If Jimmy, Michael, Bill, and John Could Do It, Why Can’t Ron?
I just found this interesting list of facts concerning polls and presidential politics over at LewRockwell.com, and I think it is worth exploring here:
At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters’ views of the candidates.
“In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).
“In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
“In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).
“In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).”
The common refrain from the Establishment – of either Party – is to dismiss candidates that challenge the status quo. The basis for this dismissal is the polls. The media engages in the same dismissal, attempting to winnow the field down for us, despite the fact that the MSM hardly speaks for most of us in the actual electorate. But who in America, outside of Washington, D.C. and political junkies like myself are paying attention or even care a year and a half out from the election? And if no one (relatively speaking) even cares, then why would we make polls the barometer of whether or not a candidate is credible or not? If the people don’t know a candidate by name yet, and aren’t paying attention enough to learn, then of course the lesser-known candidates are going to be blips on the polling radars compared to the Establishment candidates. (As a side note, this is why I have argued elsewhere against the use of polls in determining who should be allowed into the presidential debates; that determination should be made on the basis of whether a candidate is on enough ballots to be able to theoretically win the race of the White House. But I digress.)
This is not to say that the campaigning that is going on right now is unimportant. Each of the candidates from previous cycles mentioned above that went on to win their party’s nomination and perhaps even the White House did so in large part because of what they were doing on the ground at this point in building their support – despite the polls. In this sense the straw polls of activists within the early primary and caucus states are more important than the more “scientific” national and even state polls. Because these straw polls demonstrate the effect candidates are having on the activists on the ground, and those activists in turn will convince their less active friends and neighbors to support their favored candidate and will drive the effort to get voters to the polls on the day that actually counts.
All of which is to say, if Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and McCain could go on to achieve such success in their runs for their party’s respective nominations for the White House – back when “viral marketing” through a near-free medium like the Internet wasn’t available – then why can’t Ron Paul, whose success thus far on the Internet generating grassroots support is unparalleled, achieve similar heights? The phenomenal numbers in this regard that I posted in my blog, “YouTubin’ Ron: Lapping the Field,” are even better now.
The momentum for the Ron Paul campaign in terms of actual strength on the physical ground is building, too. For instance, Dr. Paul is showing great and growing strength in the straw polls of important battleground states and of movement conservatives: placing second with 5% to Romney in heavily Mormon Utah, fourth with 12% in California, second with 16.7% in the National Taxpayers Union straw poll, second in Georgia with 17%, and, in the latest, first in the New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll with 65%. Clearly, these straw polls are far from scientific, but they are encouraging measures of the on-ground strength of the Ron Paul campaign nonetheless.
Despite this, the GOP Establishment is still trying to freeze Ron Paul out on the basis of media polls. In Iowa recently they succeeded in doing just that, though their claimed reasoning of “credibility” for inviting or not inviting candidates to participate in a forum was hardly credible itself, as I have pointed out elsewhere. But this effort backfired, and had the unintended effect of demonstrating the strength of Paul’s campaign far more than his inclusion would have, as I explain in my post, “GOP Establishment’s War on Ron Paul Backfires – Again,” as Paul attracted more supporters than the rest of the gathered candidates combined.
As a result, with the second fundraising quarter complete, despite national polls, Ron Paul has seen contributions to his campaign increase four-fold over the first quarter. With 80% of this funding coming in over the Internet, the cost of raising this money is miniscule compared to the other candidates. So successful has this formula been, in fact, that Ron Paul has pulled ahead of John McCain in term of cash-on-hand – even though McCain was considered the favorite to win the GOP nomination not that long ago.
To wrap this post up, I want to address the question that is sure to arise: if few people are paying attention yet, why spend the energy talking about the campaign now? Part of the answer is already provided above: what we do now makes a world of difference in changing those poll numbers seven and eight months from now. That’s why I have argued that Ron Paul should be the candidate of the Religious Right. He should be the choice of conservatives. Everyone who believes in the Constitution should support him. In short, I believe that the people that can swing the Republican nomination in Ron Paul’s favor should in fact do so. Therefore, I have raised my voice in the effort to help make that happen.
Now, I am under no illusions that Ron Paul’s chances are greater than they are. He has a tough road to hoe, and I believe that even if he doesn’t win, the longer he stays in the race the better America will before it because of the issues he brings to the table. I’m no political operative. I’ve never worked for a campaign. I am a very small fish in a vast ocean. But the cumulative efforts of thousands of small fishes like me – even in just spreading the word like I am doing now – can make a huge difference. After all, it has before. Why not now?
*****
(Eric Langborgh is the author of Borg Blog and the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified.)
George Stephanopoulos Rudely Dismisses Ron Paul to His Face (30 sec).
watch
Great Post!
IN 1776, George Washington wasn’t even a citizen, yet he became President.
Get out your wooden teeth, Ron Paul! There’s all kinds of hope for you!
Lefty,
If Ron Paul can’t handle Clinton’s former communications director, who thinks he can sit at a table with world leaders and get respect?
Interesting post Eric. Wonder if there is data to support the same big comeback on the GOP side (actually winning the office, not just a meaningless primary). Especially a GOP candidate who would act like a dem with regard to foreign policy.
[...] Wesley Clark Link to Article ron paul If Jimmy, Michael, Bill, and John Could Do It, Why Can’t Ron? » Posted at Control Congress on Monday, July 09, 2007 I just found this interesting list of facts concerning polls and presidential politics over at LewRockwell.com, and I think it is worth exploring here: At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters’ views of the candidates. “In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% ( View Entire Article » [...]
Actually, BB, most of the Dems abdicated their constitutional responsibility and ceded the war making authority to Bush. This has enabled Dems like Kerry and Clinton to talk out of two sides of their mouths ever since, and has hampered the military from fighting battles unencumbered by political calculation. See my posts “535 Generals Marching Towards Disaster in Iraq” and “The Path To 9/11 or The Path Since 9/11: Which is Worse?” for further explanation of what I mean here.
In contrast, Ron Paul was just about the only person in all of Congress to oppose the war from the start on constitutional (as well as prudential) grounds. Even so, he offered a constitutional solution by sponsoring a bill for a Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq. Again, he thought the invasion unwise, but he said – as I did even before the war – if we are going to do it, let’s do it right and go in with all we have and win the damn thing. Because we didn’t do that we are faced with our current quagmire.
So, contrary to your ridiculous assertion, it would be nice if both the Dems and the GOP would act like Ron Paul on foreign policy, as well as other issues, for a change. I know it seems a novel idea, but perhaps they could all try following the Constitution. Refreshing thought, isn’t it?
I don’t disagree that the polling is early but it would be helpful if your statements were a little more time specific. For example, early 1991 for Clinton-would that be June or January? It would make comparisons easier.
Eric, such wise words you imparted with your post #6. I have saved them as you express your point so well.
We have others on this blog that save words to “attempt” to use them against the writer later. I put the word “attempt” in quotes, because as far as I’m concerned, the “attempt” backfired among those with open minds for the truth.
Eric: I too wish they had properly declared war (fewer would have voted yea). But how would the conduct of the war have been/be any different if we had?
Politically, Kerry and Clinton (and other Dems and Reps) would still, by this point, be calling their declaration of war “a mistake that’s Bush’s fault” (or whatever) and be calling for withdrawl.
Lefthook
Hillary still thinks it was not a mistake!
She was to busy to read the intelligence report that warned what would happen if we invaded Iraq.
My question is how can you vote for anyone who would vote for a war and not read the intelligence report?
Eric,
It is absolutely amazing to me that somehow you think it unconstitutional to defend America…especially in a pre-emptive manner when the entire world agrees on the enemy’s potential danger.
Would you rather be the one throwing the counter punch after a nuclear explosion decimates a large American city? If a country supports terrorism, flagrantly ignores world demands to uphold agreements as signed after the first Gulf War and has a leader commiting mass genocide, what is America’s role under your interpretation of the Constitution….look the other way until a WMD is detonated in your hometown?
The world is different 220 years past ratification of the U.S. Constitution. America chose a path to superpower thus assumes certain responsibilities if we are to remain as the most successful republic in history.
Ignoring obvious threats to U.S. security is not only an affront to our very history, it poses deadly serious consequences as happened 9/11 after years of Clinton (dem) policies of terrorist ignorance.
Blaming America as Ron Paul has done is not Constitutional foreign policy. Thank God he has ZERO chance of winning.
Ben Affleck said he didn’t have a chance a couple months ago on Real Time – so I immediately began to believe he could pull it off.
Ben’s brother agrees.
The ACU? LOL. On their website they don’t even give specifics on how they do their ratings. Just a list of things like “social issues”. If it tells you anything, Tom Delay has a 96 lifetime rating from the ACU. Apparently, the more responsive you are to K street and the fundies, the higher your rating is.
caroline…LMAO. The ACU website provides the actual legislation used to determine the ratings.
Bart
Is Tom Delay the poster child for being conservative in your mind?
Here’s the link to the page where they explain their ratings:
http://conservative.org/archive2/ratingssummary06.asp
You should post a link if you have one as to how they do their ratings then. Apparetly they don’t think it’s worthy to put on their website. LOL.
Either that or you just aren’t intelligent enough to click on ‘Description of how votes scored’ above the map at http://www.acuratings.org/
No John, I lean more toward Tom Price, Lynn Westmoreland, SC Governor Mark Sanford, Ann Coulter and pretty much anybody else you regularly trash on this site…if you are against them, I know they must be conservative.
Original question on this thread — Why can’t Ron Paul? Here’s why:
Paul blames America for 9/11 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc
Insider story on who is really to blame (hint, it’s the terrorists, but I know that does not register with Paul supporters)
Blame Islamofascists’ theology, not Western policies
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/laney/460306,CST-EDT-LANEY09.article)
July 9, 2007
MARY LANEY marylaney@aol.com
What is radical Islamic terrorism all about? Why are the terrorists killing innocent men, women and children? Why are they planting and detonating bombs from Spain to France to England to Lebanon to Israel to Bali and the United States?
In the United States, some claim it is because we, along with coalition forces, invaded Iraq. Others say it’s because of our Western culture, our dress, our movies, our television programs. Democrats say it’s because of President Bush’s actions in the Middle East. Republicans say it’s because of President Bill Clinton’s refusal to act, or to recognize attacks on American facilities — including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center — as the Islamofascists’ declaration of war against us.
I still was looking for an answer when it came in the form of a newspaper article written by a former member of a jihadist sleeper cell in Britain. Former radical Islamist Hassan Butt spelled the answer out in his article “I Was a Fanatic. I Know Their Thinking,” published by the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail.
The answer to my question was clear: Suicide bombers and Islamic terrorists aren’t fueled by Western life or government policies. Butt says he and his fellow radicals used to laugh whenever politicians or news pundits blamed Western foreign policy for 9/11, the Madrid bombings or the London bombings of 7/7. Butt writes that blaming the governments for terrorist events did the propaganda work for the terrorists. It also deflected any examination of the real engine of violence — radical Islamic theology — and its goal to have a world ruled by Islamic law.
Butt writes, “Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian-Judeo theology, does not allow for the separation of church and state; they are considered one and the same. For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover every matter of trade, peace and war. But what radical Islamists do is take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be the Land of Unbelief. Step two: Since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war on the whole world.”
Butt writes that he truly believed all of this, to the point that he joined with the radical group that included Mohammad Sidique Khan, who went on to lead the deadly 7/7 subway and bus suicide bombings in London. Butt says he left the radical group when he realized that its members had become mindless killers.
Butt opines that the real reason radicals have been able to increase their following isn’t due to poverty but because Muslim institutions refuse to talk about the warped theology that allows individual Muslims to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam. Butt writes that this refusal has allowed terrorist cells to grow.
“I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues (against violence) with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds. Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.”
I hope Butt is safe today and not the target of terrorists for what he wrote. I also hope readers can now put the blame for the world wide Islamic terrorism where the blame belongs — on the terrorists.
LMAO. The link I put in my post above is to “How the ACU determines ratings”. Perhaps you should actually READ the links before posting! LOL
Then they actually take pieces of legislation caroline and review actual votes…way over your head I suppose.
bb,
So you think the vague reference to issues is satisfactory? Seems to me that they don’t want anyone to konw what the specifics are. What is the conservative rating on the Teri Schiavo Bill? What is the conservative rating on the medicare bill? They don’t say. It sounds like they really don’t want anyone to know what’s really “conservative” and what’s not. It looks to me like voting with Bush makes one conservative and that’s all they need.
caroline
Bart only knows what he is told in his talking points!
Bart
You must hate the CIA, Military and the all the members on the 9/11 commission because they said the same thing Ron Paul did!
Why do you hate Americans?
The 9/11 commission…come on John…that was a political farce. The CIA under George Tenet was a disaster.
Why do you deceive Americans?
Lefthook,
Re: your question in #9 – You are getting at the answer yourself: fewer would have voted yea, and a Declaration of War would be much more difficult to pass, because there is more at stake. It is a measure of an entirely different order than a mere resolution (after all, Congress passes resolutions recognizing Asian-Pacific Islander Appreciation Month, for crying out loud).
The principle the Founders had in mind was clear: if you are going to send the sons of the people off to war, than only the representatives of the people possess the authority to make that decision. Those representatives are found in Congress.
A resolution merely passes the buck to the President. In doing so, Congress abdicates its constitutional authority and responsibility. But the decision to Declare War according to the Constitution is much weightier, and doing so makes clear that the will of the people is firmly behind the sacrifice for the long term. It is no accident, in my opinion, that we have not won a major conflict since WWII, the last time Congress declared war. We’ve won limited retaliatory skirmishes and short missions with fixed and limited objectives, but nothing on a grander scale.
BB,
Re: your comments in #11 – It appears that your definition of what is constitutional is what is in accord with your policy preferences. Under your rubric, then, the rule of law is replaced with the rule of BB (or, since so many others with different perspectives are just as willing as you to run roughshod over the Constitution, the rule of the whims of whoever holds power.) In this, your definition of constitutionality seems to closely mirror your definition of patriotism.
However, I define constitutionality by whether or not something is in accordance with the Constitution. Rather than redefining constitutionality when you dislike the handcuffs it places on your policy preferences, it seems a better method would be to use the constitutionally provided means to change the Constitution, as we have lawfully 27 times in our history.
Re: the rest of your comments in #11, you are begging the question. Was a pre-emptive strike warranted in the first place? I argued before the war – when I conceded that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, something we now know to be false – that it wasn’t. Nevertheless, if the Bush Administration and other neo-con warhawks thought otherwise, they should have sought a congressional Declaration of War in accord with the Constitution.
For further explanation, I refer again to the links I provided in #6.
I mentioned above the Founders’ wisdom in placing the power to declare war with the legislative branch, not with the President. Here they are in their own words:
Regarding the necessity of a congressional declaration of war before commencing sustained offensive military action, note the words of James Madison in Federalist 41:
Regarding the requirement that the decision to declare war rests with the people’s representatives, note the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69:
Mark that: In contrast to the English monarch, who had the power to declare war, the American president does not. The Founders deliberately excluded that power from the Executive, saying rather that it “would appertain to the legislature.”
This contrast between the king and the president is crucial, as the concluding paragraph of Federalist 69 makes clear:
As I have explained elsewhere, the failure to heed the Founders’ wisdom – and to heed the authority of the Constitution – here is no small matter. We invite disaster when we do so. I’ll save time by quoting myself as a conclusion to my remarks here and in #27:
Caroline and BB,
What do ACU ratings have to do with this post? I am looking in vain for the genesis of Caroline’s question in #14. Is this a line of discussion that was meant elsewhere?
Eric,
It really has nothing to do with this post. The acu ratings have to do with Paul having lower ones than some of the others. My point was: What good are they if they don’t give you the specifics of how they determine those ratings?
Eric,
I stand by my post #11. The alternative of letting Saddam continue mass genocide along with development of WMD (there are credible reports that WMD was found along with evidence that some or most was moved to Syria prior to the coalition invasion) provided all that we needed to justify taking him out.
Again I ask you, Would you rather be the one throwing the counter punch after a nuclear explosion decimates a large American city?
The policy of ignorance was tried through the 80s and 90s resulting in 9/11. Only history will tell if Bush was right — (along with Congress, the body that passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ wherein the statement “(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” is included).
Is that an official declaration of war as you would interpret the Constitution? IMHO, it provides the president with limited powers to defend America…he did, and the world is better for his decision. Congress voted in favor of going to war then the Commander in Chief carried out his Constitutional duties.
BB,
Re: your last question, the answer is “no,” as explained above.
The rest is your subjective opinion, and there is more than enough evidence to suggest the contrary.
Again, if the Bush Administration and their neo-con friends believed as they did and as you do here, they were obligated to seek and obtain a congressional Declaration of War.
Read the links I provided in #6.
Ron Paul on Iraq and the Hellish Road of Good Intentions
Ron Paul on the “Islamofascist” Bogeyman
Eric,
So I take that as a yes to the question — Again I ask you, Would you rather be the one throwing the counter punch after a nuclear explosion decimates a large American city?
I deny the premise of your question, BB. You are assuming that if we don’t preemptively attack and overthrow every tin-pot dictator that might get nukes (but inexplicably we don’t even think about attacking ones that already do have them, a la Pakistan), then one of our cities will be glowing a different color in the dark. I don’t think that that neccessarily follows. Moreover, I believe that if anything neo-con interventionism makes it more likely, not less.
BTW, if you are going to accuse someone of dodging your questions, don’t you think you should have first tried addressing the arguments and questions that were addressed to you?
Please read the links in #6.
I did address your questions, you just didn’t like the answers.
Nobody said anything about attacking every tin-pot dictator. But we should be willing to pre-emptively take out those who commit acts of war against America as Saddam did throughout the 90s.
No, you’ve ignored my refutations of your many assertions. But I was really only ribbing you; I’m not demanding you go back and reply to everything – I don’t care much either way. I apologize if my tone in saying that before came across more harsh than I intended.
Re: your second paragraph, I refer back to #33.
And it just wouldn’t feel right to close out this comment without the obligatory “Please read the links in #6.”
Bart
Do you think Buckley is a conservative?
Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative
(CBS) President Bush ran for office as a “compassionate conservative.” And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.
But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.
Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.
The UN is unconstitutional.
Enforcing UN resolutions is unconstitutional.
Presidents launching preemptive war against another country is unconstitutional.
Iraq was not a threat.
Iran is not a threat.
Saudi Arabia was not held accountable for 9/11.
Support the troops by bringing them home and not putting them in harms way for oil in the first place.
Ron Paul speaks the truth.
Google or YouTube Ron Paul and decide for yourself.
bb,
I once thought as you did. I thought that if we fought the war over there, we would avoid having the war over here. I once believed that we should attack first to avoid being attacked – but Dr. Paul made me realize that I was speaking from a false paradigm. He taught me the history lesson that, as a 48 year old American, I should have learned and remembered, but paid no attention – and while I now know that own arrogant foreign policy facilitated terrorism around the world, I also understand that we did not cause 9/11 any more than a mugging victim is responsible for his own mugging – but he would be safer if he avoided dark alleyways in the future.
We certainly can’t arrest people for lurking in dark alleyways and charge them with mugging.
This doctrine of preemption that you are supporting – it is so dangerous! It requires that we judge what a person or nation WILL do, rather than what that person or nation HAS done. It forces us to live in constant fear and suspicion of our neighbors. It is dangerously close to “guilty until proven innocent”. It is true that I cannot defend the actions of Saddam Hussein against us, against his neighbors or against his own people. I find it difficult to defend humanity in general, since if you look hard enough, you will always find something incriminating – even about you, I suppose!
I believe that it is the height of arrogance to judge the intent of another nation or another people based on our own limited and finite intellect. However, should we as a nation choose to do so, we should do it through the proper procedures outlined in the Constitution – a document produced by far wiser heads than yours or mine.
The resolution that you quote in post #32 gives the President power to deploy troops but doesn’t really specify a target in the way that a Declaration of War would. This is important because, once the enemy is identified, victory can be measured – when the enemy is defeated, the war is over. Declaring war on an idea like terrorism or communism assures no end to the conflict – you can’t destroy an idea. So, if we determine that Saddam Hussein or anybody else is a threat, let Congress declare war and the fine young men and women in our military will take them out – but let it be a war against a person, a group or a nation – not an endless war against an idea.
As for a nuclear first-strike on American soil – I think that our interests in that regard would be better served by securing our own borders and protecting our freedoms here at home. Let us be an example of freedom, peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. Let others see what a free people can peacefully accomplish. Deeds will go much farther in convincing people of the rightness of an idea than the point of a gun or, as my grandmother used to say, “a mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still”. Then, if jealous people wish to destroy and take what we have, we will have friends all over the world to whom we have given hope of a better life. We will have business partners who do not want to see their livelihood destroyed. We will have the moral high-ground – and we will be better protected than if we had enough money to buy off every human being on this planet!
Extremely well put – thanks, Shadeclan!
I agree!
There’s something unique about pre-emptive war that rarely is addressed. It is the need for perfect mindreading. Because, of course, if we attack a nation pre-emptively, we must KNOW without a doubt that this was a prevention of war, rather than a creation of one.
Yet, even if we’re correct, we will never be proven correct to the satisfaction of a world that is NOT mindreaders. We will forever be viewed as the instigator – the bully – and our image worldwide will be forever damaged.
I don’t live and die by image. Sometimes you have to do things that don’t appeal to everyone. But what we’re talking about here is something deadly and irretrievable. In talk like this, we need to be more than just relatively certain…we need to be absolutely sure with no qualifications. I don’t think you can do that.
Taking a step back, can you honestly tell me that we were more likely to be attacked by Saddam than by Qaddafi? Or even Musharraf? Yet, here we are allied with Qaddafi and Musharraf in order to take out Saddam.
But I have to go back to some of the earliest posts to address what I think is the greatest error: the idea that Iraq OR Iran are real serious threats to our national security. The simple reality is that we live in a dangerous world with unfriendly dictators all around. Some may well sponsor evil acts against us, but there is a vast difference between evil acts and major threats. We have nothing to fear from Iraq or Iran. They can not overwhelm our nation or bring us down. They do not have the weapons, or the economic might to do so. They are minor threats at best. Yet, our recent actions have elevated them and provided them with the opportunity to do us vastly more damage, both to our soldiers and to our economic well-being, than any terrorist act they could have imagined. We have played right into the hands of the terrorists.
Now, I’ve never bought into the argument that al-Queda was in any way related to Iran or Iraq, but we have also allowed these three forces, formerly antagonists toward each other, to have unity of purpose… that being the defeat of America. That you would waste so much of our resources on such small and insignificant targets as these boggles my mind. We clearly should have gone after al-Queda and finished them off early. We similarly should have pursued them into Pakistan when it was necessary. But the venture in Iraq has proven to be nothing but a distraction, and an unnecessary one at that. Without that adventure, we’d never have provided the opportunity to all these evil forces to fight us at so little cost to them.
Scott,
“Without that adventure, we’d never have provided the opportunity to all these evil forces to fight us at so little cost to them.”
Old story, new setting.
Mao outlined that in his writings. So did Sun Tze. Uncle Ho. George Washington.
and oddly enough, the CIA as it fought a proxy war in Afghanistan 1979-1989.
MD
Of course, the article is about Ron Paul winning the election. Quite frankly, I think any Republican will have an uphill battle this time around, largely due to the war in Iraq. But if ANY of them stand a chance of ultimately winning over the Democratic nominee, it would need to be someone like Ron Paul, who has clearly outlined his opposition to Iraq. He might even win some points for his foresight.
The other key point in this election to win over the independent vote will be his position on immigration, and here again, I think he wins the argument. No, it is as surprising to me as it is to anyone else, but given the atmosphere leading up to the coming election, not only do I think that Ron Paul COULD win, I also think he is the ONLY Republican running who possibly could.
[...] (original context) © 2004-2007 Eric F. Langborgh [...]