December Republican Primary Poll

[_Abyssinia]

RCP still has Newt 2.6% ahead nationwide but most recent polls have him tied with Mitt.

Corporate money poured into his nonprofit after Gingrich became pro-drilling and anti-cap-and-trade - Washington Post

What Iowans are getting in the mail…

“CBS News and National Journal collected an assortment of flyers sent to Iowans last week, many of them revealing that the other candidates were focused on chipping away at Newt Gingrich’s standing in the polls.”

Obama’s approval numbers sink downwards again… according to PowerLine…

http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f4f7f710970b0162fea21f63970d-500wi

…but they still look better at RCP

**Obama may lose gay voters to Gary Johnson in 2012 **- Daily Caller

In 12 predictions for 2012 Karl Rove predicts Republicans will win control of the Senate and keep the House - WSJ | At USA Today read Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel’s predictions for 2012

In 2008 49% of new voters registering were Democrats and only 25% were Republican; now it’s 32% Democrat and 34% Republican - Wall Street Journal

The Obama administration is poised to announce the sale of nearly $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia - Politico

Rising National Debt is Obama’s biggest foreign policy failure - Will Inboden for Shadow Government

Americans perceive Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as closest to themselves ideologically, and Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama as furthest away. - Gallup

Robert Reich predicts Obama-Clinton ticket in 2012 - Politico

 

[_Abyssinia]

Latinos Upset With Obama Over Deportations, Still Likely to Vote for Him

The Pew Hispanic Center published a report Wednesday showing that Latinos dislike President Obama’s deportation policies. Obama has roughly doubled the number of deportations of illegal immigrants since taking office. Regardless, Latinos do not see Republican candidates as offering a better alternative and will likely vote for Obama in high numbers again.

Only 49 percent of Latinos approve of the way Obama is handling his job, which is down from 58 percent in 2010.

Despite the obvious frustration that Latinos feel toward Obama, they do not see the Republican Party as a preferable alternative. In head-to-head match-ups, Obama would lead former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the current Republican front-runner, 68 to 23 percent among Latino voters. Even against Texas Governor Rick Perry, who would arguably be the most favorable toward Latinos due to his support for in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, Obama’s support would remain the same among Latinos.

In the 2008 election, Obama similarly carried 67 percent of the Latino vote over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), despite the fact that McCain supported, and Obama opposed, a bill in the Senate that would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

When asked which political party has more concern for Latinos, 45 percent answered Democratic Party and only 12 percent answered Republican Party.

Republicans clearly have an image problem with what is becoming one of the most important voting blocs in the country. Latinos are the fastest growing of any race or ethnic group in the country, due to high levels of immigration and a higher than average birth rate. Additionally, the Latino population is increasing in states rich in electoral college votes, such as California, Florida, Texas and New York.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush co-chairs the Hispanic Leadership Network, which will co-host a Republican presidential debate in Florida on Jan. 26. He has been promoting the idea among his fellow Republicans that the party needs to make more of an effort to reach out to Latino voters.

christianpost.com/news/latinos-upset-with-obama-over-deportations-still-likely-to-vote-for-him-65995/

I am surprised Newt Gingrich was not mentioned. Opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote for Obama or any of the Republican candidates, but it is of concern. Or this survey may be meaningless because California will probably for for Obama no matter what as well as New York. There is more of a Hispanic swing vote in Florida because of Cubans and maybe Texas.

 

[Caldera]

GALLUP POLL - 12/29/11

Romney Edges Gingrich, 27% to 23%, for National GOP Lead
gallup.com/poll/151823/Romney-Edges-Gingrich-National-GOP-Lead.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

• Gingrich down by 14 points since early December; Romney up by 5 points. Ron Paul in third place with 11% of the GOP vote, followed by Rick Perry at 8%.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I am acting with regard to it in the spirit that animated a celebrated traveler. He found himself in the midst of a savage tribe. A child had just been born, and a crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks were around it, armed with rings, hooks, and bandages. One said - “This child will never smell the perfume of a calumet, unless i stretch his nostrils.” Another said - “He will be without the sense of hearing, unless I draw his ears down to his shoulders.” A third said - “He will never see the light of the sun, unless I give his eyes an oblique direction.” A fourth said - “He will never be upright, unless I bend his legs.” A fifth said - “He will not be able to think, unless I press his brain.”

“Stop”! said the traveler. “Whatever God does, is well done; do not pretend to know more than He; and as He has given organs to this frail creature, allow those organs to develop themselves, to strengthen themselves by exercise, use, experience, and liberty.”

God has implanted in mankind also all that is necessary to enable it to accomplish its destinies. There is a providential social physiology, as well as a providential human physiology. The social organs are constituted so as to enable them to develop harmoniously in the grand air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, and their chains, and their hooks, and their pincers! Away with their artificial methods! Away with their social laboratories, their governmental whims, their centralization, their tariffs, their universities, their State religions, their inflationary or monopolizing banks, their limitations, their restrictions, their moralizations, and their equalization by taxation! And now, after having vainly inflicted upon the social body so many systems, let them end where they ought to have begun - reject all systems, and try liberty - liberty, which is an act of faith in God and in His work.

• Frederic Bastiat

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Great quote selection from The Law by Bastiat. Good job. Unfortunately, most people think that other people are too stupid to experience liberty their own way and feel compelled so socially engineer liberty through the mechanism of government.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Great quote selection from The Law by Bastiat. Good job. Unfortunately, most people think that other people are too stupid to experience liberty their own way and feel compelled so socially engineer liberty through the mechanism of government.

Yep, they must bend your legs and press your brain or you would die in this world if it weren’t for them.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Someone needs to 'splain to me how Paul can disavow the anti Semitic tracts in the newsletters sent out in his name with his picture and his signature by saying he was a busy physician and wasn’t aware of them.

A man who doesn’t even know what kind of material appears in his newsletters is capable of running the United States of America? Great executive skills apparently!

I am also astonished that Paul with his belief in legalizing prostitution, drugs, porn and staying out of “the right to choose” is appealing to any Catholics. There is more to life than wanting to audit the Fed and smoke dope.

Lisa

That spin is just wrong. He didn’t run the newsletter, and the newsletters were mostly about economic issues. Those racist writings were only a very small part of the newsletters. You really shouldn’t listen to pundits like that and accept what they say as fact. Look at Paul’s track record; that’s where the real debate should be.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That spin is just wrong. He didn’t run the newsletter, and the newsletters were mostly about economic issues. Those racist writings were only a very small part of the newsletters. You really shouldn’t listen to pundits like that and accept what they say as fact. Look at Paul’s track record; that’s where the real debate should be.

Listen, all of this 20 year old newsletter garbage will fade into the wind where it came from if Paul drops out of the race, just like the hundreds of women that Cain supposedly harassed, whom disappeared back under the rocks they crept from.

 

[scipio337]

That spin is just wrong. He didn’t run the newsletter, and the newsletters were mostly about economic issues. Those racist writings were only a very small part of the newsletters. You really shouldn’t listen to pundits like that and accept what they say as fact. Look at Paul’s track record; that’s where the real debate should be.

3rd time is the charm:

Why did Paul defend what was written in the newsletters in 1996 as “taken out of context” (links provided on more than one occasion), and then switch his defense to “I didn’t write them” now?

 

[bbarrick8383]

3rd time is the charm:

Why did Paul defend what was written in the newsletters in 1996 as “taken out of context” (links provided on more than one occasion), and then switch his defense to “I didn’t write them” now?

criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html

This link you provided has no quote with no context saying they were taken out of context by Ron Paul.

nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_hidethis=no&p_field_label-0=Author&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&p_field_label-2=Section&p_bool_label-2=AND&s_dispstring=ron%20paul%20AND%20date%2805/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=05/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22ron%20paul%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no

This one, I’m assuming is the same article but I’m not sure. It gives me an option to purchase the article which I’m not going to do.

chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1343749/campaign-96-u-s-house-newsletter-excerpts-offer-am.html

I can’t find anything in this article either. It seems to be cherry picking what’s in the few newsletters that are in question and attributing them to Ron Paul.

Here’s a video for you if you think he’s a racist:

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I personally don’t care what Paul did 15 years ago. I care about his track record in Congress and what he stands for now. You all want to dwell on some obscure 15 year old letters, its a free country.

15 years ago, I was a dyed in the wool, fight to the death, dues paying, card carrying member of the GOP. I’m not anymore. People change, perspectives change, especially when they are exposed to new information. If you are the same now as you were 15 years ago, that means you haven’t grown in 15 years. I find that idea sad.

 

[scipio337]

criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html

This link you provided has no quote with no context saying they were taken out of context by Ron Paul.

Maybe not a direct quote, but he the article clearly states that is his claim. Note there is no denial that he wrote the articles.

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors.”…

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_hidethis=no&p_field_label-0=Author&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&p_field_label-2=Section&p_bool_label-2=AND&s_dispstring=ron%20paul%20AND%20date%2805/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=05/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22ron%20paul%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no

This one, I’m assuming is the same article but I’m not sure. It gives me an option to purchase the article which I’m not going to do.

chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1343749/campaign-96-u-s-house-newsletter-excerpts-offer-am.html

I can’t find anything in this article either. It seems to be cherry picking what’s in the few newsletters that are in question and attributing them to Ron Paul.

Here’s a video for you if you think he’s a racist:

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

Actually, the Chronicle link is to a 1996 Houston Chronicle article:

Under the headline of "“Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "“current events and statistical reports of the time.”…

Paul also wrote that although "“we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Any youtube video is immaterial. What I’m asking is why he changed his story from 1996 to 2008 and now.

Do you notice a decided lack of any “I didn’t write that” defense in these articles?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Maybe not a direct quote, but he the article clearly states that is his claim. Note there is no denial that he wrote the articles.

nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_hidethis=no&p_field_label-0=Author&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&p_field_label-2=Section&p_bool_label-2=AND&s_dispstring=ron%20paul%20AND%20date%2805/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=05/19/1996%20to%2005/23/1996%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22ron%20paul%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no

Actually, the Chronicle link is to a 1996 Houston Chronicle article:

Any youtube video is immaterial. What I’m asking is why he changed his story from 1996 to 2008 and now.

Do you notice a decided lack of any “I didn’t write that” defense in these articles?

No direct quote but the article clearly states that, yet a YouTube video is immaterial?

Keep asking, maybe someone else can convince you.

 

[scipio337]

No direct quote but the article clearly states that, yet a YouTube video is immaterial?

Keep asking, maybe someone else can convince you.

I’m pointing out the big inconsistencies between what he said about them about 1996 and what he says about them now.

I don’t have access to youtube on this computer. Unless the video is from 1996, and he’s using the same defense, that he didn’t know what was in the newsletters, didn’t write them, and disavows them, I would see them as immaterial.

What am I supposed to keep asking?

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’m pointing out the big inconsistencies between what he said about them about 1996 and what he says about them now.

I don’t have access to youtube on this computer. Unless the video is from 1996, and he’s using the same defense, that he didn’t know what was in the newsletters, didn’t write them, and disavows them, I would see them as immaterial.

What am I supposed to keep asking?

He said in 2001 he didn’t write them.

I can’t find any inconsistencies because the articles give no quotes fro Ron Paul in no context in which to draw a conclusion that their are major inconsistencies.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The video is an elderly black man talking about Ron Paul being the only Doctor years ago when there was a considerable amount of racism in the are to help his white wife and deliver and pay for their medical bills from having a stillborn child.

Effectively blasting any charges of racism out of the water.

 

[scipio337]

He said in 2001 he didn’t write them.

I can’t find any inconsistencies because the articles give no quotes fro Ron Paul in no context in which to draw a conclusion that their are major inconsistencies.

So that the newsletter comments were "current events and statistical reports of the time."or “These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report”… is consistent with “I didn’t write them”?

Those are direct quotes from the articles.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So that the newsletter comments were "current events and statistical reports of the time."or “These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report”… is consistent with “I didn’t write them”?

Those are direct quotes from the articles.

They are written to be smear articles, it even talks about the candidate he’d beaten that year. There is little to no context given in the quotes so I can’t draw any conclusions.

 

[scipio337]

They are written to be smear articles, it even talks about the candidate he’d beaten that year. There is little to no context given in the quotes so I can’t draw any conclusions.

So, first you ignore the articles because there are “no quotes by Paul”, then you move the goalposts to “there is little to no context given to the quotes”?

Is there nothing short of hearing it first hand yourself that you would accept?

If I buck up for the Dallas morning news video where he defends the newsletter, and post it on youtube, are you going to claim its been edited to make Paul look bad?

Nowhere in the article do you see the “I didn’t write THAT” defense, but that’s because its a smear article? I don’t follow.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So, first you ignore the articles because there are “no quotes by Paul”, then you move the goalposts to “there is little to no context given to the quotes”?

Is there nothing short of hearing it first hand yourself that you would accept?

If I buck up for the Dallas morning news video where he defends the newsletter, and post it on youtube, are you going to claim its been edited to make Paul look bad?

Nowhere in the article do you see the “I didn’t write THAT” defense, but that’s because its a smear article? I don’t follow.

In 2001, 11 years ago he said he didn’t write them.

Look it up, I can’t right now but there are articles written much better than these out there.

I’m not moving the goal posts intentionally, I just don’t trust articles that want to spend more time plastering quotes from the newsletters and less time elaborating on Ron Paul’s actual words. The articles are so poorly written its hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.