Regular commenter Travis Pahl made an interesting point at #55 in a recent thread:
How about doing a local angle on presidential politics. Like perhaps which candidates have the most support in terms of signs, bumperstickers, straw polls results, cash donated in the last quarter, etc...I think it would be interesting to see who locally the area is supporting since we have not really had any 'scientific' polls yet.
This is a fair point to some degree, though if yard signs and bumperstickers were an accurate gauge of broader voter support then Linda Smith would have been elected Senator in 1998 and John Carlson would likewise have occupied the Governor's office after 2000.
More importantly, our state's placement on the calendar after February 5th guarantees us being a lower priority to the competing campaigns. Recall we have a primary on February 19th, but the Democratic contest determines no delegates for that party's nomination while the Republican counterpart will determine 51% of the GOP delegates. All the Democratic delegates will be determined by their party's caucuses on February 9th, while Republican caucuses on the same day will decide 49% of theirs.
Given the volume of states on February 5th and the intensity of the contests prior to that huge primary day, campaigns just aren't investing much attention or resources here. Even the largest campaign organizations don't have that sort of capacity.
I recall at Mitt Romney's Seattle press avail last month that AP writer Dave Ammons and KIRO's Essex Porter were asking Romney's traveling press aide about campaign organization efforts in Washington state. The aide got a slight smirk on his face and jovially answered, "well, you're a post-February 5th state" before then giving the obligatory "yes, we're working hard at it" answer. That says it all if you've been following the race
Lastly, we do have one relatively recent Presidential poll in Washington(full results available in PowerPoint format). The problem is the survey only queried "registered voters." Given the much more limited universe of voters that actually attend party caucuses and vote in February primaries (not to the mention the degree to which results from preceding state contests will influence voters here), the poll is close to worthless.
All to say that on the totem pole of Presidential campaign contests, we're awfully close to where the dog does what dogs do best...unless the political junkie gods shine on us and give us a muddled series of early primaries, a split decision on February 5th, and a possible brokered convention later in the year. But that's not too likely.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 09, 2007 08:24 PM | Email ThisDave Leip & Co. at his U.S. Election Atlas compile poll results for both the primary and for the general election (they currently do Giuliani vs. Clinton for the mastheads, but include polls with all candidates).
GOP primary: Here
Dem primary: Here
General: Here
Basic conclusions:
1. Obama has generally done here better in WA than
nationally in the Democratic primary.
2. GOP primary numbers have basically tracked with national average, save for underperformances by the more conservative candidates (Romney and especially Huckabee).
3. In the general, Clinton vs. Giuliani is somewhere between tied and double digits for Clinton.
4. Obama is either doing much better than Clinton in the Washington general, or worse, depending on which poll you read. This latest one has Clinton outperforming a bit. A previous SurveyUSA poll had Obama outperforming by a lot.
I think #4 and the range in #3 show the real conclusion we can make right now:
It's too early, and too volatile, to have a clear idea of what's going on in Washington state.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 9, 2007 08:42 PMThat SurveyUSA polls is just head-to-head hypothetical match-ups for the general election, not polls for the party primaries. Thus, they don't help us much at all which is why I didn't mention them. I think hypothetical match-ups a year before the actual election itself are close to worthless.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 09:05 PMI think that relying only on the national polls gives us a distorted picture. And we want to know the truth, even if it is not what we want to hear, right?
Is it better to be Socrates dissatisfied or the fool satisfied?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 9, 2007 09:14 PMWhy parole a monster like Green(Another Rapist Killer Gets Clemency from Huck) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937215/posts
Huckabee admits immigration plan has revolving door (amnesty or “guest” workers)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1937190/posts
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936099/posts
Why parole a monster like Green(Another Rapist Killer Gets Clemency from Huck) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937215/posts
Huckabee admits immigration plan has revolving door (amnesty or “guest” workers)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1937190/posts
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936099/posts
First, thanks for taking my suggestion.
Second, the poll you listed does not include the candidate garnering the most donations in this state so I find its credibility somewhat lacking.
I understand your lack of trust in the signs/money/bumpersticker yardstick to determine a winner in a general election but in a primary I think we have a whole different dynamic going on. Who generally ends up going to the caucuses? People who are only midly interested in politics or the more diehard political junkies? I think the people putting up signs, sending in money, putting sitckers on their car are the same type of people that will show up in February ready to support their candidate.
The primaries are like the caucus in this regard as well just not to the same degree. But historically primaries get much smaller turnouts and it is only reasonable to assume it is the people that are putting up signs and what not that are the ones that are in that smaller percentage that show up to the polls in feb.
Although it sounds like Romneys camp decided not to pay attention to washington till after Feb 5th, Dr Paul did establish a official state coordinator about a month ago and has already had an army of volunteers acting independently of the campaign for 6+ months now. As Bruce pointed out, there are tons of meetup groups across the state working to help Dr Paul.
If he has people out on freeway overpasses every week, surely those same people will find a way to get to the caucuses in Feb.
All of this support and yet not in the scientific poll? Makes you wonder what the pollsters and mainstream media are missing huh?
I refuse to put a political bumber sticker on my car... particularly one supporting a conservative candidate or politician. I simply do not trust the rabid liberalism rampant in these parts.
I had political signs in my yard: each and every one was stolen.
I don't believe I am outside the norm of thinking for conservatives. I know I am not outside the norm of my group of family and friends. We know we are in the minority here, we know that the majority lacks the tolerance they claim to champion and we know they foment an angry constituency.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2007 10:05 PMAccording to the FEC site, the top three republican candidates as far as getting money from this state are Romney (by far), McCain and Giuliani. Ron Paul is fourth - through Sept. 30. Do you have information that is different showing Ron Paul has received the most contributions?
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 10:13 PMI have had a Ron Paul sticker on my car since may. I get a couple honks and thumbs up from other drivers. No negatives. So do not be afraid, put that Ron Paul sticker up. It is actually quite fun to get that support while driving home on 405.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 10:17 PMSorry, I should have been more specific. Dr Paul was first in the 3rd quarter and is expected to be first again (by a larger margin) this quarter as well.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 10:19 PMUnfortunately, I think I know who put them up...
Posted by: Cydney on December 9, 2007 11:05 PMEvery campaign - including Romney's - has a "coordinator" or some other organizational effort, whether paid staff or volunteers in this state. My point is none of the campaigns are treating Washington as a high profile state because of it post-February 5th status.
And yes, I think you and I would agree that poll is worthless, perhaps for different reasons, but since it was the latest one available I thought I should at least link to it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 10, 2007 07:11 AMI also saw a banged up pickup truck with IMPEACH embroidered with a December17.org sign. Oops, that was Ron Paul's Democrat equivalent, Kucinich.
Posted by: swatter on December 10, 2007 07:26 AMEven better, let's hold our primary after the General Election in November, then all switch our affiliation to the winning candidates party. This way when it comes to getting those defense contracts, we can say, "I was with you all along".
They never could rid her of that maniacal smile/laugh/grin.
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 10:58 AM"Linda Smith. Now there's a name we forgot about.
They never could rid her of that maniacal smile/laugh/grin.
Posted by WVH at December 10, 2007 10:58 AM
I did not post this comment and I have no comment on this tread. The thread is for the paul folks.
Would the site gurus please trace the stalker.
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 11:42 AMWe vote late in the game, and there will likely be a clear winner after Feb. 5th. This will discourage most voters from showing up
Caucasus are a numbers game, whomever has the most supporters wins. The Paul people have certainly proven they will show up in droves to support their candidate. I think Ron Paul will handily carry the heavily urban areas since GOP turnout is generally low (was 1 of 3 who showed up from my Dist. in '00) and they are unlikely to stop cheering on their guy on after the Feb. 5th results are in.
One of these days I'll check when and where our caucus is and be sure to attend. I've cut it down to three of the candidates who I would consider supporting at the caucuses at this point, but that could change by then. One of those is not Ron Paul nor will be by then.
Posted by: Doug on December 10, 2007 12:58 PMIt is amazing how people can put facts and information at our fingertips! I am continually awed!
Thank you, Amanda Carpenter for this up to the moment State of the Race: Monday, December 10, 2007
Read, dig and comment, trusty SPers!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 10, 2007 01:03 PMPrimary you will have to make a declaration of Party or your vote will not be counted.
RP is calling himself and participating as a Republican, so is few votes will be counted and he will lose on that ballot.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 04:23 PMGood luck on that, if they're running around calling you Paultards, keeping your candidate out of sight/mind, and comparing you to Nazi's, odds are they're not going to be all warm and fuzzy with you or your guy when you commander the caucuses in this state.
Might be time to wake up Travis and realize the GOP mainstream clearly hates you and all that you represent.
I refuse to accept that WVH is a mainstream republican. I talk to republicans all the time And most of the time probably do not even know I am talking to a republican. None have called me a nazi. Most Republicans I have spoken with agree with the majority of what I represent and we get along just fine.
Maybe they hate me, and if so I guess my feelings are a little hurt I suppose, but the message I am promoting that Dr Paul shares I do not think is something most republicans hate.
I do not see Paul supporters as commandeering anything either. We are just new life in a dying party. We are not taking it over. We are still representing about 90% of what the state GOP platform states. If we were 10% than yeah it would be a take over. I think a better word is reinvigorating. That is a word right? :)
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 04:59 PMIt's a fair question, whether asked by WVH or Medved.
Nice try at the devisiveness card Cato, too bad it won't work.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 10, 2007 05:07 PMAs I posted under the topic Critiques of "the Speech" Strike a PC note, it troubles me greatly when someone like Bruce alludes to the fact that he considers himself conservative, touts a supposedly "Republican" candidate with far too much ballyhoo, but then promises to hold his breath and withhold his vote if his guy isn't ultimately in the running. Actually it infuriates me.
I read a great article about just that today. I hope Bruce and Paul's other bearers will give it thoughtful consideration now and after RP is out of the race.
Why Vote For A Winner?
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
Excerpts:
...Therefore, let's focus on the Republican party instead, and ask a simple question that might logically guide one's actions in an election year. Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
This question only applies to the general election, however. In the primaries one should feel free to vote for whichever candidate they feel best represents their interests. If Bozo the Clown was on the ballot in South Carolina and you felt a particular affinity for bulbous-nosed circus performers -- go for it and proudly put your name in the "Bozo-yes!" box. But when the primaries are over and Bozo returns to his regular gig from 3-4:00 pm on your local cable access channel, then you face another decision. Two people have received the nomination of their political parties for the office of President of the United States. One of them will be elected to that office. For which one do you cast your vote?
Voting for a third party candidate serves only one practical, immediate purpose, and that is to help elect someone even more antithetical to your beliefs.
But come November 2008, when your ideal candidate has been rejected as the Party's standard bearer, the nature of the game has changed. It's now down to just two people, the Republican or Democrat nominees for president. And here a simple fact trumps all others.
There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office.
Please read the whole thing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 10, 2007 05:21 PMWhat irks me to no end about Ron Paul (other than his uber-zealous bandwagon cadre of internet children) is his intellectual hypocrisy. So his big deal is freedom? FANTASTIC. That's my main value, too. Freedom for whom, though? Umm.. just Americans.
I'm very lucky to be an American, but being born here was no magnanimous feat on my part. I don't deserve what I have and I don't think any other American deserves it either. It's not a birthright. It's something we're blessed with, something we have to protect, but something that comes with an awesome price - we need to help other people gain freedom as well. And Ron Paul is so diametrically opposed to the forward strategy of freedom that he's made his opposition to engagement the cornerstone of his odd campaign.
RP supporters basically say to the world, "We've got our freedom. Um.. you guys are on your own." That's selfishness and hypocrisy.
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 05:30 PMI agree. as a member of a party you have to have some loyalty to the party and support it even when your candidate does not win. I hope that Ron Paul wins because that makes it very easy for me to support the party in the general election for President. Even if he does not win, I will am sure be supporting many local candidates even if I end up not supporting the presidential candidate.
Why might I not support the presidential candidate despite my call for loyalty? Because the loyalty has to be a two way street. I will give the candidate that wins a very hard look but so far from what I have seen from all the other candidates (thompson being the possible exception that I see so far) is a bunch of RINOs.
I lived in NYC and can tell you quite positively, he is NOT a republican. There are many issues that he fails but more important than any other for me is 2nd amendment rights. THat is a deal breaker for me and he fails.
1st amendment rights is a deal breaker for me too and that throws McCain out too.
Huckabee I would have to investigate more but he seems to have a very 'governemnt is the solution' attitude. Same with Romney and his health care program.
In other words I feel that none of the other candidates are really being loyal to the GOP and therefore if they are nominated I do not see it so much as me abandoning the party but the party leadership abandoning me (at least at the presidential level).
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 06:01 PMI understand the desire to not like hypocracy. I too can stand nothing more than a candidate that says he stands for one thing and then acts another way.
I do not think that Paul is doing that in this case. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that he does not want to free and liberate other countries that do not share the same freedoms we do. This is a legitimate concern, but I do not think you and Dr Paul share different goals.
He too wants other countries to be free, he differs in how we as a nation and specifically our federal government should respond. He looks at our founding documents and the role of the federal government as a government that protects the rights and freedoms of americans. It is not responsible for anyone else. This may be where you are interpretting his lack of concern for others from. But he also beleives that this is also the best way to help others in need of help. By trading with and talking to other nations, he feels we are far more likely to bring about change than by threatening and bombing other nations. He beleives we should be that shining city on the hill that sets an example for other nations.
I agree with you -- this is exactly what he believes. I COMPLETELY disagree. The founding documents, particularly THE founding document, the declaration of independence in particular, does not talk about the rights and freedoms of Americans. It talks about the rights and freedoms of every human being.
Why should I care more about the rights and freedoms of someone in Omaha more than someone in Kirkuk? Because the Omahan speaks the same language I do? Was born in the same country? Has the same skin color? Happens to fall under the same federal legal jurisdiction?
Ron Paul cares VERY MUCH about freedom in America and for Americans. That's GREAT. But he has also demonstrated a general and complete disregard for universal human freedom, which comes at a much greater cost but is much more important.
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 06:23 PMHe does not disregard the rights and freedoms of others. He would certainly not use the federal government to violate anybodies rights or freedoms. In fact I beleive he and McCain are the only two candidates on the GOP side that have stood in front of the american people and said that torture is wrong regardless of whether it is an american or foriegner.
But in terms of actively going to free other people it brings up two traditionally non conservative ideas. The first is you have to tax people and send them to their possible death to free the others. Most conservatives and libertarians have traditionally viewed taxation and freedom as two opposing ideas. Why take the freedom from some to try and give it to others?
The second idea is the idea of whether freedom is more likely to be obtained by sending our military in to a country and trying to overthrow the leader and occupy the country until it elects a new leader that we like and leave peacefully without the people thinking that it was more of a US installed leader rather than a newly democratically elected leader. Traditionally this has been hard to do. The alternative that Ron Paul and our founding fathers favored was the idea of leading by example. By being that shining city on the hill and trading with all who wish to trade and keeping our taxes low and our government small. This will result in a society that far exceeds the standards of other countries. The greater this gap between our society and theirs become the more appearant that our way of freedom works. This method has traditionally led to revolts across the globe trying to emulate our success.
I agree that there are legitimate arguements to be made for both methods. I am obviously bias torwards Dr Pauls method. But the key thing I am trying to get across is that Paul is not being hypocritical in his support for freedom by taking the approach that we should just concentrate on making sure freedom thrives here. It is a valid method to spread freedom elsewhere that he genuinely believes to be the most promising.
He does not disregard the rights and freedoms of others. He would certainly not use the federal government to violate anybodies rights or freedoms. In fact I beleive he and McCain are the only two candidates on the GOP side that have stood in front of the american people and said that torture is wrong regardless of whether it is an american or foriegner.
But in terms of actively going to free other people it brings up two traditionally non conservative ideas. The first is you have to tax people and send them to their possible death to free the others. Most conservatives and libertarians have traditionally viewed taxation and freedom as two opposing ideas. Why take the freedom from some to try and give it to others?
The second idea is the idea of whether freedom is more likely to be obtained by sending our military in to a country and trying to overthrow the leader and occupy the country until it elects a new leader that we like and leave peacefully without the people thinking that it was more of a US installed leader rather than a newly democratically elected leader. Traditionally this has been hard to do. The alternative that Ron Paul and our founding fathers favored was the idea of leading by example. By being that shining city on the hill and trading with all who wish to trade and keeping our taxes low and our government small. This will result in a society that far exceeds the standards of other countries. The greater this gap between our society and theirs become the more appearant that our way of freedom works. This method has traditionally led to revolts across the globe trying to emulate our success.
I agree that there are legitimate arguements to be made for both methods. I am obviously bias torwards Dr Pauls method. But the key thing I am trying to get across is that Paul is not being hypocritical in his support for freedom by taking the approach that we should just concentrate on making sure freedom thrives here. It is a valid method to spread freedom elsewhere that he genuinely believes to be the most promising.
Of course they don't. But people who put up signs and people who read signs do. What signs have you seen lately?
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 07:04 PMFirst, that's a very cynical and inaccurate view of our foreign policy. Our main interest is democratic freedom because we know, firsthand, it's inevitable results are stability, peace and prosperity. We might take issue with a democratically elected leader if they fail to support the rights of minorities and other democratic principles, but such actions are an affirmation of our committment to democracy and don't detract. And while our committment to democratic principles might be historically imperfect, that should only be cause to double down, not retreat and disengage from them, as Ron Paul and the Democrats support.
Also, you say that "traditionally" it has been hard to install democracies through military action. This implies you have been educated at an American university. I look at countries like Germany, Japan, and Korea and I see vibrant democracies, prosperous open markets (2nd, 3rd and 13th largest economies in the world), and I wonder how did this happen? A few answers: American bombs. American guns. American soldiers.
It wasn't pretty. It cost a lot. BUT AREN'T WE GLAD WE DID IT?
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 08:20 PMI just came across a piece on ABC news. Stossel is interviewing Dr Paul on whether the US should be the worlds policeman.
Dr Paul said, "It's OK for us to have a responsibility, personally, to help other people ... [but] to go around the world and spread democracy and spread our goodness, no. I think it doesn't work ... too many unintended consequences, and, to spread our goodness overseas, it usually requires force."
I bring this up because I think this speaks to your point about him being inconsistant in his support of freedom. To support freedom outside this country we either can be the worlds policeman or be the worlds best example. Bush said in 2000 he would do it by example but instead decided to be the worlds policeman. Dr Paul has always consistantly supported the example method and backed up with his voting record of 20+ years.
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 08:22 PMI just came across a piece on ABC news. Stossel is interviewing Dr Paul on whether the US should be the worlds policeman.
Dr Paul said, "It's OK for us to have a responsibility, personally, to help other people ... [but] to go around the world and spread democracy and spread our goodness, no. I think it doesn't work ... too many unintended consequences, and, to spread our goodness overseas, it usually requires force."
I bring this up because I think this speaks to your point about him being inconsistant in his support of freedom. To support freedom outside this country we either can be the worlds policeman or be the worlds best example. Bush said in 2000 he would do it by example but instead decided to be the worlds policeman. Dr Paul has always consistantly supported the example method and backed up with his voting record of 20+ years.
Here is a link to the article. http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3978940&page=1
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 08:22 PMI just came across a piece on ABC news. Stossel is interviewing Dr Paul on whether the US should be the worlds policeman.
Dr Paul said, "It's OK for us to have a responsibility, personally, to help other people ... [but] to go around the world and spread democracy and spread our goodness, no. I think it doesn't work ... too many unintended consequences, and, to spread our goodness overseas, it usually requires force."
I bring this up because I think this speaks to your point about him being inconsistant in his support of freedom. To support freedom outside this country we either can be the worlds policeman or be the worlds best example. Bush said in 2000 he would do it by example but instead decided to be the worlds policeman. Dr Paul has always consistantly supported the example method and backed up with his voting record of 20+ years.
Here is a link to the article. http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3978940&page=1
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 08:22 PMI don't think the Democratic Race will result in a brokered convention. One of the top three, most likely top two (Clinton or Obama), will prevail.
I disagree with you however, with regards to the Republican side of the race. I do see possible scenarios for a brokered convention. I does kind of depend on how Huckabee does in SC, which he is currently leading by some polls, and McCain does in NH and SC.
Assuming Huckabee takes Iowa (still big if given Romney's ground-game) and Romney or McCain takes NH, SC suddenly becomes a key. If Huckabee having strength still at this point, many Feb 5th Southern states could go Huckabee, which would in effect negate the Guiliani roll. If Guiliani's late strategy fails to materialize, and McCain is still in their, then the party may start shifting to him.
This all leads to a convention where Romney or Huckabee, Guiliani, and McCain would split delegates, with none having a majority.
I don't see Thompson swapping places with Huckabee at this point, unless Huckabee can't control the negatives this month (i.e., Dumond case, 1992 statement on Aids, tax positions, etc.).
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: tc on December 10, 2007 08:47 PMHe says the use of force has unintended consequences. Sure. Would you concede that failure to use force has unintended consequences as well? We overlooked human rights abuses and the oppressive regime in Afghanistan. Perhaps we thought it wasn't our place. Perhaps we feared some "blowback." Well, we suffered a blow, with or without intervention, did we not?
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 08:49 PMIf you look just at Afghanistan than sure your theory holds, we suffered for our inaction. But the people that attacked us were not from afghanistan. They were predominantly from Saudi Arabia. They attacked us for reasons clearly stated...
1. Troops in Saudi Arabia
2. Embargo on Iraq.
3. Military support of Isreal.
They only used Afghanistan to train. But our presence in the middle east was clearly the cause. Why were in the middle east? To fight Saddam Hussien. Why was Saddam in power and so powerful? Because we propped him up to fight iran? Why did we need him to fight iran? Because they had kicked out our puppet dictator there. Why did we have a puppet dictator there?
Do you see the pattern? The middle east is a mess and we can not solve it by continually getting involved in others affairs.
Your theory that we be the worlds policeman might be a good theory for promoting democracy if our government actually was good at accomplishing its stated goals. Unfortunately government is no better at promoting democracy abroad than it is fighting poverty at home.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 09:06 PMFor stickers, I've seen a couple for Hillary, but that's been it.
Posted by: Ryan on December 10, 2007 10:09 PMThanks for the summary of the Chomsky Reader. Most Republicans don't choose to view history through that extremely cynical and obviously skewed prism.
This is exactly why RP's band of internet kids are not good for the Republican Party and will quickly leave after RP concedes. Republicans are American Exceptionalists. We do not believe America has been a generally malevolent force in human history. You say you guys agree with us on 90% of issues and I can definitely see how that's true. But given the importance of that last 10% and the width of the chasm separating you guys from the party, any reconciliation is really impossible.
There will never be a market for Chomsky in the GOP.
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 11:17 PMThe very fact that those Saudis commandeered the airplanes in an attempt to kill themselves and others completely delegitimizes any possible motives they may have had, reasonable or not. So your list of their gripes leaves me speechless. wtf.. who cares what they wanted!? Through their actions they removed themselves from the table at which reasonable people can discuss differences and create resolutions.
Posted by: AD on December 10, 2007 11:24 PMYou are right their actions are completly unexcusable. They should be punished no matter what their reasons are. But that does not make their reasons invalid. If they attacked us and said the reason was because 2+2=4, that does not mean that 2+2=4 is no longer true. The reasons they gave are true reasons. We were in saudi arabia, we do give money to isreal, and we were embargoing Iraq. We should not be doing any of those things. Do I like that nutjobs agreed with me? No. But that does not mean those things I beleived in are no longer true just because some nutjob with a suicide mission also beleived it.
As for american exceptionalism, I beleive in it to, but not with keeping my eyes open. We have and still do many great things all the time. But those things are things we do in spite of our government not through our government. Republicans have always beleived in the greatness of American people and our limited American government. You are suggesting we celebrate the american government growth and expect the people to be quiet and meek.
Posted by: Travis on December 11, 2007 08:08 AMI am starting to get a little tired of being put down and basically told to shut up because I was inspired by the words and ideas of a very brave and intelligent man. While you may not yet realize is that there are some extremely serious issues facing this country but many of us do. Our sons, our daughters,our brothers, and sisters are getting blown to pieces. Civilians of a foreign country are also getting murdered all to exploit and control the natural resources of another country. If you cant be pulled away from you ball games and mindless fluff long enough to learn that decades of corruption have controlled this country. I really don't think you should direct hate at those that do see past the programming and are doing something because we care. We are at a pivotal point in this country and i have never heard anyone speak truth like DR.Paul by someone running for president. The CFR representatives the MSM are trying to cram down our throats are not the only option. And if we ALL fail to see that monopoly this time around i really don't think they will give us another chance. They are sweating for a reason.
Posted by: R.C. SPO on December 13, 2007 11:07 PM