Right-Wing Angst Over McCain

[ParanoiA]

But informed voters know that Ron Paul favors turning a blind eye to the issue of Islamic terrorism which is not a quality they're looking for in a world leader....

 

Blind eye? What is so hard to understand about non-interventionism? Why is it that if we don't favor military occupation of the world, that we're turning a blind eye?

 

One extreme or the other. Thanks for misrepresenting our intentions...yet again.

 

We favor dealing with terrorism by not invading their land. We favor dealing with terrorism by actually securing our borders and investment in defense - homeland defense (as opposed to rationalizing military domination of the world). We favor dealing with terrorism by promoting freedom and liberty and our goodwill by leading-by-example.

 

That's not a blind eye, that's a tactical difference. It's hard to understand when you're presuming military action = dealing with terrorism. That's how the voters are uninformed.

[Realitycheck]

Hey man, you've got oil. We have not yet invented efficient hydrogen processing, so here, just take it all. We want to do something really, really great. We want to help you mend the age-old rift between sunnis and shias. Doesn't that sound totally great? Just let us know when we can start lining up our freighters.

[D H]

I don't intend to be rude, but it is exactly that sort of narrow minded focus, and the politicians desire and willingness to please special interests, that got us in this mess and it is exactly what is going to keep us in the mess. What ever happened to lets ride the wave of good fortune created by doing something good for everybody?

I guarantee that if a Presidential candidate made a campaign promise that directly and explicitly threatened not only your job, but your entire career, that you too would take the admittedly narrow-minded view that this little issue is the most important reason to vote against said candidate.

[ParanoiA]

I've gotta run, Brittany just got out of the looney bin and she isn't wearing any panties.

 

Damnit I missed it!! I didn't see this post until today. Nice job, by the way. All this attention to facts....weird...

 

I guarantee that if a Presidential candidate made a campaign promise that directly and explicitly threatened not only your job, but your entire career, that you too would take the admittedly narrow-minded view that this little issue is the most important reason to vote against said candidate.

 

Yeah I'd have to agree with that too.

[DrDNA]

I guarantee that if a Presidential candidate made a campaign promise that directly and explicitly threatened not only your job, but your entire career, that you too would take the admittedly narrow-minded view that this little issue is the most important reason to vote against said candidate.

 

A thief always assumes that everyone else is a thief as well.....but that does not mean that everyone is a thief.

 

Just because a large portion of this country is selfishly focused on their own self interests doesn't mean that everyone is. You assume that, just because you think that way, everyone does. Well, we don't (all think that way).

 

Some of us vote with a view towards the big picture....regardless of our own narrow minded personal interests and agendas.

 

Would Ron Paul cut funding for the science and technology research that I make my living at? Hell yes he would!

Do I support Ron Paul? Hell yes I do!

 

If (when) my job gets cut because of govt down sizing because a true fiscal conservative is in office, am I gonna die? Hell no.

Am I going to have some new opportunities if (when) that happens? Hell yes!

 

I'll say it again. THIS is EXACTLY why (a major factor anyway) we are in a mess in this country.......political hermaphodites pleasing each and every narrowly focused special interest group with some minimal level of voting blocks and/or lobbying juice and the addicts that vote for them.

 

Feed me...feed me....feed me....feed me.

 

Excuse me but I've got to return to my stall and get the electric prod shoved up my rear.....MOOOOOO

[Realitycheck]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking out for your own interests.

[DrDNA]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking out for your own interests.

 

Nothing wrong with morphine either....but if are dependant on it, don't think you can live without it.....you're one sick puppy.

 

When self interest is taken to the extremes that we have taken it to in this country, there most certainly is something wrong with it.

[Pangloss]

Now, Pangloss, we both know the average voter isn't that intelligent... Especially since McCain's biggest issue, by his own admission, is the war in Iraq and is the candidate who has most supported a troop surge. Tell me again why an anti-war voter would vote for McCain?

 

Not voting for a candidate that agrees with you on an issue because you don't think he's "electable" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite this, most voters still get their info from the mainstream media, and whoever they say has the best chances.

 

I have little faith in humanity right now.

 

(shrug) All valid points. But remember, just as the media tells people what to think, it also tells you what the people are thinking. Just as it's possible anti-war voters are being misled somehow, it's also possible that the presence and relevence of anti-war voters was artificially inflated to begin with.

 

An ABC News poll this week showed that people aren't seeing Iraq as a top issue anymore. Even amongst Democrats only 30% said Iraq was their primary concern (amongst Republicans it was only 22%). Just three weeks ago the war was still tied as the top issue. But now the war has taken a firm back seat to the economy (one of the fastest top-issue turnarounds that I've seen in 30 years of following politics, btw).

 

So are anti-war voters turning to McCain, or are anti-war voters deciding that being an anti-war voter isn't necessary anymore?

 

At any rate, I think what's really bothering you is the lack of interest in Ron Paul. You remind me of myself in 1984, lamenting the country's lack of interest in Mondale/Ferraro.

 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking out for your own interests.

 

Is it okay to steal just because you need? Of course not. It's short-sighted and selfish. In the same way, the purpose of voting is not self-aggrandizement. Citizens have a responsibility to consider the bigger picture.

[D H]

Citizens have a responsibility to consider the bigger picture.

No, they don't. They have a responsibility to vote, period. How or why they do that is up to them. That is why we have secret ballots.

[ecoli]

(shrug) All valid points. But remember, just as the media tells people what to think, it also tells you what the people are thinking. Just as it's possible anti-war voters are being misled somehow, it's also possible that the presence and relevence of anti-war voters was artificially inflated to begin with.

That's true enough, but the accuracy of exit polls is a whole different discussion.

 

An ABC News poll this week showed that people aren't seeing Iraq as a top issue anymore. Even amongst Democrats only 30% said Iraq was their primary concern (amongst Republicans it was only 22%). Just three weeks ago the war was still tied as the top issue. But now the war has taken a firm back seat to the economy (one of the fastest top-issue turnarounds that I've seen in 30 years of following politics, btw).

 

So are anti-war voters turning to McCain, or are anti-war voters deciding that being an anti-war voter isn't necessary anymore?

I would argue then, that Paul has the most intellectual experience with the economy than all the other candidates... You could argue for Romney's active experience, but I don't know if that's translatable to politics.

 

Why then is he then being ignored by people who say the economy is the top issue?

 

At any rate, I think what's really bothering you is the lack of interest in Ron Paul. You remind me of myself in 1984, lamenting the country's lack of interest in Mondale/Ferraro.

 

Yeah, I won't deny that...

 

But what really bothers me is not the lack of interest... you only have to look at the enthusiasm of his supporters to see that, the supporters he does have are VERY interested. It's his inability to get his message across to the mainstream voters.

 

The media has actively ignored his campaign from day one. There's no comparing the lack of coverage he has received on TV and newspaper media, which is how the mainstream still receives it's news.

 

When he is mentioned, from day one, he's referred to as 'long shot' 'dark horse' and things like that. When he is mentioned, they keep reminding the public that he has "no chance."

 

Take this 'blind bio' Zogby poll. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/191107_zogby_poll.htm

 

In a general election, Ron Paul would win, if the election was based solely on ideology. However, this poll was not covered (AFAIK) by ANY major network. I feel embarrassed posting Alex Jone's Prison planet website on here for proof that this actually happened.

 

If any other candidate won this type of poll and had the type of fundraising Paul did, it would be blasted across the networks 24/7. Yet, it's now well halfway past primary season and Paul still has low name recognition, and little media attention.

 

Now, Paul's campaign is certainly at fault. His national campaign was disorganized, and wasn't able to focus his supporters on tasks to get him the nomination, but clearly, that couldn't have been the entire problem.

[Skye]

Romney has suspended his campaign. Pretty much locks McCain in you'd have to think.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWbI2rULUHnQwe-83Fd1Pb2lT8-wD8ULMSNO1

[D H]

In a general election, Ron Paul would win, if the election was based solely on ideology.

That is pure wishful thinking. In that same poll, Paul (or his bio) came in last among likely Republican votes.

 

Why did he come in first in the broader poll? It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's libertarian leanings. Let me give a capsule summary of the bios as read by a typical Democratic voter:

1. has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible.
   
2. is a strong supporter of keeping troops in Iraq.
   
3. has mostly supported the war in Iraq.
   
4. supports the war in Iraq.

 

BTW, The bio couches Paul's libertarian views in the words "[ Candidate A ] is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty [ and ] believes in strictly following the Constitution". That is some very good weasel-wording!

[Realitycheck]

Is it okay to steal just because you need? Of course not. It's short-sighted and selfish. In the same way, the purpose of voting is not self-aggrandizement. Citizens have a responsibility to consider the bigger picture.

 

I am just saying that people can do whatever they want. What makes us a better nation is the fact that we look at the bigger picture, to varying degrees. This might be a good time to point out everything that FDR did in times of such distress, or do we just them all die.

[ecoli]

That is pure wishful thinking. In that same poll, Paul (or his bio) came in last among likely Republican votes.

 

Why did he come in first in the broader poll? It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's libertarian leanings. Let me give a capsule summary of the bios as read by a typical Democratic voter:

1. has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible.
   
2. is a strong supporter of keeping troops in Iraq.
   
3. has mostly supported the war in Iraq.
   
4. supports the war in Iraq.

BTW, The bio couches Paul's libertarian views in the words "[ Candidate A ] is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty [ and ] believes in strictly following the Constitution". That is some very good weasel-wording!

 

It's a Zogby poll, so I don't expect it to be any more or less accurate than any other poll.

 

My point is that if people read what they liked in a different candidate, Obama or McCain for example, the press would have been all over it. But, the media assumes "oh, it's only Paul, there's no story," such an attitude affects the outcome of the election.

 

Yes, he did come in last in the Republican side of things, but with a higher percentage he has ever been polled nationwide. (found the Zogby press release: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391)

 

Anyway, my point wasn't that he should win the republican nomination, but that he's ideas are more popular, nationally than the media is giving him credit for. Afterall, that's why McCain is winning the nomination right now, isn't it.

[DrDNA]

(shrug) All valid points. But remember, just as the media tells people what to think, it also tells you what the people are thinking. Just as it's possible anti-war voters are being misled somehow, it's also possible that the presence and relevence of anti-war voters was artificially inflated to begin with.

 

An ABC News poll this week showed that people aren't seeing Iraq as a top issue anymore. Even amongst Democrats only 30% said Iraq was their primary concern (amongst Republicans it was only 22%). Just three weeks ago the war was still tied as the top issue. But now the war has taken a firm back seat to the economy (one of the fastest top-issue turnarounds that I've seen in 30 years of following politics, btw).

 

So are anti-war voters turning to McCain, or are anti-war voters deciding that being an anti-war voter isn't necessary anymore?

 

 

*I*suspect that one (the?) reason people aren't seeing Iraq as a top issue anymore is because the media is not making it a top issue anymore. Much more so than the converse. This is at least partially (compeletely?) due to the fact the 3 remaining candidates have similar records on "the war on terror".......

 

......spoken in chemical reaction terms:

 

(HC, BO, JM agree)...........(media).....................(citizens)

...................... <-- ..................... <--

NO SPLASH ---------> NO STORY --------> NO CONCERN

 

 

notice how the reaction mainly goes to the right....very little trickles back to the left unless something drives the equilibrium in that direction....

 

It's the old chicken vs egg question. In this case, the egg is rotten.

[D H]

It's a Zogby poll, so I don't expect it to be any more or less accurate than any other poll.

You missed my point. You assumed that Paul won the at-large bio poll on account of his libertarian ideals. I disagree. He won the at-large bio poll on account of his stance on the war. Here is how I think things went down with a typical Democratic-leaning voter:

 

INTERVIEWER: [ Reads bios ]

DEMOCRAT: So candidate A is the only one against the war?

INTERVIEWER: That's what the bios say.

DEMOCRAT: Can you read the start of candidate A's bio again?

INTERVIEWER: Candidate A is ... an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty. This candidate believes in strictly following the Constitution and has never voted to raise taxes.

DEMOCRAT: What does that mean?

INTERVIEWER: I'm sorry, but I can only tell you what's in the bios.

DEMOCRAT: OK. Small government. That means no universal health care. But he's the only one against the war, right? Individual liberty. Well, he almost sounds like a Democrat. He believes in strictly following the Constitution. What does that mean?

INTERVIEWER: I'm sorry, but I can only tell you what's in the bios.

DEMOCRAT: But that statement is so vague it could mean anything. Still, A is the only one against the war, right? I guess I have to go with A.

[DrDNA]

Yep. That's probably about right. And the Democrat (or a Republican) being interviewed probably thinks a libertarian was a movie that Johnny Depp starred in (The Libertine).

[Pangloss]

No, they don't. They have a responsibility to vote, period. How or why they do that is up to them. That is why we have secret ballots.

 

They have a right to vote. Responsibility is a whole other matter.

[DrDNA]

No, they don't. They have a responsibility to vote, period. How or why they do that is up to them. That is why we have secret ballots.

 

If that were true, and it is not, then they don't have a responsibility to vote either.

 

You are just regurgitating high school civics class nonsense here...a la all our problems would be solved if we could just get more people to vote (thoughtlessly).........all cattle line up, single file and proceed immediately to the feed troughs.....

[swansont]

Romney has suspended his campaign. Pretty much locks McCain in you'd have to think.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWbI2rULUHnQwe-83Fd1Pb2lT8-wD8ULMSNO1

 

And if he's more or less unopposed at this point, he can drift toward the center instead of having to worry about the far right, and be better positioned than the democratic nominee (assuming that takes a while to get sorted out), as Hillary and Barack will be fight for support from those farther away from center.

[Pangloss]

My point is that if people read what they liked in a different candidate, Obama or McCain for example, the press would have been all over it. But, the media assumes "oh, it's only Paul, there's no story," such an attitude affects the outcome of the election.

...

Anyway, my point wasn't that he should win the republican nomination, but that he's ideas are more popular, nationally than the media is giving him credit for. Afterall, that's why McCain is winning the nomination right now, isn't it.

 

This is a valid point, IMO, and a perfectly reasonable observation. It just goes to show you how powerful the fourth estate is. Not to mention the money factor, which appears to be even more powerful than usual this year (not only is more being collected, but it has more effect per dollar spent).

 

But these are not the only reasons Ron Paul didn't have traction with the voters, Ecoli. You can't chalk it up entirely to that. My own reasons for not voting for the guy had zip to do with whether I thought he could win. Granted I'm just one guy, but where do you think waves of popularity (and press support, and money) originate?

[D H]

not only is more being collected, but it has more effect per dollar spent

That may be true on the Democratic side, but it is a lot fuzzier for the Republicans. Cost per delegate, in millions of dollars

• Thompson - infinite - (20 million, no delegates)
  There are several others in this category. Thompson's huge finance number puts him in a different infinity than the others who dropped with no delegates.
  
• Giuliani - 60 (60 million, one delegate)
  
• Paul - 2 (28 million, 14 delegates)
  
• Romney - 0.4 (88 million raised + 35 million in debt, 293 delegates)
  
• McCain - 0.057 (40 million, 703 delegates)
  
• Huckabee - 0.047 (9 million, 190 delegates)

 

The most recent campaign finance reports are fourth quarter, 2007 while the delegate counts are as of Super Tuesday, so the numbers aren't quite right.

 

Sources:

Money - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Delegate counts - http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/national-delegate-count-tally/

 

I'm not a Fox news fan -- they just came up early in Google and they have a nice easy-to-read table.

[Pangloss]

Correct, and the McCain-Romney disparity has been widely reported. But even so the amount of money spent is higher than usual, and the turnout at the polls is higher than predicted (many observers keep expecting Republicans to stay home, but they seem to be doing the opposite). So I think the money is having more influence than expected, in spite of the surprising effects.

[D H]

I don't intend to be rude

Of course you did. You wouldn't have prefaced your rude remark with that weasel phrase had you not intended to be rude.

 

You didn't even read the rest of my post on Obama, did you? (Or maybe you did, and picked my opening remark to disect.) Obama is far too liberal for me. Period. That he chose to make a campaign promise to eliminate the very thing for which I have been working for the last twenty five years doesn't help. That I intentionally changed my career and moved to flipping Houston because I think that getting people into space is one of the most important things we can do for future generations doesn't help. And that the space industry has become my bread and butter doesn't help either.

 

Let me turn your argument around. Some people (and several in this forum) have argued against Huckabee and others because they don't believe in evolution. In the broad picture of what is best for the country, eliminating a candidate because of one narrow opinion on evolution is a bit petty, don't you think? You should be thinking of what's best for the country! It is you narrow-minded scientists with your narrow minded focus, and the politicians desire and willingness to please special interests, that got us in this mess and it is exactly what is going to keep us in the mess. What ever happened to lets ride the wave of good fortune created by doing something good for everybody?

 

BTW, I rejected Huckabee the minute I saw him raise his hand along with Tancredo and Brownback. Sometimes a candidate's view on a narrow topic can trump the big picture.

[Sisyphus]

I seem to remember in the thread we had about that that Obama was saying he would delay one program a few years in favor of several others, particularly completing the ISS, expanding unmanned exploration, and developing the replacement for the space shuttles. Has that changed?