There is little reason to care about what the polls say right now about who’s leading in the Republican presidential nomination. But the media obviously think otherwise, hence this headline in the Washington Post yesterday (8/25/11):
Romney Loses GOP Front-Runner Status
The “news” is that Rick Perry is leading in a new Gallup Poll. But read a little further:
The survey showed Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) at 13 percent and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) slipping to 10 percent. No other candidate registered in the double digits.
So this means Paul’s in the “top tier” now, right?
This is a good time to issue a quick reminder about the hazards of paying too much attention to early polling:
In 2003, early polling of the following year’s Democratic nominees (e.g., CBS News poll, 12/14-12/16/03) showed eventual nominee John Kerry in the middle of the pack, trailing Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. An August 2003 USA Today/Gallup poll (8/25-8/26/03) showed front-runner Lieberman with a 10-point lead over Gephardt. As the dynamics of the nomination race shifted, so did the polls–but not in a way that would suggest the polling would predict the winner. By January 2004, Howard Dean was leading the pack, followed closely by Wesley Clark (1/2-5/04).
On the Republican side:
in the 2000 race, Bush’s only serious competition came from Sen. John McCain, who was trailing far behind in the early polls–behind Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes (e.g., NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 1/99).
In my view, Ron Paul, though I disagree with him on many fundamental issues, is easily, overwhelmingly, the best candidate to give Obama reason to start sticking to his pre-election campaign promises. All the others, are either embarrassing ignoramuses, such as Perry or Romney, or, are bordering on the mentally ill, such as Bachman, or, should she enter, Palin. Ron Paul, on the other hand, will give Obama a true challenge, and, has a resonable, perhaps more than a reasonable chance of winning the presidency. Media clearly favor Obama, since on most basic issues, he’s shown himself little more than a GWBush republican. Whoever media favor, is sure to be, basically, a conservative republican on all the important issues of the day.
We raw milk drinkers suport Ron Paul because he is for us. Even though he is against a woman’s right to chose, we are grandparents of six and can understand his bias. He is against all the wars. We are tired of the war machine draining our country. Get those Food Police with their drawn guns off of our organic farms and raw milk distribution private clubs.
See FTCLDF (Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund) Stop Monsanto’s GMO corn, soy and alfalfa. (Institute for Responsible Technology) Our pastured chickens get neither corn nor soy in their grains. Our 100% grass-fed sheep get organic hay with no GMOs.
The rise of Ron Paul, presents the only credible challenge to Obama. If Paul’s peace candidacy gains traction, as it should among those seeking an alternative to the “National Security juggernaut” and supporters of limiting the Food and Drug Administration’s attempts to restrict “truthful but unapproved” speech about natural foods such as cherries and walnuts as scientifically documented treatments for gout and heart disease respectively, Obama will have to take the left wing of the Democratic party seriously.
Arnold and Janet, I think you either are confused or seek to confuse others about the distinction between “unapproved” and “unproven.” The FDA does not in any way restrict or “unapprove” truthful speech -about cherries, walnuts or any other food or supplement. The FDA is charged, however -and appropriately so- with restricting speech -and only by purveyors of a product- that make claims that are demonstrably fraudulent, have not be proven, or have been disproved. As a matter of fact, the FDA requirements for substantiation of health claims are laughably generous (or would be, if it were at all funny). Bottom line, if the purveyor of a food expects me to buy it based upon health claims, it had better be ready willing and able to show me (and the law SHOULD REQUIRE it to show the FDA in my stead) a published, peer-reviewed double-blind, independently conducted, fiscally audited study that the product does what it says it does. If it’s a product that presents public health risks even under the laxly enforced current regulations, the burden of proof is on its advocates to show that the benefits exceed the to risks.
Janet, you are absolutely right about the Monsanto/GMO and confined animal feeding operation issues, but please understand that Ron Paul would never want to interfere with Monsanto or to pass or enforce any regulations limiting corporate agriculture in any way. Insofar as the food police with their drawn guns are concern, I think you’ve been reading too many right wing blogs. That ranks right up there with Reagan’s imaginary “welfare queen driving a new Cadillac” that no one could ever find.
Great blogs but i must disagree.Im a huge fan of many(not all)of Ron Pauls ideas.But to say he will be able to swing enough voters his way to beat Obama is dreaming.If you mean he will give Obama the best philosophical challenge , I would agree.He would show how insane BAMS policies are.But some of the things he would offer would be just too off the plate for many Americans who would buy into the idea(that Dems would push)that he is a bit cracked.For instance……….If he said that upon being elected he would close all oversea bases and pull back all our troops,and begin dismantling all forward power arms of the US military- that sounds good right?Someone might ask- but wont the Chinese and Russians just move in?His basic answer of who cares,wont fly.Obama will make him look the fool. Santorum creamed him on the Iran question.His answer that it is none of our business if they get the bomb must of made the criminals in the Iranian leadership jump with joy.It is a fact that on some foreign policy issues he is criminally nieve.Cabinet position?How bout head of the FED :)
“Santorum creamed him . . . .” Yeah, about that creamin’–my advice to you, numbnuts, is to walk your unintentional, unknowingly very clever joke on Santorum’s incredible stupidity back a bit. Google “Santorum” and see. Santorum (the hack pol, not the stuff you’ll soon be reading about) is easily the dumbest motherfucker ever to attempt running for President, even stupider than that sick moron perv Perry. Sure, Doktor Paul is a crazy Libertarian, but one of his um, rectal emissions is far more intelligent than Santorum’s whole being, including his nutzoid family and deranged, moronic followers. Like Bachmann, Palin, and The Grand Dragon of The Klu Klux Klan, that sorry punk-ass loser Santorum has no chance of becoming President. Too bad–it would be quite a show.
Tim i am no fan of Santorum. And I don’t think he carries much weight.(Of course don’t put me in your socialist world where every conservative constitutionalist is a moron)He did though stymie Mr Paul in that debate.And that is worrisome.In the realm of him(Paul) running for president.If you can’t answer a lightweight -really what is left?
Paul wasn’t stymied by Santorum in the Ames debate…
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/8572-ames-iowa-gop-debate-paul-schools-santorum-bachmann-on-iran-war
A Reader.
Maybe it is incorrect to say Santorum did much more than get Ron Paul to open his mouth on Iran and the bomb.Once he did…. you see a dangerous disengagement from reality.I could see Mr paul saying there is nothing historically wrong with Iran giving the bomb to al quaeda…anymore than we have “given” it to our allies like Britain.Or allowed israel to have it.Stupid philosophical derangements
“I could see Mr paul saying there is nothing historically wrong with Iran giving the bomb to al quaedaâ┚¬Ã‚¦”
Really? Based on what evidence?
Here’s Paul’s main quote from the Ames debate:
“Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries … why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off? In the Fifties, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What’s so terribly bad about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.”
In what way is that “a dangerous disengagement from reality?”
Please pass the ketchup I think its gonna rain!!!!
Well that’s right, A Reader. The Doktor, though very often completely full of shit (especially when his libertarian viewpoints are being vented) spoke quite clearly and sanely about our mad folly involving Iran. But big deal. Paul’s against profligate war? He thinks weed should be decriminalized? Wow! The nutty irony here is that Dr. Paul champions, through his libertarianism, the exact things You Know Who and other Baggers love–a throttled Government, total freedom for the business world to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, and just general naive craziness that involves destroying the lives and livelihoods of most Americans. Then the bastard has the gall to to laugh about how bad FEMA is, after his ideological soul-mates saw to it that FEMA was staffed by a gang of greedy nincompoops and venal stooges. Any respect I had for Paul instantly evaporated right then and there. (There wasn’t much to start with, truthfully.)
@TimN…You and I are pretty much in agreement about Ron Paul….I was just pointing out that he, not Santorum, did the “creaming” in the exchange about Iran in the Ames debate.
Tim and A reader.Let me point out that the press points to Ron Paul as a leader of both the libertarian party AND the tea party.Nonsense!Most tea party member I know are basically in line with you two, in the sense that we agree with some of his views.But some we absolutely DO not.i think some republicans are with him on certain things….As far as the libertarians ……more would fall in line with his views,but it is not a clean sweep even there.There is another huge faction of that group that is not in line with Dr Paul.Dr Paul is quite literally his own faction.We just call them Ron Paul People.They are the far end of his side of the plate just as you have your far far left, and we the far far right.He stays solid in polls because there are certain insanities and hypocrisies that we all (except the far far left)agree with as he points them out.It has become a game to point to different Political circles and say HE’S YOURS .Well actually he is proudly claimed by only” those “people.Those Ron Paul people.And that to me makes him unelectable.