Despite The Hype, Support For Ron Paul Falls–Paul Tied With Allan Keyes

I’ve received tons of hate mail (which has been good for some laughs) following my recent assessment that, despite pulling in lots of money Ron Paul remains a fringe candidate with far too little support to win the Republican nomination. The responses have included a number of bizarre conspiracy theories (to be expected from Paul supporters) regarding the reasons for my prediction and post. The most absurd was that this has something to do with Israel even though the topic never even came up in my recent posts on Paul. It took a pro-Paul blogger, whose blog I will not provide a link, multiple lies in his post about what I wrote in order to make his claim. Truth and reality mean little to many of Paul’s fanatic on-line supporters.

Another humorous response was that I posted about Paul so that more people would click on my ads so I could make money. Ignoring the fact that blog ads based on clicking through rarely make money except for the biggest blogs, the person who came up with this theory might have first checked whether I even accept ads here. As I do not accept ads in order to prevent such outside influence on my views here (and as I really do not need the money) this theory is perhaps the weakest of all.

Despite many tons of comments with such off the wall theories, most of which contain a number of distortions of what I wrote so they can attack straw man as opposed to responding to what I actually wrote, none guessed at the real explanation for the prediction. I was simply writing the truth which most people, except the Paul supporters who are out of touch with reality, already know.

The facts as to Paul’s status as a fringe candidate can be seen once again in today’s Gallup Poll. Paul has fallen in support and is now down to three percent, tied with Allan Keyes. At least Paul beats Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter’s combined support. Giuliani leads and Mike Huckabee has stagnated in second. Of course as this is a national poll the comparative positions of the viable candidates doesn’t mean very much as everything can change after the Iowa caucus.

Paul’s real problem remains that, even if he is the best of the Republican candidates, his views are too far out of the mainstream of the Republican Party for him to win. While the polls are a reflection of this, having views which differ so greatly from most in the party is the more serious problem for Paul. We saw with Mike Huckabee that a candidate can move up from single digits to compete, but only if their views are consistent with those of the party. Paul’s supporters are also blind to how serious a problem Paul would have because of his failure to sever relations with white supremacist groups and his belief in conspiracy theories if he started to receive the same scrutiny provided to major candidates. Either of these problems would be sufficient to prevent him from receiving a major party nomination.

In the Democratic poll Clinton continues to lead nationally followed by Obama and Edwards, but this can also change after Iowa. Bill Richardson, who I thought had more potential earlier in the year, has fallen into fifth place behind Biden. While there is still a chance for Iowa or New Hampshire to shake up the race it is looking pretty unlikely for the more qualified candidates in the second tier to move up as I had hoped.

Update: More on this story at Pressing Matters, and AMERICAblog (found via Memeorandum).

Be Sociable, Share!

28 Comments

  1. 1
    malazon says:

    Just as an FYI, I’ve been on the receiving end of these “scientific” polls. The pollster asked the standard “if the election were held today” question and then listed eight potential answers. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were both mentioned as potential answers. Ron Paul was not. Instead the last potential answer was “undecided.” The polls aren’t currently measuring Paul’s real support. It would be interesting to have a completely unbiased poll that actually polls Republicans and Independents.

  2. 2
    Eric Dondero says:

    Ron, I’m not sure I’d describe it as “dropping.” It’s more like leveling off. He appears to be stagnant in the polls, having hit a ceiling for his support, right at about 4.5%

    The RCP average for the last 4 weeks has had him at 4.3% to 4.7%.

    This obviously indicates that only a small percentage of the GOP electorate is interested in his Anti-War message. Particularly now, when the Surge has proved so successful. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of a War. And that’s where Ron Paul has deliberately positioned himself: With the Losers.

  3. 3
    rick says:

    25,000 NEW supporters in one day. People who put up money to support their principles. Not 25,000 email signups or online poll votes. Huckabee wets himself if he gets 1/5 as many to sign up in one day on his web site with no commitment, and certainly no money – you know, just a mouse click.
    Huck’s people (see i didn’t call them huck-tards) plan their cheap imitation of the origional “money-bomb” for later this month.
    Lets see how much support he gets. Even if he raises the 1 million dollars they are hoping for it would be less than 1/6 what Paul raised in the last money bomb. But the media will fall at his feet worshiping if he could even come close to raising 1-million dollars in one day. By the way, the average donation size for the Tea Party money-bomb was only $103.00
    The number of donors was about 58,000 with 25,000 being first-time donors. He sets an all time record for a one day fund-raiser but they minimize it.

  4. 4
    Eric Dondero says:

    Ironic that Paul says that money will be used for what it was sent for.

    Yeah, right!

    That’s what he and his people said back in 1988, and again in 1992. They raise all sorts of money, and then it all of a sudden dissapears. No TV ads. Just vague references to a future PAC. And then everybody forgets.

  5. 5
    Egosumabbas says:

    Here’s a spin on that poll number (besides the obvious boiler-plate that day-to-day statistics like poll numbers vary wildly–his average performance is 5% nationwide and 10% in NH and SC):

    The Republicans polled are people who voted for George W Bush in the primary in 2004. These are people who insisted on voting for our pal GW, even though he was the only person on the ballot. So basically this poll omits huge demographics: (1) people who didn’t bother to vote in the primary because there was only one person to choose from, (2) libertarians who refused to vote Republican again (myself included), (3) People currently between the ages of 18-22, (4) people who dropped out of politics altogether in disgust, (5) people who use either VOIP or cell phones exclusively.

    Now… call me a starry eyed optimist, but I think RP has nailed most of these demographics. Unfortunately the “dropped out of politics” category also contains many kooks and conspiracy theorists. That’s okay. Ron Paul has one huge ass tent. The plan is that all these people will show up at the primaries and overwhelm the “I voted for GW in 2004” blue-haired bussed-by-Romney crowd.

    Also, if you’re OCD on stats, the number of new donors for the Tea Party Day is just as massive as the new donors for Guy Fawkes Day.

    And according to anecdotal evidence, support is definitely increasing; we just opened a new office in Chicago.

    Best Regards,
    A Polite Ron Paul Supporter (yes, we exist!)

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    malazon,

    The claim from Paul supporters that Paul isn’t listed included on polls has been debunked so many times by simply looking at the polls. Making things up like this really does not help Paul. Your credibility is shot when you claim to have been on the receiving end of “polls.” Considering the sample size it is very unlikely you’d have been polled more than once this election year in a real poll.

    Eric,

    He dropped in this poll but I agree that leveling off might be more accurate. His support might even be increasing slightly. The polls aren’t really designed to differentiate well between someone with 3% or 5% support.

    Rick,

    I bet that Huckabee’s fund raiser is far less successful than Paul’s, for whatever that’s worth. It doesn’t change the fact that Huckabee will receive far more votes.

    Egosumabbas,

    We heard the same arguments about Howard Dean in 2003-4 with his supporters saying he would do even better than the polls showed. We found in the end he did worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul’s vote is far beyond his standing in the polls but that would still leave him far short of what he needs to be competitive. Even if he wins in Iowa (which is unlikely but possible considering the small number who generally turn out) he’s still a long shot for the actual nomination.

    Especially beware of counting on people between the ages of 18-22. They tend to turn out in much smaller number than the number providing support in polls.

  7. 7
    Egosumabbas says:

    I have a question for Dondero: do you do ANYTHING else all day but attempt to exact revenge on your former employer (Ron Paul)? I swear you’re like on EVERY SINGLE BLOG I READ that mentions Ron Paul. I have barely enough time to scan Reason’s Hit & Run posts, and voilà! If it mentions Ron Paul, DONDERO strikes again! Gimme your address and I’ll ship you another case of Red Bull.

    Just Google “Eric Dondero” and you’ll see what I mean. It’s like he’s strapped to his keyboard.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Egosumabbas,

    On the one hand Eric has been commenting here for quite a while whenever Paul came up. (He was willing to put up with a tremendous amount of abuse over his support for the war in return for the opportunity to bash Paul).

    On the other hand the same can be said about being strapped to the keyboard about many of Paul’s supporters who must be watching Technorati and other sources for any comments on any blog on Paul and are ready to flame anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%.

  9. 9
    Egosumabbas says:

    “We heard the same arguments about Howard Dean in 2003-4 with his supporters saying he would do even better than the polls showed. We found in the end he did worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul’s vote is far beyond his standing in the polls but that would still leave him far short of what he needs to be competitive. Even if he wins in Iowa (which is unlikely but possible considering the small number who generally turn out) he’s still a long shot for the actual nomination.”

    Like I said, call me a starry-eyed optimist 🙂 I wonder how much Ron Paul really compares to Howard Dean though… I would make the argument that RP has more money and “boots on the ground” than he did. I wish I knew the number of meetup groups and members that Howard Dean had so I could back that assumption up.

    In any case I’ll accept an Obama presidency, he seems like a decent guy. If it’s Hillary, Huckabee or Giuliani, I’m heading for the hills.

  10. 10
    Egosumabbas says:

    “On the other hand the same can be said about many of Paul’s supporters who must be watching Technorati and other sources for any comments on any blog on Paul and are ready to flame anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%.”

    I wish they wouldn’t do that. It’s like herding cats. And really, to them Ron Paul is the last bastion of freedom, as the LP is a consistent disappointment (I’ve tossed many a vote into the void for the LP to no avail). I’m dead serious, to them he’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, the only libertarianish member of congress for a generation. Being new to the political arena, they haven’t quite mastered the art of political persuasion and debate yet, and tend to flame out any quasi negative article, which does not help. I do what I can to remind them not to fill people’s inboxes with invective.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    “If it’s Hillary, Huckabee or Giuliani, I’m heading for the hills.”

    None of these choices are desirable, but it will really be a rerun of what we’ve experienced. I can’t imaging Hillary would be that different than Bill, although having a Republican Congress did help keep him in line (if only they hadn’t gone overboard with the impeachment).

    Although they are different, I see both Huckabee and Giuliani as being reruns of Bush in different ways. Huckabee means more big government conservatism and pandering to the religious right. Giuliani means more power grabs for the Executive Branch and neocon foreign policy views. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will restrain him, but they aren’t very good at being an opposition party. In a way I fear that there might be more pandering to the religious right under Giuliani than Huckabee as Giuliani has to do more to win their votes than Huckabee does.

    Howard Dean meet ups were quite big back in 2003 but I don’t have the actual numbers for your comparison.

    “And really, to them Ron Paul is the last bastion of freedom”

    That’s one of the reasons they are so annoying. They might think that way but others disagree with equating freedom with eliminating federal government agencies or moving functions from the federal government to the states. Paul’s opposition to abortion rights also lessens the view of him as a supporter of freedom to many. These are all legitimate areas of disagreement. However when Paul supporters flame someone who disagrees with Paul as being opposed to freedom it just discredits Paul’s supporters. They need to understand that different people define freedom differently and there is also disagreement as to how freedom is best achieved.

    “Being new to the political arena, they haven’t quite mastered the art of political persuasion and debate yet, and tend to flame out any quasi negative article, which does not help.”

    Not only doesn’t it help, it often winds up hurting. While I continue to have a number of positive and negative comments on Paul depending upon specifics of what I’m commenting on, the responses from Paul supporters has made me more likely to have posts like this pointing out his weaknesses. The same is true of other liberal bloggers I’ve discussed this with. They shouldn’t be surprised when liberal blogs don’t agree with Paul on everything and shouldn’t be surprised when “horse race” posts don’t give Paul much of a chance. If they were smarter they would appreciate having mixed coverage of Paul in liberal blogs which does note Paul’s views on civil liberties and opposition to the war and encourage such coverage as opposed to flaming for any disagreement.

    I’ve had negative comments on every candidate running (along with positive) but it has been very rare that supporters have responded with the hostility shown by Paul supporters. There are two cases where I’ve run into this. Eric Dondero has been a one man supporter of Giuliani when I’ve criticized Giuliani. The other case is when I’ve criticized Edwards (who I’ve been far harder on than Paul). Ironically Edwards supporters have attacked me recently at Democratic Underground for the crime of writing about Republican Ron Paul!

  12. 12
    steve says:

    hello ron ive read numerous articles that you have written and respect your opinion sir as im also a nice normal 50 year old buisness owner and ron paul supporter and have made numerous $$$$ contributions. i think we are at a mexican standoff on these poll numbers ron. simple logic dictates the massive overall movement for dr. paul due to the massive dollar contributions no brainer there as i dont care what ya say 50.00 to 100.00 donations from folks barely getting by and sending funds at x-mas time is unreal for sure. mr.beck on cnn just gave dr. paul a massive hour which is a unreal time frame for dr. paul to respond to many issues which i give mr. beck the 5 star salute no doubt very fair and balanced as opposed to the fox network spewage. bottom line ron youve been around the block just as i have being a buisness owner and running a multi million $$$ honda dealership for years and dealing with the never ending cost of trying to survive. can you at least say due to him raising more money than anybody in history in one day that he is polling 5% please sir give me frigging break, i disagree with your observations on polls as they are easily manipulated,regards steve

  13. 13
    Egosumabbas says:

    Unlike many of my conservative friends, I agree with you that Bill Clinton wasn’t such a bogeyman that they paint him out to be. Divided government worked great: the government that gets the least done is the best, because what government does tends to be of poor quality (e.g. GW Bush. the post office does okay though). I couldn’t agree with you more on Huckabee and Clinton.

    I don’t agree with Ron Paul on his abortion stance, but I’ll explain why his views are entirely consistent (I also think he’s more moderate than people make him out to be). One, is that there is a legal inconsistency as to the rights of the fetus. Either the fetus is the mother’s property as an extension of her body, or the fetus is a legal human being. Currently, if you injure a pregnant woman, and it ends in miscarriage, you can be liable for murder. If a woman pays a doctor to perform an abortion, it is not. By overturning Roe v Wade, this inconsistency can be fixed. Being a conservative Christian, Ron Paul personally believes life begins at conception, but acknowledges that people disagree. This is why he would leave it up to the states to decide at what point a human life begins: conception, implantation, first trimester, etc. Second point, is that a pro-life stance is not inconsistent with libertarianism. Libertarians (with the exception of anarcho-capitalists perhaps) believe that a legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from committing acts of violence against one another. If a fetus has legal rights, the government has an obligation to protect unborn children from violence. Now, we can both agree that we shouldn’t go back to the days of back-alley coat-hanger abortions. This is why the states (or even communities) should decide at what point a fetus has legal rights, or else abortion will be fought over at the federal level for eternity, and screw up every single election for years to come.

    Since I’ve taken up so much of your blog already, I won’t go into extreme detail why eliminating FEDERAL bureaucracies is a good idea, but basically it gives greater flexibility to states and communities and is much more efficient at redistributing wealth (HOW wealth is redistributed is of course where liberals and libertarians disagree; liberals think it should be through progressive taxation, libertarians think it should be entirely voluntary). I’ll simply refer you to this article:
    The Socialist Case for Ron Paul

  14. 14
    Egosumabbas says:

    whoops: that was supposed to be “I couldn’t agree with you more on Huckabee and Giuliani.”

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    Egosumabbas,

    “Currently, if you injure a pregnant woman, and it ends in miscarriage, you can be liable for murder. If a woman pays a doctor to perform an abortion, it is not.”

    The difference here is that a woman having an abortion is exercising control over her own body.

    “Being a conservative Christian, Ron Paul personally believes life begins at conception, but acknowledges that people disagree. This is why he would leave it up to the states to decide at what point a human life begins: conception, implantation, first trimester, etc.”

    Except that Paul has supported federal legislation to override state law.

    The other objection I have to this is that rights reside in the individual, not the state. If a person has a right, such as the right to control their own body, this right should not be violated by government at any level.

    “This is why the states (or even communities) should decide at what point a fetus has legal rights, or else abortion will be fought over at the federal level for eternity, and screw up every single election for years to come.”

    This would return us to coat-hanger abortions in some states. As for screwing up every election, this will only be an issue if Row v. Wade is overturned (or we are in a situation where there is considerable fear that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices who would do this).

    If moved to a state or local level, then abortion could also wind up screwing up elections in many states where it is legalized or outlawed by close enough to 50% to fluctuate from election to election.

  16. 16
    Ryan says:

    I don’t really get the point of making abortion a state decision. Wouldn’t that just mean a pregnant woman in Texas (for example) has to travel to a blue state to have the procedure done? (A plane ticket, I’m assuming, would cost much less than the procedure itself, so the extra cost of travel is not really an issue) It doesn’t seem to protect the rights of a fetus any more than the current situation, if that’s what the intention is.
    This seems slightly analogous to saying states should vote on whether or not to allow/acknowledge a gay marriage – If someone doesn’t like the majority’s decision then move. And this might be acceptable to many for this issue. The difference is that you can’t really ‘not acknowledge’ an abortion. It seems like a waste of time and effort to accomplish nothing.

  17. 17
    James A. says:

    Ryan,

    You don’t “get the point?” It’s the constitutional answer. That’s the point. Legalizing or banning abortion at the federal level is NOT constitutional. Real simple.

    Even murder is dealt with by the states. If abortion is murder as some people (including me) believe, then it already IS a state issue. The federal government is clearly overstepping its bounds getting involved either way.

    If you still don’t “get the point” I’m afraid there isn’t much I can do for you.

  18. 18
    Egosumabbas says:

    “The other objection I have to this is that rights reside in the individual, not the state. If a person has a right, such as the right to control their own body, this right should not be violated by government at any level.”

    Yes, but the right to property of the woman could be overridden by the rights of the fetus to not be injured, if people decide that a fetus is a legal human being. You cannot legally kill *defenseless* people on your own property. Moreover, if the people decide that the fetus is simply an extension of the woman’s body or her property until third trimester, birth, whatever, then a person killing a pregnant woman’s fetus cannot be charged with murder. It would be aggravated assault and property damage. Do you see the legal inconsistency here? This is Ron Paul’s argument.

    Also, this argument is from a purely legal perspective, I’m sure you can appreciate this form of argument more than the typical boiler-plate “’cause Jesus is against abortion” (that’s Alan Keyes’ and many other people’s view). Also, Ron Paul thinks the doctor performing the act, rather than the mother, would be criminally responsible for the abortion. This would prevent people from charging women who simply have had a miscarriage. Also it’s refreshing that RP is consistently pro-life, since he’s anti-war and is against capital punishment.

    In reponse to Ryan, by that same argument, if they make abortion illegal in the whole country (which *I* don’t advise), then a woman in Texas could simply cross the border and have an abortion in a private clinic, or a woman in Maine could drive across the border and get one in Canada. People in Iowa would have to pony up an extra expense. Also, there are plenty of herbal ways to terminate a pregnancy that would be impossible to get rid of, unless we live in a totalitarian dictatorship. Since Ron Paul is about legalizing herbal remedies, and is the opposite of totalitarian, self abortion would probably be legal.

    In any case I hate having to argue about abortion, since I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I’d much rather argue about smaller government, dismantling central banks, and drug legalization 🙂

  19. 19
    Ron Chusid says:

    James A,

    The Supreme Court has a different opinion than you with regards to the Constitution and abortion rights.

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:

    Egosumabbas,

    There is little point in arguing abortion as we are unlikely to change anyone’s minds but before moving on I must point out that from a medical point of view abortifacients are not a satisfactory solution. They are variable in efficacy and even when they work it would still be safer for a woman to attempt this under medical supervision, which could not be done if Paul would throw the doctor into prison for this.

    My point in bringing up abortion was with regards to why Paul supporters are so annoying, and not taken seriously, when they frame the race as being for or against freedom. Issues such as abortion have far more impact on the daily life of most people than central banks and the gold standard.

    While I appreciate Paul’s support for ending the DEA harassment of physicians who prescribe narcotics (as well as the raids on users of medical marijuana) this is offset by his threats to imprison physicians for performing abortions. While Paul’s supporters see him purely as the pro-freedom candidate, to many people he is the social conservative who supports freedom in some areas, opposes it in others, and has a lot of other quirky ideas.

    Much of the consideration of who to support comes down to which issues are on the table. In the past when there was a firm majority on the Supreme Court which could be counted on to preserve Row v. Wade abortion would not have mattered in choosing a presidential candidate. However with the current court balance, and the importance of other culture war issues as well, this is too important this year. For many of us Ron Paul is acceptable and is seen as an anti-freedom candidate.

    While I know you cannot “herd cats” the comment I almost didn’t put through from James A shows another reason why the efforts of Paul supporters are often counterproductive on line. While it is milder than many others, his last line isn’t going to help Paul’s campaign win over people. Well over 90% of comments from Paul supporters don’t make it out of moderation simply because of rudeness. There are also very high percentages (due to overlap) which either totally distort what was written rather than responding to what is actually said or are just idiotic.

    The internet could be a useful way to spread awareness of a candidate and build support, but in the case of Paul it does the opposite. When virtually every person commenting in favor of a candidate comes across as ignorant, rude, and totally intolerant of the views of others it does eventually have a negative impact on the views of the candidate. Paul supporters often claim that every candidate has problem supporters. This is not what we see on line. No other candidate has supporters who come off as rude, ignorant, illogical, and intolerant as Paul’s supporters, which is why there is so much talk of this.

  21. 21
    Ryan says:

    “I don’t get the point” – meaning what does it accomplish in practice? Very little as I see it.

    I don’t equate crossing state lines to crossing international borders, but ok, let’s drop the abortion issue.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:

    Ryan,

    One comment back on an item from above. The cost of an airplane ticket, along with other travel expenses, actually could easily be more than the cost of an abortion done at home. As rates for both plane tickets and abortions vary either could wind up costing more but it does significantly increase the price.

    Another possible factor is that insurance might wind up paying for the abortion but it won’t cover the travel expenses.

  23. 23
    L. Step says:

    It wouldn’t be catastrophic for the Paul campaign if he didn’t do well in the Iowa vote… I was always under the impression that he was passing on that one… could be wrong here… but anyhow, let’s see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. It might take a while for Paul’s views to become known. If he loses, we can still continue on. The obsolete media which has tried to keep Paul unknown might win this time, but it will not prevail in the future. There will be other elections. We will just keep on trying to have a government which respects its citizens, and keeps its people from getting involved in endless bloody wars, from sinking them into deep debt paid off by their children’s children, from torture and being spied upon, from the violation of their Constitutional rights. If we don’t win this time, we at least are more organized and more aware of our strength than before the elections. And finally, I would rather lose in pursuit of a good cause than win in a bad one. Freedom is the good cause — and it is feared by those who want, as sheep, to be told what to think and what to do by their Shepard — and so herded stand ready to be sheared.

  24. 24
    Ron Chusid says:

    L. Step,

    I would expect New Hampshire to be a much better state for Paul than Iowa.

    “There will be other elections.”

    That’s the key. I think those who go ballistic whenever someone suggests that Paul won’t win this year are a bit out of touch with reality. Maybe a miracle will happen but the real point would be to start a movement which could ultimately win in the future.

    One question is how many Paul supporters realize this. Will they be discouraged if Paul doesn’t do well this year, or will they see this as just the start? Obviously the answer will be different for different people.

    “Freedom is the good cause.”

    True. That is why many of us oppose Ron Paul as we see his views as being contrary to preserving freedom.

  25. 25
    Egosumabbas says:

    “True. That is why many of us oppose Ron Paul as we see his views as being contrary to preserving freedom.”

    You haven’t addressed my previous point: the right to property does not trump the ultimate freedom: the right to live. This is why the law must decide at what point a fetus is a human life. If a fetus is not a legal person, have as many abortions as you want! If a fetus is a legal person, and that legal person’s right trumps other people’s property rights. A discussion about *when* a fetus is human is much more productive. Is it conception? Implantation? Recognizably human? Viability outside the womb? Personally, I think it’s at the point viability. Ron Paul think it’s at conception. Where do you stand?

    “Issues such as abortion have far more impact on the daily life of most people than central banks and the gold standard.”

    I don’t see how abortion is more important than monetary policy. It’s a side issue used by the two major parties to split the electorate conveniently in half. Most people have a moderate view on abortion; keep it legal in the first trimester, but disallow it for third trimester. The Federal Reserve diluting our savings, and the Federal Government mortgaging our children’s future to buy votes now affects everybody. Now we can disagree on the gold standard (really, it doesn’t have to be gold, and it doesn’t have to REPLACE the dollar), but having almost one third of my salary spent on projects I will never ever see the results of and could hurt me more than help me is far more important than the possibility that people won’t have the “right” to partial-birth and third-trimester abortions–fetuses that can survive outside the womb and could easily be put up for adoption. I could bring up numerous other issues that are of more consequence than abortion. Illegal wiretapping. Habeas Corpus. Freedom of speech. How about the right to adoption? It’s probably harder in this day and age to adopt a child than it is to abort it.

    PS: And we’re still talking about abortion… probably my fault at this point.

    PPS: And thanks for the healthy discussion, at least we can have a real debate here unlike some places like RedState, Wonkette, or Kos.

  26. 26
    Ron Chusid says:

    Egosumabbas,

    I don’t have the time to argue abortion now but did kick out your post in case anyone else has time to waste. The point is that different people see freedom differently. You might consider monetary policy more important. Others consider issues such as abortion more important and see any candidate who would overturn abortion rights as being more of an anti-freedom as opposed to a pro-freedom candidate.

    There might not be any correct answer as to which is the more pro-freedom candidate, but the point is that when Paul supporters flame the blogosphere and accuse anyone of opposing him as being anti-freedom they are only perceived as a bunch of kooks, especially as many of us oppose Paul because of seeing him as a candidate who would reduce freedom.

    Illegal wiretapping, Habeas Corpus, Freedom of Speech are also important issues and even Paul’s critics do generally give him credit for his positions on these issues.

  27. 27
    Egosumabbas says:

    Well, thanks again for letting me post, there’s nothing quite as refreshing as a healthy debate, even if we don’t come to an agreement. I hope I’ve redeemed RP supporters somewhat at least. Most are not freaks, really! I’ll be glad to engage you in other topics in the future. Ciao!

  28. 28
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I hope I’ve redeemed RP supporters somewhat at least.”

    At least 90% of them submitting comments here are “freaks” but the ones who spend their time spamming blogs might not be representative of most of Paul’s supporters.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment