Very Good Tommy, Now Connect the Dots
During the ABC News, Republican debate yesterday morning, Tom Tancredo defended a foolhardy comment he made earlier in the week when he stated that he would bomb Mecca and other Muslim holy sites in response to another terrorist attack. Tommy Thompson responded correctly by claiming that such actions would be counterproductive, uniting millions of Muslims against the United States. There were no apparent disagreements from any of the candidates and I think most people would agree with Thompson’s position.
Why is it then, that they can’t comprehend that our presence in the Middle East — the almost ceaseless bombing under both Bush administrations and maybe even more so (prior to the Iraq War) under the Clinton administration — has created a sense of hatred toward The United States? The terrorist organizations have told us in simple terms that their attacks are a response to our meddling in their land which they view as sacred and holy. Why can’t they admit that invading Iraq strengthened this hatred, and increased terrorist attacks?
This foreign policy of intervention has the same consequences as the irresponsible plan Tancredo suggested. Thompson was correct to point out the flaw in his approach. Now why can’t he apply that concept to the rest of his positions.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that consistently applies this type of logic while shaping his positions on these issues. What Thompson was referring to was blowback; the same blowback that Ron Paul referenced when discussing the reasons for the attacks on the World Trade Center, during a previous debate.
I suppose people are starting to put all of this together:
click on the image to see the updated results. Ron Paul’s votes continue to increase!
In case you missed the debate and want to see it:
part 1 of 9
the other parts
August 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I notice in your blog the huge difference between Ron Paul’s poll results and others in the race. You have brought this to our attention a number of times in previous entries. However, when you watch newscasts or read newpaper polls, Paul is lucky to grab a few percentage points. Why such a big difference? Either you’re spinning, or the newspapers and national television media are spinning. Who has the agenda here? From experience I’ve noticed national pollers such as Zogby, Rasmussen, Newsweek or the networks are pretty close and ususally are only a percentage point or two off when all the final votes are counted. What are they doing different than the polls you’re looking at? I understand Ron Paul has a huge internet following, and that may be the reason. But you can’t judge public positions by such a small sampling. The internet group is so small it probably wouldn’t show on the radar. Ron Paul has to reach the mainstream to be successful. Internet polling is flawed and often sabotaged. It’s not a true gauge. Polling is a complex process that private firms such as Rasmussen or Zogby have perfected over time. Not that I wouldn’t like to see Ron Paul shake up the process, but I think to make him out to be a frontrunner or a man “in the race” creates a credibility issue for those who mayl soon be proven wrong.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
you’re right, and that’s a good point. these internet polls don’t mean a whole lot. but neither do the major polls. if i’m not mistaken ron paul is polling as high, if not higher, than clinton and carter when they were at this stage in their respective elections.
I can think of three reasons right away why ron paul would poll so low at this point. many of his supporters are young, and like me, don’t have a landline, which is how many of these polls are conducted. also, many people simply don’t know who he is. this is changing rapidly. and the last main reason I can think of off hand is that most of these ’scientific polls’ poll only those registered within the party. and one thing I’ve noticed is that many supporters of ron paul are registered democrats, independent, libertarian, constitutional party, etc., not registered to a specific party, or not registered at all. he is unique in that he appeals to a large swath of americans, because he appeals to individuals and not groups.
although the media hasn’t picked up on it much, paul has a volunteer grass roots campaign effort that none of the other candidates have. he draws enormous crowds everywhere he goes.
I realize that he has a long road ahead of him and a lot of work to do, but he has made more progress already, than I thought he’d make throughout his entire campaign. people need to drop the defeatist attitude and support a candidate that they truly believe in.
and whether he wins the nomination or not, he has already reached a lot of people and helped to revive a message of liberty, peace, and personal responsibility, that we have long forgotten. it was even clear from the last debate, that the frontrunners have changed their tune a bit. he is helping to pull this country back on track. there is much more work to be done.
I do have an agenda, and it is to help elect an honest, intelligent man into office who will restore liberty and the rule of law under the constitution. It’s not the main purpose of this blog, but it fits in with the overall goal of the principles of laissez-faire.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I understand your reasons for Paul not polling well in national media polls. But again, the process of polling is very complex and I’m confident Zogby, Rasmussen, and any large private firm conducting political polls have taken your same points into consideration. I would bet their polling results are pretty close to what the voting results would be. The one point you made, however, regarding people knowing who Ron Paul is would be the only factor that could turn things around. If he could get more coverage in the mainstream, and it was coverage that appealed to the masses, then you may see him start to poll. The problem is the media coverage. The media always seems to pick their sweetheart. It’s not a fair to others who want to get a message out when they have to first get “approval” from the media giants. Keep plugging away JL! I hope you can contribute to a much needed change in the system.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
those are just my observations, and I think you’re right: the major hurdle for Ron Paul is being recognized. many people don’t even think about the presidential election until the parties have selected nominees, at which point it’s too late, and many would never hear Dr. Paul’s message. Due to his passionate supporters, he has been gaining recognition steadily and making more appearances in the mainstream. It has been difficult for the media to ignore him when everywhere he goes, the crowds he draws dwarf those of the frontrunners. being ignored by the mainstream media in one thing — and it’s irresponsible of them to neglect the lesser-known candidates — but what I have observed throughout this campaign so far goes far beyond that. most of the large media outlets have tried to discredit Ron Paul by making claims that simply are not true. he is continually misquoted and taken out of context in an attempt to label him a conspiracy theorist(and apparently conspiracy theorizing makes you crazy because we are all supposed to just believe everything we are told). but he’s never claimed to believe in any of the conspiracy theories that they criticize him for. and to make these claims is not only poor journalism, it’s irresponsible and damaging to this country.
anyhow, like I mentioned before, at this time in there respective campaigns, clinton was polling around 2% and carter was under 1%. there is still plenty of time for things to turn around, and I hope they do. there are a lot of people out there fed up with the political status quo who don’t even bother voting or following politics. this is their chance to make a difference and i think, when they realize the message Ron Paul has, many will.