New Hampshire right now he'd do much better, for he's more popular there. Iowa is just waking up to him.

Posted by martin johnson | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

STFU about diebold machines you lib whiners!

YaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyMitt.

Posted by Ron Paul | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

And now....the whining by the Ron Paul people begins.

Not sure who is more annoying, Paul himself or his supporters.

Posted by Bob | August 11, 2007 9:29 PM

That's about $8.8M Mitt spent. Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by RonPaulwillwin | August 11, 2007 9:29 PM

it goes to show that the fair tax which mr huckabee has as one of his points may become a powerful force in 2008 we need more people talking about this than the mundane same old warmed over points they try to feed us

Posted by jw | August 11, 2007 9:30 PM

Let's see if we can interpret this:

#1 - proves if you have money to hire 100 buses you can win.
#2 - shows that nice guys don't finish last, but also rarely win.
#3 - showing up to all the local parties pays off.
#4 - immigration issue has legs.
#5 - college kids will do anything to escape boredom.
#6 - if you spend enough time anywhere at least a few people will notice.
#7 - you snooze - you lose.
#8 - big city liberals go nowhere in the corn patch.
#9 - being a congressman means nothing.
#10 - when you're down, you're out.
#11 - there really is strange matter in the universe.

Posted by Grumpier | August 11, 2007 9:30 PM

14,203? That's all?

This even in 2000 managed to get 24,000 voters.

Let that be a sign of the enthusiasm of the GOP Base.

Posted by attaturk | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that traditional Catholics can support!

Um, Sparky, Paul is "Protestant".

He also seems to be against government helping lesser off folks--sometimes called the meek. Think Jesus stood on a mountain and spoke about it a while back...

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

I'm not sure what's more annoying, the Constitution or Ron Paul.

Posted by Whatsmore | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

I didn't know there were that many Mormons in Iowa!

Posted by Doubting Thomas | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Go Romney!!! Bush got around 31% of the vote in 1999. romney will be on Fox news Sunday!! Go Romney!! I'm also glad that huckabee beat Brownback and Ron Paul didn't do well at all. Go Romney!!

Posted by Mitt in 08 | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

I really don't think any Ron Paul supporters are whining. I'm satisfied with the results and I think other Paul supporters are.

There seems to be a lot more juvenile, immature ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul and his supporters than there is immature whining from them. You only attack someone like that when you fear them. What does that say about you Paul bashers?

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

9.1% is very respectable. That should be enough to end the 'doesn't translate into real world support' commentary. Actually, it won't stop it, but it will provide a counter-argument.

This is purely a name-recognition contest, and given that he spent virtually nothing, Paul comes out smelling like a rose. He and Huckabee have to be the biggest winners coming out of the straw poll.

Posted by mty | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Dang, what the heck happened to John Cox? I was expecting him to pull the big surprise and WIN this thing!

Posted by Jessica Mydek | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

from The Politico:

Romney's 31.5% victory is almost exactly what then-Gov. Bush picked up at Ames in 1999, but Romney's margin over his nearest competitor was higher than what Bush won with. Romney bested Mike Huckabee by 13% while Bush defeated Steve Forbes by 10%.

Huckabee's second place finish is a surprise and could offer the Arkansan a nice boost. Sam Brownback clearly spent more money on his effort -- he rented buses while Huckabee couldn't afford any -- but came up about 400 votes shy of Huckabee.

After putting in the effort he did today and in the weeks leading up to Ames, Brownback's third place finish will prompt questions about his ability to carry on in the race.

Posted by Mike | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM

"14,203? That's all?

This even in 2000 managed to get 24,000 voters.

Let that be a sign of the enthusiasm of the GOP Base."

No, it's a sign that 3 major candidates didn't show up. If they had, it would have surpassed 24k (in part because Romney would have brought more people).

Posted by Stephen | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM

I added up thevote numbers and I got 14,300 votes even. They claim 14203 ballots cast. I find that total pretty amusing. Perhaps the chap that "certified " the results can explain this??I hate funny math of any sort at any election. It reminds me of Stalins quote that it is not who votes that counts, it is who counts the votes.....All electronic voting machines should be consigned to the nearest deep body of water.

Posted by jesse bogan | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

Matthew Robinson -

The message is more important than the man. We must make that known. If not, I don't doubt Ron Paul will be executed if he starts moving up (if they can't steal the future elections like they may have this time). We must be ready to carry the torch. The fire is spreading like crazy, too. I see Ron Paul supporters all over the place - never see one supporter of any of these other windbags.

Posted by Adrian | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

Of course only 14,000 showed up, 3 of the other major candidates dropped out. Why would a bunch of GOP voters come out to vote for 1 major candidate and a bunch of second tier candidate? Go Romney!!!

Posted by Mitt in 08 | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

This is actually not a bad finish for Ron Paul. As an Iowan who supports him and was there today I can tell you that he is still in good shape. Remember that Paul did not even make it to Iowa until this past week. Romney and Huckabee have been organized in this state since before most of the country even found out who Paul was. Given the large out of state contingent that was at the Paul tent in Ames I was nervous about enough Iowa voters showing up to vote for him.

Posted by Kevin | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

Yes, Ron Paul is a Protestant. But he is against abortion more strongly than any of the top teir candidates. He is also against a war the late Pope John Paul II indicated was unjust and immoral.

Furthermore, Ron Paul acts like a good Christian. He didn't turn away the poor, he welcomed them to his medical practice and treated them for free or for discounted fees. That, my friend, is living the example Jesus set for us. He is peaceful. He defends life in all its forms. And Dr. Paul believes in charity toward those who need it.

Taxes, sadly, are not charity. They are theft and redistribution. Morally, the right thing to do is to allow people to choose to give to the less fortunate, not force them to do so facing the barrel of a gun or the gavel of a judge.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

There was no way Paul was going to win this thing. You need to spend a lot of money on an event like this--bus tons of people to the event like Romney did. I think the real winner of this poll is Huckabee. He got 18% without breaking a sweat. Romney worked desperately to get what he got. I think Huckabee may start to really surprise people soon.

Posted by Martin Johnson | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

I once was at a GOP dinner party and a Republican operative derided Senator Robert Byrd as an "anachronism" for referring to the Constitution in his speeches. I almost choked on my food. It was a sobering moment and one of the first that made me reconsider my blind loyalty to the GOP. I see things haven't changed much. Go Ron Paul.

Posted by Rick | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

RE: doubting 6 million was spent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902379_pf.html

5 million on commercials and campaign material
~500k Direct voter expenditure (350k for 10k tickets + bus & BBQ)
200k on a consultant
AT least 100k on 60 paid "volunteers" (oxymoron?!) since April

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

I love people throwing around numbers of how much Romney spent.

$4, 6, 8.8 million ...

let me be the first to say it was $20 million

Whatever Romney has spent was money building a base of real people that really voted for him. Something that might be useful in December / January.

Congrats Mitt!

Posted by Mitt Romney | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

Before we get all giddy about Romney's 31%, let's not forget that the 3 top contenders weren't even present! By the by, I'm really happy that Huckabee had a good showing. He seems like a decent guy, and I like his tax plan.

Posted by Bob the Blob | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

According to the 2000 religion census, there were just over 15,000 Mormons in Iowa (including children).

Posted by peg | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

The importance of this vote is that it's going to force the media to consider Paul as a viable candidate, at least for a news cycle or two. At the very least, they're going to have to explain how their darling Rudy did so poorly. 183 votes? Maybe he will drop out of the race after all.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 9:37 PM

Let's see, Ron Paul supporters are giddy because he only spent $200 a vote and got 9%.
Well I spent $0 and have just as much chance as Ron Paul of winning the nomination.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:38 PM

31% against that group of losers is not very impressive for Romney. Huckabee is the news out of this thing, if he can turn his second place finish into money, which he ironically was knocking in his Ames speech. He needs Brownback to drop out, which Brownback should. Brownback tried hard, is a midwestern social conservative and could only come in third at an Iowa fair? Buh-bye.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 9:39 PM

YOOOOOHOOOOOO!!! Go Huckabee!! Great job in Iowa.

Fred Thompson can stay out, John McCain needs to get out and Giuliani needs to figure it out. It's down to Huckabee and Romney. Period.

Hopefully with these results, Tommy Thompson and Tancredo will drop out immediately while Ron Paul and Sam Brownback (especially since he is from Kansas and threw more money into Iowa than Huckabee) will be on their heels.

Giuliani and McCain quit, so anything than this being played as a loss for them is a joke.

GO HUCKABEE!!

Posted by Bruce Gresham | August 11, 2007 9:40 PM

Check out DCbriefing.com

Posted by Dc | August 11, 2007 9:40 PM

Keep in mind, there are suggestions that the Giuliani/McCain coalesced as Huckabee as the one to be the stalking horse in Iowa.

Brownback's pro-ag policies obviously win him a swathe of support.

Paul, as the Internet phenom, didn't have enough local support to win...but no longer is a laugher candidate.

The real relevation is how popular Tancredo was. Looks like candidates hoping to fire up the GOP base know what issue will do the trick. Tommy T in 3rd place is scary stuff.

Posted by Thomas Soteros-McNamara | August 11, 2007 9:41 PM

It's funny that the only bad things people say about Ron Paul are either petty, immature insults, or else based completely on lies.

Come on. Someone say something that is true. Something bad. Something that the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, that even religious leaders or free market economists would deride as flat out wrong.

You don't have to like his stances, but simply insulting him and calling him names because he is exercising his right to run and express his political beliefs is needless. In truth, even if I disagreed with him I would still support his candidacy because I am a proponent of the free flow of new and less-known ideas. But maybe I'm "crazy" or a "loser."

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Does this mean we never have to listen to John Cox droning on and on and on again?

Big night for Huckabee, but equally big for Tancredo, who dusted Ron Paul and his band of half-insane, musket-wielding hyperpatriot, conspiracy theory-touting Followers.

Good dam riddance. Now drop out, Ron.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

CrookedInc.Com Brings you the most in-depth analysis of the Iowa Straw Poll in the country.

Posted by Gary | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Maybe Huckabee is the designated CFR second tier candidate. Maybe.

Posted by dogster | August 11, 2007 9:43 PM

Shelby is right. A candidate who compromises with abortionists is a fool to think he has any chance for the Pro-Life vote.

Posted by Stop the killing | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

My analysis is that Huckabee and Brownback stay in. Tancredo stays in and rails on immigration.

More at:

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08/11/romney-wins-conservatives-split/

Huckabee and Brownback have to decide whether to unload on Romney or each other.

The question will be whether Ron Paul stays in. Cox, Thompson, and Hunter will get out.

Posted by Soren Dayton | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Michael, I'd like to thank you proving my point exactly: You didn't intelligently criticize Ron Paul's views or anything about him. You simply insulted the man and his supporters like you're a drunk at a baseball game. Congratulations. Way to really make yourself look good.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Well, this shows that Ron Paul is not just a product of a couple of people in their pajamas spamming polls. Still a ways to go, but given that all the finishers above him have been blanketing the state for months, not bad at all, not bad at all.

So at least now he can't be dismissed as a non-entity.

Posted by Robatsu | August 11, 2007 9:45 PM

"9.1% is respectable." Really? Does 9% win a lot of elections?

What's really impressive is that Ron Paul got all 1305 of his nut-job supporters in Ames on the same day. There must not have been any reports of black helicopters in the area, or they would have cranked up their kerosene generators and hid in their caves.

Posted by john | August 11, 2007 9:45 PM

It's funny that the only bad things people say about Ron Paul are either petty, immature insults, or else based completely on lies. Come on. Someone say something that is true. Something bad. Something that the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, that even religious leaders or free market economists would deride as flat out wrong.

He just tried to award his district $400 million in taxpayer-funded pork to study (and promote) shrimp fishing. That bad enough for you anarchistic libertarians to wake up and smell the hypocritical coffee?

That's not in the Constitution, is it?

I could go on and on about how the Founders actually believed in Society, and that none of them believed in relying solely on radical, self-centered individualism, but this isn't the time or the place.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM

You know...

Not all Mormons are voting for Romney. He creeps me out, for one.

Posted by ed | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM

Oh, Earth to Ron Paul supporters, Thompson, Giuliani and McCain were not participating in this thing, that's why they were not expected to do well. It is of no relevance to them. Romney's only getting 31% actually is good news for them, because they can spin that as a disappointment for Romney. And, in truth, people were expecting him to get 45% or more.

Ron Paul has about as much viability (actually less) as Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer had. They had amazingly intense and vocal, but nationally insignifcant, support as well. For him to become even the next Pat Buchanan, there would have to be large-scale GOP opposition to the war, which there is not.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 9:47 PM

If Guiliani and McCain & Thompson were there, they would have only diluted the pro war vote. And they are supposed to be 'big fish' up there with Romney. No one would have owned more than 15% if every player had been at the polls.

Think about it, it would have diluted every other candidate except for Ron Paul.

Ron Pauls anti - war position is at least 9% popular with the republican base.

I think this straw poll would have been ALOT more interesting if the candidates not attending had turned up.

Posted by somedude | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

Kudus to Iowa Republican voters! They looked deeper than surface appearances and picked the two candidates with the greatest integrity and the greatest chance of beating Democrats. How about a Romney-Huckabee ticket?

Posted by Christian Prophet | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

To all the dumbasses screaming "conspiracy!!!11" because the vote counts add up to 14,302 rather than the 14,203 Marc said...

The official tally is 14,302-- Marc just accidentally transposed the last three digits. Check The Fix, or The Caucus, or any other news source for a confirmation of this.

Posted by Arlen | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

OK, I will tell you something that shows Ron Paul is a nut. During Israel's recent war with Hamas in Lebanon, he was one of the only congressman who wouldn't support a resolution that praised Israel and called Hamas a terrorist organization.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

Ron Paul will be staying in. Remember he still has more money on hand than everyone but Romney and Guiliani. He didn't spend but a little of it in Iowa. He'll probably kick up the campaigning in Iowa now (you know, for when they have the real vote) and he is already pretty popular in New Hampshire. You'd also have to think he'll appeal to "first in the south" South Carolina as well as some other Southern states once they know who he is.

I think you'll see that once Dr. Paul starts to spend some money, his poll numbers will improve and he'll perform well in REAL votes. No point in spending so much money right now when the average American isn't paying any attention to politics. Wait until later in the year when the average voter decides to start seeing who's running.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:49 PM

I think Mitt promised to harvest a whole bunch of corn in the next few weeks.

Posted by ernest | August 11, 2007 9:49 PM

My comments don't seem to have been posted! We'll see if these make it. Ron Paul is in 5th place. The following candidates should drop out: Fred Thompson (was he really in?), Rudy Giuliani, Hunter, and John McCain. All received lower vote totals - much lower.

Posted by Janice | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

This was beautifully said so I'm reposting it:
---------
Yes, Ron Paul is a Protestant. But he is against abortion more strongly than any of the top teir candidates. He is also against a war the late Pope John Paul II indicated was unjust and immoral.

Furthermore, Ron Paul acts like a good Christian. He didn't turn away the poor, he welcomed them to his medical practice and treated them for free or for discounted fees. That, my friend, is living the example Jesus set for us. He is peaceful. He defends life in all its forms. And Dr. Paul believes in charity toward those who need it.

Taxes, sadly, are not charity. They are theft and redistribution. Morally, the right thing to do is to allow people to choose to give to the less fortunate, not force them to do so facing the barrel of a gun or the gavel of a judge.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Did Paul do as well as I would have liked? No, but he beat 2%

Romney camp bought 10,000 tickets and got 4,516 votes

Paul camp bought 500 tickets and got 1,305 votes

Couple conclusions:
Romney can't even buy support (with free tickets, rides and food)
The majority of Paul supporters liked him enough to actually pay for themselves (and make the drive over there)

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Robert Byrd respects the Constitution? Have you seen the judges he supports? Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, even Giuliani and the entire rest of the GOP field will install originalist judges, while all the Dems would place activists who think the job is about mandating your personal policy preferences.

I will support any GOP candidate over any Dem candidate. Not because of partisanship, but because of judges.

All the same, Go Mitt!

Posted by Gyrd | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Houston Mike: Why should Ron Paul praise Israel?

In fact, why in the world should Congress call Hamas a terrorists organization. I'm not saying that they are not one, it just seems like a rather pointless vote. I'm guess that combined with his desire not to praise Israel led to that vote.

Is that really the best you have? Ron Paul had a vote on a non-binding resolution that you don't understand? Come on.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:51 PM

At the very least, Ron Paul has to be taken as a first-tier candidate at this point. McCain, Thomson and Giuliani aren't.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:51 PM

Matt, when people actually start hearing about Dr. Paul, they will run as far away as possible, because they will know he cannot win the general election against Hellary or Obama. Period.

The last time we nominated a "pure" libertarian extremist, we got LBJ for a full term. Not gonna happen again.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:52 PM

RE: Michael

Are you aware that he votes against the bills that contain those earmarks? Are you even aware of how earmarks work? Based on most of your comments, it seems as if you're just repeating something you heard elsewhere. Because if you had researched the issues yourself, that would mean you are purposely misrepresenting.

Posted by Andrew | August 11, 2007 9:52 PM

Mitt's kids will remain in Iowa to cut lawns for the rest of the summer.

Posted by bristol | August 11, 2007 9:53 PM

My Observation....

9.1% of the people who voted in the poll get it.

Posted by Jay | August 11, 2007 9:53 PM

Hey houstonmike. If you're from Houston, in all probability you're a lying nut also. Where is the House Resolution or other evidence that you are not full of internet b.s.?

"We're in nut country now" ---John F. Kennedy 11/22/63

Posted by Conservative Dem | August 11, 2007 9:54 PM

Michael, the last time we nominated 'a "pure" libertarian extremist,' we saw a resurgence of conservative dominance in political life up until now, and don't forgot 8 years of Ronald Reagan. Think strategically. Goldwater did not lose. He won the next 40 years for conservatives.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:54 PM

huckabee's great showing will force romney, mccain& guiliani to start answering questions about the fair tax & not be able to bob & weave away from this important issue as there are a lot of people for the fair tax and as it gets more exposure the dems will have to answer questions to,so go mike huckabee as you are gaining momentum with this track, many americans want changes to the tax code, no matter what party they are from and this issue could be your track to the white hse

Posted by jw | August 11, 2007 9:55 PM

Ron Paul $400 Million Earmark Explanation:

Did you know he also voted against the bill that would have awarded those earmarks? The federal government, by Paul's view, steals money from HIS constituents. It is, therefore, his job to have money go back to those constituents if the federal government decides to give money back to people at all.

The actions of Congress are unconstitutional, but as long as they are giving out money, shouldn't Dr. Paul try to get a little back to his district, or should he just let his be the only district that is stolen from that gets nothing back? And, again, I emphasize, he VOTES AGAINST THE BILLS.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:55 PM

Mitt's wives are on their way to Vermont.

Posted by bristol | August 11, 2007 9:56 PM

>>>>OK, I will tell you something that shows Ron Paul is a nut. During Israel's recent war with Hamas in Lebanon, he was one of the only congressman who wouldn't support a resolution that praised Israel and called Hamas a terrorist organization.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM
-------

Awesome! Israel is always stirring up trouble and wanting us to bail them out. We largely wouldn't be targets of terrorism if we didn't waste BILLIONS of dollars every year on those welfare parasites. Jew Homeland, huh? What about separation of Church and State? Why are our tax dollars going to support a terrorist nation (look up King David Hotel, Lavon Affair, Irgun, etc....) that has ATTACKED AND KILLED Americans (USS Liberty attack)???? You are a traitor, houstonmike. Go live in Israel.

Israel constantly uses its MILITARY against CIVILIANS. I thought that was a war crime, but no one says anything. They conduct lynchings - another double standard. Just substitute Whites in for Jews. Would we be supporting a White Homeland that regularly executes non-Whites without a trial (all you have to do is mutter that they were "suspected terrorists" and it all gets swept under the rug? Would we?

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:56 PM

Houstonmike,
Ron Paul is one of the few congressmen who are not in the pocket of AIPAC and the Israeli firsters.
He doesn't have to rely on their contributions and thusly does not have to support our mythical 51st state.

Posted by David | August 11, 2007 9:57 PM

Michael: LBJ? LBJ? Ha! Ok, I'm going to stop responding to you. You have demonstrated a few things:

1) You don't really understand political philosophy, you are just parroting what your favorite "conservative" blogger tells you to.
2) You don't understand American political history. LBJ was not a libertarian. He was a power-hungry war-monger who loved to spend American's money.
3) You resort to insults and name-calling, therefore don't really deserve the attention of intelligent political observers.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

Alex, you're an anti-Semitic troll, and you don't belong here. Why don't you go hang out withe the psychotic Counter-Punch crowd? They seem more your type.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

I believe Paul bought the minimum 800. Where is the source that says Mitt bought 10,000?

Posted by Paul | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

Andrew, thanks for trying to smear the fact that Ron Paul sought $400 million in PORK.

The fact that he voted against the entire bill afterwards is kind of Kerry-like - he voted FOR IT before he voted AGAINST IT.

Looks like he's trying to cover up his porking.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:59 PM

>>Did Paul do as well as I would have liked? No, but he beat 2%

Romney camp bought 10,000 tickets and got 4,516 votes

Paul camp bought 500 tickets and got 1,305 votes

Couple conclusions:
Romney can't even buy support (with free tickets, rides and food)
The majority of Paul supporters liked him enough to actually pay for themselves (and make the drive over there)

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM
------------
^^F'in priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:59 PM

Didn't really expect Dr. Paul to win this or crack anywhere near the top, but he got my vote anyway.

America can either sip its arsenic (Romney/Giuliani) or it can gulp it down in one shot (Hillary/Obama/Edwards), but there's no point in denying the inevitable. Look at the Roman Empire...

Posted by kttj115 | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM

Could someone answer why and/or how the GOP of Iowa thought they would have 40,000 voting attendees for this function?

If they had control of all voting tickets, and one purchased ticket = one vote, I don't understand how the number of tickets distributed didn't provide an approximation as to the number of final votes. The committee appear to be somewhat surprised at the low tally -- why?

Posted by JDHobbs | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM

I don't think being against the murdering of non-Jews in Israel is being anti-Semetic.

Is disagreeing with something a Jewish person does anti-Semetic? Because I wasn't aware of that.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM

Matt, you're a typical libertarian, because you are ignorant and you start smearing OTHERS as ignorant the minute your hero Ron Paul is unmasked as a hypocrite and an extremist

And DOOFUS, I was calling GOLDWATER a libertarian. Read it right next time.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 10:01 PM

RE: Michael

At first I thought you were just trolling but now I think you're a Ron Paul supporter using really, really subtle sarcasm. Everything you post is the exact opposite of the truth but it wasn't til the "LBJ was a libertarian" statement that I realized no one who is competent enough to use the internet would be stupid enough to believe LBJ was a libertarian.

You should make the sarcasm a little less subtle because people might think you really are that stupid.

But that would make a funny bumper sticker... "LBJ, Dubya and Rudy... The New Libertarians".

Posted by Andrew | August 11, 2007 10:02 PM

Promulgating blood libel is anti-Semitic, Matt. Don't try to hide behind the "I'm only disagreeing with a Jewish person" cant.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:02 PM

A Steve Forbes style flat income tax is better than the Fair tax. "Fair tax" = national sales tax.

Canada already has the Fair tax. The only problem is they didn't get rid of their progressive income tax when they put it in place, and neither would we. We'd end up with the Fair tax -- in addition -- to our current IRS, not instead of our current IRS. The only way to get the Fair tax as envisioned by its supporters is to pass a constitutional amendment banning the national income tax, which is prohibitively hard.

Just as good, and much easier to flatten our current income tax instead of introducing a national sales tax.

Posted by gyrd | August 11, 2007 10:02 PM

His articulate support for the elegantly simple FairTax is what distinguishes Gov. Huckabee from Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani -- two big money candidates who seem to like the "tax break for campaign contribution" system currently in place. The FairTax is a principled stand against Jack Abramoff-style corruption. It's about taking power away from Washington and returning it to the people. I would expect that to resonate with just about everyone, except a politician. That's what's so refreshing about Gov. Huckabee.

The fact that Gov. Huckabee is in favor of it says a lot about his integrity, IMHO.

You can also learn about The FairTax for free at www.fairtax.org.

Go FairTax! Go Huckabee!

Posted by Chris Larkby | August 11, 2007 10:02 PM

Do people really believe the stuff they are posting here? If so, pass the Kool-Aid. This was a straw poll at which three of the top four national candidates did not participatee. Everyone knew Romney would win, the question was by how much. His win actually was a bit disappointing, given his nonentity competition (Dubya back in 1999 at least had Forbes and Elizabeth Dole). Here's how it shakes out:

Romney-got the win he paid for, but 31% showing shows that he's potentially somewhat weaker in Iowa than suspected.

Huckabee--the good feedback he's been getting has some validity. Coming in second and besting Brownback in the Midwest shows he has some broader rural appeal, at least. Can this boost him as a serious threat to Romney in Iowa? Can he get money?

Brownback--should drop out, but he may be stubborn enough to think a third-place showing is good enough. It wasn't.

Giuliani and Thompson will continue to lead state polls outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, where Romney leads, and national polls. McCain will continue to fl;ounder.

Everyone else remains stuck in the back of the bus. Tancredo and Paul will probably stay in, to no real purpose, Hunter and Thompson will drop out.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 10:03 PM

Michael, I do apologize for misreading your post, but my other two points stand. You are still unable to bring up a serious criticism of Dr. Paul and you still can do nothing but name-call.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 10:03 PM

Matt - run for office someday and you'll find out how easy it is to be falsely accused of everything EXCEPT the truth.

Posted by Falsehood | August 11, 2007 10:04 PM

Matt is not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the right to self defense. Matt does not believe in self defense against terrorists murdering Israeli civilians, ergo, he is not a libertarian.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:04 PM

HA HA. Ron Paul only gets 9.1%. Time to call it quits Paul. He should have at least got third. What a tool.

Posted by Toughey | August 11, 2007 10:04 PM

The Fix got it right:

Paul's problem in this race was on vivid display here in Ames. While his supporters were fanatically loyal (and loud), not enough of them were from Iowa for him to make a major impact on the race. Paul has a rabid national following fueled by the Internet, but the nominating fight remains a state by state affair."

Everone also understands that this guy is an extremist, and extremists don't get nominated.

On to the Caucuses and Primaries! Ron Paul will never reach this high again in any vote total, so pack up your Rattlesnake flags and Revolutionary War costumes and go home, you freaking nuts.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 10:04 PM

Mitt bought 4516 people meat on a stick.

Posted by ernest | August 11, 2007 10:05 PM

Crow -

Why don't you go off to Israel and live off the US taxpayers like the rest of the Zionist boot lickers? You better pick who you are loyal to, it can't be both. BTW, Israel would never have US citizens in its government and intelligence community - why is it expected we have Israeli citizens in ours?

Remember Pollard!

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:05 PM

Blogs are already calling this a big win for Huckabee!!! HOOORAAAAY!!!

http://www.cheeseandpolitics.com/2007/08/12/results-are-in-some-surprises/

I like Mike!

And yes, it's damn time for Tommy and Duncan to pack their toys and go home already.

Posted by Jogger Joe | August 11, 2007 10:06 PM

Someone needs to clear out these Neo-Nazis drifting in from the Democrat netroots...

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:06 PM

Maybe I need to move to Iowa. It looks like they recognize conservatism. Gov. Romney invested a tremendous amount of time and money into this poll. It would have been devastating for him to come up short after the investment.

I wish more folks would take a serious look at Gov. Huckabee however. The (Paris Hilton) media won't give this candidate the time of day. He doesn't fit the template of the Republican candidate they would like to run against Hillary. I think looking outside DC for someone with Executive experience is what this country sorely needs.

As for the Guiliani's and McCains. They are RINO's. What good is being fiscally conservative if you are morally broke? Guiliani's own kids don't support him. That should be all anyone needs to know about this "top tier" candidate. If a man can't manage his own household, how can he properly manage a country?

Congratulations to Gov. Romney and Gov. Huckabee. I hope the rest of the country can recognize character when they see it.

God Bless

Posted by Russ | August 11, 2007 10:07 PM

Who is Huckabee? Does he wear bib overalls?

Posted by Tom Sawyer | August 11, 2007 10:07 PM

I consider myself a small government conservative, and i used to be a high school Latin teacher. It's my opinion that Rome didn't fall because of big government. Incompetence, corruption, lack of a deliberate constitution, changing demographics, and civil war were the culprits.

Posted by gyrd | August 11, 2007 10:08 PM

Matt: 2) You don't understand American political history. LBJ was not a libertarian. He was a power-hungry war-monger who loved to spend American's money.

Uh... his point was not that LBJ was a libertarian. It was that when a libertarian Republican, Barry Goldwater, ran, LBJ wound up in the white house.

Crow: you're an anti-Semitic troll, and you don't belong here.

Then refute his arguments, which should be easy, rather than telling him to shut up and go away.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 10:08 PM

Will John Cox stay in?

Posted by tom | August 11, 2007 10:08 PM

T: Why should I bother to refute his arguments? If some nutjob came in waving "Mein Kampf," and whining that Jews run the world, would you take the time to debate them, or toss them out into the cold where they belong? He's not a Republican, obviously, so he's not in the proper forum, either.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:10 PM

Crow - so typical of your sort. Your arguments don't win, so you try to shut people up.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:11 PM

A national sales tax is a loser in most primary states.

Gov. Huckabee, welcome to New Hampshire! (which doesn't even HAVE a sales tax.)

Posted by Joe | August 11, 2007 10:11 PM

Reagan had two kids from his second marriage who were aimless nitwits who opposed everything Reagan stood for. If we had voted for the primary candidate in 1980 with the best family relations, we would have voted for George W. Bush. Anyway, Giuliani is supported by his son, and, hey, at least his daughter quit to Obama group! Huckabee's best hope is to get the veep spot on somebody's ticket. I don't think Romney can do it, the Mormonism will be a killer in the long run. And like it or not, a lot of families are more like Giuliani's than Romney's these days.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 10:13 PM

RE: Michael (aka: Ron Paul supporter pretending to be ignorant Ron Paul hater).

I'll play along. As I suspected you don't know how earmarks work. If Ron doesn't pass on his constituents requests for earmarks, it doesn't reduce spending 1 cent. The amount set aside for earmarks is determined before the earmarks are decided on. Just because he requests them doesn't mean they are included in the spending bill. Of course, since the spending bills are unconstitutional, he votes against them but in the case they pass, his district gets some tax dollars back. If his district's earmarks don't make it into the bill, the money goes to another district. Point is, the money goes somewhere regardless. The only way to not spend the money is to make sure the bill doesn't get passed. And Ron Paul does his job to make sure that doesn't happen by voting against it (even though it pisses of his constituents).

Since Ron Paul is the most fiscally conservative candidate running from either party, please name who you support (don't worry, I know you really support Ron).

Last thing... I saw the voting for it before voting against comment on another I hate Ron Paul blog so I guess I was right about you reusing material.

Posted by Andrew | August 11, 2007 10:15 PM

Crow: If some nutjob came in waving "Mein Kampf," and whining that Jews run the world, would you take the time to debate them.

I wouldn't. But that's not what he did. Thanks for Godwinning the discussion.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 10:16 PM

Before you jump on the Mike Huckabee "bandwagon" watch this clip that exposes him as a sadistic religious fundamentalist who only respects the Constitution and the principles of limited government and federalism when it suits his totalitarian ideology.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dtprTFgcdAI

Posted by LTR | August 11, 2007 10:17 PM

Crow - if you want to live in peace you must learn to co-exist with people who don't like you. Try the Golden Rule --- no offense intended.

Posted by Jesus | August 11, 2007 10:17 PM

Oh, thanks for telling us Giuliani's family isn't the problem. I was actually concerned more with the fact that he is a fascist warmonger Napoleonic-complexed cunt. His 3 marriages, broken families and adultery were actually his good points.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 10:17 PM

to gyrd: this is a good start to the debate gov huckabee is trying to start with his support for the fair tax, your argument on Canada having a fair tax is not correct sir as they have the gst which is a goods & services tax along with an income tax, the fair tax has a companion bill to eliminate the 16th amendment we know it will be a tough fight but you will admit it is worth at least getting people to talk about these issues instead of getting rid of the death tax maybe or having a commission look into what we can do to help the middle class, at least he is the only person who wants a decent debate on this totally important issue

Posted by jw | August 11, 2007 10:17 PM

Why is everyone taking this so seriously? Too much emotion on EVERY side.....everybody should sit tight and hold their premature ejaculations over this whole thing.

Romney at best met expectations, but probably fell below them by most standards. No, I am not a fan of Ron Paul (or his supporters), but that does not preclude me from acknowledging that he performed well. However...we're still talking 9% in a meaningless poll in which 3 of the top 4 candidates didn't even show.

The only undeniable winner from this whole charade is Huckabee....congrats to him.

And for those of you morons who are saying "this proves Giuliani, Thompson and McCain aren't real candidates!" or "Giuliani, Thompson and McCain should drop out!" are morons. Will they necessarily win Iowa in the end? Who knows. But for the love of God, wake up already.

Posted by Chris | August 11, 2007 10:19 PM

T, notice that questioning Israel and the money we pour into that country is equivalent to "waving Mein Kampf." LOL! That tactic has worn itself out and I think he didn't get the memo.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:19 PM

Having a man of the intellect, honor and decency of Ron Paul as president may be too good to be true, but what does it say of the establishment and media favorites (Giuliani,McCain and Thomson) that they all finished below Ron Paul? Nothing was stopping people from voting for them if they were excited about them. Anyway, I honor the freedom-loving people from the Texas congressional district who gave Ron Paul the platform he has. The only kooks are the kooks who are reduced to accusing Paul supporters of being black helicopter people or tinfoil hat wearers etc. Some people are too in love with the status quo and not enough in love with freedom.

Posted by James | August 11, 2007 10:19 PM

This is in response to the comment posted by gyrd.

HR 25 is the legislation upon which The FairTax Book is based. You are correct. Getting rid of the 16th amendment (the enabling legislaton for the income tax) would require a constitutional amendment.

However, getting rid of the income tax itself does not require a consitutional amendment.

HR 25 contains within it language that repeals the sections of the 16th amendment that make the income tax possible. So once HR 25 becomes law, the income tax disappears. The 16th amendment stays but in a hollowed out form.

Don't take my word for it though. Read the bill. Here's a link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-25

Are consitutional amendments difficult? Sure. But they happen. Prohibition came with one and went with another. The franchise was extended to all with one. Etc...

As for the oft-predicted rebirth of the income tax: politicians like to stay in office. What self-interested politician would vote to bring back the income tax after The FairTax becomes law? Would you?

Posted by Chris Larkby | August 11, 2007 10:19 PM

"Jesus," in case you weren't paying attention, people like Alex don't only not like Jews, they want to kill or cause Jews to be killed. By promoting blood libel, he incites hatred and delegitimizes Israel, and we all know the end result if people like him aren't clamped down on, and hard. You want to win the War on Terrorism? Start by going after the supporters of terrorists, like Alex. You don't appease them or let their hateful vitriol go unchallenged.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:21 PM

Romneysghost may be right. "His (Giuliani's)3 marriages, broken families and adultery were actually his good points."
-------------
This could be a big selling point for cross-over Democrats

Posted by Frank | August 11, 2007 10:22 PM

#4! Go Tanc Go!

Posted by Go Tancredo | August 11, 2007 10:23 PM

TO LTR: I don't know how you got that from Huckabee's response. I thought, as always, he was articulate, open and honest. I like what Ron Paul says (sans his stance on the war), but his fanatic supporters who distort the truth make him seem like a looney-toon.

Posted by Bruce Gresham | August 11, 2007 10:25 PM

T, I didn't touch upon foreign aid to Israel, at all. What I went after were Alex's lies that Israel is some sort of evil entity running around killing people for sport, and his hated for Jews in general. If he wants to speak out against foreign aid in general, fine. To target Israel specifically, using slander and invective, that's morally wrong, T.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:25 PM

His name's not Mitt, it's Willard, and we should call him Willard.

Posted by Ron Genise | August 11, 2007 10:26 PM

"Congratulations to Gov. Romney and Gov. Huckabee. I hope the rest of the country can recognize character when they see it."

Funniest comment I've seen in months. And I think Huckabee is a fine man.

Curious as to what your definition of "character" is. Because it seems to me that Mitt's definition is, "whatever can get me the most votes."

Is there anything this guy HASN'T changed his mind on?

He's pretty, for sure, and I would even say "talented" from a purely political perspective. And he's even probably at heart a halfway decent human being.

But assigning to him "character" (which character?) is a little beyond the pale.

Posted by John O | August 11, 2007 10:27 PM

Our foreign aid to Israel really is ridiculous. I don't have any problem with Israel but we shouldn't center our foreign policy around them.

Posted by Dr. K | August 11, 2007 10:27 PM

I thought Huckabee actually showed a lot of charm and patience with his creepy questioner on that youtube clip (it's guys like that I would fear carrying arms). Ron Paul's support seems to me mainly extreme libertarians with some Democrats thown in. Not a winning formula for GOP primaries.

And, Chris, yes, thank you for that post. Exactly right. Romney had to win this thing, and he did, but his showing was somewhat disappointing, given that he had the national stature and the money all going for him. Huckabee got his big break here, given that he did not have the money and the national recognition, now can he make anything out of it?

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 10:27 PM

Crow-
In case you weren't paying attention, I've been there.

"those who live by the sword will die by the sword"

Peace!

Posted by Jesus | August 11, 2007 10:28 PM

>>>>"Jesus," in case you weren't paying attention, people like Alex don't only not like Jews, they want to kill or cause Jews to be killed. By promoting blood libel, he incites hatred and delegitimizes Israel, and we all know the end result if people like him aren't clamped down on, and hard. You want to win the War on Terrorism? Start by going after the supporters of terrorists, like Alex. You don't appease them or let their hateful vitriol go unchallenged.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:21 PM
-------------

Crow, you are off the deep end. I love it how you guys think having loyalty to the US instead of "Israel First" like Bush and Company is tantamount to genocide. Whatever, dude. Look at what Israel is doing and has done. They are occupying land and have REAL WMDs! They are a terrorist nation and antagonize their neighbors on a regular basis. They have made unprovoked attacks on its neighbors. There are reasons they are hated - they bring it on themselves. When Saddam did a fraction of those things I listed he was cast as an evil boogeyman, but Isreal is cast as an ally (even though they have killed Americans and sold our missile technology to China when we gave it to Israel to protect themselves - what ingrates!). Doesn't add up until you factor in AIPAC and the nefarious people with "dual citizenships" in high levels of our government. Think Israel has "dual citizens" in its government? I see the videos of Victor Ostrovsky (former Mossad agent) admitting to all this have been taken down, but I'm sure they will reappear.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:28 PM

Why do these Israel arguments from just a few people break out on every board? Isn't there some "nice" neo-Nazi-Klan site or the Daily Kos where these monologues can be indulged?

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 10:31 PM

70% of the American people now oppose the military conquest and occupation of Iraq. This is the number one issue now and most likely in November 2008. All of the Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, enthusiastically support the disastrous (as judged by the American people) foreign policy of George W. Bush. In a general election, Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, would seem like the anti-war candidate against one of the pro-war Republicans. That is a 70%-30% advantage for the Democrat on the key issue, which would be virtually impossible to overcome. If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee against Hillary Clinton, he would be the credible anti-war candidate, and would have the 70%-30% advantage on the key issue. Therefore the logical conclusion is that no Republican candidate except for Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the 2008 election. The 2004 election was won on fear, but that will not be the case this time. If common sense starts to set in among Republican voters as the Iraq and Afghanistan situations continue to disintegrate over the next several months, Ron Paul will gain more support for the sole reason that he can compete in a general election.

Posted by LTR | August 11, 2007 10:33 PM

Why should we give a shit about Israel? F them and the rest of the middle east. And F crow in particular.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 10:34 PM

Chris Larkby: I just checked out HR 25, and how can you call that a "fair" tax?

Sure, it eliminates all income, inheritance, etc. taxes, but replaces them with a 23% national sales tax. Meaning that, to people with higher incomes, they get a tax cut -- but poor people who used to pay less than 23% in taxes now get screwed.

I'm sure there will be provisions exempting essentials, like food. But the net effect will be to essentially raise prices by nearly a fourth without giving the lower economic groups a corresponding raise in real income.

Not a good idea.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 10:34 PM

Alex: There's a huge gap between being loyal to the US, and being a paranoid tin hatter. One can be loyal to the US without hating Jews, or digging up rancid conspiracy theories to justify it. I'm leaving it at that, as you are solidly in the lunatic fringe, and most people in the US are decent, civilized people, not crippled by hatred and nihilism. I am sorry you wrongly equate being an anti-Semite with being a loyal American.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:36 PM

Aloysius - because it is patently obvious most of the issues we have with the Middle East is because we make enemies of a billion+ rapidly growing and strategically placed Muslims in order to give money to a handfull of back stabbing Israelis. What a deal! Leave the Judeo-Muslims (they really are quite similar - far more than Christians and Jews) to deal with their own issues. Our tax dollars sure shouldn't be funding it - especially to the DETRIMENT of US citizens! That is the outrage.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:36 PM

LTR
Is it possible that Republicans have become as crippled as the Democrats? --- where the candidate most likely to win the general election cannot survive their own stacked primaries?

Posted by Pondering Paul | August 11, 2007 10:38 PM

Crow - when Hamas "kidnapped" the Israeli SOLDIERS, little mention was made of the Lebanese CIVILIANS Isreal still had....kidnapped from before! Funny how they bring all this crap on themselves then whine about being victims - probably mutter something about the Holocaust, too. LOL! Again, there are good reasons they are hated.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:41 PM

"Why do these Israel arguments from just a few people break out on every board?"

I am quite convinced that Jews themselves are the ultimate cause of most online antisemitism. Are they hated for being Jewish? No. They are hated for being hyperbolic, ultra-reactionary, over-zealous, irrationally defensive, thread hijacking whingers. Other than that, and the whole "one-sided support for Israel has been a political disaster" thing, they are helluva nice people.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 10:42 PM

To Bruce:

I agree, Huckabee was open and honest about his position, but it is his position that is the problem. What Constitutional justification does he have for authorizing the federal government to conduct police raids against individuals whose conduct in is accordance with state law? Why does he want to subvert the authority of the states? Why does he want to control the personal behavior of individuals in the privacy of their homes? What is his moral justification for using force against peaceful citizens? The answer is that the justification for his position is a twisted un-Christian religious fundamentalism. This is extremely dangerous and contrary to the principles this nation was founded on.

Posted by LTR | August 11, 2007 10:42 PM

I and my husband are military retirees and Ron Paul supporters.

Many of our co-workers (government employed or government contracted) are Ron Paul supporters.

We are middle aged, not 20-somethings.
We are not spammers.
We are not techo-geeks.
We do not wear tin hats.
We are not "nutters". (Well, perhaps we are considering we work for the government.)

We all plan on sending even more donations to the Ron Paul campaign.

See you at the next campaign stop,

jd

Posted by JDHobbs | August 11, 2007 10:48 PM

>>I am quite convinced that Jews themselves are the ultimate cause of most online antisemitism. Are they hated for being Jewish? No. They are hated for being hyperbolic, ultra-reactionary, over-zealous, irrationally defensive, thread hijacking whingers. Other than that, and the whole "one-sided support for Israel has been a political disaster" thing, they are helluva nice people.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 10:42 PM
-----------

Actually, a very large portion of Jews are NOT Zionists...and a good deal of self-described Christians ARE. It is the Zionists who are the problem.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:49 PM

How did Huckabee do so well? His speech was just about Israel.

Posted by Dr. K | August 11, 2007 10:50 PM

I went to the straw poll today.

My first comment is that the temperature was 94 degrees, with a heat index over 100. I'm sure that quite a few stayed home rather than venture out into today's bast-furnace. It is still a 97 heat index at near 10PM.

Second, the display that Ron Paul and his followers put on today shows that they are "extremists" that seek to impose their "will and opinions" on the rest of us nomatter what. He is the last person that I would vote for.

Third, Romney did purchase tickets for many of the poll participants but in no way purchased their votes. This was a secret ballot and no-one influenced how I or anyone else voted.

Last, it's a shame that Hunter did not recieve more votes. I liked his line that "We should be proud of America and not appologise for any thing we do". Right on!!! Let's win this war.

Posted by secri | August 11, 2007 10:50 PM

"Actually, a very large portion of Jews are NOT Zionists...and a good deal of self-described Christians ARE."

That's such asinine bullshit. He's got it exactly backwards.

Posted by Jones | August 11, 2007 10:51 PM

Crow-
The personal attacks that have ensued against you (and all Jews) on this forum are beyond belief. They are repugnant and disgusting to any decent human being. I'm outta here and I encourage all other persons of character to speak up now.

I apologize if my banter encouraged this in any way.

Posted by Jesus | August 11, 2007 10:52 PM

Crow -

Don't post under my name.

Posted by Jesus | August 11, 2007 10:54 PM

I'm at heart very, very fond of the Constitution.

So Ron Paul is my GOP candidate of choice. There are none on the Dem side, except perhaps for Chris Dodd, who, of course, has no chance.

All that being said, anyone who thinks we don't need a whole lot more Democrats to balance the long national nightmare that has been the Bush Administration is a moron.

At least the Dems trash the Constitution lightly. LOL.

Posted by John O | August 11, 2007 10:54 PM

LTR: I appreciate your toughful response....but we are still talking about dope smoking, right? Isn't that illegal at a federal level?

Posted by Bruce Gresham | August 11, 2007 10:55 PM

Thanks Jesus.

secri: "Second, the display that Ron Paul and his followers put on today shows that they are "extremists" that seek to impose their "will and opinions" on the rest of us nomatter what."

I'm just curios how this works, when Ron Paul is the candidate that will get the government out of your life, not into it to tell you how to live it.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:55 PM

"I'm betting if non-Iowans there could have voted, Ron Paul would have had a fairly good chance to win."

And if (and when) non-citizens vote in the real election, Hillary will have a fairly good chance to win.

Sorry, Ron. If you want to win in Iowa, you should get Iowans to vote for you. I'm hoping that in November of 2008, if you want to win in the USA, you should get US citizens to vote for you.

Libertarians may want fewer rules, but they should also agree that everyone plays by the rules that do exist, like Iowa straw polls for Iowans, New Hampshire primaries for New Hampshirians, and US elections for Americans.

Posted by balsamlakemn | August 11, 2007 10:56 PM

>>Last, it's a shame that Hunter did not recieve more votes. I liked his line that "We should be proud of America and not appologise for any thing we do". Right on!!! Let's win this war.

Posted by secri | August 11, 2007 10:50 PM
----------

If they meant to win this war, they would have defined victory. They don't ever want to "win" because then they would have to give up all their excessive powers.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 10:56 PM

balsamlakemn: "US elections for Americans"

There aren't any US elections. There are only Statewide elections, whose purpose is to send electors to the electoral college. You aren't voting for President, you're voting for electors. There are no nationwide elections in the US, only elections that take place concurrently.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 10:58 PM

Dr. K: I caught what I perceive to be the last half of the speech (about 10 minutes) and I did not hear a word about Isreal. What did he say?

On a side note, why is everyone so hung up on Isreal and Jewish people in this thread? Geez.....give me a break.

Posted by Bruce Gresham | August 11, 2007 11:00 PM

This is what I think happened. I think Guiliani's supporters voted for Huckabee. I think Brownback does not have a long term sustainable campaign.

Here are the GOP candidate players in Primaries:
Tom Tancreado
Ron Paul
Guiliani
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney

Who has the most potential and will gain. Clearly Ron Paul. Tancreado will gain traction also. Romney was a huge dissapointment with all the money and capital spent. I think his stock goes down.

Posted by Washington | August 11, 2007 11:01 PM

Iowa Straw Poll Report Appears to Blatantly Manipulate Results

Can you believe this? I realize it's been noted in previous comments, but it needs a stronger statement.

The article INVERTED the rankings in the report after the first 2 are listed in descending % order, making the remaining list reported in ascending order. I've never before seen such blatant manipulation.

That makes it appear to those that don't look at details, that McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson (so-called "top tier" candidates) got more votes than Ron Paul and others, when in fact, they got counts [b]6 to 10 Times Lower[/b] than Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and others. Even more deliberate manipulation is suggested by posting the names first with the % of vote last. The author knows that people are most likely to see and remember the names and forget the percentages.

Do they think we're stupid? (rhetorical)

By the way, since only Iowans could vote in this straw poll, this isn't a bad result for Ron Paul, who only just opened his Iowa headquarters last Thursday.

Report at:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the straw poll result summary listed in CONSISTENT ranking
(percentages rounded up or down to nearest percentage)

1. 32% Mitt Romney 4516 votes
2. 18% Mike Huckabee 2587 votes
3. 15% Sen. Sam Brownback 2192 votes
4. 14% Tom Tancredo 1961 votes
5. 09% Ron Paul 1305 votes
6. 07% Tommy Thompson 1,009 votes

7. 01% Fred Thomson 231 votes
8. 01% Rudy Giuliani 183 votes
9. 01% Duncan Hunter 174 votes
10.01% John McCain 101 votes
11.00% John Cox 41 votes

Posted by DarknessIsHere | August 11, 2007 11:02 PM

I find the results interesting that McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson all did much more poorly than, say, Tancredo or Paul. On the other hand, having Romney win, if that is a sign of what we are in for as the GOP candidate, all I can say is AW SHIT!!!!!

Posted by Neal | August 11, 2007 11:03 PM

"There aren't any US elections."

And that changes my point, exactly how? Are you implying that non-citizens should be allowed to vote, or what?

Posted by balsamlakemn | August 11, 2007 11:04 PM

@Chris Larkby:
"As for the oft-predicted rebirth of the income tax: politicians like to stay in office. What self-interested politician would vote to bring back the income tax after The FairTax becomes law? Would you?"

I dunno, somehow we got all the taxes we have today from "self-interested" politicians. Of course it would never be pitched as bringing back the income tax. It would be all about "making the rich pay their fair share" and "fiscal responsibility" and "funding the war on terra."

Posted by Mike Ritchie | August 11, 2007 11:06 PM

balsamlakemn: It means your premise is invalid, and requires restatement before your conclusion can be analyzed. Also, people that don't know what is in the US Constitution, such as how the President is elected, bother me.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 11:08 PM

Andrew: I'm not a Ron Paul Supporter. The exact opposite is true. I think he and his supporters are lunatics, libertarians and some are outright anarchists.

Please get a clue about Ron Paul's earmarks.

Throwing up a bunch of chaff to confuse people won't work.

Fact: He proposed spending $400 million in earmarks to protect, promote and study the shrimping industry in Texas.

Google this: ron paul earmarks shrimp. The WSJ, FoxNews and many other sources documented this hypocrisy.

"If we don't spend it, other districts get it" is a poor argument, and it seems just the opposite of a "constitutionalist" view, and it certainly isn't fiscally conservative.

Period. Get over it. Your guy is a hypocrite and a traitor to the cause of less government.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 11:10 PM

Look at the scenario and how it will play out in 4-5 months. Ron Paul getting near 10%, he has a lot of potential. I think Tom Tancreado is a nice surprise. He will continue to bring very important issues up such as immigration. There is clearly a difference here in the poll #'s coming out of Washington.

I liked Duncan Hunter also. The RNC will not support Duncan Hunter who has probably the best resume along with Ron Paul (very clean candidates with no baggage).

Ron Paul getting 10% in only a week in IOWA should indicate that within 4-5 months the internet donations and support will multiply. Ron Paul is a real candidate.

I would like to see Tancreado do well.

Posted by Washington | August 11, 2007 11:11 PM

Well, I'm not at all happy with this shrimp thing, but on balance, he's far more limited government than other of these other guys. He didn't get the nick "Dr. No" for nothing.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 11:12 PM

Yes, credit to Huckabee for talking about tax reform.

Tax hikes aren't popular, that's for sure. However, Clinton raised taxes and got reelected. It's not like it doesn't happen.
When the 16th amendment was passed, income tax supporters could have said, "don't worry, a top income tax of 70% would be political suicide! It can't happen." But over time, the taboo against redistribution eroded and was forgotten. I don't want to erode the taboo against a national sales tax (we've never had one) lightly.

I do think a Constitutional amendment would be required to keep the income tax from coming back, and since that's hard, i think the logical first step for FairTaxers is to make our income tax flat. If you can't win the argument about flat taxes in congress, you'll be even less successful amending the constitution.

Posted by gyrd | August 11, 2007 11:13 PM

Michael: $400 million in earmarks to protect, promote and study the shrimping industry in Texas.

Is this going to be the anti-Ron Paul swiftboat attempt? "Earmarking" is not spending the money. It's just saying, "If this funding passes, can we reserve $X for this project?" And, as noted previously, after the earmark, Paul voted against the bill itself.

And wow, a Texas Congressman actually puts in an earmark for a Texas industry which will help his state, provide jobs, feed people and otherwise benefit his constituents. Yes, if he can bring his own constituents' tax money back into the district, that's a good thing.

Or should he have just earmarked it all to be spent on the armaments to blow stuff up real good in Iraq? Would you be happy then?

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 11:14 PM

I would like to see my Congressman bring back the total amount extracted from us by the Federal Government, as a proportional tax refund.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 11:17 PM

OK, I can play silly like you. So here we go.

Although, in fact, states choose their electors, since the passage of the 14th amendment, and especially since the voting rights act of 1964, the Federal government has asserted its control over elections with federal consequences. This assertion was amplified in Bush v. Gore, 2000, when the US Supreme Court re-asserted the role of equal protection in a state (Florida)'s selection of Electors.

While I personally disagree with Bush v. Gore, and believe that the ultimate control of the selection of a slate of electors should have resided with the Florida Legislature, which was in the process of confirming its own slate, I also recognize the authority of the Supreme Court in adjudicating Constitutional matters; ergo, the Federal Government, through the Equal Protection Clause, has a primary claim to the validity of the voting process for Federal offices, especially in the process of selection of Electors for the Presidency. So no, my specific premise is even not invalid.

But, to continue to play your sophomoric game, assume that my initial premise is invalid.

If it were not the case that there existed "US elections," would you now say that

A) it is OK

or

B) it is not OK

for non US citizens to vote for national offices, such as the House, Senate, or especially, the electors for the President, regardless of the specific method approved by a state legislature for such selection?

Posted by balsamlakemn | August 11, 2007 11:22 PM

It is interesting on what I find out on the blogs. Ron Paul used to be ignored and now he is being attacked. That is good news for Ron Paul. Now viewers see Ron Paul as a potential candidate. If Duncan Hunter would get 10% would they attack him. Of course. Attackers only want to see establishment candidates. Guys like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh think Duncan Hunter and Tancreado are a threat to their agenda.

Will the attacks go on Tom Tancreado by the NEO-CONS? Probably. They don't want to see either Tancreado, Hunter, or Paul as emerging candidates.

You have 2 threats now to the RNC establishment. Tom Tancreado and Ron Paul. After digesting this, this is good news for Tom Tancreado and Ron Paul's campaign. Really good news.

Posted by Washington | August 11, 2007 11:24 PM

Yeah, I'm really happy Tancredo made such a good showing.

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 11:27 PM

The Iowa GOP is facing possible suit over their use of the same Diebold machines that were just de-certified. Story here.

They are claiming of course, that there is nothing to worry about since the voting procedure will be conducted with the assistance and oversight of the Story County Auditor's Office. Story here.

If we look here we see the Story County Auditor is Mary Mosiman.

Mary Mosiman also happens to be on Mitt Romney's "Romney for President Leadership Team".

So there you have it, the Story County Auditor who will take part in overseeing the voting on the questionable machines is part of a team dedicated to "help Governor Romney share his vision for America".

http://vote-ron-paul-2008.blogspot.com/2007/08/romney-leadership-team-member.html

Posted by Jay | August 11, 2007 11:27 PM

The rants of people like Houstonmike shows what the typical pro-war GOP (and Democrat) crowd really knows about the Middle East. If Houstonmike chides Ron Paul for not supporting a congressional resolution for support of Israel in their war in Lebanon against Hamas he is taking all his information obviously from Fox News. Israel tried to wipe out Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hamas represents the Palestinians in the lands that Israel occupies since 1967. What a dumba..
But then again, this is as much as Bush, Hillary, and Guiliani know about that part of the world as well.

Posted by Dave Libori | August 11, 2007 11:29 PM

T, the argument still sounds like "Let's spend this money."

If Ron's against spending, HE SHOULD PROVE IT, AND NOT ASK FOR PORK.

It's as simple as that. He seemingly has betrayed his libertarian principles of less government.

It's sad, I guess, for his followers, but it's true.

Changing the topic to Iraq is a clever attempt to deflect blame for this pork spending from where it belongs: Ron Paul.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 11:32 PM

Excellent, excellent job, Ron Paul. That is a great start! I wish I were able to be there too.

To Ron Paul suporters: thank you for coming and supporting. You were the few at Straw Poll who came there not looking for free tickets, free bus ride and free food. You came to support Ron Paul because you wholeheartedly believe that he is the only one who can bring a change for the good of America.

Undoubtedly, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown dignity and honesty throughout his long political career. He is the only hope for America.

I will donate, I will volunteer, I will suport Ron Paul untill he wins.

Go Ron Paul!!!!

Posted by Dale | August 11, 2007 11:32 PM

Re: Jay's post about Diebold

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Admit it: Ron Paul DID BADLY.

Frankly, with all the Ron Paul robots there, many were saying that Paul was going to take second or third place. Turned out they were all out-of-town extremists, not local ones.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 11:35 PM

Why waste the time with Romney. Look how much time was spent. Tommy Thompson is out and Huckabee will not be in very long (that was a snapshot of Guiliani supporters). Voters are asleep right now, this is irrelevant. 3 months, voters will begin to wake up. This straw poll just determined who will stay in the race.

I wish Duncan Hunter had a better showing. He is a solid candidate and probably one of the Republicans best candidates. I think the Republicans have done a disservice by not supporting hime.

Look out for Ron Paul. That is the person to keep an eye on (non biased view). He has some great issues to bring to voters. Keep on eye on Ron Paul. This is the guy to watch out for. He is one of those candidates on the internet that will have a significant impact on the country. Tom Tancreado is another one also. Immigration is becoming the top issue along with IRAQ.

Posted by Washington | August 11, 2007 11:36 PM

Michael: Changing the topic to Iraq is a clever attempt to deflect blame for this pork spending from where it belongs: Ron Paul.

Actually, bringing up the meaningless shrimp earmark is just your ploy to keep the topic of Iraq from coming up, because all the other Republican candidates lose to Paul on that issue.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 11:37 PM

Remember, in 1933 less than 3 percent of the population paid "income" taxes. Now after no changes had been made to the IRC most people are compelled to pay them. And none of the money collected by the IRS goes towards government services. It goes straight towards the Federal Reserve to pay off interest on debt created out of thin air.

Kinda makes you go Hmmmm....?

Forget the Fair Tax! It is just another play on words to compel Americans to pay another slave tax.

Use of the IRC as it reads will still compel only 3 percent of the population to pay "income" taxes.

Go to www.losthorizons.com for a complete understanding of this.

Posted by sandman | August 11, 2007 11:44 PM

1- it straw poll.
2- 155 days to it matters.
PS Go Duncan Hunter

Posted by Kevin J waldroup | August 11, 2007 11:47 PM

"Actually, bringing up the meaningless shrimp earmark is just your ploy to keep the topic of Iraq from coming up, because all the other Republican candidates lose to Paul on that issue."

It's the only thing that the "Thug" journalists and mindless MSM followers who require spoon feeding, can find on this guy. A bit of independent research and an moderate IQ quickly address this topic.

ps. Michael,

If Ron Paul did not stand a chance, then why waste the keystrokes on him. Fortunately, he does, and his message is building momentum...

Posted by Jay | August 11, 2007 11:47 PM

Jay, et al, your inability to process the fact that Ron Paul tried to sneak $400 million in pork into a bill is not surprising. Cult members rarely believe ill about their leaders.

As for why I'm "wasting keystrokes" on this guy (odd, coming from a member of a clan of Internet junkies who think keystrokes win elections) I don't want his Libertarian/anarchist contageon to spread throughout the GOP.

Luckily, the people in Iowa who KNOW the candidates have spoken, and they rejected the extremists and the wannabes in favor of two great Conservatives.

Posted by Michael | August 12, 2007 12:05 AM

"Ron Paul supporters - Lunatics"???

No. It's called passion for better America.

Go back to cold war era bomb shelters, neocon rattlesnakes. Your age is about to be over.

Posted by chuck | August 12, 2007 12:17 AM

You arbitrarily label a man as an extremist because he wants to promote freedom, uphold the constitution, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations?

Posted by dms | August 12, 2007 12:18 AM

Jay, I am sorry that you feel this way about Ron Paul. Do you feel that way about Tom Tancreado or Duncan Hunter?

I just hope that you embrace these countries values rather than foreign interests. I know Ron Paul is a patriot. I could not say that about the RNC or George W. Bush. or Hillary Clinton.

Do you support Hillary Jay?

Posted by Washington | August 12, 2007 12:18 AM

Thoughts from the other side of the aisle…

"#8 - big city liberals go nowhere in the corn patch."

Giuliani a *liberal*? Giuliani's an authoritarian creep who failed to properly protect New York from terrorists. (See Wayne Barrett's "Giuliani's 5 Big Lies about 9/11."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0732,barrett,77463,6.html

"A Steve Forbes style flat income tax is better than the Fair tax. "Fair tax" = national sales tax." Because we currently have a progressive tax, any flat tax has the effect of either massively cutting taxes for the rich, or cutting taxes for the rich *and* raising taxes for the poor & middle class. Probably not such a good idea.

And when we're in hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, when our infrastructure is crumbling, and when our army is strained, what we should really do is cut the amount of money the government has. Taxes aren't "theft." Taxes gave us NASA, the GI Bill, the interstate highway system, cleaner air & water, the Peace Corps, FDIC (the thing that protects everyone on this board with a bank account if the bank fails), and safe food & medicine. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

I have news for you guys. LTR Is right. With the possible exception of Huckabee, who's kinda a dark horse, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can win the 2008 general election. The public simply will not vote for someone who supports the Iraq war and plans to keep us there. Honestly, if you nominate Ron Paul, you might win. You'll certainly do better than you will with any other candidate. (I know this sounds bizarre, but hey, it wasn't me who told all the Republicans to keep supporting a disastrous war that never had to be fought in the first place.)

Crow--"Someone needs to clear out these Neo-Nazis drifting in from the Democrat netroots..."
Not from us. Probably your guys. This a Republican board.

Posted by JacksonR | August 12, 2007 12:26 AM

"Jay, et al, ... Cult members rarely believe ill about their leaders."

Well, we have found something we can agree on... Look at the current administration and its members...

"As for why I'm "wasting keystrokes" on this guy (odd, coming from a member of a clan of Internet junkies who think keystrokes win elections) I don't want his Libertarian/anarchist contageon to spread throughout the GOP."

As to this statement, I have a question and a comment. Based on your many rebuts in this online forum, who more fully qualifies as an internet junky??

and again, we agree, in that keystrokes do not win elections. But if you must know... I do not really wish to listen to your chatter - but I thank God that we still have the freedoms and liberties to express our views and opinions, yourself included, and I have no desire to silence that.

Good day sir.

Posted by Jay | August 12, 2007 12:27 AM

There's such a stink of corruption surrounding this whole affair..

1. Group protests use of Diebold machines, they are used anyways.

2.State Auditor says "dont worry, they're fine." Reality: they are possibly engineered for mass deceit and California has basically banned their use.

3. Federal judge rules on Diebold: this isn't an 'official' election, so tuff luck and I rule, "not entitled to constitutional protection".

4. The election Auditor happens to be actively a part of the Romney camp, even the state Auditor is on record for receiving money from Romneys camp.

5. States Auditors promise about Diebold machines "don't worry, they're fine" turns to BS. 4500 votes not tallied. A HUGE number, especially considering Romney only got 4516 votes.

6. Ron Paul camp calls foul. And rightly so. Their request for a recount is greeted with a demand: the Iowa GOP would charge the Paul camp $184,000 if they wanted to verify a paper count.

How much is that per vote?! 14203 ballots cast.

Like I said, something about this just stinks.

http://vote-ron-paul-2008.blogspot.com/2007/08/judge-okays-use-of-machines-for-straw.html

Posted by Troy | August 12, 2007 12:28 AM

Washington,

Quite the contrary, my money is with the great physician! Please re-read my posts.

Posted by Jay | August 12, 2007 12:42 AM

best Ron Paul video ever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

Posted by chuck | August 12, 2007 12:46 AM

Jay, sorry.

I meant Michael. It is getting late. Ron Paul did well, however this is only a snapshot poll. It does not reflect people who will go out and vote.

Posted by Washington | August 12, 2007 12:49 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for why I'm "wasting keystrokes" on this guy (Ron Paul) ...I don't want his Libertarian/anarchist contageon (sic) to spread throughout the GOP.-- Posted by Michael, August 12, 2007 12:05 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael,

I've been a republican for over 30 years. Ron Paul's positions and voting record are much closer to the republican ideals with which I grew-up than the GOP ideology currently posited by most "republicans" in the current administration and congress.

I'll be giving his potential value to a winning team serious consideration in the months ahead.

Posted by DarknessIsHere | August 12, 2007 12:59 AM

"I've been a republican for over 30 years. Ron Paul's positions and voting record are much closer to the republican ideals with which I grew-up than the GOP ideology currently posited by most "republicans" in the current administration and congress.

I'll be giving his potential value to a winning team serious consideration in the months ahead."

Hear, hear DarknessIsHere!

Posted by Jay | August 12, 2007 1:05 AM

Well, I am ashamed to say that none of the candidates on the Republican or Democratic side are worth a pi$$. Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually wants America to run as per the Constitution as I learned through my years in school. I see nothing wrong with that.

We have real issues that need attention.

The Iraq War.

Health Care

My Social Security Dollars that are easily given to everyone but Americans.

A sound financial system.

The bleeding of jobs out of the country.

Illegal Alien Issue.

and a host of other things..

Do we honestly think that any of the candidates or any of our representative can handle it? I do not think so.

We need to clean house and install new thinkers.

Ron Paul is different and I want something different. I am tired of the years of the same old sh*t.

Hell, if the Devil was a candidate I'd probably vote for him. At least I would know his character and what to expect from him.

Thanks for the rant!

Posted by Pitch Black | August 12, 2007 1:15 AM

Matt Shelby...you are right, Paul has been subject to some unjustified attacks. But while some of his supporters seem normal (like yourself), I find it odd that all of the Bo Gritz/David Duke/John Birch crowd seems to love him. What gives? Don't get me wrong...I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I think he could have challenged Tom Tancredo for position of mini-broker (like Pat Buchanan in '92). But that's not going to happen, because most of Paul's online supporters can't resist hinting at the same old John Bircher theories that the rest of us have been laughing about since the 60s.

On any given thread, half of Paul's supporters are saying normal stuff like you or spinning in his favor while the other half are spouting about how he has been blacklisted by the media or that Diebold rigged everything. My honest questions are 1)why do the Republican versions of Lyndon LaRouche zombies support Paul? and 2) Are the rest of the "normal" posters like just as wierded out by them as the rest of us or do you really agree with them, but are too savvy to admit it?

Posted by Fred | August 12, 2007 1:31 AM

There is a clear divide in the republican party. Those who support the media & special interest annointed, status quo "front runners" -- the Bush repubs -- and those who don't.

I support Tancredo (mass immigration is the number one issue facing our country) and Ron Paul (a true conservative). They came in 4 and 5. Not bad considering how they have to swim against the tide for any recognition. How much of a chance they have isn't important... voting for the right candidate is. The lesser-of-two evils approach gave us 2 terms of Bush who has systematically been destroying our country. Rebups like me won't vote for the "front runners".

Posted by rc | August 12, 2007 1:32 AM

Fred - just read your post. I haven't come across "weird" Ron Paul supporters. (but there is a lot of stuffed voting and so forth -- I guess these are passionate techie supporters.) If you _listen_ to Ron Paul, he's rational and principled. The "front runners" are irrational, unprincipled vote panderers running for office for their own ambition. Tancredo is also principled... he cares about the immigration issue and takes heat for it.

Ron Paul is ridiculed for suggesting we stay out of Iraq just as G. Washington warned us to not get entangled in foreign alliances. Are the repubs who attack Paul then admitting they disagree w/ the founder of our country? The republican party is no longer the conservative party. It's the quasi-religious, corrupt corporate interest, unfair & unbalanced trade wing of the institutionalized dem-repub party; the dems are the insane wing, but not much worse.

Posted by rc | August 12, 2007 1:44 AM

Romney got exactly what he wanted . . . an unchallenged victory with Giuliani and McCain tucking their tails.

He got almost twice as many votes as the #2 guy. Don't look just at the overall percentages. Look at the relative numbers. Getting almost as many votes as the #2 and #3 guys TOGETHER???

That's called running away with it. The spinners can try and spin that negative all they want. It won't hold. Romney won in a landslide and Giuliani and McCain look like they're playing scared. They should be scared. If Romney wins Iowa and NH, the odds are on him.

Posted by romney gets what he wanted | August 12, 2007 2:45 AM

When I add up the votes for the candidates I get 14,302. Not bad when the total votes cast were 14,203.

Posted by Somethingsrotten | August 12, 2007 3:12 AM

of course, let's not even mention ron paul like usual. This shits not a democracy, this is a facist society. I can't believe how much their black balling an amazing canidate. assholes.

Posted by james | August 12, 2007 3:29 AM

Looks like the shills are all in a row, much like King Georges men of 1812 or after the Declaration, damning this country to a war without end.

Karma, it's going to reach out and bite you back right on the _ss. Count on it, I only wish I could be there to see it.

Posted by K | August 12, 2007 3:32 AM

It's sad because some of these people here truly don't deserve to live in a republic. All you give a shit abouts your fat life styles and bullshit bubble life created for you. Good job losers, now gtfo of a free country that requires you to know a little more then what the propaganda news has to offer. Dolts.

Posted by Idiots. | August 12, 2007 3:34 AM

Go Alex....if I don't like the Italian mafia doesn't mean I don't like Italians.

Have a Ron Paul Revolution sign on the back window of my car.

Here is fighting fire...with fire.

Not to mention, I talk to everyone about him.

Posted by K | August 12, 2007 4:08 AM

Romney revieved 4516 votes and spent a million dollars. This is over $220.00 per vote, and the main contenders didn't spend anything and were no shows. Not very impressive.

Posted by Menorah | August 12, 2007 5:22 AM

I am quite pleased with the results for Ron Paul. Considering that none of the main stream media even mentions him being in the debates, he did very well. His message of less government is getting out there and people are starting to listen. He is the only one that is not repeating the same old tired rhetoric and promises. He has the only platform that I can support. He is the only one not pandering to big business and considering that he has spent very little money I am really happy to see his 5th place finish in Iowa.
RON PAUL IN 2008, The only candidate!

Posted by LadyM | August 12, 2007 7:37 AM

"What's really impressive is that Ron Paul got all 1305 of his nut-job supporters in Ames on the same day. There must not have been any reports of black helicopters in the area, or they would have cranked up their kerosene generators and hid in their caves."

Boy.... gotta love a guy that sticks to the facts. You've posted nothing but a sampling of the mental bilge that must fill your soft head. 9.1% won't win the election, but many election winners have faired worse in the straw poll. According to the media, Ron Paul was polling at less than 2% in Iowa, and proved that his is an ascendant campaign.

Hyperbole and misrepresentation is the hallmark of a man with no strength in his own position. You cannot deal with the inherent logic and appeal of Ron Paul's positions, so you set out to misrepresent and name call. Good luck with that.

Regardless of what any of the good little fascist sheep believe (Hi John!), Ron Paul moved the cause forward in Ames. The whole idea that anyone should drop out if they fail to win a straw poll six months before any real caucus/primary even begins is laughable. Ron Paul's only goal in Ames was to move his name into a position where he can't be embargoed by the media. He may not have fully completed that, but he certainly raised his profile in the 'real world'.

This is just one of the benchmarks along the way - not the finish line.

Posted by mty | August 12, 2007 7:37 AM

Remember if Rudy had campaigned there and participated, Mitt's numbers would have declined because Rudy would have definitely taken votes from him.
Mitt had no competition on his constituency where as, Mike and Sam where battling out for the same constituency.

Posted by Jim | August 12, 2007 7:46 AM

I added the numbers twice and I get the same count as same Somethingsrotten (14,302) The poll indicates 14,203. Looks like they swapped digits.

They should have paper ballets (Record trail to revisit any descrepancies).

Posted by Jim | August 12, 2007 7:56 AM

Mitt proves to be very succesfull in Iowa and is the strongest Republican Candidate because of the following.

1. His record as a Governor, Husband, Father, and buisness leader show he is a man of integrity and vision. Mitt Romney knows how to get things done and is the only agent of positive change in the race.

Lets see some people say that Rudy, is the agent of change. You could say they are correct if you are talking about his family values when it comes to changing wives every few years!

Some people say Huckabee coould be the conservative we are looking for. Ok, well examine is record in Arkansas as Governor. He might of raised taxes and spent more money that Governor Bill Clinton. Mike Huckabee is hardly conservative when it comes to nspending tax money!

Well what about Senator McCain? America does not elect Senators historically, and he has lost his appeal!

Fred Thompson? His campaign has faltered before it has even started. That is a sign of another great leader who would get things done like McCain Feingold! Maybee his campaign is faltering because he was a Senator with no executive expereince. I dont want him in charge of my wallet!

Mitt Romney is a good person and a great candidate for President in 2008!

John S. Maine

Posted by John S. Maine | August 12, 2007 10:02 AM

I attended the straw poll in Ames yesterday and it was a very hot day indeed. I came in support of Tom Tancredo, and was very happy with the turn out for Tom. As Tom say's, the train will keep rolling from Ames. I am very glad to hear this. Illegal immigation will indeed destroy our country if we dont start enforcing the current immigration laws on the books. Tom's record speaks for itself on immigration. I could of swore that Tom wrote all the other candidate's speeches yesterday on immigration.

As for Brownback's attempts to email Tancredo supports and tell them their buses were cancelled
the day before the straw poll, well it didnt work.
TeamTancredo was there in force.

This is your culture- Fight for it.
This is your flag- Pick it up.
This is your country- Take it back.
Tancredo "08"

Posted by Carolynn | August 12, 2007 10:16 AM

Notice how the media, meaning all the media, goes out of it's way to not mention Ron Paul. They are petrified of his message of truth. They do not want the ignorant electorate and the other 60% of the populace to have a hint that there is a better way than the repulsives and the democraps criminal hold on Ameican government.
They don't want a hint that there is an honest and Constitutional way to run our country.

Posted by Peter Courtenay Stephens | August 12, 2007 11:30 AM

I think this is a good showing for Cox, because despite the low vote totals there's probably people all across the country (me included) asking, "Who?"

I never heard of him. Where's he from? Is he really running for president?

Posted by Paul | August 12, 2007 11:51 AM

Did anyone watch and listen to the speeches the candidates gave at Ames? All the candidates said nothing of any substance, all fluff, told silly stories to show how patriotic they are (Romney even held back some tears, pathetic). Ron Paul spoke about the issues! Who are these people who voted for Romney? The guy is the '08 republican version of John Kerry!!

Posted by Genaro | August 12, 2007 11:56 AM

hey Carolynn, you left out "Sieg Heil!"

Posted by joseph g | August 12, 2007 12:07 PM

For crying out loud, will you shush it about Ron Paul already?

Posted by Everybody | August 12, 2007 12:20 PM

huckabee doesn't believe in evolution...

do we really need another idiot as president?

ron paul is the only conservative...

Posted by GOD | August 12, 2007 1:10 PM

Ron Paul received over 9% of the vote and most people have not heard of him yet. Why do the TV "polls" show him only getting 2%? Why is Ron Paul rarely talked about on TV and in the major newspapers? Is it because he is the only true 100% conservative statesman and abides by the US Constitution 100%? What will happen when more people learn what he is about and some other candidates drop out?

Posted by Ray Mitchell | August 12, 2007 1:28 PM

What really stands out in all these "comments" is that the majority of posters are talking about Ron Paul.

1. Mitt Romney with 4516 votes, or 31%
2. Mike Huckabee with 2587 votes and 18.1%
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes, 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes
10. John McCain with 101 votes
11. John Cox with 41 votes

Posted by Edmund | August 12, 2007 1:39 PM

Wouldn't be a bad idea to post these results on your favorite forums.

1. Mitt Romney with 4516 votes, or 31%
2. Mike Huckabee with 2587 votes and 18.1%
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes, 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes
10. John McCain with 101 votes
11. John Cox with 41 votes

Posted by Conrad | August 12, 2007 1:45 PM

Edmund, this is an echo chamber for unhinged Ron Paul "hyperpatriots" who think they are morally superior to other, lesser beings. They do the same thing on every blog, board and online poll on the Internet, thinking (like cultists everywhere) if they can drown out the rest of us with lies, inuendos and name-calling ("neocons" is a favorite) then they will "win."

Orwellian, and a bit totalitarian.

If this tax-evading, paranoid mob (facts, not mere name-calling) ever got their candidate nominated, the vast swath of the Republican Party - average, level-headed people who run away from extremist rhetoric - would simply stay home in disgust.

I truly wish that these people would go back to the Libertarian Party where they can safely and freely speak about their true anarchistic, amoral agenda with no one ever noticing.

Few will remember this guy in five years. That's the good news. The bad news is that this libertarian could serously damage the GOP from within by making it the anarchist/isolationist/anti-Jewish party in the eyes of the voter.

If so, we're doomed.

Posted by Michael | August 12, 2007 1:52 PM

For those who think Huckabee is so honest and great. I am from Arkansas. Huckabee is a con man just like Clinton was, but maybe you were in love with Clinton also. You can find the truth about Huckabee here www.arkansasfreedom.com Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to truely care about the people. He does'nt want to take anything away, Just stop the corruption in the giveing of our own money.

Posted by Tim | August 12, 2007 2:42 PM

"Few will remember this guy in five years. That's the good news. The bad news is that this libertarian could serously damage the GOP from within by making it the anarchist/isolationist/anti-Jewish party in the eyes of the voter. " How can anyone damage the GOP more than Bush and the GOP intself at this point? Giveing power to the people through states rights as dictated in the Constitution is wrong? If humans will research Ron Paul and look at his voteing record themselves they can make a honest choice. No one has to trick them.

Posted by Tim | August 12, 2007 2:51 PM

No doubt, the big winner is Huckabee, and to reply to some of the Catholics who were talking about this, that since Pope John Paul II said the war was wrong that therefore the war is wrong, that is just stupid. There have been plenty of examples of Popes being outright wrong. Also, the current Pope Benedict recently stated that protestants go to hell since they aren't part of he church. Just to inform some of you...

Posted by Matt | August 12, 2007 3:44 PM

Hey - good for Huckabee! I like him. He is better than anyone else running. Glad to see Guilliani way down there. He's not a real conservative - just a RINO.

Posted by Kathleen | August 12, 2007 3:47 PM

Tancredo's (as well as Huckabee's) numbers were impressive ... seems like there campaigns have been gaining traction (and they haven't been spending as much as some of the other candidates).

Posted by George | August 12, 2007 4:12 PM

From my humble perch in Mississippi, It appears that most of you guys are just a bunch of sore losers. Romney won. So he bought ten thousand tickets, spent 4-6-10 or 20,000,000. Every one of those gentleman, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, etc, etc held their fundraisers, reported their quarterly raisings, vibed for the buck. Where was their support in human dollars during 1st and 2nd quarter fund raising? Where was there support at Ames? Could there be a connection?
Shut up, every one of you, besides if Romney bought ten thousand but got just over four thousand votes, don't you think a few of Romney's millions paved the road for a few others, Perhaps, your man? Looks to me like Romney bank rolled the event for everyone. Yet I don't see his fans out on the spin about that.

So please silent your masses. If your man would have had the support in human dollars, they could and would have spent them. Sorry!!!

Posted by danny | August 12, 2007 5:40 PM

I don't get all this clammoring for Huckabee. He did better than expected, by far, but I don't like him. That being said RINOs such as McCain and Giuliani are an even worse choice. I could live with Romney. He seems like a decent human being and he is right on the border. I think he is right on the abortion issue. Ever since Huckabee went on his health kick and picked up a holier than thou attitude with an authoritarian kick, that was it; I had it with him. Not only that, there's just something about Arkansas politicians. As for my own personal choice, I am supporting Tom Tancredo.

Posted by Gary | August 12, 2007 5:56 PM

Go Ron Paul!

The only thing running for president that looks American to me. Like Jesus he has walked the walk for twenty years and shown us he is true to his oath of office.

His mesage is strong and none debatable because he believes in America and the Constitution.

For those who have followed and knows his record there is no other candidate that can save this country--He understands the money power of the Federal Reserve Fraud for 98 years.

He is the only candidate to attack what is killing America---The Private Bankers of the Federal reserve who print our money and charge our government interest to use it.

If Congress followed the Constitution and printed our money there would be no interest or national debt.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would take a amendment of the Constitution to be legal and the 16th amendment would have to be Ratified which it was not.

The act of stealing from one American and redistributing it to Another Is not constitutional.

Posted by Dean Etter | August 12, 2007 7:17 PM

A couple things.

Matt stated: "...to reply to some of the Catholics who were talking about this, that since Pope John Paul II said the war was wrong that therefore the war is wrong, that is just stupid."

Pope JP2 subscribed to the Catholic position of Just War, which sets out just critera for entering into war (jus ad bellum), conduct within war (jus in bello), and in some cases conduct ending war (jus post bellum).

The Iraq War did not fulfill even secular criteria for even the most nominal just war theorist.

John Paul stated that war is a failure of humanity. Anyone that has experienced war understands this. Anyone that has experienced this war 1st had understands that.

It astounds me that there remains a remnant who unflinchingly supports the Iraq War. Of course, ten years ago I wouldn't have guessed that the conservative movement would have so utterly collapsed the way it has either.

Anyway, the Pope was not wrong Matt. You were.

Posted by D.P. McCall | August 12, 2007 8:01 PM

How about this:

Most of the candidates started campaigning in IOWA in January...

Brownback campaigned in Iowa for 115 days
Romney campaigned in Iowa for 89 days ($2,200.00/vote)
Huckabee campaigned in Iowa for 70 days
Tancredo campaigned in Iowa for 66 days
Tommy Thompson (years)
How many days did Ron Paul campaign in Iowa? 17 days.
Ron Paul blew away the competition for the amount of days he campaigned in Iowa.

Posted by Johnny | August 12, 2007 8:48 PM

Our Founders were also called Terrorists, so lets get off of this idea and UNITE! YOU MAY BE NEXT!

Posted by perry911 | August 13, 2007 12:45 AM

It appear's the Zionist controlled mainstream media truly has been rendered impotent as clearly demonstrated by Ron Paul ranking very well with a campaign based only on principle despite being ignored. Well done Mr. Paul, truth will prevail.

Posted by Jerry Wares | August 13, 2007 12:53 AM

Make no mistake, the Elite WILL FIGHT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY TO KEEP RON PAUL OUT OF THE OVAL OFFICE. Hmmmm, lets see, what's one of the first thing he wants to do... crusade against the Federal Reserve. I'm sure Mr. Rockefeller on the Council for Foreign Relations will love that. Oh... but let's all be naive for a moment, money doesn't REALLY control everything does it mommy???!!???

Truth is, every person in this message board should take the 5 minutes they used posting to this board and do what I did, and have asked everyone else who has ears to do... Write an email to Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, and demand the impeachment process start for high crimes against the Constitution of the USA committed by Bush and Cheney & this administration. Pelosi's email is sf.nancy -AT- mail . house . gov

Otherwise it doesn't make a dog craps bit of difference who wins this election... other than Ron Paul... oh, but like I said in the beginning, "the powers that be" simply won't ever let that happen.

Posted by InvestigatEverything | August 13, 2007 1:53 PM

It appears Ron Paul won the Iowa exit poll.

http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/ron-paul-wins-iowa-exit-poll/

Posted by Jay | August 14, 2007 9:58 PM

The only thing that Ron Paul won was a ticket home. He lost just accept it people! Stick a fork in him he is done!

Posted by carolynn | August 16, 2007 12:37 PM

And let the delusional conspiracy theories begin!!

Who conducted this "exit poll"?

What are their professional qualifications, other than "loves liberty" (just preempting that one)?

Is 897 out of 14,000 a valid "exit poll" standard?

Were exit pollers placed at all of the exits, to ensure an even sample?

Did they wear clothing that "gave away" that they were with a specific candidate?

Were people who voted for Paul more likely DRAWN to the idea of an "exit poll" in which the vote would be "verified" (considering that they were suspicious about potential fraud from the start)?

Begging that question... how was the sample determined? Was it totally random? Did people volunteer to participate? (If so, the sample is crap.)

Before spouting off nonsense conspiracy theories about "WE WUZ ROBBED!!" get your facts straight, and think things through.

I say this konwing that the Black Helicopters Crowd will believe any BS that explains their guy's failure to connect in Iowa.

Posted by Michael | August 16, 2007 10:03 PM

1. Mitt Romney with 4516 votes, or 31%
2. Mike Huckabee with 2587 votes and 18.1%
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes, 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes
10. John McCain with 101 votes
11. John Cox with 41 votes

Posted by Joshua | August 18, 2007 2:48 PM

Hello!

What do you think about Tokio Hotel? >:)

Posted by CandyShopGirl | October 9, 2007 12:52 PM

Ron Paul is a Christian. Jesus went around the country healing, helping and feeding people, not asking the government for anything, you dummies. Everyone says they honor our dead military. Don't just talk the talk walk the walk, then honor them by Forcing Congress to operate under the Constitution, its what they all died for and its what Congress ignores. Don't let their deaths be in vain. Don't like the Constitution then leave there's nothing stopping you, but your a coward.
To all Ron Paul supporters. Your vote will count. They are afraid vary afraid. They are manipulating the polls to make you think Ron Paul does not have a chance, they would not do that if he was not a threat. Stay the course Ron Paul supporters. Stick together like the Patriots you are.

Posted by Viet Nam Vet. | January 7, 2008 5:37 AM