evince
Truthmatters
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070818/LATEST/70818015
makes me wonder what happened in Iowa
makes me wonder what happened in Iowa
Ron Paul and the Alabama straw poll
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
TUSCALOOSA * Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul dominated the West Alabama Republican Assembly 2007 Presidential Preference Straw Poll held at the Bryant Conference Center Saturday afternoon.
Of the 266 votes casts during the poll, Paul claimed 216, landing him an easy victory.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at a distant second with 14 votes.
Paul’s fans were uproarious.
Of the 266 votes casts during the poll, Paul claimed 216, landing him an easy victory.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in at a distant second with 14 votes.
Paul’s fans were uproarious.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
Well, this is a smaller straw poll and hasn't attracted the same media attention as Iowa. It's still an important moment for organization, fundraising and public outreach, but as I've said before and I'll say again:
The straw poll victory is the beginning of the campaign, it's not the end. Now it's up to activists to enter into a conversation with voters to justify the victory, solidify it in people's minds and turn it into political capital for primary day.
The straw poll victory is the beginning of the campaign, it's not the end. Now it's up to activists to enter into a conversation with voters to justify the victory, solidify it in people's minds and turn it into political capital for primary day.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
Also, I know you're worried about the Diebold Machines, but frankly, for Paul supporters to fight that battle is not going to help them get the traction they need to win the nomination.
The fifth place showing in Iowa is realistic and is a great place to start.
The fifth place showing in Iowa is realistic and is a great place to start.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
The first guy quoted in that story points out something interesting that Medcan noted:
“Ron Paul believes in freedom and the Constitution [...]" That was the first thing out of his mouth, and it's always the first thing you hear from his supporters. Thats because his entire campaign is just St. Paul tossing around the words "freedom" and "constitution" alot, and that's enough to get people on board. It's a bit like Guli tossing around 9/11.
The second guy quoted did the same thing:
“Ron Paul is the first person that is willing to stand up for the Constitution,” Klack said.
The guy's a Texan. That's enough reason not to vote for him.
By the way, straw polls are done with people who are motivated to show up and pay money to be able to vote. It's a bit like YouTube - they're spamming the straw poll with a disproportionate number of super energetic supports that reflect nothing in all reality. Kinda like this website too.
There are a disproportionate number of Libertarians on this site as well. Some of that has to do with the fact that they're just super energized and motivated to come on to the internet and spread the gospel, as one put it to me in a moment of candor.
Every time you say something about St. Paul, Libertarians unite to instantly tear off all of their clothing, stand in a circle around the heretic, and do reach arounds until the guy in the middle gets weirded out and runs away.
“Ron Paul believes in freedom and the Constitution [...]" That was the first thing out of his mouth, and it's always the first thing you hear from his supporters. Thats because his entire campaign is just St. Paul tossing around the words "freedom" and "constitution" alot, and that's enough to get people on board. It's a bit like Guli tossing around 9/11.
The second guy quoted did the same thing:
“Ron Paul is the first person that is willing to stand up for the Constitution,” Klack said.
The guy's a Texan. That's enough reason not to vote for him.
By the way, straw polls are done with people who are motivated to show up and pay money to be able to vote. It's a bit like YouTube - they're spamming the straw poll with a disproportionate number of super energetic supports that reflect nothing in all reality. Kinda like this website too.
There are a disproportionate number of Libertarians on this site as well. Some of that has to do with the fact that they're just super energized and motivated to come on to the internet and spread the gospel, as one put it to me in a moment of candor.
Every time you say something about St. Paul, Libertarians unite to instantly tear off all of their clothing, stand in a circle around the heretic, and do reach arounds until the guy in the middle gets weirded out and runs away.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Considering that state's abysmal record of turning out really crappy presidents, I'm inclined to agree.
Besides, I think any native Texan isn't eligible to serve as president, properly speaking. Only native born American citizens are allowed to serve in that office. Texas is, as Texans are so fond of pointing out, a separate nation accorded statehood by treaty. It's something of a stretch to call a Texan a native born American.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
That's pretty damn wrong and you should know it. The Constitution message transfers into a lot of policy issues that the supporters of the campaign want addressed. Ron Paul is also fortunate to be able to use that message to not only appeal to conservatives and libertarians but to moderate independents and even many liberals who honestly can see the logic of argument that a lot of answers to current policy problems can be found in our Constitution.
Kinda like a real election. I agree that a slew of straw poll victories around the country does not mean Ron Paul is gonna skip across the finish line to the Presidency, but there is a tie in to this kind of activism and a campaign's capacity to reaching out to expand the base of support.
The reason you can draw guys like Brownback, Tancredo and Hunter off the map right now is not just because of their poor fundraising, but because they have no strong base of support among active, media-driven demographics who will bring new people to the party. They have no capacity to expand their base.
The rest of the post doesn't deserve a response.
Epicurus
Reasonable
LOL
Only 266 people, in a state of millions, showed up? And they had to pay $35 to vote?
This is virtually meaningless
You're welcome, fellow libertarians.
Tuscaloosa stood proudly behind Dr. Paul, thanks largely to our Campus Libertarians organization.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
One Libertarian without his clothes. Do I hear two? Two Libertarians? Make it happen folks.
In response:
I know that folks like yourself, Adam, and folks like Stringfield are genuinely into the breadth of his message. However, as with any other segment of voters, I would venture to guess that the majority (maybe a slim majority) just don't get it.
Also, a Libertarian's read of constitutionality does not a constitutional crisis make. Ron Paul is using his perception of what the constitution means to make the "constitution" into a valuable campaign slogan. And what problems he sees with it happen to coincide with the folks who want to do things like make it easier to dodge taxes by getting rid of the IRS, privatize or destroy social security, and dismantle just about every other facet of the federal government he can. Lots of those people, and I know a couple, who don't believe in those things for constitutional reasons. They believe in them because they've got lots of money and they want to keep it.
And its a bit like a real election, the straw poll is. A real election with a poll tax that is. You know, the kind conservatives love so much ('specially the kind with covert poll taxes like voter IDs). There's some unconstitutionality for you. How does St. Paul feel about voter IDs there, Adam?
In response:
I know that folks like yourself, Adam, and folks like Stringfield are genuinely into the breadth of his message. However, as with any other segment of voters, I would venture to guess that the majority (maybe a slim majority) just don't get it.
Also, a Libertarian's read of constitutionality does not a constitutional crisis make. Ron Paul is using his perception of what the constitution means to make the "constitution" into a valuable campaign slogan. And what problems he sees with it happen to coincide with the folks who want to do things like make it easier to dodge taxes by getting rid of the IRS, privatize or destroy social security, and dismantle just about every other facet of the federal government he can. Lots of those people, and I know a couple, who don't believe in those things for constitutional reasons. They believe in them because they've got lots of money and they want to keep it.
And its a bit like a real election, the straw poll is. A real election with a poll tax that is. You know, the kind conservatives love so much ('specially the kind with covert poll taxes like voter IDs). There's some unconstitutionality for you. How does St. Paul feel about voter IDs there, Adam?
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
I think it's far too convenient for you to ignore the real Constitutional crisis that has unfolded over the last six years on every issue from the war to the Patriot Act now that your party is back in power in Congress.
They have an obligation if they're going to be the ruling party to correct it, and yet I don't believe they will. Nominating Senator Clinton is not exactly a mandate to end the war and repeal the Patriot Act. It's electing a Democratic Party version of the same bad acts of government.
And we need at least one party that can stand up for the Constitution, and ideally, we would have two.
The Republican Party will have an opportunity to realign here. If they don't, they'll lose. But if they don't realign and we elected the Democrats as an alternative, I still think the country misses a genuine opportunity to change course.
Yes, the progress of these things will slow down and the country will become less vitriolic--and that is important--as it steadily has since the defeat of the Republicans in 2006, but the policies will not change in substance, and that's what we need.
They have an obligation if they're going to be the ruling party to correct it, and yet I don't believe they will. Nominating Senator Clinton is not exactly a mandate to end the war and repeal the Patriot Act. It's electing a Democratic Party version of the same bad acts of government.
And we need at least one party that can stand up for the Constitution, and ideally, we would have two.
The Republican Party will have an opportunity to realign here. If they don't, they'll lose. But if they don't realign and we elected the Democrats as an alternative, I still think the country misses a genuine opportunity to change course.
Yes, the progress of these things will slow down and the country will become less vitriolic--and that is important--as it steadily has since the defeat of the Republicans in 2006, but the policies will not change in substance, and that's what we need.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I think there are plenty of constitutional crises brewing that have yet to come to fruition. For instance, the Democrats are in the process of laying down the legal framework by which they can hold Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton to CIVIL contempt (inherent contempt), which the president cannot pardon. If the president prevents the Justice Department from putting them before a grand jury, as he has said he would do, in direct violation of the law that says his appointee "shall" do so, he will have violated separation of powers. That's a constitutional crisis.
And Senator Clinton does not have my primary vote.
That of course depends on which Democrat we're speaking about.
When "substance" means dismantling government and turning us into a feudal state with private interests controlling everything that government doesn't absolutely have to do (like national defense), then I hope you're right. Changing the substance of policy can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. (duh) Changing policy in the direction St. Paul wants to take it is about as backwards a thing as I can imagine doing.
Even if he does get elected, he'll never get any of his agenda passed anyhow since more moderate minds control the legislation. This is the part Libertarians don't seem to understand when they accuse the opposition of "being scared" of St. Paul. The guy will not get elected, he will never be president, and even if he manages to be the only candidate not killed in some explosion of some kind and he wins by default, he will not be able to implement his agenda because the house and senate will never simultaneously be controlled by Libertarian-leaning members.
The guy's a lame duck waiting to happen.
Edit...
That's ridiculous. Unless you believe anything short of complete centralized federal control and government by banker equals feudalism. Since you love to parse words, do you know what feudalism means? haha
And as far as libertarians failing to understand that their agenda will be difficult to pass without a libertarian legislature, I suggest you look into Harry Browne's speeches when he accepted the LP nomination. It's well understood.
I guess busted clocks are not necessarily correct twice a day.
Last edited:
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Broken records are pretty annoying to listen to, also.
"A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce."
Think of corporations (you guys made them people, remember?) as the leading nobles with their subjugates working to serve their interests. Pay to use roads, pay exorbitant amounts for mediocre health care (I can see why you like that one), and working within a system wholly owned and controlled by the upper class without safety nets or even safe food to eat.
Sounds a lot like the middle ages to me.
"A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce."
Think of corporations (you guys made them people, remember?) as the leading nobles with their subjugates working to serve their interests. Pay to use roads, pay exorbitant amounts for mediocre health care (I can see why you like that one), and working within a system wholly owned and controlled by the upper class without safety nets or even safe food to eat.
Sounds a lot like the middle ages to me.
uscitizen
Villified User
Hmm few baths, no deodorant, no cold beer, etc....