Other Leads the Way

According to today's CNN polls, Other retains a commanding lead over the top four:

Other                    31.1%
Guiliani                  26.0%
Fred Thompson     19.3%
McCain                  14.3%
Romney                  9.3%

Of course, if you go to www.gopstrawpolls.com you get a somewhat different picture!  What?  Is it true?  Has the famous Mr. Other been identified?

You can vote more than once.  I just tested it.  So I would not consider these credible results.

Maybe not, but supporters for all candidates have equal opportunity to vote multiple times.  I for one, did not.  I found the "acceptable" "unacceptable" column especially interesting.

Couple this with CNN's 31% "Other" and it does clear the picture a bit.  You know CNN is taking polls with demographics that favor the annointed ones. What?  CNN?  That picture of light and purity?       

I voted once, then to test the thing I voted again to see if it would allow it.  I do not have the time or initiative to sit here voting over and over.

msbobbie said:

I voted once, then to test the thing I voted again to see if it would allow it.  I do not have the time or initiative to sit here voting over and over.

 

How do you know that your second vote actually contributed to the vote total?

You know, that if you really can vote as many times as you wish, there are programs out that there record mouse movements and can do it for you.  

Surely there are computer minded supporters of just about every candidate who would know about this and then be able to run the vote total up for any particular candidate towars infinity right?  

I doubt your 2nd vote was counted towards the vote total.  

You just really dislike the Constitutionalist Ron Paul for some reason, don't you? 

Easy RonPaul08!  And this comes from a supporter.  Ron Paul is wonderful, wild, refreshing, what America is all about, but the radical changes he proposes can be scarey.  We have been slowly eased into a nanny state mentality and the thought of returning to Constitutional government can be scarey.  I can posit a dozen situations that would be diffcult at best, though I still strongly support the move.  Our best route is to openly listen to people's concerns, then address them honestly.  Not everyone will be a supporter but we can best help Ron Paul by being honest, open and diplomatic.  Half the battle is just getting people to listen to what the man is saying.  That is what won me over.  Anyone interested, listen to some of the debate tapes on YouTube.com.  Whether you agree with his positions or not, I'll bet you agree that he is the one candidate who is absolutely constitent because he says what he believes and does not adjust to the audience or hedge a single bit.

Lest anyone wonder what stripes I am wearing, I recall arguing politics in early grade school during the Eisenhower/Stevenson election. Can't believe I knew what I was talking about at that age, but I was very passionate about it.  Now, after 50+ years as a stauch Republican, last year I became a card carrying member of the Constitution Party but remain registered as a Republican for the sole purpose of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries.  If he does not win, I will then change my voter registration.  I am sure that is no big, fat deal to anyone but me, but given the radical drop in registered Republicans, I have to wonder how many others will do the same. Perhaps getting back to true party values is something the GOP should seriously consider.  They have been complete failures as "be everything to everybody" liberals.  Their base is crumbling and I am just a symptom of that, but frankly, Paul, Tacredo, and Hunter are the only ones fit to run as Republican, in my not-so-humble opinion.

nwind said:

Easy RonPaul08!  And this comes from a supporter.  Ron Paul is wonderful, wild, refreshing, what America is all about, but the radical changes he proposes can be scarey.  We have been slowly eased into a nanny state mentality and the thought of returning to Constitutional government can be scarey.  I can posit a dozen situations that would be diffcult at best, though I still strongly support the move.

nwind,

As a great (great as in well known and respected in his circle) socialist of the 1800's, George Bernard Shaw, once said: "Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it" is TRUE.  

Most conservatives do not even understand liberty anymore let alone can simply define the term.  I was in this same boat not too long ago and YES government dependance was also in my mindset even though I was as mainstream "Republican" (talking points issues let's say, aka Limbaugh/Hannity) as you can get and I think the main problem at this point in time was I didn't care about the Constitution nor did I read it.  I didn't care about the Constitution until I discovered the FairTax issue and really HAD to know parts of this document in order to defend it from republicans and democrats alike.  This was my first taste of "betrayal" from my own kind.  I mean I was bewildered how ANY Republican could oppose this plan. 

In the end yourself, George Bernard Shaw, and especially Ron Paul are RIGHT.  However there is absolutely nothing scary about restoring the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.  

Like you said, when individuals listen to this man speak, or read his articles on topics over at www.RonPaulLibrary.org they realize that what he says is genuine and simply common sense.  

Remember the president does not have dictatorial powers no matter how many times they have been exercised by current and past presidents.  Ron Paul has a 20 year record of upholding the Constitution and I'm sure he's well aware of Article 2 to guide him while he's in the White House.  There is not much a president can do so there will not be sweeping changes just yet but there will be an 8 year path followed back TOWARDS the Constitution.  

What he can do is write an Executive Order to simply repeal any unconstitutional executive order of the past.  You can also bet that Congress will be forced to be 66% in agreement on EVERY unconstitutional piece of legislation they pass as it will be guaranteed to be vetoed by Ron Paul.  This would illustrate that there is much cohesiveness between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans to wake up the American people and show that they really are the same.  It would essentially come down to constitutionalism vs. authoritarianism of the 66% fascosocialists.  

Not to mention the fact that when the U.S. President speaks, people listen.  His message will only further be spread over an 8-year time period.  

If history is any indication of the future, and it almost always is, the current "fifth party system" will come to an end.  This is going to be inevitable but it looks like the movement is happening back towards liberty.  I would've never thought to have seen another Ron Paul like constitutionalist in congress this soon but another "Dr. NO" is in Congress with Paul Braun who was just elected to replace the late Charlie Norwood.

In conclusion, there is nothing to ease up on nwind.  Liberty does mean responsibility, and this responsibility also falls on people like us to spread this message. 

RonPaul08 Said:

Most conservatives do not even understand liberty anymore let alone can simply define the term.  I was in this same boat not too long ago and YES government dependance was also in my mindset even though I was as mainstream "Republican" (talking points issues let's say, aka Limbaugh/Hannity) as you can get and I think the main problem at this point in time was I didn't care about the Constitution nor did I read it.  I didn't care about the Constitution until I discovered the FairTax issue and really HAD to know parts of this document in order to defend it from republicans and democrats alike.  This was my first taste of "betrayal" from my own kind.  I mean I was bewildered how ANY Republican could oppose this plan. 

mega-dittos RonPaul008!

(CM) BiotechBabe said:

mega-dittos RonPaul008!    

You Rushed me!!!    That's fine, you're a great american yourself. 

Well said, RonPaul08!  My "ease up" however, was not about your message, with which I totally agree, but a hope that your presentation might be a tad gentler with those who need to be shown, one step at a time.  I would not want the message to get lost in the delivery. Freedom and responsibility are concepts that have been neglected and abused for thirty years.  Ron Paul is simply right, there is no other way that I can say it.  I carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with me and often read and re-read it.  The brilliance of the document is equalled only by the brilliance of the Declaration of Independence.  I cannot read the preamble without tears in my eyes, it is so moving and such an incredible piece of our heritage. I fear that this election may well be America's last stand, unless we can somehow get Ron Paul elected.

I'm still on the fence but leaning in Ron Paul's direction.  Tancredo seems to be a good candidate as well but from what I see, Paul is the major contender.  I doubt that he will get the GOP nomination though.  I really hope that we see a third party rise out of this with either Paul or Tancredo leading the way.

mdbonjr said:

I'm still on the fence but leaning in Ron Paul's direction. Tancredo seems to be a good candidate as well but from what I see, Paul is the major contender. I doubt that he will get the GOP nomination though. I really hope that we see a third party rise out of this with either Paul or Tancredo leading the way.

>What you doubt is what I'd call a sure bet.

>I think you may want to keep that hope alive because it will give the two some sort of legacy as also rans.

mdbonjr, let me ask you something, if I may, and you don't mind answering it. Are you at all familiar with another also ran nutzo by the name of Ross Perot? Ever hear of his so-called third party, The Reform Party. The fellow reminds me a lot of what I hear from both Paul and Tancredo, and I do mean a lot. This Perot was also a Texan and a real passionate sort like yourself in that no matter what he was going to fight against and defeat that NAFTA monster. Like you and others he had all his links and posters and graphs and theories and scare tactics.

Recall what happened in his crusade? Let me help refresh your memory in case you don't. He debated a moron by the name of Al Gore and the central issue during that televised debate was Perot's hatred of NAFTA. Well, it ended his political career that night. He became the joke of the town, so to speak, and the state and the nation. And his crusade crashed like a led balloon. In one night's time American support for NAFTA went from a mere 34% to 57% and Congress easily passed it the next week, giving Perot the credit for making it happen. Hey, thanks Ross, Mr. Ultra Conservative/Constitutionalist/Watchdog neokook! Being a bit of a history buff myself, as you indicate you are, what again is it that happens when we refuse to learn from history? We become doomed to what?

WHERE'S ROSS PEROT, WHERE'S Y2K,

WHERE'S THE REFORM PARTY?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Though your comments are not directed toward me, BW, please allow me to respond.  Ross Perot was running on a platform of sensible economics, not the Constitution.  Had he not had a fit of petulance and withdrawn, then come back, he might very well have won.  That move wherein he behaved like a spoiled rich kid who didn't get his way cost him millions of votes.  His hatred of NAFTA is actually quite representative of the entire conservative base of the Republican Party and every rural Democrat in the west, probably in the country.  The people are smart enought to know when they have been sold out and every American with two or more brain cells is darned tired of "free trade" treaties that are only free on one side. We are sick of American goods to Europe being tariffed while European goods come in free.  Gee, why are American manufacturers moving overseas?  Maybe so they can stay in business when the trade system is designed to destroy their exports if they are here? 

Ron Paul a neokook? He follows the Constitution one hundred percent of the way?  That must make the Forefathers who wrote it neokooks too.  You often have some interesting insights, BW, but at other times, like with the above post, you come off with the same attitude and arrogance that those running the GOP are using to chase the conservative base out of the Party.  The problem with that is, of course, that the conservative base IS the GOP and when they are gone, the party will be too.  The party, as you may recall, was formed when the Whig Party abandoned its base.  The conservative base of the GOP is also capable of forming a new party and leaving the GOP to die or to join the globalist Democrats it seems to be emulating. If you have not noticed what is happening, take a step back and an honest look.  The party can still be saved, but a Guiliani, Romney, McCain or other globalist liberal getting the nomination will be the end of the GOP. 

RonPaul08 said:

I doubt your 2nd vote was counted towards the vote total.  

You just really dislike the Constitutionalist Ron Paul for some reason, don't you? 

The reason I believe multiple voting is allowed is because entering the email address is optional.  I noticed that the first time I voted, and did not use it the second time.  I did not even respond the same way the second time I voted as when I did the first time.

YES!

nwind said:

  The party can still be saved, but a Guiliani, Romney, McCain or other globalist liberal getting the nomination will be the end of the GOP. 

I agree.  I am predicting there will be a larger turnout for the primary election than for the general election if either of the media selected TOP TIER candidates win the gop nomination.