CNN/Time Poll Finds Romney, Paul Iowa Photofinish, PPP Has Paul In Lead For Second Week
When a week ago we reported the latest weekly data from the Public Policy Polling institute, many were stunned to learn that Ron Paul was in the lead in the Iowa caucuses. In light of the neverending media onslaught against the Texan, this is not very surprising. The discrepancy between PPP and other, more "accepted" polls such as the CNN/Time was borderline ridiculous, when it came to the standing of the anti-Fed crusader (attacks against whom have recently passed into the Twilight Zone as per this NYT article). Just released, however, is the latest CNN poll information, which is far more in line with what PPP predicts, namely an Iowa photofinish between Paul and Romney. "Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error. The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary." In its previous poll, CNN had Gingrich in the lead with 33%, followed by Romney and Paul with 20% and 17%. So while CNN implicitly admits that Paul may well be in the lead net of sampling error, it masks this by making the story focus on something totally irrelevant: the fact that somehow Santorum's support is surging.
From CNN, deflecting from the main story:
In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.
According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.
Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.
"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
So while the MSM continues to pray that Paul does not go far, here is the PPP following up on the story it broke last week:
The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.
Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state. Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats. GOP caucus voters tend to skew old, and Romney has a 34-12 advantage with seniors. But Paul's candidacy looks like it's going to attract an unusual number of younger voters to the caucus this year, and with those under 45 he has a 35-11 advantage on Romney. The independent/young voter combo worked for Barack Obama in securing an unexpectedly large victory on the Democratic side in 2008 and it may be Paul's winning equation in 2012.
Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul's lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul's lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he'll have won this on the ground- 26% of voters think he's run the strongest campaign in the state to 18% for Bachmann and 10% for Santorum with just 5% bestowing that designation to Romney. There's also an increasing sense that Paul will indeed win the state- 29% think he'll emerge victorious with 15% picking Romney and no one else in double digits.
And since the whole public is beyond tired of the relentless media spin, the good thing is that there is less than a week until the Iowa results are actual. One can only hope Diebold has not been used to tabulate the votes.
From CNN:
(10 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- 11173 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Ron Paul 2012
CNN...what do you expect from a network run by a bunch of AIPAC members?
Ron Paul brings constituional democracy back to America. Real hope and radical change. Because it's real, and not vacuous rhetoric concealing the usual elite agenda ala Romney or Obama, and because unlike Obama, Paul doesnt get funds from Goldman Sachs or creampuff questions from the media, but he is getting support from voters. Since Paul cant be ignored any longer, he is now starting to get caricatured and ridiculed
'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win'.
it's so funny how the right and the left are coming together to use the same line of attack on ron paul. you know the fuckers upstairs are scared shitless when that obama bitch rachel maddow and crack addict rush limbaugh are using the same argument against ron paul.
and former conservative blogs with names that rhyme with "space of shades" attack him relentlessly because they are bunch of chicken shit, pussies who don't want to the sharade to end for their side, only that it doesn't continue for the other side. Well,fuckers.. it's time that the "No Side" wins and you crawl home with your tails between your muffuggan legs.
FREEDOM RINGS, BITCHEZ!!!
Ron Paul 2012
I saw Newt's dead-eyed lament on CNN yesterday wherein he contradicted himself twice along the way. Also saw CNN contributor Frum's RP bile bucket overflowing.
I only heard about Ron Paul appearing on the Morton Downey Jr. show a week ago. Man, talk about piss and vinegar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wZnxF5Bxgk
I fucking love it..
Tyler this is not your forte. PPP is including a portion of it's sample as Independents and Democrats who say they are going to cross over and vote in the Republican Iowa Caucus. That then gives the lead to Paul: Iowa: Paul 24, Romney 20, Gingrich 13 Further, from PPP: "our IA poll just with Republicans: Romney 22, Paul 20. But with 24% of electorate that's non-Republican: Paul 39, Romney 12" CNN/Time on the other hand are sampling only Republicans and NO Democrats or Independents even though in reality they can cross over and have indicated they will do so. Bottom line: CNN/Time's sample is junk.
Excellent point. The PPP poll is polling people who are actually going to participate rather than CNN's stupid beauty pagent numbers.
Michael Weenie was especially venomous tonight spewing frothy spittle into the microphone and out to the Weenie Nation. This jew supremacist warmonger and Ron Paul hater, vile scumbag that he is, actually compared Dr Paul to Dr Mengele!!!
Silly question. If Ron Paul is a libertarian, then why doesn't he run for president as a libertarian. Any non-fucking moron knows that he will never get elected as a republican so why does he waste the time and money?
Any non-fucking moron would have that answer in two minutes if they used Google.
He has no chance of getting elected by the republicans. The party establishment will never let it happen. Don't tell me that you wacky RP supporters really believe that "the people" elect our president. Grow up! Romney has been selected by the party leaders and he will be the nominee. I do not support either party and would love a third party candidate, but sadly I will never get a chance to vote for Paul in any general election.
While running as a Republican he at least received 89 seconds in a 2-hour debate that he otherwise wouldn't have been allowed.
Got it? It's called getting the message out. Nothing precludes the man from running 3rd party.
None of us kooky Ron Paul supporters are willing to go down without a fight. That's what used to be called "character."
If your newest concern is that RP will split the Republican vote and auger in another term for the Grand O'Mummer, then my advice is to attempt that self-labotomy. Roll them bones.
Keep pushing the bullshit, defeatest attitude. That's how you win.. or something, right? grow a pair, pal.. let them hang low and large.. vote for him with a write in..
Bangin7GramRocks - Way to be a part of the problem dude!! If you "would love" the chance to vote for Ron Paul then get off your duff and get the word out. Quitting is not a winning strategy! As a matter of fact; you can't loose if you never quit!
BUCK UP SON>>>> FIGHT!!! ITS TIME TO FIGHT! IT'S RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE FORK IN THE ROAD. GRAB YOUR SACK AND LET'S GO!!! PAIN IS COMING...DO YOU WANT PAIN WITH FREEDOM OF PAIN WITH SLAVERY? BRING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
also note that hillary clinton was the choice of the "party leadership" in 2008 and the "insurgent, reform, most transparent administration, audacious change agent" (that last really hurts and amuses) blackish man won. these are transformative times. incumbents always win until they don't. ron paul is not the answer to everything but he is an answer to some things that are very wrong: endless war, too big to fail and the destruction of constitutional liberty. these must be stopped before our nation dies.
GO FUCK YOURSELF. YOU AREN'T RADICAL AND RON PAUL WILL NEITHER BECOME PRESIDENT NOR WILL HE MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE DENT IN THE PATHETIC MORASS WE CALL AMERICAN LIFE. RON PAUL IS NOT GETTING ELECTED. CAMPAIGN FOR PETER NORTH (YOU MIGHT KNOW HIM AS MATT RAMSEY) OR MANDINGO. YOU AND ALL THE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS CAN KEEP YOUR RIGHTEOUS CUM IDIOTIC TALK IN FANTASY LAND WHERE RELIGIOUS NAIVE IDEOLOGUES BELONG. WASH YOUR ASS.
LOL! Larry Davis = Pablo honey,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2rhZjhY14
"Are you washing your ass Pablo?.....keep yourself clean honey?"
Ron Paul is a 99%er! in that 99% of his campaign contributions come from individual donations.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00005906
"In 2007, Paul set records for single-day fund-raising totals despite being one of the lesser-known candidates."
Ron Pauls biggest donors according to Motherjones were The Military, Google and Microsoft (some pretty smart people in this group).
Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsorsI find it funny that they accuse Ron Paul of lying when if he were a liar, and if he wanted to lie, he could have always sounded like typical politicians but instead his stances have always been his own and now the Rs and Dems want to "know his secret." I'll tell you his secret HE TELLS THE TRUTH! When they all want to lie, he tells you how it is, come hell or highwater, and without regard for political benefit, he is going to say it straight faced to you because you don't fix a car by saying it just needs higher octane gas.
Veritas Odit Moras / Truth Hates Delay - Seneca
In Iowa, guy in charge of making sure vote count is fair is Romney supporter. I'm sure Paul campaign on top of this to make sure fair vote count. Should have computer wizard to verify electronic votes in other states.
Hey Status Quo assholes who are dismissive of Ron Paul, is it what you want, Romney for President while the US goes more to shit? What do you think Romney will do?
They are starting to panic already.
Ron Paul 2012
Yep, I'd love to see him bag Iowa and New Hampshire just to watch the establishment sprout pee stains.
Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-moving-votecount-to-undisclosed-location-108812.html#.TvsaPJyPwbk.twitter
http://www.dailypaul.com/197149/important-update-re-campaign-efforts-in-...
Regards,
Cooter
remember Stalin only cared who counted the votes
I VOTE FOR.................................MYSELF!
CNN getting as bad as Fox News?
CNN said Ron Paul walked off from an interview, but watching the full uncut interview we can see once again how MSM lies and are corrupt.
CNN edited video claiming Paul walks off
CNN video in full
Outfoxed If you have time - you're on vacation so you do have time.
All TV and ALL media is the same. Only dumb sheep watch TV. I wish Tyler would bring back the simple math questions to keep TV viewers from posting shit like this.
Me and my calculator can beat any CAPTCA. And for the record - I NEVER watch TV
CNN is a collection of mindless corporate hacks like its senior political analyst Bill Schneider. Schneider's position on "unelectable" is a nose of wax depending on the candidate:
“Paul is ahead in the Iowa polls right now. But, at age 76, he is never going to be President of the United States.”
William Schneider, 12/27/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/pauls-power-play-in-iowa_b_1171122.html
“I've been in this business long enough to know that under the right circumstances, just about anybody can get elected. I've seen too many people who were called unelectable like Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter get elected.”
William Schneider, 6/7/05 (re Hillary)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/07/ltm.02.html
Schneider and his ilk in the media are errand boys for the elite, that much is obvious. What's puzzling is why so many commenters insist on regurgitating their drivel.
Here's an article from the Des Moines Register which is actually unbiased and informative. We learn some interesting things such as...
Yeah that's some interesting stuff.
If I had to hazard an opinion I'd say that Paul is less a dog and more a cat.
Before the haterz start in hating, let me remind you that one of the two types is an independent, high-survivability ambush predator not afraid of going out on a limb. And as a bonus can see quite well in the dark.
Eliot is sitting at my left hand and looking with approval upon your post. The rest of the troop are napping.
I love dogs, but cats are very cool, too. I love the jungle instinct that they have. Predators is right.
naw. . .
dogs are loyal followers, "man's best friend" & all, more Paul-ish
cats are indeed independent, and they don't need to believe in sky-gods to justify their existence, live & let live
they definitely can see best through the dark. . .
Cats are libertarians. Dogs are socialists.
Cats are anarchists. Dogs are collectivists.
If you want to read a damned funny book (even if it falls on the side of canine sympathy), go find the book "Why Dogs are better than Cats".
cats are definitely anarchists!
The beautiful fact here is that Republicans can't win with Paul as spoiler. In a way, the Republican party needs Paul.
http://azizonomics.com/2011/12/20/why-the-republican-party-needs-ron-paul/
In all ways America needs Ron Paul.
this whole fucking world needs ron paul.
If these up/down arrows represent votes, Ron Paul would be leading 26 to 3 as of 10:46 eastern time.
The (rest of) the Republican Party also needs a swift kick in the ass, and to atone for their hysterical fearmongering and warmongering ways. I wish Ron Paul would have used EXACTLY those two words in the debates, because that is EXACTLY what the rest of that benighted pack are: fearmongers and warmongers.
they're ALL fearmongers and warmongers, the left AND right both.
TMagnet -
Understand that the political spectrum is really from 100% totalitarian gubmint (left) to 0% gubmint or anarchy. It would be worth your time to watch Overview of America on YouTube. It explains political & economic systems and how they interact and will fit some missing pieces into your puzzle. The left-right paradigm promoted by the corporate media cartel is bull$#!+ propaganda intended to confuse, distract and divide.
The statist ruling party (both elephant & jackass divisions) is obviously way out left on the political spectrum on every issue. The 'cons and 'rats both love the Kenyan Usurper and want him re-appointed. What's there not to like - bankster handouts, eternal undeclared war, trillion FeRN annual deficits, totalitarian surveillance police state, etc.? Objectively, the BushBama regime has been a seamless continuum of tyranny.
Ron Paul is a lone centrist, arguing for government limited to protecting men's rights from the force, fraud and injury of others. He is not far right, since he never advocates anarchy. His foreign policy mirrors that of our founding fathers; unfortunately the elephant-suit-wearing "conserve(the status quo)atives" know better.
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. - Thomas Jefferson
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. - George Washington
Paul is certainly a defender of "men's rights" - I'd like him more if he was equally for female body sovereignty, or at least kept his Xtian beliefs out of governance.
how does this square with a "libertarian" stance?
It has nothing to do with being an "Xtian." The libertarian ethic is the non-aggression principle. Therefore, concerning abortion, the relevant question is: "at what stage of development does one become a human being?" From the point that one becomes a human being, one is entitled to protection from aggression.
Now, explain to me how any particular answer to this question is objectively valid. Go on, I'm waiting....
You can't, neither can I. It's a matter of convention, like the age of consent: why should it be 18 rather than 18.3 or 19.6 or 17.5? The simple fact is that we need SOME uniform standard, and for whatever reason we've settled on 18.
The stage of human development that we choose as the beginning of personhood is the same kind of thing. Personally, I'm not decided on the issue. I don't find it to be very important, relative all of our other problems.
Fortunately, Ron Paul's position is compatible with all answers to this question - he believes that the abortion question ought to be left to the States, per the Constitution. States determine their own laws for murder, for instance, so why not abortion?
If Paul were to have his wish, you would be able to debate the issue freely at the State level, where your voice has much more weight than at the national level. And if your State settles the question in a way that displeases you, you're free to vote with your feet - and it's much easier to move out of a State whose laws you don't like than to move out of the U.S. altogether because of bad federal laws.
Problem solved.
first, I appreciate your reply, for the most part, it's a good one.
if the "libertarian ethic is the non-aggression principle" - would you say forcing a female to carry a foetus full term against her own wishes is an act of aggression? how is the state making a law relating to her body, against her wishes, not an act of aggression? I understand that you find this to be a less important issue "relative to all our other problems" - but I'm guessing you're male, and this is never really going to be an issue for you anyhow.
if Paul "were to have his wish" can you tell me if he has made any other provisions to hold accountable the male who is also responsible for the pregnancy? I ask because the consequences of the act appears to fall completely on the female, with no subsequent provisions made for the other party involved, which is very one-sided and certainly punitive in a way consistent with religion, which often holds, shall we say, a lesser view of female sexuality. is there any discussion or plan for an increase in babies born, will they also be state supported as they are now?
of course, the "you can move to another state" or travel for an abortion was also an option before Roe vs. Wade - as were "backstreet" and DIY home abortions. personally, I believe that both parties should take responsibility for their fertility, but in practice I realise the female is left holding the bag, as it were.
for the record, the majority of "libertarian" sites I looked at regarding the "abortion issue" state that "abortion is a woman's choice and does not concern the state" - example:
http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm
which is why I believe Paul to be relying more on his religious beliefs, than "libertarian" ones - and yes, I realise he is a career Republican politician, making his stance on abortion more in line with his political party.
Well I already agreed with your position but had I not I think you would have changed my mind.
I am an athiest and a BIG believer in separation of state / religion but would be entirely confortable voting for Ron Paul ... I find he does not hide his own personal beliefs but makes it very clear he respects the beliefs of others and would represent everybody. The government can do this by withdrawing as he promotes. You can if you want to and he won't because he doesn't want to. Everyone is a winner. The only people that can possibly have any problem with Libertarianism are those who seek to control others.
I wish we had an equivalent choice.
political choices are rarely perfect. although male, i am a decades long supporter of abortion rights, worked in an abortion referral office before roe v. wade was decided, given for decades to planned parenthood and recently switched party registration to be able to vote for paul in the florida primary.
i completely agree that libertarianism as a philosophy would support abortion rights. however such a candidate is not currently running for president and, possibly, leading in iowa. as above, the need to slow/stop the, now, fully bipartisan support of endless war, too big to fail and destruction of even the explicitly enumerated constitutional liberties is sufficiently pressing, in my view, to support a candidate with whom i disagree on abortion rights.
there is also the chance that any success paul may have will work toward reforming the democratic party which, although supporting abortion rights (currently), has so moved from the other views of its "base".
again, I appreciate both you & Advoc8tr replying to these posts - it stops these Paul threads from devolving into thoughtless cheerleading. . .
although, that's really the way voting & elections are designed in amrka, so it's hardly surprising. you both highlight that despite disagreeing with Paul on female body sovereignty, he lights your scoreboard on many other issues important to you - this is how the system works, stealth removal of human rights, incremental grabs over time. look at the Bush govt. and his chipping away at the terminology of abortion, redefining the words used - this is how amrkns got to be CITIZENS (intentional caps) and consumers - over time, the words & legal definitions get eroded, legal precedents are made, more rights lost. . .
I'll just say that on many issues regarding the Fed, etc. I also agree with Paul - in fact, I'd love to see the FedGov neutered completely, and all powers devolve to the State level, at minimum - the community should decide what the community needs and can provide for, local is the ideal - but that's not how nationstates work, right? they exist as parasites on the people, not as representatives.
that Paul has taken a strong stance against "the Fed" etc. helps to get the truth out to people, and once they begin thinking, they may also begin to uncover deeper truths about their existence in amrka. however, by also tacking on his private beliefs in removing a female's right to an abortion should she need or desire one, he moves into making his personal beliefs LAWS, and that's how amrka has devolved into a nationstate with HUGE amounts of restrictions that penalise & limit personal freedoms. his platform is like trying to pass a law, and then tacking on a pile of pork in the fine print as the bill is being signed - and I have zero doubt that should he succeed, the foot in the door will be exploited by the religious right, because that's what has always happened in the past.
ah well, as I've posted before, I don't vote, nor will I - it lends legitimacy to the corrupt system, and it mollifies the mind to accept years of oppression while waiting for the "chance" to vote every couple of years, while also engaging in the sports team mentality of choosing a team and "forgiving" some of the political stances in order to get whatever one's personal favourite topic is passed. . . there are always people who get brushed aside in these games, I'd rather work towards helping people become more self-sufficient - mentally as well - than embedded in a thoroughly corrupted system. also, I personally believe the "president" title to be a figurehead, a lightning rod for the masses to focus on, while the atrocities continue behind the curtain. . .
thanks to you both for taking the time to reply!
I would like to clarify one element of RP that you are overlooking. You are focusing on female body sovereignty and the fact that abortion restrictions are an attack on that liberty. However, many people will also focus on the liberty of the baby (fetus). IF you believe that an unborn person is a human, any libertarian would oppose abortion on the grounds that it denies a person of his or her right to life. The line where a fetus becomes a person is drawn arbitrarily. Your real beef with Paul here is that he considers a fetus a person earlier than you; there are no facts to debate here. I happen to side with you but support RP because he is one of the few people to protect liberty, even if we disagree about when a fetus becomes a person with rights to protect.
I focus on female body sovereignty mainly because it is a given, an absolute, for the male - it is only the female who finds "special" punitive laws applied to her in many nationstates, and these are based in religious beliefs. irrespective of each female's beliefs, to have to live under restrictive laws imposed on her - whether it be appearance/clothing or driving or whatever - is unfair to her as a human, and privileges males, which all FatherGod religions do.
as to
yes, the line IS drawn arbitrarily by those who would limit a female's right to make decisions about her own body - a foetus that is not viable outside of the body of the mother is not a "full human being" - it is fully dependent on the body of the female for existence, therefore only she should have the right to decide whether she can/will carry full-term. if we let politicians make these decisions, they will be based in their own religious beliefs, and these are always punitive for the female with regards full human rights as accorded "naturally" to the male.
as to the "any libertarian" argument, all the research I did on "libertarian" beliefs support a female's right to make decisions about her body without State interference - I agree with them on this.
thanks!
A baby is fully dependent on its parents as well. It is not viable outside the care of the parents. Therefore mothers can and should kill their children. You can't force a woman to feed and care for an infant using her own body if she doesn't want to do so. You can't force a woman to hand over the baby she intends on killing because the hands with which she would hand it over are hers alone.
You are almost single handedly turning me into a pro-lifer. It feels pretty good, actually.
you are such an hysteric, dude.
I'm not "turning" you into anything - you're getting older, and most men get more conservative as they age, particularly when it comes to young women & their "free lifestyles" - time to put away your "atheist, libertarian' T-shirt and fully embrace your cranky old geezer-ness, in all its right wing god-bothering glory.
Cathartes Aura, in a remarkably civil and reasonable discourse over the hot button wedge issue of abortion, commented:
Ron Paul has expressed his views on abortion because he was asked about them, and he answered honestly. Please keep in mind that he was asked about this because it is a wedge issue. No matter what the wedge issue is, whether it is abortion, gun control, gay marriage, religion, etc., political operatives will pounce upon them and use them against opposition candidates no matter what the candidates' positions are.
Wedge issues, because they are easy to use and effective, are the favorite tools for propagandists when trying to stifle genuine debate and sow discord and divisiveness. If you keep a close watch, not just here on ZH, but on other sites and in the various news media, you'll see wedge issues brought up all the time. You'll be amazed by their effectiveness.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. As Ron Paul becomes more of a threat to both wings of the War Party, expect to see more and more emphasis placed on wedge issues, such as abortion. This is how divide and conquer works.
In blog comments you'll see shills from both the democratic and republican wings of the War Party copying and pasting standard boilerplate propaganda about wedge issues such as abortion. It doesn't even matter what position is taken. Then all it takes is a couple of subtle interlopers to take opposite sides, and the focus turns toward and is controlled by the wedge issue. This is how thoughtful debate on important issues is squelched. That's why both wings of the War Party love wedge issues.
This tactic is very useful in getting people to act against their own interests. You yourself have said:
...and I agree with you. You also said:
...and here I also agree with you. If we strip away the manipulative, emotion-laden language used by the political operatives, you'll see that Ron Paul agrees with you as well. He hasn't used his campaign as a crusade against abortion rights, and if given the chance to do anything about it, he'd remove federal government influence and tell the states it's their issue to decide.
The people most threatened by Ron Paul will use this one wedge issue to paint him as an anti-abortion religious crusader as well as a bloodthirsty supporter of infanticide, depending on the target audience they're trying to influence.
That's how the propaganda works. The political operatives don't give a shit about the substance of wedge issues. They only care about their usefulness as tools of manipulation.
hey TheFourthStooge-ing, appreciate you weighing in on this subject, and bringing up a good point.
I agree with how the propaganda machine works, both for and against a candidate - and a female's right to make a decision on whether to carry a foetus full-term is one of the "hottest" topics going. . . the "religious right" have been banging the drum on this for at least a couple of decades now, and I'm glad they've not managed to roll the clock back to the dark ages as yet.
I don't follow the political campaigning, so I appreciate your pointing out that Ron Paul was asked his position on a female's right to terminate her pregnancy - I've done a cursory search for his own words on this, but all I can find are his site blogger's opinions on what Paul's beliefs are - it's like his newsletters from decades ago, he has people putting forth ideas ascribed to him, but it's not always easy to know if it IS his point of view, yes?
I have read of Paul witnessing a late-term abortion, in very emotive language, and this is often offered as his reason for opposing all abortion - this one doesn't fly with me, as there can be limits placed on late-term abortions where a foetus may be considered viable, etc. - on a case by case basis, I would not be opposed to this. it is the notion that the State can make laws regulating a female's right to decide if she will or will not carry a foetus - a non-viable foetus - full term that I am absolutely opposed to. no one knows better than the individual in question the hows & whys of her decision, and it is no one's business but her own, and certainly not the State.
I liked a lot of what you wrote, and would like it also if Ron Paul would state his case in his own words, avoiding the "late term baby abortion" story, as it's not useful. I'd also very much like to hear what he also might see as a part of his platform regarding AFTER a baby is born to a mother who was denied an abortion - IF these babies are so important and special, can we also see that attitude carried forward to their childhood years? because it's been pretty obvious in the past that today's "special" foetus that deserves a life tends to become tomorrow's welfare leech, or whatever derogative comment you'd be most likely to find here. it's ALL about the unborn foetus, and so rarely about the young child OR it's mother once actually born.
I'd also love to see Ron Paul, and anyone else actually, acknowledge the male's role in creating a foetus. if we're going to enact special laws that revere the unborn foetus, perhaps these laws can be extended to ascertain who the father is and have him help in the financial responsibility of the years of upbringing, particularly since the State is broke. I understand that family courts do go after "child support" but I also understand that this can be a wild goose chase in many cases, and it also causes much resentment, not helpful for any involved - I realise I'm being somewhat facetious here, but certainly it would be heartening to see the "abortion issue" include the sperm donor in the debate - and not always focus solely on the baby-bearer. . .
but yes, yours was an important point to make relative to undermining a candidate via "wedge issues" - should Paul get the Republican nomination, he'll no doubt be inundated with propaganda on ALL sides. I must say it will prove interesting to have such issues as "the Fed" and devolution to State power as topics of discussion for the people. . . I still don't believe a president has any power beyond figurehead and/or mouthpiece, and doubt there even will BE an election, but would love to be wrong!
take care.
so, despite not being a "voter" I've just spent some time looking into Ron Paul's views on a female's right to her own body sovereignty, and I'm sorry, but he's getting a major thumbs down here - if you have any other information to share I'd be up for reading it, but for now,
now, I realise this suggests Paul's position on removing Federal power & locating them in the States - HOWEVER, this bill is very specific in its wording, and it removes a female's right to decide what is right for her own body. Also,
http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/abortion-and-birth-contr...
sorry, don't even get me started on this one. . . not impressed.
religious beliefs belong in a church, not imposed on humans who do not share those beliefs. ever.
Cathartes Aura, expressing a difference of opinion in a manner refreshingly civil and, sadly, far too uncommon for controversial issues such as this, stated:
Thank you for looking into this and responding with a followup, as it will help me to further illustrate and clarify my point. You and I have a difference of opinion, not about the legality of abortion, but about the effects imposed upon this legality by Ron Paul's position on the issue.
First, let me make sure that we understand that my original point was, and continues to be, that wedge issues are propaganda tools used to manipulate opinions, and they are such effective tools that political operatives frequently use them to get people to act against their own interests. Abortion, as a wedge issue, is a tried-and-true classic.
If we look at the matter from the point of view of a political operative trying to discredit Ron Paul, it's easier to see what is really happening. Such an operative, using Ron Paul's stated position as well as his activities as a congressman, will create two different messages from the same data. One message will be for those who support abortion legality and one will be for those who oppose it.
Let's take a look. The paragraph you included above is a good example of a message aimed at those who support the legality of abortion:
Now, using the same information contained in the above paragraph, I'll create the political operative's second message, this one aimed at those who oppose the legality of abortion (I haven't checked the accuracy of the message, by the way, but it doesn't matter as long as it is technically consistent with the other message):
Although the two messages are consistent in their data, they serve to discredit Ron Paul among two diametrically opposed groups. These two groups can then be steered away from the big issues facing the country, steered away from any real change, and steered toward one of two preselected status quo War Party candidates.
You concluded by saying:
I agree with you on this 100 percent. I also believe that the authoritarian military government being built by the democratic and republican wings of the War Party won't care what you or I believe. Their only concern will be our absolute compliance and obedience. There will be no rights for anyone, man or woman, to decide what is right for their own bodies, because their bodies won't belong to them anymore.
you're very good at this, and it's a pleasure having this exchange with you here.
I understand your point illustrated by "spinning" the topic to suit the agenda, but I must say that this is how politics works in amrka - the agenda is "spun" into non-sense, then *whoosh* one's supposed rights have been removed before you can even see what happened - this is the "incremental" erosion of civil liberty / human rights that most of us are continuing to witness daily (some don't notice, some don't care).
unless and until Ron Paul wants to clarify his position, not one of his Fan Site interpretations or arguments, but in Ron Paul's own direct words, then I will believe what he is trying to pass as bills and amendments to the Constitution to be stealth removal of a female's body sovereignty, her right to make decisions based on her own experience of her own life.
this is the page from RPaul's campaign website:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
where he smiles, holding a baby girl. this is a dog whistle picture: Ron Paul, the caring old granddad OB/GYN is devoted to protecting the little girls. . . please don't tell me this was a random picture, because we know that nothing is random in the political campaign race - this is a carefully thought out stance, and I'm not buying it.
the words repeatedly used on the page "save lives" and "protect life" are all part of the anti-abortion Christian rhetoric, co-opted or not, and the words on this page speak to them. loudly.
if Ron Paul gets his "definition of life at the moment of conception" then the baby-carrier will be subject to monitoring, and subsequent punishment - in a way the sperm donor will never have to experience. this seems like hyperbole, but so does the NDAA defining the world as a "battlefield" including the amrkn "homeland" so that "they" can perform whatever acts of murder/genocide "they" like. . . if the old men of government decide to define a woman's body as parts that they have jurisdiction over, then she has no body sovereignty - end of.
this is a very important point - because if anyone thinks that making parts of a female body under jurisdiction of ANY part of government, be it Fed, or State, or Local - you have a theological fascism in place, one that sees females as possessions, much like cattle or land. a lot of the guys who post here already like to talk about the "bitches" as something they "own" (or rent) like "beans, bullion, bitches!!" so the *idea* however jokingly, is already in place, albeit subtly.
also, gendering such things as nationstates as "she" and referring to them as "homeland" are also embedded messages to the gendered male mind, who is trained to "protect" these things with "war" - nationstates are arbitrary fictions, and the defining boundaries get redrawn whenever "they" like - but always as SHE gendered - there's a reason. . .
I realise that we're swirling the pan as a nationstate even as I type this - unfortunately, the voting public is being held out a HOPE-full cookie to ignore the obvious for a few more months, just get behind your candidate again, & campaign for CHANGE, again. . . well, THIS change, the change to having full rights to my body, THIS change is none of any Christian male's business, nor his followers.
I believe this is why Paul is campaigning yet again as a career Republican, because this is who he represents, the Christian Right. as does his son, Rand.
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
yeah, I've no doubt. . .
your final paragraph:
is probably the most important, to us both it would appear - we are all losing our human rights, daily - and I believe it is important to point out to the males that they may THINK they have more rights, including the "right" to make laws regulating a female's body, but the gender narrative includes you too, and "men" are called to defend their supposed "privileges" by policing others, globally. . . this just makes "men" tools in their hands.
peace to you & those you care about, as the made up calendars change their numbered days to 2012. *smile*
The fact he's running even means he's really ahead. Cell phones are tough to poll and young voters mostly have cell phones. I've mentioned on the site before I live in Iowa and he will win here. I had the usual family get togethers over the weekend and was shocked at how many of my Democratic party leaning relatives are going out to vote for RP. They all seem really disallusioned by Obama. They voted for him with high hopes and things have just gotten worse. They are against the wars and HATE that he put so many troops into Afghanistan and are really getting concerned about the economy.
Now that is a fascinating insight about the cell phones. You think the polls don't really reflect the reality? Maybe.
That was the case here in Kentucky with Rand Paul both in the primary and election.
Well if you like that think about the fact that Ron Paul gets more young voters than the other Repub candidates, and many that were too young to vote in the last election cycle are now of age and have influenced other people their age and older, and there is a group of younger people right behind them that also are just of age who will also vote and most of these people aren't counted in traditional polling especially by landline.
One of Bachman's state chairs defected to Ron paul tonight at RP's salute to veterans night. State Senator Sorenson said he could no longer stand the attacks on RP and since RP had stood with him in 2010 he needed to stand with Ron Paul. See Drudge for more details.
Israel is out to get the honorable Dr. Paul. It appears that nothing other than whole hearted American commitment to foreign aid, military aid, and military support, will suffice. Everything short of these criteria amounts to anti-semitism, an eptithet they've made into an art form.
If Ron Paulo wins Iowa - Iowa will be discredited forever. Ron Paul is far Left of OBAMA.
GOP is not libertarians - Ron Paul support are from never never land.
If CNN was a person, I would give him a serious kick straight to the nutsack.
And you can replace CNN with any MSM.
Only moron sheep watch TV. If you turn it on - you support your overlords likes a fu**ing serf. Idiots who view TV enpower the elites. Keep up the good work sheep.
Clueless Numb Nuts?
Although I support Ron Paul, for me this was the most enjoyable sentence in the entire article:
Ugh! I cannot even watch television news any more at all - and it really pisses me off that they think they are getting away with it!
Even a five year-old knows better... the herd must waken!
It pays to look at the details on these polls. The CNN poll is only of currently register Republicans. At least 20% of the turnout will be independents (and a some Democrats)and guess who they are voting for. Ron Paul that's who.
Kick him in the head instead.....
Self-preservation is THE #1 instinct...:>D
Here is a diagram of what a Mitt, Newt, or Jon nomination will do the republican party in the long run. I will post this numerous times for reference.
http://keepitsimplesurvival.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/elephantmary.jpg
I've always been on the fence about Art Laffer. He has just endorsed Newt G.
Now I'm no longer on the fence. Laffer is a clown -- pun intended.
A clown endorsing a warmongering salamander --- That's pure art!
Newt is a the worst choice. He and Clinton are CFR buddies. When Newt was supposedly being a "conservative" in the House - he was pushing endless NWO sh*t with Clinton. Newt never met a global govt organaization that he did not support. He is a Rockefeller puppet.
F Newt.
Didn't expect that from him, guess he threw us a curve, eh?
art laffer and his trickle down economics. what a joke......... the 1 percent were alive and well in 1980 too........
When are we going to learn that ALL Politicians are the same, Ron Paul included.
With Dr. Paul's thirty-plus year record, do you really enjoy making a pseudo-intellectual ass of yourself?
Just stating the obvious my friend. Kind of sad that a grown adult like yourself still believes in this broken system.
I don't believe in "the broken system". I believe in the U.S. Constitution and Dr. Paul who NEVER has been part of "the broken system".
Screw the CONstitution. You may wish to do some more study. Start with the Articles of Confederation.