This article is a preview of what is going to happen with Ron Paul in 2008. Broun is setting the precedence. This gives me incredible hope for what's to come!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070718/cm_thenation/45215225
Slapping Down "The Entire GOP Establishment"
Wed Jul 18, 11:45 AM ET
The Nation -- There is no question that Americans are frustrated with the current Congress. Polls suggest that approval ratings for the U.S. House and Senate are even more dismal than those for President Bush -- although not quite so bad as for Vice President Cheney.
But are Americans merely frustrated with the current Democratic leadership of the House and Senate, or are they disenchanted, as well, with the leaders of the Republican caucuses?
An indication of the indignation with Republican leaders came from a unique Georgia special election Tuesday, in which two Republicans ran against one another. Under Georgia law, candidates of all parties run together in primaries to fill open House seats. Then the top two finishers -- no matter what their partisan affiliation -- face each other in a runoff.
In the overwhelmingly Republican district of the late Congressman Charlie Norwood, primary voting last month produced a run-off featuring two conservative Republicans.
That's where things got interesting -- and instructive. The frontrunner in the primary voting in north Georgia's 10th district, former state Sen. Jim Whitehead, was the consensus choice of the Republican establishment. Whitehead essentially promised to be a rubberstamp for the Bush White House and Republican leaders in Congress.
His opponent, Paul Broun, was a quirky physician who claims to be "the only doctor in Georgia whose practice is almost exclusively house calls." A frequent candidate who was very much on the outs with party insiders, Broun barely squeaked into the run-off and most pundits stopped paying attention to a race it was assumed Whitehead would win with ease.
After all, Whitehead had represented much of the district in the legislature, he had a huge money advantage, and he enjoyed strong support from sitting Republican members of Congress and groups closely associated with the D.C. leadership of the party, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Broun had little going for him, except his outsider status. His campaign appealed to disenchanted Republican, Democratic and independent voters with the message: "Dr. Broun is their only hope for an independent-thinking candidate."
As Broun put it, he was "fighting the entire GOP establishment."
That proved to be an appealing message. On Tuesday, Broun came from far behind to lead Whitehead by 394 after Tuesday night's count. The win came thanks to a remarkable coalition of very conservative voters in the rural counties of north Georgia, more liberal voters in Athens -- the home of the University of Georgia -- and African Americans.
With such a close result, a recount is likely. But Broun's come-from-behind win is likely to hold, and it is already being described by Georgia media as a "stunning upset."
What message can be taken away from this result?
Given a choice between two conservative candidates, Georgia voters were asked: Do you want a candidate of the GOP establishment who promises to work with Republican leaders in Congress, or do you want an outsider who promises to go to Washington without strings attached?
As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like committed to "work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended." While the Georgia appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul's principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: "Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?"
No one was going to confuse Broun with a liberal, but he did display a Paul-like libertarian streak, suggesting that the federal government ought to stay away away from issues gay marriage and legalizing marijuana -- matters that the candidate suggested are best handled at the state level.
"I believe in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which clearly says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states and the people," Broun said. "I am not a person who believes that our lives should be controlled by politicians in Washington. I do not believe that the states are merely administrative units of the federal government, to do its bidding."
Whitehead responded by attacking Broun, using the standard anti-gay, anti-crime rhetoric of the party's congressional leadership.
It didn't work. And there is a lesson here for those who suggest that the dip in the popularity of Congress is merely a problem for Democrats. The disdain for Washington's way of doing things appears to be bipartisan.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Phone polls vs. Internet polls
The T.V. likes to keep telling us that phone polls are "scientific", while internet polls are unscientific, indidcating they are skewed.
How can this be?
Phone polls are definitely skewed. First, this assumes the person has a land line. Second, it assumes these people they bug at home are likely voters.
Who is a more likely voter, someone you call randomly at home at night on their land line, or someone going to political websites and voluntarily filling out a poll?
I would say the internet user is more likely a voter.
Of course, both polls are skewed, but for us to give full credence to one and ignore the other is ridiculous!
How can this be?
Phone polls are definitely skewed. First, this assumes the person has a land line. Second, it assumes these people they bug at home are likely voters.
Who is a more likely voter, someone you call randomly at home at night on their land line, or someone going to political websites and voluntarily filling out a poll?
I would say the internet user is more likely a voter.
Of course, both polls are skewed, but for us to give full credence to one and ignore the other is ridiculous!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Ron Paul on NPR
In case anyone missed it, Ron Paul was interviewed on NPR. Brilliant interview with a hostile host!
Click here to listen to the interview.
Again the theme of "Ron Paul has no chance" was brought up several times. The media wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy but you can be sure we won't let them!
Click here to listen to the interview.
Again the theme of "Ron Paul has no chance" was brought up several times. The media wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy but you can be sure we won't let them!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Why I'm voting for Ron Paul over Dennis Kucinich
When you look at the field of presidential candidates, if you are not really into keeping our country at war endlessly, you only have a few choices.
Immediately you can eliminate the entire Republican field besides Ron Paul.
The Democrat field is a little more tricky.
Hillary is a war monger in the Bush mold and will have us contiuing our empire building in the middle east and elsewhere.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson and I think Dodd all say they are against the war in Iraq. But Obama is on record as saying he would not rule out war with Iran! Edwards VOTED for the war in Iraq!(now he says that was a mistake, but he hangs out with the CFR who decide our foreign policy- I completely do not trust him). Richardson is also a CFR-connected guy who claims to be against the Iraq war, but I gaurantee not much would change foreign policy-wise if he were president.
I like Mike Gravel, but his Iraq pullout plan is a little more complicated than just ending it, and I don't think it will work. Also, Gravel is 82 and is not gaining much grassroots support, mainly because nobody thinks he has a chance.
That leaves us with Kucinich. Kucinich is vehemontly anti-war. He even wants to create a department of peace! He is also one of the few congressmen to admit that there may be more to 9/11 than what we were told, and a new investigation is a good idea. Having said all that, Kucinich for all intents and purposes is a socialist. If elected president, he would take citizens' guns away. Therefore, he is unelectable- America is just not going to vote for a socialist with these kinds of policies.
Kucinich has a great heart and definitely means well. He's probably the best option if you had to vote democrat, because he is a true outsider.
But the choice is clear. If you want peace, elect Ron Paul. He not only will end things in Iraq, he will completely change the disasterous course of our foreign policy. He opposes the Federal Reserve, which is a huge part of the mess we are in. This would go much further towards bringing back the U.S. to a constitutional government, and have lasting peace that does not change because some tinpot dictator somewhere abused his power.
Immediately you can eliminate the entire Republican field besides Ron Paul.
The Democrat field is a little more tricky.
Hillary is a war monger in the Bush mold and will have us contiuing our empire building in the middle east and elsewhere.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson and I think Dodd all say they are against the war in Iraq. But Obama is on record as saying he would not rule out war with Iran! Edwards VOTED for the war in Iraq!(now he says that was a mistake, but he hangs out with the CFR who decide our foreign policy- I completely do not trust him). Richardson is also a CFR-connected guy who claims to be against the Iraq war, but I gaurantee not much would change foreign policy-wise if he were president.
I like Mike Gravel, but his Iraq pullout plan is a little more complicated than just ending it, and I don't think it will work. Also, Gravel is 82 and is not gaining much grassroots support, mainly because nobody thinks he has a chance.
That leaves us with Kucinich. Kucinich is vehemontly anti-war. He even wants to create a department of peace! He is also one of the few congressmen to admit that there may be more to 9/11 than what we were told, and a new investigation is a good idea. Having said all that, Kucinich for all intents and purposes is a socialist. If elected president, he would take citizens' guns away. Therefore, he is unelectable- America is just not going to vote for a socialist with these kinds of policies.
Kucinich has a great heart and definitely means well. He's probably the best option if you had to vote democrat, because he is a true outsider.
But the choice is clear. If you want peace, elect Ron Paul. He not only will end things in Iraq, he will completely change the disasterous course of our foreign policy. He opposes the Federal Reserve, which is a huge part of the mess we are in. This would go much further towards bringing back the U.S. to a constitutional government, and have lasting peace that does not change because some tinpot dictator somewhere abused his power.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Ron Paul and Corporations
The most consistent counterpoint I hear to Ron Paul as president is that libertarians, if they took the executive branch, would let corporations "run wild".
I'm honestly not sure what this means.
If a true small-government candidate like Ron Paul took office, corporations and big business would have far less influence into our lives. Currently, big business is totally in bed with big government to the point that you can even interchange the names of top government people and top business executives and it's all the same. Right now, the whole system is out of wack and running wild.
If businesses like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Budweiser, Haliburton, etc. have no lobbying power, how can they control or affect our lives as citizens?
Realize that under Ron Paul we would have a very small federal government but leave some things up to states and local governments.
People say there would be nobody to "stand up" to the corporations. What exactly does this mean? Right now they not only don't stand up to big business, but the government actually gives them corporate welfare and uses favortism, things that Ron Paul is completely against!
I'm honestly not sure what this means.
If a true small-government candidate like Ron Paul took office, corporations and big business would have far less influence into our lives. Currently, big business is totally in bed with big government to the point that you can even interchange the names of top government people and top business executives and it's all the same. Right now, the whole system is out of wack and running wild.
If businesses like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Budweiser, Haliburton, etc. have no lobbying power, how can they control or affect our lives as citizens?
Realize that under Ron Paul we would have a very small federal government but leave some things up to states and local governments.
People say there would be nobody to "stand up" to the corporations. What exactly does this mean? Right now they not only don't stand up to big business, but the government actually gives them corporate welfare and uses favortism, things that Ron Paul is completely against!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
