This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

CNN/Time Poll Finds Romney, Paul Iowa Photofinish, PPP Has Paul In Lead For Second Week

Tyler Durden's picture


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:

Iowa CNN


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:05 | 2017318 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Ron Paul 2012

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:12 | 2017331 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

CNN...what do you expect from a network run by a bunch of AIPAC members?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:56 | 2017420 strannick
strannick's picture

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'.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:20 | 2017497 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

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.  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:47 | 2017751 UGrev
UGrev's picture

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.



Ron Paul 2012

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:00 | 2017924 erg
erg's picture

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.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:39 | 2018025 UGrev
UGrev's picture

I fucking love it..

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:54 | 2018169 Mauibrad
Mauibrad's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 08:52 | 2018701 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Excellent point.  The PPP poll is polling people who are actually going to participate rather than CNN's stupid beauty pagent numbers.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:52 | 2017839 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

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!!!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:53 | 2017904 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

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?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:01 | 2017929 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Any non-fucking moron would have that answer in two minutes if they used Google.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:13 | 2017960 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:21 | 2017983 erg
erg's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:26 | 2018002's picture

None of us kooky Ron Paul supporters are willing to go down without a fight. That's what used to be called "character."

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:36 | 2018020 erg
erg's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:40 | 2018028 UGrev
UGrev's picture

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..

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:26 | 2018308 LongBalls
LongBalls's picture

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!


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:27 | 2018458 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:25 | 2019353 LarryDavis
LarryDavis's picture


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:08 | 2019518 Freddie
Freddie's picture

LOL!  Larry Davis = Pablo honey,

"Are you washing your ass Pablo?.....keep yourself clean honey?"

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:49 | 2017572 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Ron Paul is a 99%er! in that 99% of his campaign contributions come from individual donations.

"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


I 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

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:59 | 2017590 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

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?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:18 | 2017814 johny2
johny2's picture

They are starting to panic already.

Ron Paul 2012

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:23 | 2017992 erg
erg's picture

Yep, I'd love to see him bag Iowa and New Hampshire just to watch the establishment sprout pee stains.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:29 | 2018127 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

The Ron Paul Campaign in Iowa has supporters on the IAGOP Central Committee, and it has a plan in place for observing the count. The Campaign is confident in the process, confident in their ability to monitor the election, and confident that the IAGOP will be fair and open. Any statements to the contrary are simply untrue.



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:53 | 2018168 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

remember Stalin only cared who counted the votes

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:53 | 2017430 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

I VOTE FOR.................................MYSELF!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:18 | 2017820 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



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.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:44 | 2018338 Freddie
Freddie's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:18 | 2018451 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

Me and my calculator can beat any CAPTCA. And for the record - I NEVER watch TV

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:45 | 2018339 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

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


 “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)


 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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:16 | 2017344's picture

Here's an article from the Des Moines Register which is actually unbiased and informative. We learn some interesting things such as...

He confessed to audience members at a forum sponsored by the Family Leader in Des Moines last month that he agonizes over his debate performances.


He also told the Register that communication remains his weakness on the campaign trail.


“I’m most proud of my message, but I keep working on my ability to deliver it,” he said....



Leading up to the 2008 caucuses, Paul started viewing videos of his speeches online, said former electronic campaign director, Justine Lam.


“By watching YouTube videos and seeing other people’s edits, he started adjusting his speech to make it better,” she said. “He stopped rambling so much, just because he saw what other people were valuing in his speech.” ...


Paul keeps his iPad close when he travels, and monitors the markets with it.


He also uses short, clipped emails — alternating with thoughtful conversations — to debate and define his own policy points with friends and colleagues, said campaign adviser Doug Wead.


“It’s seldom that I ever meet anyone who can change my mind, but Ron Paul’s managed to do it several times,” Wead said, noting that he’s been swayed by the congressman’s arguments for neutrality in the Israel/Palestine conflict and for the federal decriminalization of drug use.


“… If it was by email, he’d respond with very short notes, kindly saying, ‘No, I don’t agree with you … and here’s the reason,’ ” Wead said. “If it was verbal and face-to-face, he would listen, and let me talk without arguing. He cherishes different opinions.”


Paul also regularly trolls the Internet, looking for better ways to assert his positions.


“The only way I’ve noticed I can ever influence him is if I write a blog, and a few weeks later I’ll see him using some of my language,” Wead said. “If I were to send him that language in a memo, he’d never use it. But if he finds it on his own on the Internet and it makes sense to him, he’ll adopt it.”

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:29 | 2017372 blu
blu's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:46 | 2017415's picture

Eliot is sitting at my left hand and looking with approval upon your post. The rest of the troop are napping.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:57 | 2017435 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

I love dogs, but cats are very cool, too. I love the jungle instinct that they have. Predators is right.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:43 | 2018033 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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. . .

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:09 | 2018088's picture

Cats are libertarians. Dogs are socialists.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:16 | 2018097 akak
akak's picture

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".

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:14 | 2018191 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

cats are definitely anarchists!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:31 | 2017381 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

The beautiful fact here is that Republicans can't win with Paul as spoiler. In a way, the Republican party needs Paul.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:47 | 2017417's picture

In all ways America needs Ron Paul.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:23 | 2017501 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

this whole fucking world needs ron paul.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:47 | 2018162 mailll
mailll's picture

If these up/down arrows represent votes, Ron Paul would be leading 26 to 3 as of 10:46 eastern time.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:01 | 2017448 akak
akak's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:26 | 2017510 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

they're ALL fearmongers and warmongers, the left AND right both.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:15 | 2017659 Burticus
Burticus's picture

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

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:17 | 2018195 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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? 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:27 | 2018289 John Wilmot
John Wilmot's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 03:20 | 2018399 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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:

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.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 05:21 | 2018455 Advoc8tr
Advoc8tr's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 06:03 | 2018474 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

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".

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:44 | 2020067 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:53 | 2020109 tinhats
tinhats's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 21:06 | 2020739 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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

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.

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.


Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:53 | 2021489's picture

- 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.

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.


Fri, 12/30/2011 - 18:02 | 2022636 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:05 | 2020478 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Cathartes Aura, in a remarkably civil and reasonable discourse over the hot button wedge issue of abortion, commented:

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.

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:

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.

...and I agree with you. You also said:

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.

...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.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 21:47 | 2020770 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 23:30 | 2020942 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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,

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.

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,

Ron Paul strongly opposes abortion in the case of rape or incest

Paul said he views the fetus as a "human being [with] legal rights...from the day of conception."

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.

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 04:21 | 2021121 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Cathartes Aura, expressing a difference of opinion in a manner refreshingly civil and, sadly, far too uncommon for controversial issues such as this, stated:

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

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:

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.

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):

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which, although defining human life as beginning at conception, removes abortion from federal jurisdiction, forever surrendering any federal authority to regulate or control it. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. This amendment would not only surrender all federal authority over regulating abortions, it would also forbid federal regulation over fetal stem cell research, frozen embryos, and contraception (even for grade school children). Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing any cases involving abortion. It would also leave federal courts powerless over gay marriage and any sort of sexual practices, perhaps even pedophilia. Additionally, federal courts would no longer have any say over government displays of religious symbols, so your town square holiday decorations, in addition to traditional menorahs and nativity scenes, might feature islamic crescents and satanic pentagrams as well. The act would abandon the precedents set by federal courts on any of these issues and forbid them from spending a dime to enforce any decisions.

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:

religious beliefs belong in a church, not imposed on humans who do not share those beliefs.  ever.

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.


Fri, 12/30/2011 - 17:56 | 2022616 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

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:

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.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. , , 

As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

yeah, I've no doubt. . .

your final paragraph:

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.

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*


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:34 | 2017389 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:52 | 2017427 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Now that is a fascinating insight about the cell phones.   You think the polls don't really reflect the reality? Maybe.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:02 | 2017932 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

That was the case here in Kentucky with Rand Paul both in the primary and election.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 04:45 | 2017982 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:44 | 2017884 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:32 | 2018014 Banksters
Banksters's picture

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.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 07:24 | 2018553 maxcody
maxcody's picture

If Ron Paulo wins Iowa - Iowa will be discredited forever.  Ron Paul is far Left of OBAMA.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 07:30 | 2018561 maxcody
maxcody's picture

GOP is not libertarians - Ron Paul support are from never never land.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:07 | 2017321 Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

If CNN was a person, I would give him a serious kick straight to the nutsack.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:09 | 2017328 Peter_Griffin
Peter_Griffin's picture

And you can replace CNN with any MSM.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:54 | 2018348 Freddie
Freddie's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:17 | 2017352's picture

Clueless Numb Nuts?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:49 | 2017422 illyia
illyia's picture

Although I support Ron Paul, for me this was the most enjoyable sentence in the entire article:

it masks this by making the story focus on something totally irrelevant: the fact that somehow Santorum's support is surging.

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! 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:54 | 2017591 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:52 | 2017428 LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

Kick him in the head instead.....

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:24 | 2018209 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Self-preservation is THE #1 instinct...:>D

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:11 | 2017329 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:07 | 2017628 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:26 | 2017684 akak
akak's picture

Laffer is a clown -- pun intended.

A clown endorsing a warmongering salamander --- That's pure art!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 01:57 | 2018351 Freddie
Freddie's picture

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.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:31 | 2017697 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Didn't expect that from him, guess he threw us a curve, eh? 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:37 | 2018140 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

art laffer and his trickle down economics.  what a joke......... the 1 percent were alive and well in 1980 too........

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:11 | 2017330 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

When are we going to learn that ALL Politicians are the same, Ron Paul included.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:15 | 2017337 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

With Dr. Paul's thirty-plus year record, do you really enjoy making a pseudo-intellectual ass of yourself?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:18 | 2017356 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

Just stating the obvious my friend. Kind of sad that a grown adult like yourself still believes in this broken system.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:41 | 2017405 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

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".

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:59 | 2017444 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Screw the CONstitution.  You may wish to do some more study. Start with the Articles of Confederation.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:58 | 2018045 Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

Screw the Constitution? You, sir, are a complete douche. Get the fuck out.

That is, of course, if you can first climb down from that pretentious ivory tower that you're on.

"You may wish to do some more research." - Fuck You. Research that.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:50 | 2018166 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

the articles of confederation were what they were sent to complete, yet they came out with the constitution which begat a strong central government which was not in the favor of state's rights. actually america was to be a confederation of states, who would cooperate when attacked etc........basically each state was supposed to be like a semi autonomous nation in its own right.  of course nation states here in the new world would not be good for business, from a central banker's perspective though....

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:31 | 2019198 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

@LoneStar, Stop being such a MARK! Should I pull up that CNN Interview where Ron Paul skirted a question about that Ron Paul News Letter? Or should we just chalk that up as a "Gotcha Type Question". Paul sure as hell looked like the rest of politicians running away from a question.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:58 | 2017605 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

I like how you put that.  We could also call his remarks sophmorish, unsophisticated and generally lacking in the rigors of any real academic study.

I'll leave the ass part alone...that was spot on.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:12 | 2017332 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

Ron Paul and Huntsmen seem to be the only two who understand the mess we are in and the need for job creation here in the USA, not job creation overseas in Cambodia, Mexcio, India, etc.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:27 | 2017376 CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture


Overseas to Mexico bitchez!

The Rio Grand ain't that big!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:01 | 2017447 cossack55
cossack55's picture

It is in downtown El Paso. You actually have to roll up your pant legs to get across.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:13 | 2017335 Bastiat009
Bastiat009's picture

Ron Paul, if nothing else, is proving that the mainstream media are losing power and that the internet is an agent of change, not only in the middle east where few people are connected, but also in the US where most people are connected.

The mainstream media have ignored or disparaged Paul for years and yet the man, in spite of his lack of charisma and his not-very-sexy speeches, is now a top contender to challenge Obama. That wouldn't have been possible without the internet.

If the internet, where few people have access to it, can overthrow governments, then imagine what it can do in places where lots of people have access to it.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 02:03 | 2018356 Freddie
Freddie's picture

If people pulled the plug on their TV's - you would see even more change.  The sheep like the daily HD brainwashing.

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 07:42 | 2021192 S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

"In a development that probably no one would have expected a year ago Romney is winning big with regular Fox News viewers, getting 27% to 16% for Gingrich, 15% for Bachmann, and just 12% for Paul. But Paul leads Romney 38-13 with the 48% of likely caucus voters who don't regularly watch Fox News."


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:15 | 2017341 stant
stant's picture

ron paul 2012 time to kick thier arogant asses

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:16 | 2017343 uno
uno's picture

Ron Paul has always been in the lead in Iowa, MSM desperately trying to get someone 'approved' to win.  Finally the idiots need to admit Paul is in the lead or show they missed it

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:16 | 2017346 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

I'm surprised that 71% of Romney's voters were firmly committed to him and 21% are completely made up about him.

Although I still maintain that Ron Paul is unelectable as President, I am also very happy that he is in the race because he is forcing a National dialogue that was 99.99% neglected before, and he has some very good ideas that are strongly swaying the National consciousness.

Through him the media are finally being forced to address the numbers of americans who are tired of war, tired of the Fed, tired of the war on drugs and the war on terror

I wish him well.

I especially would wish that he would pair with Bernie Sanders or Denis Kucinic.  That would IMO be a third party ticket that could work.

As it is, the left is always afraid to vote third party because they're afraid it will assure Republican Victory (such as what happened with Gore/Nader/Bush in 2000), and the right is afraid to vote third party because it will assure Democrat victory (Many on the right think Ross Perot helped Clinton win the Presidency, although exit polls do not support that view).

A Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul/Denis Kuckinch or maybe even a Ron Paul/Elizabeth Warren ticket would solve this problem.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:02 | 2017454 cossack55
cossack55's picture

The first two would be fun. The Warren option would be a nightmare.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:45 | 2018157 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I can't make up my mind about Warren.  It almost seems like she's been posed as a tough fighter for consumers...and then what?  Senator already and having done what?  I'm skeptical about her but also think that if she's actually doing something good...but then they could have asked Brooksley Born to do something because she has high values and integrity.


Maybe Brooksley Born should be Ron Paul's VP?  That would really piss off Rubin, Greenspan, Summers, et al.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:55 | 2019081 NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

Oh yeah? How about RP con three evil witches:

Elisabeth Warren, Brooksley Borne and Janet M. Tavakoli ?

Nomi Prins as a bonus :-P

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:06 | 2017625 fuu
fuu's picture

Bernie Sanders? wtf?


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:57 | 2018059 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

can't happen - here's Nader's stance:

I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we’ve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion."

I believe Kucinich has a similar stance, though this hasn't always been the case.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:56 | 2018173 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture


Now we have 2 guys who get freedom.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:06 | 2017627 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

He is completely electable, especially with strong VP. He should announce strong VP early.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:36 | 2017861 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:20 | 2018068 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Jesse Ventura:

Abortion decision belongs with the woman and who she chooses.

edit: no really, argue the point junker, it's Jesse's quote!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:35 | 2018019 Return2Sanity
Return2Sanity's picture

I would personally distribute flyers to 10,000 houses if he picked William K. Black.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:08 | 2018184 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

If not VP he can be AG.  Imagine: someone that does not have some investigation against him as AG.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:11 | 2017645 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Dude, you are waayyy high.

Funny stuff though.  I wonder, if Ron Paul is "unelectable" (would love to hear you define that term).....then how in the world would ANY of your proposed tickets work?  There are very few, if any, similarities between your pairings. 

Congrats if you're trolling, but do you expect anything you've mentioned to work?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:05 | 2018081 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Even better is that he's saying an elected official is unelectable. Love that shit... is that "Stupid Pill" on sale at Wal Mart or something? There seems to be a run on it...

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:44 | 2017883 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Meh on the Warren suggestion.

It is an interesting idea.

Alan Grayson?



Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:16 | 2017348 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

All, please see this video, a must-watch regarding SOPA

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:33 | 2017384 uno
uno's picture

SOPA, starting to man FEMA camps, NDAA, MF Global, Libya, TSA random checkpoints, Internet kill switch -- what else is missing

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:34 | 2017391 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

This would all serve as some great fodder for an updated version of "we didn't start the fire"

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:51 | 2017396 uno
uno's picture

also Goldman overthrow of Greece, Italy, ECB; see something say something

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:18 | 2017353 blu
blu's picture

The Iowa caucus will prove to be the begining of what is sure to become an absolute circus, unwitnessed by Americans since the --  well since ever.

I wonder if any of it even matters right now. We along with the world are in the grip of something truly horrible. That horror will take us where we are surely needing to go, and there is probably not much can be done except to cushion the blow. The wings have come off -- there is no lift -- gravity has awakened, and the ground far below beckons. It will find us err the end, and nothing will be the same after, and I wonder if it matters at all who is sitting in a white house in a far away place.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:09 | 2017462 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

I'm with you. None of it matters. The irony is, if Ron Paul is elected, he is going to take the blame for what is already inevitable: global depression (or at least, he'll take the blame for the depression here in the U.S.). His policies, if implemented, will surely put us on the path to recovery, but we'll have to go through severe pain first (this will happen no matter who is elected, we're beyond the event horizon), and so people will blame him for the pain they experience. Although I'll vote for him given the chance, it is ironic that personal liberty, as part of RP's ideology, will probably suffer, as well. This could ultimately lead to a reversion back toward totalitarianism in the next election cycle. Interesting times.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:07 | 2017618 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

I agree with first part of comment, but it will lead toward totalitarianism next cycle if he's not elected, it's why status quo are idiots.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:22 | 2017666 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I think the best thing Dr. Paul could do for the U. S. in the upcoming depression is be sure that we don't lose the remaining freedoms we have.   Anybody else will see to it that the citizens are crushed in any attempt at rebellion.  This alone could prevent total chaos.  Being destitute and imprisoned is one thing, being poor yet economically and socially free is another. 

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:38 | 2017865 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

"I'm with you. None of it matters. The irony is, if Ron Paul is elected, he is going to take the blame for what is already inevitable: global depression"

That's called geting Hoovered!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:23 | 2017365 PicassoInActions
PicassoInActions's picture

What time are the italian bond auction tomorrow?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:09 | 2017467 Irish66
Irish66's picture

5 am  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:21 | 2017667 BennyBoy
BennyBoy's picture

Does Brian Sack come in that early?

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:27 | 2017373 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

I haven't talked to one person that supports Romney, support on the interwebs seems low, don't see too many newspaper opinion articles pro-Romney, who the fck is supporting this guy?  

(I realize my sample size of people above is small, but still)  

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:33 | 2017386 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

who the fck is supporting this guy?

the same people who support Obama, George Bush, Clinton, George HW Bush, and Reagan.

Corporations.  And in the new US of A where 1 $ = 1 vote...  well lets just say it's a lot of "people".

also, there are the pragmatists in the Republican party who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that he's the only person who can beat Obama.

Few to nobody think that Perry or Santorum or Bachmann etc can do it.

Excepting places like ZH, few people think that Ron Paul can do it either.

Thus: the pragmatists support Romney.

Very similar to the Dems who supported Kerry a while back.  they didn't do it because they liked him... they felt he could beat Bush.  the popular Dem support was behind Howard Dean.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:04 | 2017478 akak
akak's picture

who the fck is supporting this guy? 

Spineless, sheepish senior citizens, for one, who are wildly prone to falling victim to every fearmongering campaign of sociopaths like Romney or Grinchgrinch --- or even Bachmann Warmonger Overdrive --- and who constantly and stupidly turn into quivering masses of jelly every time some insane neocon darkly warns of the supposed impending Iranian invasion of the USA, and who never fail to look to government "to protect them". 

I swear, we need more than just driving tests for these senile idiots --- there should be some kind of voting test as well, with special emphasis on individual rights and the never-ending government assault on them.  It will be nothing but a positive development for politics in the USA when this rabidly statist, 60+ cohort finally dies off.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:23 | 2017676 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

That would include me at the swingin' old age of 63, Akak.  But also a rabid Paul supporter!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:30 | 2017696 akak
akak's picture

I was, of course, speaking of that age group as a whole ---- obviously, there are a few exceptions to the statist rule!  But I have found, when discussing politics in general, that it is almost useless with those much older than myself (mid-40s) --- they are almost invariably hopeless (if not willing) victims of the warmongering/fearmongering sociopaths.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:33 | 2017854 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

And you'd be correct.  My cohorts are generally clueless -- and don't want a clue.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:11 | 2018089 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

have you polled any Mormons?  because maybe you should, they tend to get "directives" from their living prophets (whatever man is in the top position is the current "prophet") on how to vote, etc.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:38 | 2018106 akak
akak's picture

Are those directives communicated to them via psionic vibrations in their secret special underwear?  Or does the angel Moron(i) whisper them directly in their ears?  Or do they have to dig up ancient golden tablets that can only be read with magical "viewing stones" (and then equally magically disappear before anyone else can see them) to decipher their divine directives?

And they have the nerve to call Ron Paul supporters "kooks"!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:23 | 2018206 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

it's all in the "temple work" - very secret rituals, some for their dead, to get them into one of the heavens. . . temples have quite an array of Freemason symbols, just saying. . .

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:27 | 2017374 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

CNN is owned by people that use it to promote their agenda. Their news is incomplete, false or misleading, and is for entertainment value only.  Broadcast news companies have rules to follow for the benefit of the public.  Cable channels have no such requirements. Perhaps this explains why the major networks have closed their news gathering down to having a studio and an anchor, getting all their material off the wire.

The only news is on the net and it doesn't seem likely to ever change again.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 19:04 | 2017459 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Or, as I like to say;

I get all my information from the net and all my disinformation from the tubes.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 20:25 | 2017679 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Attack Dogs Unleashed on Ron Paul; No Need to Rethink Endorsement; Plus Side of Attack Dogs

Posted: 26 Dec 2011 07:07 PM PST

Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement

Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away

No Need to Rethink Endorsement

There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!

Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?

Paul Missed Best Tactic

How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.

This is what Paul said to CNN.

Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them."

That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.

Proposed Follow-Up

Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...

"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"

That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.

OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?

Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?

In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?

If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!

Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.

Attack Dog Plus Side

Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.

Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.

Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:22 | 2017827 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

...early indications are that the MSM fired an attack nuke that bounced off Dr. Paul and into the path of a hapless Newt Gingrich where it exploded....

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:26 | 2019591 Freddie
Freddie's picture

...early indications are that the MSM fired an attack nuke that bounced off Dr. Paul and into the path of a hapless Newt Gingrich where it exploded...

LOL!  Newt is the worst one of the bunch - as bad as Obama.  Newt is another New World Order whore like the muslim. Even Romney is light years better than Newt. 

Newt is a card carrying member of the CFR along with Bill Clinton. Two of Rockefeller's puppets.


Wed, 12/28/2011 - 22:18 | 2017973 I Got Worms
I Got Worms's picture

No one "rethinks" their commitment to RP. One you go RP, you never go back.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 23:24 | 2018118 akak
akak's picture



Once you go Ron

You never go neocon.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:30 | 2017380 Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

Romney Scores Big!

Iowa: Mitt Romney proved to doubters last night that he is the man to take on President Obama in November. Scoring 21% of the caucus goers votes, Romney became Mr. Momentum.

Rick Santorum proved that he's no slouch either with 15% of the vote.

Other notables were ex Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich with 14%, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman with 8% and Texas Congressman Ron Paul with 28% of the vote.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:35 | 2017392 blu
blu's picture


But sadly, that's exactly how they do it.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:35 | 2017393 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

well done.  up arrow for you!

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 18:53 | 2017429 Dr. Kananga
Dr. Kananga's picture

LOL, kinda like that Jon Stewart clip a few weeks back where the talking heads talked all the way around Paul's position on a chart (didn't mention him once.)

BTW, I think Jon Stewart is an RP supporter.

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 21:36 | 2017852 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

Good stuff. In Iowa there's a certain radio DJ who continues to call Romney by his real first name which is Willard. For those old enough to remember the movie, Willard was a strange kid who commanded an army of Rats. Pretty funny stuff when you consider Romney worked for Bain and company, a private equity/hedge fund.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!